Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

page: 9
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate

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.


What another Community college computer artist, you've never looked at the EXIF data after altering a photo have you?. If you had you would know the photo editing software rewrites it showing that it (the photo editing software) created the picture.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Prevaricator87
 


Excellent points Prevaricator87 and an equally excellent job setting a brilliant example for others on the proper form to introduce your own thoughts and conclusions into these types of discussion.

It should be well noted by some how effective the often forgotten technique of making an effort to be clear and respectful in the language and content of your post can be for communicating an opinion or idea.

Your investing a small bit of time and effort to provide evidence to validate the mechanics of what you believe may or may not be in the photo's provided by the OP rather than trying to verbally bully the other posters into silence or agreement through a poorly reasoned semantic games.

I'm still not sure where I stand on the photo although I am convinced that the op is sincere. I want to read a bit more and consider as many facets as possible although I can say I believe there will most likely be an conclusive explanation soon as that is the way these type of enigmas nearly always play out.

The collective power of global deductive reasoning wielded by the internet can be nothing short of amazing sometimes.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
They are two different pictures taken seconds or minutes apart... look at the clouds, they have moved. However with that being said, It is the erase tool from photoshop using a non-hard brush to erase a "person" in the image. I can explain more if needed.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by webpirate
 


Show me in the code, provide solid proof.


What more do you want? People have posted links that show the large anomaly area has been saved less than the rest of the image. I have shown blownups of an area that shows signs of manipulation. You asked for help in identifying the white area in your image. Yet when multiple people offer numerous levels of proof all you do is continue to ask for more while ignoring everything offered.

I have tried to explain why your "blue hue" is there. The hue is MORE proof this has been altered. Not LESS. I never said anything about the large white area being an erasure. I said there was evidence in the image of manipulation close to that area so I would have to throw the entire image out. The "main area" is quite obviously not erased. But since I am positive this has been altered I don't believe any other anomalies either.

Furthermore, when I first opened this in Fireworks, the image shows 3 different layers in addition to a background layer. Those layers are locked so I can't remove them to see what was done in them. Normal photos do not come with multiple layers.

edit on 21-5-2011 by webpirate because: additional thoughts...


Sorry, but you can not save layers in a JPEG due to the compression algorithm that is used.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 

Thank you for that wonderful explanation, I hope everyone reads it.
Yes your right, but I was referring to the outline of the entity. I like the example someone posted earlier, of wrestlers I think, that was spot on.
I'm past trying to defend the photo, the evidence speaks for itself. The photo is genuine, and I think some people on here owe the OP an apology.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
I see a lot of creepy # in those pictures, every single one. I wouldn't want to live there that's for sure!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Some have jumped to the wrong conclusion stating that the photos in question are the exact same photo... I would think some of you guys would look closer at the clouds... but guess not. These photos were taken moments apart, maybe just a second or two. I have no opinion on whether the figure in the second photo is manipulated, but come on guys, pay attention. If you debunked this out of hand saying it's the same photo... look again.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sandesh


Real Ghost ......


Fake - one of the clouds are both the same and that guy has no legs.

Even I know that!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
 


Sorry, but you can not save layers in a JPEG due to the compression algorithm that is used.


In the interest of avoiding muddying the subject unnessisairly by contradictory explanations, I would like to make clear that Wolfie0827 is definitely correct on this point.

The images are all saved in a jpeg format which can not support layered image stacking. Consequently, any format supporting a layered palette requires the image be "flattened" ( meaning any individual layers be compressed into one) before being converted into a more economical format like jpeg.

It is not possible to open a jpeg to reveal a layer pallet and because jpeg cant have layers, it is not possible to have to locked ones, regardless of editor used.

An innocent mistake but fact isn't usually subjective to best guess.




edit on 22-5-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 



Sorry bud, but -- without even blowing up the image you can see the pixel mismatch, which can ONLY happen as a result of digital manipulation.

Here is how it was done, Somebody was really standing there, in that pose... and the picture was taken, it was then dodged and burned, and has a pure white "glow" effect added to the layer (that is the person after effects).

This is not even open to debate,


And there is where the reading ends.

So many experts on ATS these days, it hurts...




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 




Man even I did a better job than that when I was testing in paint shop pro but as it proves nothing I didn't bother to upload it.

That's nothing like the original.

It just is nothing like it..



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Section31
 


Can you show in an exif viewer that it was opened in photoshop, or a similar program? I had a kickass freeware exif viewer, but the trail ended


Mods, I apologize for the length of this post but I use three EXIF viewers and decided to show the results from all three to shut up the photoshop crowd. And OP I apologize for all the "It can't be real" people.

IfranView EFIF plug-in:
Filename - Adam's Family 001.jpg
ImageDescription -
Make - SONY
Model - DSC-W55
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
DateTime - 2008:06:25 14:06:16
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
ExifOffset - 328
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
White Balance - Auto
SceneCaptureType - Night scene
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal
ExposureTime - 1/320 seconds
FNumber - 7.10
ExposureProgram - Not defined
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
ExifVersion - 0221
DateTimeOriginal - 2008:06:25 14:06:16
DateTimeDigitized - 2008:06:25 14:06:16
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 4 (bits/pixel)
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 2.83
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Flash fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 6.30 mm
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 2304
ExifImageHeight - 3072
FileSource - Other
SceneType - Other

Maker Note (Vendor): -

Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
Make - SONY
Model - DSC-W55
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
DateTime - 2008:06:25 14:06:16
JpegIFOffset - 2898
JpegIFByteCount - 15625


EXIF Viewer:
Craped out on me is supposed to let you save the info in text format but would crash when I tried.

JPEGSnoop:

JPEGsnoop 1.5.2 by Calvin Hass
www.impulseadventure.com...
-------------------------------------

Filename: [C:\Documents and Settings\Krist\My Documents\Downloads\Adam's Family 001.jpg]
Filesize: [3193036] Bytes

Start Offset: 0x00000000
*** Marker: SOI (xFFD8) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000000

*** Marker: APP1 (xFFE1) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000002
length = 18531
Identifier = [Exif]
Identifier TIFF = 0x[49492A00 08000000]
Endian = Intel (little)
TAG Mark x002A = 0x002A

EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000014
Dir Length = 0x0011
[ImageDescription ] = " "
[Make ] = "SONY"
[Model ] = "DSC-W55"
[XResolution ] = 72/1
[YResolution ] = 72/1
[ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
[DateTime ] = "2008:06:25 14:06:16"
[YCbCrPositioning ] = Co-sited
[ExifOffset ] = @ 0x0148
[CustomRendered ] = Normal process
[ExposureMode ] = Auto exposure
[WhiteBalance ] = Auto white balance
[SceneCaptureType ] = Night scene
Offset to Next IFD = 0x00000AA2

EXIF IFD1 @ Absolute 0x00000AAE
Dir Length = 0x000A
[Compression ] = JPEG
[XResolution ] = 72/1
[YResolution ] = 72/1
[ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
[JpegIFOffset ] = @ +0x0B52 = @ 0x0B5E
[JpegIFByteCount ] = 15625
Offset to Next IFD = 0x00000000

EXIF SubIFD @ Absolute 0x00000154
Dir Length = 0x0016
[ExposureTime ] = 10/3200 s
[FNumber ] = F7.1
[ExposureProgram ] = Not defined
[ISOSpeedRatings ] = 100
[ExifVersion ] = 02.21
[DateTimeOriginal ] = "2008:06:25 14:06:16"
[DateTimeDigitized ] = "2008:06:25 14:06:16"
[ComponentsConfiguration ] = [Y Cb Cr .]
[CompressedBitsPerPixel ] = 4/1
[ExposureBiasValue ] = 0.00 eV
[MaxApertureValue ] = 48/16
[MeteringMode ] = Pattern
[LightSource ] = unknown
[Flash ] = Flash fired
[FocalLength ] = 6 mm
[MakerNote ] = @ 0x02AE
[FlashPixVersion ] = 01.00
[ColorSpace ] = sRGB
[ExifImageWidth ] = 2304
[ExifImageHeight ] = 3072
[FileSource ] = DSC
[SceneType ] = A directly photographed image

EXIF MakerIFD @ Absolute 0x000002BA
Dir Length = 0x0022
[Sony.Macro ] = 0
[Sony.ExposureMode ] = 11
[Sony.Quality ] = 1
[Sony.LongExposureNoiseReduction ] = 0

*** Marker: DQT (xFFDB) ***
Define a Quantization Table.
OFFSET: 0x00004867
Table length = 67
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 6
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 6
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
DQT, Row #4: 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7
DQT, Row #5: 2 3 3 5 7 6 7 6
DQT, Row #6: 3 4 4 5 6 7 7 6
DQT, Row #7: 4 3 3 4 5 6 6 6
Approx quality factor = 96.86 (scaling=6.28 variance=3.21)

*** Marker: DQT (xFFDB) ***
Define a Quantization Table.
OFFSET: 0x000048AC
Table length = 67
----
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 3 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 2 4 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #2: 1 2 3 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #3: 3 4 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #4: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #5: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #6: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
DQT, Row #7: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Approx quality factor = 96.99 (scaling=6.01 variance=0.24)

*** Marker: SOF0 (Baseline DCT) (xFFC0) ***
OFFSET: 0x000048F1
Frame header length = 17
Precision = 8
Number of Lines = 3072
Samples per Line = 2304
Image Size = 2304 x 3072
Raw Image Orientation = Portrait
Number of Img components = 3
Component[1]: ID=0x01, Samp Fac=0x12 (Subsamp 1 x 1), Quant Tbl Sel=0x00 (Lum: Y)
Component[2]: ID=0x02, Samp Fac=0x11 (Subsamp 1 x 2), Quant Tbl Sel=0x01 (Chrom: Cb)
Component[3]: ID=0x03, Samp Fac=0x11 (Subsamp 1 x 2), Quant Tbl Sel=0x01 (Chrom: Cr)

*** Marker: DHT (Define Huffman Table) (xFFC4) ***
OFFSET: 0x00004904
Huffman table length = 31
----
Destination ID = 0
Class = 0 (DC / Lossless Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (001 total): 00
Codes of length 03 bits (005 total): 01 02 03 04 05
Codes of length 04 bits (001 total): 06
Codes of length 05 bits (001 total): 07
Codes of length 06 bits (001 total): 08
Codes of length 07 bits (001 total): 09
Codes of length 08 bits (001 total): 0A
Codes of length 09 bits (001 total): 0B
Codes of length 10 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 11 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 12 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 13 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 14 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 15 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 16 bits (000 total):
Total number of codes: 012


*** Marker: DHT (Define Huffman Table) (xFFC4) ***
OFFSET: 0x00004925
Huffman table length = 181
----
Destination ID = 0
Class = 1 (AC Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (002 total): 01 02
Codes of length 03 bits (001 total): 03
Codes of length 04 bits (003 total): 00 04 11
Codes of length 05 bits (003 total): 05 12 21
Codes of length 06 bits (002 total): 31 41
Codes of length 07 bits (004 total): 06 13 51 61
Codes of length 08 bits (003 total): 07 22 71
Codes of length 09 bits (005 total): 14 32 81 91 A1
Codes of length 10 bits (005 total): 08 23 42 B1 C1
Codes of length 11 bits (004 total): 15 52 D1 F0
Codes of length 12 bits (004 total): 24 33 62 72
Codes of length 13 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 14 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 15 bits (001 total): 82
Codes of length 16 bits (125 total): 09 0A 16 17 18 19 1A 25 26 27 28 29 2A 34 35 36
37 38 39 3A 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 4A 53 54 55 56
57 58 59 5A 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 6A 73 74 75 76
77 78 79 7A 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 8A 92 93 94 95
96 97 98 99 9A A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 AA B2 B3
B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 BA C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 CA
D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 DA E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7
E8 E9 EA F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 FA
Total number of codes: 162


*** Marker: DHT (Define Huffman Table) (xFFC4) ***
OFFSET: 0x000049DC
Huffman table length = 31
----
Destination ID = 1
Class = 0 (DC / Lossless Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (003 total): 00 01 02
Codes of length 03 bits (001 total): 03
Codes of length 04 bits (001 total): 04
Codes of length 05 bits (001 total): 05
Codes of length 06 bits (001 total): 06
Codes of length 07 bits (001 total): 07
Codes of length 08 bits (001 total): 08
Codes of length 09 bits (001 total): 09
Codes of length 10 bits (001 total): 0A
Codes of length 11 bits (001 total): 0B
Codes of length 12 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 13 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 14 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 15 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 16 bits (000 total):
Total number of codes: 012


*** Marker: DHT (Define Huffman Table) (xFFC4) ***
OFFSET: 0x000049FD
Huffman table length = 181
----
Destination ID = 1
Class = 1 (AC Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (002 total): 00 01
Codes of length 03 bits (001 total): 02
Codes of length 04 bits (002 total): 03 11
Codes of length 05 bits (004 total): 04 05 21 31
Codes of length 06 bits (004 total): 06 12 41 51
Codes of length 07 bits (003 total): 07 61 71
Codes of length 08 bits (004 total): 13 22 32 81
Codes of length 09 bits (007 total): 08 14 42 91 A1 B1 C1
Codes of length 10 bits (005 total): 09 23 33 52 F0
Codes of length 11 bits (004 total): 15 62 72 D1
Codes of length 12 bits (004 total): 0A 16 24 34
Codes of length 13 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 14 bits (001 total): E1
Codes of length 15 bits (002 total): 25 F1
Codes of length 16 bits (119 total): 17 18 19 1A 26 27 28 29 2A 35 36 37 38 39 3A 43
44 45 46 47 48 49 4A 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 5A 63
64 65 66 67 68 69 6A 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 7A 82
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 8A 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
9A A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 AA B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7
B8 B9 BA C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 CA D2 D3 D4 D5
D6 D7 D8 D9 DA E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 EA F2 F3
F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 FA
Total number of codes: 162


*** Marker: SOS (Start of Scan) (xFFDA) ***
OFFSET: 0x00004AB4
Scan header length = 12
Number of img components = 3
Component[1]: selector=0x01, table=0x00
Component[2]: selector=0x02, table=0x11
Component[3]: selector=0x03, table=0x11
Spectral selection = 0 .. 63
Successive approximation = 0x00


*** Decoding SCAN Data ***
OFFSET: 0x00004AC2
Scan Decode Mode: Full IDCT (AC + DC)

Scan Data encountered marker 0xFFD9 @ 0x0030B8CA.0

Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 6.69:1
Bits per pixel: 3.59:1

Huffman code histogram stats:
Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 0, Class: DC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 2957 ( 3%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 52524 ( 47%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 18833 ( 17%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 16432 ( 15%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 11899 ( 11%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 6504 ( 6%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 1378 ( 1%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 65 ( 0%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 0 ( 0%)

Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 1, Class: DC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 27101 ( 25%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 22467 ( 20%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 25993 ( 24%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 19818 ( 18%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 10450 ( 9%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 4021 ( 4%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 696 ( 1%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 43 ( 0%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 3 ( 0%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 0 ( 0%)

Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 0, Class: AC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 1345218 ( 46%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 355374 ( 12%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 559360 ( 19%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 319141 ( 11%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 92296 ( 3%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 133718 ( 5%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 58690 ( 2%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 33933 ( 1%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 21379 ( 1%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 7481 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 1612 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 158 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 5079 ( 0%)

Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 1, Class: AC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 436418 ( 34%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 219265 ( 17%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 267081 ( 21%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 220171 ( 17%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 81232 ( 6%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 21509 ( 2%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 26474 ( 2%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 15941 ( 1%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 3640 ( 0%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 2811 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 531 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 1071 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 637 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 137 ( 0%)

YCC clipping in DC:
Y component: [255= 0]
Cb component: [255= 0]
Cr component: [255= 0]

RGB clipping in DC:
R component: [255= 0]
G component: [255= 0]
B component: [255= 0]

Average Pixel Luminance (Y):
Y=[ 90] (range: 0..255)

Brightest Pixel Search:
YCC=[ 1054, -101, 98] RGB=[255,250,231] @ MCU[240,186]

Finished Decoding SCAN Data
Number of RESTART markers decoded: 0
Next position in scan buffer: Offset 0x0030B8C9.5


*** Marker: EOI (End of Image) (xFFD9) ***
OFFSET: 0x0030B8CA


*** Searching Compression Signatures ***

Signature: 014302FE54745F4DBB58A0D51CDC66BD
Signature (Rotated): 010564D93F295ADB889B91604DC82EE1
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 2x1
EXIF Make/Model: OK [SONY] [DSC-W55]
EXIF Makernotes: OK
EXIF Software: NONE

Searching Compression Signatures: (3327 built-in, 0 user(*) )

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
CAM:[Leica Camera AG ] [M8 Digital Camera ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[Leica Camera AG ] [M8 Digital Camera ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[Leica Camera AG ] [M8 Digital Camera ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[NIKON ] [E4500 ] [FINE ] Yes
CAM:[NIKON ] [E5400 ] [FINE ] Yes
CAM:[NIKON ] [E775 ] [FINE ] Yes
CAM:[NIKON ] [E775 ] [FINE ] Yes
CAM:[OLYMPUS CORPORATION ] [C8080WZ ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD ] [C3040Z ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD ] [C40Z,D40Z ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[Samsung Techwin ] [Digimax V50/a5 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SAMSUNG TECHWIN ] [Pro 815 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SAMSUNG TECHWIN ] [VLUU NV 7, NV 7 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SAMSUNG TECHWIN ] [VLUU NV10, NV10 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [CYBERSHOT ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-H1 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-H2 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-H5 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-H7 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-H9 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-L1 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-N2 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-P150 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-P200 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-R1 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-S90 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-V1 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-V3 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-W35 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [DSC-W7 ] [ ] Yes
CAM:[SONY ] [SONY ] [ ] Yes
SW :[IJG Library ] [097 ]

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [097 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [097 ]
SW :[idImager ] [097 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [097 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [097 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [097 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [097 ]
SW :[XnView ] [097 ]

Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:

ASSESSMENT: Class 4 - Uncertain if processed or original
While the EXIF fields indicate original, no compression signatures
in the current database were found matching this make/model

Appears to be new signature for known camera.
If the camera/software doesn't appear in list above,
PLEASE ADD TO DATABASE with [Tools->Add Camera to DB]



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolfie0827
 


I think this takes care of things.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
My opinion on the photo is that it is a reflection and not a ghost/energy form. the chromatics around the edges and the camera being set to night mode with flash lead me to this belief.
edit on 22-5-2011 by Wolfie0827 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
The photo with the anomaly is taken slightly to the left of the one without. The sun is to the left (note shadows). So it is highly likely that sun his striking the lens directly and causing the flare.

It looks humanoid because our human brains ALWAYS make patterns out of disorder. If it didn't our ancestors would have died out millions of years ago!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I believe I have figured it out and know what it is. It is a reflection off of a car window or windshield in a photo taken from the inside of a car.

I'm not sure it has been mentioned but there hosted was a third photograph too the set, a bit different from the first two but of the same house of the same house taken at the same time that I believe is clearly the faint reflection of a car interior. The slight blur is the auto focus having a rough time with the windshield.

Take a peak...


Adams Family House, Click picture to enlarge...

Now compare in the next one, the camera is much better focused but the view is still from inside the car. Rather than the glare dull glare fogging the first one, the sunlight is being much more tightly focused and is a high enough degree brighter than everything else it ended up overexposed explain the soft transition from the edge.


Adams Family ghost, Click picture to enlarge...

Lastly, nearly identical in ever way to the last just a bit brighter, that being because the camera tried to compensate for the tightly focused bright sunlight resulting in an overexposed ghost in front of an underexposed house.


Adams Family, no ghost, Click picture to enlarge...

Considerably more exposed because it wasn't having to correct for the bright spot in the middle of the glass but taken a very short time from the last one.

I think that may be the explanasion after staring at the photo for a bit.




edit on 22-5-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-5-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-5-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sprocket2cog
reply to post by binkbonk
 

If you look at the clouds where they meet the house on the top right, you see that they are not the same picture, but taken just after each other, as the clouds are similar but have moved a bit..


same picture, but cropped then resized to original dimensions, colour variation has been edited in to give false illusion, it was another shot, Then this alleged ghost was put in and is not translucent, if its supposed to be a ghost..

This was done in Adobe PS



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by violet
 


Thats impossiable, it is not the same picture, ive been doing image editing since the first hand held black and white scanners came out.
Its easy to think it is, but if it had been resized there would be a change in the pixel density and more artifacting in the second image.
Yhis isnt thatcase.
ive prepared this animated gif,
its both images overlayed and switching from one to the other. look at the vertical perspective and the clouds.
the second photo was taken standing in a slightly different postion
edit on 22-5-2011 by sprocket2cog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I am trying to learn a little about photographic analysis, and I would appreciate someone taking the time to answer a few questions I have:

1) If a flash was used to take the anomalous photo, why isn't the fence in the foreground lit up? I can see a few little reflections on the fence, but they appear to be coming from the angle of the sunlight, not from a flash.

2) If a flash wasn't used, then the anomaly can't be a flash artifact, in which case it would almost have to be glowing to be that bright. And yet .. except for some misty affect around the anomaly, nothing around it suggests it is giving off light. Even the ground right under the "feet" isn't any brighter than the ground further away, and the greenery right next to the anomaly also looks the same as the greenery further away.

3) If the camera was a digital "point & shoot" (which I'm sort of assuming because the photographer is said to be not technologically savvy), then how/why did the camera get set to "night mode" in what appears to be bright sunlight?

4) It's also possible that the flash simply wasn't bright enough in sunlight to produce a reflection on the metal fence, but if it wasn't bright enough to do that, then how could it have been bright enough to create the super bright anomaly?

5) Some have suggested the anomaly is a reflection from one of the windows, but with the porches and overhangs, none of the windows are actually in direct sunlight .. so how could they produce a reflection anomaly? Any flash from the camera couldn't be lighting up the windows since (if it fired) it doesn't even reach the front of the porch; the only light there is coming from the left of the photo where the sun obviously is.

Thanks in advance for any explanations/answers.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join