They Live in the News...and create the news

Hey thanks to everyone who have replied to my thread. There are numerous shapeshifting videos on youtube and the media's debunk on most of them is pixel distortion or as SGP says video interlacing, or a combination of the two. However, those issues don't apply to the media and I will tell you why and you can research it yourself. The cameras the media uses cost around $30K. They have a one million pixel resolution that absolutely assures that every nuance of the image is captured and converted to electrical energy by the sensors and is interpreted in the digital domain resulting in perfect image production.

In other words, you have to be a real retard to broadcast a news anchor out of focus or any other picture anomaly. Also, the type of broadcasting the media does has all been pre-set up, lighting is right, camera settings are right, etc. So there is no out for the media. Sorry. Maybe they should trade in their $30K cameras for something that was made in 1940. So whenever you see an anchor, reporter such as Christiane Amanpour go out of focus or worse develop new hands red flags should be flooding into your head.

Peace

originally posted by: rexrazor
...The cameras the media uses cost around $30K. They have a one million pixel resolution that absolutely assures that every nuance of the image is captured and converted to electrical energy by the sensors and is interpreted in the digital domain resulting in perfect image production.

In other words, you have to be a real retard to broadcast a news anchor out of focus or any other picture anomaly. Also, the type of broadcasting the media does has all been pre-set up, lighting is right, camera settings are right, etc. ...

Well, the example in your OP is a video of a video -- i.e., they filmed a TV showing a broadcast of the news reporter. So the original CNN video that used such good cameras and high resolution is irrelevant. You can't show me a movie someone took of their TV and tell me that the picture being broadcast on the TV being high-res is meaningful.

Even if it wasn't a "video filming a TV", the interlacing artifacts my have nothing to do with the original source video (in the case CNN and their expensive hi-res equipment), but instead it depends on the device or format you are watching that video. A perfectly good video that has no signs of interlacing that comes from CNN could show signs of interlacing once the video is converted over to YouTube. Heck, even a not-so-hi-res TV would convert the original signal and maybe include some interlacing.

So these interlacing artifacts may have nothing to do with the quality of the video being made at the source (by CNN or whomever), but instead have something to do with what happens to those videos afterwards.