I'm not convinced it's the date. Some film cameras burn the date into the corner, yes, but I didn't think digital cameras did that, since the date is stored as meta-data. Are there any other things likely to be in the corner?ChrisH3677 said:
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 Video Photo
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a fake. The top and bottom edges are not parallel. I am not a professional photog but I know in that photo the top and bottom edges of a true rectangular object should be parallel and they are clearly not.
Peace said:
key word... calibrated....
to calibrate the color temp on my samsung 46" DLP i had to use that exact pattern (along with many others for overscan...etc) This keeps getting more interesting
nolaipoder said:
especially true when using a cheap camera phone lens with no distortion at all. NOT
Coheebuzz said:
They don't look like cloning artifacts to me. As others have said, any flaws in the picture can be explained by jpeg compression. At least that's my opinion, as one who uses Photoshop frequently at home and in my job. It just does not look touched-up to me!
One thing's for sure. Tuesday can't get here quick enough!
Convert the pic to .txt
I downloaded the pic and put it on my desktop and renamed it with an extension of .txt. I opened it and the header said JFIFHH ExifII i googled this and found many canon powershot cameras encode this way. so this may go to show that it never went through photoshop because when adobe compresses a file it puts something like JFIF DUCKY ADOBE
I can't verify a canon took this pic but it definitely was not compressed in photoshop
I downloaded the pic and put it on my desktop and renamed it with an extension of .txt. I opened it and the header said JFIFHH ExifII i googled this and found many canon powershot cameras encode this way. so this may go to show that it never went through photoshop because when adobe compresses a file it puts something like JFIF DUCKY ADOBE
I can't verify a canon took this pic but it definitely was not compressed in photoshop
nolaipoder said:
Take a book. Now set it down, take a picture of it from right over head. Now take a picture from a sitting position. Now lean to one side while sitting and take another one. Load these onto your computer and take a look at them.
Report back when you've finished your homework.
Me too! But I'm certain it's not a tablet Mac. Apple just NOW hired people for tablet computing, which suggests they have a ways to go still. This is an iPod of some kind if it's real.bowzer said:*wishes it was real, but it was a tablet pc... er... mac*
But ANY kind of OS X device I can put in my pocket would be a great dream
Good experimentjwbrickner said:
And you don't even have to rename an image: just drop it onto TextEdit's icon and it will load as text.I must have somebody's COPY of the image (uploaded and recompressed by a web site?) because the one I have says JFIF but doesn't say ExifII that I can see.
But regardless, it doesn't say "Ducky Adobe" which oddly enough, Photoshop JPEGs do seem to say
jwbrickner said:
I disagree.
I had the same idea and downloaded the image. I opened it in Graphic Converter and looked at all the metadata. There is NO (none) EXIF data included in the picture. The only way this could happen is that someone has manually edited the metadata to delete it. The most common way for this data to disappera is editing the picture in photoshop or some other editor. Nearly any camera as default or with custom settings will litter all sorts of identifying information in there.
I also notice that the compression ratio of this image is 1:11. I've never seen a canon camera with that ratio. On this low quality I'd expect 1:17 if it was a Canon camera image which is what mine takes.
At the very least, this is not a camera phone pic. It is a higher resolution shot that has been down sampled in an image editor (if it is real).
I'll leave that up to someone else to decide.
danielwsmithee said:
Lol. Intelegent.
And so what if they do? It takes 1 sec to realize the plug is not going in. That fake label was written, retraced in some areas to better model a computer font, and had to have taken more than one second. Redundant labeling is standard across the industry? That's rather incredible. You mean to tell me that it's common practice to have American engineers take the time to copy poorly 2 chinese characters off their computers JUST to get the cable in place right? When they are in a "hurrry"? Deadlines make people rush faster to plug cables in? Man, if it's that much of a rush, why the heck do they have that stupid engineer supervisor dinking around with his lousy Chinese when one of the Chinese could do it faster and the engineer could be plugging in some cables? Lol.
mmmmark said:I disagree.
I had the same idea and downloaded the image. I opened it in Graphic Converter and looked at all the metadata. There is NO (none) EXIF data included in the picture. The only way this could happen is that someone has manually edited the metadata to delete it. The most common way for this data to disappera is editing the picture in photoshop or some other editor. Nearly any camera as default or with custom settings will litter all sorts of identifying information in there.
I also notice that the compression ratio of this image is 1:11. I've never seen a canon camera with that ratio. On this low quality I'd expect 1:17 if it was a Canon camera image which is what mine takes.
At the very least, this is not a camera phone pic. It is a higher resolution shot that has been down sampled in an image editor (if it is real).
I'll leave that up to someone else to decide.
Maybe if its not a digital camera photo it's a film based photo and then scanned. You know not everyone uses a digital camera or own one for that matter.
(L) said:
My Chinese-born coworker said it was "this side" before any translations were shown. I tend to believe him, whether or not anyone believes me. Besides, if you have seen lots of Chinese characters and how they are written, you will know that the penmanship is just plain awful and looks more like a non-native wrote them.
As for lab workers, they are a ham-fisted lot. You need idiot labels like these. We have a piece of equipment with two ports on it that use an identical connector for each. I had to write "NO" next to one and "THIS ONE" under the other to avoid wasting any more time with wrong connections during testing.
That and again it looks like Glad press-n-seal was used for the plastic you see over the white background.
Which manufacturer would Apple most likely get their LCDs from?
A quick look at both Toshiba and Samsung shows that they have low power, full colour widescreen LCDs within the 4"-7" range. But I guess if this is related to the Apple touch patents the LCD would be custom made for Apple and not show up on any product matrixes
A quick look at both Toshiba and Samsung shows that they have low power, full colour widescreen LCDs within the 4"-7" range. But I guess if this is related to the Apple touch patents the LCD would be custom made for Apple and not show up on any product matrixes