On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:49:50 +0000, EAX wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:30:27 -0600, "mr.bill" <mrbill@invalid.ls>
>wrote:
>
>>Have at it, my good man! My forays into the software LS used for videos
>>ended in frustration. VirtualDub is, after all, freeware anyone can
>>use. Even LS movies which have been reencoded and don't even come close
>>to matching LS' description for movie size, and which fail all csvs
>>miserably can carry the very same header information.
>>
>>Moreover, some other clips which carry the name Boilsoft have the exact
>>same size as the VirtualDub, LS originals. Might we then assume VD
>>underlies a Boilsoft wrapper as it does other software packages?
>
>The exact same size of the same movies produced by different programs
>can be explained easier. Citation: "One other type of chunk that is
>commonly encountered in an AVI chunk is the padding or JUNK chunk (so
>named because its chunk identifier is JUNK). This chunk is used to pad
>data out to specific boundaries (for example, CD-ROMs use 2048-byte
>boundaries)". You can notice that every AVI file has the size
>divisible by 2048. So, different copies of the same movie just have
>the larger or smaller JUNK chunk than the others.
>
>>Auto Gordian Knot is one example.
>
>Maybe so. And maybe they used VD to compress video and then used some
>other program to mux video and audio. And that unknown program don't
>replace existent AVI chunk with it's name.
>
>>Or did someone edit the binary and
>>overwrite one vendor's name with another?
>
>I don't think so. All videos of LS Studio have AVI chunk with
>information that they were produced by VirtualDub (builds can differ).
>
>>The case with LS' software for jpgs is less ambiguous. LS used software
>>which shipped with their cameras. It was expensive otherwise and most
>>people wouldn't have spent the money just to get the same package. But
>>freeware for their movies? It's just too easy to phony it up and leave
>>no traces we can follow.
>
>Do you think LS specially used non-freeware software in order to
>protect their pictures and videos from falsification?
Not to take anything away from the resourcefulness of Ukraines, but THEY
got it for free when they bought the camera. I'm just glad they used
something expensive or rare since it makes it easier for us to ferret out
the good copies.
--
mr.bill
|
|