What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy's holiday campaign.
75 Comments
- superc0w, on 11/23/2008, -2/+207ANY download named ErrorLevelAnal.zip I would avoid, no matter how legit it is....
- snasu, on 11/24/2008, -0/+82I downloaded it just because it was called ErrorLevelAnal.zip
- ryan83189, on 11/24/2008, -4/+57I haven't seen alot of 'shops in my day, but now I can tell by the pixels.
- inactive, on 11/24/2008, -5/+45Don't need. Can tell by pixels. Seen a lot of shops etc.
- Laughingman42, on 11/24/2008, -2/+33I can see the future of digg now, "This image looks real, but I could see it's a shop with ErrorLevelAnal.exe."
- BlatheringIdiot, on 11/24/2008, -1/+27Do Not Download!
ErrorLevelAnal.zip has a nasty 'back-door' trojan. - moges, on 11/24/2008, -1/+25Ah well. It will never work then. No matter how hard you google the exact phrase of the error message.
- Rivetgeek, on 11/24/2008, -0/+19I downloaded it and was disappointed because it was named ErrorLevelAnal.zip
- kss42, on 11/24/2008, -1/+19the internet
- cvraider7, on 11/24/2008, -0/+13Was that picture manipulated using the Adobe Photoshop® Software tool?
Now I can finally know. - XenonofArcticus, on 11/24/2008, -4/+17This program implements the ELA work done by my friend Neal Krawetz as discussed in his Black Hat presentations:
http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-08/Kra ...
http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-08/Kra ...
His web site is:
http://hackerfactor.com/
http://hackerfactor.com/blog/
I've done some work on my website using the TinyAppz ELA tool, showing how to interpret the results:
http://xenon.arcticus.com/section/imaging - squarepegs, on 11/23/2008, -4/+14Sounds like a great concept... I downloaded the zip, extracted into a folder, and then got an error message when I tried to run it.
- atomic811, on 11/24/2008, -2/+9hmmm all the NASA moon landing imagines are photo shopped.
- TheKorn2, on 11/24/2008, -0/+6This is only going to catch your most basic photoshop attempts. (i.e. the "adding flying shark" type attempts.)
I ran it on some of my own pictures, and wasn't surprised that it couldn't discriminate much of anything, despite the picture being MASSIVELY photoshopped.
The trick, if you want to do such fakery, is to do the first jpeg conversion *after* the photoshoping. (i.e. shoot in RAW!) Seems obvious now that I write it, but hey it's late. - Radan, on 11/24/2008, -1/+7I think it was bundled with the Internet, just like this one.
- RedRummy, on 11/24/2008, -2/+8Usually, the MSPaint touch ups give it away that its a photoshop, that and the flying sharks.
- CrushThemTorg, on 11/24/2008, -0/+6There's a joke about catching errors here somewhere.
- jenniecaute, on 11/24/2008, -1/+6Actually, as I have witnessed, most people don't even know what RAW is. Even a close friend of mine who does a lot of band photography had no idea what it was. For anyone who doesn't know, shooting in RAW is sensational and the RAW window in Photoshop (especially CS3) is just about the easiest way to make some basic adjustments fast. For example, if you accidentally shoot in the wrong white balance, you can select all of the photos you did it to & change them to the correct white balance all at once in the window. Convert after; it'll save your life & that's a promise.
- doublefelix, on 11/24/2008, -2/+7What does it mean when it says: "You Suck at Photoshop"?
- jordantneff, on 11/24/2008, -0/+4Mirror?
- DigitAl56K, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5I think you'll find that they are in fact Deluxe Paint'ed.
- stoneage, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5Let's run it on Worth1000.com
- XenonofArcticus, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5In defense of the technique and contrary to the Digg title, it's not really made for analyzing 4chan and Worth1000 images, which generally are combinations of images that have already been heavily JPEG compressed. It's more intended for analyzing images that are claiming to be real and otherwise have decent provenance. If an someone claims to have just taken a photo of Elvis or Bigfoot, but can't produce the original high-quality JPEG file the camera wrote, that's basically immediate grounds to dismiss the image. However, if they try to produce an image of that quality, ELA tools can show the fingerprints of tampering where different parts of the image have differing EL. If the entire image quality has been heavily degraded, ELA can not show you any difference, but with real-world forensic cases that's not usually a concern. Krawetz' presentation outlines a few other forensic digital image methods, and there are a great many more. Also, see the DoD's DC3 challenge:
http://www.dc3.mil/challenge/
Which is a yearly challenge involving (among other things) detection of digital image tampering.
See also the work of Dartmouth Prof Hany Farid:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox- ...
If anyone is seriously interested in the art and science and has questions, I welcome you to get in touch with me via my website:
http://xenon.arcticus.com/ - ostracize, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5**questions sexual orientation**
- inactive, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3As with most of 'em, started at 4chan
http://wiki.unmod.org/index.php?title=4chan#This_p ...
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Pixels - hiro, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3It's in his kiss
- beelz, on 11/24/2008, -2/+5Mirror
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/39965/ErrorLevel/Error ... - DeathMarcher, on 11/24/2008, -1/+4Well duh, you're supposed to use it on something that has been PHOTOSHOPPED.
(/s just in case) - vmos, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3It's a bit meh, I mean it doesn;t detect anything unusual about this photo
http://www.zxbadger.com/album/main.php?cmd=image&v ... - DirtyDiggDog, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Anal is a good name for it... cause it smells like ass and works that way too.
- souLLy, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Who really ever uses photos without doing at least a bit of colour correction in Photoshop, do those count as shoops according to this?
- inactive, on 11/24/2008, -1/+3OMG it's 64 bit also! SWEET~!
- metalcring, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2I don't know why you would need this, all you have to do is look for missing or extra body parts.
- quisph, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2That's where it is.
- TheKorn2, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1If you don't understand something, best not to open your mouth and shout it to the world.
RAW USES NO COMPRESSION. - EtherGnat, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1This certainly isn't a conclusive test, but it'll expose most 'shops of the Internet variety.
- EtherGnat, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1Global color correction wouldn't show up, I don't think. JPEG compression creates a telltale pattern, and it sounds like this works by detecting areas of the image with a different pattern. Anything that moves or replaces pixels after the file has been converted to a JPEG would show up; cloning, warping, combining images, etc., but adjusting the color/contrast/brightness etc of the image would not.
- ElbertF, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1http://xkcd.com/331/
- CrushThemTorg, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1I was thinking more of a buttsex joke – especially in light of "Error Level: Anal" – but that works too.
- blacktempest07, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1/STUPID
OH DAM NSdasdasd - LordSturm, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1Read the PDF.
- LordSturm, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1how bout a plane that takes off underwater?
http://www.gameoven.com/video_thumbnails/Top%20Sec ... - LordSturm, on 11/25/2008, -0/+1VANESSA HUDDGENS, wait who cares...
- craigtmackenzie, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1is it in his arms?
- praisethelard, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1Great. I've been looking for that for a while.
- RyanWilliams, on 11/26/2008, -0/+1Couldn't you kind of circumvent this if you rescaled the image down a bit, thus bicubically resampling every single pixel? Seems like a good step to take if you've just been doing some Photoshopping that's seriously meant to fool people.
- xXIrsotehkewlXx, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1**Posts first comment under your submission**
- voidvox0, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1if this measures differing levels of "EL" which i take to be some form of ratio of RGB that would be out of that particular photos gambit, wouldn't altering the image by using just samples of the image in question not show up as an altered portion of that image? or simply using RGB values that occur naturally in that image pixel by pixel not kick out an error?
- inactive, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1Doesn't really work, as JPEG allows an image to be optimized with differing error levels. Most professional software would therefore produce images with a lot of red in undetailed portions(using Web/size optimization). Don't believe me? Try it on an image with a lot of a [nearly] solid color. Hard shadows work well to display this. This program also crashed when adjusting the slider. Also, it doesn't appear to work on photomanipulations(like making boobs bigger, or removing defects... unless they were highly compressed prior to manipulation).
- TetchyTony, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1Nothing remotely unusual. I remember being Chairman/El Presidente of something-or-other in Europe, and this is EXACTLY how I felt during the compulsory lunch for which my card paid. (Some of the female delegates were quite nice too, but no 'jeans' to be seen there, and you'd better show them real respect). They all tried to order me enough wine and chocolate mousse to ensure I slept through the afternoon's proceedings. Never worked - Empire (still) 'Rules: OK'.
Guys n' Gals - make sure you can do this too, when the time arrives. May the Force be with you. -
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
