It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A new precious tool in UFO research

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
www.lemondedelaphoto.com...

Sorry for the frenchiness of it all

This is a new program, for professionnals willing to know for sure if a photo has been manipulated.
This program works at a mathematical level and looks for the slightests discrepancies in the photograph. The AFP (Agence France Press) uses this to verify the pictures they receive.
Ufortunately it is not accessible to the public, because of its complexity and price. However, if there are ATS members talented and wealthy enough to invest in such program, many of the evidence we get on ATS may be debunked or validated.

In my opinion it is a must have for any decent ufologist.
edit on 21-5-2011 by TheOracle because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 21 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Again, in French, is a graphic example of the results obtained from running an image through it.

Dead Bin Laden Fake


It is important to note though, this issue, which prevents it from being a magic bullet...

...low resolution images, like those taken by cameras inside basic cell phones,
are harder to analyze using software. “The minute an image is lowered in resolution,
that it falls under a certain threshold, it becomes almost impossible to run any
kind of program to detect manipulation,” Lyon said. “A big image with a lot of
detail can be more closely analyzed than an image of 60 or 70k…and so
sometimes what happens, and this is a confusing aspect of it, on the Internet
you get a lot of low res images floating around and it’s difficult to understand
what’s been done to them and where they come from.”

CJR



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


Or, instead of buy it, wait for someone to buy it and put it on the internet for everyone to have. But I agree with you, this will be very useful for dealing with examining what is real and what is a hoax.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


I think you may enjoy this...

Image error level analyser


Error level analysis can help you work out if a photo has been digitally altered. Photos in a jpeg file format actually lose quality each time they are resaved. We can take advantage of this to try and work out if an image has been digitally manipulated.

For instance, if you have a jpeg photo at 90% quality, and resave it, again at 90% quality, you will end up with an image at 90% of 90% (so, 81% quality). If now, you were to copy and paste an element from a different photo into your current photo, you can end up with sections of the image at differing quality levels. This happens because some parts have been resaved three times, whilst some parts may have only been saved once.

If the image has had no alterations to it, all parts of the photo will be at the same quality.


All that and free to use as well!



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Thank you for posting the link to that online tool.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Just tried it with a couple "Alien" Pics.

One we know is fake (Paul from the movie Paul)
Paul Analyzed

And the "New" Greys
Grey Analyzed

Don't know how to interpret the results, but both look the same with the whiteish outline.

Awesome tool though!



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
great stuff look at this one

errorlevelanalysis.com...

nasa is so shady



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by space718
 


Remember the website says:

"If you are unsure how to interpret the results, please do not claim the results of this tool as proof of anything"

I'm not sure what the white is as I am no image analyst, but if someone is, could you tell us what we're looking at?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Would the Obama bc be able to be scrutinized using this?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by logicalthinking
Would the Obama bc be able to be scrutinized using this?


There is a good chance i say but my understanding on the B.C issue is that it's a manipulated .pdf document, that's different than an image taken with a iphone so probably not all the tools of this software will be of great help but i'm only guessing here.It's so new and expensive no one tried it yet actually



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by logicalthinking
 
Would the Obama bc be able to be scrutinized using this?



No, not really.

Error level analysis is designed to provide a type of forensic analysis that is most succesful at spotting manipulations in high quality imagery. Consequently, it is least effective when tasked with ferreting out alterations in low quality .bmp images, text files similiar formats (like what you would use for scanning a legal document).



Originally posted by themaster1
 

There is a good chance i say but my understanding on the B.C issue is that it's a manipulated .pdf document, that's different than an image taken with a iphone so probably not all the tools of this software will be of great help but i'm only guessing here.It's so new and expensive no one tried it yet actually


Interestingly, there is a current thread where a few members have been using a combination of photoshop, Acrobat and Illustrator to try and dig out the facts from all the hot air currently being quoted around the net.

As it stands, both myself and two other members have produced identical results to the anomolies some have claimed are evidence of digital manipulation of falsifing the document. This is without any fancy photoshop manipulation, everything from the creation of what Illustrator recognizes as layers within the image while following similiar process to what would be used to produce the document to the halo around the text, the variation in ink seems to be primarily linked to a function used by Acrobat to optimise a PDF before exporting it.

Dont take my word for it, see for yourselves...

post by Drunkenparrot

post by Benevolent Heretic

post by AshleyD

post by TKDRL

The video below layed the foundation to recreate the process responsible in a beleivable way. What others have been insisting is irrefutable evidence of executive fraud is clearly demonstrated as the result of an software algorythm used in the PDF writer.




We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it...

...What’s plausible is that somewhere along the way — from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) — these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What’s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama’s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It’s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let’s leave it at that..


PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate

Here is an image of the document referenced by Nathan Goulding showing identical anomolies.


Passport doc, post Acrobat optimized PDF, Click picture to enlarge...

It looks pretty conclusive from my point of view/ perpective.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


I already posted this on March here

Extracts:

Roger Cozien, French mathematics Phd and former criminology expert, presented in 2010 May at the French National Assembly a software called Tungstene, which should make possible to know if a photo has been altered in any way.

For Mister Cozien and for the deputy Valérie Boyer as well, at the origin of a law project for the reporting of people whose appearance has been altered by image tampering, this is an end to the lie about the photos forgeries that our society had too long and too often tolerated .

One can cite the "gummed beads" celebrities that impose a new standard for the teens and push them to anorexia, or the missile that magically appeared on a picture of war on the front page of a grand public magazine to make the scene more dramatic and increase sales....
But it must also serve in the judicial field as well, like that was the case during a recent lawsuit against a rugby player in Ireland, with the photo that involved him and that, in fact, was tampered with.

If this technology developed by the company eXo makina remains restricted to large structures due to its cost (+/- 50.000$ actually...) and special training for its use, a large public version is scheduled.
It also worth a note that the company is working on another similar technology, but for videos studies.

SOURCE (in french)

Tungstene site

Examples:










Hopefully, the "grand public" version will not be that expensive...



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Error Level Analysis software is not new. I use it for several years now and do my own analysis. Some years ago a couple people have developed their own open source programs. I am not allowed to tell where to find the latest version but when you spend some time on the net and search for "error level .jpg ..." you will find it.

Be aware that this technology is not at all easy to work with. You need a lot of exercise and must determine the estimated saved jpg quality factor before you use it. For that you require other software like JPGQuality.

It is also not 100% secure. When you would make a screenshot of an already manipulated image than the software can be easily fooled as it sees no tampering. It considers the screenshot as the the original image.
Another problem: it only works with JPEG format.

Greetz,

Sander



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding here of what error level analysis (ELA) is and how it works. To understand we should first understand image compression ...

jpg/jpeg (they stand for Joint Photographic Experts Group, the group that created the standard) is a "lossy" image compression format. This means that it actually destroys data in the original image in order to make a file smaller. This destruction of data is performed in such a way that it should not visually change the image. Of course, when the compression is too strong, the results of the lost data become visible and we get what we call "compression artifacts."

One of the things that often results in low image quality is recompression. When you open a file in an editing program and then save it in, the compression calculations will be redone. As this occurs, it will result in a further loss of data. Over multiple cycles this becomes quite noticeable in the form of artifacting.

What ELA does is attempt to identify the relative level of data loss or compression error for different parts of the image, and then produce a false-color image or heatmap showing us what level of error each part of the image is at.

This is useful to image forensics because, typically, the entirety of an image will be at the same rough level of error. Let's say we edit an image though, for example by inserting an object in to an image. In context, we'll use a UFO as an example. We have an image of a sky with some houses below and the sort that was taken by a camera belonging to the hoaxer. The camera saved the image at probably 80% quality depending on its settings. He then takes a picture of a UFO off of the internet. This image of a UFO is based on an image of a vacuum cleaner part, but editing has occured since then, so it has been compressed by the camera, and then it has been recompressed once by photoshop after some editing, and then someone resized the image so it's been recompressed again, at around 80% quality each time. This means that the UFO image, after multiple recompressions, is of lower quality (higher error level) than the image of the sky. We edit the UFO image in to the sky and save it. At the end of the process, we have one image in which the sky has been compressed twice and the UFO has been compressed four times. Hopefully an ELA analysis will show us that these are at much different error levels, indicating that they don't go together - they aren't from the same original data.

There are several things that make this very difficult. First, the image must be in jpeg format (or another lossy compression format, although I have only seen it implemented for jpeg since most images we want to analyse are in this format). Second, the image must be derived from edited digital copies. As a previous example, two pictures of greys were presented. The first image is not a candidate for ELA analysis because the alien has been inserted via CGI in to video master. The video master copy used in the editing house is not compressed at all, rather it is raw data from the camera's image sensor. This means that, even though we know Paul has been added artificially, he will be at the same error level as the background, because they were both inserted at uncompressed (or 100%) quality and then compressed to a release video format (h.264, matroska, mpeg, etc) and then recompressed to jpeg for the still image. The second example (the "new" greys) appears to be either a scan of a negative or a scan/photograph of a printed photo. This is not eligible for ELA because the first digital copy in the chain was of the photo in its current form, not of some original unmodified photo.

Basically, ELA is useful with two assumptions.
1. The photo being analyzed is a result of direct computer editing of some original, unmodified (or less modified) photograph. As such, scans and photographs of potentially modified photos are not eligible (because ELA would only help us find modifications that happened after the scanning or photography)
2. The editing was performed with images in a lossy format, or at least one image in a lossy format. For example, an image in camera RAW format (nikon/.nef, canon/.cr2, sony/_, etc) with an image inserted also in camera RAW format would not be detectable by ELA, because both images were inserted at 0% error level and have the same compression history. This is also true of raw video formats (which are used exclusively inside professional video editing houses) and rendered images in a full-quality format.

Now, interpreting ELA is a whole seperate problem. The results of an ELA program are hard to interpret, primarily because a jpeg file normally contains varying levels of error throughout the image, because jpeg handles different kinds of patterns more or less effectively. This means that you might have a flat color area in an image with fairly low error and then a person on that background with high error, and this is perfectly normal. In order to effectively interpret ELA you must look at two areas with a similar pattern or property as understood by the compression algorithm, so effectively two areas that look quite similar texture-wise. They should have a similar error level across the image, although they may still vary because of the things around them. If we see a strong difference between two areas of very similar texture, this may indicate that one of the areas is not of the same origin as the other (although we cannot be sure of this). This information is most useful by looking at the ELA of the whole image in context and by applying some experience having looked at many examples.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: mac420
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Just tried it with a couple "Alien" Pics.

One we know is fake (Paul from the movie Paul)
Paul Analyzed

And the "New" Greys
Grey Analyzed

Don't know how to interpret the results, but both look the same with the whiteish outline.

Awesome tool though!



You've completely misunderstood what the software does. It does not detect "fake" pictures with some super AI, it only detects errors that indicate edited images.
Another example of professional experts via Google that are cropping up everywhere!



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join