The camera never lies
-
Colin Davies wrote: Actually I think it would be possible to create a tool to determine the probability of a photo to have been doctored up. Interesting idea. Get right on that, will you? :) But won't JPG'ng pictures highly introduce these artifacts, and obscure the others? Of course, on tv all the time they are able to take a tiny bit of reflection and wizard enhance the hell out of it and produce the complete license plate. Or the real killer, as seen in the dead person's eyes. I want this photoshop plugin, dammit. All my Sharpen settings do it wipe out the picture. :((
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
The old adage garbage in garbage out applies. And new information is just that: created after the fact. As to the artifacts, the common tool for removing something from an image is the clone brush (rubber stamp). It takes an area and paints it into another. Thus you can only remove things with a fairly chaotic or uniform background with a large sample in the image, like a brick wall, lawn, or car paint job. More complicated removals require actual artistry (fixing borders between to backgrounds, etc). In any case you have to be careful you preserve the grain of the film, etc. Pic-To-Pic additions are the easiest to do, as long as the backgrounds are fairly similar. Grain and lighting can be carried over completly. Digital photographers very commonly take a duck from one frame, a car from another, and the background from the third so that they can reposition them all with ease over the base background. Adding material from scratch is pure art, and you need to replicate the grain on top of the art required. Spotting these additions are typically easiest, since there will be boarder problems, light problems, and brush patterns. JPEG preserves grain really well, unless you have it set at very high compression. At these settings it does indeed blur out the details so that IDing a fake is harder. // Rock
-
Colin Davies wrote: Actually I think it would be possible to create a tool to determine the probability of a photo to have been doctored up. Interesting idea. Get right on that, will you? :) But won't JPG'ng pictures highly introduce these artifacts, and obscure the others? Of course, on tv all the time they are able to take a tiny bit of reflection and wizard enhance the hell out of it and produce the complete license plate. Or the real killer, as seen in the dead person's eyes. I want this photoshop plugin, dammit. All my Sharpen settings do it wipe out the picture. :((
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
Todd C. Wilson wrote: But won't JPG'ng pictures highly introduce these artifacts, and obscure the others? I'm really just postulating, But often jpg photos have a difference obsevable under magnification. Also the sharper the Pic, the more detectable it would be. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
-
Paresh Solanki wrote: So, given this powerful ability to manipulate images, can we really trust any photographs? No we can't at casual observation, and this sucks. But most altered photos seem to have inconsistencies at the artifact/grain level. Actually I think it would be possible to create a tool to determine the probability of a photo to have been doctored up. Interesting idea. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
Sounds like a good idea, but how would it work? and would it be much more than just guesswork? Paresh Solanki 21 Again IMHO..."The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd." Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) - British philosopher
-
With your skills, you can always get a job with fakecelebnudepics.com I guess where you'd be copy/pasting britney spears face into an electric blue porn star's body X| Bow wow wow, Yippee yo yippee yay, My miniputt high, Is now 30 yay.
-
peterchen wrote: Britney and udder LOL "udder". I had to look that word up :-) Nish Bow wow wow, Yippee yo yippee yay, My miniputt high, Is now 30 yay.
-
Wow Tom. You did that with just Photoshop??? How did you add the teeth??? Nish :rolleyes: Bow wow wow, Yippee yo yippee yay, My miniputt high, Is now 30 yay.
Actually that's another pic of her - which is why her head is tilted. I'm not very good at all, but this is all very easy once you get the hang of it. I can add things to photos, take things out, clean up dust spots, etc. I had a situation recently where someone missed a family portrait. I took another pic of that person, chaned his clothes to match everone else's in the group pic and placed him such that it looked like he was there the whole time! It's actually fun and you can do some amazing things Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Best mini-putt score = 22
-
Is her head supposed to be tilted like that? -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
†It's from another pic of her. With these tools you can mix and match as you desire to get whatever combination you need for the job. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Best mini-putt score = 22
-
Matt Newman wrote: Even the US CIA can't do right. The fakes of Oswald standing behind a picket fence holding a gun is horribly fake. :-) The real bad fakes were later when NASA did the Apollo stuff. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
Forgot about those! -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
† -
It's from another pic of her. With these tools you can mix and match as you desire to get whatever combination you need for the job. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Best mini-putt score = 22
I thought her head looked a little "out of position". -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
† -
I thought her head looked a little "out of position". -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
†Remember two things. 1) It was a quick job - took about 15 minutes My point being that a much better job could be done with more time devoted 2) To anyone not having seen the first picture,they would never notice anything askew. Also, most times the goal of photo manipulation isn't to trick anyone, but to simply correct errors that occurred on the shoot. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Best mini-putt score = 22
-
Matt Newman wrote: Even the US CIA can't do right. The fakes of Oswald standing behind a picket fence holding a gun is horribly fake. :-) The real bad fakes were later when NASA did the Apollo stuff. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
I'm sorry Colin, I'm with the CIA and we'll have to ask you a few "questions". We'll let your friends and family know you went peacefully. :-D James Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki "Smile your little smile, take some tea with me awhile. And every day we'll turn another page. Behind our glass we'll sit and look at our ever-open book, One brown mouse sitting in a cage." "One Brown Mouse" from Heavy Horses, Jethro Tull 1978
-
Something I've been discussing with my friends is this old saying in relation to modern graphics technology. You have movies like Monsters Inc. showcasing the cutting edge of graphic power, but basic image manipulation is available to almost anyone with a reasonable PC system with a photo quality printer. Some of the 35mm photo processing shops now offer image manipulation so you can remove that ugly lampost from your photos. I've even removed scratches and tears from some of my dad's old photographs. So, given this powerful ability to manipulate images, can we really trust any photographs? Can they be reliably used as evidence in any situation? Can we even trust historical records? In the movie 'Forrest Gump' Tom Hanks is 'seen' as shaking hands with a number of prominent people. What's to stop people from doing that for reasons other than entertainment? Paresh Solanki 21 Again IMHO..."The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd." Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) - British philosopher
If the picture was taken on film, you can still find the negatives. I think digital cameras of the future should provide some type of checksum that can be used to tell if a picture is not doctored. Neil Van Eps A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila. - Mitch Ratliffe, Technology Review, April, 1992
-
Remember two things. 1) It was a quick job - took about 15 minutes My point being that a much better job could be done with more time devoted 2) To anyone not having seen the first picture,they would never notice anything askew. Also, most times the goal of photo manipulation isn't to trick anyone, but to simply correct errors that occurred on the shoot. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Best mini-putt score = 22
It's true that most people do simply want to correct errors that occurred when shooting, but there's nothing stopping anyone from producing fakes to pass them off as genuine. Paresh Solanki 21 Again IMHO..."The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd." Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) - British philosopher
-
Actually that's another pic of her - which is why her head is tilted. I'm not very good at all, but this is all very easy once you get the hang of it. I can add things to photos, take things out, clean up dust spots, etc. I had a situation recently where someone missed a family portrait. I took another pic of that person, chaned his clothes to match everone else's in the group pic and placed him such that it looked like he was there the whole time! It's actually fun and you can do some amazing things Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Best mini-putt score = 22
So, what is stopping you from grabbing a piccie of your line manager wherever you work, and mixing him in with a pic of your company's main competitor and shopping him to your directors as an Industrial Spy? Paresh Solanki 21 Again IMHO..."The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd." Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) - British philosopher
-
Paresh Solanki wrote: So, given this powerful ability to manipulate images, can we really trust any photographs? No we can't at casual observation, and this sucks. But most altered photos seem to have inconsistencies at the artifact/grain level. Actually I think it would be possible to create a tool to determine the probability of a photo to have been doctored up. Interesting idea. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
This is being handled in the US legal system. The Justice Department has contracted NASA to create a secure system where photos and video are entered into the system and any processing done on the images is logged in a secure manner. That way a jury has more reason to believe that the prosecuters are telling 'the truth' than the defense. The legal system still largely relies on the credibility of the witness for authenticity and that will remain the state even after this new software comes into use. My friend and I created a software company to write similar software and quit when we found out about the contract. We decided taht we couldn't really compete if the DOJ had contracts in place with NASA. From an internal company e-mail November, 2001 -- "Would the person who stole the ethics training manual from the class last Friday please return it."