Drone Research Team

Drones Research Team - Research => Photo analysis => : Gfamad August 03, 2008, 08:24:33 PM

: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 03, 2008, 08:24:33 PM
Well, I read the thread about the tool for image analysis. I get JPEGsnoop and I played with it a little bit. For each picture, I will write what JPEGsnoop wrote in the last field (**** Searching compression signature ****)

First test: A photo I know which is original (directly taken from my SONY DSC-P72)
Verdict:
 
  ASSESSMENT: Uncertain if processed or original
  Appears to be new signature for known camera.
  If the camera/software doesn't appear in list above,
  PLEASE ADD TO DATABASE with [Tools->Add Camera to DB]



Now the same picture loaded and saved with Photoshop CS3 (quality 10)
Verdict:
  NOTE: Photoshop IRB detected
  NOTE: EXIF Software field recognized as from editor
  ASSESSMENT: Image is processed/edited


Now Raj PICT13:
Verdict:
    SW :[Adobe Photoshop          ]                                       [Save As 10      ]
    ASSESSMENT: Image is very likely processed/edited

Raj PICT18:
Verdict:
    SW :[Adobe Photoshop          ]                                       [Save As 10      ]
    ASSESSMENT: Image is very likely processed/edited

Then I took a look at the camera Raj used. It's a Minolta DiMAGE X (Well, JPEG snoop told me  ;) ) and I try to found some original pictures made with this camera. I found some here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagex/page9.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagex/page9.asp)
At the end, you will find some photo in 1600x1200.

I tried with this two pictures:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/samples/rescharts/minolta_dimagex.jpg (http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/samples/rescharts/minolta_dimagex.jpg)
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/MinoltaDimageX/Samples/Ghosting/PICT0020.JPG (http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/MinoltaDimageX/Samples/Ghosting/PICT0020.JPG)
Verdict:
  ASSESSMENT: Uncertain if processed or original
  This may be a new camera for the database.
  If this file is original, and camera doesn't appear in list above,
  PLEASE ADD TO DATABASE with [Tools->Add Camera to DB]

Now with Stephen and Bigbasin1 and Bigbasin2:
Verdict:
  ASSESSMENT: Image is processed/edited
  This may be a new software editor for the database.
  If this file is processed, and editor doesn't appear in list above,
  PLEASE ADD TO DATABASE with [Tools->Add Camera to DB]


And that's all. For the other sightings, the pictures are too small (so it's not the original) or they are scanned.

Conclusion: Well I don't know what to think about all that. We should have the original from the camera to do a better job. But if it's the original, it's not good  :-\ (Are the photos on DRT compressed for using less storage space ?)

Gfamad
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: 10538 August 03, 2008, 11:28:55 PM
Hi Gfamad,

I do have a Dimage X, same as the Raj pics.  I took a photo with it had 11A save it with Photoshop Elelments without touching the file otherwise.  I just ran it through JpegSnoop.  Here is it's assessment:

  NOTE: Photoshop IRB detected
  NOTE: EXIF Software field recognized as from editor
  ASSESSMENT: Image is processed/edited

So what does this tell us?

: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: leviathan August 04, 2008, 01:16:27 AM
Thank you 10538.  Just as we thought for at least one year.
L E V I A T H A N
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: onthefence August 04, 2008, 02:18:07 AM
Are the photos on DRT compressed for using less storage space ?

I was very careful to upload the files intact to the DRT website. So, all non-thumbnail images located here:
http://droneteam.com/history/
are originals.

The only thing that may have changed is the file's date-stamp due to FTP issues. However, the embedded EXIF data which includes camera date-stamp should be reliable.

Note: for the Chad scanned images, there have been many file-names floating around, I suspect that this is due to webmaster fiddling at C2C.
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 04, 2008, 06:09:00 AM
I do have a Dimage X, same as the Raj pics.  I took a photo with it had 11A save it with Photoshop Elelments without touching the file

OK, good point ! But one thing I don't understand and maybe you will light it: When I take a photo that I want to give, I send the original file, except if it's too large.
So why do you have to Save it with Photoshop ? The camera does create a JPG no ? Maybe it's because I don't understand what 'it had 11A' mean ?
But what it tell us is that the photo have been at least saved with Photoshop. Of course, the soft may be wrong.
Now, 10538, what about a photo taken with your Minolta and analysis without passing through Photoshop ?

For Leviathan: Sorry, I didn't know that this point was already study (Well, in fact I was sure it had already been seen, but I didn't found the topic here and the search with JPEG snoop gave me no answer on OMF...)

: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: 10538 August 04, 2008, 04:50:25 PM
I'm sorry Gfamad.  I did a typo when I typed that.  The sentence should have read:
I took a photo with it and then had 11August (drt member) save it with Photoshop Elements without touching the file otherwise.

Yes, it seems if jppsnoop sees any tags with "photoshop" then it assumes the photo has been edited, even if no editing was done but only saving.  We have never denied that photoshop was ever used.  We acknowledge that many people use photoshop simply for transferring pics from camera to PC.  If you install Photoshop on a PC does it not adjust file and action associations?  That's not to say no enhancements were done on the Raj pics.  It is highly likely some color/lighting corrections were done.  But no evidence has yet been found that photoshop was used to composite.

: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: knowhow August 04, 2008, 05:03:04 PM
Gfamad
I too have the Sony 72 and write software to investigate images. Any time you import an image into something like photoshop, photoalbum or even, heaven forbid, Adobe Photodeluxe, the software will add its proprietary mark near the exif fields. If your version of Jpeg Snoop is fully up to date with all photo-processing software (a daunting task considering all the nations and languages of the world), it will identify the field marked with the sotware stamp listed in the Jpeg Snoop data base and indicate such during the search.  If the field is blank then the program usually indicates the image is unprocessed or edited. In reality, this is no proof that the image has not been modified by someone aware of the software tendencies.  Companies like Adobe are constantly changing their software to protect proprietary capabilities and frequently make modifications to embed markers to assist in tracking the pedigree of an image.
You can use Visual Basic to simply look at each file data element and examine each and every bit of info in the exif area and clear thru the entire image whether jpeg compression or something with higher resolution.
While I like your approach to the question of photo-modification, I think you might benefit from taking the analysis to a little higher level of detail.  If you are in my age group, you might do the same with MS-Dos.
knowhow
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 04, 2008, 06:56:58 PM
For 10538: You're totally right ! It prooves nothing. For exemple, if you take a photo, and simply rotate it with the build-in photo browser of Window, JPEG snoop will detect it. But it is obvious that it is not a compositing operation !

For knowhow: As you said, by simply analysing a file with any kind of programm (Java, Blitz Basic, Visual Basic, Python...) you can find the EXIF data area. The only thing to do is to find a doc with each offset to use.
And I think that you can also do the opposite: Write by hand EXIF data. And we have proof that this thing wasn't done !

I do TOTALLY agree with you when you say we need more analysis to proof anything (and I hope the picture is true).

A good way could be JPEG artifact analysis. When you take a photo, it is compressed once. But if you insert a shape in the photo, and then save (compress) again, the JPEG artifact should be different on the two part of the photo. But I don't know yet how to analyse them. But it can be a great way (the best ?) to prove that those pictures ar REAL.

And a last thing: Yes I know MS-DOS and before (Atari 800XL, Atari ST, AMIGA, HP 48GX....).

Thanks for your answers.

GFA-MAD
: Comparing Compression
: knowhow August 04, 2008, 07:57:55 PM
Gfadam
If the overall drone issue were some type of hoax, it is likely that each proposed individual would actually be the same person and he would likely use the same camera and that would have the same data compression scheme which would show up in the image portion of the file even if he modified the exif portion to indicate different cameras.  I don't personally feel that ambitious to make that effort but maybe it would settle some of the nervousness about the drone realities if someone were so inclined.
knowhow
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: majicbar August 04, 2008, 08:48:48 PM
With the "Stephen" photos having the only other camera based EXIF data it makes the Chad and Ty scanned photographs more portent to being elements of a hoax. Yet, not everyone has or is using electronic cameras, other oldies like myself. Looks like the Drone Detectives may yet be the only hope of resolution for some serious questions that remain out there.
: old cameras
: knowhow August 04, 2008, 09:00:26 PM
If any of the photos are actually film based and then converted to electronic version via the developer, then the developer footprint should reside in the electronic file somewhere.  In my days before the Sony 72 I used a local company called Idaho Photo and you received a CD and had to use their proprietary software to view your own photos.  In fact, I would be surprised if the Sony software I use to download my pictures from the camera via USB ports to the computer doesn't have its signature somewhere in the final photo file.  It doesn't seem likely to me that somebody would use the Photoshop expensive and memory hog software to simply download pictures but of course it could be so. I think I will take a look at some of these photo files.
knowhow
: Re: old cameras
: onthefence August 04, 2008, 09:22:52 PM
It doesn't seem likely to me that somebody would use the Photoshop expensive ...

I understand there are many people that do not pay for such popular software titles.

Maybe someone is hiding from the software police (http://www.nopiracy.com/) ;)
: Jpeg Analysis
: knowhow August 04, 2008, 10:20:52 PM
Well if anybody offended by the icky look of this, its Gfadam's fault...he got me started.  Here is the pertinent part of the Rajinder Picture 16 file including the ID of the software.  I will post picture 17 next and you can see it is the same ID.

Picture 16 Raj

ÿ�ÿá:³http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/ <?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="3.1.1-112">
   <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
         <dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:xap="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
         <xap:CreatorTool>Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows</xap:CreatorTool>
         <xap:CreateDate>2007-05-20T13:05:16-07:00</xap:CreateDate>
         <xap:ModifyDate>2007-05-20T13:05:16-07:00</xap:ModifyDate>
         <xap:MetadataDate>2007-05-20T13:05:16-07:00</xap:MetadataDate>
      </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: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>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
         <tiff:Orientation>1</tiff:Orientation>
         <tiff:XResolution>720000/10000</tiff:XResolution>
         <tiff:YResolution>720000/10000</tiff:YResolution>
         <tiff:ResolutionUnit>2</tiff:ResolutionUnit>
         <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;BBCC38DB1E0C414A23E9120915D12520</tiff:NativeDigest>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/">
         <exif:PixelXDimension>1600</exif:PixelXDimension>
         <exif:PixelYDimension>1200</exif:PixelYDimension>
         <exif:ColorSpace>1</exif:ColorSpace>
         <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;B18766B2D943F46AC2A573FD1C3E642F</exif:NativeDigest>
      </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>
knowhow
: Picture 17 Rajinder photo jpeg info
: knowhow August 04, 2008, 10:24:02 PM
There is all kinds of stuff in here to check out.  Version dates, time differentials and who knows what.  If you all have seen this before, my apologies. If you have ideas as to where to go from here, let me know.

knowhow

Picture 17 Raj


Q¶Š(  Í ¢Š  Â¥Ã? P11KÅ (  Ã? ¢Š M´m¢Š.  3<Ã?T#)
 Å?î úšÃ?¼`¸â?¢ 3 ûàÃ?FJó¸~­úQEe[XÅ¡Ã?~ñ«g0ž sâ??¿)â¦Ã? Vâ?ÂÃ â?°Â¨Â­&%!¢ŠÐâ??ÿÃ?ÿá:³http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/ <?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="3.1.1-112">
   <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
         <dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:xap="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
         <xap:CreatorTool>Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows</xap:CreatorTool>
         <xap:CreateDate>2007-05-20T13:05:32-07:00</xap:CreateDate>
         <xap:ModifyDate>2007-05-20T13:05:32-07:00</xap:ModifyDate>
         <xap:MetadataDate>2007-05-20T13:05:32-07:00</xap:MetadataDate>
      </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:FDE3395E0D07DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</xapMM:DocumentID>
         <xapMM:InstanceID>uuid:FEE3395E0D07DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</xapMM:InstanceID>
         <xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
            <stRef:instanceID>uuid:426E2C450D07DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</stRef:instanceID>
            <stRef:documentID>uuid:1D57A31D0307DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</stRef:documentID>
         </xapMM:DerivedFrom>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
         <tiff:Orientation>1</tiff:Orientation>
         <tiff:XResolution>720000/10000</tiff:XResolution>
         <tiff:YResolution>720000/10000</tiff:YResolution>
         <tiff:ResolutionUnit>2</tiff:ResolutionUnit>
         <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;0B6BF69440046F3B557E81FDE5409B4C</tiff:NativeDigest>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/">
         <exif:PixelXDimension>1600</exif:PixelXDimension>
         <exif:PixelYDimension>1200</exif:PixelYDimension>
         <exif:ColorSpace>1</exif:ColorSpace>
         <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;B18766B2D943F46AC2A573FD1C3E642F</exif:NativeDigest>
      </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>


id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d software ID picture 16
id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d  software ID picture 17

: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: majicbar August 05, 2008, 06:52:50 AM
As I am understanding it, the photo prints were scanned and then ported to Photoshop. In my computer setup it is possibble to have my HP all-in-one port its scan directly into photoshop, which I think is the way that Linda Moulton Howe had also handeled her scans of the Ty photographs.
Without locating the "witnesses", Chad and Ty, who sent their photos we will not be able to know what exactly happened and are left with the odd chance of hoax.
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 05, 2008, 11:35:08 AM
Well, very interesting all that. I can see two way to understand that:

1/ Those pictures are real, and were saved at least one time with photoshop. (Or another adobe product, but I only know Photoshop).

2/ Those pictures were processed by Photoshop. BUT the hoaxer forget to modify by hand all EXIF tags. But as you said knowhow, they used many kind of camera... Grrrrr.... I undersand why you are studying it since one year !

Well, it seems to be a dead end. I really don't know what to think of that. Well, I'm at work now, and I will study it this evening (night  ;D ).
: Image Processing
: knowhow August 05, 2008, 12:32:21 PM
Gfadam & others
Here's how I think any software handles an imported image.  The first and highest priority is to not make any change to the image data that the user does not make himself.  On the other hand, if the user makes changes then what he did with the importing software must leave a pedigree mark on the image data field. The simple clicking of the "quick fix" button will place the whole string of traceable software identities into the image data field.  I believe the Raj photos were handled this way because the software identities were all placed in the same zone of the image data field.  You can see that this would include the TIFF which is used to process the text on the major boom.
On the other hand what seems almost certain to me is that there was not any substantial editing of the image because there is not a major distribution of identities across the image.  If I draw a line here and there, these insertions will be randomly spread in the data field. If I take a picture of a pole and then try to insert another picture of say the drone model, all this history is there for analysis. I see nothing of it in the Raj photos.
I am certain there are forensic photo people out there with much higher familiarity with image data fields than me.  But I know drawing and modeling software as well as anybody and there are no fingerprints of that sort of activities in the Raj image data fields.
Of course, the other news is that the images from other photos do not seem to use Photoshop from Adobe.  There are two photos, one the Big Basin area and the other Birmingham which each use an Apple Computer for the photo processing.  Still another that uses Intel with an ancient version.  It seems to me that if one considers the overall drone scenario, a hoax is totally out of the question.
Let's say that Raj did get a picture of an airborne drone and attempted to put some Japanese Hiragana on the main boom.  As far as I know, even the Japanese version of Photoshop does not easily allow you to create characters that are not Hiragana characters. But for absolute certainty, if you attempt to insert the "Label" say from a Japanese 747 onto the boom of the drone, the fingerprints of that activity will be in the photo image data field.
I will continue to snoop around and my hat off to Gfadam for getting me going where I should have gone months ago.
knowhow
: Linda Moulton Scan/Computer
: knowhow August 05, 2008, 02:42:26 PM
Looks like the LMH scanner/computer combination at least for one of the Ty Drone photos went thru Adobe Photoshop cs2 version into a MacIntosh Computer.  I could see no sign of subsequent modifications after the scan.
knowhow
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 05, 2008, 02:58:06 PM
Good work knowhow ! And Highly interesting !

A last thing that I wasn't aware off: That the EXIF data keep track of all the work you made on it. Are you sure of that ? If it's true, all that could be a PROOF of the reality of the pictures !!!! ( Remember, the data were not modified by hand because there is still the Photoshop mark, and the supposed Hoaxer should have erased those finger prints !)

But (there's always a BUT !) maybe some pictures format don't handle meta-data. (Need to investigate).
Suppose:
-Take a JPEG photo with a camera
-Open it with Photoshop.
-Make all the work....
-Save the result in BMP (it's an exemple, I don't know if BMP handle meta-data, I'm still at work and I can only guess !)
-Close Photoshop (or close the picture)
-Reopen the BMP Image.
-Save it in JPEG format...

....

I'm not agree with myself on this point ( lol, it came to me while I was writting !) because the lost of EXIF data should also lost EXIF data like Camera used, Focal, etc....

So, if you're right, if there is a stack of modification in EXIF data, then we could have a strong proof that those photo are real ! Maybe a great step ?

Very very very interesting....

GFA-MAD
: Exif and Jfif Data fields
: knowhow August 05, 2008, 03:36:14 PM
Gfamad
Always at the beginning of an image data field, there is the exif and jfif data field for about 80 characters.  This primarily has to do with the camera settings and finally the type of camera which is normally without code and just in plain asci text.
Then mixed in with the entire image are various data fields which allow image processing software to enter its pedigree when the user makes any changes to the image file.
A rastor image, bitmap, is primarily for color control of typical scenery in an image with higher resolution.  If you import the image into say MS Paint, a simple, cheap and low memory image modifying software from msft, and say enter a line or a label, then along with the user modification goes the MS Paint version and certain coding to allow a future analysis of what was done. The software looks for places to place the pedigree according with its exporting algorithm.  These things are all quite trackable in photos.
If now you save the bitmap format in jpeg option, then a data compression algorithm compresses the file length by combining things that look alike such as blue sky, grass blades, etc.
If you have a little more sophisticated software such as Photoshop CS3 or licensed versions for scanners and certain computers, then there are options like "quick fix".  I seldom use a flash and even took a picture of the lunar eclipse in nearly total darkness.  The quick fix button seems to make a major repair to almost anything I can screw up.  I call it the cardiac relief button.  It is a fairly sophisticated piece of software which goes thru the image and checks for color balance, focus, sharpness and makes a stab at where you should have had the camera set.  Works most of the time but sometimes takes the image someplace you don't want to be like with sunset and sunrise pictures.  Once the algorithm is done and you click ok, it then goes to the image data field and places all the identities of the image software pedigree, in this case a specific location and major grouping of information.
On the other hand, if you attempted to merge two photos or add information from one photo into another, this is a much more complex operation and requires multiple engagements between the image processing software and the original image. The algorithm to insert this information into the image data field is much more complex and the decision process more difficult to follow.  But by the nature of being spread out, is very detectable in simple scans of the data.  Generally this information is coded and exactly what it reflects is only known by the software developer.  But it is obvious when it exists.
If you decide to look at the image data fields be prepared to look at megabytes of data because the rastor image data is mixed in with it. What I have done is written a program to look for certain types of data such as the simple string "id:"  This is universily used before various identity fields and that is how the Raj CS2 Photoshop ID came up.
Hope this helps
knowhow
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 05, 2008, 05:42:14 PM
Thanks for the explain.

Well, I know a little about image coding because I have looked for several encoding algorithm  (ten years ago I also looked how the JPEG work) and on my HP48Gx I created a program to display 4 grey scale pictures ! And I also added a basic compressio algorithm.

But maybe I have missed something with modern image format. Correct me if I'm wrong:
-The JPEG, except on the begining (like you said, EXIF data and Meta Data from photoshop) contains only a flat pictures with no layers, no ? There is no extra data "inside" the data of the raster image ? So even if you merge two pictures in one, there will be no extra data, and the final JPG will be a single layered picture. No matter the tools you are using (an eraser for exemple).

Well, I don't want to bore you with all my questions, and I'm gonna practice with some pictures. And each time I will check the data.

But thanks for your help. I think we are going in a good way.

Gfamad

: image data
: knowhow August 05, 2008, 05:56:08 PM
Unlike a chemical film which simply converts photons to chemicals, a digital storage device stores things just like old punched cards with organization like allocation tables (your bios on your computer).  Every so often in the file there is a data section which allows the image to change color ratios, sharpness, etc.  When you use jpeg to compress the photo, the compression data is in this area. If there were no data locations, you could not compress the file because you wouldn't know how to compare pixels that were similar.
In your HP 48 you might be getting exited before you get very far into the data file and not really getting past the first rastor data.  The data I posted from picture 16 and 17 was down about 10% into the file, far beyond the first 80 characters for exif.  Remember 80 characters descends from punched cards which had 80 characters across the long way of the card.
knowhow
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 05, 2008, 06:16:26 PM
OK, I'm OK with that. That's what I know in fact, but as I said, English is not my native language, so it's hard for me to understand at 100% all what is said here.

My work is nearly finished, and I have bad bad news. I really hope Knowhow I made a mistake and I hope you will counter ...

Gfamad
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: leviathan August 05, 2008, 06:28:22 PM
You will always be left with the chance of HOAX and there may be those who are more comfortable with HOAX.  It is time to say "So be it" or more importantly So Mote It Be.  The DRT have done an admirable job, but this site has its enemies some dressed as sheep and Dronies.  The Drones can die for now, but we have made sure their resurrection will come.  This is a characteristic of this phenomena and anyone who is interested in the longevity of an event must consider this and plan for it.  That has been done.  This Drone/Isaac event now has sufficient status and exposure to out live its detractors literally.  If you do not understand what we (9) are referring to just look around or ask around and you will understand.
As always, be seeing you in time.
L E V I A T H A N
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 05, 2008, 06:49:06 PM
First Leviathan, I came here because I wanted a serious place to study those strange Drone. I'm not here as a detractor, you can believe me !

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 ?

I do agree that DRT did and continue to do a great work on it. It's a very interesting work, whatever it is. And I personnaly believe UFO are real (whatever they are).

I saw ennemies on DRT on other forums, and as you can check (my Pseudo is always Gfamad or GFA-MAD, check on youtube, a program I did 'Livrant' or my (outdated...) Blog !) I've never spoke about drone on other place. I'm here to respect the work that has been done, and not to claim 'Real' or 'Hoax'.

I'm only studying this case and tell you what I found, only that. I'm here to help, if I can of course !

Well, I'm going on what I was doing before this reply !

Gfamad
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: 10538 August 05, 2008, 07:25:29 PM
I don't think Lev was directing any of his comments at you Gfamad.  You are doing fine.  Keep digging.  Who knows what you might uncover.  I too think it unlikely a hoaxer would go to the proportions in this case and then miss removing the photoshop tags.

Remember we may be dealing with people (the photo witnesses) who have no idea how much hoaxing goes on.  For that reason they would never understand that some tweaking or instant fixing could be conscrewed as a attempt to hoax.

: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 05, 2008, 07:32:27 PM
Well, let me explain what I found.

First I have only worked with Raj photo.
Second, we have found that at least, the pictures where saved with Photoshop CS2 windows.

At this point, the only thing that we can say is that the photo were not directly taken from the memory card and put on the hard drive. It passed throw Photoshop.

But there is more... I found this simply by examinating the files with Notepad !

When you save a Picture under Photoshop, it gets two Id: An InstanceId, and a DocumentId (I will talk only about the DocumentId)

But when you are saving AGAIN your work, it also keep track of the last documentId from where it came frome. You can find those data after the DerivedFrom tag.

So let's see the story of a photo I took with my personnal camera:

-First photo taken from the Memory card: No Meta Data except the Exif data.
-Then I save this image with Photoshop: It gets a DocumentID. But NO DerivedFrom:DocumentId
-Then I save it again with Photoshop: It gets a NEW DocumentID and it gets a DerivedFrom:DocumentId ! And of course this last number is the same that the documentId where it came from.

Here is the results of test I have done:

Original photo taken from my camera (PIC1):

No Meta-Data after the EXIF data (or not visible !)

Original photo saved one time with Photoshop (PIC2)

xapMM:DocumentID="uuid:AE99BC821263DD119FEAF7D6B9E8CD07"
<xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource"/>

PIC2 with colors corrections and play with Eraser Tool (PIC3):

xapMM:DocumentID="uuid:2C6DE19F1363DD119FEAF7D6B9E8CD07"
<xapMM:DerivedFrom
  stRef:instanceID="uuid:AF99BC821263DD119FEAF7D6B9E8CD07"
  stRef:documentID="uuid:AE99BC821263DD119FEAF7D6B9E8CD07"
/>

PIC2 saved again without touching it (PIC4):

xapMM:DocumentID="uuid:0A5608501463DD119FEAF7D6B9E8CD07"
<xapMM:DerivedFrom
  stRef:instanceID="uuid:AF99BC821263DD119FEAF7D6B9E8CD07"
  stRef:documentID="uuid:AE99BC821263DD119FEAF7D6B9E8CD07"
/>

PICT13 from Raj
<xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
  <stRef:instanceID>uuid:466E2C450D07DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</stRef:instanceID>
  <stRef:documentID>uuid:B546BEBB0507DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</stRef:documentID>
</xapMM:DerivedFrom>


PICT14 from Raj
<xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
  <stRef:instanceID>uuid:5465D66D1307DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</stRef:instanceID>
  <stRef:documentID>uuid:F8D02F7C0D07DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</stRef:documentID>
</xapMM:DerivedFrom>

PICT15 from Raj
<xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
  <stRef:instanceID>uuid:4C39D5585706DC11B56B90D9F510219F</stRef:instanceID>
  <stRef:documentID>uuid:1BB542315206DC11B56B90D9F510219F</stRef:documentID>
</xapMM:DerivedFrom>

PICT16 from Raj
<xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
  <stRef:instanceID>uuid:4A39D5585706DC11B56B90D9F510219F</stRef:instanceID>
  <stRef:documentID>uuid:19B542315206DC11B56B90D9F510219F</stRef:documentID>
</xapMM:DerivedFrom>


PICT17 from Raj
<xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
  <stRef:instanceID>uuid:426E2C450D07DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</stRef:instanceID>
  <stRef:documentID>uuid:1D57A31D0307DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</stRef:documentID>
</xapMM:DerivedFrom>

PICT18 from Raj
<xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
  <stRef:instanceID>uuid:DA6B83F81407DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</stRef:instanceID>
  <stRef:documentID>uuid:5E65D66D1307DC119FD78ABD8FA3219B</stRef:documentID>
</xapMM:DerivedFrom>

What we can see now that at least, those Pict as been saved at least two time, and the last time with Photoshop.

Hope I made a mistake somewhere...  :-[
What's your opinion about all that ?

Gfamad
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: leviathan August 05, 2008, 07:55:27 PM
What we said is what we meant, as to how you take it is your business.  We have no problem with research or different opinion, yours are anyone else.  We have a problem with AGENDA.  The camera data can be manipulated and we learned how at OMF, so the camera data is as inconclusive as anything else.  Our opinion on this has been stated many times and quite frankly we are more than used to being the villain and not frighten by it.
L E V I A T H A N
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 05, 2008, 08:15:59 PM
You're right Levi, the camera data can be manipulate VERY easily. But why Raj would do such a thing before posting them ? They were obviously not manipulate by us. So who manipulated them ? I'm open of course to this view. But it need more explainations.

Hey Chad and the others, it's time to show yourself ! The DRT need you ! It will help us if you could speak here. So many silence is not good....

Gfamad
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: onthefence August 05, 2008, 08:22:30 PM
But why Raj would do such a thing before posting them ? They were obviously not manipulate by us. So who manipulated them ? I'm open of course to this view. But it need more explainations.

How about this for a guess:

The above scenario counts for at least two times a computer program could have touched the images.

Raj stated that he did not have the camera in his possession, so he likely did not directly bring the photos into his computer before uploading to Flikr. Therefore, there must have been two computers involved.
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: leviathan August 05, 2008, 08:38:35 PM
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
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 05, 2008, 09:08:53 PM
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
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: spinnewise August 05, 2008, 09:54:44 PM
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:
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
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: 10538 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.

: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Gfamad August 06, 2008, 07:42:50 AM
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
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: nekitamo 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:
:
<?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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_Unique_Identifier) 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.
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: Endzone August 06, 2008, 08:21:15 PM
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:
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.
: Re: Some analysis with JPEG snoop
: onthefence 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 (http://droneteam.com/history/raj/camera/DI_X_UK_HW.pdf) 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:

: 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:
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.