Although the dress appears to have a random noise pattern, there is actually one area where there is a well-defined pattern: her chest. Between her breast the dots form a well-organized "stretch" pattern.
Seriously there is nothing "scientific" about this analysis. It's all bullshit.
I will entirely agree that his analysis involves a lot of subjective evaluation, thus it lacks proper scientific rigor by definition. Comparing it to the re-released and less-processed image, however, pretty much gives him a 10/10 for getting the right answers. So you really can't justify saying "He's just spouting bullshit" without calling him either psychic or an incredibly lucky guesser. -- pla
I don't know why you have to go so over the top and follow this up with the "it's all bullshit" stuff. -- smackfu
ELA has its place in image forensics. Many of the technical objections in this thread are valid, but these objections do not invalidate the field at large. You'll find a lot more interesting techniques coming from Hany Farid's lab. I've seen him talk two or three times, and his approach is as measured as it should be, but still full of interesting and novel approaches to detecting image forgery. Before you make any judgments about the field, you should seek some of his lectures online. You'll see that he tailors specific techniques to specific images and types of forgeries, and that he also advocates for a carefully chosen combination of approaches to "prove" any particular forgery. -- fake
« Older Barack Obama as celebrity spokeperson.... | Lost In The Air: The Jason Rei... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt