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.
simulate the effects of illumination in an image, creating virtual reflections, refractions and shadows.
That depends on your definition of "ray tracing". As far as I know it, ray tracing is used to trace all rays from the "camera's" point of view to any point on a 3D scene, calculating the way the light would be affect by any thing it finds on the way to that specific point.
Originally posted by 1967sander
Is it possible to perform ray tracing on a grey scale 8 bits GIF, 24 bits JPEG or 24 bits PNG file?
Yes, but only on a 3D program. The image would be mapped on some object on that 3D scene and then a CGI image would be generated from that 3D scene.
If so could someone use ray tracing to make an object look totally out of focus?
That's not very likely, as whenever data disappears there is no way of knowing what was really there.
Is it also possible to reverse the out of focus process when you know the exact used settings: light intensity, light direction and bit scale?
The 8 x 8 pixels squares are a result of JPEG compression.
The image consists of 15 x 15 = 225 squares of blocks of 8 x 8 = 64 pixels each. There are 15 horizontal "rows" of 15 squares and 15 vertical "columns" of 15 squares.
What software did you use? What you did was just change the colour of the pixels in the way that light algorithm works.
The software I used added artificial light to the smudged object from top to bottom at an angle of 3.6 degrees and by going through each row / column and repeating this process 15 consecutive times I was able to literally remove "one layer" of grey pixels of the smudged object and this grey layer was replaced by "one layer"of darker pixels that seem to come forward from the background.
You probably ended up with an image that has no relation to whatever was originally blurred, as there is no way of reversing a destructive process.
I repeated this process 33 x 15 = 495 times in both vertical and horizontal direction and ended up with a CLEAR picture without any smudge.
I'm far from an expert, but I know that we cannot recover destroyed data.
Are there any "ray tracing" experts who like to share their expertise and answer my few questions?
Is it really a form of ray tracing or did I accidentally used a different technique?
I think you used a different technique, and one that does not uncover any tampering.
Originally posted by 1967sander
The image I have in front of me is not a GIF file neither a JPG file but a 27.8 Mb PNG file without any compression. So there are no JPG compression artifacts
Originally posted by 1967sander
...deliberately save processed images again as a PNG file (24 bbp) with compression "0" so that there are no (JPG) compression artifacts
Are you sure that that image was never a JPEG that was saved as a PNG?
Originally posted by 1967sander
The image I have in front of me is not a GIF file neither a JPG file but a 27.8 Mb PNG file without any compression. So there are no JPG compression artifacts.
PNG images do not have layers.
Second, the data containg the object is still there but there is a grey layer covering it.
Apparently, what you are doing with that software (what software is it, can you tell us?) is darkening some pixels from that area, giving the idea that it is darkening what you call "layer".
The software I am using somehow removes the grey layer and allows the darker pixels behind it to come forward.
Some processes can be applied just to some pixels, like those that affect "shadows" or "highlights".
The environment that surrounds the objects I processed is not influeced and does not change during the processing in any way.
Even if you saved it as PNG with compression that wouldn't create JPEG artefacts, as PNG does not use the JPEG algorithm and never creates any artefacts, PNG uses lossless compression.
I deliberately save processed images again as a PNG file (24 bbp) with compression "0" so that there are no (JPG) compression artifacts.
Originally posted by 1967sander
Hi there,
I am not sure if I am in the right forum or not but I could need some help. Is it possible to perform ray tracing on a grey scale 8 bits GIF, 24 bits JPEG or 24 bits PNG file? If so could someone use ray tracing to make an object look totally out of focus? Is it also possible to reverse the out of focus process when you know the exact used settings: light intensity, light direction and bit scale?
Why am I asking this. I stumbled upon an image, which I believe was tampered by means of ray tracing. I know quite a lot about obfuscation / tampering but this particular image I have never been able to prove any form of tampering. After image processing of this photo using dozens of contrast / edge enhancing and de-blurring techniques I recently noticed a pattern within the obfuscated area. The image consists of 15 x 15 = 225 squares of blocks of 8 x 8 = 64 pixels each. There are 15 horizontal "rows" of 15 squares and 15 vertical "columns" of 15 squares.
The software I used added artificial light to the smudged object from top to bottom at an angle of 3.6 degrees and by going through each row / column and repeating this process 15 consecutive times I was able to literally remove "one layer" of grey pixels of the smudged object and this grey layer was replaced by "one layer"of darker pixels that seem to come forward from the background.
Than I performed the same operation 15 times from left to right but directed the artificial light on the smudged area at an angle of 19.8 degrees.
I repeated this process 33 x 15 = 495 times in both vertical and horizontal direction and ended up with a CLEAR picture without any smudge. I am still working on the analysis and processing of other images with similar obfuscations so I cannot tell you yet what I found.
Are there any "ray tracing" experts who like to share their expertise and answer my few questions?
Is it really a form of ray tracing or did I accidentally used a different technique?
Thanks for your interest,
Greetz,
Sanderedit on 17-2-2012 by 1967sander because: vcedit on 17-2-2012 by 1967sander because: vcbedit on 17-2-2012 by 1967sander because: cvcv
Any change to an image that changes the values of the pixels is impossible to reverse, unless we know exactly what happened to each pixel, like "one had it's value reduced to 50%" or "this one had it's value increased by 20".
Originally posted by ellieN
That would be great if that could happen! I guess that is too much to ask for, since it looks as if the smudges destroy the area it covers.