Digital photography analyzing

[ThunderFoot]

Hello and thank you for comming by this thread. I have some digital photographs I would like to have analzyed to see if it has been tampered with. One photograph I downloaded from the camera and the other is of the same subject but cropped and enhanced in the area of the photograph in question. He told me he used photoshop to enhance the photograph.

My question: Has the orginal photograph been tampered with or photoshopped with cut and paste or things of the sort? Also I would like to know if someone can enhace the orginal photograph with the same rusults and provide documentation of how they went through the process?

Now I am going to ask that if you have seen this photograph on another thread Please make all comments about the subject matter in the photograph in the moderated thread in question. If you would like a link to that thread please ask and I will provide it.

This is the orginal photograph. I used imageshack to upload it.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1981/bigfoot001ul9.th.jpg (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bigfoot001ul9.jpg)

I have tried several times to upload the enhanced photograph to imageshack to no avail. If someone can do a better job than me, that shouldn't be too hard to beat lol, please let me know and I will e-mail it to you. I would like to have both photographs on here. Thank you for your help on this.

[madurobob]

Hi Thunderfoot. I'm familiar with the photo and the thread. But, for those who aren't it may help to post the specifics about the camera, too.

JPEG is a compressed format with a header/footer to control decompression. Many cameras do not natively create JPEG images, but rather create uncompressed BMP or similar.

[ThunderFoot]

Thanx madurobob, that is what I am talking about. I know absolutly NOTHING! How would I go about this. I can call the friend that took the photo and ask him what camera he used, but that would be all I know to do.

[ThunderFoot]

Ok, I think I may have what you are asking for,,, I think.

dimensions: 2048x1536

file size: 518 KB (531,426 bytes)

type: jpg file

camera model: CaptureV

Hopefuly this is what you were asking for.

[madurobob]

I believe the camera in question is a Simmons CaptureView 3MP (http://www.opticsplanet.net/simmons-captureview-8x22-vga-binocular-digital-camera.html)

(actually, I know this because it is posted in post #254 of the thread)

I does appear to create compressed JPEG images, rather than BMP, etc... Details at the link.

[skoob]

Definitely photoshopped. (http://xkcd.com/331/)

[wahrheit]

What is the orginal thread, and what exactly is this about?

The pic looks like the bigfoot Creekfreak one.

Also, the EXIF data seems very, very weird to me. The usual data can be found, but not the exposure time.

The focal length in the JPG says 7.5 mm. That would be a wide field of view, but the picture is clearly a long shot.

The above mentioned Simmons CaptureView are binoculars, but the EXIF data says the flash was fired.

The chopper blades are in full focus, only a very fast shutter camera could do that, not a cheapo cam or binoculars.

This seems fake/weird/shopped/strange to me.

[wahrheit]

Also, the picture has a much higher resolution than the above linked binoculars can produce.

Edit: And more importantly, where is the alleged Bigfoot?

Edit2: Upon quick check, the chopper is NOT photoshopped in my opinion.

[sthomson]

wahrheit -

There is an "enhanced" version of this photo that "clearly" shows a bigfoot. The problem is that no amount of contrast, brightness, or color balancing can be done to get the "enhanced" image if we start from the one linked above.

[baron]

Modified in what way? Somewhat difficult to judge when we're not told what to look for. The 315,493th leaf from the left might have been added after the photo was taken. What is this thread about?

[wahrheit]

wahrheit -

There is an "enhanced" version of this photo that "clearly" shows a bigfoot. The problem is that no amount of contrast, brightness, or color balancing can be done to get the "enhanced" image if we start from the one linked above.

Yep, that's the picture I was talking about. The low-res JPG Creekfreak posted in his Bigfoot thread.

However, like baron in the post above, I just don't get what's going on at the moment.

The pic Creekfreak posted was exactly the same, but with some eyes added at the right to make it look like some creature was there.

Who is ThunderFoot, where does the original picture come from, where's the thread?

[Snow]

IIRC, TF is a work colleague/friend of Creekfreak.

The thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96467)

[wahrheit]

IIRC, TF is a work colleague/friend of Creekfreak.

A friend posting a picture that shows Creekfreak tried to fool us? I still don't get it.

The thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96467)

Oh, it got moderated meanwhile. I posted there some time ago, but unsubscribed since it didn't seem to go anywhere. Thanks for the link, Snow.

[Cuddles]

Thread re-opened. ThunderFoot was given permission to start this thread by another mod, which I didn't know about. Sorry for the confusion.

However, please bear in mind that this thread is strictly for discussing photo analysis and any mention of bigfoot is to be kept in the original thread.

[ThunderFoot]

First I would like to send kudos to Cuddles, thank you.

What I am trying to do here guys is learn more about digital photography. What I know about this subject you can put in a themble and have plenty of room left over for a shot of whisky. I am NOT trying to reroute anything from that thread to here!!!

As in my orginal post I would like to find a person who is proficient in this field who can enhance the photograph and would not mind showing their work process. And bring me out of the digital photography dark a little. The friend of mine who did the first enhacment will not come to this fourm and I respect his wishes on this issue.

[ChristineR]

ThunderFoot, enhancement is a poorly defined term. In this case it may mean drawing lines on the picture, which is not really enhancing--it's adding information which is not in the original.

Think of a digital picture as a grid of numbers. Each number is a pixel, and corresponds to a certain color. Various techniques for storing the picture (jpg vs. bmp) will mean very different patterns of numbers for what appears to be the same picture.

Various compression techniques are also used. For example, a streak of eight yellow pixels will likely be represented as (8 by yellow) instead of (yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow). Since there are shades of yellow that are too close to be distinguished by the naked eye, the compression may cheat a little and remove subtle changes.

Standard enhancement techniques rely on these subtle differences. For example, a yellow object in front of a yellow object may be slightly different shades of yellow--too similar to be seen with the naked eye. A typical enhancement would be to measure the average shade of yellow and these two areas and make those pixels that are closer to shade one black and those that are closer to shade two, white. Then the image would show a black object on a white background.

There's lots more stuff along these lines that people can do, but all of it comes down to looking for subtle patterns in the numbers that represent the colors of the image.

I posted this before, but if you really want to try your hand at it, here's a free program that will likely do everything that could reasonably be done.

http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/

[baron]

I am proficient in digital enhancement yet without the first idea of what's going on in this thread I'm leaving now and won't be back. Enhance what? And for what purpose? Utterly baffling. Good luck.

[LTC8K6]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98257

Well, there is still a duplicate of this thread up.

Was that too whiny?

[alfaniner]

Can someone post a link to the "enhanced" photo? I'm not slogging through 11 pages on that other thread. I'm interested in digital photgraphy and its manipulation, not that other subject.

[chillzero]

Duplicate deleted.

[wahrheit]

Adjusting brightness and contrast won't do it, but if you turn up the shadows of the OP picture, you can make the "eyes" visible:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/45144734740b13b1e.png

left: crop from creepfreaks low-res JPG
background: the JPG from this thread, with enhanced shadows

[ThunderFoot]

Duplicate deleted.

Thanx Chill, that was my boo boo yestday.

[The Man]

Some of the tell tail signs of picture manipulation are differences in color contrast and pixel size between elements in the picture. Also when inserting an element into a background picture it is necessary to “soften” the “hard” edges of the inserted element so it blends in better with the background.

The color contrast of the background woods is clearly different from the helicopter and the foreground brush.

By zooming in on the front edge of the helicopter against the background woods, at the pixel level, you can clearly see the difference in pixilation of the helicopter and the background. The larger saw tooth pattern on the edge of the helicopter pixilation as it transfers to the background pixilation is a dead giveaway. Some of the blue pixels from the helicopter’s original background remain and results in a blue haze around the front edge of the helicopter. A better effort should have been made to “soften” the front edge of the helicopter.

Sorry but I do not know how to insert images into a post. You can use MS paint to zoom in on the front of the helicopter.

[The Man]

Also the main rotor of the helicopter is clearly visible but where is the tail rotor?

[ThunderFoot]

ThunderFoot, enhancement is a poorly defined term. In this case it may mean drawing lines on the picture, which is not really enhancing--it's adding information which is not in the original.

Think of a digital picture as a grid of numbers. Each number is a pixel, and corresponds to a certain color. Various techniques for storing the picture (jpg vs. bmp) will mean very different patterns of numbers for what appears to be the same picture.

Various compression techniques are also used. For example, a streak of eight yellow pixels will likely be represented as (8 by yellow) instead of (yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow). Since there are shades of yellow that are too close to be distinguished by the naked eye, the compression may cheat a little and remove subtle changes.

Standard enhancement techniques rely on these subtle differences. For example, a yellow object in front of a yellow object may be slightly different shades of yellow--too similar to be seen with the naked eye. A typical enhancement would be to measure the average shade of yellow and these two areas and make those pixels that are closer to shade one black and those that are closer to shade two, white. Then the image would show a black object on a white background.

There's lots more stuff along these lines that people can do, but all of it comes down to looking for subtle patterns in the numbers that represent the colors of the image.

I posted this before, but if you really want to try your hand at it, here's a free program that will likely do everything that could reasonably be done.

http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/

I am sure that was a very poor way of stateing that phrase. And I am sure as we go through this I will make other "foopas". Please just hang in there with me, I do learn. Sometimes very slowly but I get there, LOL.

That was a wonderful way you explained it and I understand a little more. But right now it’s like teaching collage physics to a kindergarten student.

[LTC8K6]

I still can't see the point in asking if the original photo is enhanced...

No one ever claimed it was.

The OP knows the person who made the enhanced version, so why come here and ask us to explain how it was done?

[LTC8K6]

Also the main rotor of the helicopter is clearly visible but where is the tail rotor?

Spinning too fast for the CCD.

[ThunderFoot]

Can someone post a link to the "enhanced" photo? I'm not slogging through 11 pages on that other thread. I'm interested in digital photgraphy and its manipulation, not that other subject.


I tried to post the enhanced photograph on here but the file was to large. Again, my skills stand in my way. If someone can do it I would love to have it on here. Please IM me with an e-mail address and I will send it to you.

[tuc0]

wahrheit: the exif does seem a little strange but it gives the shutter speed as 1/280 sec.
Also could you tell me where exactly to look for the little guy in the original photograph (haven't see the "enhanced" version)?

At first glance i have to say the original doesn't seem photoshopped. And if it is, then it's a damn good job.

here is the complete Exif:

* Image Description =
* Camera Make =
* Camera Model = CaptureV
* Picture Orientation = normal (1)
* X-Resolution = 72/1 = 72.00
* Y-Resolution = 72/1 = 72.00
* X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
* Last Modified Date/Time = 2007:04:16 03:56:17
* Y/Cb/Cr Positioning (Subsampling) = co-sited / datum point (2)

* Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 10/2800 second = 0.00357 second
* Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 28/10 = F2.80
* Exposure Program = normal program (2)
* ISO Speed Ratings = 100
* Exif Version = 0220
* Original Date/Time = 2007:04:16 03:56:17
* Digitization Date/Time = 2007:04:16 03:56:17
* Components Configuration = 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr
* Compressed Bits per Pixel = 2/1 = 2.00
* Brightness (APEX) = 8600/1000
Brightness = 388.02 foot-lambert
* Exposure Bias (EV) = 1/11 = 0.09
* Max Aperture Value (APEX) = 3/2 = 1.50
Max Aperture = F1.68
* Metering Mode = center weighted average (2)
* Light Source / White Balance = unknown (0)
* Flash = n/a (215)
* Focal Length = 82/11 mm = 7.45 mm
* Subject Location = 1024,768,2048,1536 x/y coordinates of center and width/height of rectangle (4)
* FlashPix Version = 0100
* Colour Space = sRGB (1)
* Image Width = 2048 pixels
* Image Height = 1536 pixels
* Image Source = digital still camera (DSC)
* Scene Type = directly photographed image
* Custom Rendered = normal process (0)
* Exposure Mode = auto exposure (0)
* White Balance = auto (0)
* Digital Zoom Ratio = 0/1 = 0.00
* Focal Length in 35mm Film = 0
* Scene Capture Type = standard (0)
* Gain Control = n/a (0)
* Contrast = normal (0)
* Saturation = normal (0)
* Sharpness = (null)
* Subject Distance Range = unknown (0)

* Interoperability Index = R98
* Interoperability Version = 0100

[ThunderFoot]

I still can't see the point in asking if the original photo is enhanced...

No one ever claimed it was.

The OP knows the person who made the enhanced version, so why come here and ask us to explain how it was done?

LTC I am here for my own education in this area with out all the trash that was going on over in the other thread, that's all.

[wahrheit]

The color contrast of the background woods is clearly different from the helicopter and the foreground brush.

Which is nothing special. The more distant the objects, the more blue they become under most normal light conditions.

No surprise the wood in the background is blueish compared to the foreground.

Like here, for example:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/451447347a91c9797.png


By zooming in on the front edge of the helicopter against the background woods, at the pixel level, you can clearly see the difference in pixilation of the helicopter and the background. The larger saw tooth pattern on the edge of the helicopter pixilation as it transfers to the background pixilation is a dead giveaway.


I'm sorry but I fail to see this, can't find anything special here.

Some of the blue pixels from the helicopter’s original background remain and results in a blue haze around the front edge of the helicopter.


You can see this happen quite frequently with cheapo sensors. The overexposed white "spills" into the surrounding pixels.


Also the main rotor of the helicopter is clearly visible but where is the tail rotor?

I suggest you do a google image search on "helicopter". You will find numerous pictures of in-flight helicopters where you can barely or not at all see the tail rotor. It's too fast for normal shutter speeds.

[ThunderFoot]

Ok folks, I have to go to work again. The weekends are very busy for me as I am working two jobs on the weekends. I will try to come by as much as possable and keep up with what is going on. PLEASE KEEP THIS ON THREAD!!!!! I don't want to come home and find it has been closed because someone is talking about the other thread and if I can't stop that I have already talked to the mods and this thread will be closed.

I am new to this fourm and have not seen any threads on "Digital Photography" and I could learn a lot from this. Please be kind to each other and have a GREAT DAY.

[ThunderFoot]

Which is nothing special. The more distant the objects, the more blue they become under most normal light conditions.

No surprise the wood in the background is blueish compared to the foreground.

Like here, for example:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/451447347a91c9797.png





I'm sorry but I fail to see this, can't find anything special here.




You can see this happen quite frequently with cheapo sensors. The overexposed white "spills" into the surrounding pixels.




I suggest you do a google image search on "helicopter". You will find numerous pictures of in-flight helicopters where you can barely or not at all see the tail rotor. It's too fast for normal shutter speeds.

The photograph was taken in a marsh area in the panhandle of Florida and may account for some of the contrast in the background trees and the brush in the foreground.

[wahrheit]

The photograph was taken in a marsh area in the panhandle of Florida and may account for some of the contrast in the background trees and the brush in the foreground.

It doesn't matter much where it was taken. As long as there is air and some humidity, the more blue objects become in the distance.


@ tuc0: Thanks for the additional EXIF, I missed the shutter speed because I looked at a shortened version.

1/280 seems to fit the blur of the rotors. I looked at a couple of images I found that had a helicopter and EXIF data. The blur of the rotors seems to match an exposure time of 1/280.

Anyway, as of now, I have no reason to believe that this image was tampered with.

[Snow]

ThunderFoot,

I can't help with photo analysis as I'm just an amateur who messes about with photos for my own amusement. I would suggest you get hold of a photo editing package and have a play with any old photo just to see the various types of things it is possible to do ... it's good fun ... and I think this would help you understand what the more tech-savvy posters are saying.

In case it's any help this page (http://www.majorgeeks.com/downloads37.html) at the MajorGeeks site has a list of freeware and shareware graphics programs you can download.

Personally, I've used PaintShopPro for years - but only because I originally got a free version off a magazine cover disc, it does what I need and I am too lazy to learn how to use Photoshop. ;)

[The Man]

I suggest you do a google image search on "helicopter". You will find numerous pictures of in-flight helicopters where you can barely or not at all see the tail rotor. It's too fast for normal shutter speeds.



All of the pictures I have seen where the main rotor is visible the tail rotor is visible as well. I just don’t see how the shutter speed could be sufficiently fast to capture the main rotor yet not even show a blur of the tail rotor? If you can give me a link to any pictures like you have described I would be more then happy to capitulate.

[wahrheit]

All of the pictures I have seen where the main rotor is visible the tail rotor is visible as well. I just don’t see how the shutter speed could be sufficiently fast to capture the main rotor yet not even show a blur of the tail rotor? If you can give me a link to any pictures like you have described I would be more then happy to capitulate.

Actually, you can often see a blurred tail rotor, but only in pictures with a bright background, like the sky.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/grandcanyon/0621_helicopter.jpg
http://ebible.org/mpj/gallery/Helicopter%20taking%20off.jpg
Small blur visible:
http://www.phbraasch.de/deutsch/pic/Lfz_Hubschrauber.jpg
Probably not visible in a situation like the OP
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/AH-1_Cobra.jpg/800px-AH-1_Cobra.jpg

Also, the main blades of the helicopter in the OP are almost at eye-level with the photographer. Blurring will not be so strong as when you photograph a helicopter in the sky from below. If you look at the OP image, the blade on the right is actually quite blurred. Not as crisp as the one on the left of the picture.

What I find also quite convincing is the blurring caused by the heat of the exhaust pipes. You can see it left of the main rotor axis. That's why I think this is not a photoshop job. If so, it was done by a real pro.

[steve s]

I just don’t see how the shutter speed could be sufficiently fast to capture the main rotor yet not even show a blur of the tail rotor?


Because the main rotor is coming directly toward the viewer, its position during the exposure doesn't change much. But because the tail rotor is moving perpendicular to your line of sight, its position moves a lot during the exposure.

You can see this for yourself. Take a pencil and quickly wave it up and down in front of your face. It's very blurred. Now wave it to and fro at eye level. Its appearance doesn't change much.

ETA: I'm not even sure what we're supposed to be looking at. Is someone suggesting that a shadow in the woods is Bigfoot? What about all the other shadows in that pic?

Steve S.

[wahrheit]

ETA: I'm not even sure what we're supposed to be looking at. Is someone suggesting that a shadow in the woods is Bigfoot? What about all the other shadows in that pic?

Don't use the word that starts with "B" and ends with "foot" in this thread, see above. The mods and the OP guy want this to be a digital photo thread, only.

Other than that, your question is of course spot on.

[sthomson]

Thunderfoot - I don't think that a high-resolution version of the "enhanced" picture was ever provided to this forum. If you'd like, you can mail it to me and I will upload it to my photobucket account and post it here. PM me.

[ChristineR]

The best quality versions of the pictures (so far as I know) are here:

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4475

[wahrheit]

Thanks for this link, ChristineR!

I took the "original" JPG, and the one labeled "enhanced", the one sent to the guy who posted that thread over there (if I understood correctly).

This will take several steps/posts. I do not know where this is going, let's see. I'll post step by step.

STEP 1

I resized and cropped the original JPG to match the lower resolution enhanced JPG. No further modifications:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_45144734b6ec97ffb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9146)

(Click for full size)

[wahrheit]

STEP 2

I adjusted the brightness and contrast of the original JPG, also the color balance (more green and yellow).

My goal was to make the original match the "enhanced" JPG regarding brightness, color tone etc.

Not perfect, but pretty close I think:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_45144734b98661412.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9147)

I'm already having a very bad feeling about the picture on the left, the "enhanced" one. Open the full size version of my above STEP 2 picture, and cover the middle of the picture with your hand. The top and bottom part look like exactly (well, almost exactly) the same picture. Compare the bushes in the middle - they seem almost 100% identical in appearance. Only that dark thingy there on the very right seems to stand out. Not sure about this yet, let's see.

[ChristineR]

I believe it was claimed that the enhanced version has the blue channel turned up. I not sure why this would be done, as the dark spot of interest is not particularly blue. However, the colors do appear to be less saturated in the enhanced version.

For ThunderFoot and others: saturation is like the color knob on your TV. Turn it all the way down and you've got black and white TV. What may be happening here is that the color knob is turned down but the blue knob is turned up only in one area. This is not an outrageous thing to do, but if you draw an outline of a particular shape and color it over with blue (as if you put a clear blue paper doll cutout over the image) you are added info to the image.

An example which I hope might help: You might do something like this to make a little girl's dress more vividly blue. But if you arbitrarily recolor a dress-shaped portion of the image and tell people there is a ghostly blue dress in the image, you have added info.

[wahrheit]

I believe it was claimed that the enhanced version has the blue channel turned up.

That would have to be a rumour, since the enhanced JPG has more yellow than the original, quite the opposite of blue.

Anyway, I gave it a try and played around with the blue channel, adding a bit of blue etc. — no usable result, it completely destroys the image, makes it look unreal.

I'm trying various other things right now, will post shortly.

[wahrheit]

STEP 3

Since both pictures seem very similar to me already, despite that dark thing there on the right, I was not sure what to do next in terms of overall image adjustments to get the original one closer to the "enhanced" JPG.

Here's a brief protocol of what I did:

STEP 3 Try 1:
The dark thing in the enhanced picture seems quite clear, crisp. I tried various sharpening filters – not one of them made the original JPG look even remotely close to the enhanced one. Also, the enhanced picture does not show any signs of a sharpening filter used.
Result: sharpening? No.

STEP 3 Try 2:
Enhancing the shadows of the orginal picture. That's similar to what I did previously in this thread. While this makes the "eyes" a little bit visible, it destroys the rest of the picture:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_45144734be4a87ee1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9149)

While this makes the dark shape resemble more the one in the "enhanced" JPG, this can't be it.

STEP 3 Try 3:
I am getting desperate now! Trying various things to make the shape on the right resemble the one on the left, in the "enhanced" picture.

How could those "eyes" possibly show up? Even an extreme adjustment of brightness and contrast does not work:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_45144734c076816a9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9150)

My bad feeling about that "enhanced" picture get's even worse. I found another detail that bothers me, will show you in the next post.

[wahrheit]

STEP 4

Let's recap. Back in Step 2 we already had what I would say are very similar images, except for that dark thing on the right:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_45144734b98661412.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9147)

Since both images look quite similar to me in general appearance, I would not know how in the world the one on the left could clearly show that figure.

How?

As of now, for all I know about Photoshop, photographs and stuff, I have no other explanation that the "enhanced" picture has been deliberately modified by painting. In other words: I think someone added a few pixels here and there.

Look at this close-up of my current Photoshop file:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_45144734c41de3ee9.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9151)

You can see that the bushes and trees look VERY similar in both pictures. Only that dark shape stands out in the "enhanced" picture. Look at the "eyes" - how in the world could that happen only by adjusting contrast, brightness etc.? The rest of the picture is almost perfectly identical. Why not the head?

Look left of the "eyes". In the original JPG, there is not enough green leaves to make such a distinct shape, not even if I turn up values here and there to the extreme.

My conclusion for now:

With the given material, I personally do not see any way to produce that "enhanced" picture without pixel modification. My best guess: Someone painted around in that picture.

[sesshin]

well here is my 2 cents. I located where that part of the image was on a histogram and ramped up the R, G, & B channels up pretty severely to see what would be hidden , if anything at all.

from what I can tell the supposed bigfoot shape doesn't "pop" out of the background as much as it does in the enhanced pics, even with severe enhancements. My guess would be the shape of the bigfoot was artificially imposed somehow, either by drawing it in or masking it out.

http://dwellunderground.com/bigfoot.jpg

I tried to show where the delineation of bigfoot's head and the trees behind it should be, but I don't see anything at all. I think its just an opening between some branches.

[wahrheit]

I fully agree, sesshin. The area you pointed out, left of the "head", was exactly what made me come to my conclusion above.

[baron]

OK, against my better judgement...

A quick local equalize shows the shape, and simulacra vaguely resembling a head. It also shows a second simulacra in the background, which IMO is better than the other. However, a brief examination shows that these shapes are negative shapes created from branches and leaves.

It appears a later (and rather poor) enhancement was added to dot the eyes. A pity they didn't cross the t's too, but there you go.

http://www.zen116261.zen.co.uk/simulacra.jpg

[sthomson]

wahrheit - look at the tree branch RIGHT next to the eyes in the "enhanced" picture - to me, it look brighter than the corresponding tree branch in the original picture. By contrast, the tree branches across his stomach look to be the same brightness in both pictures. Even the branch right UNDER the eyes about the same brightness in both pics.

In other words, I think that area was selectively tampered with.

Edited to add: Baron, a few of us have pointed out that shape before, with much glee and chortling, since the tree is visible through the shadow.

[baron]

Edited to add: Baron, a few of us have pointed out that shape before, with much glee and chortling, since the tree is visible through the shadow.

Sorry, didn't read the other thread :)

Yep, I'm sure if I were of a mind I could find a whole zoo in that wood, plus a few dead relatives too.

[sthomson]

Sorry, didn't read the other thread :)

Yep, I'm sure if I were of a mind I could find a whole zoo in that wood, plus a few dead relatives too.

I'm sure no one blames you. :D

[wahrheit]

It appears a later (and rather poor) enhancement was added to dot the eyes.

Absolutely. I could not come up with any other possible explanation while playing around with Photoshop.

wahrheit - look at the tree branch RIGHT next to the eyes in the "enhanced" picture ...

Yep, what's supposed to look like the "cheekbone" must have been tampered with, I couldn't get that contrast by adjusting overall image properties. That is, without ruining the rest of the picture.

[LTC8K6]

It's only a 3.2MP camera, so you can forget about high resolution.

All of the photos have been provided previously.

They are still right where they always were.

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4475

[LTC8K6]

Baron, the second simulacra's "shoulder" aka the little Y tree, is also in the far right of this photo.

http://www.postimage.org/aV1XLZbJ-b9faee80dfd29f837a1b828ca9438c37.jpg

[wahrheit]

It's only a 3.2MP camera, so you can forget about high resolution.

High resolution compared to the JPG creekfreak uploaded.


They are still right where they always were.

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4475

That's the link ChristineR posted before, that's where we took the pictures from.

[LTC8K6]

That's the link ChristineR posted before, that's where we took the pictures from.

I know it is.

We already did all of this in the moderated forum...

[marting]

Nearly all digital cameras create color images by interpolation of Bayer filtered sensor values. For instance, an 8MP image is formed from 4MP of green pixels, 2MP of blue pixels, and 2MP of red pixels. Thus a great deal of image content is estimated. The specific algorithms used can vary but are specific to each camera. Since the vast majority of output image value combinations can not be created by a specific camera it should be possible to identify manipulated images by determining if any portions of the image contains "impossible" value combinations.

It should also be possible to identify the specific algorithm used in the Bayer interpolation by examining an image.

This wouldn't be able to identify all manipulated images but should be able to declare an image manipulated with certainty if it can identify even one impossible set of adjacent pixel values.

[wahrheit]

Nearly all digital cameras create color images by interpolation of Bayer filtered sensor values. For instance, an 8MP image is formed from 4MP of green pixels, 2MP of blue pixels, and 2MP of red pixels. Thus a great deal of image content is estimated. The specific algorithms used can vary but are specific to each camera. Since the vast majority of output image value combinations can not be created by a specific camera it should be possible to identify manipulated images by determining if any portions of the image contains "impossible" value combinations.

It should also be possible to identify the specific algorithm used in the Bayer interpolation by examining an image.

This wouldn't be able to identify all manipulated images but should be able to declare an image manipulated with certainty if it can identify even one impossible set of adjacent pixel values.

Yes, but for this to work we would need the "enhanced" picture in the original resolution of the camera, and not only the cropped and resized JPG we have so far.

Also, as far as I know, we do have the original JPG in full resolution. And this JPG does not show some creature on the right hand side. Even without Bayer and sensors - there's only one possible conclusion so far: Someone played around with that picture.

[marting]

Also, as far as I know, we do have the original JPG in full resolution. And this JPG does not show some creature on the right hand side. Even without Bayer and sensors - there's only one possible conclusion so far: Someone played around with that picture.

Yes, the "enhanced" picture does look "painted" to me as well.

[LTC8K6]

Well, if after 37 pages and 1,461 posts in that "other" thread, we never saw a full size enhanced photo, I somehow doubt we will now. The enhancement included the crop, probably to make the scene look better.

marting, maybe it should be noted that the Bushnell camera does 4MP interpolated as well.

Perhaps we should ask again?

Is there a full size enhanced photo, Creek? Thunderfoot? Was the photo cropped by Russo when you got it back? Was the enhanced and cropped photo ever on the SD card?

[ThunderFoot]

Yes, but for this to work we would need the "enhanced" picture in the original resolution of the camera, and not only the cropped and resized JPG we have so far.

Also, as far as I know, we do have the original JPG in full resolution. And this JPG does not show some creature on the right hand side. Even without Bayer and sensors - there's only one possible conclusion so far: Someone played around with that picture.


That is the only enhanced photo I have. He did not give me anything other than the cropped photo. Sorry.

By the way guys, you are doing a fantastic job. I am leaning loads just watching you. Thank all of you so very much.

[ThunderFoot]

Now it's off to my next job. Well, somebody's gotta pay the bills around here,,LOL.

[GT/CS]

.......By the way guys, you are doing a fantastic job. I am leaning loads just watching you. Thank all of you so very much.

I'm just lurking on this thread but would like to second that comment. The analysis performed on these photos has been extremely useful. On the other thread I was 90/10 on the photo being manipulated. All of you got rid of that annoying 10%!

[The Man]

Thanks Wahrheit, I appreciate the links and definitely the third link shows a similar helicopter in about the same orientation. From that it is clear how the tail rotor might not be visible in the OP picture.

I certainly do not claim to be an expert in photographic analysis. I only know what I had to do in order to composite pictures (which I have been doing for a long time, even before computers and digital cameras). What I have not done is examine other people’s photographs in order to determine alteration. Perhaps, the pixilation aspects that I described before, which you did not see, are only due to my expectations of composite pictures and may be the result of digital pictures in general (which I have not examined in that detail without actively compositing).

You have provided reasonable explanations for all the concerns that I have presented. As such, I must stipulate that I can provide no definite evidence that the picture has been altered.

That being said, the “enhancements” made to the picture in order to see the Bigfoot can be seen anywhere. Someone might see the same image on their grilled cheese sandwich.

[ThunderFoot]

Baron, the second simulacra's "shoulder" aka the little Y tree, is also in the far right of this photo.

http://www.postimage.org/aV1XLZbJ-b9faee80dfd29f837a1b828ca9438c37.jpg


Yes LTC the only problem with this photograph of the day after is that it needed to be a little more to the right. Just a little more and he would have had the same area, but it's not quite there.

I am, when I get time too, going to go back to that location and take more photographs. I have been studying the photographs we have and I have found some landmarks I think I should be able to find.

[ThunderFoot]

Also LTC in the other day after photos I have not be able find landmarks where I can say for sure "that is the spot".

[LTC8K6]

All I was trying to achive was to bring the eyes out becouse a freind of mine would not beleave it could be done . I did this by turning the blues up and I probly did more then that but I do not remember all that I did to tell you the truth . But I did achive what I set out to do and that was just to show that the eyes could be brought out by just adjusting and not adding .

Sounds like an admission to me...

[ThunderFoot]

Sounds like an admission to me...


??? I have no idea what you are talking about. The quote you just posted was not even on this thread and not by me.

[chillzero]

Sounds like an admission to me...

Further discussion of this issue should be taken to the appropriate moderated thread. THIS thread is for discussion of technical techniques - NOT about any claims regarding the image itself.

[LTC8K6]

My question: Has the orginal photograph been tampered with or photoshopped with cut and paste or things of the sort? Also I would like to know if someone can enhance the orginal photograph with the same rusults and provide documentation of how they went through the process

I merely repsonded to the question from Thunderfoot with a quote from the photographer that I think answers those questions. That answer being no, the original photo was not "tampered with or photoshopped with cut and paste or things of the sort", and no, no one can enhance the photograph with the same results.

Thunderfoot, why won't the person who did the enhancement explain how it was done to you? I would think they would be the person who could best help you out. Even if you didn't understand it, you could tell us what he said, and someone here could explain the terms and processes to you.

As in my orginal post I would like to find a person who is proficient in this field who can enhance the photograph and would not mind showing their work process. And bring me out of the digital photography dark a little. The friend of mine who did the first enhacment will not come to this fourm and I respect his wishes on this issue.

[ThunderFoot]

LTC I have to agree with Chill on this issue that these questions are not prudent to this thread. If you would like to ask those questions on the other thread I will do my best to answer them. Provided the make it passed moderation.