Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

page: 4
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrZrD
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


FYI: very few, if any, hoaxers provide reference photographs.



He hasn't provided any reference photographs yet.

We're currently waiting for them.





posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 22ndsecond
 


Yes you did say that...I was making referance to the OP's pic. not yours.

Sorry for the confusion...I should of made that clear I guess.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
OK, she uploaded the original anomalous photo on 4share.

www.4shared.com...



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
For more reference on the house itself, here are more pics of the house I found online.

Château-Richer Québec














posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


Good searchin'! Thanks dude.

See if the link she posted has all the info.
edit on 21-5-2011 by OrganicAnagram33 because: Addition


Oh, and she told me also that she got the date wrong by a year... assuming the camera date was set right, but you can see that anyway. It was 2008, not 2007.
edit on 21-5-2011 by OrganicAnagram33 because: Date



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 


Downloaded and ran it thru Jeffrey's exif viewer.

EXIF — this group of metadata is encoded in 18,523 bytes (18.1k)
Image Description
Y Cb Cr Positioning Co-sited
Exposure Time 1/320
F Number 7.1
Exposure Program Not Defined
Exif Version 0221
Date/Time Original 2008:06:25 14:06:16
2 years, 10 months, 26 days, 1 hour, 29 minutes, 24 seconds ago
Create Date 2008:06:25 14:06:16
2 years, 10 months, 26 days, 1 hour, 29 minutes, 24 seconds ago
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Compressed Bits Per Pixel 4
Exif Image Size 2,304 × 3,072
ISO 100
Exposure Compensation 0
Max Aperture Value 2.8
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Light Source Unknown
Flash On, Return detected
Focal Length 6.3 mm
Exposure Mode Auto
Maker Note Sony (2,034 bytes binary data)
Flashpix Version 0100
Color Space sRGB
File Source Digital Camera
Scene Type Directly photographed
Custom Rendered Normal
White Balance Auto
Scene Capture Type Night
Contrast Normal
Saturation Normal
Sharpness Normal
Print Image Matching (28 bytes binary data)
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Make SONY
Camera Model Name DSC-W55
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Modify Date 2008:06:25 14:06:16
2 years, 10 months, 26 days, 1 hour, 29 minutes, 24 seconds ago
Resolution 72 pixels/inch
Thumbnail Length 15,625
MakerNotes
Sony 0x2000 0
Color Reproduction Standard
Macro Off
Exposure Mode Twilight Portrait
Focus Mode AF-S
AF Mode Multi AF
AF Illuminator Auto
Sony 0xb045 0
Sony 0xb046 0
Quality Fine
Flash Level Normal
Release Mode Normal
Sequence Number Single
Anti-Blur Off
Sony 0xb04c 3.2
Sony 0xb04d 0
Long Exposure Noise Reduction Off
Sony 0x9001 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9002 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9003 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9004 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9005 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9006 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9007 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9008 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0xa000 2,147,483,651
Sony 0xa001 40
Sony 0xa002 19
Sony 0xa100
Sony 0xa101
Sony 0xa200
Sony 0xa300 (32 bytes binary data)
Sony 0xa301 (28 bytes binary data)
Sony 0xa400 (60 bytes binary data)
ExifTool
Warning [minor] Adjusted MakerNotes base by -24
PrintIM
PrintIM Version 0300
Print IM 0x0002 0x00000001
Print IM 0x0101 0x00000005
File — basic information derived from the file.
File Type JPEG
MIME Type image/jpeg
Exif Byte Order Little-endian (Intel, II)
Encoding Process Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample 8
Color Components 3
File Size 3.0 MB
Image Size 2,304 × 3,072
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling YCbCr4:4:0 (1 2)
Composite
This block of data is computed based upon other items. Some of it may be wildly incorrect, especially if the image has been resized.
Aperture 7.1
Shutter Speed 1/320
Thumbnail Image (15,625 bytes binary data)
Light Value 14.0
Focal Length 6.3 mm



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
If you look just to the left of the "head" of the figure, you will notice a small white area. I blew this up 400% in Fireworks, and it is obvious that pixels have been removed from this photo. The white area is the removed pixels. I'm sorry, but when I can find an image with an altered area this close to an anomaly, I have to throw the entire image out.

Don't take my word for it. Here is the image enlarged. This is using the best quality upload from the OP, the most recent one he posted. This is around 250% enlarged. If you don't use the best quality one, you can't tell what your seeing. It's visible in all forms of the photo posted, but use the best to see it.



This image has been altered. No question about it. It might not have been the OP, but it has been altered.
edit on 21-5-2011 by webpirate because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jerryznv
 


That's not my photo I quoted another poster. I was also talking about the OP's pic.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate
If you look just to the left of the "head" of the figure, you will notice a small white area. I blew this up 400% in Fireworks, and it is obvious that pixels have been removed from this photo. The white area is the removed pixels. I'm sorry, but when I can find an image with an altered area this close to an anomaly, I have to throw the entire image out.


I saw that, if its the one your talking about.




posted on May, 21 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


Yes. I just posted an edit to mine and saw yours. That's what I'm referring to. That's several pixels missing from an eraser tool.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate
reply to post by makeitso
 


Yes. I just posted an edit to mine and saw yours. That's what I'm referring to. That's several pixels missing from an eraser tool.



Please prove it's missing pixels from an eraser tool.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


Seems like it could be a reflection, even something flying, although you would expect some kind of motion blur if that were the case. Besides... now that you guys have the data from the image, shouldn't you be able to tell it hasn't been manipulated. I mean, that was the true test, seems that the tune of the jig has been changed.

Heck, maybe it's just a digital glitch like the anomaly could be
, after all, I've been saying that all along...
edit on 21-5-2011 by OrganicAnagram33 because: Addition



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Also, there seems to be some kind of blue hue around one end of the small white spot... doesn't look like the work of an eraser to me.

If you look at the same area on the tree/brush in the non-anomalous photo, you can see that there is a similar, albeit smaller, white spot.
edit on 21-5-2011 by OrganicAnagram33 because: Addition



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
To the Op (original poster), my advice to you is, never post to this site if you are looking for a positive or accurate response to your post, you will only be frustrated by the variety of armchair cooks and cranks that thrive on this site. there are positive people on the site, but few and far between.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I think that line

exiftool.

Explain that.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by makeitso
 


Please prove it's missing pixels from an eraser tool.


Don't take my word for it. Go download a trial version of Photoshop, Fireworks or whatever you want to. Then take a 2mm or 3mm eraser tool and make a small erasure to any area of any photo. Then compare them to what I have shown here.

I have done enough work in the last 11 years with both of those image editing softwares to know what they look like.
I'm not saying you are trying to hoax us. But someone manipulated this photo. Go see for yourself.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by emberscott
 


Please explain to me what it means, since most of that is jargon to me. You are clearly suggesting that line is proof of manipulation. Go into depth about it, tell me, and everyone else how you 'know'.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


I'm aware of what an eraser tools marks can look like, but you have not even replied to the fact that there is an odd blue hue around one side of it that resembles light refraction, or that there is another white mark in the non-anomalous photo (although not as large).



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by emberscott
I think that line

exiftool.

Explain that.


OK

Quick search:


ExifTool is a free software program for reading, writing, and manipulating image, audio, and video metadata. It is platform independent, available as both a Perl library and command-line application. ExifTool is commonly incorporated into different types of digital workflows and supports many types of metadata including Exif, IPTC, XMP, JFIF, GeoTIFF, ICC Profile, Photoshop IRB, FlashPix, AFCP and ID3, as well as the manufacturer-specific metadata formats of many digital cameras.


en.wikipedia.org...

Oh... well, look at that last part in particular... 'as well as the manufacturer-specific metadata formats of many digital cameras'.

By no means is it strictly for editing, clearly.

I'm going to go with the hypothesis that you don't know much about this stuff either.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


I strongly suspect that the area you identified as a candidate for post processing eraser is in fact due to saturation of the camera image sensor pixels. And from other personal experiences, I also suspect, in agreement with the original poster (OrganicAnagram33), that this object was flying.

Below is a photograph (cropped and resolution reduced but with EXIF, I hope) of an entity that demonstrates a similar pixel saturation property.



It is entirely understandable that some could think this white area was due to manipulation. But given the context in which this saturated region is observed, I suggest that this entity could easily produce the observed results. IMO, these images are untouched originals.

Best regards,
Z





top topics
 
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join