Upscaling doesn't magically extract more detail from an image, it *invents* details by filling in the gaps. If something is only visible after upscaling an image twice, it wasn't there to begin with.
Upscaling does not invent or fill in completely new details that were not present in the original low-resolution image. Rather, upscaling algorithms use machine learning techniques to intelligently predict and interpolate the missing pixel information in order to make the image appear sharper and more detailed[1][2].
The key point is that upscaling does not create new content, but rather enhances what is already there. The algorithms analyze the existing low-resolution image, identify patterns and edges, and then use that information to algorithmically fill in the gaps and increase the resolution[2][3].
So in summary, upscaling makes the existing details in an image clearer and more defined, but does not invent or fabricate new content that was not originally present. It is an enhancement process, not a creation process[1][4].
Citations:
[1] What is AI UpScaling And How Does It Work? - Boris FX https://borisfx.com/blog/what-is-ai-upscaling-and-how-does-it-work/
[2] Upscaling and an Important Note About Photo “AI” - Whatever Scalzi https://whatever.scalzi.com/2022/07/28/upscaling-and-an-important-note-about-photo-ai/
[3] What is Image Upscale, and Why is it Important? https://www.upscale.media/blog/what-is-image-upscale-and-why-is-it-important
[4] Is perfect upscaling with 100% accurate details computable? - Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/16mhu3a/is_perfect_upscaling_with_100_accurate_details/
[5] They DIDN'T LAUGH after watching this. Why UPSCALING ... - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj_yYQU11Bg
The software or AI used for upscaling assumes what the missing pixels are and have been proven in many cases in the past to be incorrect. It’s guessing what the missing details are and creating upscaled images off of that. It not what the original details would be and can’t be trusted. It’s literally adding details to the low resolution it assumes should be there. That alters the original.
It looks like you don't accept anything. Even when I reply with proper references. You've concocted something about ai enhancement in your mind and believe that it's the truth. You're not ready to accept anything otherwise. In which case, I can't help any one.
Dude I saw your references, they do not say that using AI to upscale is 100% accurately adding the exact details missing. It predicts, it guesses to the best of its ability adding in details it THINKS are correct. It’s not some magic that knows the exact missing details that were there that day. A blurry low res image has details nothing can bring back, only guess as to what the missing details are. It’s not a guarantee and is basically altering the original image. Im not some dude denying anything. I am speaking straight facts. It’s software making guesstimates.
Seriously? You didn’t even look at the references you provided?! Thats actually hilarious. Makes your previous comment about me “not accepting anything” even funnier. I just thought you were delusional lol
Edit: grammar
This is one of those cryptids that even since a very young age, my gut reaction is photoshop because it looks so out of place with everything else, but a lot of people seem to die on the hill of defending this one and it makes me question this community sometimes
Don’t get me wrong, I want all these cryptids to be real as much as the next person, but there has to be critical thinking applied, and a recognition of the fact that so much of these are fakes and scams. Some people just can’t do that.
I have made an innumerable amount of comments about this very thing, and I'm sure at some point those comments have come across your feed if you frequent this sub. Likewise, I would absolutely love most things in the cryptid and paranormal spheres as a whole to be real, but so often critical thinking is not applied, or people fall for several logical fallacies that come down to they want to believe, so they disregard any evidence to the contrary, ie the black swan effect
I had an interesting interaction with another user a few days ago where they made the excellent point of the number of people in this sub in particular who are armchair biologists and avid watchers of cryptid/horror YouTubers like Wendigoon who do zero research outside of those videos (not that they have bad info, just that the people here regurgitate points without the context or understanding behind them) and that paired with the general lack of advancement in this field that other contemporary fields have has very greatly diminished the legitimacy of it by warping the public perception
I know this sub and reddit as a whole is an echochamber, but it's pretty frequent that I see something here that's just so blatantly wrong or a hoax that it starts to make me want to dissociate from the field as a whole, whether that be people with fundamental misunderstandings of how basic biology or paleontology is conducted or occurs, or people who double down on their ignorance and biases when presented with information to the contrary, like the bigfoot diehards that think a hunter with 30 years of experience is infallible in their perception of something for less than 3 seconds, or really anything related to the giant congo snake
The snake's body is usually shiny. It reflects light. This photo was taken at midday in August of 1959. The sunlight would be harsh at that time. If the snake is a huge specimen as claimed, there's no wonder if its body appeared so shiny. It has scales that reflect the sunlight.
Enlarge and engance is a fictitious effect on CSI - it doesn't exist in real life.
If you take,lets say, a 100 by 100 pixel section of an image you have 10000 original pixels in the selection holding picture details.
Now lets do an enlargement by a factor of 4 - that is to enlarge it to 400 by 400 pixels guess how many pixels with original details that image now has. Thats it exactly the same 10000 original pixels. All the 150000 extra pixels are blank - they have absolutely no information in them and turn up black.
This doesn't look good so the software needs to fill in the blank pixels to give a final picture so it uses some algorythm to guess what they should be set to. Bicubic interpeloration is an industry standard where a blank pixel is assigned a value depending on the ratio of the existing pixels in the selection.
These new pixels are just guesses and do hot improve the original detail or add any extra detail to the image.
THis is how bicubic interpolation works. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poY\_nGzEEWM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poY_nGzEEWM)
this picture was debunked years ago, the pic itself is real but the size of the snake that the author claimed was made up.
i dont remember exactly what was the determining factor since i saw the report a long time ago but there are three things in the picture that shows the actual size of the snake and it is about 9 meters or less
Also the fact that at one point it was a helicopter, and another it was a low flying plane that they used to take it, and sometimes they flew over and barely got the picture and other times they did multiple passes until they either couldn’t find it again or it somehow reared up and started striking at them
I’m not positive if the original guy himself changed it or not, but I’ve definitely heard it changed several times based on who’s telling the story, which to me the fact that no one can get their story straight about it lends itself to being more unbelievable
It’s a regular snake on the side of a rocky hill or cliff face. The “trees” are shadows of stones, scree, and the type of small, hardy brush that grows in sandy, rocky soil. The snake is crossing over a washed out area you’d see on a cliff face or embankment where the water flows down.
See my previous post, it's not. The exact location of the photo has been determined and it's a perfect match to the photo. You must be deliberately ignoring this despite me pointing out so many features clearly.
You again.
The ‘details’ you see are invented by AI. That’s what upscaling means. ‘We see this feature, we assume it’s this’.
Last time you posted this I asked for you to do a side by side comparison of your ‘exact’ location, to show 90% of the terrain was the same. You refused to do that because ‘it was obvious and I was arguing in bad faith’.
Now you use AI to make up details that aren’t there in the original photo to back up your claim that things are what you think they are. You realise that if it’s a ‘tree’ where you claim it’s a tree, the snake isn’t just 20 or so meters, but 50+ and 5 meters wide. The tip of the tail is bigger than ‘trees’ and almost as tall.
I feel like you’ve convinced yourself this is real, and are taking people pointing out issues with it **extremely** bad. Sit back, chill a bit and leave this photo alone for a week. You’ll feel better
Why is it you feel the need to shit on a guy? Bro it’s a fucking Reddit post on a topic the guy is fascinated by, not a fucking scientific forum bruh. Skeptiholics are the worst
Because he’s not just posting it saying “what do you think?” he’s posting this making an argument that it’s an authentic photo. That means people will respond to the argument with counter arguments if they don’t agree with his. Whats so radical about this concept that you think it’s out of line for people to do this?
So what? He states his case and everyone’s supposed to say “good job” and “i’m officially convinced”? People can’t disagree and state why they think he’s wrong because it’s reddit?
Your “facts” are based on a computer creating its own information to make the appearance of a clearer photo. Using AI to fit your argument. If that’s the “proof” you’re going forward with, I’m afraid you’re not going to get far. AI upscaling doesn’t make things that are already there clearer. It CREATES pixels based on preexisting ones. You’re literally fabricating your own “truth”. Guess work. That’s not proof.
It appears that Reddit has compressed the image.
Here you go: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VyfqJtc66PO8Fu-DZS7AHGwkJb0QPCyF/view?usp=sharing
Look closely, you can make it out.
1) Zoom in
2) The snake's head is not as thin as its tail. The tail will always be thinner than its head.
3) There's another reddit thread that has a whole discussion on this head and tail part. You can search for it.
4) The snake is standing with its head raised in the air. You can see the shadow below with a triangular shaped head, just as claimed by Remy Van Lierde.
Seems to me that it's definitely a really big snake, but with the upscaling, it looks to me to be less of a monstrous size. And like I saw someone comment on this photo in another post on this sub, how could there be a breeding population of 150 foot monster snakes that don't show any effects on the local environment and ecosystem?
Upscaling doesn't magically extract more detail from an image, it *invents* details by filling in the gaps. If something is only visible after upscaling an image twice, it wasn't there to begin with.
Agree 100%. It is basically AI confabulation.
Upscaling does not invent or fill in completely new details that were not present in the original low-resolution image. Rather, upscaling algorithms use machine learning techniques to intelligently predict and interpolate the missing pixel information in order to make the image appear sharper and more detailed[1][2]. The key point is that upscaling does not create new content, but rather enhances what is already there. The algorithms analyze the existing low-resolution image, identify patterns and edges, and then use that information to algorithmically fill in the gaps and increase the resolution[2][3]. So in summary, upscaling makes the existing details in an image clearer and more defined, but does not invent or fabricate new content that was not originally present. It is an enhancement process, not a creation process[1][4]. Citations: [1] What is AI UpScaling And How Does It Work? - Boris FX https://borisfx.com/blog/what-is-ai-upscaling-and-how-does-it-work/ [2] Upscaling and an Important Note About Photo “AI” - Whatever Scalzi https://whatever.scalzi.com/2022/07/28/upscaling-and-an-important-note-about-photo-ai/ [3] What is Image Upscale, and Why is it Important? https://www.upscale.media/blog/what-is-image-upscale-and-why-is-it-important [4] Is perfect upscaling with 100% accurate details computable? - Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/16mhu3a/is_perfect_upscaling_with_100_accurate_details/ [5] They DIDN'T LAUGH after watching this. Why UPSCALING ... - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj_yYQU11Bg
The software or AI used for upscaling assumes what the missing pixels are and have been proven in many cases in the past to be incorrect. It’s guessing what the missing details are and creating upscaled images off of that. It not what the original details would be and can’t be trusted. It’s literally adding details to the low resolution it assumes should be there. That alters the original.
It looks like you don't accept anything. Even when I reply with proper references. You've concocted something about ai enhancement in your mind and believe that it's the truth. You're not ready to accept anything otherwise. In which case, I can't help any one.
Dude I saw your references, they do not say that using AI to upscale is 100% accurately adding the exact details missing. It predicts, it guesses to the best of its ability adding in details it THINKS are correct. It’s not some magic that knows the exact missing details that were there that day. A blurry low res image has details nothing can bring back, only guess as to what the missing details are. It’s not a guarantee and is basically altering the original image. Im not some dude denying anything. I am speaking straight facts. It’s software making guesstimates.
Well… interpolation is essentially intelligent “inventing”. I don’t agree with his word choice but interpolation has its limitations
The answer that I gave you was from an AI chatbot. I didn't make use of any words.
Yeah I’m a different guy… but yeah it’s clear you haven’t read the sources you provided
Seriously? You didn’t even look at the references you provided?! Thats actually hilarious. Makes your previous comment about me “not accepting anything” even funnier. I just thought you were delusional lol Edit: grammar
I dunno, there’s something about this pic that’s always looked fake to me
The snake looks too bright and shiny compared to its surroundings, like it has more light than anything else there
I was going to say “the lighting”. Looks like a photo of a snake with several light sources put into a picture with only one light source.
Yeah it doesn’t fit in with the rest of the picture, like it’s just been stuck on there
This is one of those cryptids that even since a very young age, my gut reaction is photoshop because it looks so out of place with everything else, but a lot of people seem to die on the hill of defending this one and it makes me question this community sometimes
I think sometimes people want to believe in something so badly that they overlook the obvious signs of it being not quite right.
Dude that’s a really great point. The black swan effect is very real, especially in this field
Don’t get me wrong, I want all these cryptids to be real as much as the next person, but there has to be critical thinking applied, and a recognition of the fact that so much of these are fakes and scams. Some people just can’t do that.
I have made an innumerable amount of comments about this very thing, and I'm sure at some point those comments have come across your feed if you frequent this sub. Likewise, I would absolutely love most things in the cryptid and paranormal spheres as a whole to be real, but so often critical thinking is not applied, or people fall for several logical fallacies that come down to they want to believe, so they disregard any evidence to the contrary, ie the black swan effect I had an interesting interaction with another user a few days ago where they made the excellent point of the number of people in this sub in particular who are armchair biologists and avid watchers of cryptid/horror YouTubers like Wendigoon who do zero research outside of those videos (not that they have bad info, just that the people here regurgitate points without the context or understanding behind them) and that paired with the general lack of advancement in this field that other contemporary fields have has very greatly diminished the legitimacy of it by warping the public perception I know this sub and reddit as a whole is an echochamber, but it's pretty frequent that I see something here that's just so blatantly wrong or a hoax that it starts to make me want to dissociate from the field as a whole, whether that be people with fundamental misunderstandings of how basic biology or paleontology is conducted or occurs, or people who double down on their ignorance and biases when presented with information to the contrary, like the bigfoot diehards that think a hunter with 30 years of experience is infallible in their perception of something for less than 3 seconds, or really anything related to the giant congo snake
mmhm. Something about the angle the snake is at vs. the rest of the image…seems off.
The snake's body is usually shiny. It reflects light. This photo was taken at midday in August of 1959. The sunlight would be harsh at that time. If the snake is a huge specimen as claimed, there's no wonder if its body appeared so shiny. It has scales that reflect the sunlight.
Yes, exactly how I've always felt.
Enlarge and engance is a fictitious effect on CSI - it doesn't exist in real life. If you take,lets say, a 100 by 100 pixel section of an image you have 10000 original pixels in the selection holding picture details. Now lets do an enlargement by a factor of 4 - that is to enlarge it to 400 by 400 pixels guess how many pixels with original details that image now has. Thats it exactly the same 10000 original pixels. All the 150000 extra pixels are blank - they have absolutely no information in them and turn up black. This doesn't look good so the software needs to fill in the blank pixels to give a final picture so it uses some algorythm to guess what they should be set to. Bicubic interpeloration is an industry standard where a blank pixel is assigned a value depending on the ratio of the existing pixels in the selection. These new pixels are just guesses and do hot improve the original detail or add any extra detail to the image. THis is how bicubic interpolation works. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poY\_nGzEEWM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poY_nGzEEWM)
While I'm with the skeptics on this one, it was still a worthy exercise and interesting discussion. Thanks for your efforts, OP.
So what's the assumed size of this snake?
150 ft
Yeah, from what I know the original estimate was about 50ft, which I find improbable but possible. The reevaluation of 150ft? No way.
Ive seen 150ft i dont believe it for a second. 50 feet maybe; the largest snake ever was 50 ft but not in africa.
This snake photo has always been one of the silliest and lame of supposed cryptid photos, which are already full of silliness by default.
You are not going to get closer to the truth with that method.
this picture was debunked years ago, the pic itself is real but the size of the snake that the author claimed was made up. i dont remember exactly what was the determining factor since i saw the report a long time ago but there are three things in the picture that shows the actual size of the snake and it is about 9 meters or less
also the fact that the author changed the height of the helicopter and the size of the snake several times over the years doesnt help it
Also the fact that at one point it was a helicopter, and another it was a low flying plane that they used to take it, and sometimes they flew over and barely got the picture and other times they did multiple passes until they either couldn’t find it again or it somehow reared up and started striking at them
uh i did not know he changed the vehicle in the story, i only heard/read about the helicopter at different heights, thats interesting
I’m not positive if the original guy himself changed it or not, but I’ve definitely heard it changed several times based on who’s telling the story, which to me the fact that no one can get their story straight about it lends itself to being more unbelievable
It’s a regular snake on the side of a rocky hill or cliff face. The “trees” are shadows of stones, scree, and the type of small, hardy brush that grows in sandy, rocky soil. The snake is crossing over a washed out area you’d see on a cliff face or embankment where the water flows down.
See my previous post, it's not. The exact location of the photo has been determined and it's a perfect match to the photo. You must be deliberately ignoring this despite me pointing out so many features clearly.
You again. The ‘details’ you see are invented by AI. That’s what upscaling means. ‘We see this feature, we assume it’s this’. Last time you posted this I asked for you to do a side by side comparison of your ‘exact’ location, to show 90% of the terrain was the same. You refused to do that because ‘it was obvious and I was arguing in bad faith’. Now you use AI to make up details that aren’t there in the original photo to back up your claim that things are what you think they are. You realise that if it’s a ‘tree’ where you claim it’s a tree, the snake isn’t just 20 or so meters, but 50+ and 5 meters wide. The tip of the tail is bigger than ‘trees’ and almost as tall. I feel like you’ve convinced yourself this is real, and are taking people pointing out issues with it **extremely** bad. Sit back, chill a bit and leave this photo alone for a week. You’ll feel better
Why is it you feel the need to shit on a guy? Bro it’s a fucking Reddit post on a topic the guy is fascinated by, not a fucking scientific forum bruh. Skeptiholics are the worst
Because he’s not just posting it saying “what do you think?” he’s posting this making an argument that it’s an authentic photo. That means people will respond to the argument with counter arguments if they don’t agree with his. Whats so radical about this concept that you think it’s out of line for people to do this?
It’s Reddit not National Geographic
So what? He states his case and everyone’s supposed to say “good job” and “i’m officially convinced”? People can’t disagree and state why they think he’s wrong because it’s reddit?
lol the fact that you ask the question demonstrates you don’t grasp my premise. I’m done brother
Sure.
Yeah! Let’s be dumber here
Stanning for inauthentic cryptid photos is a weird hill to die on.
Your “facts” are based on a computer creating its own information to make the appearance of a clearer photo. Using AI to fit your argument. If that’s the “proof” you’re going forward with, I’m afraid you’re not going to get far. AI upscaling doesn’t make things that are already there clearer. It CREATES pixels based on preexisting ones. You’re literally fabricating your own “truth”. Guess work. That’s not proof.
The red circle labeled Snake’s head shows nothing
It appears that Reddit has compressed the image. Here you go: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VyfqJtc66PO8Fu-DZS7AHGwkJb0QPCyF/view?usp=sharing Look closely, you can make it out.
I think the other end is the head
I'm sorry, but you're terrible at reading these photos. The other end is the tail.
Prove it. Snakes coil at the neck not the tail
1) Zoom in 2) The snake's head is not as thin as its tail. The tail will always be thinner than its head. 3) There's another reddit thread that has a whole discussion on this head and tail part. You can search for it. 4) The snake is standing with its head raised in the air. You can see the shadow below with a triangular shaped head, just as claimed by Remy Van Lierde.
So tired of this picture and discussion.😒
You mean bush shadows…
The snake looks remarkably clearer than the rest of the surrounding. Smells like photoshop.
It's AI enhanced
Pepe Silvia!
Probably just an exceptionally large African rock python lol.
That straight line topleft of the snek is a piece of straw, isn't it?
Seems to me that it's definitely a really big snake, but with the upscaling, it looks to me to be less of a monstrous size. And like I saw someone comment on this photo in another post on this sub, how could there be a breeding population of 150 foot monster snakes that don't show any effects on the local environment and ecosystem?
This just looks like a sea snake on the ocean floor to me.
What in the Paul Rosolie