11 votes

Digital Camera Buffs Help! Photo of Dzohkhar "Without Backpack" Impossible from iPhone, 12 Megapix Resolution?

The now famous close-up of Dzohkhar Tsarnaev leaving just after the Boston Marathon blasts had occurred, without his backpack, is of a vastly different resolution from the frame from which it was extracted and could not have been taken by an iPhone. The iPhone at best has a 5 to 8 megapixel camera. The resolution found in the 400x600 pixel detail circulated by the FBI would have required at least a 12 megapixel camera.

The original photo posted by David Green of Florida, who was running in the race, is a 1600 x 1200 pixel, or 1.92 megapixels, image. He first posted in LetsRun.com. Green says he was urged to contact the FBI as the photo seemed to contain an image of a man wearing a white hat backwards as Dzohkhar Tsarnaev was seen to be wearing in other photos.

The FBI then says it enlarged and enhanced the image of the white-hatted man, which shows a face which is recognizable as Dzohkhar's. However, the increase in pixel resolution has increased by nearly a factor of a hundred in terms of pixels per square inch. This means the original was either taken at a resolution beyond what an iPhone is capable of, or artistic rendering was employed.

The close-up below is the 400x300 pixel image circulated by the FBI, this one published by the People Magazine website. This level of resolution extrapolated across the original wide angle photo would have required the original to contain at least 12 megapixels. The original wide-angle is 1600x1200 or 1.92 megapixels.

Detail allegedly showing Dzhokhar "without backpack" circulated by FBI, published at People.com:

But a zoom-in of the original posted by Green gives only the following visual information, which is severely pixelated:

Original photo posted by Green, original 1600 x 1200 pixels:

Pixelation in original above of Dzohkhar:

In the close up circulated by the FBI a very conclusive ID of Dzohkhar can be made, unlike in the zoom-in of the original. Pixelation shows that about ten lines of pixels have been added to each one line in the original.

Pixelation in detail circulated by FBI:

The FBI enhancement draws in Dzohkhar's face where there was no real recognizable face before, although the white hat, clothing, and general description certainly fit his profile. The question becomes, at what point should the FBI be allowed to paint in a face which is clearly recognizable and use it as evidence of identification of the suspect?

An even bigger legal question: Does leading the public to believe that you have captured a conclusive photo of the suspect escaping the scene without a bomb backpack violate his rights? The original pixelated picture could be him, but there is still plenty of room for doubt.

And worse yet if it could get that, the ever-despicable Piers Morgan, in an interview with Green, did his assigned hatchet job when he editorialized that Dzohkhar looked "nonchalant" in the photo. Yes, Dzohkar's expression does look nonchalant. But it was PAINTED on. Can anyone spell "frame-up?"

But all this misses an even more fundamental absurdity in this Black Theater. The backpack Dzohkhar was carrying was white, like his hat, with black trim. The photo released by the FBI of the shredded backpack is black, with grey trim. Also, there is a man running away without the backpack he was previously photographed with, from above, with a square white emblem. A square white emblem, perhaps not the same but definitely square and white, is seen on the FBI photo of the bomb backpack.

Maybe nothing. But the FBI isn't circulating any photos of that guy, who has a visible earpiece and a backpack heavy enough to have a pressure cooker. Dzohkar's WHITE backpack is sagging nearly empty, and he is jaunting like its just a couple of sandwiches. I'd say that guy with the earpiece and Punisher logo on his hat is at least a good a candidate as the guy whose face they painted in.

Ignore Russian intelligence multiple times. Could the Russians have known there was a false flag in the offing and decide there was no way it was going to get pinned on them? Hence the contacts? This is the realm of pure speculation. But with the agenda all ready to go, this time "lockdown" practice, just like disarmamant after Sandy Hook, and no bloodhounds put on the trail of the suspect to catch him the easy way, it seems clear that lockdown practice and interagency "cooperation" was the pre-planned drill. Why is anyone's guess. But lockdown every time there is a man with a gun could sure come in handy in the middle of food riots and anti-bankster protests.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
sharkhearted's picture

Issues.

With Jon.

I can't do that fancy thing with the n.

All I can say is that when anything....ANYTHING "conspiracy" comes out..."Jon" tries to shut it down.

That is a little more than unsettling for a free liberty-based site.

Sue4thebillofrights is an important poster.

I am amazed at the amount of time that "Jon" (sorry I can't do that long thing with the n) singles out people he disagrees with...when he would be best just moderating and not FORCING the dialogue here.

Are you a "moderator" or a "terminator" here, Jon? Come clean.

Force...is almost always bad...except in cases of self defense...or the defense of others.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Even

If he has the backpack on or not, the backpack that had the pressure cooker was not his. A black & white? When the real backpack was all black. It is quite obvious his backpack was not the one that did it.

Yep. Amazing the most obvious point of all is ignored

...the difference between black and white. I'm sure disinfos say "that's a lighting angle." Does that make his white hat actually black too?

Release the Sandy Hook video.

I

Agree!

Points to Jon

for posting the obvious answer. if you download the original image and zoom in you get a fairly good image of the man, not that crap image shown in the article.

Well? I have just shown you dead wrong. Do you retract?

or are you really just in fact trolling? Why?

original wide shot image posted by Green:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Post-...

Release the Sandy Hook video.

No you don't. Here is the original image;

http://www.letsrun.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Post-...

download it and open it with Windows Live Photo Gallery, free in all Windows machines. Click on "Fix" tab to open tools. Zoom in to detail. This is what you get, just like article says:

So the real question is, why are you trolls so interested in blowing smoke around this? We must be onto something. Press forward this line of investigation boys.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Simple solution for that

Do not use a POS software tool like Windows Live Photo Gallery. Open it in Photoshop or GIMP or anything decent. Even the Firefox browser renders it pretty well. Here is the Firefox image snipped out and rendered with PNG:

HOWEVER, as has been pointed out several times, this jpg is NOT the highest resolution rendering available. The camera originally took a much more detailed picture. When he uploaded it to the web, the jpg codex compressed it. The feds got access to the original. It is online somewhere.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

wow that works, you are awesome, thanks

even Firefox went 2000% before visible pixelation (but you need the add-on.)

Release the Sandy Hook video.

I think you are right about pos software

My iPad zoomed in much better than that pixelized photo.

But still not as good as original that was released.

The FBI having obtained access to the "raw," higher quality photo, that was not released to the public, is an interesting theory.

But I've always said, theres only two types of people in the world. A conspiracy theorist and a coincidence theorist.

Whenever one scratches beneath the surface, both theorists eventually sound nuts.

Take for example the case under current examination. Guy A says evidence doesn't show original photo can zoom in that well and photo was taken from another camera. Guy B says it was taken by an iPhone but was zoomed using a raw file that only the FBI was privy to.

See? Nutty explanation on both accounts. I don't discount either, of course.

This is what I find odd.

In this video that the FBI released Dzohkhar's backpack disappears behind him twice; at 0:5 and 0:27. The photo in question conveniently is taken from the same angle. Furthermore, it seems unreasonable that a 6 quart pressure cooker could hide behind such a small frame. Also, how could he bounce around so lightly with a 30lb pack hanging off one shoulder? Tamerlan is also in the photo in question just behind Dzohkhar. I don' think the photo proves anything either way.

http://youtu.be/M80DXI932OE

I Agree

Plus the backpacks color doesn't match. It is quite obvious. Second, look at the man to the left. FED ALERT!!. It looks like he was watching him the whole time.

EXCELLENT question. I've hiked with 30 lbs. backpack and it is

no joke. You need both straps on and you hunch forward. The "Craft" guys on the other hand are pretty beefie, his packed is packed full and he using both straps. But even bigger, the backpack is the wrong color. FBI release photo it is black. This one is white with black trim. White like his hat.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Yep there was a lot of painting in on that photo

His arm has also been 'adjusted'.

Joη's picture

requires David Green photoshopping pic before bomber was known

see: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3060854

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Or the FBI photoshopping it.

question is..at what point does "enhancement" become fraud? In his interview with Green, Piss Morgan noted how he looked so "nonchalant." BUT THE EXPRESSION WAS PAINTED IN!

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Joη's picture

J'accuse Gauss and his damned blur!

that jerk!

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

So?

If it was a conspiracy do you not think they would have a patsy plan in place prior to the bombing?

I'm more interested in the discussion about if an iPhone can create that much detail or not. Has somebody taken the raw image and blown the photo up to show that good of quality? Does the raw photo have the same characteristics as that of an iPhone?

Joη's picture

keep scrolling

http://www.dailypaul.com/286714#comment-3087138

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Show me the image

I can't find anything higher rez than what the OP linked to.

UPDATED - slight change of direction

I am told by pro-photographers that you can "enhance" any photo to look any way you want, basically by "painting in" pixel by pixel details. Example, take an old collectors photo of Babe Ruth and fill in gaps and tears, because you are working from other photo sources and know what Babe Ruth looks like.

Is this fair to a suspect and should it be considered "evidence?"

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Go up the stair, ask

Go up the stair, ask your nearest neighbour how he is doing and what he knows about genuine fractals. That should resolve the question to your satisfaction.

Joη's picture

evidence they wanted more detail, yes, nothing else.

as has already been stated to you, the raw source image was likely attained, jpeg-compression-free, and enlarged, perhaps with a proprietary algorithm to most usefully interpolate data between pixels. It still came from a regular phone camera. Enlarging a regular photo does not mean it came from a device with more megapixels "therefore conspiracy".

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

"Digital Camera Buffs Help!"

Keep calm and pass me the ball.

No prob

I remember reading about it at the time. He uploaded the picture to the web site in jpg format. The jpg codec compressed it. That is normal. The original picture was in high res. I know iPhones are capable of at least 8 megapixels. New ones might do even more.

Not that it matters, but even the jpg is far clearer than the pixelated closeup. Where did that come from?

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

yes, but iPhones don't have 16 megapixel cameras,

which is what would be required for that kind of resolution to be achieved. The close up circulated by the FBI is 400x600 pixel resolution. If you apply that across the entire wide-shot you come up with about a 16 megapixel image, not possible from an iPhone. The math doesn't lie.

Taking a step back, now thinking about it, you can look at the original wide shot and look at the image of Jahar in the white hat in the distance. You pretty much might guess that you would not be able to enlarge that tiny head to the point you could make out a mole on it.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Joη's picture

what, is your pixelized photo coming from the 400px one? Why?

If you agree the original was 1200x1600, and even link to it, why would you take the "pixelized image" from anything smaller than that? It looks like you took it from something 400px wide.

Enlarging the 1200x1600 one would look like the left, before photoshop applies its enlargement aliasing:

the right looks like it was taken from a smaller, altered photo, which wouldn't make sense if the goal was detail.

On the phone was likely a raw source image, to which the jpeg compression algorithm was not applied, which is why the characteristic jpeg artifacts are not around "people.com" photo close up, but are on my version, which comes from your original, which was uploaded online (and compressed at least once, likely repeatedly).

It's not a far stretch to apply some image algorithms to make the 1600px one into the patched-zombie looking zoom in; photoshop would just smooth everything out.

It's also disingenuous to say that a photo enlarged suddenly "gains" 10.1 megapixels. It's just enlarged.

Same image, same data.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Nope, enlarging the 1200 x1600 gives you the

pixelation on the right, not the left. You are getting it backwards. The links are all there you can do it yourself, Windows Photo Gallery has the tools. The left image you post is an enlargement of the 400 x 600 circulated by the FBI.

The 400x600 is maybe one-tenth the height of the original wide shot. Ten times 400 vertical gives you 4,000 pixels vertical, about the same on the x-axis which is 16,000,000 or 16 megapixels. That is one fabulous iPhone camera.

Bottom line, this could not have been taken by an iPhone.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Joη's picture

no it doesn't, because that's exactly what I did

I don't understand how you can just claim otherwise, I've clearly shown it to be so. You're now claiming more unique data would come from less, which is impossible on its face.

And I very explicitly said one is not "making it a photo with more megapixels" by enlarging it. The image editor is just interpolating the pixels between, unless one has a picture so dense it has subpixel data, which this one doesn't. So please drop the wholly disingenuous claim that it's coming from a 16 megapixel camera just because an iphone picture was enlarged.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

im not an expert... but

this is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the FBI fabricating information if the source picture is confirmed and original

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.