Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, you seem to have it all figured out, dontcha? Then you shouldn’t have a problem explaining that small block of carpet that I estimate is about 3 square inches in size that pops out in sharper contrast at the center of the blob of smudged out nothing surrounding it? Splain that Lucy? There can be no depth of field or auto focus issue there. And video compression can’t explain that away either, if you actually understand what video compression does and how it works.
Furthermore, surveillance cameras use a wide aperture focus to capture a larger field of focus, as can be seen in the following still frames. Notice the detail in the floor all the way down. Look at the detail of the open door in the near foreground, compared to the second door further down in the background. There is no noticeable loss of focus or detail. Even the floor detail is very distinguishable 20 feet down, and the entry way to the right, even in the shadow area detail can still be seen.
Now, again, compare that to this image which is again showing the obliterated contrast surrounding the feet and pant leg, which you see the camo detail, as well as the shoe detail in much sharper contrast than the ground underneath. Looks like she is standing in a puddle of gray mud water.
So, spare us all the details about how cameras work. Nowadays, everyone has both a still frame and video camera built right into their phones. We know what video is supposed to look like, or at least we should. Some of us, obviously don’t.
Are they all using the same camera model? It depends on the age, firmware, optics and processing power. Older cameras process images in batches of data, which can cause pixelating in different areas of the image.
Someone captured and processed those images. Did they use the same format native to the cameras, or was it an import/export where the image processing caused aberrations. What's the point you are making, that someone cut and pasted portions of the images?
there is a difference between a camera and the recording device when it is dedicated, such that every frame - adjustable in both frequency and size makes it to the preformatted memory blocks on the recorder. You have heard of 'buffer-under flow' where is not enuf frames to fill a block so the partially filled block becomes unusable, then you have multi-cameras and 1 device where the frame rate is timesliced between every camera.
IF you are recording 32 fps and you have 16 cameras then you get 2 frames per second per camera which is pretty stop motion so many.most systems allocate memory in a leapfrog: a block, b block, c block etc such that the number of active cameras is a hashed to each block...in my example, 4 blocks, 4 cameras per block so at 32fps you get 8fps - still jumpy.
when playing it back, the image software tries to restore it to the correct 'p' 320, 480, 720, 1080 etc and invents frames in between the actual frames. for most of the picture - as shown, detail remains, but for parts of the picture where movement occurred the detail has to be lost so they invent a color pixel in those spots that is the average of any 2 endpoints, hence you get that blurred cataract view for only a portion <---this is not at all unlike how CDs unpack 44.1Khz music sampling which was made from true analog, every once in a while a 'direction vector' drops a sign and you get a 'blurp' in the music, or red from black in video.
from my understanding of how the technology works, and have written some of the storage technologies (we use it for far far more than just wussy video and sound) and seen the videos, they are proper...they are CLEARLY different cameras on different systems and different resolutions and frame rates. I see exactly nothing nefarious. if you have a static view camera - use a 1080p camera at 24-32fps to get movie to just a little better than broadcast tv (30fps or 29.97). HD would need 60fps. if you have a set of timesliced cameras into 1 system then dumb it down to 480p (close to old tv) and 24fps to lower memory requirements and processing speed. Are our video processors that good today? sure (we wont get into internet and broadcast of 1080P and 4k etc which aint...) saving 1080p requires a bandwidth of 5mbps which is well over 600K of memory a SECOND (which is why a 2hr 1080p movie with no alternate tracks requires almost 4.5G to store uncompressed single layer (hello DVD) a $100 commercially available Tb box would be top of my head 2 weeks of uncompressed video...so the location needs to determine how long to keep a log, do we dump it to mag tape and what resolution and frame rate.
all of this long winded discussion means is that whatever they chose to use, they chose to use and I see no reason to think it was morked with
If you have people telling you different, hang around different people.
Sorry, but it’s my eyes telling me these things, so I won’t be looking for new eyes to hang around with.
And yes, that was very long winded, while not actually addressing the point at all. It’s ok to blather on, as I do it regularly, but it’s not ok when you miss the point entirely. You explained how some video compression methods work, great! Now let me explain in much fewer words how video compression doesn’t work, and especially as it might apply to video surveillance camera footage … it doesn’t compress data to the point where the image is unrecognizable, especially facial features. That would defeat the purpose of surveillance, wouldn’t it?
All you did was attempt to make your preconceived conclusions fit. But it doesn’t fit, no matter how many words you use, trying.
Sorry, but it’s my eyes telling me these things, so I won’t be looking for new eyes to hang around with.
And yes, that was very long winded, while not actually addressing the point at all. It’s ok to blather on, as I do it regularly, but it’s not ok when you miss the point entirely. You explained how some video compression methods work, great! Now let me explain in much fewer words how video compression doesn’t work, and especially as it might apply to video surveillance camera footage … it doesn’t compress data to the point where the image is unrecognizable, especially facial features. That would defeat the purpose of surveillance, wouldn’t it?
All you did was attempt to make your preconceived conclusions fit. But it doesn’t fit, no matter how many words you use, trying.
hmmm....are you by an chance in holland? Tilting at windmills....
I, in as esteemed my opinion can be on this, see nothing amiss. If you want to see pennywise, you will, but Im here to tell you to stand down and relax.
This cigar is a cigar (if in this instance a cigar is a crazed trans activist going on a long planned murder spree. IF she had help and urging, that too will come out, if the FBI does not erase it)
btw - preconceived notions require that I pre-conceive them, which I did not. I did not look into this AT ALL until you posted, and I matched up what I saw, with what I know the technology does. Isnt that how it is SUPPOSED to work????? at the very least - if you are not dogma driven - would be to take what I said, google it up a bit then reapply your new knowledge with what you see on camera.
Are they all using the same camera model? It depends on the age, firmware, optics and processing power. Older cameras process images in batches of data, which can cause pixelating in different areas of the image.
Someone captured and processed those images. Did they use the same format native to the cameras, or was it an import/export where the image processing caused aberrations. What's the point you are making, that someone cut and pasted portions of the images?
Again, I would simply employ a measure of basic common sense in making certain assumptions regarding those specific details you mention. But why should we expect that there would be different camera models used in one inside hallway of the school, and a different one in another hallway, using different software, or handled differently when transferring the data? Would you not expect a reasonably uniform experience that typically reflects what is done in commercial applications? I would assume the latter. Why would you automatically think otherwise?
Now, at first glance, my initial impression was that the video appeared fairly high quality, sharp, and a bit higher definition than some other surveillance videos I’ve seen in the past. But when slowed down, or frozen, there are issues that I have pointed out in rather detailed fashion.
What part of this “blob face” unrecognizable mess that is supposed to be the video image of the shooter has you confused? Do you think this clearly identifies the alleged shooter’s identity?
Obviously, that could never be used to ID anyone. But this is the repeating pattern … don’t believe what your eyes see, believe what we tell you you see.
This is the answer given for the two different types of sneakers the “shooter” is wearing in the different scenes also. Oh those flames are there on those shoes too, you just can’t see them … but they re there! It’s just shadow and lighting that keeps you from seeing them!
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 04-04-2023 at 02:32 PM..
What part of this “blob face” unrecognizable mess that is supposed to be the video image of the shooter has you confused? Do you think this clearly identifies the alleged shooter’s identity?
s.
Of course you choose the blobbiest of blobs. Here is a better ' non blob' version.
Also, you are using the shoes from a frame when they are in probably the darkest part of the room. the door is closed. Even when the shooter walks away and the door is slowly closing you can see the 'shadow' and the mush it makes move with it as it closes off the light from the other room.
the mushyness moves with the shooter as its shadow is cast. If you watch it in motion. The natural light spilling in from the side room helps make a better image.
If you look at the shoes While the Door was Open, allowing light in, the carpet isn't nearly as mush as when the door is closed and the shooter is standing in the shadow.
Also,..since this seems to be all about those shoes.
They killed her Inside the building. We have cop cam of her body, the one with the flames visible on the shoes. Why would the footage leading up to that be fake? She obviously got up to the second floor somehow. Did they drag a body in there and prop it up to be shot?
hmmm....are you by an chance in holland? Tilting at windmills....
I, in as esteemed my opinion can be on this, see nothing amiss. If you want to see pennywise, you will, but Im here to tell you to stand down and relax.
This cigar is a cigar (if in this instance a cigar is a crazed trans activist going on a long planned murder spree. IF she had help and urging, that too will come out, if the FBI does not erase it)
btw - preconceived notions require that I pre-conceive them, which I did not. I did not look into this AT ALL until you posted, and I matched up what I saw, with what I know the technology does. Isnt that how it is SUPPOSED to work????? at the very least - if you are not dogma driven - would be to take what I said, google it up a bit then reapply your new knowledge with what you see on camera.
You see nothing amiss because you never do, do you? That’s the preconception I’m referring to. The assumption of legitimacy of official news is the basis of your preconceptions.
I’m on the other side of that fence with my own preconceptions, and have no problem admitting that fact. But I’m on that side of the fence for good reasons, given the rather consistent history of dishonesty in mainstream narratives, particularly as it involves these alleged “school shootings” that have now become rather routine events nowadays.
These media spectacles always seem to follow certain patterns, and unlike organic events, always have certain common elements, anomalies, and discrepancies.
Just to illustrate what I’m alleging here, I’d be willing to bet that you saw nothing amiss in the video footage of planes smashing into the twin towers on 911, either. Am I right? Of course I am.
Just to illustrate what I’m alleging here, I’d be willing to bet that you saw nothing amiss in the video footage of planes smashing into the twin towers on 911, either. Am I right? Of course I am.
And how do you account for the thousands of eye witnesses in person and millions watching live broadcast of the second one?
Of course you choose the blobbiest of blobs. Here is a better ' non blob' version.
Not much better. As the old saying goes, the devil is in the details. That is of lesser quality than video game characters from 20 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by naicha
Also, you are using the shoes from a frame when they are in probably the darkest part of the room. the door is closed. Even when the shooter walks away and the door is slowly closing you can see the 'shadow' and the mush it makes move with it as it closes off the light from the other room.
the mushyness moves with the shooter as its shadow is cast. If you watch it in motion. The natural light spilling in from the side room helps make a better image.
If you look at the shoes While the Door was Open, allowing light in, the carpet isn't nearly as mush as when the door is closed and the shooter is standing in the shadow.
Also,..since this seems to be all about those shoes.
They killed her Inside the building. We have cop cam of her body, the one with the flames visible on the shoes. Why would the footage leading up to that be fake? She obviously got up to the second floor somehow. Did they drag a body in there and prop it up to be shot?
What? I’m not deciphering what it is you’re trying to say, but the more you say, the less intelligent you sound. Not trying to be rude, just calling a strike a strike here. Apparently the most obvious implications of having two different sets of shoes appear in what is supposed to be a linear event that transpired over the course of just a few minutes from start to finish, is escaping you completely. So let me unpack this for you … it’s very straight forward actually …
Unless this murderer decided to pause her shooting spree long enough to change her God damned sneakers for some freaking bizarre reason, as she made her way to the 2nd floor, then what we’ve been presented isn’t the video of a linear event that lasted just a few minutes from start to finish.
Either she changed her shoes, or the death scene and the hallway scenes we made at two different times, with the actor wearing different shoes.
Not much better. As the old saying goes, the devil is in the details. That is of lesser quality than video game characters from 20 years ago.
plenty of others have tried to explain how trash cameras, compression, and converting would do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
but the more you say, the less intelligent you sound.
yay,..more insults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Either she changed her shoes, or the death scene and the hallway scenes we made at two different times, with the actor wearing different shoes.
Of course, those are the Only possibilities. That you are willing to think of. No wonder the moon is made of cheese for you. lol.
I noticed you didn't address the other photo showing the shoes on the carpet where it wasn't mush. You are implying they comped ( what exactly??) just in that mush portion but left the rest alone?
And you know they must have a bunch of other footage from different moments/angles that they haven't released that would probably make your "Demonstrable indisputable Facts" moot.
But nobody cares and are all watching Trump at the moment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
