You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
But what am I thinking? CiC won't listen to science. This is the second time I've come with an explanation in a field I'm an expert in and I can already predict the response will be "Yeah but the Jews used their Jew magic on it!"
I'm quite enjoying the fact that you're failing people with actual photography and photoshop experience for explaining the inconsistencies.
And I have to agree with Ronin. It's compression artifacts, nothing more. The same thing happens with video footage compressed in certain codec shells.
uh wtf. if, and this is a BIG IF, the picture was in fact photoshopped, why would you be really comparing whats in front of him instead of concentrating on the visuals on the back? i dont' see how editing anything in front of him will affect what they wanted to photoshop out.
and do a screen shot of your desktop CiC, and zoom in to the degree it was zoomed in on that picture. i guarantee you will start to see irregularities too.
and your source, its a blog. not sure how legit that can be.
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,646
Thanked 10,380 Times in 3,906 Posts
To be fair you don't see the same degree of jaggies/etc with those around him also running until you get to those further behind in the crowd and it also looks like a different set of bricks in front of his face; so i can understand why people would point to it and go "OMG PS!"
But I don't think this is significant as said it just seems like typical jpg compression
weird i thought i posted this message but left it without hitting reply
Getting logic'd to death by people who pretty much do photography for a living (or work extensively in it) and CiC still tries to prove he's right, WHILE using the very slanted PressTV as a source for an argument. Typical.
Jews invented photography so they can use their magic to hide this evidence and truthers have the "antidote" to reveal it right?
To hide his hand holding the strap. Irregularities in the brick pattern tells you a lot too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Alright, let me explain this to all the sane people.
The people that run these conspiracy sites don't realize that 1600x1200 is 2MP...pedestrian. That's high res if this was 1998 and we were running on 56k. Zooming in to what looks like at least a 200% or greater crop and you're going to get artifacts.
You notice the EXACT SAME THING happening to the guy in the lower left of the cropped picture? Did they photoshop that completely extraneous guy in as well? Zoom in to other parts of the wall. This is because the picture is compressed (JPEGs are compressed...all of them) and the formula for the compression can't tell the difference between the brick wall and the brick wall with small elements or shadows of the suspect in front of it. It may also be the camera sensor. I won't go into it but a sensor with poor resolution wouldn't be able to pick up those details. It may also be shadows. Look up the term "dynamic range" and why most digital cameras don't have very much of it.
Go ahead and open ANY PHOTO with a busy background like a brick wall and you'll see the same.
Also, let's say you're right...that photo is PS'ed. What you're telling me is that they took a picture of the suspect in front of a wall with smaller bricks but with the same lighting and angle and trying to blend that into a photo with an empty wall of larger bricks which sounds like a pain in the ass...
...rather than do what everyone that's ever used Photoshop would do and mask around the guy, cut him out of the picture and paste him onto the picture you want to doctor.
So not only is it not a photoshop job but if it were, you found the world's best AND worst photoshopper ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNaRWaVe
and do a screen shot of your desktop CiC, and zoom in to the degree it was zoomed in on that picture. i guarantee you will start to see irregularities too.
I'm going to remove CiC's ability to fail. Because then he'll have to make an actual argument.
I have no issue with him saying whatever he wants but if you're going to post this shit, you have to back it up or you're a troll. He doesn't make any arguments other than we're wrong because we don't agree with his view.
And photoshop has convinced legions of women everywhere that Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive. You'd think the Zionists with their infinite power and resources would be able to hire a better photoshop guy than Cosmopolitan.
To hide his hand holding the strap. Irregularities in the brick pattern tells you a lot too.
So tell me then, in your own words, exactly why jpeg compression can't be attributed to this. Since you've been failing everyone who argues against it, you obviously have some knowledge that us professionals are unfamiliar with.
So tell me, then, in your own words exactly why jpeg compression can't be attributed to this. Since you've been failing everyone who argues against it, you obviously have some knowledge that us professionals are unfamiliar with.
Don't you watch CSI or 24? Clearly the government has camera technology that has infinite resolution and thus does not require any type of compression whatsoever and allows them to zoom in and enhance images 1000x in perfect clarity.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyxx
Sonick is a genius. I won't go into detail what's so great about his post. But it's damn good!
2010 Toyota Rav4 Limited V6 - Wifey's Daily Driver
2009 BMW 128i - Daily Driver
2007 Toyota Rav4 Sport V6 - Sold
1999 Mazda Miata - Sold
2003 Mazda Protege5 - Sold
1987 BMW 325is - Sold
1990 Mazda Miata - Sold
By the way, CharlesIsCharge's fail button has been revoked.
He will get it back if one of the following happens:
1. He completes an argument against JPEG compression, sensor dynamic range and resolution capabilities (y'know...science) being the cause of the irregular brick pattern around the suspect.
2. He admits that we're right and that he mistakenly took some moron's non-expert word (guy that wrote it is an Yale Econ grad...not a graphic designer or photo retoucher) as the gospel and that he will find more reliable sources in the future.
If I deem your answer acceptable, I'll even give you a "Victor of Truth" title for a month. But until then, you're just an idiot that believed some dumbass' blog post that cites no references and it isn't even the author's field of expertise. Tell me I'm wrong.
Most photographers are aware of the power of photoshop but the quickest way to tell us how much of a moron you are is if you believe EVERYTHING is photoshopped or fixable in post.
Ive shown evidence, prove it be otherwise... lets see other photos that re-arrange brick work and significantly change in texture as much the photo did.
Ive shown evidence, prove it be otherwise... lets see other photos that re-arrange brick work and significantly change in texture as much the photo did.
Quote:
The Jpeg compression process introduces more artifacts at lower quality settings. These become particularly visible near edges, and in areas of solid colour where boundaries of 8X8 pixel blocks can show irregularities. Use of Jpeg images as input for editing can be problematic, particularly since resizing/resampling may move the boundaries of the 8X8 pixel blocks.
The distortion in my photo is not consistent to what you have shown me or what you guys are saying here. Please rebuttal or show decent material to prove your point.
A few members on this page are already on my "people who dont have common sense" list so I dont see why I should even need to reply to them.
The distortion in my photo is not consistent to what you have shown me or what you guys are saying here. Please rebuttal or show decent material to prove your point.
A few members on this page are already on my "people who dont have common sense" list so I dont see why I should even need to reply to them.
Bravo, great way to have an open forum for discussion/debate.
Arash, you want debate, you get it. Yet every time someone directly confronts you on one of your points and asks you for a response, you bitch out and find a way around it. Be it asking another question, or taking the current discussion down a completely different tangent hoping that no one remembers the original one. I've noticed this pattern. You HATE (or more specifically, never) admit you're wrong or you've been proven wrong by logic and facts.
Here, you have two experts in photography against some conspiracy theorist and his claims. Instead of challenging the experts, you choose to leave the discussion and only go with your original evidence and that's it. You have NOTHING to support it. You know it, we all know it and yet you can't admit you're wrong.
Common sense says to either back yourself up and give what's been asked of you after you've opened up debate after people have answered your queries in here. But, as everyone here knows, your common sense seems to "differ".
I'm probably on that "list", but probably because I've asked you a question and you haven't answered it after I've already attempted to debate you (answering your original questions) in another thread. You'll never admit your wrong though, which is pretty sad.
The distortion in my photo is not consistent to what you have shown me or what you guys are saying here. Please rebuttal or show decent material to prove your point.
A few members on this page are already on my "people who dont have common sense" list so I dont see why I should even need to reply to them.
The artifacting isn't even that bad. I can clearly still see the brick lines.
We don't need to prove anything. All the evidence points to JPEG compression and the photo being authentic. You're the one that didn't post any proof of it being fake. I know for a fact that this is what's happening because I'm an expert in the field while you just blindly followed the opinion of a random man on the internet like a child walking off with a guy that owns a white van.
What you have is nothing except the opinion of one random person. What makes him an expert that you'd believe over me...someone with 15 years of Photoshop experience and could probably doctor that photo better than the Zionists have (which they haven't...in my expert opinion).
Ralph Lopez is co-founder and director of Jobs for Afghans, a citizens' advocacy organization dedicated to Afghan-led, bottom-up development in Afghanistan. He is a freelance journalist and blogger who has published in the Boston Globe and the Baltimore Sun, as well as online at Alternet.org, Consortiumnews.com, AfterDowningStreet, and many other online journals. He filmed and produced the independent documentary film "Afghan Marshall Plan: Winning with Job not Guns." He is a graduate of Yale Unversity.
This guy said "Oh, that looks like photoshop." and apparently that's proof. I guess he failed to mention his degree in forensic imaging.
This is the caliber of argument we always get from this guy. Quoting random nutbag nobodies stating opinion as fact and when he's faced with evidence to the contrary from people who actually know what they're talking about...well, you see what's happening here.
Congratulations. I'm going to remove your thanks button in a second too if you don't either make an argument or admit you're wrong.
The distortion in my photo is not consistent to what you have shown me or what you guys are saying here. Please rebuttal or show decent material to prove your point.
A few members on this page are already on my "people who dont have common sense" list so I dont see why I should even need to reply to them.
Artifacts aren't the same in every picture. They take shape in various forms.
Using the picture that you provided, I took a quick look and found more anomalies.
Feel free to open up your own copy of that picture and look at the spots I circled. You'll see even worse artifacts than that surrounding whatshisface.
Feel free to open up your own copy of that picture and look at the spots I circled. You'll see even worse artifacts than that surrounding whatshisface.
Just skimming through... why are there distortions around the rings you circled? I looked up the original and zoomed... yours is further reduced purposly to misguide this forum or it was an uneducated blunder.
Just skimming through... why are there distortions around the rings you circled? I looked up the original and zoomed... yours is further reduced purposly to misguide this forum or it was an uneducated blunder.
Clearly you missed the spot where I wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomac
Feel free to open up your own copy of that picture and look at the spots I circled.
My copy is degraded because it's there merely a reference guide for where you should look at your own copy of the picture.
And your comment about it being degraded also proves the rest of our point. JPEG COMPRESSION degrades the image quality.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
