Ending the Debate on Clinton's Darkened Ad

[berni_mccoy]

As we all know, there has been quite a bit of debate about the Ad "True" published by the Clinton campaign. There are claims that she darkened and widened Obama's face and the video comparisons have been all over the web. Fact Check decided to clarify the issue with this article: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html

Their conclusion: "The Obama frames from the ad do appear darker than other video of Obama from the same event" but "without further evidence to the contrary, we see no reason to conclude that this is anything more than a standard attempt to make an attack ad appear sinister"

However, no one, including Fact Check, has yet done a true analysis of the digital sources of the videos and published the results. Furthermore, no one has compared other Clinton ads that contain Obama's face in them with this one. This is why this painful debate continues. Further clouding the issue are bloggers posting a variety of YouTube videos from various chains of sources, including the ObamaGirl's videos. All of these comparisons ignore the technical details required to make a fair comparison or with the context that Clinton's ad team are professional graphical artists and marketing professionals. They know what they are doing.

My previous posts on this have been less about the racial implications of any particular conclusion and more about the accuracy of any single comparison. Even Fact Check failed to perform the proper comparison: source-to-source, rendered on the same device.

Well, I'm here to put an end to the nonsense. The goal of this article is to perform a thorough analysis of the digital sources, MSNBC's online digital feed and Clinton's hi-quality online version of her ads. I think you will find the results interesting. While I will draw technical conclusions, I will not draw conclusions about intent. I do however, reserve the right to raise questions.

Before I begin, I will state with full disclosure that I am an Obama supporter. However, I am laying out the steps of this analysis so anyone can reproduce them. I encourage others to reproduce this data, as I have done, so they can convince themselves that it is accurate and they may draw their own conclusions.

I begin with establishing the base-line of the analysis: the only fair analysis is to compare the digital sources against each other as they are displayed on the same device at the same time. Any other comparison is not valid because transmission, rendering and display devices may all vary. For my own analysis, I performed all rendering of video using QuickTime 7.4.1.14 on a Mac Book Pro 2.33 GHz with 2 GB running Mac OS X 10.5.2.

Step 1. Obtain the direct source video for both the MSNBC debate and the Clinton ad "True". Clinton's hi-quality source is available here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23361919#23361919 The MSNBC video does not provide a source link, although it is a high-quality feed at a resolution of 448x336. Note, that this is the same aspect ration (Width over Height) as the Clinton ad video, so scaling one to the other will not introduce stretching of video. Also, the MSNBC video had to be captured using a video capture tool as it was rendered. I used IShowU version 1.44. There is no significant difference between the captured video and the debate video as it is streamed from MSNBC.

Step 2. Render both videos, side-by-side at the same time on the same device. This was straight forward and yielded the results that many have been claiming and that have been confirmed by sources like Fact Check: the Clinton ad is darker. Because the Clinton video is at a slightly higher (30%) resolution, it was downscaled to match that of the MSNBC video. This did not change the color or aspect ratio of the video in any way. Here is a screen capture of the side-by-side rendering of Obama at the same time in the debate:



Step 3. Compare color and brightness of same area of face.  I used the Digital Color Meter (DCM) on the Mac to sample the same region of the face in both videos.  In the image below, the blue rectangle indicates the region sampled with the DCM tool. This patch was chosen due to the easily identifiable location.



In the MSNBC video, this region averages an RGB value of R:149, G:88, B:65, where each value ranges from 0, completely void of color to 255, completely saturated with color.  The average of all three numbers is an indicator of brightness, 0 being black, 255 being white (there are several ways to calculate this, but a simple technique is to take the average of all three colors).  The average luminosity therefore of the MSNBC digital feed is 101.  In Clinton's ad, we have R:104, G:87, B:70, averaging to 87.  That's about a 10-15% darker in the Clinton ad than in the raw digital source from MSNBC. Typical luminance conversions would have the difference being larger since blue is the least visible color to the human eye, but the average is good enough determine that the Clinton ad is measurably darker.

Step 4. It is obvious to the naked eye that the aspect ratio of the debate video in Clinton's ad has been stretched horizontally.  This does not happen as a by-product of compression or other image transmission, though it could happen as a result of rendering. This is why I render both videos at the same resolution and same aspect ratio, the smaller of the two (448x336). Given that we are comparing both sources, the scaling of the debate video in Clinton's ad had to have been performed intentionally. However, what the intent was, can not be determined from the scale difference alone. For example, they may have been trying to fit Obama's face in the square allotted for his face in the ad. The problem is, doing so did not require changing the aspect ratio resulting in a wider face.

Step 5. Examine Obama's face in other Clinton ads.  I downloaded the Clinton ad called "Debate" available here: http://static.hillaryclinton.com/i/video/vids/ad_20080213_debate.zip.  It is also a QuickTime movie file at a resolution of 640x480, just like the other Ad video. Here is a screenshot from that video: 

Sampling the same region of Obama's face, I performed the same color analysis from step 3 above, only shrinking the sample region by 50% since his face is 50% smaller in this video.  The sample here is R:166, G:97, B:47, which averages 103.  This is nearly an identical result to the MSNBC color, which is amazing given that the picture of Obama is not from the debate video. Also note that the aspect ratio of his face in this video is not changed and that it is roughly 50% the size of his face in the MSNBC video with the same proportion.

Technical conclusions: the source video of Clinton's ad is measurably darker than the source video of the MSNBC debate video. It is also measurably widened from the debate video. The darkening and widening are not by-products of any compression, transmission or rendering operations as none of that took place in this comparison of the two. Therefore, these modifications to the MSNBC debate video were intentional.

But what was the intent?

Why was only the Clinton "True" ad, an attack ad on Obama darkened and stretched, while the Clinton "Debate" ad, also an attack ad on Obama, not darkened or stretched?

Could it be the timing of the release of the video? The "Debate" ad was released before the Iowa caucus while the "True" ad was released prior to the Ohio primary. Did the fact that 20% of the Ohio voting population said that race was an important factor<1> in their decision have anything to do with the modification?

These are serious questions of intent that should be answered. To date, Clinton's only response on this ad, aired on Fox News<2>, were that the differences were due to image processing that occurs during compression, transmission and rendering. Clearly, this is not a reasonable explanation.

<1> source: CBS 60 minutes.
<2> source: Fox News as captured on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VipVmVzwmcU

[maddiejoan]

1. oh stop

Here's the ad as it appeared on television

http://www.factcheck.org/video/clintontruecmagcodeddownbestquality.wmv

here's a still from that ad.



if anything he's lighter and certainly not 'widened'

[berni_mccoy]

3. As they sat an unknown video camera in front of an unknown television set. It won't fly

as a valid comparison. A source-to-source comparison is the only one to make.

[maddiejoan]

6. youtube compression

darkened it and widened it.

period.

you have nothing.

[berni_mccoy]

I guess you can't read. I did a direct source-to-source comparison. No YouTube involved.

[maddiejoan]

8. You don't have the direct source

[berni_mccoy]

9. Read my article. No YouTube.

[maddiejoan]

13. I read your article

you don't have the direct source.

[berni_mccoy]

14. Downloaded from both owners directly.

[maddiejoan]

17. neither are true sources

you aren't downloading broadcast quality material --you are downloading compressed digital files.

[berni_mccoy]

21. Talking out your butt again. Keep coming up with a new explanation in each response...

It's fun to see you flounder for the truth.

[maddiejoan]

29. In my post #1

I provided a link to the ad as it appeared on television.

It is de-saturated for sure --but it is neither darkened or widened.

[berni_mccoy]

32. Then you said YouTube, then Compression, then not a source, then, widening, then, what's next?

We have no idea how the modified video posted on Fact Check was made. They did not describe their methodology.

[Yes We Did]

34. It is desaturated and darkened.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I reproduced the exact same image on my computer using photoshop.

[maddiejoan]

38. I know exactly what I'm talking about

Mostly because it's my profession.

Of course you can reproduce it in photoshop --so what?

[Yes We Did]

42. The image was doctored Maddie. Plain and Simple.

You know it. I know it. We all know it. Stop pretending.

[maddiejoan]

44. Not in the manner that the OP suggests

nor in any way close to the degree.

[Yes We Did]

51. Okay... look at it this way.

The stretched face was in order to fit it for wide-screen. However, any professional could have fixed that. Anyone with experience could had made adjustments to the ad.

Did the "stretch it" purposely, no, of course not. They just didn't bother to make sure it didn't get stretched.

However, the darkening is another thing.

I have transferred or a hundred videos to YouTube and NEVER seen the video darken THAT much... nowhere near.

It almost looks cartoonish. And if you consider that they are going to be using top of the line equipment for their ads, there is no excuse for this.

Seriously, look at the "professional" submissions on youtube, and you know what I am saying is true. They don't look like that. Most of the armature videos don't look like that.

[maddiejoan]

54. Did you see my linked video in post #1?

is it darkened? Or is it just de-saturated?

[Yes We Did]

61. I did see it.

You mentioned, or someone mentioned YouTube. I was under the impression that that is the version which is in question.

Anyone can see that the original isn't widened or darkened. The internet version however is both.

That's all Im saying.

[maddiejoan]

63. It's about resolution and compression

greater decrease in resolution and increase in compression will make for a quicker playing file.

period.

It's about bandwidth not race-baiting.

[berni_mccoy]

43. See, you are making things up again. I never used photoshop. You are free to reproduce the results

but you are too afraid of the truth.

[maddiejoan]

46. see who I was responding to

[berni_mccoy]

47. It's hard to tell because you feel the need to spam this thread. You've now posted more on this

than I have.

[maddiejoan]

49. I'm spamming?

Responding is now spamming?

[berni_mccoy]

53. Spam, flamebait, you just trying to get the thread locked.

[maddiejoan]

60. How so?

I've said nothing insulting to you personally --even though you have not shown me the same courtesy.

[hedgehog]

20. Then why isn't the image of Hillary also darkened and widened on the You Tube version?

[maddiejoan]

36. Because it is?

:shrug:

[berni_mccoy]

maddiejoan, why are you so threatened by the truth?

[maddiejoan]

41. I'm not

I'm correcting your lies.

[berni_mccoy]

48. You are doing nothing of the sort. I put the data and methodology out there.

Anyone, including yourself, is free to reproduce the results. Or not. But crying about it in this thread with desperate spamming attack to get the thread shut down for flamebait is what you are all about.

[maddiejoan]

58. I'm not crying

but being able to reproduce an effect is not proof that this is how the effect was produced.

[berni_mccoy]

62. You are ignoring several facts: Transmission, compression and rendering device

are all consistent here. That's something no one has done and is the only valid comparison to make.

Furthermore, two ads in the same format from the same site from the same maker are rendering Obama's face quite differently.

[maddiejoan]

65. again

Until you actually do this with original broadcast quality sources, you are not engaged in a true comparison.

[berni_mccoy]

66. These are the best sources available. I doubt the results would be different from raw footage

[maddiejoan]

68. I do.

Frankly --I don't think you've really made an adequate case here, and I suggest your tinkering has all been (purposely or not) with the goal of proving yourself right.

[berni_mccoy]

69. Prove it then. If you were a "pro" you should be able to do it. Oh, and who is your candidate?

[maddiejoan]

70. I made my point in my first post

:shrug:

[Yes We Did]

39. As I said below... They conveniently missed that. n/t

[walldude]

7. Agreed.. and from an Obama supporter no less

I can adjust the brightness/contrast and color levels on my monitor right now to make him "darker" if I want. I'm also a video engineer, I do video for live concerts. And I can safely say that video is not anything close to an exact science. What you see on your screen is probably not quite the same as what is being broadcast. What I see on my screen is nothing like what you see on yours. I prefer a bit more color saturation and a bit more contrast in my images. Hell go to a Best Buy or something and look at the lined up TV's. Every one is slightly different from the next. Even if they had attempted this, it would have been a huge waste of time.

[berni_mccoy]

11. Source-to-source comparison rendered at the same time on the same device. Can't you read?

[hedgehog]

10. Umm - could the vertical black bars on either side of this shot

be an indication that a screen shot that had been widened was narrowed to "prove" that no distortion had been made.

[berni_mccoy]

12. It was not necessary to distort his face to make it fit in the box in the ad.

[maddiejoan]

16. I suggest you examine the text in Hillary's ad for a clue

In the "widened version" the text is also distorted (examine the period)

[berni_mccoy]

19. You are a complete liar. Why don't you go download the video for yourself. I've provided all

links. Anyone is free to reproduce the experiment. You don't have anything but to distort the truth.

[maddiejoan]

22. I'm not the liar here, Berni

and we both know it.

[berni_mccoy]

27. You've come up with a different excuse for each response you've spammed in this thread.

You have no credibility.

[maddiejoan]

31. I can come up with hundreds of reasons you are wrong

[berni_mccoy]

33. So far, you are 0 for 10.

[maddiejoan]

40. says you

:shrug:

[Yes We Did]

24. I half agree with you.

I don't think there is anything to the widening. That is just what happens.

However, a professional SHOULD have been able to fix that. It was at best sloppy.

However, from personal and professional experience, I DO KNOW that the darkening, do the degree seen there, that is not what happens on YouTube.

Yes, you will have "some" darkening, but not nearly that much.

They have the best equipment and professionals doing this stuff. My videos don't get darkened like that, and I am sure I am not using anything close to the quality they are using.

[maddiejoan]

35. Then see my post #1 link

and watch the actual video.

It's clearly not widened --and while I agree the colors are washed out (warm tones don't generally play well in a negative ad), I disagree that Obama is even remotely "darker"

Certainly the darkness is in proportion to everything else in the ad --including Hillary herself.

[cbayer]

52. I just have to say it. YOU ARE ONE CLASSY WOMAN!

No sarcasm at all. You are truly classy.

[maddiejoan]

56. I try

Thanks for noticing :)

[berni_mccoy]

50. The problem is, Clinton's camp did it to one ad, but not another. And no YouTube

was involved in my comparison. I downloaded both Clinton ads from her site. The MSNBC video came direct from MSNBC.

[hedgehog]

55. That's not how the ad appears on Hillary's web site.

[MercutioATC]

2. Kudos for the efforts....

...and I wish that somebody with a national voice would have put in the same effort.

Regardless of intent, I believe you have provided technical proof of what many of us knew...the image was intentionally altered to make Obama's skin tone darker and to widen his face, providing more stereotypically "black" features.

[berni_mccoy]

64. Thanks.

[Drachasor]

4. Political Ads darken the opponent all the time...

Yes, it was darkened intentionally, because political Ads like to make the opponent to appear in sinister shadows/darkness, and their candidate appear in the sun/bight light. This is nothing. (I'm a huuuuge Obama supporter, for what it is worth, and have a lot of problems with how Hillary has run her campaign).

[berni_mccoy]

5. So why did they chose to darken and stretch just the one ad, not both?

[Drachasor]

18. Give them the benefit of the doubt

Common political tactics aren't always used. The ratio change has perfectly normal explanations (as the OP mentions, it could just be to fit the box -- not required, but that doesn't mean they didn't do it anyhow).

Best to give them the benefit of the doubt until hard evidence this was INTENTIONAL comes to light (and that will probably never happen). There are plenty of well-supported critiques against Hillary where we have their intention of her campaign or other statements by them. The evidence here is too slim to draw the conclusion they were playing to racism in Ohio. That's a big charge that would require more evidence to safely assert, imho.

[Yes We Did]

30. The stretching out... That is what happens when you convert it. Although...

A professinal knows ways around that. It really shouldn't have happened.

Now the darkening, there is NO reason to give them the benefit of doubt. That was done on purpose.

The whole "youtube" argument falls flat there. With the type of equipment they use, there is no way in hell that would happen. Professional equipment wouldn't do that.

Hell, a basic digital camera and a slideshow program wouldn't do that.

[Johnny__Motown]

15. So it says they did it, just can't prove it was racial. ...well then I guess all is forgiven... NOT

[Bread and Circus]

23. I like your work. Have you heard back from factcheck on this analysis?

And one more thing, I can't say much for the exact TV clip but I know just from looking at the commercial on her website, Obama is depicted as wider and darker than he really is or as he appeared in that debate. Her website is a form of advertisement so just by eyeballing that it's obvious as least one instance of her advertisement (albeit on her website) distorts his image.

Like you say, what's the intent? It could be to make him look "blacker" (whatever that means, as if it's a bad thing anyway). But ethnicity aside, he it certainly makes him looks heavier and gives the illusion of having a short thick neck - he becomes a less graceful looking version of himself.

Either way, they distorted his record and his words, so it's not a stretch to say they would intentionally distort his image.

The Clinton campaign practices a perverse form of Democracy. They have chosen the route of deceiving the very voters they wish to govern. They are engaged in propaganda, in one of its many ugly forms.

The Obama campaign is not totally innocent of it, but the kind and degree of the Clinton campaign is far, far worse.

[berni_mccoy]

25. Not yet. I sent both the recommendation that they do this as well as my own analysis.

No response yet.

[backscatter712]

26. K&R. It was deliberately darkened and widened.

Kudos to berni_mccoy - a very good analysis, eliminating as many of the variable such as compression, display devices, etc. as possible.

I'll speak as a software engineer who has some knowledge in computer graphics. This was deliberate.

Also add in some graphics design elements. Notice how in the Clinton ad, Obama's widened and darkened face was positioned in a split screen next to some text on a bright white spotlight effect? Any graphics design guru will tell you that makes Obama's face look even darker.

Clinton's campaign has been filled with instance after instance of veiled racism. Going after the Archie Bunker demographic, perhaps?

[hedgehog]

28. Let's invoke Occam's razor on this one

which is more likely, that an advertising agency would try to pull a fast one right before a critical election

OR

that a bunch of people would independently select an image and cry "Foul" with no basis in fact?

[UALRBSofL]

37. Well, considering the ObamaGirl video had Obama darkened

I would have to say that most likely the Obama Camp did this and flipped the blame on the Clinton's as the ones whom darkened the video. I mean, I wouldn't think Obama supporters would darken there own video just for the fun of it.

[Yes We Did]

45. The Obama girl was not using the same quality resources that Camp Clinton had.

It makes a big difference.

[Johnny__Motown]

57. OK, now the truth comes out. We can't expect anything more from Hillary than we can from Obamagirl

[berni_mccoy]

59. LOL

[Jed Dilligan]

67. Obamagirl is an actress in a satirical video

that doesn't clearly support any candidate.

[berni_mccoy]

71. I love it when Clinton supporters try to compare ObamaGirl's work to Clinton's ad team.

[Jed Dilligan]

72. A lot of them are simply deranged

and the majority have no sense of irony, sarcasm, satire, parody, etc.

[berni_mccoy]

73. Morning Kick.