Can I check something with you guys

Glenn

I cannot differentiate between the two.
Using an nvidia 8600GT card and a Proview 19" wide screen monitor.

Regards

Rex
"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" 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)

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.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:18:28 -0700, Norm DePlume wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:22:59 -0500, Andrew Kalten
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.

I had no time to do a statistical analysis of the difference file,
but a quick glance using a histogram tool showed that the average
difference in luminosity was about 3-4 (out of a maximum of 255).
Since the threshold for the detection of luminosity differences
by the human eye is about one percent, this difference will just
barely exceed that level. Looking at the difference image, a vague
area of greyness is just barely discernible.

But this difference is at the lower end of the luminosity scale.
In the actual image, the differences occur in much brighter areas
where the eye is less sensitive to change and such differences are
very apt to go completely unnoticed.

So unless you are very deliberately and very intently looking for
some small difference, the images will be identical.

AK

Hello,
I agree with you that such differences are, as you said, "very apt" to
go unnoticed, although I suspect there are some who would notice. I am
reluctant to use absolutes in cyber conversations, as they are
frequently considered provocative.