Fourandsix

[Postal44]

Code: Select all

http://www.fourandsix.com/

I'd watch this site for when they release their software. Could prove a useful tool to finally show the world what we've been saying.

[Jameson]

Thanks. This fakery goes back a long time. Can't say that I'm surprised anymore.

Just dissapointed, especially with you Ulysses S. Grant:

[hoi.polloi]

The year of 2001 is conspicuously absent from their history. And where are the Apollo missions?

[brianv]

Conspicuous indeed!!

http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge

"Six out of twelve answers are correct. Pretty good! The CG artists have worked really hard to fool you-- but you're still slightly ahead of the game!"

[pshea38]

Conspicuous indeed!!

http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge

"Six out of twelve answers are correct. Pretty good! The CG artists have worked really hard to fool you-- but you're still slightly ahead of the game!"

Six out of 12 also brian, but i gots to tell you, i think there could be some deception going on.
I think the fork is definitely cgi. There are four prongs on the fork, yet an extra prong is found in the reflection. I think the ladys section of face is cgi also. There is no trace of a nose line, and it just doesn't wash as genuine. On the back wall of the modern apartment photo, you can see the shadows cast on the wall, of railings going diagonally down and to the left. There is no corresponding railing to cast those shadows. I have a suspicion that the photo of the dew and the barbwire is real. The hole pattern in the juicer exposes flaws and again i don't think it is real. The vase looked real. The other 6 i got correct but i am sure enough about them.

Sorry grapes some might say, but i am betting that your choices weren't very different
from mine. It would be strange if we picked the exact same answers.

Tinfoil hat time. They are trying to make us so fucked-up confused, blindsiding us into
not trusting in our better judgement by blurring the lines between reality and fakery
in our fragile little minds.
Hopefully for them, we'll end up not knowing my arse from your elbow.

Do you agree with any of my reasoning?
.

[Postal44]

I got 7 out of 12 right.

The barbwire is fake. There is a face on the barb in the middle of the picture. Take a look at it again. Once you see it you'll wonder how you missed it.

[pshea38]

I got 7 out of 12 right.

The barbwire is fake. There is a face on the barb in the middle of the picture. Take a look at it again. Once you see it you'll wonder how you missed it.

If you mean the face of a lady in profile, i see it. I would say
that this could be a chance occurence in nature. Is there any other
reason for considering it cgi? Myself, I see faces all
the time (sometimes intricate), in the patterns on ceramic floor tiles
and wood floors, for instance.

How can the fork be real, if its reflection is showing an extra
(broken-tipped) prong? Also it is out of proportion.
What accounts for the shadow of the descending railing on the back wall
in the modern apartment photo, which is deemed real?

Am i going loopers?

[pshea38]

I shoulda bothered reading the barbed wire/juicer/whatever posts - coulda cheated...
but 3 beers, & hey, who cares ? I break V-Rally lap records after 8 pints !
& damn that Nepalese Gnome!

I cannot lie reel.deal and say that i am not disappointed.
reel.deal, i said to myself beforehand, can spot fakery 1.67 miles away,
in his sleep, and he'll knock this shit right out!

Maybe you are slipping rd. Maybe you are all Faked out, kid. Over the fake hill, so to speak.
Maybe i should go back and re-examine some of your previous analysis,
efforts i always automatically accepted as exemplary?

Do you see my points about the fork and the apartment?
Or am i going loopers reel.deal?
Say it ain't so man. Please say it ain't so.

[icarusinbound]

http://www.fourandsix.com/blog/2012/6/4/the-story-in-your-eyes.html

In an earlier post (“Photo forensics from eyes”) I described how the reflection of a light source on a person’s eye can be used to detect inconsistencies in lighting in an image. The reason why this works is that the surface of the eye is partially reflective and so the surrounding environment is reflected on the surface of the eye. Because the reflection of the light is typically very bright, it remains visible even in low resolution photos. If you have a high resolution image, it may be possible to take this approach one step further and reconstruct a fairly detailed image of what a person is looking at.

Though the surface of an eye behaves somewhat like a mirror, the curvature of the eye significantly distorts the reflection. And, the eye is not a perfect reflector, so the reflection is reduced in overall contrast and quality. Because the shape and reflective properties of the human eye are well understood, however, these distortions can be modeled and removed. With a sufficiently high resolution image, this means that an image of what a person sees can be “peeled” from the surface of an eye (see “The World in an Eye“ by Nishino and Nayar for complete details).

Shown below, for example, are three images of a person’s eye and a reconstruction of what they are looking at. The reconstruction is of sufficient quality that it is even possible to read the large text on the computer screen that the person on the far left was reading.

Photo credit: Ko Nishino and Shree Nayar
http://www.fourandsix.com/storage/post-images/whatyousee.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1338228677945

With the ever-increasing resolution of even lower-end cell phone cameras, this forensic technique could prove incredibly useful in a variety of forensic cases including most notably child abductions in which a victim is photographed. In such a situation, the victim’s eyes will reflect back to us an image of their surroundings and, most likely, an image of the person taking the picture.