Yes. You read that right. Johnson is saying that he is intentionally hiding
insurrectionists from prosecution in the release of tapes that Republicans claim
will vindicate them on January 6th.
It’s interesting that they would choose to blur them if it’s that sensitive considering blurring things isn’t actually destructive and if you were to figure out the settings they used to blur then you can easily apply the opposite effect to unblur the image. To be truly destructive they should use black boxes over faces.
And regardless of the method they use it really shouldn’t take long to do either.
That depends on the algorythm and intensity of the blur. Blur is destructive. If you blur good it can’t be undone. If you don’t blur enough it can be undone to a certain degree, but not completely. I remember one criminal used a whirl instead of a blur and that thing had been undone almost completely.
Can you please show an example of this unblurring happening in reality? In my understanding of video editing tools, once the file is exported with blurred details, there is not enough information present in the file to reconstruct the details of the unblurred source without access to the original unexported project files.
That’s a fair point. I have never seen it done from a video before specifically, but I am positive that it is a technique which is theoretically possible given that there is enough data in the image. Obviously if the image was grainy to begin with then it doesn’t matter what you do to it, you won’t get anything better than the original. And regardless of how the file is exported, as long as you can take a screenshot of the video afterwards and there is enough definition in the image I don’t see how this technique couldn’t be applied.
Edit: and to be clear, I don’t know what specific transformation(s) are traditionally used in video editing. For all I know it could be a long list of transformations that are all coded to happen with the click of a button to make it more difficult to unblur. But even that isn’t entirely safe. There is just literally no reason to not use a black box/elipse or whatever in cases where the data is actually sensitive.
I hate to break it to you, but I’m pretty sure the only way unblurring would be possible is if you have the original unblurred source video. Blurred areas simply contain too little data to reconstruct the original. The artifacts of the unblurred face are not stored in the resulting video file for literally every video file type in existence today.
Even using AI to unblurr a video, you would need to show it at least one unblurred picture of the face to properly reconstruct the same face in the original video. Otherwise the AI would just guess and put a random face in place of the original. The regeneration technique you are describing is still science fiction and only exists in movies and television shows.
Edit: your edit is still incorrect. There is no such video editing tool called “unblur.” You can sharpen an image, but there is no way to undo a blur unless you still have the data from the original, which a final exported video does not. The act of blurring removes information, and you cannot rebuild a photo from information that no longer exists. Blacking out faces is in no way necessary for the reasons that you are suggesting.
There is a long history of governments not knowing how to properly redact information. There are STILL redacted documents where you can just copy the text out in a pdf reader coming out as recently as (intentionally vague: Within the last year).
It’s interesting that they would choose to blur them if it’s that sensitive considering blurring things isn’t actually destructive and if you were to figure out the settings they used to blur then you can easily apply the opposite effect to unblur the image. To be truly destructive they should use black boxes over faces.
And regardless of the method they use it really shouldn’t take long to do either.
Criminals? Yes. Criminal masterminds? Less so.
It’s just an idiotic statement from him, considering the DOJ already had the raw footage since day 1.
…because they’re the DOJ.
Also, he’s already retracted his statement.
Makes sense. What a ridiculous statement to have made to begin with though.
Yeah, but the Insurrection Hunters didn’t have access to these videos & now, thanks to #christofascist Mike Johnson, they still won’t.
That depends on the algorythm and intensity of the blur. Blur is destructive. If you blur good it can’t be undone. If you don’t blur enough it can be undone to a certain degree, but not completely. I remember one criminal used a whirl instead of a blur and that thing had been undone almost completely.
That’s because these idiots struggle with email. They can’t conceive of what you just said
Can you please show an example of this unblurring happening in reality? In my understanding of video editing tools, once the file is exported with blurred details, there is not enough information present in the file to reconstruct the details of the unblurred source without access to the original unexported project files.
That’s a fair point. I have never seen it done from a video before specifically, but I am positive that it is a technique which is theoretically possible given that there is enough data in the image. Obviously if the image was grainy to begin with then it doesn’t matter what you do to it, you won’t get anything better than the original. And regardless of how the file is exported, as long as you can take a screenshot of the video afterwards and there is enough definition in the image I don’t see how this technique couldn’t be applied.
Edit: and to be clear, I don’t know what specific transformation(s) are traditionally used in video editing. For all I know it could be a long list of transformations that are all coded to happen with the click of a button to make it more difficult to unblur. But even that isn’t entirely safe. There is just literally no reason to not use a black box/elipse or whatever in cases where the data is actually sensitive.
I hate to break it to you, but I’m pretty sure the only way unblurring would be possible is if you have the original unblurred source video. Blurred areas simply contain too little data to reconstruct the original. The artifacts of the unblurred face are not stored in the resulting video file for literally every video file type in existence today.
Even using AI to unblurr a video, you would need to show it at least one unblurred picture of the face to properly reconstruct the same face in the original video. Otherwise the AI would just guess and put a random face in place of the original. The regeneration technique you are describing is still science fiction and only exists in movies and television shows.
Edit: your edit is still incorrect. There is no such video editing tool called “unblur.” You can sharpen an image, but there is no way to undo a blur unless you still have the data from the original, which a final exported video does not. The act of blurring removes information, and you cannot rebuild a photo from information that no longer exists. Blacking out faces is in no way necessary for the reasons that you are suggesting.
Has anyone trained an AI with mug shots? 😅
Somehow, I have a feeling this effort will actually help the DOJ identify who these people are.
There is a long history of governments not knowing how to properly redact information. There are STILL redacted documents where you can just copy the text out in a pdf reader coming out as recently as (intentionally vague: Within the last year).