Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 349

Thread: Jose Escamilla

  1. #181
    Here are the links with the photo in question.

    Page 1 - What the Browser Originally looked like before NASA removed it.

    http://tblnfilms.com/BADAST/Image1.html

    Page 2 - The process the image went through.

    http://tblnfilms.com/BADAST/Image2.html

    I will add the Aristarchus photos as soon as I get time out of my schedule today or later tonight. For now that's it.

    JE
    Last edited by Jose Escamilla; 2010-Feb-06 at 03:46 AM.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    5,930
    One way it could have been taken as an insult was:

    "I just read Jay's Credits. Wow! Time (for you to go work for the people) at CSI." The implication being that his credits were being mocked in some way that put them more on par with a TV special effects staffer.

    I'm not saying that's how Jay took it, but we have had some pretty creatively veiled insults in the past.
    I'm Not Evil.
    An evil person would do the things that pop into my head.

  3. #183
    Nah - I would never do that because I will tell him what I think to his face. He just saw it as an attack on him. I've been told to behave here so I am going to be on best behaviour so I don't get banned.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    858
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Escamilla View Post

    Page 1 - What the Browser Originally looked like before NASA removed it.
    link

    In case anyone is getting a 404 on this link.

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    5,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Escamilla View Post
    Nah - I would never do that because I will tell him what I think to his face. He just saw it as an attack on him. I've been told to behave here so I am going to be on best behaviour so I don't get banned.
    I don't think he actually took it as an insult because he asked for a clarification. I also have no idea if he would have read it the same way I did. I was merely pointing out how it could have been taken as an insult when you asked about it.
    I'm Not Evil.
    An evil person would do the things that pop into my head.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Tog_ View Post
    "I just read Jay's Credits. Wow! Time (for you to go work for the people) at CSI."
    I read it that way too, but was more baffled at what it meant. This is a case where paragraphs to seperate ideas comes in handy.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Escamilla View Post
    Jay, what I said is here.
    Quote:
    I just read Jay's credits. WoW! Time for CSI on CBS. SO I am closing shop for now. Didn't have time today to prepare all the materials I am uploading. Will have to get into it tomorrow - time permitting. Nothing new to add tonight. Goodnight.
    I just said WoW! About reading your creds that's all. Where you find it as a personal attack I don't get it. I simply stated WoW! and that it's time for CSI on CBS (The time I posted it was 9:07 and CSI had already started on the tube Jay that's all I said and that I was closing shop to view it. That's it!
    Unfortunatly, Jose, your phrasing made it look like you were amazed that Jay had time to be on CSI on CBS. The omission of the 'it's' was the problem.
    Last edited by AstroRockHunter; 2010-Feb-05 at 05:59 PM. Reason: Edited to correct quotes.
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  8. #188
    Aha - I see what you guys mean. I'll be more careful from here on - on how I phrase things.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    40,080
    I just want to make it clear, that this is not a forum for a debate between Jose Escamilla and Jay Utah, even if one or two people might be interested in such a debate. If you post on BAUT you are communicating with everyone on BAUT.

    Let's focus on Jose Escamilla's theories and drop the rest of these side issues.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post

    Let's focus on Jose Escamilla's theories and drop the rest of these side issues.
    While I agree with your sentiment, I, for one, am glad that the particular side issue was cleared up. I am also glad that others pointed out, for Jose, where it may have read like a veiled insult (I also took it that way). I am also glad that Jose clarified his meaning and it seems that this issue was resolved in a non combative manner. It may also help Jose, who, after all, is rather new to this particular forum, realize how precise we tend to be about words and word usage here.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Escamilla View Post
    Aha - I see what you guys mean. I'll be more careful from here on - on how I phrase things.
    Thank you; I understand now what you meant earlier. I apologize for insinuating that your statement was meant as an insult.

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    40,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    While I agree with your sentiment, I, for one, am glad that the particular side issue was cleared up. I am also glad that others pointed out, for Jose, where it may have read like a veiled insult (I also took it that way). I am also glad that Jose clarified his meaning and it seems that this issue was resolved in a non combative manner. It may also help Jose, who, after all, is rather new to this particular forum, realize how precise we tend to be about words and word usage here.
    Actually, my post was much broader than the most recent exchange. A significant number of Jose's posts seem to be directed at Jay. I want all parties to know that this is not a private debate between Jay and Jose.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    190
    It says that you "colorized the image" and then "brought the contrast up and did a "Levels" adjustment and this is the end result"

    How did you colorize the black and white image and how, exactly, would that help to expose 'hidden' features behind the smudge?

    And, don't you think that adding to an image could potentially introduce additional artifacts that were not present prior to the manipulation?

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    5,156
    Could someone explain to me what we are supposed to be seeing in the images posted by Jose Escamilla?

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbar View Post
    It says that you "colorized the image" and then "brought the contrast up and did a "Levels" adjustment and this is the end result"

    How did you colorize the black and white image and how, exactly, would that help to expose 'hidden' features behind the smudge?

    And, don't you think that adding to an image could potentially introduce additional artifacts that were not present prior to the manipulation?
    Based on past examples of such manipulation that have been offered as proof of structures on the Moon and Mars it's a near certainty that's what happened.
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2010-Feb-06 at 07:32 AM. Reason: Fix quote tag (end quote tag had end bold tag INSIDE it).

  16. #196
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    858
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Could someone explain to me what we are supposed to be seeing in the images posted by Jose Escamilla?
    The idea is that the blurred areas seen in Clementine images were intentionally done to hide structures, machinery or in this case a spacecraft on the lunar surface.

    You can see from Jose's movie on YT, from about 5:13.

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    40,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Rue View Post
    Originally Posted by gzhpcu
    Could someone explain to me what we are supposed to be seeing in the images posted by Jose Escamilla?
    The idea is that the blurred areas seen in Clementine images were intentionally done to hide structures, machinery or in this case a spacecraft on the lunar surface.

    You can see from Jose's movie on YT, from about 5:13.
    I suspect you are correct Rue, but the most important thing is for Jose Escamilla to answer that question.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Escamilla View Post
    ... it's time for CSI on CBS ...
    CSI. Ah yes.

    Is that where you got the notion that detailed structures can be reconstructed from one or two single pixels in a digital image?

    As a (self proclaimed?) expert in Photoshop, resp. digital image analysis and manipulation in general, I'm sure you're aware that the image reconstructions done on CSI, indepedent of which city flavor you prefer, are pure fantasy. Or, more pugnent: bovine feces.

    It is absolutely impossible to reconstruct a complete automobile registration plate number from four pixels; in high-res, low-res, or any res. CSI goes totally overboard in that respect. Continually and repeatedly.

    If you're learning your image analysis and manipulation from CSI, change channels. Quick.

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    284
    Mr. Escamilla, I think we're making some progress concerning the smudged Zeeman crater. I'd like to get your feedback on what I've found and posted on page 6 of this thread. The following images are what I'd deem most pertinent:

    The crater as mapped:


    The crater as imaged by Clementine with the smudge, but without the mercator projection distortion:


    The Clementine image of this crater without the smudge present:

    ---
    Were you aware of these additional images of the crater in question? I think you may want to remove your reference to the crater in your film entirely, as
    A) We have a clear image with no sign of any "figure" and
    B) Your "figure" would not appear as such in the undistorted image. You must recall that the pareidolic figure you've identified appeared to be an undistorted figure in a heavily distorted image. **As seen here: http://tblnfilms.com/BADAST/Image2.html
    For kicks 'n giggles, here's the colourised version from the film with an adjustment to make the crater more round:
    http://i46.tinypic.com/dvr8nm.jpg

  20. #200
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Escamilla View Post
    Here are the links with the photo in question.
    Page 1 - What the Browser Originally looked like before NASA removed it.
    http://tblnfilms.com/BADAST/Image1.html

    Page 2 - The process the image went through.
    http://tblnfilms.com/BADAST/Image2.html

    I will add the Aristarchus photos as soon as I get time out of my schedule today or later tonight. For now that's it.
    JE
    The first link doesn't work, but Rue's version http://tblnfilms.com/BADAST/Image1.html does - thanks, Rue.

    From that link, my comments and Jose's text in red:

    ..I went down the list of the Photoshop "Filter" plug-ins. I used Unsharp Mask because it is the easiest way to add 'edge contrast' to a photo.

    Yes, it's the easiest way to add edge contrast. It also adds haloes (especially if the strength is wound right up, and a large pixel radius is used). The haloes are FALSELY darkened and brightened pixels, that follow contrast contours/edges - that is how it increases the edge contrast. Those contours MAY be the edges of real objects, or they MAY be jpeg quantization blocks or patterns within them, or they MAY be posterisation edges from insufficient bit depth to smoothly represent the colour/tone gradients.

    It is worth noting that sharpening is a very destructive (in terms of adding to or destroying the original detail) process. For 'normal' digital images to be displayed on web, a sharpening amount of 50-150% and radius of 0.5-2 pixels would be used. For printing, that may increase.

    The process is simple. Duplicate the photo as a layer
    FTR, all this does is to ensure that you have an original version of the image as a layer beneath the copy you have enhanced (or ruined).

    click on Filter / Sharpen / Unsharp Mask and the plug-in window pops up. The default settings on My Unsharp Mask is (Amount - 90%, Pixel Radius - 3.8, threshhold-0).

    ???? So you don't know Photoshop very well? These are NOT the default settings, these are the LAST SETTINGS YOU USED. The defaults are 100%, 1 and 0.

    The excessive pixel radius choice of 3.8 is absolutely bound to create large, false artefacts, and if you then increased the amount...

    All I did was set the Amount to 500

    sigh.. 500%?? - then you have over-sharpened to extremes. Any competent Photoshop user would know this. 3.8 pixel radius is ridiculously large, and to then use 500% enhancement? Inconceivably bad choices. (If anyone wants to know what parameters are appropriate for what situations, please ask.. {wallace voice} sharpening is my speciality! {/wallace voice})

    By adding edge contrast when blended with the original it gave me a look at what might possibly be underneath..

    No, it simply added a whole pile of false detail, haloes and exaggerated tones. So all you did was make any attempt to see 'hidden detail' more difficult. Even a casual look at that image tells me that the smudge, no matter how it was caused, has effectively rendered that area of the image invalid. Your 'enhancement' rendered it even less valid, if that was possible.

    This enhancement was simple, BUT I wanted to get a professional job done on this by someone reputable who would probably apply his or her 'forensics image' tools to the photo and perhaps give me more detail of what might be there. For me to be able to use the Unsharp Mask and get this kind of result, I decided to contact someone who might be a better option for me - A Forensics Image Expert.

    For you to use sharpening in the way you did, then think you had revealed something and not realise why you were wasting your time, tells me that you certainly DID need an expert.

    If I can do a simple Unsharp Mask and come up with the result I achieved, imagine getting a real pro to apply their tools! I could only imagine what would come out of this.

    This does seem to indicate you had a preconceived idea of what you wanted..

    I read the report. WoW! That's it? Then I opened the zip file containing the enhancements he made. I was really looking forward to see what he found by using his his forensics imaging techniques...
    He sent me the PSD file which revealed to me what he had done. All he did was added the curves feature found in the "Image" section of tools under Adjustments in Photoshop. Then clicked on the first listing on the drop down menu which is "Color Negative RGB" and that was it! He added Levels to it and did a minor adjustment.


    And these, unlike your use of sharpening to add false details, are the correct techniques to use - a gentle enhancement that is only likely to make subtle contrast details more visible without false haloes and other artefacts.

    In the second 'analysis' he simply flattened the image on the left made it black and white, duplicated it adding a layer and clicked on "Difference" in the layers menu and that was it!

    Again, entirely appropriate - Jim obviously knows what he is doing, and what the limitations are in enhancing such images. He would also know that sharpening at 3.8/500% is completely inappropriate..

    On the other two images I sent him he performed the exact same 'image' analysis. The only difference is that he sent me larger sized files than the main object file. I was now out some serious money, and I had nothing at all to use from his 'forensics image examination.'

    Actually, you had an accurate report, and you LEARNED something. You learnt that your approach was completely wrong, and that the image simply shows a blurred area. You learned how experienced professionals operate, and that you had made a big mistake. Several, actually.

    Jim is right. You were wrong (and it has to be noted that you seem to have a bias to want that wrong interpretation).

    I needed to get this segment finished, so I did what I had to do.

    And there is an indication of that bias. You need to step out of your pr shoes for a while.

    Use what you have to get the film finished. I used his measurement of what the approximate size of the object would be, put his name in it and gave him name credits in the end roll fo the film as is usual, and that's ALL!

    Oh? That was 'ALL!'? You forgot about adding insinuations into PR notes, and posting numerous threads on forums making the same unwarranted comments and selective quotes? Do we need to re-quote what you have already said in this thread alone?

    I don't know about anyone who has ever commissioned someone to do a job for you, but when you pay a large amount of money for a professional, you would think I would receive more than you see above.

    I would expect that professional to do a competent job of analysing the images. From what I see here, he has done exactly that. He gave you the correct interpretations and advice. If, instead, you want to pay someone to tell you only what you want to hear, perhaps that should be in the contract, and perhaps you should find an image analysis pretender, rather than a true expert like Jim.. In this case, you have got incredible value for money, imo - not only did you get a good analysis, you should have learned a valuable life lesson. It's there if you want to take it up.

    ANYONE can go into Photoshop and do the same Unsharp Mask enhancement to the same image by putting the "Amount to 500" click OK and you'll see what you get.

    Yes, they can. And if they bother, they indicate they haven't got the necessary skills to know that it is a total waste of time. You might as well paint in your aliens...

    1). I made a couple more enhancements on the Original Unsharp Masked image.

    So you used a completely over-enhanced image containing much false detail..

    2). I colorized the image.

    and then added false colour, on no scientific basis whatsoever..

    3). I brought the contrast up and did a "Levels" adjustment and this is the end result

    This at least, was potentially valid. By the way, to avoid exposing your lack of knowledge in image enhancement in the future, may I also suggest that you read up on WHEN (in the processing chain of events) you should sharpen. Not withstanding the poor choice you made for the sharpening parameters, it is ALMOST ALWAYS DONE LAST. Have a think about why that is.

    I HAVE TO ADMIT my pointing out that this appears to be a giant humanoid wearing a jumpsuit and bending over was a MAJOR mistake on my part.

    That's good. Now we are getting somewhere...

    May I remind Jose that before he thinks about answering all this, there are several more important outstanding questions that need to be dealt with.

  21. #201
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    284
    I think it would be prudent, Jose, to trust Jim Hoerricks and his work in light of the apparent fact that you yourself are not an expert in image analysis. If you disagreed with what Jim did for the price, well, in your stead I'd have asked him about it and found out why he didn't do more to the image than he did. Looking at chrlzs's post just above this one, there are things that a layman simply cannot know about this field, as with any field of expertise.

    **I mean, I'm a layman where image analysis comes in. I can hunt down lunar photographs and squint at them to see what I can see, but I'd never presume to be able to expertly reveal missing data in one of them. Of course, I don't know exactly what your credentials are in this area, but from what you've written at e.g. http://tblnfilms.com/BADAST/Image2.html and in this thread, you don't appear to understand all that goes into image analysis, and of course that's why you turned to Jim, as you also noted in this thread.

  22. #202
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbar View Post
    It says that you "colorized the image" and then "brought the contrast up and did a "Levels" adjustment and this is the end result"

    How did you colorize the black and white image and how, exactly, would that help to expose 'hidden' features behind the smudge?

    And, don't you think that adding to an image could potentially introduce additional artifacts that were not present prior to the manipulation?
    A 'Levels' adjustment (which is really just an advanced (less destructive) way of adjusting contrast and brightness (ps experts may be offended by that simplification!)) can be valid for revealing subtle changes in tone that may not be easily visible. But the problem is that you must be aware of what else can cause those tone changes (jpeg artefacts (block edges and patterns), quantisation, bit depth issues, etc.) and under no circumstances use any process beforehand (like sharpening) that may add false detail.

    Even assuming that the 'smudge' had left any hints of what was beneath (and there is nothing to suggest it has), the excessive sharpening as the first step destroyed any validity of further processing.

  23. #203
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,171
    Quote Originally Posted by chrlzs View Post
    From that link, my comments and Jose's text in red:
    Perfect summary, chrlzs.

    Jose, are you still claiming that something the size of a city (never mind, 10x the size of Los Angeles) would not be visible from Earth? If so, given the evidence to the contrary that has been posted here, what is the basis for that claim?
    Last edited by Strange; 2010-Feb-05 at 11:17 PM. Reason: grammar

  24. #204
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,201
    Using sharpening tools has nothing to do with image analysis. That's image manipulation.

    Analysis is done without changing data. It's a study of pixels.

    The jpeg format doesn't make objective analysis difficult, it makes it impossible, except to a limited degree for high quality storage (level 12).

    The minute an image is saved/stored in the jpeg format, the original data is lost. Forever. It has been changed to bicubical approximations.

    When a stored jpeg is re-opened, no single pixel is exactly the same as it was in the original image, only the general impression of the entire image. Opening a jpeg is actually "restoring" an image based on area approximations.

    Tiffs are quite different. Even the tiff LZW compression keeps track of the original pixel values and resores them perfectly upon opening the image.

  25. #205
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    2,421
    I was about to post a critique of Jose's methodology, but I see chrlzs has beat me to it. He is exactly right. Jose, your methodology is severly flawed.

    Using unsharp mask at any point in such an "analysis" fundamentally kills any hope you have of identifying anything, full stop. You've heard the term "garbage in, garbage out," I assume. Thisis precisely what you did.

    John's approach, while simple, is correct. He likely used Photoshop because that's your tool of choice. Image analysts make use of filters and histogram adjustments that are as simple and undestructive as possible. Most of Photoshop's tools are irrelevant in this type of work.

    CJSF
    "Soon the man who sweeps the room brings the secret telegram, 'COMMENCE OFFICIAL INTERPLANETARY EXPLORATION.' "
    -They Might Be Giants, "Destination Moon"

  26. #206
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by kleindoofy View Post
    Using sharpening tools has nothing to do with image analysis. That's image manipulation.

    Analysis is done without changing data. It's a study of pixels.

    The jpeg format doesn't make objective analysis difficult, it makes it impossible, except to a limited degree for high quality storage (level 12).

    The minute an image is saved/stored in the jpeg format, the original data is lost. Forever. It has been changed to bicubical approximations.

    When a stored jpeg is re-opened, no single pixel is exactly the same as it was in the original image, only the general impression of the entire image. Opening a jpeg is actually "restoring" an image based on area approximations.

    Tiffs are quite different. Even the tiff LZW compression keeps track of the original pixel values and resores them perfectly upon opening the image.
    And this explains why the raw LRO images available online are over 200MB apiece and stored in none other than the TIFF image format

    **Shucks, here's where you might start with the Clementine images if you're serious about examining them: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/clemcd.html

  27. #207
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Ferro View Post
    ...
    I was about to post a critique of Jose's methodology, but I see chrlzs has beat me to it. He is exactly right. Jose, your methodology is severly flawed.

    Ditto. I endorse chrlz's review and I will be adding my own comments in time. There are only a few things I can add to what he has already said. And I agree with C. Ferro that Escamilla's method is largely worthless as a method of attempting to extract detail because it is far more likely to create an illusion of detail than actually to recover it. This should have been quite apparent from Escamilla's final image, which contains an abundance of false detail in the areas of the image that were not blurred.

    Using unsharp mask at any point in such an "analysis" fundamentally kills any hope you have of identifying anything, full stop.

    Indeed. One of the most noted side effects of the USM algorithm is the appearance of false contour. As a manipulation of visual appearance it works reasonably well in small doses. As a method of "reconstructing" lost detail (i.e., lost high-frequency data) is is entirely useless.

    [Jim]'s approach, while simple, is correct. He likely used Photoshop because that's your tool of choice.

    Adobe Photoshop is a workable platform for digital image analysis because it has an extensible architecture for writing filters and plugins. That frees the software developer from the drudgery of dealing with storage formats etc. so he can concentrate on where his expertise really lies.

    Hoerricks' method is valid because he is attempting to expand the available quantization evenly into the available dynamic range. This is considerably different -- both conceptually and algebraically -- from amplifying only high-frequency transitions (USM).

    Image analysts make use of filters and histogram adjustments that are as simple and undestructive as possible.

    At the Univ. of Utah we used tool chains that were not largely visual. That is, entities like luminosity histograms were treated as their statistical abstractions -- tables of numerical data -- and manipulated using only statistical algebra. Methods like this are critical in endeavors such as space-based imaging where the input wavelengths to each channel are not immediately conducive to some purpose such as visual display. Image manipulation in that case derives properly from physics and algebra, not from subjective feedback.

    Most of Photoshop's tools are irrelevant in this type of work.

    Indeed. USM is not a magical detail-revealer. And opening up Photoshop, selecting any old filter, and wiggling the sliders at random until you like what you see is not image analysis.

  28. #208
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    243
    I've got to say, chrlzs....Slam Dunk (unscientific, I realize, but imo appropriate).

    Even if JayUtah had left any doubt (impossible!!), your last post is a major nail in the coffin for Mr. Escamilla's nonsensical notions. I looked at the images provided by Weltraum and others (thanks guys!) and I don't see any evidence of artificiality.

    I'm no astronomer (have had a lifelong interest in the subject though), engineer, or image analyst. Simply based on what I've seen so far, the idea of artificial structures of the scale Mr. Escamilla mentioned is, in my non-professional opinion, pure fantasy.

    I guess I'm not "most people".

  29. #209
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,448
    Quote Originally Posted by kleindoofy View Post
    ...
    Using sharpening tools has nothing to do with image analysis. That's image manipulation.

    Indeed.

    Image processing is simply signal processing, and it proceeds from the principles of measurement theory. The problems we face here deal with things like quantization, error diffusion, sampling theory, and measurement jitter. We also think about domain transformations, such as from the spatial domain to the frequency domain.

    This extends to image manipulation, which can be an adaptive and heuristic process involving the same techniques and concepts as processing.

    Image analysis is a cerebral activity that is augmented by higher-level algebraic and geometric constructs. At this level of attention the notion of the image as a signal in a domain gives way to the image as the container of geometrically-distributed data.

    Image interpretation is purely a human cerebral activity and may not have required any of the foregoing steps. This is primarily a search for meaning in the image. It often involves expert knowledge of the domain in which the image was taken.

    There is no magic "enhance" button that performs processing and manipulation tasks appropriate to some purpose, nor is there a straightforward procedure for analyzing and interpreting an image intended to mean something in a particular context. These are all expert activities and require expertise and experience to carry them out correctly. The general availability of tools used by experts to carry out those activities does not imply that the expertise required to use them comes along with them for free. This is why we have seen an endless parade of "Photoshop experts" who don't really display any actual knowledge of image analysis.

    The minute an image is saved/stored in the jpeg format, the original data is lost. Forever. It has been changed to bicubical approximations.

    Not necessarily true, since the JPEG standard and the JFIF file format can support lossless compression. The discrete cosine transform most commonly used, however, is lossy in the way you describe.

    Any image format is lossy if you have a sufficiently abstract notion of "original data." All image formats quantize in the wavelength domain, the spatial domain, and the luminosity domain. Any quantized data fails to preserve every nuance of the original incoming signal.

    However, if I read Jim Hoerricks' report correctly, the analysis done both by him and by Jose Escamilla was done on GIF images. That's painful because GIF images are limited to 256 distinct values that all pixels must share. To quantize an image within that narrow window involves significant error, and therefore error diffusion plays an important part. And it just so happens that error diffusion wreaks havoc on algorithms such as USM that amplify only high-frequency transitions in the spatial domain.

    And yes, I'm using big words. They also happen to be the correct words, and words that are defined and have specific meaning in the world of image processing. They were coined so that these specific concepts could be spoken of unambiguously and accurately.

  30. #210
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    ... At the Univ. of Utah we used tool chains that were not largely visual. That is, entities like luminosity histograms were treated as their statistical abstractions -- tables of numerical data -- and manipulated using only statistical algebra. ...
    That's close to what I meant above.

    The people I know who do image analysis (at the TU Graz) do it all without visually based systems, e.g. Photoshop.

    Original data have certain characteristics, luminosity flows and such. Hard borders or sudden changes and differences in the data flow of a bitmap* at the pixel level of an original image are very rare. While this cannot always be detected visually, mathematical statistics of the pixels can point out manipulations quite vividly.




    * I use "bitmap" in the original sense, not in the Photoshop sense, i.e. not for one bit color depth images, but for any (uncompressed) digital image.


    [edit: this post crossed with the Jay's post above]

Similar Threads

  1. The Age of the Universe in San Jose, CA
    By Tim Thompson in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2003-Aug-01, 09:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: