Investigating the Alleged Ghost Photo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photo
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a photo claimed to show a ghost, allegedly taken with a new cell phone. The individual who took the photo insists it is real and is willing to submit the phone for testing to verify the photo's authenticity. Participants analyze the image, suggesting it may be a reflection or a trick of light rather than a ghost. Some point out features like a rectangle in the background that could indicate a doorway or window, raising questions about the photo's legitimacy. There are concerns about potential manipulation, with discussions on how digital images can be altered and the importance of examining metadata for evidence of editing. The conversation also touches on the idea of factory-level hoaxes and the possibility of software glitches. Overall, skepticism prevails, with many participants leaning towards the conclusion that the image is likely a result of digital anomalies or tricks rather than an actual ghost sighting.
  • #51
Math Is Hard said:
To create the image convincingly would take a lot of blending, time, and skill.
Not really, no. It would take longer to take and email yourself the photos than it would to fake the overlay and for a Photoshop user, the required skill level is pretty low.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Hurkyl said:
Oooh and there's a line on the bottom too.

Oh my memory is fuzzy, but isn't there some possibility that JPEG compression could leave artifacts in that shape?
I couldn't find one on the bottom, but sure - Jpeg compression leaves blocks, as can easily be seen in the photo if you zoom in: in this case, they are pretty small (not too much compression). But I can think of no reason other than a Photoshop job to explain why there would be such large and clearly-defined lines (not blocks).

Also, that made me have another look at the PNG (what Ivan called a bmp) and jpeg - Ivan, where, exactly did you get the png? It is a higher quality than the jpg. And you said it was a 5.5MB bmp - is there a bmp?

Note: png is a lossless compression algorithm so it should be higher quality - no jpg blocks...though it looks to me like there are some jpg blocks in it. So it looks to have been copied from another version that was a jpg.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
russ_watters said:
If you look closely, there's actually a second ghost in the photo...standing behind her with a weapon of some sort...

This one I'm sure isn't faked, as it doesn't have either the horizontal or vertical lines framing it. :eek:

Haha, nice!
 
  • #54
russ_watters said:
Not really, no. It would take longer to take and email yourself the photos than it would to fake the overlay and for a Photoshop user, the required skill level is pretty low.

Note that I said "convincing". And by that I mean to a trained eye.
 
  • #55
Math Is Hard said:
Note that I said "convincing". And by that I mean to a trained eye.

You didn't find tiger the ghost convincing?
 
  • #56
cristo said:
You didn't find tiger the ghost convincing?

Sorry if I missed your post, but I don't know what you are talking about. My only comments were on the original photo, how I thought I could fake it, and how I might be quickly caught. (I have not closely examined the original image for problems.) I worked in digital imaging for a few years and simply offered my suggestions for how to create a down and dirty quick fake, and how to spot the flaws.

If you are concerned because you think I am suggesting this is an actual ghost photo, this is not the case. I was simply wondering if this could happen as the result of file corruption. That seems unlikely to me for reasons I mentioned in my earlier post.
 
  • #57
Math Is Hard said:
Sorry if I missed your post, but I don't know what you are talking about.

I was talking about Russ's image in post #50 (he made said quick and dirty fake).

[I guess I shouldn't make jokes this early in the morning!]
 
  • #58
Doing this with photoshop would take less than a minute. There is nothing even remotely elaborate about it.

You don't even need photoshop, most modern camera phones have apps that will do this on-the-fly.

There is no chance of this happening through file corruption. Digital images don't alpha blend by accident. Especially compressed images.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
DavidSnider said:
Doing this with photoshop would take less than a minute. There is nothing even remotely elaborate about it.

I'm not saying you couldn't do it in a minute. What I am saying is I really don't believe do it in a minute and do it well enough that it wouldn't be spotted as a fake.
 
  • #60
russ_watters said:
If you look closely, there's actually a second ghost in the photo...standing behind her with a weapon of some sort...

This one I'm sure isn't faked, as it doesn't have either the horizontal or vertical lines framing it. :eek:
I think I see a third ghost too. Looks almost familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on what it reminds me of.

16a6352.png


Sorry for pooping on your thread, Ivan! :biggrin:
 
  • #61
Gokul43201 said:
I think I see a third ghost too. Looks almost familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on what it reminds me of.

16a6352.png


Sorry for pooping on your thread, Ivan! :biggrin:
OMG, yes, yes, there is a third ghost! And this one is truly frightening.
 
  • #62
russ_watters said:
Also, that made me have another look at the PNG (what Ivan called a bmp) and jpeg - Ivan, where, exactly did you get the png? It is a higher quality than the jpg. And you said it was a 5.5MB bmp - is there a bmp?

Note: png is a lossless compression algorithm so it should be higher quality - no jpg blocks...though it looks to me like there are some jpg blocks in it. So it looks to have been copied from another version that was a jpg.

What I received was a bitmap. When I did the upload, it was converted to a png. I created the original jpg from the bmp. The second jpg linked was from him, as was the third.
 
  • #63
Gokul43201 said:
I think I see a third ghost too. Looks almost familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on what it reminds me of.

16a6352.png


Sorry for pooping on your thread, Ivan! :biggrin:

Haha, nope, that's what we want to see! The Ghostbusters were right!
 
  • #64
russ_watters said:
Ivan, you say you know the person it came from - how are you so sure they aren't playing a joke on you?

I don't really know him - he is a neighbor of a relative. And I never said I was sure about anything other than he is not a technical person. Even a photoshop trick was likely done by someone else. Note that he had to have his wife send me the email as he doesn't know how.

I know the joke wasn't on me, but it could have been intended for him or someone else. The relative called and asked me to debunk it.

Who pays for what? A quick look at the camera and/or chip to read the exif data would clear-up an awful lot!

Okay, I have no idea. I have never gotten into modern camera technology. What do I do?

Clearly it could have been faked. That's a done deal.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
Ivan Seeking said:
And I never said I was sure about anything other than he is not a technical person. Even a photoshop trick was likely done by someone else. Note that he had to have his wife send me the email as he doesn't know how.

Which increases probability that he was just a victim of some practical joke.
 
  • #66
I still want to know precisely how to determine if the photo is in its raw form, in camera memory.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Ivan Seeking said:
Okay, I have no idea. I have never gotten into modern camera technology. What do I do?
Get the phone, take a sample pic with it, then download (via a physical connection to the phone or by removing the memory card) both the sample pic and the pic in question to your computer and check the exif data.

Don't use email: when you email a pic from your phone it does not necessarily use the original file.
I still want to know precisely how to determine if the photo is in its raw form, in camera memory.
I don't understand the question...

...when you take a photo with a camera - any camera - the image gets saved in whatever format/quality/size the camera's settings tell it to save the photo in. If you choose raw format (I'd be surprised if that was even an option on a camera phone), the image is saved in one of several raw formats without any processing. If you have it save as a jpeg, you can't go back and get the raw data. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format
wiki said:
Nearly all digital cameras can process the image from the sensor into a JPEG file using settings for white balance, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture. Cameras that produce raw files save these settings in the file, but defer the processing. This results in an extra step for the photographer, so raw is normally only used when additional computer processing is intended. However, raw has numerous advantages over JPEG such as:

Higher image quality. Because all the calculations (such as applying gamma correction, demosaicing, white balance, brightness, contrast, etc...) used to generate pixel values (in RGB format for most images) are performed in one step on the base data, the resultant pixel values will be more accurate and exhibit less posterization.
Bypassing of undesired steps in the camera's processing, including sharpening and noise reduction
JPEG images are typically saved using a lossy compression format (though a lossless JPEG compression is now available). Raw formats are typically either uncompressed or use lossless compression, so the maximum amount of image detail is always kept within the raw file.
Finer control. Raw conversion software allows users to manipulate more parameters (such as lightness, white balance, hue, saturation, etc...) and do so with greater variability. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete preset values like "daylight" or "incandescent". As well, the user can typically see a preview while adjusting these parameters.
Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits stored in JPEG files (and typically stored in processed TIFF files); since the data is not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors.
The color space can be set to whatever is desired.
Different demosaicing algorithms can be used, not just the one coded into the camera.
The contents of raw files include more information, and potentially higher quality, than the converted results, in which the rendering parameters are fixed, the color gamut is clipped, and there may be quantization and compression artifacts.
Large transformations of the data, such as increasing the exposure of a dramatically under-exposed photo, result in less visible artifacts when done from raw data than when done from already rendered image files. Raw data leave more scope for both corrections and artistic manipulations, without resulting in images with visible flaws such as posterization.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
By the way, if anyone is curious, here's the process I used to make my fake, including mis-steps:
1. I browsed my photo library and found a good "ghost" candidate (attached). It is a crop of a scanned corporate golf outing photo.
2. I used the "desaturate" command to grayscale the image, because everyone knows that "ghosts" are gray (color ghosts in Betelgeuse and Ghostbusters, notwithstanding).
3. Used a basic rectangular selection tool to select, copy, and paste part of the photo and then moved it where I wanted it.
4. Used the "normal" blending mode and set the opacity to 10%. See attached result (2nd pic). The clear outline is a problem and the dark background only makes it worse
5. The "overlay" blending mode seems to provide better mixing, leaving the background color more intact - 3rd pic is in that mode, 20% opacity.
6. The borders are still very evident, especially in places where the overlay color is much darker than the original "ghost" photo background. I re-selected the area in my "ghost" photo, then applied the "feather" command, with a 50 pixel radius to create a gradient at the edges of the copied area to more smoothly blend them. See 4th pic.
7. #6 helps, but since the "feather" is created from a rectangular selection, it does not completely eliminate the outline. So next I used a freehand selection tool to grab an outline of myself a little better (and cut away the rest of the person next to me) that contains no straight lines. Then feathered that. The result is what I uploaded last night.

Note: I have Photoshop CS2, but all of that can be done with virtually any photo editing program worthy of the categorization.
 

Attachments

  • golf1.jpg
    golf1.jpg
    18.6 KB · Views: 519
  • ghostw1.jpg
    ghostw1.jpg
    30.2 KB · Views: 519
  • ghostw2.jpg
    ghostw2.jpg
    30.5 KB · Views: 516
  • #69
4th pic referenced above...

I also noticed that due to the feather area being too close to the border of the cropped pic, there is still a little bit of outline noticeable in what I posted last night. So I went back and copied from the original, uncropped pic for a new "final" version, attached. I see no evidence of an outline in it.
 

Attachments

  • ghostwfinal.jpg
    ghostwfinal.jpg
    49.1 KB · Views: 442
  • ghostw3.jpg
    ghostw3.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 478
Last edited:
  • #70
Math Is Hard said:
My only comments were on the original photo, how I thought I could fake it, and how I might be quickly caught. (I have not closely examined the original image for problems.) I worked in digital imaging for a few years and simply offered my suggestions for how to create a down and dirty quick fake, and how to spot the flaws.

[separate post]
I'm not saying you couldn't do it in a minute. What I am saying is I really don't believe do it in a minute and do it well enough that it wouldn't be spotted as a fake.
One of the real problems I see with the overall issue of using untraceable photos for evidence of anything is just how easy it is to fake them and just how hard it seems like it would be to spot the signs. Altogether, I spent about 5 minutes creating the sample images for my little tutorial above, so they still aren't very sophisticated. Could you go into some more detail about how one might spot such a fake? I'm not sure there is any way to naked-eye spot the evidence, but I can think of two possiblities with analysis software (speculation):
1. Mathematical analysis of the blending to identify the blending algorithm. Evo noted that dark-on-dark blending gives the appearance of more transparency with the overlay. Maybe ghosts work that way too, but there is probably a way to prove mathematically that it uses a Photoshop blending algorithm.
2. Finding the gradients in the edges, again, mathematically.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
russ_watters said:
Get the phone, take a sample pic with it, then download (via a physical connection to the phone or by removing the memory card) both the sample pic and the pic in question to your computer and check the exif data.

Okay...

Don't use email: when you email a pic from your phone it does not necessarily use the original file. I don't understand the question...

When I said "raw", I meant the original, unmodified form, wrt to tampering. Can it be determined conclusively that the photo was/was not uploaded from a pc or received by email?
 
  • #72
Evo said:
And why is part of the face blocking out the wheel, and part is not?

I don't think it's a ghost, but this complaint can be explained by shadow and color. A brighter color will show up superimposed on a darker color (i.e. both images will show up: the wheel and the face). When both colors get dark (near her neck) they are more indistinguishable because they are closer to resembling each other.
 
  • #73
Ivan Seeking said:
When I said "raw", I meant the original, unmodified form, wrt to tampering. Can it be determined conclusively that the photo was/was not uploaded from a pc or received by email?
If you can match the photo with a sample by reading the exif data and checking the modification dates, it would be fairly conclusive that it was not an edited photo. If they don't match, it would be certain that it was edited.
 
  • #74
By a sample, do you mean a photo that was taken at the same time as the photo in question? That makes it pretty tough to actually test a claim. The claimant could just lie and provide a sample that was taken later, right?
 
  • #75
You can visually determine fake photos with the naked eye, to some extent, unless the fake is very sophisticated. This one isn't. Can you see the difference in quality of the two images? The same is apparent in your example russ_watters. The image of the girl is of a different quality to the rest of the image. You can see the difference in the amount of aliasing in the image. Notice if you zoom in curved edges in the original are blocky and staggered. You also get bleeding on these edges, along with artifacts due to compression. The edges that describe the girls face are far smoother with no bleeding. I suspect the image of the girl was taken using a traditional camera (or possibly a high-res digital camera). The rest of the picture was taken on a low quality digital camera. When you put a nice, high quality, high-res picture over a low quality picture this is what happens. Dead give-away. If you wish I can post a picture illustrating what I mean?
 
  • #76
I took the liberty of making a quick illustration. Unfortunately I'm using a tired old CRT monitor that is very, very dark and so I have to turn the brightness up allot. In order for me to get a good view of the photo I had to readjust it and take the brightness way down. If this image is too dark to see on your screen adjust it so that it is clear. Alternatively I can undo the adjustments I made and re-upload so that you can see the picture in its original light.

Hopefully you can see the difference in quality of the two images. It is very apparent. The girls face is smooth, crisp and clear even when magnified (of-course it still has the aliasing and bleeding, just allot less). Comparatively the rest of the picture is jagged and broken. These are clearly two pictures from different sources. Also please note it is impotant to view that illustrtion at its full size (click on it again when in imageshack). If you view it smaller the effects will be dimnished (though still possable to see).

http://a.imageshack.us/img822/5969/noghost.th.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
A couple considerations that haven't been mentioned:

Consider the height of the bar stool, TV, coffee table, and baby, as well as the size of the stereo equipment - the ghost seems out of proportion...

And if that's really a ghost looking to be noticed, why is she looking off to the side? Why not look at the camera? (And why have such a plain and somber expression if you're dead and seeking attention?) (This is an easy thing to spot that is often overlooked by people who want others to believe that they have an image of a ghost.)
 
  • #78
Ivan Seeking said:
By a sample, do you mean a photo that was taken at the same time as the photo in question? That makes it pretty tough to actually test a claim. The claimant could just lie and provide a sample that was taken later, right?
No, I just meant a photo taken with the same camera so you could compare the exif data. It doesn't need to be at the same time. In fact, it would be better if you took the test picture yourself. Since a cell phone camera and/or internet hosting program will typically resize a picture and often strip the exif data, comparing originals would be a good way to know if a picture you are seeing is really an "original".
 
  • #79
i have a picture for you...and it's not fake...and i don't know how to interpret it...
first pic is not modified...was taken last year at the medieval camp in bistrita, romania, at the haggard concert...i just was with my camera on in my hand...i have to say that were some fire games, but you weren't in the middle of them when the picture was taken...i saw it for the first time after i was home...
this is the original one...the second i cannot uploaded because is to big, and i modified only lights and contrast, so it can be seen better...
you can see a 'couple' and some faces...'the couple' is not like any of my friends i was that day...enjoy!
 

Attachments

  • S4034951.jpg
    S4034951.jpg
    40 KB · Views: 529
  • #80
YinepuOfSand said:
i have a picture for you...and it's not fake...and i don't know how to interpret it...
first pic is not modified...was taken last year at the medieval camp in bistrita, romania, at the haggard concert...i just was with my camera on in my hand...i have to say that were some fire games, but you weren't in the middle of them when the picture was taken...i saw it for the first time after i was home...
this is the original one...the second i cannot uploaded because is to big, and i modified only lights and contrast, so it can be seen better...
you can see a 'couple' and some faces...'the couple' is not like any of my friends i was that day...enjoy!

It's nothing special. It is fake (but I'm not saying deliberately).

If digital, it's just a mashup of two photos.

However, I'd say it was taken with a "film" camera (you know, 35mm etc) and it's a double exposure. Simple as that.

This is further backed up by the fact you have a background behind the couple and not just their figures standing alone.

(And this is of course ignoring the question of why two ghosts would stand in the shown pose, at such an odd angle - you're aiming the camera at the floor but they're standing upright as if your legs are the ground they walk on.)
 
Last edited:
  • #81
first of all...it was a digital camera
second...none of my friends are looking like the couple
third...if can zoom in you going to see multiple faces, big and small, that are not human-like
last...i'm a boy
i've asked several photographers and they could not give me an explanation of that...
don't jump with conclusions!
 
  • #82
YinepuOfSand said:
first of all...it was a digital camera

Then it's fake in another way.
second...none of my friends are looking like the couple

So?
third...if can zoom in you going to see multiple faces, big and small, that are not human-like

The brain sees a lot of things that aren't really there. We try to deliberately find recogniseable patterns. Human condition.
last...i'm a boy

Again, so?
i've asked several photographers and they could not give me an explanation of that...
don't jump with conclusions!

They can't explain after proper computer analysis? Or they can't explain it by accepting you haven't tampered with it? There's a big difference.

I see potentially four faces, but the couple are in modern dress. Of course that doesn't really mean anything (why shouldn't we have modern ghosts?) but then they're posed perfectly as if standing for a camera shot. To add to that, as I said before, this would mean the ghosts where standing on your legs. Why would they do that? What would make them think "ah, a camera randomly aimed at the floor - let's get stuck in!"?

Also, why such a random shot?
 
  • #83
Well it looks like a perfect example of double exposure. But then we're told it's digital and so the only way this can occur is by being edited.

I'd love to examine the original, but I somehow doubt we'd get that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #84
YinepuOfSand said:
nismaratwork@ the photo is not fake you stupid if is on the camera!
We don't know it's on the camera. We don't know anything other than the picture you posted which may or may not be the original.

Cut the attitude. It looks about as fake as possible and there's nothing about it that suggests otherwise.
jarednjames@ i don't know why this random shot...the things there do not look like someone from my group...

So what if they don't look like someone from your group. I never said, nor implied they did.

It's random because of where you're aiming the camera - or did you mean to take a pic of someones crotch?

EDIT: In fact, it would be silly to use people you know to fake it. People would spot that far too easily.
 
  • #85
is not edited...why do you people think that everything is fake?...how the **** can i do double exposure with so many figures with different sizes?...
 
  • #86
YinepuOfSand said:
is not edited...why do you people think that everything is fake?...

Because there is no evidence it is real.

There are ways of producing these effects quite easily.
how the **** can i do double exposure with so many figures with different sizes?...

The figures all look to be of the same scale to me.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/double_exposure/discuss/72157604059046716/
 
  • #87
i don't want to cut my attitude...my camera was on and aiming down...i didn't move beside my hand (appears in photo) and accidentally i pushed the shutter...this is the result...
 
  • #88
Calm down please, all of you.
 
  • #89
Our goal here is to offer any reasonable explanations. The person making the claim is not on trial.

Sorry, we can offer no explanations.
 
  • #90
I have analyzed the photo and have found what I feel is essentially conclusive evidence that the ghost part of the image is a digital artifact, not something within the body of the picture. I think most of you who are used to examining photos will be forced to agree.

Several of you have alluded to it, the first I noticed being Evo. But I feel it can be taken much further.

Note: it does not conclude the image is hoaxed - it could be an innocent superposition. But it does conclude that it is a digital (in-camera) artifact.

1] There is - not one but two edges - to the left and top of the ghost image - that are, not merely straight vertical and straight horizontal, but precisely (digitally) vertical and horizontal. Zero pixel aliasing along their lengths.

Not just almost precisely - consider: if a genuine object's edge were as little as 0.25 degrees from true, it would show up as some anti-aliasing across several of antialiasing in it. (see attached image for a sample of an object rotated a fraction of a degree).

2] The two edges are precisely 90 degrees to each other. This means, if within the image, the object is perfectly normal
to the line of sight of the camera (zero obliquity) AND that there is zero barrel distortion from the zoom factor. This simply cannot happen with a physical camera setup.

See attached graphic (here it is full size: https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=33492&d=1301014537) but please examine the original 1600x1200 image.
 

Attachments

  • ghostphoto.jpg
    ghostphoto.jpg
    29.1 KB · Views: 780
Last edited:
  • #91
YinepuOfSand said:
is not edited...
The photo has no exif data. At the very least, it was edited to remove that data.

What can you tell us about the camera?
 
  • #92
DaveC426913 said:
I have analyzed the photo and have found what I feel is essentially conclusive evidence that the ghost part of the image is a digital artifact, not something within the body of the picture...
You're a little late for that train, Dave - the last few posts are examining a new photo posted today and that conclusion about that photo was reached pages ago...
 
  • #93
russ_watters said:
You're a little late for that train, Dave - the last few posts are examining a new photo posted today and that conclusion about that photo was reached pages ago...

I know. I think my evidence is more compelling - virtually conclusive. I think it overtrumps 'plausibility'-like arguments and closes the book on doubt.
 
  • #94
Ok...it's just...while you presented it nicer by highlighting them, we discussed those lines already.
 
  • #95
jarednjames said:
Well it looks like a perfect example of double exposure. But then we're told it's digital and so the only way this can occur is by being edited.
Incorrect. Most digital cameras today have a "night portrait" mode specifically designed to take a double-exposure to highlight a foreground and a background in a night-time photo.

In addition, if you hold still while your digital camera is taking a surprisingly long exposure with no flash, you can get a relatively clear double exposure type look with some additional streaking in it. I have a number of "ghost photos" of myself and my friends due to this effect.
 
  • #96
russ_watters said:
Incorrect. Most digital cameras today have a "night portrait" mode specifically designed to take a double-exposure to highlight a foreground and a background in a night-time photo.

In addition, if you hold still while your digital camera is taking a surprisingly long exposure with no flash, you can get a relatively clear double exposure type look with some additional streaking in it. I have a number of "ghost photos" of myself and my friends due to this effect.

Bugger, I did realize this and posted a link to the double exposure with digital above but forgot to label what it is.
 
  • #97
russ_watters said:
Ok...it's just...while you presented it nicer by highlighting them, we discussed those lines already.

I know. I mentioned that.

But unless I missed some posts, no one took it as far as I did and quantified it. It's the difference between plausibility (which gives ghost-proponents some wiggle room) and virtually iron-clad (which reverses the onus of proof, putting ghost-proponents in the position of having to refute the analysis).
 
  • #98
DaveC426913 said:
I know. I mentioned that.

But unless I missed some posts, no one took it as far as I did and quantified it. It's the difference between plausibility (which gives ghost-proponents some wiggle room) and virtually iron-clad (which reverses the onus of proof, putting ghost-proponents in the position of having to refute the analysis).

I agree... this leaves very little room for any explanation except some kind of fraud, intentional... or incidental.
 
  • #99
ive read something on this before. an image can be ghosted onto any internal digital camera lense if their is a flaw in the assembly. the first time the camera is used it erases the ghosted image. if you don't know what ghosting is its used to refer to the image left on an CRT monitor after when you turn it off after it has been sitting a while with the same image on the screen. excally how an image of that creepy looking girl got on there i don't know.
 
  • #100
Gabe21 said:
ive read something on this before. an image can be ghosted onto any internal digital camera lense if their is a flaw in the assembly. the first time the camera is used it erases the ghosted image. if you don't know what ghosting is its used to refer to the image left on an CRT monitor after when you turn it off after it has been sitting a while with the same image on the screen. excally how an image of that creepy looking girl got on there i don't know.

Well, that doesn't really explain the cropped edges of the ghost image. If it were a residual image, it should fill the screen from edge to edge, like any other picture. Instead, the ghost image is most definitely a small rectangle.
 
Back
Top