Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT/ Woke up on Mars This morning!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    What is certain is that you don't know what you are looking at Tiffie. If you did then you would understand what I said, which you do not.

    I can post more analysis of the two images showing that they are the same with only a slight colour shift but it won't do any good if the audience is unable to grasp the proof.

    Now, assuming that hwingo is neither a liar nor a fool, and that one image has been edited and the other not, do you or do you not know which one is unedited and which one was edited?
    Both images have been edited and in the same way. That is not in doubt in the slightest. If you knew anything about digital graphics it would be immediately and glaringly obvious that is the case.



    See the areas inside the yellow box? They are exactly the same and they are incontrovertible proof that the image has been altered in the same fashion, each of them. A digital camera NEVER produces that sort of limited area reduction of the image dynamic range. NEVER.

    Don't bother Doc' he's dug himself into a hole aggain [ - best Forrest Gump voice ] and is now digging even harder.
    You are only succeeding in proving you don't know squat about digital graphics. Since you have nothing of value to add to this thread why don't you go and peer at some broken parts which you claim to be so good at.

    You most certainly aren't qualified to judge what I have been saying in this thread. Or do you claim credentials in the graphics arts and digital imagery that you have never mentioned before?


    UK=double fault


    -Yup. Just like the 200+ photos now documenting it, like the five-minute CNN video, and most damning of all, the dozens of Aussie eyewitnesses are claiming.

    When come back, bring proof, not speculation and supposition.
    It's not my fault you don't understand the proof. Speaking of eyewitnesses, have you figured out how that illusion works?
    Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by oldtiffie
      Now, assuming that hwingo is neither a liar nor a fool, and that one image has been edited and the other not, do you or do you not know which one is unedited and which one was edited?
      Originally posted by Evan
      Both images have been edited and in the same way. That is not in doubt in the slightest. If you knew anything about digital graphics it would be immediately and glaringly obvious that is the case.
      Evan.

      First of all, I did not and do not claim any substantial skills in image analysis.

      That is not an or the issue in this instance.

      It seems to me that hwingo said that only one image has/had been edited and that you quite categorically say that both have been edited, and that you are, in effect, saying that hwingo has, either willingly and/or intentionally or not, lied (to) or mis-lead us all.

      I very much doubt that hwingo intended or did any of those things.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Evan
        You are only succeeding in proving you don't know squat about digital graphics.
        -Just out of morbid curiosity, what do we need to "know" about "digital graphics"? You're claiming the original picture was "enhanced" to make it appear more red. Your "proof" is what the photographers call a "pixel hunt".

        On the other hand, a further 200+ photos have been taken and posted, that show not only the exact same color and tone, but in many cases, even deeper reds and oranges.

        But hey, what do I know. All these years I didn't even know green traffic lights were actually supposed to be blue.

        You most certainly aren't qualified to judge what I have been saying in this thread. Or do you claim credentials in the graphics arts and digital imagery that you have never mentioned before?
        -Oh please. Here's a quick tip, Evan, m'lad: One doesn't have to be a "photographic expert"- let alone have a degree in photocopier repair- to be able to judge certain aspects of a photo.

        And that fact here is that the original image shows a heavily orange tone, which tracks very accurately with literally hundreds of other photos of the same storm, with the eyewitness reports from people who are there, not just looking at third-gen photos online, and with my own experience under somewhat similar lighting conditions.

        Tell me: Is this photo real or manipulated? (Apart from a minor crop and resize, that is.)



        It's not my fault you don't understand the proof.
        -I understand it well. You're apparently trying- and not very successfully- to say that several dozen photographers, as well as CNN videographers and various journalists, plus four or five people on this very thread, are lying about the coloring- your proof of which being that the traffic light is actually supposed to be blue.

        Speaking of eyewitnesses, have you figured out how that illusion works?
        -We figured out how that illusion worked back in my high school art class about comparative color. I've put it to good use over the years.



        The glossy print cover looks considerably better than this lo-res image. But don't let that stop you- it's always a hoot to see your naked ego automatically assume you're the only one with experience in some field, and the twists of logic you'll come up with when shown otherwise.

        Doc.
        Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Evan
          You are only succeeding in proving you don't know squat about digital graphics. Since you have nothing of value to add to this thread why don't you go and peer at some broken parts which you claim to be so good at.
          I get pissed off with that, as soon as I mend one bit the bastichs break something else.

          Originally posted by Evan
          You most certainly aren't qualified to judge what I have been saying in this thread. Or do you claim credentials in the graphics arts and digital imagery that you have never mentioned before?
          Of course not, I'm only 61 to have done what you have done [ with the exception of giving birth ] I would need to be 138 years old.
          What I am querying is you are saying a whole continent is wrong. That's a whole continent of people who are on that continent, whereas you, as in the singular person, is sat on a hillside in BC 12,000 odd miles away but knows better.
          Like that building you photoshopped because you thought it looked better even though you had not seen it.

          But to give credit where credit is do you are a legend in your own mind.

          .
          .

          Sir John , Earl of Bligeport & Sudspumpwater. MBE [ Motor Bike Engineer ] Nottingham England.



          Comment


          • #65
            Evan,

            You have made much of the RGB values in the area on the road where the headlight is reflecting, but I feel many of your statements have been somewhat misleading - such as:-

            "But headlights are white so the reflection must be white."
            "The reflection should be fairly well balanced in red, green and blue."
            ...and...
            "...indisputable evidence", "There is no question." etc.etc.



            The roadway itself is unlikely to be totally black, so will take on a colour cast from the ambient lighting. This colour cast is still present in the area analysed despite the specular reflection of the headlamp, which is merely added to the apparent colour of the roadway - it does not replace it.

            Your statement that "One source of light can't tint another source of light." is therefore not relevant - the area analysed does not represent a 'light source'.

            In theory the area covered by the reflection should therefore be of the same hue as the adjacent area of roadway but with 'white' added - i.e. with reduced saturation.

            Examination of the two areas shows this is substantially the case (in fact the hue in the area with the reflection is actually slightly less red than the darker adjacent area, possibly due to some other compression issue in the camera.)

            I do not doubt that the image may very well be 'enhanced', but would dispute the 'proof'.


            I also feel the optical illusion presented is not particularly relevant since it arguably demonstates a luminance perception effect, not a colour perception effect.


            Cheers
            .

            Comment


            • #66
              Up to your same old tactics Doc. They won't work. If you had to debate the facts you wouldn't make it past page 1.

              Pixel hunt is a computer game, not a term used by photographers. Perhaps you would tell everyone why there is so much red in the green traffic light image. Not in the white part but in the flare. Green traffic lights aren't supposed to have any red in them because it confuses those who are colour blind.

              BTW, have you figured out what 507nm means yet?

              Barrington,

              Luminance and chrominance are not separately detected in the eye during colour vision. In bright light the cones provide the luminance information.
              Last edited by Evan; 09-23-2009, 07:55 PM.
              Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

              Comment


              • #67
                Yes, all 3.8 to 4 million tonnes of it. How do you want it delivered?
                Nev

                Just chuck it round the back near the chook shed, I'll get the missus to spread it out when she gets back from town.

                Cheers - Gavin

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Evan
                  It's not my fault you don't understand the proof. Speaking of eyewitnesses, have you figured out how that illusion works?
                  The illusion that you know what you're talking about?

                  The topic of this thread was to point out the dust storm in Sydney and it's appearance. The photo referred to in the original post really didn't really do the situation justice, in reality, it was a lot more red/orange than the photo showed. Was the photo altered? Who cares? (beside you). You decided to make it an issue.

                  I thing the best evidence is the 4 million or so Sydneysiders that witnessed the phenomenon. We'll just assume that all the photos posted were faked, just to piss you off.

                  Just to make you happy, here's another photo of Sydney yesterday. I can't guarantee it hasn't been altered.

                  Isn't there a photography forum you could be annoying?
                  Regards
                  Geoff
                  My place.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Wow

                    5 pages of "Evan against the world" following 2 pages of "the weather sucked this morning" and here's a picture to show how bad....


                    Maybe Evan should watch his own movie... http://ixian.ca/video/posting.swf

                    Especially the part regarding valuable contribution....


                    Back on the topic... having worked in the semi desert of the Steppes in Kazahkstan, and been on the Canadian Prairies during a blow, I can agree... Big dust storms are distinctly unpleasant and the one in the original post is a doozy.

                    Here's hoping the bad weather will blow over soon. Pun intended to add a little tongue in cheek humor to a nasty bit of business....
                    Design to 0.0001", measure to 1/32", cut with an axe, grind to fit

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Wow! indeed

                      Seems to have blown over , today is bright with blue skies.
                      Now for the cleanup! Every flat surface is covered with a layer of red dust. Mop and bucket time!
                      Living on a busy road doesn't help as the traffic keeps the dust in motion.
                      Regards
                      Geoff
                      My place.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Evan
                        BTW, have you figured out what 507nm means yet?
                        -Gee, I dunno, Evan. Did you ever figure out who owns the copyright to this photo?

                        (Relevant link for those interested in that tidbit.)

                        Doc.
                        Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Barrington,

                          Check out the red level of the pure green just above the woman's head. Then check the red level in the flare of the green light. They are the same. Not close, but the same. Since neither is a reflection of anything or far enough away to be filtered and since green is not known to contain red since it is a primary additive colour, the single explanation that fits is that the red level of the entire image was boosted by 23%.

                          I never looked at any of those links Doc so your question is meaningless. Perhaaps you also forget that I am on a really slow connection, even slower than dialup for web surfing.
                          Last edited by Evan; 09-23-2009, 10:37 PM.
                          Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Evan
                            I never looked at any of those links Doc so your question is meaningless.
                            -So you studiously noted in the linked thread, in an attempt to keep from backing yourself into a corner.

                            I notice that you're also studiously ignoring the half-dozen other posters pointing out that their photos (or, you know, eyewitness experience) are virtually identical in tone and color to the OP photo.

                            "Same old tricks", indeed.

                            Doc.
                            Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Evan
                              Check out the red level of the pure green just above the woman's head.
                              The new DigitalColor Meter, a utility built into the new Snow Leopard operating system, allows sampling over just a few pixels. As you can see in this screen shot, there is virtually no red component in the pure green you mention, that region just above the woman's head.

                              Or, is this a difference in how your monitor displays colors, compared to mine?

                              Last edited by aostling; 09-23-2009, 11:30 PM.
                              Allan Ostling

                              Phoenix, Arizona

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I notice that you're also studiously ignoring the half-dozen other posters pointing out that their photos (or, you know, eyewitness experience) are virtually identical in tone and color to the OP photo.

                                "Same old tricks", indeed
                                Yes, I did notice that the only shots that are really as red/orange as the photo in question are the really long shots. You know why that is don't you?

                                Otherwise they nearly all look like this if taken with quality equipment like the networks usually have. I trust you can see the difference.

                                Hey look, headlights that even have a bluish tinge.

                                Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X