r/UFOs • u/Randis • Aug 14 '23
MH370 Airliner video is doctored. proof included. Discussion
EDIT:
some people pointed out that this all might just be youtube compression.However, as you can see the original footage has a low FPS, meaning that inbetween the key frames there are a couple static frames, thats where nothing moves, that is why the footage appears to be choppy.However the mouse is dragging the screen around and while it drags the screen you can clearly see that the static frames retain the pattern while being dragged. if this was noise introduced by youtube then it would not be persistant, it would generate a different pattern just as in ALL other animated keyframes, but it does not. its very simple, it means that the noise pattern is not the result of youtube and since this was the very first (earliest) version uploaded to youtube there is no prerecorded YT compression. i hope that clears it up.
----------------------------------------
I might have worded this a bit too complicated so on request i will try to explain it a bit more simple and add some better explanation.
- In order to understand how stereo footage such as this is shot usually 2 satellites are used, each carrying a camera, The reason for this is to increase the distance between the cameras so we can get a 3d effect. Same as our own 2 eyes work but we usually look at objects way closer and once we look at something that is very very far away the 3d effect is to subtle to notice, hence would beat the purpose to have 2 cameras that are too close to each other on a satellite that captures footage of distant object for stereo view.. It might of course be that there are satellites that have 2 cameras but it is all the same because you do need 2 cameras.
- a digital camera has a sensor, the photosites of the sensor capture the photons and measure the values, i wont go into detail how it works as this would be a very long text but long story short: the sensor creates a noise pattern due to the fact that each photosite is constantly capturing photons,the noise pattern is absolutely unique and completely different in each frame, even if the camera and object are not moving at all. the only noise patterns that are persistent us called pattern noise , it usually occurs when a sensor gets pushed to the upper ISO limit, this type of pattern noise usually looks like long lines on the screen, it does not affect the whole screen and does look nothing like this.i work with highend cinema cameras both with CMOS and RGB sensors.
- it is not possible for 2 different cameras to create a matching noise pattern, it does not matter if they look at the same scenery, nor it does not matter if the cameras are from the same manufacturing line. it is simply technically not possible for the sensors to be hit by the exact same number of photos, hence noise changes in every frame.even if you would shoot super highspeed footage with one cameras, in each sequential frame the noise pattern would be completely unique.
- if you overlway one side of the 3d video with the other side you will see that the pixels of the pattern do not match, the pattern looks similar but not identical. this is because the stereo view was generated after the footage was recorded, in order to generate a stereo view the video must be distorted on one side, otherwise you will not get any 3d effect and because the video was distorted the pixels no longer match.You can however clearly see that the random pattern on both sides looks very very similar.this is absolutely not possible in real stereo footage that was shot on 2 different cameras.it is technically absolutely not possible and since this happens in every frame you can absolutely rule out coincidence.
----------------------------------------------------------a nice gif was submitted to me by the user topkekkerbtmfragger thank you!
i think this shows the same pattern really nicely and yeah this is not explainable with youtube compression since it is not YT compression (explained at the top of the OP)
https://i.redd.it/kusc338iq5ib1.gif
----------------------------------------------------------
as some people have also mentioned the VIMEO footage i took a closer look.here is what i can tell you about it:(left VIMEO, right YOUTUBE)
- due to re-compression and different resolution and crop the pattern is much harder to compare but after jumping between a whole bunch of frames i still can see similarity, just not as strong due to a different compression and also the different stretchg factor. the similarity is a given however because it is the same footage, i doubt that any additional grain was added in the stereo image. Please mote that the brighter spots are not part of it, those are persistant lansdcape details. the actual pattern is not easy to see compared to vimeo but it is there, i was able to identify similar shapes. It is a different compression but even so, the noise in the source files would create similar patterns even with a different compression.
- the level of detail in both footage is about the same, however the horizontal resolution of the vimeo video is exactly 50% greater because in order to view the stereo footage the footage needs to be squeezed by about half. the vimeo footage is the unsqueezed version hence it appears larger on the screen.
- the Vimeo footage shows a larger crop of the footage horizontally, you can see that you can actually see a longer number at the bottom., the image was cropped on both sides a bit in the YouTube version.However, the youtube version shows more vertically, the vimeo version is cropped a bit tighter on top and bottom, you can see that you actually see a bit more of the number in the youtube version.
- the youtube video has less resolution, however the vimeo video has stronger compression, there is a lot more blockiness in the gradients and darker areas.
- due to both videos showing a different crop and each video has some element that the other video does not have i cant say that the vimeo video appears to be more authentic for said reason.the youtube version is obviously not a real stereo imagery so the question is, why does the youtube video has taller footage.
another nice catch was made by the user JunkTheRatthe font at the bottom of the stereo footage is shifting when you overlay it, it distores to the side.that implies that the 3D effect was added in post as well.https://imgur.com/a/nrjZ12f
i also recommend a look at this post by kcimc , Great analysis and very informative.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15rbuzf/airliner_video_shows_matched_noise_text_jumps_and/
Thank you for reading.
......................................
I captured the video originally posted on youtube in 2014 and had a closer look at it.i applied strong sharpening to make the noise and compression artifacts become a lot more visible.i did some overlays to compare the sides and i quickly noticed that the mix of noise pattern and compression artifacts looks pretty much the same for most of the footage (i say most because i did not go over the whole video frame by frame)https://web.archive.org/web/20140827052109/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ok1A1fSzxYhere is the link to the original video
if you wonder why the noise pattern is not an exact pixel match it is easy to explain. since you can see that the image is stereo it simply means that the 3d effect was generated in post, hence areas of the image have shifted to create the effect. also rescaling and repositioning and ultimately re-encoding the video will add distortion but you can still see the pattern very clearly. There are multiple ways to create a stereo image and this particular video has no strong 3d effect . This can be achieved by mapping the image/video to a simple generated 3d plane with extruded hight for the clouds. There are also some plugins that will create a stereo effect for you.
i have marked 2 areas for you, you can see the very similar shapes there. these are of course not the only 2 areas, its the whole image in all the frames but it is easier to notice when you start looking for some patterns that stand out. the patterns are of course in the same area on both images. you can spot a lot more similar patterns just by looking at the image.
- only look for the noise and compression artifacts, those change with every frame and not part of the scenery.
What does it mean? It means that this video was doctored and that someone did put some effort into making it appear more legit. that is all. There is absolutely NO WAY that 2 different cameras would create the same noise pattern and the encoder would create the same artifacts. even highspeed images shot on a completely still camera will not produce the same noise patterns in sequential frames.
feel free to capture or download the originally posted video and do your own checks.
16
u/VegetableBro85 Aug 14 '23
Why would anyone "add 3deffect in post". That seems a lot harder then doing it in two renders..
→ More replies13
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
that is correct but it may be that this is based on actual satellite footage and only the ufos and portal were added in post. it does not really matter tho because the pattern is there.
252
u/HealthyShroom Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Edit: a recent post by u/kcimc explains what OP is saying and further expands on it really well
Appreciate the effort and great work OP.
Question: another poster with alot of experience in this kind of thing points out, the noise isn't really significant because the video was recompressed by youtube. He said you'd need to compare between the original version.
→ More replies54
Aug 14 '23
[deleted]
62
u/MarshmelloMan Aug 14 '23
Disagree. There’s no reason to not keep picking apart something just because someone is sick of hearing about it. This has been one of the best ongoing cases as of recent, so why not “milk” the amount of effort people are wanting to put into it to get us even a little bit closer to an answer?
41
u/Dextrofunk Aug 14 '23
I personally love it. It's been super entertaining for me. All this awesome work that a lot of people have been putting in has given me a lot of time killers at work. I say keep it comin'.
→ More replies3
u/Enough_Simple921 Aug 15 '23
I love it too bro. How crazy would it be if UFO Reddit Sub uncovers an insane event that was perplexing to the world for 9 years.
22
u/waxdistillator Aug 14 '23
If every UAP video had some sort of official chain of custody, the entire disclosure movement would be a waste of time. Until full disclosure happens, no “adult” is gonna verify a video showing an airliner being transported or obliterated by UAPs- that’s the whole point of classification.
→ More replies12
u/uzi_loogies_ Aug 14 '23
we need an adult on this one
Agreed. It's either real or fake to the point where now we need comprehensive digital forensics to prove it's a fake, which imo makes it a smokescreen for the UAP moves the Intel community is doing to kneecap disclosure
ORRRRRR the Intel community plans to keep leaking real, actual videos to get our dicks hard and focus off of their multi-trillion fund diversion the the UAP program
8
2
u/butts-kapinsky Aug 14 '23
We don't really need digital forensics. The proof is relatively simple. One of the videos is claimed to be taken by a drone.
How did a drone get out into the Indian Ocean, somewhere around 88 degrees, where the video claims to be taken?
The crash region has very low strategic importance. We can look at live shipping and flight data to confirm that the crash region is something of a 'dead zone'. Not a lot goes on there.
What are the odds that a drone, or a military vessel capable of launching a drone, was near enough MH370s flight path through the Indian Ocean to intercept and record video at the exact same time frame that the flight is "abducted" by aliens.
The answer is almost zero.
→ More replies15
u/ABmodeling Aug 14 '23
Lol wtf are you saying , you need to be paid well and in a government position to know something? Look all the funding for uap task force got and then read their reports . Its ridiculous, some YouTubera did better job covering everything lol.
5
Aug 14 '23
Redditors don't really have good history in investigation, and also any good investigation has a potential to be put down by majority, or person who can convince that he knows he knows better.
2
u/covid_is_from_a_lab Aug 14 '23
I can understand that. Everyone has different preferences. What do you enjoy to do outside of visiting this reddit sub?
2
u/Untzbot Aug 15 '23
Just piss off mate this has been a great investigation effort on this sub. Love to see it and keep up the good work.
→ More replies1
u/Enough_Simple921 Aug 15 '23
I will say that the folks on either side of the argument who pour their efforts into organizing their research truly do a very good job.
I can agree with this. It's kind of amazing what Reddit can do. They've discovered some pretty interesting shit to say the least. It's no wonder it would seem there is a disinformation campaign being applied to this sub.
→ More replies1
u/Theophantor Aug 15 '23
Totally agree. This plane business feels like the Vegas alien sighting all over again, and here we have even less chain of custody or verification ability than that; at least in Vegas, we have eye witnesses and some video/audio directly from there.
I think it is wisest in these moments to be restrained in our judgments whether for or against. In any case, there are more compelling case studies to be looked at.
→ More replies
105
u/strangelifeouthere Aug 14 '23
the pictures side by side on both examples are completely different
is that your point?
58
u/Ace-batman1007 Aug 14 '23
Yeah, if OP's point is they should be the same, they're clearly not, they're different.
This kind of debunks his own debunk.
15
u/crusoe Aug 14 '23
They're not completely different..
What you would see is noise in original -> edit to produce second view -> noise in second video. The re-encoding would change the noise slightly. But the shape of the blobs should nowhere be the same if it was totally different video.
2
3
u/Randis Aug 15 '23
that is exactly right, there should be no similarity at all and coincidences don't happen in every frame.
→ More replies5
u/baron_barrel_roll Aug 14 '23
I'm confused about what his examples are trying to show.
2
u/Randis Aug 15 '23
the noise pattern. more clear examples were added and more info as well, i hope it helps to understand it better, have a look at the OP
→ More replies
160
Aug 14 '23
[deleted]
17
u/ohheyitsgeoffrey Aug 14 '23
Supporting skepticism through thoughtful debate and analysis on such a controversial and consequential subject is exactly what this whole community should be doing.
→ More replies48
Aug 14 '23
Also, the “noise” is a combination of noise and quite clearly high level cloud. It’s clear the similarity in the sections analysed is formed by the cloud. Surprised such an expert missed this.
→ More replies
48
u/JunkTheRat Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23
EDIT, see: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qtfbe/mh370_satellite_video_is_not_stereoscopic_3d_this/
/u/randis This work starts off from a very bad foundation. RegicideAnon uploaded a highly edited version of the source video. Although their upload is the earliest available copy, it is not the highest, cleanest or best copy at all. If you want to do this sort of analysis honestly, you should use the best copy of the source material available. You are either missing this information and that’s okay, you’re now aware and can redo this work; or you knew this and this post is biased.
Here is the best quality version I know of, uploaded August 2014. https://vimeo.com/104295906
20
u/Chitchy91 Aug 14 '23
What makes you say RegicideAnon uploaded a highly edited version of the source video? It was my understanding that the RegicideAnon video is the earliest known version of the video? The video you linked was uploaded at a later date.
10
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
this is the earliest version i found and doesnt matter, they all have the pattern.
37
u/Particular-Ad9266 Aug 14 '23
The Satellite video we see is not the actual video file. You can see a mouse panning and controlling the video, this means that at minimum it is a screen recording of the original video file. Any analysis of noise is going to then be filtered through the screen recording software into the output video we see with new, different noise.
Until you get access to the original satelite video that we are seeing a recording of, you cannot do an accurate noise annalysis.
-5
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
i am not analyzing the camera maker based on the noise, for this simple test this video is sufficient, even with the poor quality you can see the similarity in the pattern.
17
u/MeatMullet Aug 14 '23
is that your point?
Every time you do anything to the video is degrades it. It adds more noise and artifacts. There are a 1000 different factors... what is the original frame rate/resolution. Was it scaled up at all.. unless you have the original fresh footage you can't start comparing pixels. It doesn't work that way.
5
u/Randis Aug 15 '23
i am not comparing pixels as i clearly stated and yes the quality of the video is sufficient for this checks, i have detailed the process, the observations and added further sources with additional tests. noise and artifacts are not random magic that is unexplainable.
22
u/Randis Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23
what you linked is not stereo footage, its a single camera footage. are you saying that someone else took it and made a stereo fake for whatever reason?
Also can you show proof for your claim?
Now all of sudden there are fakes of the footage? how about proof ?4
u/JunkTheRat Aug 14 '23
Here you go, I may be unable to post to the subreddit so let me know if you have issues seeing this: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qtfbe/mh370_satellite_video_is_not_stereoscopic_3d_this/
Yeah what I linked is single camera footage, your OP here is an epiphany for me. Thank you.
3
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
please condense your statement. are you saying that the earliest video posted is fake and therefor the vimeo video is somehow authentic because of that? makes no sense to me.
15
u/JunkTheRat Aug 14 '23
RegicideAnon's video does not contain 3D Stereoscopic imagery and I described the exact procedure to reproduce that evidence and what to focus on.
The Vimeo video is a useful source video to do analysis of the satellite video. RegicideAnon's is not, because they edited their version before uploading it to YouTube.
Maybe what you're missing here is before I read your thread I was under the assumption that the satellite source video was proven to contain 3D. I wrongly assumed that the claim for 3D imagery was made by analyzing the Vimeo source because I wrongly assumed people knew what I knew; that Regicide's video is just a side-by-side. I read your thread, and realized that the original analysis to make the 3D claim was based on Regicide's video, had an epiphany, and am correcting the record.
7
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qtfbe/mh370_satellite_video_is_not_stereoscopic_3d_this/
thats pretty much what i said as well, my point is that is doctored, not real stereo image. what is your point?
your vimeo link is not a stereo image, it could simply be a upscaled crop of the left or the right side. unless you have actual proof that the vimeo image is genuine?16
u/JunkTheRat Aug 14 '23
My point is that the whole idea of stereoscopic 3D came about in error. The original post that started the claims of stereoscopic 3D used the RegicideAnon videos as the source to make that claim. What I am saying is that was wrong, Regicide's upload is just the same video side-by-side, with the only difference between the two being the right side copy is stretched/distorted slightly which gives the impression of 3D when you do the comparison exactly the same way this OP did(https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15pfmwk/proof_the_archived_video_is_stereoscopic_3d/); stacking the images and adjusting the opacity to see how they change. You can simply examine the coordinates closely when making the same examination, or the mouse cursor, and you will realize its not stereoscopic 3D. It's shitty editing that distorted the whole frame on the right side.
I put forward the Vimeo video because it was uploaded shortly after Regicide and is the highest quality undistorted version we know of. The original uploader of the Vimeo source may have received it via email from the same source Regicide did. That information was in another OP that I do not have the link to, in that thread the OP explained they found a French article from the original uploader of that Vimeo video that claimed they received the video from an ex-satellite company employee.
Either way, I agree with you, there is no stereoscopic 3D at play here. If anything I just think we should be using the Vimeo as primary source footage for the satellite vid.
10
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
i get your point but it is not a fact but just a speculation. because the vimeo upload could simply be a crop of the original video they received, it would make send to make it a crop because it would be a lot less confusing and easier to view for most people, not to mention that it would use more screen real-estate and hence show what is happening larger.Also it begs the question why the first released video went through the trouble to fake it into a stereo image? and subsequently it would raise the question of the validity of the vireo upload.BTW, the mouse jumping around is not a good indicator because if the footage was real it would be from 2 different cameras mounted on 2 different satelites and hence the alignment of the camera could be slightly off. the alignement often also can be changed by viewing software to increase or decrease the 3D effect, that would explain the coordinates jumping.the mouse, well you can simply alight them all by the mouse position, then it would not jump, would it? only the coordinates would jump but that is no indicator.here, see for yourself in this nasa sat footagehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLYddl2bBEEthe text at the bottom has different positions in the frames.
Sorry buddy but i just dont see your point being very solid.
Also, just out of curiosity, how many times did you think was posting the same text in this thread was really needed? i get that you did a video but you are not making much of a point here since it comes down to the same conclusion or you just wanna be the first or something?
5
u/JunkTheRat Aug 14 '23
It is a fact. Look, here is 100% proof. If the video was 3D this text would NOT distort and lean to the side as you see here. It's a fact.
13
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
yes, dude it is distorted, just like everything else is distorted. you are making zero sense here. i clearly stated that this video is fake. noise pattern and distortion of said elements. in order to fake a 3d effect footage needs to be distorted.
so what point are you trying to make here?9
u/BefreiedieTittenzwei Aug 14 '23
Nice work OP. I’m inclined to agree with you on all points. I think videos like this one are generally produced by hoaxers or disinfo agents looking to create a distraction, and cause infighting within this community. I’m heavily leaning into the faked camp for the airliner video.
→ More replies5
u/JunkTheRat Aug 14 '23
haha man im sorry I think you are just too out of the loop, i explained to you exactly why this conversation is important. All you did for me was make this post possible: https://old.reddit.com/r/MH370Crisis/comments/15qu0nu/mh370_satellite_video_is_not_stereoscopic_3d_this/
Prior to this convo I thought the video was 3D, not I do not and if you want to continue the conversation about it you can read my thread and discuss there. I've said all i can here, you and I do not even disagree.
→ More replies9
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
the font is a nice catch. that certainly should not happen if it was authentic.
when i compared the the stereo footage to the vimeo video you linked i did however notice that on the vimeo footage the font was cropped more. vertically you do see a lil bit more on the YouTube footage and on the vimeo footage you see more horizontally.3
u/JunkTheRat Aug 14 '23
This detail is important and I am glad you noticed it. It's these sort of minute details that lead to greater insights. If I wasn't so tired I would dig in more now.
→ More replies7
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
i had a closer look at the VIMEO version and it does indeed show a less tight crop, you can see a bit more of the footage on the left and right side. however the youtube footage is vertically less tight, you can see more of the number in the youtube version.
vimeo version appears to have a sligtly stronger compression, a lot more blockiness.
vimeo version has more horizontal resolution because youtube version is 50% squashed to fit in both videos but other than that it does not show more detail.
62
u/aryelbcn Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23
Noise pattern is not the same.
Also, following your logic. If this is a 3d rendered scene. You would need to render the same scene twice from two different angles to create the stereoscopic effect, correct?
So how would you explain the same noise pattern (according to you) being the same in two different rendered scenes. This noise pattern is generated by the video compression, is not in the actuall 3d rendered scene.
In conclusion: Another failed debunking attempt.
Edit: as explained in other comment:
The mouse cursor appearing in both frames. This footage is extracted from a single stereoscopic screen. A person is watching in a single screen the two footages combined, hence why the mouse movement is the same and the noise pattern would be applied to the whole image (both angles). Most likely when extracting the data, the footage became split in two. So it would make sense for the noise to be similar.
The footage is already combined and the noise pattern is applied to the whole combined footage, since its not really noise from the original source, but rather compression artifacts from the generated combined video.
13
u/USFederalReserve Aug 14 '23
So how would you explain the same noise pattern (according to you) being the same in two different rendered scenes. This noise pattern is generated by the video compression, is not in the actuall 3d rendered scene.
You wouldn't render the noise within the 3D program, you'd add it in post. Not only is it easier (both computationally and technically) to do it that way, but it also gives your ability to do other VFX work on the rendered output without requiring you to match the random noise on whatever elements you add in post.
12
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
it is a completely valid logic on my side. also i never said anything about a 3d render here. it really does not even matter because the pattern is still there all the same.
→ More replies→ More replies1
u/topkekkerbtmfragger Aug 14 '23
Noise pattern is not the same.
2
u/aryelbcn Aug 14 '23
I already explained why. When I said that noise pattern is not the same I was referring to the ones OP posted.
43
u/nonzeroday_tv Aug 14 '23
First of all "Video unavailable This video is unavailable"
Second of all, the noise patterns in the 2 squares you provided are clearly different so what are you talking about?
10
u/republicofzetariculi Aug 14 '23
I came to say this. The noise is not the same at all.
-5
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
the noise pattern is the same just slightly distorted to create the 3d effect, you you cannot see that i do not know.
22
0
u/Randis Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23
The video i linked is the original posted video on youtube, its the waybackmachine link, i do not have influence on that. it does open fine for me tho, it just takes a bit to load.
its the overall shape of the recognizable pattern. This is not raw footage, this is recompressed footage of low quality that was doctored to generate the 3d effect, hence areas of the image have shifted, the pattern remains the same however and is clearly visible.-10
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
read again, i explained it. there is no way such patterns would persist in footage from 2 different cameras,
31
u/nonzeroday_tv Aug 14 '23
I already read what you said
if you wonder why the noise pattern is not an exact pixel match it is easy to explain. since you can see that the image is stereo it simply means that the 3d effect was generated in post,
The noise patterns are different enough to dismiss your theory, it's either the same footage and it will generate almost identical noise patterns or it's different footage of the same scene and it will generate slightly different noise patterns.
9
Aug 14 '23
[deleted]
2
u/Responsible-Local818 Aug 14 '23
So the cameras have the same sensor because... they're the same camera (by make, not literally)? How is that evidence of anything? The noise is clearly organically different of another camera looking at the same scene.
2
u/USFederalReserve Aug 14 '23
Because the noise is randomly generated.
Take your phone into a room without any light and record for 1 minute. You'll see a static effect/visual snow effect. That is what OP refers to when he means sensor noise.
Now go online and pull up any user generated video on YouTube from 2010. You see the blocky distortion? That's compression noise/artifacts.
There is a fundamental difference between the two.
For instance, in a lot of television productions I've worked on, we use the a7s DSLR as a B cam. The a7s is famous for its low light capabilities and is often used in that environment. The most important part of using that camera is denoising it in post because the high ISO capabilities creates a noise floor that is always visible.
There will never be a situation in any case where two a7s DSLRs will produce identical noise patterns. Its really no different than the way you TV produces static noise when there is no antenna. That static is a visualization of the random variations in the input.
8
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
No, they are not.
and NO this is not at all how it works dude, don't make things up. cameras do not generate the same noise patterns just because they film the same thing. not even one camera can record the same noise pattern in sequential frames.-24
Aug 14 '23
They haven’t generated the SAME noise patterns. They’ve generated SIMILAR noise patterns.
15
u/republicofzetariculi Aug 14 '23
Op, they’re different, you don’t have to be an expert to notice that they’re different.
→ More replies2
u/clownind Aug 14 '23
I just found out I enjoy watching vfx nerds fighting.
3
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
it's a thing :P i would not call it fighting tho, there is nothing personal to it, its just a disagreement.
→ More replies9
u/nonzeroday_tv Aug 14 '23
Don't call me dude, brah and don't twist my words to prove your point. I didn't say they generate the same noise patterns because they film the same thing, I said they generate similar noise patterns. Why don't you pick a different area where the noise patterns are way different?
→ More replies2
u/H1FILMS Aug 14 '23
This may be too technical for most people… understanding how noise pattern works on sensors etc
15
u/ojmunchkin Aug 14 '23
this is a really good analysis, but I do have a slight spanner to throw into the works, or a point to consider:
this is not noise as in 'film grain' this is compression noise/artifacts, which happens when for example you make an MP4 (in very simple terms)
The pattern of these compression artifacts are a direct result of the content of the video being created. If you compress the same video, from the same raw footage, it will create very similar compression artifacts every time, because its a machine doing it, and its starting with the same footage.
the noise is not identical on left/right - it is just VERY similar. Which would be consistent with compressing two VERY similar frames (left and right view). So I'm not necessarily sure if this proves anything.
I think we need an uncompressed direct capture in order to accurately analyse at this level of detail.
6
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
the noise is not identical on left/right - it is just VERY similar.
the noise cannot be identical for 2 reasons, 1) distortion was introduced to create the stereo effect 2) compression smudges details.
the patern is there all the same.
15
u/ojmunchkin Aug 14 '23
sorry. I should be clearer. The raw footage obviously has sensor noise. And you are correct that it should be completely random and in no way correlate between the two inputs. But when it is converted to a lossy file, video downlink or then compression and reupload etc, you lose the fine grain of the noise. It's bl;ended in together with the other image data and larger artifacts - clouds, cloud wisps, ocean details. Because the two views are so simlar, the compression should treat the two inputs in a very similar way no? resulting in very consistent, but not identical artifacts.I've been doing some quick tests with evolving turbulence patterns in after effects, and adding film grain/noise, and rendering removes the noise immediately, and becomes compression artifacts if you lower the quality enough.we need the source footage.
→ More replies4
u/limnadae Aug 14 '23
According to the following article, compression reduces the noise pattern, which may be the reason why the patterns are so similar.
5
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
yes that is correct, raw footage would have a much finer noise, per pixel in digital footage. however for the compression artifacts to be that similar the footage would need to be extremely similar, the cameras however are supposedly mounted to 2 different satellites. i also added a bit more additional info regarding noise right at the beginning of the OP. please have a read.
it becomes more apparent as you go throu the video frame by frame.
11
u/3InchesPunisher Aug 14 '23
Dont be afraid of debunking we need more of this to see the other side and have disagreement to agree. Thanks OP
3
14
u/balitiger13 Aug 14 '23
Wait. Your points are really about the device that is recording the playback of the satellites on the screen, not the actual footage itself.
This is video of a video so your compression is maybe irrelevant? No disrespect at all I don’t know much in this area.
6
4
u/zombtronic Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23
This idea of the plane being MH370 in the first place is enough to tell me that the video (as an explanation for MH370 disappearance) is bogus.
The premise of the plane in the video as being MH370 relies on the theory (I am assuming) that the pilot switched off the flight transponder at 119am and travelled elsewhere, hence the first odd thing about the video is that we are seeing MH370 in daylight. I really do doubt that the plane is MH370 in the first place.
It is risky being a skeptic here I am discovering, but this video really does grind my gears - families lost loved ones on MH370, and with this video, we have people using the disaster to prove the existence of what exactly? The MH370 doco on netflix left many questions unanswered, but it was truly heartbreaking seeing a father who lost his family, looking for answers and forming the conclusion that it was shot down as per military exercise and covered up. For me, that was a more likely explanation - they had satellite imagery of wreckage fires and a reported explosion in the area it was last seen. But no one wants an explanation here do they? People want the possibility of aliens being involved to create more noise for the disaster and cast doubt over the 'shot down by military' theory. Forget about rationality and forget about being respectful to those who lost children on that flight, is what I beleive to be the case here...
3
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
yeah my wife watched the documentary and was upset (i didnt watch it all with her)
that is the only reason i invested some time to look into it, because its not just a random ufo thing but about real people and families who lost members. i find it annoying to see it pop up all the time.3
u/zombtronic Aug 14 '23
You have done an amazing job - I'm glad you went to all the trouble to prove it's been doctored. We need more people like you here. 🙏
13
10
u/speleothems Aug 14 '23
Maybe a dumb question, but wouldn't it be better to use the Vimeo video? It seems a lot clearer. Also does the 'strong sharpening' you did not also count as doctoring?
3
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
i did not upload any videos, i only attached an image.
no in this case it does not.11
u/speleothems Aug 14 '23
I did not say that you did.
I captured the video originally posted on youtube in 2014
I wanted to know why you chose to use the lower quality YouTube video instead of the higher quality Vimeo video? Would this not make a difference?
no in this case it does not.
Are you able to explain more about this?
6
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
can you send me the vimeo link, i dont think i have seen it. i will have a look.
regarding the sharpening, the sharpening in this case is applied to make subtle details more apparent, the sharpening will not create similar noise patterns it just helps to see the detail in this case.
2
u/speleothems Aug 14 '23
https://vimeo.com/104295906/description
Okay, thanks for your explanation.
1
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
sorry, is this the wrong link because i do not see a stereo video there.
1
Aug 14 '23
[deleted]
2
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
its actually not the exact same video, there are party of the video that when overlaid show clear offset and distortion, you can also perceive a weak 3d effect. it might be that a plug in was used as i meantioned.
1
u/JunkTheRat Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23
Edit, see: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qtfbe/mh370_satellite_video_is_not_stereoscopic_3d_this/
The video isn't stereoscopic. I actually know exactly whats going on here. RegicideAnon uploaded the exact same video side-by-side, but manually cropped and scaled each one when they did so. So this thread here that started all this hubbub about STEREOSCOPIC IMAGING is just WRONG: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15pfmwk/proof_the_archived_video_is_stereoscopic_3d/
The OP of this post was just completely unaware that its just the same video side by side, very sloppily edited into place. I mean we can see the mouse cursor scrolling the video, its the same video. I really am so confused why this took off at all. I thought they analyzed the Vimeo source video and found layers/proof of stereoscopic within that video.
I put this back because I confirmed it using the RegicideAnon video and the same method shown in the "proof" link.
https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15pfmwk/proof_the_archived_video_is_stereoscopic_3d/
I believe the above thread is where this all began, and I never even looked at the video inside the thread and I regret that heavily. I always knew RegicideAnon's video was just a duplicate side-by-side, but I did not know the OP of that thread used it as source for their analysis and determining the satellite video 3D stereoscopic.
The sat video is not stereoscopic 3D and you can prove it for yourself using OPs exact method. Just stack a single screenshot of the side-by-sides and adjust the opacity of the top layer up and down to see the changes between the two images.
This is super important because we do not need to concern ourselves with stereoscopic 3D imagery and multiple satellites and all that other stuff. The source video uploaded to YouTube by RegicideAnon is the earliest available upload we know of to the internet of the Satellite video. However, it is not the highest quality version available. This Vimeo upload is: https://vimeo.com/104295906
What we see in RegicideAnon's video is not stereoscopic 3D, it is simply editing. For some reason, Regicide decided to put the same video side by side, and when they did so they distorted the copy on the right side slightly. Whether this was intentional, or they simply messed up and distorted it by mistake is unknown.
You can prove this for yourself using the same method shown in the OP that started this rabbit hole: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15pfmwk/proof_the_archived_video_is_stereoscopic_3d/
What you want to focus on when doing this examination is the coordinates in the bottom left corner and the mouse cursor. You should take screenshots of the video when these items are most visible. Now, do the same overlapping and opacity swapping shown in the video and you will see that the text/font and mouse cursor are distorting. This is because this is not stereoscopic 3D. It is one video duplicated, the left side being closest to the original and the right side being slightly distorted/stretched.
I don't have the ability to create a video and do the uploading. If anyone else can do that I will add your video to this OP. Its blatantly obvious that the text is distorting.
Going forward the vimeo source video should be used as the best quality source for analysis. I believe there is even another thread that found evidence that the uploader of that Vimeo video received it via email from the same source as Regicide; however I don't have the link to that specific thread on hand. If someone does, I will add it here.
For an extra fun comparison, use a screenshot from the Vimeo source at the same timestamp as a screenshot from the YouTube source(left side alone, then right side alone), examine the text/coordinates and mouse cursor in the same way.
This should kill the stereoscopic 3D.
1
u/LastKnownUser Aug 14 '23
Can you not use the non-stereo upload to compare the noise to the one you already did.
- This would prove that the noise is present regardless of where it was uploaded and removes the "it's compression " or other such arguments
7
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
i did have a look and found some interesting results, i added the info in the original post.
2
u/speleothems Aug 14 '23
Would it being a recording of a screen by a cellphone have any effect on the noise pattern?
4
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
no, the phone camera will add more noise of course but it will not create matching patterns on both sides.
10
u/No_Supermarket7622 Aug 14 '23
It's encouraging to observe individuals taking this matter seriously. Thank you.
3
Aug 14 '23
[deleted]
2
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
yes, that is because they are the same, just slightly distorted to create the 3D effect, and because they are slightly distorted they will not lineup in full pixel view obviously.
3
u/abandonallhope777 Aug 14 '23
Also, the fact that they later found debris from this crash is telling. And the fact that the Russians shot down a different flight not more than a few weeks later is also telling.
3
9
Aug 14 '23
I appreciate your analysis OP and you dumbed it down enough that even someone completely unfamiliar with video editing (me) can understand it. I find your argument very convincing and look forward to seeing peoples' rebuttals.
6
Aug 14 '23
itt : people arguing with someone who works both in video acquisition and editing and digital imaging for 26 years as if op doesnt know what theyre talking about at all.
→ More replies
5
u/acepukas Aug 15 '23
Best post I've seen about this stupid plane so far. I can't believe the fucking glue paste eating morons claiming "I've been youtubing for years bro, I know my shit!" but somehow they don't know the difference between sensor noise and compression artifacts?! I especially love when you said YT does not add sensor noise and someone says "ThE fUck It DoEsn'T!" Where's the sensor then?! Show me the youtube "sensor"!
Unbelievable.
I get completely what you are saying about the noise 100% though.
The picture I am starting to get from all this is that indeed it was not one person who put all these airliner videos together. I keep seeing people asserting that it must be real because it's too much work for one person. I will say that the FLIR and original sat footage video were probably made by the same person or at the very least by a group of people who had access to the original animation (so that it could be used for both videos). The thing is, I don't think the original sat footage video has even surfaced yet, at least not in this current cluserfuck of people insisting that it's real.
I think what we have is a game of video broken telephone. Someone (or someones) makes the original sat footage video, they push it here and there online but it only gets mild attention and doesn't go anywhere ultimately because it's just not that convincing, probably because it had too many tell tale signs that it's fake. Someone else sees it and thinks "This didn't get much traction. I bet I could take this and make it more convincing." and they add their own twist on it whether it's blurring the shit out of it, adding noise, faking stereoscopic video, adding some sat name and coordinates overlay, etc. Order and technique isn't that important to my point.
I'm just saying that I think the sat video has probably made the rounds and different unrelated hoaxers have tweaked it a few times to get something more "authentic" looking until we're at the point now where people are bending over backwards to either prove it's fake or real. That's why some of the workflow decisions seem so nonsensical. Because it wasn't a workflow. It's a turd that's made it's way through a few digestive systems up to now. A human centipede of ufo hoaxery if you will.
We may never get the original iteration of the sat footage. It may be lost to the sands of time now which would be very unfortunate because it would put this whole thing to bed if we could get our hands on the original.
4
Aug 14 '23
I’m not sure if I just don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about but those patterns look totally different?
1
u/Randis Aug 15 '23
more images and info was added to the OP, have a look, it might be easier to follow now.
→ More replies
3
u/turkish3187 Aug 14 '23
Let’s beat this dead horse to a pulp.
5
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
the horse died like 9 years ago, now beating a noisy decomposed zombie horse.
→ More replies
8
u/Seven7neveS Aug 14 '23
Maybe the noise pattern isn‘t actually a pattern but the shape of a faint cloud? That‘s why the alleged compression patterns are nearly identical because two cameras are filming the same shape of faint cloud?
10
3
6
u/NotSoElijah Aug 14 '23
OP is an artist for probably half the comments favorite games and movies, this guy knows what he’s talking about…
6
u/flabberghastedeel Aug 14 '23
I think you're absolutely correct. Even if these are compression artifacts from YouTube processing or whatever, the similarities still indicate the creator added an identical noise overlay to each side.
7
u/Responsible-Local818 Aug 14 '23
Put two cameras of the same make (by manufacture) near each other and film the same scene with the same settings. You get this (similar, but clearly different). How is this evidence of literally anything...
9
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
no 2 camers can capture the same noise pattern.
5
Aug 14 '23
I think you misinterpret the concept of noise. The cameras are picking up low-res details of textures -- ocean waves, clouds, etc. That's why the patterns are all similar... both cameras are seeing the same textures/objects in the distance. The only "noise" here is the slight DIFFERENCES between the two images that happened from compression, or extra photons, etc.
Funny enough, you pointing this out only shows just how convincing this all is. If we saw a fully random pixelated background that would be what actually debunks the video IMO.
1
u/Randis Aug 15 '23
no, i would not say convincing, more like sloppy, it is a mistake and it is not the only mistake as a bunch of other mistakes were found. human error.
there was more pictures and info with links added to the OP, have a look→ More replies0
u/Responsible-Local818 Aug 14 '23
Because it's not noise, it's actual cloud texture (including fine whisps) and mostly compression artifacts, not real film grain.
→ More replies11
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
no it is not because the pattern changes completely in every moving frame while everything else remains static. the pattern stretches across the whole screen uniformly.
8
u/Responsible-Local818 Aug 14 '23
I see now what you're trying to say but it has a significant flaw: you're forgetting the video was filmed on a screen using an external camera. _That's_ where the noise is coming from and why it appears uniform across both videos, not the actual satellite video pair.
→ More replies1
u/tweakingforjesus Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23
I have to take issue with this criticism. The video was clearly captured on a device with screen capture software. The stereoscopic images are perfectly rectified relative to each other. Line by line they match. That would not be maintained if a person used a camera to video a screen. Therefore there is not an additional sensor in the mix.
However I also think the subtle noise OP analyzed is in the video compression, not the sensor.
1
u/Randis Aug 15 '23
video compressions look different than noise, also the look of video compression is based on the footage that is compressed. there is obviously some compression but the fine pattern of it is based on the underlying footage. i also added info that details how the noise we see is not from the YouTube compression. more pictures and info with some links was added in the OP, have a look.
2
u/pastreaver Aug 14 '23
Wasn't it first claimed that the background was real footage?
To make it clear, now this post claims the background has been manipulated?
10
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
no the background can still totally be real but in this case it is a stereo image.
→ More replies
2
u/The-Joon Aug 14 '23
I remember having difficulty with artifacts when rendering at times. Could any of these anomalies be due to rendering the video?
5
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
you would not get the same noise pattern in 2 different camera views tho,.
→ More replies
2
u/bwillpaw Aug 14 '23
Why are people so attached to this video? You have to take huge leaps into conspiracy nonsense to believe this video. They have satellite pings of the plane heading south into the Indian ocean and wreckage from the plane washing up where you'd expect it to with ocean currents from where it stopped pinging satellites.
So you have to
1) Believe this footage showed up on a random YouTube with other clearly faked videos in 2014
2) that this "footage" is even of mh370
3) that the satellite data is faked
4) that the wreckage is faked
5) that multiple debunkings from disparate background vfx artists means nothing
6) that multiple legitimate news outlets reporting this as fake in 2014 are lying to you
7) shall I continue??? Lol.
→ More replies2
2
u/jake_1001001 Aug 14 '23
Thank you for the detailed analysis of the video.
It is also evident that the video was doctored/edited without the frame level detail due to the cropped numbers on the bottom.
The frame capture tool most definitely captures at a higher frame rate than the original, adding duplicate frames. Compression will vary the noise slightly in the padding frames. What are your thoughts when accounting for this?
Also regarding compression, noise is reduced via several methods to allow compression (I-frame, p-frame, and b-frame). The noise may not be significant enough to warrant a new i-frame, thus not showing up in non i-frames. We don't know what frame type you are comparing against.
Also, I don't see evidence that proves the actual content of the video that the subject filmed (plane, orbes, flash) fake, just the video has been highly processed.
2
u/Randis Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23
i actually do not see the cropped number as a red flag here, i will explain why.if the video was authentic then you would have 2 separate videos from 2 different satellites. if you then wanted to create a showcase file manually you would need to place both videos into 1 frame and change the scaling to make them fit , you would need to scale them down horizontally by 50% and move them around a bit so they line up you may crop some of the footage.this to me could look like a manual placement because usually in an automated process you would not need to have a black bar in the center, the videos just need to be aligned properly. you can see how it looks like in random vr videos for example.also note that when people shoot movies or whatever the 2 cameras are placed and calibrated on a rig close to each other.satellites cameras are located on separate satellites and it could be that the alignment is just not perfect enough so you can just use em without having to realign anything.Maybe someone with experience in editing stereo satellites images could jumps in here and explain as this is not my field.
also i have seen that the position of coordinates or GUD text was not the same position for both sides in some authentic nasa satelite footage. i think someone linked a clips somewhere in this thread that shows some nice sat footage in 3d, with some nasa logo on it. you can see that the font at the bottom is placed differently , this could be because the video had to be repositioned because one sat was too far away. could also be that the camera differed or hud was set up different, no idea but it happens.in this footage however and that is something another user has noticed is that on one side the font is distorted and that should not happen.
→ More replies
2
Aug 15 '23
I'm confused. The pictures at the bottom of the post-- wtf am I supposed to glean from that? The smaller "zoomed in" squares are not the same pattern, is that what you're saying is the same pattern? Or what.
I feel like you're right, the included pictures are just throwing me off. No idea what they are trying to convey with the boxes and the lines.
2
u/Randis Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
you can see an animated gif a bit further up in the OP, another user made it and it shows it nicely. sorry, i am so very used to the things i do for work and my constant communicated with fellow professionals in related fields , i assumed it was easy to follow but in retrospect i should have simplified it and provided a better example like that animated gif.
→ More replies
2
u/sulkasammal Aug 15 '23
This version on Youtube seems to be closest to the original file as there is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS9uL3Omg7o It has the same horizontal amount of pixels as the Vimeo version and also the same amount of vertical pixels as the stereoscopic view. It also has the original 24fps frame rate.
This aligns perfectly with the left side view (except for the details in the noise).
2
u/Money-Specific5296 Aug 15 '23
So many people are trying to prove it's real. It shouldn't work that way. Try to prove it's fake. If you fail, then maybe it's real.
4
3
u/Atiyo_ Aug 14 '23
So could you do this for this video aswell? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLYddl2bBEE This was linked earlier in this post. I'm assuming that's what you are referring to, here we have 2 seperate cameras recording the same thing.
→ More replies6
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
yes. what is wrong with this image? why would you like to analyze it?
3
u/Atiyo_ Aug 14 '23
Maybe I misunderstood your post, but I'm referring to what you said here
There is absolutely NO WAY that 2 different cameras would create the same noise pattern and the encoder would create the same artifacts.
I have no clue about this kind of stuff, but would you be able to take that video I linked and show that this is the case for that video aswell? That there isn't the same noise pattern/artifacts? That would essentially show that you are correct, right?
7
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
the video is a bit soft but i tried but could not see similarities. also it seems the cameras are pretty far apart, the 3d effect is very nice and detailed.
4
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
the video looks pretty real to me and if the source is nasa it would appear credible but i can try to have a look. give me a couple min
3
u/crypticdocument Aug 14 '23
This is a solid debunking. Regardless if youtube added noise, the two patterns wouldnt match this closely. Pack it up boys.
4
Aug 14 '23
[deleted]
4
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
no its not, its noise that covers the whole image, stronger in darker areas, less in the brightest areas.
3
u/Schwurbelkadse Aug 14 '23
who says it is noise and not just clouds
10
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
it is not clouds because all elements change with every moving frame and no elements persist, also the rest of the image is very static, it makes no sense that there would be a super fast moving layer of moving clouds. also in order to indicate movement you would need to identify moving elements. movement is usually directional.
3
Aug 14 '23
Sorry, i applaud the effort... just a really weak case against the other details suggesting otherwise
9
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
i see nothing weak about facts, the pattern does not lie. if you understand the technology this becomes fairly obvious.
0
Aug 14 '23
Im sorry, maybe you just dont understand it as well as you think? Tbh, & with all due respect, your response makes it seem that you want to put on this "arrogant" facade to appear like the smartest video guy, but it really misses the mark. Theres 4 threads full of information & to think you can dismiss it with an argument over pixels seems wild.
6
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
or maybe you don't understand it as well as you think? i took my time and wrote it as detailed and as simple as possible so after reading it if you still do not understand the point I'm trying to make it gives me the impression that you did not understand it.
if you have a different opinion, that is perfectly fine, feel free to present me a different perspective on my take with counterarguments.
but if you just throw something like, meh its a weak argument, i personally would like to see an explanation, because to me it sort of makes you the arrogant one. do you get my point?→ More replies2
u/crypticdocument Aug 14 '23
Its really not a weak case. This is someone who understands how cameras work explaining to you why the videos arent real and your responding with “it cant be fake bc the gps shows its mh370”
If the videos are doctored, everything is out the window full stop.
→ More replies
2
u/Suburbanwhore34 Aug 14 '23
Thank you for such an eloquent breakdown -of something that so many are desperate to believe and thus will not accept any other conclusion than "it's real"
2
3
u/blubblubinthetubtub Aug 14 '23
The noise patterns look different to me.
5
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
different how? can you not see the patterns?
1
u/ccncwby Aug 14 '23
Hey bro, jumping in right at the bottom because I've got a few thoughts for you and can't be fucked getting into silly internet arguments with other people lol.
Firstly, in your defence, it seems that some people don't understand what noise is, and that it is necessarily random. Any signs of repetition is a red flag, assuming that it is indeed noise.
I think you've jumped the gun a wee bit by assuming that it's sensor noise though. Have you compared the grain between frames to ensure that it does not persist? Persistent grain could be due to environmental factors.
From memory I think the digital formatting had about 4 frames between each new "still" that the aircraft moves to a new location. If the grain pattern is persistent for the 4 frames then changes at each new "still," then it is likely sensor noise from the sat images itself. If the grain pattern is not persistent between any of these 4 frames, it is likely digital noise from video compression.
In each of these two cases, it still doesn't quite debunk the video as a whole, or even prove that it is maliciously "doctored." It only proves that the left and right are repetitions of each other. In other words, it's just not stereoscopic.
2
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
I think you've jumped the gun a wee bit by assuming that it's sensor noise though. Have you compared the grain between frames to ensure that it does not persist? Persistent grain could be due to environmental factors.
i didnt, as i stated there is both noice and compression artifacts, the compression ate most of the details, hence we cannot see a single clear pixel. however compression is not random, it merely compresses what is there and in this case it is the sensor noise, hence it changes in every frame. you can see that not all frames in the video move because the original video has low FPS so the inbetween frames remain static and pattern freezes, there is however a little bit movement here and there and that is due to the compression but its by far not as extensive as on the moving frames.
→ More replies
0
Aug 14 '23
[deleted]
7
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
yep, it goes over the whole image, i only circled portions that stand out but its plainly visible and not just on these frame.
2
Aug 14 '23
[deleted]
9
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
people want to believe i suppose but this is what it is. i am not making it up, merely pointing it out
1
u/yosarian_reddit Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23
Good post. It’s a shame some folks feel the need to downvote stuff like this.
My question is: is this not possibly just a sign that the entire video was at some point re-compressed?
5
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
no matter now often the video is recompressed, it would not create a matching noise pattern on both sides. matching compression artifacts however can be created if the footage is the same.
→ More replies
1
u/Full_Plate_9391 Aug 14 '23
Upvoted because I want the videos to be fake, and I appreciate actual efforts to debunk it. Especially ones that go beyond shouting "debooonked."
I'm still going to laugh at you for pretending that those comparison images are even remotely identical. Those are different noise patterns, buddy.
3
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
nope, there are visually recognizable. you can test it yourself, dont have to take my word for it. just increase midlevel detail and sharpen it so you see it better and then compare the non persistent elements.
→ More replies
1
1
u/ARandomWhit3Guy Aug 14 '23
I’ll probably get downvoted to hell, but I can’t believe that so many people are believing this stupid video to be real. It’s absolutely amazing how many people in these subs now are just a bunch of sheep grasping at every little thing they can and believing it, so desperate. (Yes I’m a UFO believer, I’ve seen one myself). But this is just ridiculous.
1
u/born_to_be_intj Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23
H.264 is the Codec youtube uses. To put it simply, it converts each frame to a JPEG in order to save space (it does some other neat stuff too). H.264/the JPEG algorithm uses an approximation of a Discrete Cosign Transform in order to reduce the amount of data in each frame.
Here is a short description of the idea behind a Discrete Cosign Transform:
The human eye is not very good at perceiving high-frequency elements in an image. In this step, JPEG removes some of this high-frequency information without affecting the perceived quality of the image.
Guess what falls under the category of "high-frequency information". Sensor noise.
The fact that this video was uploaded to youtube completely debunks your post. By design, youtube is discarding the high-frequency noise data in order to compress the video.
If you don't want to take my word for it here is a breakdown of how DCTs are used in the JPEG algorithm. A quick Google will show you H.264 uses this same method.
Edit: Here is a comparison of noise before and after it's been compressed into a JPEG. The left half is uncompressed, the right half is compressed: https://i.gyazo.com/5bce74efa28589e2c017079f81fe6898.png
→ More replies1
u/Randis Aug 15 '23
thank you for explaining basic compression, i am very familiar with codex and compression work, not just H264 but lots of other codecs and various RAW types that work with compression. that is sort of my job and i am sorry to say, from reading your comment you dont seem to fully understand how it works.
First of all, you keep mentioning high-frequency information, let me explain that to you.
You see when you watch a video at 25 fps for example, it means you see 25 frames per second, the human eye perceives the motion a lot better than the underlying texture, hence we can reduce the detail of the image and still get visually very similar effect.
chroma information already is reduced if acquisition was done with a CMOS sensor because each pixel only captures 1 color channel in each 4 pixel cluster, R,G,B,R
this is why even of you record 4k video with your phone, you get 4k luma resolution but only HD color resolution. RGB sensors work differently.
The sat footage is not a high-frequency information, it is a 6 FPS (or close) recording, hence the playback is very chopped. also in makes not too much sense to compress the original sat footage because you would want the images as detailed as possible and we can clearly see that the noise pattern is not part of the YouTube compression, the WHY i did add somewhere at the updated OP text at the top.
back to noise, Noise in fact does influence the compression, the compression is like the name suggests a compression of components such as chroma and luma information, it basically simplifies what you see but it is still always based on the source material and is not random. here is a video that might help explain it a bit better to you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Rp-uo6HmI
Cheers→ More replies
1
u/Specific_Marzipan_58 Aug 14 '23
Was’t this video a recording of a playing video and not the original videos, so it would be the same noise as its the same camera recording a screen playing two different video?
1
u/nibernator Aug 14 '23
These look similar, but not the same?
6
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
correct, it cannot be the same because one one side the footage needs to be distorted to create the 3d effect., also there is the compression at the end washing out more details
1
u/-_-_-ZAP-_-_- Aug 14 '23
You hate to see it. This sub has been successfully distracted and divided by nonsense videos.
THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS TALKING TO YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS A MISDIRECTION.
EMAIL THEM.
1
1
1
-9
u/Deadandlivin Aug 14 '23
Good job.
Unfortunately, this is probably too technical for your average redditor to understand so most people, especially the believers are going to completely disregard this and say you haven't debunked anything.
9
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
yeah i can see that. but no matter how often people reply something that is not true will affect the truth, only the perception of it.
3
u/Chitchy91 Aug 14 '23 edited Aug 14 '23
Hi, I'm your average Redditor and this is too technical for me to understand. I appreciate you trying to debunk this; is there a way you could re-explain this to the layman? Most notably, why would similar shaped artifacts prove that the video is doctored if those artifacts are not identical? Thanks
EDIT OP has provided clarification. I deleted my GPT-4 response as I don't feel it was as useful.
6
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
i added a better explanation, and yes as i originally stated there cannot be a 1 to 1 pixel match because one side must be distorted to create a stereo effect. you can still see the pattern clearly tho.
4
Aug 14 '23
[deleted]
3
u/Atiyo_ Aug 14 '23
Would the fact that this was recorded from a screen change anything? Possibly related to the phone (or whatever was used to record the screen)?
2
u/Atiyo_ Aug 14 '23
well maybe rephrase it in a way that someone who isn't familiar with this topic can understand it.
3
-2
Aug 14 '23
brave of you to talk to the crazies with logic and facts. this sub doesnt have the brightest.
2
-5
u/Medical_Voice_4168 Aug 14 '23
LOL this might be the worst debunk attempt yet. Good try though.
9
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
it is there, easy to see, easy to recreate the results. i am not making it up, merely pointing it out.
i added some better explanation to the original post. i hope it helps you understand.
and no, its not a nice try its common procedure to look at gran and video noise because it is a great indicator for a lot of things. forensic examination can in some cases even narrow down what camera or film was used based on the grain/noise pattern-1
u/Medical_Voice_4168 Aug 14 '23
Yes, I've checked the files again and the noise patterns are nowehere near identical.
Edit: Yes, I started off as a huge skeptic and dismissed these MH370 videos entirely but am 70% beiliever now based on the recent discoveries, but if you skeptics want to debunk it, you're gonna have to do better than this. Sorry, but this is quite a laughable attempt.
5
u/Randis Aug 14 '23
you believe what you want to believe but the pattern does not lie
2
u/Medical_Voice_4168 Aug 14 '23
It's not a matter of belief. It's plain as day to see. This attempt is flawed from the beginning as it's not the original raw files.
Your argument is similar to someone trying to convince me that Channing Tatum and Ryan Gosling are the same person.
→ More replies1
u/Randis Aug 15 '23
a lot more info and images were added. now you are just being unreasonable. why not have a read and think about it?
3
•
u/VCAmaster Aug 14 '23
We want to remind our community that the source of the video in this post has not yet been verified. There are many unknowns surrounding the origin and content of this video. Please approach this with a healthy degree of skepticism.
We want to make it explicitly clear that the official stance from a multinational investigation had concluded that MH370 crashed into the ocean. What happened that day was a global tragedy, and it remains as a painful memory in the minds of many. We kindly ask everyone to always be mindful of the profound human interests connected to these subjects. Content that does not respect these interests or violates our rules will be closely monitored and potentially removed.