Digital Video Manipulation Techniques

Topics: Mass media, Media studies, Television network Pages: 33 (7562 words) Published: April 5, 2013
Knowledge of Digital Video Manipulation Techniques
and its Effect on the Preceived Credibility of Television News

Introduction & Problem Statement
This research project seeks to investigate the effects of technique on perception. By “technique” I mean the body of methods and progression of tasks that are executed in order to achieve a desired result. All human activity employs technique, but, in the context of this project, “technique” refers to the methods and knowledge—“knowhow”—by which humans make artifacts out of raw material found in their environment. Specifically, this project is concerned with the diffusion and adoption of newly discovered techniques used to produce digital video content for mass media industries and specifically how knowledge of such techniques may affect the perceived credibility of television news among potential viewers. As image-making techniques evolve alongside the rapid adoption of digital media production tools and new media distribution channels, understanding the parameters of image manipulation is more important than ever. Additionally, these evolving techniques are widely unknown and they may be underemphasized in current media literacy education.

It is apparent that digital still imagery is vulnerable to manipulation by virtue of some famous visual alterations that sparked critical debate in the press and in public discourse. There are a host of classic examples. For example, in 1983, editors of National Geographic Magazine altered the positions of the pryamids at Giza in order to fit the vertical framing of the magazine cover. Another famous example occurred when, during the O.J. Simpson trial in 1994, Time Magazine altered Simpon’s mugshot to make the defendant appear more sinister when compared to the same mugshot published on the cover of Newsweek.


Figure 1 | Unaltered mugshot (left), altered mugshot (right) (source: wikipedia url)

Recent examples include a Reuters news service photograph of a city skyline in Lebanon during the recent Israeli–Lebanese conflict in 2006. Fany Farid, a digital image analysis researcher at Dartmouth College who creates software algorithms that detect digital image manipulation, characterized the public reaction to the Reuters photo as “one of outrage and anger,” and concluded that that the “manipulation was simply inexcusable.” (Farid 2006)

Figure 3 | Published doctored photo of skyline in
Lebanon (Farid 2006)

Figure 2 | Original photo of skyline in Lebanon
(Farid 2006)


In 2003 a freelance photographer was accused of doctoring a photograph of an American soldier interacting with Iraqi citizens in the current Iraq war. The published image is a composite of two digital images taken at the same scene at different points in time. It appeared on the cover of the Los Angeles Times that very year. (Farid 2006)

Figure 4 | Original A
(Farid 2006)

Figure 5 | Original B
(Farid 2006)

Figure 6 | Published composite
(Farid 2006)

These examples and others with varying degrees of ethical deviation show how vulnerable the journalistic photograph is today.
Audience reaction to manipulated imagery differs depending on the context and circulation of the image. Between friends image manipulation can be humorous, and society accepts the incredulous behavior of photo editors who contribute to celebrity gossip tabloids. In contrast, when an image is circulated to a mass audience, and the subject matter is serious in nature, manipulation is hardly taken lightly. Some critics and researchers have noted recent trends in graphical overlays, screen layout, and packaging techniques for television news, but have left out issues concerning direct video image manipulation. Fox, Lang, et al. (2004) investigated viewer comprehension of television news information as related to the superimposition of graphics over video. In addition, some research mapped and codified photographic and visual design conventions used in the packaging of...

References: Agarwala, A., M. Dontecheva, et al. (2004). "Interactive Digital Photomontage." ACM
Transactions on Graphics (TOG) Volume 23(3): 9294-302.
Agarwala, A., A. Hertzmann, et al. (2004). "Keyframe-Based Tracking for Rotoscoping
and Animation." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 23(3): 584-591.
Akehurst, L., G. Kohnken, et al. (2001). "Content credibility of accounts derived from
live and video presentations." Legal and Criminological Psychology 6: 18.
Anderson, K. (1999). Image Consultants. Broadcasting & Cable. 129: 52
Anderson, K
Autodesk (2005). Turner Studios Realizes Collaborative HD Finishing with Autodesk
Solutions, Autodesk, Inc.:
=5572508 October 30, 2006
Autodesk (2006). Broadcasters Worldwide Turn to Autodesk 's Graphics Solutions to
Differentiate Themselves, Autodesk, Inc
Relations. October 30, 2006
Babbie, E
Barker, D. (1988). ""It 's Been Real": Forms of Television Representation." Critical
Studies in Mass Communication 5: 42-56.
Baym, G. (2005). "The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of
Political Journalism." Political Communications 22: 259-276.
Brinkmann, R. (1999). The Art And Science Of Digital Compositing. San Diego, CA,
Morgan Kaufmann.
Campbell, D. T. and J. C. Stanley (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs
For Research
Cohen, B. C. (1963). The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University
Connell, I. (1979). "Ideology / discourse / institution." Screen 19: 129-134.
Cooke, L. (2003). "Information Acceleration and Visual Trends in Print, Television, and
Web News Sources." Technical Communication Quarterly 12(2): 155-181.
Cooke, L. (2005). "A visual convergence of print, television, and the internet: charting 40
years of design change in news presentation." New Media & Society 1(22): 2246.
Craig, J. (1974). Production For The Graphic Designer. New York, NY, Billboard
Publications, Inc
Ernst, W. (2002). "Between Real Time and Memory on Demand: Reflections on / of
Television." The South Atlantic Quarterly 101(3): 625-637.
Farid, F. (2006). "Digital Doctoring: How to tell the real from the fake." Significance In
press at time of reference: 5.
Flanagin, A. J. and M. J. Metzger (2000). "Perceptions of Internet Information
Credibility." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77(3): 515-540.
Grabe, M. E., S. Zhou, et al. (2001). "Explicating Sensationalism in Television News:
Content and the Bells and Whistles of Form." Journal of Broadcasting &
Greer, J. D. and J. D. Gosen (2002). "How Much Is Too Much? Assessing Levels of
Digital Alteration as Factors in Public Perception of New Media Credibility."
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/Decoding. Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in
Cultural Studies, 1972-79
Hantz, A. M. and D. L. Diefenbach (2002). Digital Image Manipulation, Communication
Theory, and the Public Trust
Ibelema, M. and L. Powell (2001). "Cable Television News Viewed As Most Credible."
Newspaper Research Journal 22(1): 41-51.
Jia, J., J. Sun, et al. (2006). "Drag-And-Drop Pasting." ACM Transactions on Graphics
(TOG) 25(3): 631-637.
Johns, A. (1998). The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making,
University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, T. J. and B. K. Kaye (1998). "Cruising Is Believing? Comparing Internet and
Traditional Sources On Media Credibility Measures." Journalism & Mass
Kensicki, L. J. (2003). "Building Credibility for Non-Profit Organizations through
Webpage Interface Design." Journal of Visual Literacy 23(2): 139-162.
Kiousis, S. (2001). "Public Trust or Mistrust? Perceptions of Media Credibility in the
Information Age." Mass Communication & Society 4(4): 381-403.
Li, Y., J. Sun, et al. (2004). "Lazy Snapping." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)
23(3): 303-308.
Livingstone, S. (2003). The changing nature of audiences: from the mass audience to the
interactive media user
McCombs, M. E. and D. L. Shaw (1972). "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass
Media." The Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2): 176-187.
Meyer, P. (1988). "Defining and Measuring Credibility Of Newspapers: Developing and
Index." Journalism Quarterly 65: 567-574.
Mittell, J. (2000). "The Cultural Power of an Anti-Television Metaphor." Television &
New Media 1(2): 215-238.
Morris, J. S. (2005). "The Fox News Factor." Press / Politics 10(3): 56-79.
Newcomb, H. (2005). "Studying Television: Same Questions, Different Contexts."
Cinema Journal 45(1): 107-111.
Nguyen, A. (2003). "The Current Status and Potential Development of Online News
Consumption: A Structural Approach." First Monday: 10.
Rimmer, T. and D. Weaver (1987). "Different Questions, Different Answers? Media Use
and Media Credibility." Journalism Quarterly 64: 28-36, 44.
Rother, C., V. Kolmogorov, et al. (2004). ""Grab Cut": interactive foreground extraction
using iterated graph cuts." ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 23(3): 309-314.
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Ethical and Unethical Implication of Digital Manipulation Essay
  • Essay on The Ethics of Digital Manipulation
  • Essay on Tools and Techniques for DNA Manipulation
  • Digital Video Encoding Research Paper
  • Essay on Digital Image Processing Techniques
  • Essay about Manipulation
  • Does Digital Image Manipulation Affect the Value of Images? Essay
  • Manipulation Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free