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)

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)

I see a beautiful L1049 over a beautiful city. Thanks Glenn.

Avsec

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...)

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
;-)

"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)

"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

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

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

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.