That pic reminds me of that drone hoax(Issac Claret?) from a couple of years back

To me look like a clear case of photoshop, especially when you look at the image close, even in MS paint you can see the object pixels are of a much larger size than the background showing that they are not from same picture

double post

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Popeye]

Originally posted by Popeye
To me look like a clear case of photoshop, especially when you look at the image close, even in MS paint you can see the object pixels are of a much larger size than the background showing that they are not from same picture

I disagree. To me, that's simply .jpg artifacts. You can see the same effect around the tree branches that overlap with the sky.

They look like to hub caps thrown in the air. The intensity of the refection gives away their real size. If they were larger it would be more of a gradient. They are about the right height for a good throw.

If you were going to risk photo shopping something in a pic wouldn't you go for something a bit better looking?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Popeye
To me look like a clear case of photoshop, especially when you look at the image close, even in MS paint you can see the object pixels are of a much larger size than the background showing that they are not from same picture

I disagree. To me, that's simply .jpg artifacts. You can see the same effect around the tree branches that overlap with the sky.

I'm usually very reluctant to discredit anything because I want so dang much to believe SOMEthing....

I can get behind the 'jpg artifact' thing until I look AROUND the 'craft.' What would make the craft be contained within a rectangular, pixelated border?

It seems to me as though if it were artifacts of compression, they would affect the border of the craft in a more elliptical manner, corresponding to the the relative shape of the craft....rather than a clear rectangular border...

but to argue the other side, why would someone do a rectangular cut and paste in PS or Gimp, or whatever else when it would be just as easy to get a cleaner border on the inserted craft? Laziness?

Originally posted by KSPigpen
It seems to me as though if it were artifacts of compression, they would affect the border of the craft in a more elliptical manner, corresponding to the the relative shape of the craft....rather than a clear rectangular border...

But .jpg compression works with square pixels and compresses them in square groups. The compression algorithm will look at a group of pixels. Depending on the level of compression, that group could be big or small. From my understanding, the algorithm looks for similar coloured pixels and makes them the same colour, so that there is less colour information to deal with, thus a smaller file size.

The "UFO" photo looks like it was being compressed in groups of 8x8 pixels. The sky is rather easy for the compression algorithm to deal with as there isn't too much colour variance to deal with, just different shades of blue. But when it comes to the "UFO" or the tree branches, it can't compress it as smoothly as there is more colour information to deal with. So those groups won't be compressed in the same way and the groups of 8x8 pixels that are around the "UFO" or trees won't match those that are only of the sky.

Hopefully I explained that correctly and clearly.

but to argue the other side, why would someone do a rectangular cut and paste in PS or Gimp, or whatever else when it would be just as easy to get a cleaner border on the inserted craft? Laziness?

Exactly. When I or my wife edit photos, there aren't obvious signs of editing left behind. You'd have to be incredibly lazy otherwise.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jra]

Here are a couple things I have some questions about:



This is the left hand 'craft.'

One thing that confuses me is the compression artifact ending so abruptly on the right hand side. It seems as though if the compression was applied uniformly to the whole image, the right side of this craft should have some pixelation extending several more pixels out...like the left side does.

Also, when the size is increased, the colors in the boxes below and to the right of the craft are different hues. Given the uniform appearance of the sky in the rest of the image, what would be your interpretation of that?

Originally posted by KSPigpen
One thing that confuses me is the compression artifact ending so abruptly on the right hand side. It seems as though if the compression was applied uniformly to the whole image, the right side of this craft should have some pixelation extending several more pixels out...like the left side does.

From what I can tell, it's just where the group of 8x8 pixels ended. I outlined them to make it clearer.



Some of the groups look as if they have been subdivided into groups of 4x4 pixels as well.

Also, when the size is increased, the colors in the boxes below and to the right of the craft are different hues. Given the uniform appearance of the sky in the rest of the image, what would be your interpretation of that?

I don't really understand the details of how the compression algorithm works, but my guess would be that a tiny bit of the "UFO" was in that pixel and the algorithm tried to blend it with the sky. I really can't say for certain though. jpg compression can do funny and strange things some times.

Thats the same pixalation around the craft as it round the trees. Its pretty consistent in size and tone.

I would say that those objects are really there and not photoshoped. Whatever they are.