You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
-1

[–] Are_we__sure 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

You can't see that video in raw form any longer.

You also have never seen this video in a lossless format because some info was lost as it was captured. Gopro videos are heavily compressed into the mp4 format using the H.264 codec.

Broadcast TV uses much higher end cameras. So this is probably transcoded during editing. Another transcode happens when it's compressed for the web and then another round of compression when you make a jpeg out of it. If you're not dealing in what is know a lossless codec, you lose little bits of information all along the way and you have artifacts. Areas where artifacts would occur are borders, especially those with high contrast.

When you start with a high quality image, you can retain a pretty good image all the way through, but you are not going to avoid artifacts. Video artifacts are more noticeable when zoomed in.

You also have the issue of the video can only record so many levels of light, what photographers call dynamic range. If you notice at the beginning of the clip the camera catches the sun and that part of the image is completely blown out. It's not shades of white, it's just all white. If 100 represents the highest brightness that can be captured on that camera setting and you try to capture something that is like 120...like the direct sun may be...that's what you get. Pure White, no detail. An area that is 101 in brightness would look the same as a brightness of 200. With digital once you "clip" the top part of the range, it's gone. If you try to color correct that image, you couldn't bring that clipped part back, because there is basically no variations of color to work with. That info is gone.

The same thing happens on the other edge of the dynamic range. If you have too little light, it goes full black. That is what's happening here. What you are seeing is I believe the back side of a wave as it's cut off from the sun. What appears to be something black breaking the surface of the water is, I believe a patch of the surface of the water, losing light and thus appearing black. There are glints of sun on top of the wave and you just created a boundary of pure white to pure black. GoPros have automatic exposure which means the lens is opening and closing as you film, there's a tiny lag each time.

You can take that picture into a photo forensics tool like this one and play around with it. That pure black area does not look like a human form, it doesn't have curves so much as zig and zags like the letter Z. Not the glint of white light there is water is not somebodies head.

Also looking at this some more there are three life vests in the picture. Assuming there are people in each of those life vests, there's someone next to fuddy. That person would be facing the other way and then you go from yellow on the sole of a sneaker to black pants to lifevest. That actually looks pretty good, black pants could account for both lack of light and the zig zag.....wonder if there's more video of about that moment. EDIT: The guy who annotated the images identifies Fuddy as the person facing the other way. He even identifies her leg in the photo right before this. THE SPOT where he claims to see a diver surface, IS EXACTLY WHERE HE JUST IDENTIFIED HER LEG. Is the diver supposed to go through her body? It's the same spot. It's under a half second of time, her body would still be right there. Unbelievable.

https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#forensic-magnifier

Try it with these tools and play around.

Level Sweep

Luminance Gradient

Principal Component Analysis

Photo compression artifacts + not enough dyanmic range + pareidolia accounts for this.

Pareidolia is the human tendency to see patterns in randomness. We are really, really good at connecting the dots. by the way if you turn your head to left and look at the image, the illusion is pretty much broken.

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/55ad31781500002d00173856.jpeg

*dunno what the yellow bit is on the left. Edit see above....could be a sneaker.

Can anypoint to the original broadcase footage and say when this clip happens?

0
3

[–] crazy_eyes 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

So, covering up for murder is your thing?

dangerous

0
0

[–] Are_we_sure ago 

@crazy_eyes Are you insane? How would I be covering up for murder? You seem to have an inflated sense of what's going on here. Do you you think people solving are solving a murder here?

They are not.

@blacksmith21

The h.264 codec is not a lossless codec. It's a very good codec, but it is compressed and it's compressed during filming. That is to say, you are losing some color information once you turn the camera on vs higher end cameras. Most of the time this doesn't matter, but everytime you reencode, you will see some small degradation. Especially on footage like this where nothing is still.

1080p is only telling me two things, size of the resulting image and if it's interlaced. It doesn't tell me about the quality of the image or the codec used. GoPros also supported 720 video at 60 fps. This is probably 1080p.

If original video was on a Hero black, it would have been shot in 4K with a 4:2:2 colorspace.

Pretty sure this woman died before the 4K gopro came out.

If you understand 4:2:2 colorspace, you are understanding it's not a lossless codec. No transcoding other than probably H.264 to MPEG4. MPEG4 is the file format. H.264 is the codec, so there's no transcode here at all.

When you turn the camera on you record H.264 video which is stored an MPEG4 wrapper. I believe even older Go Pros were 4:2:2

So I believe you have the initial capture with a slight loss of color, you have the editing of the piece for broadcast and then you have upload for web streaming

Then you have zoom into the image to see any of this and the picture on this guys twitter is a jpeg. So you defintely have chances for compression and video artefacts. The videos I have seen on youtube have obvious color banding.

You are throwing away a ton of information in this image when you zoom into it. Putting this in my NLE and going frame by frame. It's incredibly hard to even isolate this footage.

And yes, I can read a histogram. And not you did not negate anything.

@The_Savant

Your theory of "nothing" (whatever the fuck that means) has far more holes in than our theory.

I was leaning towards compression artefacts on zoomed it video, but now I'm pretty sure it's the womans leg. If it were a diver, he has foot where his left sholder should be. It's her leg. She was weaing black pants and the yellowish bit is the bottom of her shoe. The shoe and the black move in absolutely sync. I have version that I lightened, zoomed in and slowed down, but it's still just so few frames to work with and stuff is in front her that i want to try and play some more.

This tweet clearly shows Fuddy alive and uninjured 90 minutes drifting Yes. With a life jacket or some flotation device. Strange how she could possibly have died.

We know how she died. She died of heart arrhythmia. They were not just floating, they were trying to swim to shore. One guy made it. The guy who took the camera said it very cold and hard to swim in full clothes and shoes. She was 65 years old, I believe.

The guy who made that tweet misidentifies Fuddy in this photo below. He is certainly not any sort of forensic expert. This is not the woman who died. It's a woman who needed help with life vest. She is named in one of the newscasts.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdqxPGbVwAEy-Km.jpg

and also clearly shows the diver. You can lose the quotation marks now, there should be no debate.

Not on my end there's no diver whatsoever.

Ask yourself this question; if Fuddy died purely due to the plane crash, what caused her to let go of the wreckage of the plane? Also, if there was a diver present, why did he not rescue her when he noticed she was in danger? One of your main objections seems to be her lack of assistance in the situation but your scenario is obscured even further so by that question.

Don't have to we know how she died. The local news station have an interview with a guy who was with her before she died.

Now to address a few of your other hurried and panicked queries.

Ha.

Government official on a private flight with an affiliate of Obama's in which she is the only one the dies in a plane crash whilst having a lot of inside information... and it's nothing? I'll let you read this line from an article about the incident:

Officials are still trying to determine the cause of death.

You need to learn to research better. The initial news report did not have her cause of death, since then, they did an autopsy. She was not an affiliate of Obama's. He was not a government official. You are making that assumption and it's incorrect. She was a state official for Hawaii. The inside information she had is still there. Whoever took her place would be able to give out the same info. So yes, nothing.

REALLY? I would have thought the other 8 passengers or the nearby diver might be able to give the answer but apparently not. And I guess the cause of death is also nothing?

See this just looks silly right now. You are jumping to conclusion and silly ones at that. This is a type of logical fallacy called arguing from personal incredulity.

So how would this ludicrous assassination scenario work? Was everyone on the plane in on it? A plane landing a sea is inherently dangerous. That's your scenario to kill one person? What if the plane went in a different way? A more violent way and flipped over. It could easily be a suicide mission. The pilot was briefly knocked unconscious in the crash.

So you crash the plane in location and a diver just happens to be there? Did he come from a boat? He was just there waiting? What if the plane was in flight for 10 or 20 seconds more? They could end up mile and mile away from the diver. How does the diver identify her from below the water?

This whole thing is an exercise in Anomaly Hunting. It's one of the building blocks of conspiracy theories along with pareidolia. It's focusing on this one small anomaly and not on what the whole event would be. I don't see how this conspiracy works unless every passenger was part of it. Otherwise, it would be far too risky that somebody noticed a diver was in the area.

0
0

[–] Blacksmith21 [S] ago  (edited ago)

Transcoding during editing. It was shot in native 1080p. No transcoding other than probably H.264 to MPEG4. No effect on the color gamut. No effect on native res. Mild lossiness. If original video was on a Hero black, it would have been shot in 4K with a 4:2:2 (I think, may be 4:4:2 don't recall) color space and 36 or 48-bit color depth.

Wanna fuck with me on this subject dipshit @are_we_sure?

That pretty much negates all of your bullshit. Next?

0
0

[–] Blacksmith21 [S] ago 

Are you gonna tell me you know how to read a histogram now? So much wrong with your vomit. Not worth the time.

0
0

[–] The_Savant ago