9/11 SIMCITY

[Q_prime]

Can someone living near Manhattan go to this location in the coming early Sep' 2012 and take a photo from the same vantage as Naudet did and see if someone crossing the street casts a shadow going the wrong way?

It may need a few tries on different days with cloud cover etc but may be worth the 'experiment' to see what transpires.

Just looking at the picture, something is not right. The upper part of beige building on the right side. On the baackground the white building and light brown build look artificial, numbers of windows gave away a composite production. Is it me or I have a strange impression that place is not New York but an outside replica?

[Equinox]

Unique, rare 9/11 material shot from the Hudson

This movie supposed to be from a boat... I will offer some analysis on it shortly.

Great find, Equinox.

Here we can clearly see how those fat/black, contour outlines (often seen in the horrid 9/11 imagery) actually interact with the other animated layers (in this case, the rising smoke). To be sure, this simply cannot occur in the domain of real photography - but only in digital composites:




If you wonder what I'm asking you to look at, here I've added a few arrows to help your eyes focus on the problem: as the smoke rises up behind the World Financial Center building, it appears to "erase" that ugly black edge !



Those black edges may seem unimportant to the layman - but they are extremely useful to determine the digital nature of the 9/11 imagery.

I rest my case: ALL (yes, ALL) the existing 9/11 images of the WTC collapses are digital creations.

Those black edges may seem unimportant to the layman - but they are extremely useful to determine the digital nature of the 9/11 imagery.

We have well spotted these grubby black lines as masking edges.

Great find to you as well Simon Here are couple of GIFs I whipped up with a style I used to spot and prove the masking lines.. I got the best shots I could get of the black edges and using a couple of styles including one I stumbled across funnily enough called "edge detection"



The 9/11 imagry is so fake...Its really...

"lost its edge!"

[Mitch Matrixx]

This is the 2nd post today in which I must reason with all readers of this forum to take into account some simple counter explanations for events.
To say that the black line artifact that occurs in much of the footage can "only occur in the CGI realm" is false. To lead the reader to assume that there is only one explanation for said anomaly is also a little wrong, and does not appeal to the sense of good research.
True scientific research poses questions, not uni-directional answers that must be adhered to at all costs. True and honest research suggests that we view all angles of possibility when making decisions, assumptions and arguments. So, in the efforts of true research I offer this simple "Occam's razor" explanation as to why we may see these so called "masking lines" evident primarily around the outlines of the buildings.

The answer is this: Cheap digital CMOS sensor in early (and even modern) digital cameras. There is indeed a technically sufficient answer as to what causes this somewhat strange phenomenon. It is cramming a high mega-pixel count into crappy or early sensors that in addition to modern JPEG compression can explain these artifacts.
There is a variety of READING rather than assumption to back this up within technical photography and electronic literature, however what first drew my attention to this was simply studying some of my own photos. 2 years ago I acquired a relatively high end smart phone with a fairly low grade 8mp digital camera sensor built in. For the past 2 years I shot hundreds of decent quality photos. I say decent, because on a whole, and in good lighting the camera shoots exceptionally clear and vivid photos, however the devil is in the details.
I will add that while it takes good pics for 3 year old cell phone technology, it is no professional point and shoot by any means. However, I would wager that it shoots about comparable quality of a decent point and shoot camera from ~10+ years ago.
Here are a couple unaltered and un-compressed (other that the default camera software compression algorithm) photos that I offer as evidence to back my claim.







I'm sure this post will be unpopular and seen to defy the basic assumptions of the "all imagery is fake" mantra that is so carelessly thrown around here.
So be it. After a year long case study on some of the absurdities put forth on this forum I can see no other option than to inject some common sense into the realm. After all, while there is certainly a possibility of fakery on a grand scale in which I sometime concur with, I cannot arrogantly toss out more simple explanations as being coincidental, and neither should any other person or entity here who claims to be doing solid research.

For anyone who cares to understand the nature of this behavior in digital photography, a simple explanation is that the camera sensor has a hard time reconciling between extremely contrasting light sources, and figuring out the pixel placement therein. In addition to having a dark outline appear around objects with a very light background and a darker foreground, the reverse can happen with a bright object in a dark area, in what some refer to as a "Halo effect".
Here is a link to a discussion about this exact thing. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/36302-5-dark-outline-image

For those too lazy to read

Anonymous 09-23-2005 at 04:23:18 PM
- 0 +

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)


I have a great shot of my nephew fishing on a dock/pier that I took with my
brother's 6 MP Canon Digital Rebel. The main problem being a dark 'outline'
around the subject. The pic was taken at sunset, ambient light (low light
levels) without fill flash and is backlit (semi-silhouette). The image was
shot as RAW and saved as 16 bit Tif with no sharpening etc in the RAW
process. The 'outline' gets worse when I bring it into Photoshop and try to
sharpen it. What is this and how can it be avoided ?

I've noticed it on other digital images I shot too.
thanks

--
Very puzzing. I am not a photography expert regarding the unique
issues of digital photo processing. I do note that the 'edge' follows
your nephew's outline, but it only partiall follows the outline of the
piling to his left...the edges of the piling are free from this effect
although it is bordering the bright area of the reflection from the
water. Also the white waistband bordering the water is free of this
edge. And the fishing reel top edge. This makes me think it is
something in the image processing software of the Rebel 300 image
processor which is getting overwhelmed by radically differences in
brightness, and this edge effect can be seen within the detail of the
top of the piling!

While you might not have applied any sharpening outside with Photoshop,
etc. I wonder if the camera's own Sharpening setting is what is behind
this effect?!?!
=========

[sublimity]

I must be suddenly going blind, but I do not see any thick black lines in these photos you've posted above. You will not find an example of thick black lines around objects, more specifically, thick lines that disappear like those featured in the 9/11 dramedy, in any genuine photos or video.

[Mitch Matrixx]

The top picture has the strongest signs of the black border. I included the others too as they contain it under a heavy zoom. I also included the others to illustrate that the same camera in the same location, at similar times can give greatly varying results.
If you don't see the outlines you haven't studied this forum long enough. There are a number of strange artifacts, I have chosen a couple that make for a simple comparison to a well lit NYC. I have more interesting ones that I will post soon.

[simonshack]

I have more interesting ones that I will post soon.

I hope your "interesting images" will look a bit like this - thick, black outline contours and all...

[whatsgoingon]

I have more interesting ones that I will post soon.

I hope your "interesting images" will look a bit like this - thick, black outline contours and all...

The last image even shows the thick black line vanishing as the smoke billows upward. How does smoke make black disappear? Of course, the black line is a mask. But if you ask someone how smoke makes facades go from black edged to normal, they will say, "Huh."

So I am intrigued why Mitch wants us to believe these artifacts are now the new normal.

[Mitch Matrixx]

The last image even shows the thick black line vanishing as the smoke billows upward. How does smoke make black disappear?

This is simple, and has been explained above. Some CMOS sensors have a hard time reconciling extreme contrast, when you put a dark object in front of the brighter background, you may end up with a number of aberrations. Same thing if you try and record video of a bright tv screen in a pitch black room. Sometimes you get a lighter ghosting effect around objects, other times things wash out (like the very upper floors of buildings), sometimes you get black outlines. In 2001 many cameras would use some sort of A/D converter, so would likely use digital light sensors and such. Back to the question, regarding the video clip in question, I cannot make a real educated guess to if that video is real or not, and it would be silly to try and do so, although I speculate it could easily be faked using a variety of techniques available.
In this clip we see the smoke rising up behind the building with the black lines around the corner where initially the area in question is much lighter (the sky is lighter than the building, causing the aberration) as dark smoke continues to rise behind the building the contrast level is changing in the sensor at 100's of times per second. In the end the lack of contrast by having a darker background is what makes the corner of the building more decipherable by the sensor & software.
But, hey, I mean it's only computer software and hardware, how could it possibly perform such crazy calculations on the fly and not make an error or two along the way.
Doesn't anybody here have a camera? Do some experiments in your dark bedroom at night. Better yet, try and get detailed pics or videos of any dark object with a very light background source in the day time. For example, your dark grey cat in front of a bright sunny window pane, in an otherwise unlit room. Good luck!
My gosh, why is it easier to think that a video production that surely had an unlimited budget, and probably years of time to fabricate the perfect hoax of all time would make such sloppy and repeated mistakes? That is, vs. the whole having a crappy camera idea.

So I am intrigued why Mitch wants us to believe these artifacts are now the new normal.

On the contrary, being involved in photography since the early to mid 90's and having hands on experience with digital cameras since the late 90's I feel that the artificial and contrived nature of digital photography may be its biggest flaw. The problem has existed since the digital inception of multimedia in general.
When you use digital sensors in audio and video capture and creation you are relying on an interpretation. You are relying on a program. You are relying on code, and 1's and 0's, and that alone. But it is more likely that 3-D modeling and composition was more advanced than the digital photography of 1999-2002.
I believe these artifacts have existed for years since digital photos began, and I have proven that the artifact still exists with my own pictures. Digital cameras have a hard time with exposure.

[whatsgoingon]

My gosh, why is it easier to think that a video production that surely had an unlimited budget, and probably years of time to fabricate the perfect hoax of all time would make such sloppy and repeated mistakes? That is, vs. the whole having a crappy camera idea.

OK. You must be kidding us now or you have not examined the terrible Vicsim photos. "Unlimited budget" -- you say. That is a conjecture. Everything has a budget. The notion of unlimited is naive. Also perfection is otherwise known as the enemy of the good and it stands in the way of progress. Anyone who worked on a detailed project knows that errors are part and parcel of the project. You cannot be perfect. An operation is not perfect. Humans are not infallible after all. Furthermore, lies are a human construct and require by their very nature many more errors than the recording of honest history.

Well do I believe that digital photography issues explain all these terrible images?

You are trying to argue that everything is recorded this way, but I have a different experience with digital cameras and video than you. So that argument seems off right now.

I find the photos do not mask objects on all sides with black thick lines. It is not something that would sell the product either. There is no real physics that explains the lines. "Compression artifacts" sounds like an idea but why would the default artifact be a black mask? You did not explain the specific color of black. So I fear your argument has not yet connected the visual artifact to the technical problem. Nor have you shown actual documentation from Sony or some other camera manufacturer showing these artifacts are part of their technology.

The simplest explanation given the difficulty in making up building explosions from the top down--a known thermodynamically impossible situation for anyone with a working scientific mind that is--is that you need to fake these explosions with layers of digital imagery in a computer system.

Science starts with the simplest hypothesis first.

How could real images be recorded of an impossible explosion?

Lets now debate that specific point. I want to hear why you think this is true.

During that debate you will need to then explain why one would want to record the demolition of the buildings knowing ahead of time that the explosion images on TV will be fake anyway. Hence the images must be pre-recorded.

Go ahead make your case for the events and images.

[Equinox]

I must be suddenly going blind, but I do not see any thick black lines in these photos you've posted above. You will not find an example of thick black lines around objects, more specifically, thick lines that disappear like those featured in the 9/11 dramedy, in any genuine photos or video.

I know I was like sooo where are the lines??

Are they here>?

[Equinox]

hey guys what about this BLACK LINE. Appearing at the bottom of CNN shot.
Anyone is more than free to challenge this...
To do this can one please demonstrate how on earth just the bottom 1/4 of the shot was lost yet the camera was still panning back the part of the shot that was not even there?????


LOL BUSTED..,




Link jump straight too it---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlA2NJo1 ... ge#t=2612s

[simonshack]

My gosh, why is it easier to think that a video production that surely had an unlimited budget, and probably years of time to fabricate the perfect hoax of all time would make such sloppy and repeated mistakes?

Dear Mitch,

I was a bit puzzled by the above-quoted question of yours. I then vaguely remembered a forum post (which had stuck in my mind) describing the "TPTB as being clumsy and brazen". So I did a search using these three words...and found this !

(...)These twisted clowns actually believe that there is some predetermined destiny to their omnipotent powers of deception. Once this is realized, it is easy to see why they are so clumsy and brazen in the way TPTB present the "facts". It is my opinion that they are not stupid at all, but rather believe in an indignant sort of manner that they are truly unstoppable, and have the power to create, and carry out perpetual illusions.(...)
viewtopic.php?p=2358301#p2358301

Now, correct me if I'm wrong/or missing something - but wouldn't you say that this paragraph of yours provides a pretty good answer to your own, above-quoted question?

[Mitch Matrixx]

Here are some more instances of photographers in forums questioning and answering the 'ghosting' phenomenon that I have been referring to. Just so there is no dispute about me creating this idea myself for the sake of arguing.
From photography website forum ModelMayhem: http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=502311

JeF Briguet wrote:
Huh some of you have quite a wild imagination!

It is ghosting.
Word.

It's a slight version of what you see on the left of this image caused by the camera or subject moving during a slow shutter to burn in the background light. The main light being a strobe, the background being a hot light.


Very early 90's! :-)

And, explaining that this artifacting occurs in the Analog and Digital photography realm.

Tim Summa wrote:
The lighting that you are creating is classically referred to as ‘axis’ lighting. ...
Monito -- Alan wrote:
Yup. Well done, Tim.
DarkSlide wrote:
+1

Tim explained it best.
while what tim described in axis lighting is correct in possibility, axis is typically fairly flat low shadow lighting producing a more flat image. the particular image has some high contrast with more concentrated light which doesn't follow typical axis light solution to high contrast problems.

it goes to what i suggested earlier in how it was described to me by kodak in their early entry into the digital slr release with how the sensor reacts to sudden change in contrast.

with the arrangement of the red, blue green, as well as depth, the sensor can become restricted in what it stabilizes in the image process and it must compensate in some form to account for high contrast based on how the pixels are overlayed. in other words, rather than being exact in accurate change of contrast it is compiling the pixels based on best estimate, in essence creating mud due to reaction time in processing which in turn creates the line. again, take note of the areas of low contrast on either side of the model and there is no line...the sensor was able to distinguish the subtle change unlike the areas of greater contrast difference.

fuji made an attempt to rid this with its super-ccd honeycomb sensor rather than a square pattern and for anyone using the s2 it was a noticeable difference under similar lighting conditions. their problem was more in marketing the concept of getting twice the count with half the sensor, but the imaging did show improvement over other "square" patterns for this problem. it (super ccd) still remains a pretty stellar approach in both color and depth.

also, this actually isn't just a digital problem, as scattering ions in film reacts much the same way. the best way to solve the problem is to either throw some overhead or back light onto the subject to force a more subtle change in contrast. when doing so the line will disappear with more light on the subject but then one runs the risk of blown highlights...similar to using a sledge on a finishing nail. finding the balance is key.

For the record, let me be clear. I am not disputing the possibility of Hollywood fakery, news hoaxes and media complicity. I am stating for those who were not in the know, that photoshop masking, and 3-D modelling composite masking is not the ONLY possible answer to some of the anomalies and artifacts that we see in the low res, and even high res videos out there. As with many things on this earth, there are two sides to every story, and not one possibility to answer all we see.

This was the only point I was trying to make.

[Mitch Matrixx]

Here is a patent for sensors that would reduce certain types of color artifacting, illustrating on an extremely scientific level the complexity of such a task/feat.

SUMMARY

The aforementioned and other objects are achieved by the invention which provides an image sensor, an electronic still camera, and a method associated therewith for image processing to form a processed image with reduced color artifacts, where an image is represented by a plurality of image signals in three colors. The method is useful with an electronic still camera, and comprises the steps of sampling the image of a scene in a color sub-sampled manner then constructing an improved full color image of the scene by processing the color sub-sampled pixel values.

The invention includes optimization of the pixel geometry for capability of balanced sharpness in each of two orthogonal sampling directions in the context of striped color filter arrays and dual resolution reconstruction.

For example, many CCD's, as previously described, use colored stripes mechanically attached to the CCD to filter colors, thereby making individual pixels associated with only one color. These individual pixels are broken into color planes. Therefore, if colored stripes of red, green, and blue ("RGB") are attached to the CCD, then the pixels associated with each individual color are broken into a red color plane, a green color plane, and a blue color plane.

Since these colors have now been separated, voids now exist where the previous colors used to be. That is, in the red color plane, the pixel locations where green and blue had to have existed previously are now left void. Therefore, the next step is to interject interpolated image signals in each of the color planes that correspond to the image signal locations left void by the separation step. This now forms a triplet for each color location in the image. Previously, a single pixel location would contain only information on one color, red for example. Now, with the interpolated data, each pixel location has RGB information associated therewith.

Next, two difference signals are created at each pixel location that represent the differences between one channel and a second, and the first channel and the third within the RGB triplet. In the previous example using RGB, those difference signals can be any combination of the R, the G, or the B, as long as from those three colors, two different difference signals are created. In the preferred embodiment, R-G and B-G are used.

The difference signals are then filtered using a median filter which substantially reduces or removes color artifacts.

Next, the image is reconstructed from the original image signals and the filtered difference signals to form a processed image which has substantially preserved detail and reduced color artifacts. The improved RGB triplets thus formed from linearly interpolated RGB triplets have the same pixel geometry as the original single color pixels. In the case of rectangular pixel geometry, some method of producing pixels of square geometry must be employed for use with any display device that renders images on a raster of square geometry.

In the case of rectangular pixels of aspect ratio height twice the width, the invention provides dual resolution modes for easily producing square pixels for display. In one resolution mode, neighboring pairs of pixels are averaged in the direction normal to the major axis of the rectangular pixels within each color plane such that one half as many square pixel RGB triplets are formed as there were original single color rectangular pixels, while in the second resolution mode new RGB triplets are interjected by interpolation in the direction parallel to the major axis of the rectangular pixels such that twice as many square pixel RGB triplets are formed as there were original single color rectangular pixels. In the case of rectangular pixels of aspect ratio other than height twice width, multi resolution mode can be supported with more complicated down sampling and up sampling schemes.

The improved color reconstruction method preserves image detail by injecting abrupt lightness transitions sensed by any original pixel regardless of color into the reconstructed missing color pixel values. This property reduces the blur associated with color sub-sampling to that blur associated with the geometry of the optical elements in the electronic still camera and the blur associated with forming square pixels from rectangular pixels. In the invention, the pixel geometry is optimized for balanced sharpness in each sampling direction given the associated blur functions of the other optical elements and the image processing by analysis of the frequency response of the system and quantification of sharpness by a figure of merit which considers the frequency response properties of the human visual system.

In further aspects, the invention provides methods in accord with the apparatus described above. The aforementioned and other aspects of the invention are evident in the drawings and in the description that follows.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5778106/description.html

Pretty heavy duty stuff for even scholarly people to try and completely understand, but scientifically addressing the issues inherent with color artifacts.

[Equinox]

ACE BAKER says:
Mask Linings
The "double vision" effect Shack refers to as a "Mask Lining" is probably a ghosting effect. Ghosting is a well-known old artifact of broadcast TV, where an imperfect signal causes an offset doubled image.

Used correctly, a luma key mask will not create a doubling effect such pointed out by Shack. Even if this doubling effect is somehow caused by pulling a less-than-perfect key, this is evidence for composting, not for total animation.

The problem is, the 9/11 broadcasts feature BOTH mask linings and - what Ace calls - "doubling effects".
<<<(Thanks, Equinox, for this masking layer proof!)