Author Topic: Some analysis with JPEG snoop  (Read 37968 times)

Offline leviathan

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 290
  • Karma: +22/-0
    • L E V I A T H A N
Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2008, 08:38:35 PM »
Quote
They were obviously not manipulate by us. So who manipulated them ?
Good point.  This has always been more important to us than Hoax/No Hoax.  Why would anyone or any group go to this trouble!  What is the real reason behind this Drone/Isaac event?  How would anyone gain anything from all this complexity? Just to sit back and laugh!!! A lot of work for little reward!
So you see Gfamad, we are closer than it would appear, but we really do believe there is a strangeness in this that is phenomenal.
L E V I A T H A N
We at L E V I A T H A N were banned from the UFO Casebook Forum and it is so sad.
http://livyatan.blogspot.com/

Offline Gfamad

  • Junior Dronie
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2008, 09:08:53 PM »
Quote
So you see Gfamad, we are closer than it would appear, but we really do believe there is a strangeness in this that is phenomenal.

Of course ! And I never doubt of that. If I'm here, it's to go in the same direction with you ! And I agree: This case is strange.

For onthefence:

Yes, it could be that. But don't forget (I have made some more test), the pictures must have been saved two times with:
-First time: Probably an adobe product.
-Second time: Photoshop CS2

I have try some test by saving the first time an original photo from my camera with a 'lambda' software, and then Photoshop, and there was no DerivedFrom Id. So, let's say the two products are photoshop:

Raj brother-in-law saved it with Photoshop
Raj received the mail and than saved it with Photoshop...

Well, for me it is no logic because I will only copy/paste the JPG file if I want to move it anywhere. But maybe Raj made those steps:
-He received the mail with attached pictures
-He saved the pictures
-He wanted them in another place, so he opened photoshop.
-He opened the Pictures with it
-He saved them in another location...

Why not after all. But Raj is then a total newbie ! And he posses .... Photoshop CS2...

It's possible, I do agree, but I think the simplest way is to
-Save as attachement from the mail in the good directory at first...

We must dig more my friends !!

Gfamad

Offline spinnewise

  • Founding Dronie
  • *****
  • Posts: 114
  • Karma: +18/-0
Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2008, 09:54:44 PM »
Quote
They were obviously not manipulate by us. So who manipulated them ?
Good point.  This has always been more important to us than Hoax/No Hoax.  Why would anyone or any group go to this trouble!  What is the real reason behind this Drone/Isaac event?  How would anyone gain anything from all this complexity? Just to sit back and laugh!!! A lot of work for little reward!
So you see Gfamad, we are closer than it would appear, but we really do believe there is a strangeness in this that is phenomenal.
L E V I A T H A N

from Gfamad:
Quote
But in a study, if you find things that are not in the direction you want, what MUST we do ? Simply hide it under a carpet ?

Like I said, I would like Drones to be real, and for me it's must comfortable to find that they are real. But what if they are not ?

Yes, this case is indeed very strange.
I personally would have been far more comfortable if this had been proved a hoax. My reality would have stayed mostly inside the limits of known physics. For each stunning event there would be a nice intelligble scientific explanation.
BUT - there are THREE sides in this events:
One pointing to hoax ( the outer layer )
One pointing to real ( needs awareness and a keen eye used to observing nature )
One pointing to consciousness, mind, psyche, soul, spirit. Yes, I think spirit maybe fitting.
It is pointing to spirit as a REAL force in physical reality.
Just my view of this all.
spinnewise
Still looking for gorillas

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
« Reply #33 on: August 06, 2008, 01:06:55 AM »
Yes, it could be that. But don't forget (I have made some more test), the pictures must have been saved two times with:
-First time: Probably an adobe product.
-Second time: Photoshop CS2

Photoshop is an Adobe product.  Why do you think there was two saves like this?  Sorry if I missed it.

« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 01:09:01 AM by 10538 »

Offline Gfamad

  • Junior Dronie
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
« Reply #34 on: August 06, 2008, 07:42:50 AM »
Quote
Photoshop is an Adobe product.  Why do you think there was two saves like this?  Sorry if I missed it.

No problem 10538, I explain again.

We discover that in the Meta-Data of the Raj Photo, there are each time a group of data written by photoshop, OK ?
In this bloc, there is two interesting things: A DocumentId, and a DerivedFrom:DocumentId. Those two fields are filled with a number: They are not void.

After some tests, here what I can say:
-When you take a photo, and not modify it with photoshop (Ex: Simply rotating it with window), the Adobe MetaData is not present (logic !). So you document do not get a DocumentId.

-When you save this photo for the first time with Photoshop, you then get a DocumentId (long number in hexa). But of course, the DerivedFrom:DocumentId stay blank.

-Then, if you save AGAIN this file with Photoshop, the DocumentId became the DerivedFrom:DocumentId and the pictures gets a new DocumentId.

In summary, the présence of the field DerivedFrom:DocId means that the file has been saved two times with Photoshop.

So, why did I say that the first save could have been done with another adobe product ? Because I think that the MetaData we find in the JPEG could be common to many image processing tool from adobe (including PS, of course !), and so, any of those soft could fill the field "DocumentId". But because of the explicit presence of "Photoshop CS2" in the meta-data, we can say that the LAST save was done with Photoshop.

I hope I am clear enough.

Gfamad

Offline nekitamo

  • Administrator
  • Major Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 224
  • Karma: +28/-0
Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
« Reply #35 on: August 06, 2008, 11:41:54 AM »
I've noticed the same thing about Raj's image XMP data, however I'm not sure about the blank DerivedFrom part - here's XMP data of the original MINOLTA DiMAGEX image (from numbers) just opened and "saved as" like Raj's (quality=10, progressive) from PS CS2:
Code: [Select]
<?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="3.1.1-111">
   <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
         <tiff:Orientation>1</tiff:Orientation>
         <tiff:YCbCrPositioning>2</tiff:YCbCrPositioning>
         <tiff:XResolution>720000/10000</tiff:XResolution>
         <tiff:YResolution>720000/10000</tiff:YResolution>
         <tiff:ResolutionUnit>2</tiff:ResolutionUnit>
         <tiff:Make>MINOLTA CO.,LTD</tiff:Make>
         <tiff:Model>DiMAGE X</tiff:Model>
         <tiff:NativeDigest>256,257,258,259,262,274,277,284,530,531,282,283,296,301,318,319,529,532,306,270,271,272,305,315,33432;A3EC18D72931E54DFE479B91CDD0FAEF</tiff:NativeDigest>
         <tiff:BitsPerSample>
            <rdf:Seq>
               <rdf:li>8</rdf:li>
               <rdf:li>8</rdf:li>
               <rdf:li>8</rdf:li>
            </rdf:Seq>
         </tiff:BitsPerSample>
         <tiff:ImageWidth>1600</tiff:ImageWidth>
         <tiff:ImageLength>1200</tiff:ImageLength>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:xap="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
         <xap:ModifyDate>2008-08-06T12:01:22+02:00</xap:ModifyDate>
         <xap:CreatorTool>Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows</xap:CreatorTool>
         <xap:CreateDate>2008-08-06T12:01:22+02:00</xap:CreateDate>
         <xap:MetadataDate>2008-08-06T12:01:22+02:00</xap:MetadataDate>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/">
         <exif:NativeDigest>36864,40960,40961,37121,37122,40962,40963,37510,40964,36867,36868,33434,33437,34850,34852,34855,34856,37377,37378,37379,37380,37381,37382,37383,37384,37385,37386,37396,41483,41484,41486,41487,41488,41492,41493,41495,41728,41729,41730,41985,41986,41987,41988,41989,41990,41991,41992,41993,41994,41995,41996,42016,0,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30;9A8841DBBB89CFB3F5851F193BB91701</exif:NativeDigest>
         <exif:ExifVersion>0.2.1.0</exif:ExifVersion>
         <exif:FlashpixVersion>0.1.0.0</exif:FlashpixVersion>
         <exif:ColorSpace>1</exif:ColorSpace>
         <exif:ComponentsConfiguration>
            <rdf:Seq>
               <rdf:li>1</rdf:li>
               <rdf:li>2</rdf:li>
               <rdf:li>3</rdf:li>
               <rdf:li>0</rdf:li>
            </rdf:Seq>
         </exif:ComponentsConfiguration>
         <exif:CompressedBitsPerPixel>4/1</exif:CompressedBitsPerPixel>
         <exif:PixelXDimension>1600</exif:PixelXDimension>
         <exif:PixelYDimension>1200</exif:PixelYDimension>
         <exif:DateTimeOriginal>2008-06-29T17:57:12+02:00</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
         <exif:DateTimeDigitized>2008-06-29T17:57:12+02:00</exif:DateTimeDigitized>
         <exif:ExposureTime>10/2423</exif:ExposureTime>
         <exif:FNumber>66/10</exif:FNumber>
         <exif:ExposureProgram>2</exif:ExposureProgram>
         <exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
            <rdf:Seq>
               <rdf:li>100</rdf:li>
            </rdf:Seq>
         </exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
         <exif:ExposureBiasValue>0/10</exif:ExposureBiasValue>
         <exif:MaxApertureValue>30/10</exif:MaxApertureValue>
         <exif:MeteringMode>5</exif:MeteringMode>
         <exif:LightSource>0</exif:LightSource>
         <exif:Flash rdf:parseType="Resource">
            <exif:Fired>False</exif:Fired>
            <exif:Return>0</exif:Return>
            <exif:Mode>0</exif:Mode>
            <exif:Function>False</exif:Function>
            <exif:RedEyeMode>False</exif:RedEyeMode>
         </exif:Flash>
         <exif:FocalLength>60/10</exif:FocalLength>
         <exif:FileSource>3</exif:FileSource>
         <exif:SceneType>1</exif:SceneType>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:xapMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/"
            xmlns:stRef="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceRef#">
         <xapMM:DocumentID>uuid:287960870363DD11A593FC4D026267F5</xapMM:DocumentID>
         <xapMM:InstanceID>uuid:297960870363DD11A593FC4D026267F5</xapMM:InstanceID>
         <xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
            <stRef:instanceID>uuid:277960870363DD11A593FC4D026267F5</stRef:instanceID>
            <stRef:documentID>uuid:277960870363DD11A593FC4D026267F5</stRef:documentID>
         </xapMM:DerivedFrom>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
         <dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
         <dc:description>
            <rdf:Alt>
               <rdf:li xml:lang="x-default">MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA         </rdf:li>
            </rdf:Alt>
         </dc:description>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/">
         <photoshop:ColorMode>3</photoshop:ColorMode>
         <photoshop:ICCProfile>sRGB IEC61966-2.1</photoshop:ICCProfile>
         <photoshop:History/>
      </rdf:Description>
   </rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>
<?xpacket end="w"?>

I think Adobe's UUID numbers include current time as one component in their calculation, note how numbers in my above example increase:

<xapMM:DocumentID>uuid:287960870363DD11A593FC4D026267F5</xapMM:DocumentID>
<xapMM:InstanceID>uuid:297960870363DD11A593FC4D026267F5</xapMM:InstanceID>
<xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
   <stRef:instanceID>uuid:277960870363DD11A593FC4D026267F5</stRef:instanceID>
   <stRef:documentID>uuid:277960870363DD11A593FC4D026267F5</stRef:documentID>
</xapMM:DerivedFrom>

That is also the case with Raj's image, but note the DerivedFrom part:

<xapMM:DocumentID>uuid:FAE3395E0D07DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</xapMM:DocumentID>
<xapMM:InstanceID>uuid:FBE3395E0D07DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</xapMM:InstanceID>
<xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
   <stRef:instanceID>uuid:4A39D5585706DC11B56B90D9F510219F</stRef:instanceID>
   <stRef:documentID>uuid:19B542315206DC11B56B90D9F510219F</stRef:documentID>
</xapMM:DerivedFrom>

This combination IMO requires multiple opening and saving perhaps even with different computers.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 11:52:14 AM by nekitamo »

Endzone

  • Guest
Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
« Reply #36 on: August 06, 2008, 08:21:15 PM »
Quote
They were obviously not manipulate by us. So who manipulated them ?
Good point.  This has always been more important to us than Hoax/No Hoax.  Why would anyone or any group go to this trouble!  What is the real reason behind this Drone/Isaac event?  How would anyone gain anything from all this complexity? Just to sit back and laugh!!! A lot of work for little reward!
So you see Gfamad, we are closer than it would appear, but we really do believe there is a strangeness in this that is phenomenal.
L E V I A T H A N

from Gfamad:
Quote
But in a study, if you find things that are not in the direction you want, what MUST we do ? Simply hide it under a carpet ?

Like I said, I would like Drones to be real, and for me it's must comfortable to find that they are real. But what if they are not ?

Yes, this case is indeed very strange.
I personally would have been far more comfortable if this had been proved a hoax. My reality would have stayed mostly inside the limits of known physics. For each stunning event there would be a nice intelligble scientific explanation.
BUT - there are THREE sides in this events:
One pointing to hoax ( the outer layer )
One pointing to real ( needs awareness and a keen eye used to observing nature )
One pointing to consciousness, mind, psyche, soul, spirit. Yes, I think spirit maybe fitting.
It is pointing to spirit as a REAL force in physical reality.
Just my view of this all.
spinnewise
Yes I agree on the spirit theory, that's what has always been my basis for feeling they are real. My spirit tells me they are! A gut feeling this is so familiar and many agree this is something that feels like we have seen the symbols before and the craft also seem familiar. The evidence being brought forth here is only for me and aid to solidifying the feeling of my spirit.

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1045
  • Karma: +49/-0
Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2009, 05:20:33 PM »
I found it odd that the Raj photo names PICT13.jpg to PICT18.jpg do not match the naming convention described on page 72 the operators manual for the DimageX which should be something like PICT0013.JPG (notice the 4 digit numeric and the upper case extension JPG).

Then I read page 73 and noticed this caution:

Quote from: From page 73 of DimageX manual (CAMERA NOTES)
Image files contain exif tag data. This data includes the time and date the image was recorded
as well as the camera settings used. This data can be viewed with the camera or the DiMAGE
Image Viewer Utility software.

If an image is opened in a image-processing application that does not support exif tag data,
and then the image is saved overwriting the original data, the exif tag information will be
erased. When using software other than the DiMAGE Image Viewer Utility, always rename the
image file to protect the exif tag data.

Two points to note:
  • Other programs that do not support the exact EXIF tags used by the camera WILL NOT save that back to disk
  • The user is warned to change the name of the file

Also of note, people that did not purchase the camera, will likely not have the DiMAGE Image Viewer Utility. They will likely have other photo edit/camera-reader software installed that automatically start up when a camera is connected.