The Obama darkening/ stretching claim (w/ screen shots)

Hey all!

Much like my little Nicholson parody video the other day (which has now had over 145,000 views on Youtube -- eek!), I must admit I had no idea how much my little four-panel graphic would be used and shared not only on this site, but as of now, many others.

I created this graphic by capturing the Clinton version (the fourth "frame") and then trying to work backwards from it, to the same shot with proper coloring (the first "frame").  I did this in order to counter the theory that maybe it was just the standard desaturation technique used in all political ads.

But what I didn't do at the time was actually watch the ad side by side with that exact point in the debate in which Hillary's ad team captured the video.

This is a screen capture of Hillary's page open side by side with the debate its taken from (I tried to pause it at the exact same place and came pretty close):

One thing you'll notice here is that the darkening is not nearly as dramatic as we may have suspected, at least not with this source example.  The original debate is here:

http://youtube.com/...  ***IMPORTANT LINK ONE***

You can watch the section in which Obama is discussing the matter at around the 4:35 mark.

The Clinton video is here:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...  ***IMPORTANT LINK TWO***

What I recommend you do is place the windows side by side, as I have, and find the applicable portion of each video, and watch them together.  

(You can also go to msnbc.com and find the video there.  The colors are ritcher on the MSNBC version, but the aspect is the same -- they just don't let you jump easily to one part and you have to wait til its more than halfway loaded.  If you want to use the MSNBC version, however, you want to go to 43:25.  There's no way to direct link to an MSNBC video, unfortunately, so you'll have to do a video search yourself.)

Now, one might complain this is comparing apples to oranges, as the Hillary Clinton video is using a widescreen player.  But it's not like the ad is a regular 4:3 ad stretched incorrectly to 16:9 -- it's actually a widescreen ad to begin with.  That's how it airs.  In fact, you can compare "apples to apples" by doing the same process watching the Hillary YouTube video side by side with the debate video.  Hillary's YouTube video is here:

http://youtube.com/...

You will notice that the YouTube version is still stretched, even if it isn't quite as stretched as the HillaryClinton.com version, due to the letterbox conversion.  But even in the high resolution broadcast quality Quicktime file Hillary offers up, which is presumably the closest possible version to what actually aired, the stretching is still quite apparent.  

The full, untouched screenshots are here:

HillaryClinton.com vs. Original Footage:
http://i138.photobucket.com/...

Hillary's YouTube Site vs. Original Footage:
http://i138.photobucket.com/...  

Again, you don't have to take these screenshots "word" for it -- just do it yourself.  Open two browser windows, one to the above "Important Link One", the other to "Important Link Two".  Go to minute 4:35 of Important Link One, line the window side by side with the applicable part of Important Link Two, and press play on both.  It's a more dramatic difference than even these screenshots show.

Now, the saturation and darkening was clearly intentional.  I'm not sure if it was intentionally racist, or merely part of the common campaign tactic of reducing the color and brightness on video of your opponent, and increasing the color and brightness on video of yourself.  Having said that, however, the ad is too professionally put together for me to believe the Obama image was "accidentally" stretched.  Now, I suppose you could construct a scenario in which the ad team was told it was supposed to be a 4:3 ad, and then at the last minute stretched to a widescreen 16:9 ad.... but if that was the case, why weren't the images of Hillary, or the previous ad, or her campaign logo, or anything else stretched as well?  Usually, the simplest answer is the most plausible, and the simplest answer in this case was intent, not accident.  

(Incidentally, I'm about as anti-Hillary as they come on DailyKos, and even I don't believe that Hillary herself was in a control room saying "hey, could you make Obama look a little blacker and wider?"  That scenario is also very, very unlikely.  But hey, she's Hillary Clinton, and she approved this message, right?  So the responsibility ultimately has to fall on her.  And considering the fact that the Huckabee "subliminal cross" debate took up DAYS of network news discussion and debate, I don't see any harm at all in debating this issue on the networks as well.)