It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
OK…..
Here’s my 1st run at comparing the EXIF data pre – post the editing with the iPhone “UFO Gold” app.
Here’s the original pic:
Here’s the pic after I’ve inserted a UFO with the iPhone “UFO Gold” app.
The image appears quite degraded post the editing with the app.
Here’s a comparison table showing the difference in the EXIF data:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff583e4c6981.jpg[/atsimg]
The EXIF file has been very significantly abbreviated post the editing, with a position field added that I think must refer to the insertion of the fake UFO.
Comments welcome.....
I will create another example to see if these sorts of pre - post processing variations remain consistent.
Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by nablator
Nablator…..
EXIF can conclusively prove a fake, but correct EXIF means nothing, it can be copied easily from another JPEG or restored from the original untouched image.
I agree.
The EXIF app’s I downloaded & used for this thread were Opanda IExif 2.3 & Opanda POWERExif Professional. With these I can…..
- Select the EXIF data fields
- Right click to bring up an advanced menu
- Access an edit function wherein I can edit the fields in the EXIF data file
This is consistent with the information on their website:
THE BEST CHOICE TO EDIT EXIF DATA IN IMAGES
”Opanda PowerExif is a professional tool to edit Exif data in images. As the best assistant to edit & modify images information for photographers, image pickers, PowerExif allows to edit & modify all Exif data freely”
www.opanda.com...
Note: Please use the slider bar (above) to view the EXIF data edit control window
So as you say, we must also be very circumspect about jumping to conclusions based solely on conclusions derived from EXIF data.
A harder test to pass for CGI or Photoshop hoaxers is to set the JPEG compression parameters right, quantization and Huffman tables, sub-sampling, thumbnail, etc. No off-the-shelf software will do that. Then there are advanced image analysis techniques to detect inconsistency from the image data, not from metadata. Colorspace, shadows, noise, interpolation artifacts, double quantization...
I agree.
Fortunately, we have expertise available that can look into these areas.
Also fortunately, the ol’ human brain is still quite good at ringing those initial “CGI” alarm bells!
My windshield was kinda dirty and had glare so I waited a bit longer and leaned into the passenger seat so I could take a picture out that window
Originally posted by BlueFireWolf
Could somebody make a summary of what everyone wants? Cause this thread is moving fast.
Originally posted by BlueFireWolf
Well I'm not sure what I did, but it had 2 copies of both photos.
I'll send the other pair...
Originally posted by BlueFireWolf
Alright, they're sent.
We certainly appreciate all the scientific effort and exercises you guys are putting into this case
but please know, you're shutting out many who don't understand what data-lingo means or implicates.
Are you saying that if you apply an application to your phone-photo, it distorts it?
please just tell me
Originally posted by BlueFireWolf
Alright, they're sent.
Originally posted by BlueFireWolf
Oh, I found the Model number thing...
SPH-M510