>>282353

no

>>282440

You won't be able to read the text on a phone with any video anyway. Not enough pixel density.

>>282462

Four films of interest? The 4th being one of them?

>>282486

It is possible that the string of lines Q posted including the 1 of 4 and film references has nothing to do with the phone images. Two separate issues? In this case, the Fourth film would make sense.

>>282494

I doubt the photographer even saw the text on the phones. I'd put my money on Gannett or Getty editing the image. (Mostly Gannett.)

>>282526

Even with a 4K video in high bit rate, you're not going to be able to read text on that phone. Best is you'll be able to see that the phone has different stuff on it than the high resolution DSLR photo, but we already have proof of that.

>>282577

Nobody who makes any money at all (even rent) with photography uses film anymore. Your information about film is outdated by at least 10 years.

>>282639

Yup, whoever shopped that photo is guilty of a felony.

>>282670

Q specifically said no edits.

>>282707

>there's no such thing as a "pixel" on a negative

Learn chemistry. Standard pro film has about 18 micron grain size. There are pixels, they're just not arranged in a regular grid. They're stochastic. Many high-end digital cameras have higher resolution than pro 35mm film.

>>282732

yes

>>282761

Imagine if there were software that was designed for this. If you're involved, think about that for a while.

>>282794

HARD CORE.

>>282825

Sauce?

>>282911

meh

>>282915

4th estate

>>282958

>Q watchin to see who finds it first.

Q using this to press the opponent's timeline.

>>282965

Even 4K won't get you readable text. We already have evidence the photo's been shopped.

>>283002

I think it is more likely that Gannett (or similar news aggregator) shopped the image. But hey…could have been Getty. It would certainly kill their reputation real quick.

>>283011

Perhaps this means we need to archive screenshots of all websites with the photoshopped photo. …because they're all going to scrub it…

>>283039

This makes sense that we'd be in a race with the opponent to see how many we can capture before they scrub.

Once we have them captured, when they scrub them, we can point out that they scrubbed them.

>>283030

Not that photo. Still images (DSLR) and video capture methods are radically different. Video is usually just video and DSLR photos are usually just stills. There are a few reasons for this.

>>283074

Yes, but if there are 100 sites using that same photo and then they all start getting scrubbed with different photos, that would be very interesting to red-pill people. Almost like they were trying to hide evidence, no?

>>283078

Schiff has put lots of stuff in the memo so the whitehouse will have to redact it so he can claim that the whitehouse is trying to redact things the dems want out. General optical fuckery.

>>283082

Jesus Christ - a red-pilled art director! I am honored, sir. You're nearly as rare as a unicorn.

>>283098

Wouldn't be surprised if they took photos of each other including the contents of each other's phones.