If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Can I check something with you guys
"Glenn" wrote in message ... http://www.warbirdz.net/largepic.php?ID=12327 The above link, when you view it, does it look identical to the image below. reason why I ask is on my monitor, the link above is obviously compressed but the image below is the same image, just not uploaded onto my website. The image i post below, looks good and the compression is nowhere near as evident. Yet it is the same image. Is this glaringly obvious to you guys as well. And you are griping and you were up in a Super Connie. ****, I would have white jeans on instead of blue.. Jim Morris (jealous of your photography and the aircraft you get to fly in) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Can I check something with you guys
Well, I'm not quite 60, and I watched a lot of t when I was a kid. With lots
of cigarette commercials. Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco. Ron "Jon Woellhaf" wrote in message . .. "CWO4 Dave Mann" wrote ... HTH, YMMV, LSMFT How many people under 60 know what LSMFT means? (Without cheating) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Can I check something with you guys
I see a beautiful L1049 over a beautiful city. Thanks Glenn.
Avsec |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Can I check something with you guys
Bill Wolcott wrote: "Jon Woellhaf" wrote in message . .. "CWO4 Dave Mann" wrote ... HTH, YMMV, LSMFT How many people under 60 know what LSMFT means? (Without cheating) My late Uncle Bill Amos, 6' 5" tall and a U.S. Navy veteran of the 2nd World War, spent a lot of time in crow's nests looking out over the Pacific Ocean. He said LSMFT stood for "Long Signalmen Make Fine Targets". Bill W Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco... JT (Raymond Loewy designed the brand logo among many other things...) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Can I check something with you guys
Glenn,
There is an evident difference of compression between these two pictures. The one at your website wears a lot of jpeg artefacts but the one at this newsgroup is cleaner. So or : 1/ these two pictures have not been threated in the same way 2/ the servers hosting these pictures do not deliver them in the same way and there is an algorithm to compress your jpeg files at your website... Hope this helps. Cheers, RVB -- --------------------- RVB - http://www.cocardes.com .....aviation http://www.hervebrun.com .....photo ;-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Can I check something with you guys
"Glenn" wrote in
The above link, when you view it, does it look identical to the image below. reason why I ask is on my monitor, the link above is obviously compressed but the image below is the same image, just not uploaded onto my website. The image i post below, looks good and the compression is nowhere near as evident. Is this glaringly obvious to you guys as well. Yes indeedy Glenn. Definately some compression artifacts showing in the Warbirdz version. RobG (The Aussie one) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Can I check something with you guys
"Glenn" wrote in message
... http://www.warbirdz.net/largepic.php?ID=12327 The above link, when you view it, does it look identical to the image below. reason why I ask is on my monitor, the link above is obviously compressed but the image below is the same image, just not uploaded onto my website. The image i post below, looks good and the compression is nowhere near as evident. Yet it is the same image. Is this glaringly obvious to you guys as well. Glenn, it's not glaringly different and unless pointed out may not be noticed by a viewer. However, comparing the images I can see the one on the website does have some compression. The Opera House, definitely appears to have a muddier white than the one you posted here. Now did everyone spot the Connie in the upper left corner? -- The Raven http://www.80snostalgia.com/download...unds/wings.mp3 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Can I check something with you guys
The Raven wrote: "Glenn" wrote in message ... http://www.warbirdz.net/largepic.php?ID=12327 The above link, when you view it, does it look identical to the image below. reason why I ask is on my monitor, the link above is obviously compressed but the image below is the same image, just not uploaded onto my website. The image i post below, looks good and the compression is nowhere near as evident. Yet it is the same image. Is this glaringly obvious to you guys as well. Glenn, it's not glaringly different and unless pointed out may not be noticed by a viewer. However, comparing the images I can see the one on the website does have some compression. The Opera House, definitely appears to have a muddier white than the one you posted here. Now did everyone spot the Connie in the upper left corner? That's the first thing I checked even before the text... JT |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Can I check something with you guys [Solved]
Glenn wrote:
Is this glaringly obvious to you guys as well. The only way to answer this question objectively is to subtract one image from the other. Using Linux/GNU software (it would be very hard to accomplish on a stock MS Windows system) I converted both JPEG images to an uncompressed format, subtracted the image data byte by byte, and then recompressed back to JPEG (to get a smaller file size for posting). The subtraction will reveal any discrepancy. If the images are identical, the values will subtract to zero and the appearance will be black. The result is attached. As can be seen, the difference image is virtually all black, except for a slightly visible band of lightness corresponding to the water areas. This slight difference, only barely perceptible, is likely the result of different compression qualities between the two images. Conclusion: The images are virtually identical. Any difference will be beyond perception. AK |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Can I check something with you guys [Solved]
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:22:59 -0500, Andrew Kalten
wrote: Glenn wrote: Is this glaringly obvious to you guys as well. The only way to answer this question objectively is to subtract one image from the other. Using Linux/GNU software (it would be very hard to accomplish on a stock MS Windows system) I converted both JPEG images to an uncompressed format, subtracted the image data byte by byte, and then recompressed back to JPEG (to get a smaller file size for posting). The subtraction will reveal any discrepancy. If the images are identical, the values will subtract to zero and the appearance will be black. The result is attached. As can be seen, the difference image is virtually all black, except for a slightly visible band of lightness corresponding to the water areas. This slight difference, only barely perceptible, is likely the result of different compression qualities between the two images. Conclusion: The images are virtually identical. Any difference will be beyond perception. AK Hello, In addition, IMG_6297 copy.jpg contained 30,172 bytes of extraneous data, compared with warbirdz_12327.jpg, which contained only 79 such bytes, as determined by comparing file sizes before and after processing with jStrip v3.3. And, actually, there are any number of Windows compatible graphics programs that can accomplish this task easily, but no, they do not ship with Windows. As to whether the difference is beyond perception, I am not prepared to state such a conclusion so definitively. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SSA: Good Guys & Bad Guys | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | October 5th 06 04:11 AM |
Guys, guys, guys -- the party is TOMORROW night! | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 3 | July 24th 05 05:26 AM |
Guys | Dummy | Owning | 2 | August 26th 04 01:01 AM |
Guys | Dummy | General Aviation | 1 | August 23rd 04 11:42 PM |
You guys were right -- thanks! | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 27 | July 28th 03 10:50 PM |