Round UFOs and Square Pixelation

Round UFOs and Square Pixelation

A recent ATS thread has once again tipped me over the edge into RANT mode ,

The subject this time , is as the title states , round UFOs and square noise

This is what I mean :



All I have done is pushed contrast , bright and gamma till the effect I want to highlight is most apparent , namely . An alledged UFO with a rounded exterior , surrounded by a square block of pixilation

I noticed this effect in another ATS thread , and made notes – but I can no longer remember which thread I was referring to – so they have lain dormant , till now

Here is the picture that sparked off this like of thinking along with a graphic I made to illustrate the point ::



IIRC it came from a video clip – hence the lo-qual capture .

This effect is improbable to say the least , and cannot be rationally explained by a single independent entity flying in the atmosphere .

But it is indicative of low quality “ cut n` paste “ image manipulation by rank amateurs


[edit on 13-12-2006 by ignorant_ape]

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

This effect is improbable to say the least , and cannot be rationally explained by a single independent entity flying in the atmosphere .

But it is indicative of low quality “ cut n` paste “ image manipulation by rank amateurs

pixelaton isnt due to cut and paste jobs. Its occurs when video is compressed. You get the lowest quality pexilation on the areas of the video that have the most movement as it creates change in colours displayed.

im a graphic designer by day, so i have seen this happen in various projects of mine aswell.

i hope this made sense

@ignorant_ape: can you do the same with a blurry picture of a known flying object? (i mean like a plane or something)

Originally posted by lbennie

pixelaton isnt due to cut and paste jobs. Its occurs when video is compressed. You get the lowest quality pexilation on the areas of the video that have the most movement as it creates change in colours displayed.

first off the top image is alledgedly from a still camera

second - i have attempted to check the compression artefacts creadted in video .

and using some of my own footage of a plane flying over my house , i can use ashampoo movie shrinker , without geting any square blocking around the aircraft - even with > 75% compression rates

Originally posted by segalindoa
@ignorant_ape: can you do the same with a blurry picture of a known flying object? (i mean like a plane or something)

yes i can :



hi qual origional

can be cropped and resized :




hi qual origional

what im trying to say is, there are so many mothods of compresion, so many different formats of images and video as well in the digital world. You cannot use digital artifacts as evidence to prove or disprove anything.

Theres no way of telling what process was used by the ccd in this camera.



but after saying all that

as i have said before, i feel as though digital video and pictures cannot be used as evidence any longer, as there are tools available now that allow manipulation (and if your skilled enough) you can effectively cover your tracks completely

I've seen plenty of this sort of pixelation in perfectly legit (but poor) video (and possibly photos...).

I'm not an expert, but it's my belief that the captured object is real...

ok , to the members who claim that legitimate unedited footage and images can exhibit square pixelation surrounding a curved object .

the obvious challenge is show me examples

you claim they are comprssion artefacts from contrast gradients , if so why are they square - and exhibit zero gradient ?

the pixelation i point out - only seems to occur shrrounding the alledged UFO , not any fore ground or background mundane objects , so IMHO it is not compression - it is tampering

but i may be wrong - and unedited exaples of mundane images that also exhibit this effect will make me recant

LINK

ok the first 3 'patK' images should show clearly what im talking about

Originally posted by lbennie
LINK

ok the first 3 'patK' images should show clearly what im talking about

i have seen that kind of " demostration " before , and found them to be universally dishonest

your link is a gif vs jpeg propaganda peice - that reminds me of this :

mega pixel mastrubation

i do not mean this as an attack on you - you presented it in good faith -

i created a " test card " - and saved it at 35% jpeg quality , then 5% then just 01% -

here it is [ the tiles are in order 35% @ top , 01% at bottom ]



see the compression artefacts follow the shapes - even @01%

as i said - curved objects do not create square noise

This thread is a waste of time.

Sorry. Research: Artifacts

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

i do not mean this as an attack on you - you presented it in good faith -

No offense taken, i can see where your comming from.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

as i said - curved objects do not create square noise

Not entirely, if you zoom in on the image youve provided (just like the original ufo image which shows the artifacts in question) as i have below, u can see it is infact compressing in a way in which gives off a "square" appearance when infact the shape is curved:





[edit on 13/12/06 by lbennie]

Originally posted by SteveR
This thread is a waste of time.

so why are you here ?

Sorry. Research: Artifacts

been there done that , and if you actualy read the thread propperly - it might occur to you to question why only the aledged UFO has the pixelation i reffer to .

instead of making juvenile snipes , address the issue @ hand or leave

You do understand that ALL digital cameras perform some sort of image manipulation (unless shot in raw)..?? I see so many people here yelling Photoshop job way too often when they seem to grasp a basic lack of digital image capture.

Now, pixels are typically square. Most cameras perform some level of sharpening (boosting contrast between light and dark) to enhance edge detection and improve image quality. They also record only in black and white - there are no R-G-B "pixels". There are filters that cause certain pixels to register as being R-G or B. All the sensor knows is I got x photons and I'm supposed to be red or blue or green. The processing takes over from there - and there begins the tale of image artifacts.

Some cameras are better than others in their processing, as pixels are typically in a row RGBRGB.... but our handy dandy monitor and printers can make a pixel actually be any color you want. So the processing interpolates values into those other spaces. Can you say artifacts now..?? Add to that the compression typically used most often, JPEG and the fact that it is reapplied evey time an image is opened and saved, and you get compression artifacts over and over adding up. Good photogs know this and only go to JPEG when they have to and only do it once to maintain image fidelity.

Play with any photo long enough in PS or the GIMP and you can make it look like crap - boost contract, run unsharp masks, sharpen and then save in a compressed format a few times - especially if it was a JPEG to begin with. Gnarly. Even worse around contrast changes. A "clean" cut and paste will actually show NO crap around the edges unless you blur it or apply an unsharp mask or sharpen the crap out of it.

BE suspect of anyone shouting PS job on any JPEG pulled from the internet. It takes a seasoned photo analyst, working with the original to make any definitive determination unless it is so obvious that it can't be otherwise....

I give you men credit for knowing all that fun stuff.

All I can say is turn your picture and it looks like that baggie that stopped the shuttle from landing.

Must be lots of baggies up there.

Originally posted by UofCinLA
You do understand that ALL digital cameras perform some sort of image manipulation

yes ........ and as i have stated :

a camera applies the same procesing to the entire image .

and for the umpteenth time

only the alledged UFO shows the abnormal level of pixelation i am pointing out

in the stills pictures [ 1st example ] - the house , tree and fence post show far lower levels of pixelation at a given magnification

that is not the camera or compression

arround the " ufo " is a clear distinct square block - despite the obvious fact that the "ufo " has curved surfaces

i am off to bed now - in the hope that people read the thread instead of projecting thier fantasies onto it .

god night - ape out

Wow ape, you never owned a spectrum or a commodore I take it?

A pixel by definition is square (or therabouts) and as anyone over the age of 2 knows you cant fit a round peg in a square hole, hence pixelation.

Your monitor displays (Im guessing) 1280 x 1024 pixels, every single one of them square. Now; a digital camera, scan or any other capture device does the same in reverse.. zoom in ALOT and there you have a squared off innacurate (for digital read squares on and off) representation of an analogue source with the pixels easy to see, especially when you display it on another digital source (ie your computer screen).

No mystery, just the inadequacies of our current favourite form of communication.

Maybe the greys will teach us how to compute in analogue one day :p

Originally posted by observe50
I give you men credit for knowing all that fun stuff.

All I can say is turn your picture and it looks like that baggie that stopped the shuttle from landing.

Must be lots of baggies up there.

you know what?
your right, its the same friggin object! (well looks like it anyway)
nice find man

also ape:

the reason there is more artifacts around the udo than the rest of the photo is because it has more colour contrast to deal with, (the bright neon blue on black) tan the rest of the photo

Why is everyone arguing about this when the answer is clear?

The images of the UFOs in question, and quite possibly all the UFOs with this type of block artifact pixelization are fraudulent. Now that the point has been made, you can move past it and focus on the UFO images that do NOT contain the artifacts.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
Why is everyone arguing about this when the answer is clear?

The images of the UFOs in question, and quite possibly all the UFOs with this type of block artifact pixelization are fraudulent. Now that the point has been made, you can move past it and focus on the UFO images that do NOT contain the artifacts.

with any image compression there will be artifacts

since most digital cameras below 1000 dollars store their images in jpg, this would indicate that unless you own an expensive slr that stores it in raw you should not bother pointing it at the sky?