The ‘conservative’ set have fully embraced the proud to be stupid ethos. For instance, if you point out something totally idiotic that one of these people say, they’ll respond with something like, ‘Sorry, I didn’t go to one of your liberal communist indoctrination universities’ or ‘Sorry, I’m too busy working for a living instead of asking hardworking Americans for a handout to check my spelling’.
5 Likes
How dare you.
#AllEaglesMatterEvenIllEagles
5 Likes
I think they meant “liberal failure.”
Why is Tony Curtis holding that placard?
These signs are still just photoshopped junk.
don’t conflate jpg compression artifacts with photoshoping. most of these images actually pass the photoshoping forensics testing tools. check for yourself.
this isn’t a part of the great left media conspiracy, most of these people really are that dumb. which should have been self evident based on what their signs are about.
10 Likes
Every one of these pictures is hyperpixelated around the sign, but not otherwise. They appear to be totally bogus.
Link to one misspelled picture in an actual mainstream news report, please.
I can tell by the pixels!
7 Likes
Here’s a good explainer about text and jpeg compression.
‘Image Analyst Mike Pound explains what goes wrong when JPEG tries to compress text.’
7 Likes
Thanks, but as the video shows, unless we’re looking at an 8x8 glyph, JPEG compression wouldn’t make much of a difference besides “mosquito noise” ie ringing artifacts. This shows that there’s been manipulation between the two versions.
Does the mainstream media report on misspelled signs?
Seriously, you can run them through a forensic filter and actually tell if they are actually photoshopped or not, the pixelation around letters isn’t from photoshop, photoshop doesn’t do that, it is from jpeg compression algorithms. why would you go to the work to photoshop something and have pixels around it, that would just be stupid and a lot extra work to create. photoshopping something doesn’t add pixelation.
LOL! 
oh great link, thanks!!! 
8 Likes
Which one are you referring to?
1 Like
I’m quibbling over the falior falcor sign
ETA
It would be like an alignment of all the stars with all the planets for the DTC algorithm to turn an L into a C when dealing with the resolutions used. Therefore there’s decent evidence that there was a human manipulation of the photo.
2 Likes
You’d be correct on that. Being that there’re two different versions, at least one is clearly a ‘shop’. The point about jpeg compression is that it’s not evidence itself of manipulation.
4 Likes
I’ll definitely agree on that, provisionally, as long as the resolution per glyph takes it into account.
1 Like
yeah, some of them are shopped, no arguing that, just not most of them.
photoshop doesn’t add pixelation to these types of manipulations, so even on the shopped ones the pixelation is a jpeg compression artifact. you’ll need to use a forensic tool if you want to be able to tell photo manipulation.
i have killer photoshop skills and you’d never see an off pixel on any of my work, the forensic tools can still tell though, pretty fancy maths they use to tell when something has been messed with.
2 Likes
As far as what I can tell from what I’ve read, the small stuff is easy (8x8 blocks, fooling the DCT) while the bigger stuff takes hundreds of hours of careful work by experts to make convincing to the forensic tools.
I personally have spent about 20000 hours evaluating and playing with and learning about video codecs, so my experience and expertise is in the realm of 8x8 and 16x16 segments. I’m lost when looking at the whole image other than to say whether two images are likely human manipped.
1 Like
Agreed, but compression level must be taken into account too.
1 Like
It’s very difficult to quantize separate regions of the same image. I can’t even do that with XviD which lets me quantize differently between frames in both color and Luma paradigms.
