[Dapper37]

Looks like yahoo is asking for trouble...

I went to the site and tweeted it out, @YahooNews @Reuters #Shame #NoRespect
Most articles like that get a ton of tweets, this one only had 2?, I hope word gets out and Yahoo gets shown to be the azz they are!

[docgasberry]

It is two different pics shot from slightly different angles, at slightly different times ?microseconds off.

The best selling point here would be if the Z10 time shift feature had been used, there'll be no such unflattering pic.

[peter9477]

It is two different pics shot from slightly different angles, at slightly different times ?microseconds off.

The best selling point here would be if the Z10 time shift feature had been used, there'll be no such unflattering pic.

I'm pretty sure burst mode could have resulted in this too though... ;-)

There's no reason to suspect Photoshopping here. Notice that she's smiling with her eyes as well as her mouth in the first shot, but the eyes are different (not smiling) in the frowning shot. Nobody would have taken that much care just for a Photoshop job on this. Multiple shots at slightly different times is the only reasonable explanation.

So, it's not "fake", but it's probably highly selective and a deliberate attempt to taint the news with something negative, and/or to make her look old and glum. Either way, it's still pathetic and reprehensible.

[greggebhardt]

You people are trying your best to make this all look like some giant conspiracy. The facts are the stock market is at an all time high while BBRY declines. It take more than bad press to do this! I can't blame those who are way short but the facts are the facts no matter what.

[Hrm Edyee Guy]

You people are trying your best to make this all look like some giant conspiracy. The facts are the stock market is at an all time high while BBRY declines. It take more than bad press to do this! I can't blame those who are way short but the facts are the facts no matter what.

Look Like some giant conspiracy? It is a conspiracy.
What wouldn't the media do 2 justify its arguements about blackberry. This is not a case of stock market but rather a picture that appears to be what we see right infront of us. Most people find fun in judging others but I wonder what makes such people perfect? Blackberry is struggling to regain its stand back in the smartphone market. All I care about is that the company is back on its feet! I'm impressed with the new User experience like never seen before.

[Hrm Edyee Guy]

I'm pretty sure burst mode could have resulted in this too though... ;-)

There's no reason to suspect Photoshopping here. Notice that she's smiling with her eyes as well as her mouth in the first shot, but the eyes are different (not smiling) in the frowning shot. Nobody would have taken that much care just for a Photoshop job on this. Multiple shots at slightly different times is the only reasonable explanation.

So, it's not "fake", but it's probably highly selective and a deliberate attempt to taint the news with something negative, and/or to make her look old and glum. Either way, it's still pathetic and reprehensible.

Apparently u cannot differentiate between 'Timeshift' & 'Burst mode'.

"German Chancellor Merkel holds a BlackBerry Z10 smartphone featuring high security Secusite software at the booth of Secusmart during her opening tour at the CeBit computer fair in Hanover | View photo - Yahoo! News"

Now tell me why a woman like Merkel of such statue want to frown at a photoshoot of herself holding a blackberryZ10 on such an event day? How do u think it will play out to her integrity infront of the media?

Not matter the negativity the US media throws at blackberry's way, all efforts for BBRY to make a comeback is yielding some good news.

[lynxs_claw]

Man, I would love to another media source post the OP evidence on their site showing what Yahoo is doing. It would be poetic justice seeing Yahoo squirm their way out of this one. Not that they'd probably care mind you!

[peter9477]

Apparently u cannot differentiate between 'Timeshift' & 'Burst mode'.

Think about it. Do you never frown before/after smiling? There are signs that the images are extremely close together in time. If you were to use burst mode to take images, you'd likely be able to catch someone with a frown and only a few seconds apart, a smile, just like that.

Also time-shift is using a burst mode to take the pictures which it makes available to you for your selection, not that this was remotely related to my point. There's no evidence that the image is doctored at all, and it's relatively easy for such a claim to be disproved. I believe there are even online tools to do that, though I'm not interested in checking it myself since I'm quite confident in my belief on what happened (or didn't happen) here.

[peter9477]

I'm not claiming this proves anything, but here are two compositions based on those images. The shots have been scaled and aligned decently, so they overlap. In one it's the frowning image on top, in the other it's the smiling image on top. In both compositions, both images are at 50% opacity.

You can clearly see they were either taken from the same position, or both from far enough away that any shift in the photographer's position (or difference between two photographers' positions) isn't apparent. Her hand barely moved, and practically every hair is in the same position.

By jumping between these two rapidly, you can easily see that not only her eyes are smiling, but the act of smiley also changes the shape of her nose slightly, raises her ears, and alters a variety of small details of her cheeks etc. I can't conceive of anyone being slick enough with Photoshop to do such alterations quickly and without apparent flaw, especially given the risk of it being detected (as I'm sure it could be with the right tools, if it were 'shopped).



(Yes, to those who may feel the need to point it out, this sort of analysis is likely overkill. Sue me... I'm suffering from a cold today and don't feel like working. :-) )

[mrfreetruth]

What a sourpuss. If true, and yahoo did photoshop that, seems like proof positive of a bias

It's 100% true. You would have to be blind. was it 5K or 40K units?



40,000 Z10's: BlackBerry 10 with Enhanced Security Wins Hefty Order from Germany.
.

BlackBerry 10 with Enhanced Security Wins Hefty Order from Germany

By Wayne Rash | Posted 2013-03-05

The German government plans to buy as many as 40,000 BlackBerry 10 devices that will be enhanced with security applications from SecuSmart to meet NATO standards.

HANNOVER, Germany � The new BlackBerry 10 smartphone, which has already been released in Europe, is the only wireless platform secure enough to meet NATO requirements, while also retaining its ability to function as a smartphone connected to the Web.

German security company SecuSmart launched a new Micro SD-based encryption engine that takes advantage of BlackBerry's new Balance feature, which allows the creation of a wall between two functions of the BlackBerry, allowing one part to be strictly for business, and the other for personal use.

The SecuSmart security suite allows users to have access to their personal email, social networks and apps, while also maintaining a secure environment for protected apps and communications. The process allows easy switching between the two parts of the BlackBerry, with access to the secure side available only when the SecuSmart SD card is installed. "If you remove the card, the secure part of BlackBerry Balance simply goes away," a spokesman told eWEEK.

"It's easy to make a phone secure," the spokesman said, "but it's hard to make a secure phone smart." He said that the only wireless Less

[mrfreetruth]

BlackBerry 10 with Enhanced Security Wins Hefty Order from Germany

[FSeverino]

A phone made by Chinese slaves working for 10 cents an hour is any better?

who does that? working conditions are great, and they even have beds to sleep in (not so that they turn the commute time into work time). You, sir, are living in reality... we dont do that here on the internets

[Hrm Edyee Guy]

I'm not claiming this proves anything, but here are two compositions based on those images. The shots have been scaled and aligned decently, so they overlap. In one it's the frowning image on top, in the other it's the smiling image on top. In both compositions, both images are at 50% opacity.

You can clearly see they were either taken from the same position, or both from far enough away that any shift in the photographer's position (or difference between two photographers' positions) isn't apparent. Her hand barely moved, and practically every hair is in the same position.

By jumping between these two rapidly, you can easily see that not only her eyes are smiling, but the act of smiley also changes the shape of her nose slightly, raises her ears, and alters a variety of small details of her cheeks etc. I can't conceive of anyone being slick enough with Photoshop to do such alterations quickly and without apparent flaw, especially given the risk of it being detected (as I'm sure it could be with the right tools, if it were 'shopped).

Good analysis but I still see a difference. Now when you snap using 'burst mode' the picture is taken several times of a split second. The camera snaps as many as possible of that scene but its not possible for the camera to alter the picture after the shot has been taken. But with a 'Timeshift' feature as is seen on the BlackberryZ10, all is required is just a single snapshot and the picture of a person e.g. A person's face can be altered. it may not be photoshopped as u might suggest but I say its been timeshifted.

[raino]

Also - the frowning pic specifically credits the photographer and their agency, Reuters:



Note that this is apparently a different source from the Bild photo.

Actually, if you look at the German article, the smiling photo is also credited to Reuters. The first one is credited to the dpa.

I think the question that should be asked of Yahoo is not if they altered it (it would be extremely idiotic if their news division did it, so let's assume they didn't,) but why they chose to run this particular picture, when another one, taken by the same source (Reuters) was available.

[peter9477]

But with a 'Timeshift' feature as is seen on the BlackberryZ10, all is required is just a single snapshot and the picture of a person e.g. A person's face can be altered. it may not be photoshopped as u might suggest but I say its been timeshifted.

You seem to think Timeshift takes only a single shot? That's incorrect... it uses the camera sensor's burst mode to take many shots, then lets you pick amongst them, including taking parts of one (for detected faces only) to blend into another.

As for time-shifting versus burst mode, Occam's Razor would say that it was not time-shifting. To chose time-shifting, we have to assume image manipulation was performed, but we have no evidence of that. It takes one less assumption to go with the burst mode explanation (or even just two quick, manual shots from the same camera), so that becomes the preferred hypothesis for now.

But we can agree to disagree on which one it really was... until someone disproves the image manipulation theory conclusively, with some technical analysis.

[GTiLeo]

The last photo is a photoshop from the previous photo. The first & second photos clearly shows her excitement about the device she has in her hand. It doesn't take a genuius 2 know dat d third photo is a fake.

if you look closely at her eyes you can tell the creases are in the same places just airbrushed to look smoother in a frown, as well as her hair is the exact same as is the phone and hand position

[peter9477]

if you look closely at her eyes you can tell the creases are in the same places just airbrushed to look smoother in a frown, as well as her hair is the exact same as is the phone and hand position

LOL... have you ever looked at people with wrinkles around their eyes? The skin stretches and shifts as you smile or frown... that's how muscles and faces work. No airbrushing required!

[GTiLeo]

LOL... have you ever looked at people with wrinkles around their eyes? The skin stretches and shifts as you smile or frown... that's how muscles and faces work. No airbrushing required!

lol i know but if you look at the pictures they are in the same spot just looks like its touched up the look like a frown

[Shanerredflag]

Guy's, there is an easy answer here...what happens to most people when they eat bratwurst...she isn't frowning, she's reliving lunch!

I’m half German so I can say this

[ibpluto]

Bologna. It has nothing to do with 'protectionism'. If BB presents the ideal smartphone to the US and their marketing is a success BB will do just fine. The average US citizen doesn't care much from where a product comes or by whom it's made. As long as it is a great product, it will sell. And I have read many positive BB articles written in the US. So enough already with your 'protectionism' argument. It's getting tiring.

So how do you see what yahoo did here, and what are their motives?

[peter9477]

lol i know but if you look at the pictures they are in the same spot just looks like its touched up the look like a frown

Might be worth noting that when I overlaid the images, I used the eyes as the central element for scaling, rotating, and aligning them. It would make sense that they'd appear surprisingly so similar, and thus the farther away from them you get, the more different things appear.

I could have chosen her chin or collar or something instead, but I picked the eyes. (Human brains are really good dealing with eyes... they're about the first thing we ever focus on in the world, shortly after we're born. :-) )

[Shanerredflag]

Might be worth noting that when I overlaid the images, I used the eyes as the central element for scaling, rotating, and aligning them. It would make sense that they'd appear surprisingly so similar, and thus the farther away from them you get, the more different things appear.

I could have chosen her chin or collar or something instead, but I picked the eyes. (Human brains are really good dealing with eyes... they're about the first thing we ever focus on in the world, shortly after we're born. :-) )

The next thing we focus on? Lunch time...sorry, thought it funny.

Great job on the comparison...well done.

Posted via CB10

[Dapper37]

I cant believe the US media continue to feel free and slander BlackBerry and the news related! the rest of the world is embracing BB10 and the US media act like were better then that! Give me a break. The Corporate media in the US is currupt in the sense its bought and paid for buy large enterprise! NewCorp for one and all their allegiances! The state of America today, we're lost and looking to Yahoo for guidance. Oh Lord!

[Omnitech]

I think the question that should be asked of Yahoo is not if they altered it (it would be extremely idiotic if their news division did it, so let's assume they didn't,) but why they chose to run this particular picture, when another one, taken by the same source (Reuters) was available.

So, it's not "fake", but it's probably highly selective and a deliberate attempt to taint the news with something negative, and/or to make her look old and glum. Either way, it's still pathetic and reprehensible.

That is clearly what many publications do to spin the news - not necessarily a matter of doctoring a photo, but just in choice of photo. One can cause a quite starkly different perception of the event simply by choosing a particularly unusual or dramatic image of the subject of the article.

was it 5K or 40K units?

"40,000 Z10's: BlackBerry 10 with Enhanced Security Wins Hefty Order from Germany."

"Up to" 40,000 units does not mean they sold them 40,000 units. The committed number is 5,000. Though I think the failure to mention that the contract has the potential to mean as much as 8x more units than the committed amount could be seen as a mild negative bias.


All that said: this kind of stuff pales in comparison to the BS that securities analysts spew about BBRY day-in/day-out. For example this: link.

[Dapper37]

That is clearly what many publications do to spin the news - not necessarily a matter of doctoring a photo, but just in choice of photo. One can cause a quite starkly different perception of the event simply by choosing a particularly unusual or dramatic image of the subject of the article.




"Up to" 40,000 units does not mean they sold them 40,000 units. The committed number is 5,000. Though I think the failure to mention that the contract has the potential to mean as much as 8x more units than the committed amount could be seen as a mild negative bias.


All that said: this kind of stuff pales in comparison to the BS that securities analysts spew about BBRY day-in/day-out. For example this: link.

You do realise that was a Yahoo link as well don't you?