Sri Lanka can take Channel 4 to court -International IPTV expert

Ample evidence of image manipulation:

By Shanika SRIYANANDA

The UK based Channel 4 has once again brought Sri Lanka to world attention through its latest video on alleged atrocities during the final battle against the LTTE in May, 2009, which the government claims is aimed at degrading Sri Lanka’s humanitarian operation to save nearly 300,000 Tamils and also post war reconciliation efforts.

Aired on June 14, the video - ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields - screened on the side of the UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva by Amnesty International, has been once again disputed by Siri Hewavitharana, an internationally renowned expert in broadcast, satellite, cable and IPTV, design and operations, content platforms DRM and STB’s, video broadcasting and IPTV.

The video was presented by the UN Rapporteur, Prof. Christof Heyns at the UNHRC sessions and claimed as being authentic, and was tested by three US forensic experts.

Vehemently denying the accusations thrown at Sri Lanka’s military, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa accused Channel 4 of taking ‘bribes’ from pro-LTTE elements to produce the video to tarnish the image of the country as well as the Army.

In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Observer Hewavitharana, who is the Executive Director of IPTV Systems in Sydney, Australia at present said “the video was totally fake, misleading and was an attempt of bankrupt Channel 4 to make a fresh breath for survival, the government should not waste time with these forgeries.

“ They have decided to use a controversial topic to get more advertising. Therefore, the bottom line is that Channel 4 is ‘open to hire’ even from terrorists. Knowing UK’s past history, this is not a surprise. It is ironic that terrorists use Channel 4 to blow things out of proportion. In the UK, Channel 4 is called as ‘King of Trash’”, he said.

The former Head of Cisco’s global broadcast and digital video practice and also the former Head of systems engineering for Star TV Hong Kong denied that the video was recorded on a mobile phone. “I found it strange as this video, lacks cascading effects and motion blur that are associated with mobile video coding.

I got hold of the original video that was in QuickTime format as well as the other that was in AVI format and decided to put it through various analysers to see origin of the video from the mobile source.

Looking at the results, I can say this video never came from a mobile phone, since the original video is of a quite high standard and motion vectors were of high quality (that never come from a mobile phone) and I also found that Tamilnet tried to put this video in 3GPP format which is associated with mobile phones”, he said.

Hewavitharana said Channel 4 was being used by interested parties with an ugly agenda against the Sri Lankan government to create friction between communities and to use their hidden agenda to achieve their own gains.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: The first Ch4 video was disputed by you claiming that it was doctored and done by an amateur. Do you say that the second video too was doctored by an amateur?

A: There is no second video as such. What they have done is, they have created a new video clip with the insertion of the previous video to give the impression that the latest video clip is the second part of the first video clip.

While trying to create this diabolical forgery they got caught - some high quality video and audio frames sequences are out of order. Even a person with a basic knowledge of video functioning can see a mis-match in the scenes and luminance in the previous video footage and the new video footage. They do not match each other.

Q: How do you dispute it this time as it was tested by three US forensic experts, who endorsed it was authentic?

A: Let’s take this part carefully. No expert can say it is authentic since initial analysis by US personnel said there is a 17 frame anomaly ( which comes from editing and trying to create a new wrapper from high quality video to mobile video transfer).

They also said the date does not match, indicating that the video was done after the war.

Therefore, anyone who says it is authentic, is either a liar or an incompetent person.

We also got a new specialist called Grant and he says the video is edited and time does not match and that the video uses Optical Zoom.

Therefore, why do we say this is authentic? Grant’s conclusions match with original conclusion and present analysis that says the same. i.e. the video is edited, came from a video camera and dates do not match.

Q: It was alleged that the uniformed men shown in the video belong to the Sri Lankan military and they are accused of extra-judicial killings. Do you have proof to say that these scenes were fake?

A: So far no one said that conclusively and faces cannot be seen in the video. It is also quite possible that this is the LTTE executing Sri Lankan soldiers and this is a known fact.

It is also known that the LTTE used Army uniforms. The only way to prove that the video is accurate is using faces and places, so that we can authenticate.

Channel 4 highlighted the need for an investigation for war crimes on the following grounds: the executioners were in Sri Lankan army uniform; and they spoke Sinhala.

It forgot the fact that this was the most ruthless terrorist organization in the world - banned in its own country and the whole civilised world - which was prepared to send pregnant women and teenagers on suicide missions without any hesitation.

So, the attempted portrayal of the tendency of such an outfit to respect conventions - violating the dress code of a conventional army - is something for a good laugh, not to for serious debate.

Q: Was the video recorded on a mobile phone and later edited with technological adjustments?

A: Yes, it is blatantly obvious. This video is also using different video footage as seen in the video but they are trying to show it came from one video which is not the case.

The worst fact is that the optical zoom can be clearly seen indicating that this came from a video camera with Optical zoom capability and not from a mobile camera, since Nokia or similar mobile cameras do not have optical zoom capability but only digital zoom capability.

The other fact is that we cannot see any digital zoom artefacts on this video. Mobile phones only have digital zoom capability and not the optical facility.

This also give some clues since mobile phones have 3GPP format; I was involved with global Broadcast R&G for almost 25 years and Channel 4 used to have good people; it has gone in for gutter journalism in recent years.

Any sensible broadcast engineer should have picked up the lack of cascading errors on the video, since Channel 4 has used Flash format on their web site.

Q: Grant Fredericks, the US based video expert appointed by the UN’s Rapporteur Christof Heyns, says the video was edited using Philips editing software. Your comments?

A: I suspect he used an AVID broadcast editor to analyse the video which is the proper thing to do.

Channel 4 got AVID editors but they never use it knowing that if they do they will be legally answerable. This shows the entire agenda of Channel 4. Grant Fredericks is the only person who is honest in saying the true facts as he has seen.

Previous experts are either incompetent or dishonest and one of them now is backtracking after Grant’s summary.

I also think initially the US video expert is not an expert, as he has no basic qualifications on video design and he comes from a CCTV background with experience in subjective video process.

This explains his lack of technical know-how. I am surprised that the UN hired such a low level operator who we call “cowboys” in the industry. Knowing the former Rapporteur’s lack of respect for due process, it is not a surprise at all.

Q: How do you describe the difference between the two videos, which you claim are fake?

A: We can see it on ‘the editor’. We can check the video sequence, audio sync, luminance levels. This is what high quality broadcast editors do. We also make movies using the same editor.

Q: Do you think the second video film, which lasts for more than one hour shown at the UNHRC sessions recently, has more horrific footage than the previous?

A: It is a show piece from interested parties. Channel 4 is bankrupt and asking for funding from ITN. They have decided to use a controversial topic to get more advertising.

So the bottom line is that Channel 4 is ‘open to hire’ even by terrorists. Knowing the UK’s past history this is not a surprise.

It is ironic that terrorists use Channel 4 to blow things out of proportion. In the UK, Channel 4 is called as ‘King of Trash’.

Q: However international experts say that the video has no signs of manipulation. What is your comment?

A: You are not an expert if you lie for monetary gains and hide obvious technical facts. Look what happened with Iraq and WDM.

The UN’s own specialist (Grant) says it is manipulated, so what else do you need? Also remember that a court of law only accepts technical integrity as evidence and cannot use subjective analysis without verifying the technical part.

Q: For the second time, as you claim, Channel 4 has aired a fake video, which is misleading the international community and also tarnishing Sri Lanka’s image. Is there a facility under international law to take action against forgery?

A: There are two forms of action that we can take against them.

One is to approach Ofcom in the UK to make a complaint through the Sri Lankan government or take Channel 4 to court. Channel 4 says the video cannot be verified and this is how they get away with it legally.

Q: The last time you mentioned about using advanced technology like Motion Vector (VMC) verification and cascading effect verification to use against forgery. Did you use that system this time around to prove the video is a fake?

A: Yes. The second video is of high quality and did not come from a mobile phone source.

Q: If you sum up the entire issue in two episodes, what is your conclusion on this video?

A: Channel 4 is being used by interested parties with an ugly agenda against the Sri Lankan government.

Interested parties want friction between communities so that they can use the conflict for their own agenda. Q: Do you recommend the government to initiate a probe into the video?

A: The government should not waste time with forgeries.

If anyone has serious complaints against Sri Lanka, then they should volunteer the evidence either direct or via a third party to the government.

This is the proper process. Why should a sovereign government that battled 30 years with a ruthless terrorist outfit apologise? The Tamil and Sinhalese people need space and time to heal.

The government should actively encourage industries and developments in the North and the East and look after all the people as Sri Lankans.