Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod could this be real? i doubt it... (iPod AV)
- Thread starter sam10685
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I apologize if someone has already mentioned this - I didn't take the time to read all the posts.
I am professional designer and photoshop expert. I thought it would be interesting to see if I could tell if any of the photos were fakes. I grabbed the first photo in the gallery and ran a simple test on it - it is absolutely a fake.
When a photo is taken with a digital camera set to capture the photo in the JPG format, compression artifacts are created that are normally invisible to the naked eye. By adjusting the saturation and lightness of a photo, you can make these compression artifacts visible.
I took the first photo in the gallery [ http://guides.macrumors.com/Image:1fullipodav.jpg ] and made a simple adjustment: In Photoshop, open the "Hue/Saturation" menu and set the saturation to 100 and the lightness to 40. You can instantly see the compression artifacts (they appear as a pixelated pattern). You will notice that the entire image contains these compression artifacts, except for the image of the video. If the image of the video where part of the original scene that was photographed, compression artifacts would be visible. Since they are not, the image of the video must have been added. Therefore, the photo is a fake.
I have attached the image with my adjustment made, showing the compression artifacts.
I am professional designer and photoshop expert. I thought it would be interesting to see if I could tell if any of the photos were fakes. I grabbed the first photo in the gallery and ran a simple test on it - it is absolutely a fake.
When a photo is taken with a digital camera set to capture the photo in the JPG format, compression artifacts are created that are normally invisible to the naked eye. By adjusting the saturation and lightness of a photo, you can make these compression artifacts visible.
I took the first photo in the gallery [ http://guides.macrumors.com/Image:1fullipodav.jpg ] and made a simple adjustment: In Photoshop, open the "Hue/Saturation" menu and set the saturation to 100 and the lightness to 40. You can instantly see the compression artifacts (they appear as a pixelated pattern). You will notice that the entire image contains these compression artifacts, except for the image of the video. If the image of the video where part of the original scene that was photographed, compression artifacts would be visible. Since they are not, the image of the video must have been added. Therefore, the photo is a fake.
I have attached the image with my adjustment made, showing the compression artifacts.
Attachments
Fake
You can see the pixelated transition from orange to yellow and yellow to green in the background. If the video were part of the same original photo, the transition from blue to violet would be just as pixelated.
Pixelization is not evident in the skin because the color is uniform.
You can see the pixelated transition from orange to yellow and yellow to green in the background. If the video were part of the same original photo, the transition from blue to violet would be just as pixelated.
Pixelization is not evident in the skin because the color is uniform.
Attachments
Some of the above images have compression artifacts throughout the image - it is the differing size of the artifacts that betray the fact that more than one original image was used to create the final image.
daver11 said:
I hate to argue with self-proclaimed Photoshop experts, but..
The method you used to reveal the "flaws" only works with like-tones with like-complexity. As you can plainly see, there is a huge lack of compression artifacts on the white surface in comparison to the nano. Now look at the black boarder around the LCD on the iPod AV. Hey look! The same level of compression as the nano! Because they are both the same tone. The Nano is not the same tone as the LCD itself however.
If you check out the upper right of the screen, where it appears to be dipping toward negative, and consequently becomes slightly darker, you'll see the screen does in fact have the same compression as everything else in it's tone-range.
If your argument was sound, then that would mean the iPod AV itself (screen and boarder included, image being displayed excluded) is genuine.
IN ADDITION, artifact size is not consistent throughout images. They differ by complexity. Large mostly-consistent surface? Large artifacts. LCD displaying a complex movie? Small artifacts. As seen here.
Sorry, but your "evidence" cannot be used in this case.
- Xidius
flir67 said:
I don't know man, while I appreciate your comments about the flash, to me this really does intruige me a LOT more than the last 3 pics... there are some really subtle differences that I don't think anyone has mentioned here yet?
First off, compared to my 30gig Video iPod there are quite a few differences to the back. Now I appreciate that people can Photoshop all this stuff, but usually with mockups and fakes it's their willingness to replicate the original product... but with this latest pic I notice that they have boldly chosen to add a few random symbols.
For one, it's a 40gig iPod. Why go to all that effort to change something?
The iPod AV thing seems to have the same great proportioning that most Apple stuff has.. it almost looks spot on. I don't know where the whole iPod AV thing came from but to me it seems like it's an obvious choice.
The copyright is for 2006... my latest gen 'pod says 2005...
What are those 3 other symbols near the 'CE' mark? I think these may be HUGE clues. Like the 'FC' could be 'feather control' or something...
And the EMC No: 2465?
Model No. A1185?
djdarlek said:
They are all regulatory bodies: the FCC, CE, and VCCI. I think they were included on the nano as well. But I agree that it looks real. (Of course I wouldn't know a photoshopped iPod if I tripped over one.)
Squire
<edit> FCC stands for the Federal Communications Commission (US), CE stands for Conformité Européenne (European), and VCCI stands for Voluntary Control Council for Interference by Information Technology (Japanese).
fcc and model number look up
isn't there a way to search the fcc or the ce websites for new products to make sure they meet market production safety guidelines. If I remember right a few years ago some company was faking the fcc item numbers and they got caught because their product was causing interferce with other items around it.
I think there's a way to search for it on the gov websites but not sure which one. if you can find it , you might be able to prove if the ipod is real or not.
just my .02 cents
isn't there a way to search the fcc or the ce websites for new products to make sure they meet market production safety guidelines. If I remember right a few years ago some company was faking the fcc item numbers and they got caught because their product was causing interferce with other items around it.
I think there's a way to search for it on the gov websites but not sure which one. if you can find it , you might be able to prove if the ipod is real or not.
just my .02 cents
This is my dream :
http://homepage.mac.com/tonytigrato/BloggyTony/page3/page2/page2.html
No foolish Ipod, only dual screen
http://homepage.mac.com/tonytigrato/BloggyTony/page3/page2/page2.html
No foolish Ipod, only dual screen
I've been reading these arguments on the validity of these photos since that last batch went out and thought I'd throw in my opinion for my first comment on here.
First photo with the test bars: Absolute 100% fake. Wished it wasn't at the time, but if you look at how people disected it in photoshop showing the jpeg artifacting it's obviously a fake.
This new round was either done by a GREAT photoshopper or it's real. And trust me, there are people out there that would be able to composite an image on photoshop to the point where you wouldn't be able to tell unless you REALLY know what you're doing.
I'm voting this new round is real. Look at the artifacting where the screen blends to shadow and then to the edge of the ipod. The artifacting continues through this area without any obvious break. There's no evidence showing where the "fake" screen was doctored into the image.
Like I said, someone is either a serious professional with way too much time on his hands or these are real.
First photo with the test bars: Absolute 100% fake. Wished it wasn't at the time, but if you look at how people disected it in photoshop showing the jpeg artifacting it's obviously a fake.
This new round was either done by a GREAT photoshopper or it's real. And trust me, there are people out there that would be able to composite an image on photoshop to the point where you wouldn't be able to tell unless you REALLY know what you're doing.
I'm voting this new round is real. Look at the artifacting where the screen blends to shadow and then to the edge of the ipod. The artifacting continues through this area without any obvious break. There's no evidence showing where the "fake" screen was doctored into the image.
Like I said, someone is either a serious professional with way too much time on his hands or these are real.
Attachments
Titony said:This is my dream :
http://homepage.mac.com/tonytigrato/BloggyTony/page3/page2/page2.html
No foolish Ipod, only dual screen
And that would be a) huge and b) more expensive than sin. And c) so amazing Jobs would have a pile of first born children.
~V
daver11 said:
Interesting analysis.
Can you do the same analysis with these photos (iPod 5G and PowerMac G4 Quicksilver) which are known to be real:
http://guides.macrumors.com/Gallery_of_Apple_Leaks_and_Prototypes
arn said:
OK - I did the adjustment to the video-iPod image. Using my original reasoning, the image would be a fake. If the image is actually real (and not a fake image of a real product), then my analysis may be wrong.
However, I still think that the pixilation in different parts of the image would be the same if the different parts were both part of the same scene - see below.
Although I am a Photoshop expert (its what I've done for a living since 1991), I have no real expertise in identifying fake images. I'm just using my experience and best judgment.
I hope I am wrong and the images are real - I WANT ONE!!!!
Attachments
daver11 said:
Oh don't worry, you are (referring to the iPod AV photo.)
See, you confuse material with tone. Yes they are both LCDs, and they both have different levels of compression. But by that logic, the iPods are made of the same material, so wouldn't the white bezel be as distorted as the nano's?
Once again: Compression differs by tone and complexity. Not material.
Note: I am not saying the pictures are genuine. I am just saying the compression is accurate. It's very possible all compression took place after editing.
- Xidius
waveman216 said:
That's the joy of JPEG.
If you create the images as RAW OR TIFF, edit as TIFF, then save to a highly-compressed JPEG, the JPEG artifacting will be uniform and will help disguise any doctoring deficiencies. The fact that the JPEG artifacts cross over any logical edit boundary just means that it was JPEG compressed AFTER editing, not before.
What I would want to see is a JPEG of the device with proper EXIF tags showing that the JPEG came directly from a digital camera, with no editing. (Or, even better, a RAW image with proper EXIF tags.)
Yes, it's possible to edit EXIF tags, and yes, if someone was good enough to fake this kind of photo, they probably would be able to fake the EXIF tags, too... But it would be better than a random high-compressions JPEG.