Any way to reverse 'photoshopping' to expose the real pics?

reply to post by redshirt0202


That's what I was thinking as well!

If people were working in a high-risk security clearance type facility, how would someone go about taking it off the premises without being caught?

~Ducky~

reply to post by redshirt0202


Actually the "missing" images have been noticed.

The number of images that have been released to the public is a pathetically minor percentage of those that have been withheld.

I don't have the actual figure on hand, but I can get it for you by tomorrow, if not sooner.

You may find it here on my friends' website:

Pegasus Research Consortium

I'm going to go email an invitation to have him join our conversation with the figures.

I have a question about this topic.

Would it be possible to put back in resolution lines or missing data in a picture or video ?

I just finished Richard Hoagland's latest book and in it he claims that NASA uses reduced resolution to remove alien evidence.

For example, he talks about the original moon videos taken. These were around standard broadcast quality (325 lines of resolution) but when converted to broadcast it was reduced down to 200ish lines.

Hoagland also states that the new Mars Face pictures are missing about 50% of their data. This is done on purpose to ensure that those pics make the Mars face look more like a natural rock formation.

If we could fill back in that missing data we'd probably end this whole secrecy issue once and for all.

Not too sure if this fits this thread, but...
I seem to remember watching a Roswell doc., the producers focused in on the piece of paper one of the officers had in his hand (this would be the presser where they display the "weather balloon" fragment, and they were able to enlarge it to find what was called a, drumroll please, secret document confirming the event.
Is this the kind of revelation you're looking for?

This vid entails a few testamonies from people that knew Nasa airbrushes their pics before they're released to the public.



~Ducky~

Originally posted by TheDuckster
Aside from hacking into a site or getting whistle-blowers to come forward with tangible evidence, is there any way that the 'codes' of these greyed out pics can be 'reversed engineered' or something?

Here is the thing... everyone uses the term "photoshopped" or 'airbrushed' way to freely as if its whats really happening...

What you need to do is look at ALGORITHMS

The two Mars Rovers are using algorithms when they take photos that are programmed to 'hide' certain features... you then need a code to reveal these images in their full capacity...

The only snag is that it is illegal to possess these algorithms

On the Color Clementine Images thread we showed some huge .cub files with the FULL data... but the problem is these images are over 2.o gigabytes and require a special program to even view it...

The program is called CUBIT. USGS offers ISIS which will read .cub files, but so far no one we know has been able o open the Clementine files

CUBIT needs a main frame to operate and is created by Sandia National Labs... Here is the latest release...

cubit.sandia.gov...

The Color Clementine images are here...

ser.sese.asu.edu...

in 65 meg jpgs (really small still compared to the full deal )

For a sample of what is available see below.... (this image is 10% of the original click the external link for the 'big picture) The area is Reiner Gamma





I never did understand why that revelation never got much attention



Back to CUBIT here is the licensing requirements...

cubit.sandia.gov...


Of course algorithms can work in our favor as well... especially when they make one that can enlarge an image without pixallation issues

I am waiting for this one

resize-photos-with-gusto-using-new-algorithm

Originally posted by goosdawg
When they airbrushed an image, they actually used an airbrush.

Well actually ... no they used a regular paint brush.... made a large scale model and then took new pictures...

Here is a NASA/Langley scientist paint brush in hand



This guy is using the Lunar Orbiter Images to check if they got it right...



And this is earlier in the project....





But your right... they don't use photoshop... its way to much work

Originally posted by goosdawg
I don't have the actual figure on hand, but I can get it for you by tomorrow, if not sooner.

Your lucky I have some free time

The following data is listed from Keith Laney, the 'grand father' of anomaly researchers and a professional image processor for NASA

Hasselblad handheld photography - color and b/w - common to all missions
Apollo 8: 860 photos, fewer than 30 are digitized faithfully.
Apollo 10: 1319 photos, fewer than 40.
Apollo 11: 1403 photos, fewer than 60.
Apollo 12: 1585 photos, fewer than 40.
Apollo 13: 585 photos, fewer than 20
Apollo 14: 1273 photos, fewer than 40.
Apollo 15: 2524 photos, fewer than 90.
Apollo 16: 2851 photos, fewer than 50.
Apollo 17: 3606 photos, fewer than 80.
~Out of the 16006 Hasselblad photos, fewer than 450 are digitized faithfully~


Metric and Panoramic photography - common only to Apollo 15, 16, and 17 -
Apollo 15: Metric: 2546 photos, fewer than 30 are digitized faithfully Panoramic: 1531 photos, fewer than 50. (**)
Apollo 16: Metric: 1938 photos, fewer than 30. Panoramic: 1596 photos, fewer than 30. (**)
Apollo 17: Metric: 1938 photos, fewer than 30. Panoramic: 1529 photos, fewer than 30. (**)
(** due to total size of the Pan images, most of these are sectional crops from the larger parent photos)
~Out of the 11078 Metric and Panoramic photos, fewer than 200 are digitized faithfully~

Of the 27084 total mission photographs, fewer than 650 are digitized faithfully.

Support craft photography
Rangers 7,8,9 - approx 17,000 orbitals
Surveyors 3,5,6,7 - approx 850 surface photos
Lunar Orbiters 1-5 - Approx 3000 orbitals
~Of the 20,850 support craft photos, fewer than 700 are digitized faithfully~
Of these, ony the Lunar Orbiter images are fairly represented at LPI's Lunar Orbiter Digital Atlas, though incomplete and much smaller and lower resolution than original format. The rest of this photography is virtually absent, with perhaps one or two representatives accessible. This is an important ancillary point, but our main drive should be the Apollo Mission Photography. (Note: LPI has nearly all the Hasselblad images online, but displayed in very low resolution, a result of some terribly questionable overprocessing. JSC's digital image collection has far fewer images, and they are also of low quality. The ALSJ has many good representatives, but in itself is far from hitting the mark of excellence this data deserves. If not for the few high quality images obtained and scanned by certain individuals willing to invest themselves there would be few available indeed.)

~Of the 47,934 total mission photographs, less than 1350 are faithful digital reproductions.~

The rest of the data is available here...

Free the Apollo Images

reply to post by TheDuckster


Hi I'm actually a photoshop expert so I thought I'd share my knowledge of the program. As far as reversing photoshop effects, without a layered PSD, TIFF, or PDF file, you may be out of luck.

There is one way to do this and only if the history data is saved within the file. From photoshop open the image and under the window menu select history. This will dispaly the history panel. If you see a list of items, scroll up to the top and click on the first item which usually says Open. This will give you the original state of the image although coming across a file with this data included would be extremely rare.

When a file is edited and saved from photoshop, the pixel data is saved in an array and then outputted to a falttened, usually JPG or GIF file, which would unlikely contain any history data.

Hope this helps!

Also NASA has been deliberately 'leaking' a few images from the old archives, but they are not flaunting them...

A good example is AS15-94-12741HR

Take a moment to look at Jack's study on this one... then go find the high res images in the Apollo Galleries

www.thelivingmoon.com...

My god, where to start on all that....

First up lets deal with the Moon Model...

It was a model made by Langley Luna Research Facility, using the LOLA photos, they used it along with scale model lunar landers to simulate the Luna Landings, so in those photos, it actually shows them checking the model against the photos NOT the other way around.

OK onto the Algorithms, first all encoding of pictures is some form of algorithm, from jpg through tiff to mpeg and even cub files.

As for having algorithms for "hiding" stuff auto-magically in photos being taken is silly and pointless, and as for "needing specialist software" well yes you would, you need specialist software to look at a gif, its just your pc has it by default! If you want to view .cub files you need a .cub file viewer - try the ISIS 3 software suite, or even Qview for quickly looking at .cub files.

To get a better idea about the cube file take a quick peek here and understand why you cant just open this up in photoshop.
isis.astrogeology.usgs.gov...
there is even a nice demo of how it works on that page too.

The automatic resizer you are referencing is the Seam carving software developed by Shai Avidan and Ariel Shamir, which you can read more about here
www.faculty.idc.ac.il...
You will see they don't "reveal" hidden data, but actually make it up by inferring what MIGHT be there by studying the pixels either side of the seam.

I am not denying that nasa have retouched photos, but please try to not post dis-info or badly researched data, its not good for anyone.

oh and one more thing.....this is a great site showing photo-doctoring throughout history.
www.cs.dartmouth.edu...

reply to post by masterShake122


I confirm this...

Photoshop is also my daily work, and if there's one thing we don't want it's to keep the history in the file. Mostly because it increases file size, mind you sometimes Ill sit with atleast 500mb files during editing phase.
Other reason is basicly... you don't have any business knowing how we did what we did
Since many retouchers or photographers are booked solely for the look they can bring out in a file, safeguarding ones' technique is alpha-omega.

Once you flatten a file the data is overwritten. And if the retoucher is good enough you can't tell he was there...


Regarding the Mars imagery on the first page. Those orange shots. Aren't those digital renditions rather than photographs?
At lot of things can go bad when scanning or rendering photographs to digital, especially if you are gunning for manageable size rather than ultra high quality.

[edit on 18/3/08 by flice]

reply to post by zorgon


Thanks, Z!

You never cease to amaze!

Stars all around!

Originally posted by freakyclown
they used it along with scale model lunar landers to simulate the Luna Landings,

Precisely

OK onto the Algorithms, first all encoding of pictures is some form of algorithm, from jpg through tiff to mpeg and even cub files.

try the ISIS 3 software suite,

DOH I believe if you actually read my post you would see I mentioned ISIS from USGS

So can you view the 2 gig cube file I linked to taken by Clementine at the AU site?

I am not denying that nasa have retouched photos,

Then why spend so much effort debunking?



A more practical approach would be to "Deny Ignorance" and SHOW us these 'retouched' photos you speak of... Show us by example what to look for, seeing as you are obviously such an expert

[edit on 18-3-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

Precisely

Precisely what?

DOH I believe if you actually read my post you would see I mentioned ISIS from USGS

LOL sorry so you did, I should have kept your message open in another window while replying! my bad

So can you view the 2 gig cube file I linked to taken by Clementine at the AU site?

Certainly not on this laptop as i have neither isis or the clementine photos

Then why spend so much effort debunking?

I am not debunking.....just trying to make sure people have the facts rather than hear-say and nonsense

A more practical approach would be to "Deny Ignorance" and SHOW us these 'retouched' photos you speak of... Show us by example what to look for, seeing as you are obviously such an expert

HUH??? I dont understand what your saying here!
Never have i claimed to be an expert

reply to post by freakyclown

However there are techniques for gaining back some data or inferring such data. I have a nice piece of software (IRIS) that I use on a regular basis to refocus pictures

I have tried several filters, including Focus Magic and IRIS. Maybe I'm not using this tools correctly, the results are less impressive than claimed by Focus Magic ads.

To anyone more experienced than me: could you please use the best available filters on this blurry license plate picture and tell me if you manage to read it?

reply to post by admriker444

Would it be possible to put back in resolution lines or missing data in a picture or video ?

It's possible to do slightly better than standard bilinear or bicubic interpolation. Focusing slightly out of focus pictures is possible, amateur astronomers do it all the time. But increasing the resolution is science-fiction. Remember Blade Runner?

Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by freakyclown

 

However there are techniques for gaining back some data or inferring such data. I have a nice piece of software (IRIS) that I use on a regular basis to refocus pictures

I have tried several filters, including Focus Magic and IRIS. Maybe I'm not using this tools correctly, the results are less impressive than claimed by Focus Magic ads.

To anyone more experienced than me: could you please use the best available filters on this blurry license plate picture and tell me if you manage to read it?

There are certain things you need to get the best from IRIS

first of all we need to use the richardson-lucy algorithm (which you wont find a button for!) and the other factor is there needs to be a point or small circle somewhere in the image, a button or something can sometimes be used.

Remember this is used for deconveluting star images not normal photos.

Open up your image (that has a nice dot in it)
make sure your at 1:1 ratio of zoom and then drag a selection around the blur you know to be a point/dot.
now select the command window button
now type in
RL 15 0
this will perform the RL algorithm 15 times and with a zero relaxation (i think its relaxation - im doing this from memory so forgive if im wrong)

play with the settings as you see fit - you could also try running Gaus2 .7
to get rid of some of the noise

Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by freakyclown

 

However there are techniques for gaining back some data or inferring such data. I have a nice piece of software (IRIS) that I use on a regular basis to refocus pictures

I have tried several filters, including Focus Magic and IRIS. Maybe I'm not using this tools correctly, the results are less impressive than claimed by Focus Magic ads.

To anyone more experienced than me: could you please use the best available filters on this blurry license plate picture and tell me if you manage to read it?

OK i am going to get into serious trouble for messing about with stuff like this insted of doing work....but here is the licence plate after a quick spurt through iris

img443.imageshack.us...

Thanks for the hints! IRIS is a complicated tool, there are so many settings and algorithms. I need to try it again. For those who don't know already, it's an awesome tool for astronomers. I think it could be very useful for improving the quality of many UFO pictures and videos (stacking pictures from videos comes to mind). I don't remember reading about anyone trying this.