Size does matter

On Wed, 12 May 2004 01:00:43 +0000, Casey Wilson wrote:


"Al" wrote in message
news:f_doc.75065$kh4.4252186@attbi_s52...
It's a fake!

Hey Al, wake up....
You deduce the photo as a fake from what?
The pixelation adjacent to the upper surface of the fuselage and
vertical stabilizer? Better take a good look at the area above the tree
lines -- with your grand analysis, the lower part of the picture has been
'photoshopped' as well -- and the cars on the highway, and the signs.
What sort of photometric instruments did you use to determine the
shadow angles are wrong? What is the geometry of the scene? What is the
slant range to the aircraft and the shadows? What is the ephemeric time of
day? What is the precise heading angle of the aircraft? The precise
pointing angle of the camera? What is the focal length of the lens used?
What is the original image size?
Those are most of the questions I need answered before I could do any
analysis.
Back to the artifacts that you so uneducatedly rely on. Did you notice
the resolution of the image on the website? Did you see 79Kb? I have no
doubt you did your research using one of the many fine photo manipulator
that can be purchased of under $39. Then magnified the already poor
resolution until it looked like crap.
Use one of the super photos you have in your stock, of any subject.
Then change the pixel image size to 640 horizontal pixels at 79KB
resolution.ow do the same thing you did to the photo from the website. Then
go kick you dog for 'photoshopping' your picture.

Warmest regards,

Casey Wilson
Professional Photographer
[former image analyst for DoD]

BTW, there is a 250k version freely available, which is what I was looking
at. If you're a member, it seems an even larger version is available.