Post by rocky on Jun 9, 2007 10:07:11 GMT -4
OK you have asked me twice now lets cast my eye over it.
I see a lo res* Jpeg compressed photograph that has been digitally altered (evidence through the circled area and the addition of a logo (FFS), the image either in the circle or outside it has been altered, either in degredation or enhancement. it shows signs of multiple lefels of artefacts or someone cating multiple sharpen filters over a previously artefacted image, which would indicate that this image has undergone a minimum of 3 levels of digital processing, the logo denoting the source showing the least compression errors the sky and contrasted down light (see below) appear to have gone through many high order jpeg compress sequences, which would account for some of the serious blending/bleeding/boundary/definition anomolies
I perceive a representation of sky which jpg compression has has a field day with as the boundaries of shade are very noticeable within the blue I perceive what could be cloud dust or smoke one area looking almost Gaussian in density, I determine a uniform slab faced structure or wall in colour and perceived scale I fancy a medieval gritstone defense, for a Spanish city or similar, a causeway or raised platform almost reminiscent of a monorail track which seems to be heading into the wall to possible light sources one spherical the other with a downward reflector, however due to the quality of image it is hard to perceive as there are definite discrete steps in colour and intensity that do not follow with the inverse square law, due to the glare of the lights I can deduce that either the capture device was of limited quality or is fixed in place, whichever the contrast is bad, within the highlighted area I see Jpeg artefacts more clearly over the continuation of the background. after playing with some filters, it is more aesthetically pleasing when converted to monochrome scale in Blues, however the highlighted area spoils the overall effect
edit * Low res is not exactly what I mean as it has a 1-1 res and is not line doubled etc, Lo fi would be better, some of the scaling look like it has been reduced and then enlarged to that size, I used to do vid streaming for a couple of sites and even in 1998 I would have been ashamed of definition like that from a cheapo webcam running 1 FPS over 14k,
I see a lo res* Jpeg compressed photograph that has been digitally altered (evidence through the circled area and the addition of a logo (FFS), the image either in the circle or outside it has been altered, either in degredation or enhancement. it shows signs of multiple lefels of artefacts or someone cating multiple sharpen filters over a previously artefacted image, which would indicate that this image has undergone a minimum of 3 levels of digital processing, the logo denoting the source showing the least compression errors the sky and contrasted down light (see below) appear to have gone through many high order jpeg compress sequences, which would account for some of the serious blending/bleeding/boundary/definition anomolies
I perceive a representation of sky which jpg compression has has a field day with as the boundaries of shade are very noticeable within the blue I perceive what could be cloud dust or smoke one area looking almost Gaussian in density, I determine a uniform slab faced structure or wall in colour and perceived scale I fancy a medieval gritstone defense, for a Spanish city or similar, a causeway or raised platform almost reminiscent of a monorail track which seems to be heading into the wall to possible light sources one spherical the other with a downward reflector, however due to the quality of image it is hard to perceive as there are definite discrete steps in colour and intensity that do not follow with the inverse square law, due to the glare of the lights I can deduce that either the capture device was of limited quality or is fixed in place, whichever the contrast is bad, within the highlighted area I see Jpeg artefacts more clearly over the continuation of the background. after playing with some filters, it is more aesthetically pleasing when converted to monochrome scale in Blues, however the highlighted area spoils the overall effect
edit * Low res is not exactly what I mean as it has a 1-1 res and is not line doubled etc, Lo fi would be better, some of the scaling look like it has been reduced and then enlarged to that size, I used to do vid streaming for a couple of sites and even in 1998 I would have been ashamed of definition like that from a cheapo webcam running 1 FPS over 14k,
I don't know if you're being serious or trying to be funny.
This is supposed to be a frame of the footage released by the government. Why would the government doctor a picture of the nose of a 757 to make it look like the nose of a plane that's too pointed to be that of a 757?