Can I check something with you guys

[Glenn[_2_]]

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.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"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.
>


They look the same to me.

--
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Richard Connell]

The attachment size is 116k, but the size of the image on the website is
76k. I can't distinguish the difference visually.

Richard

"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.
>
>

[Tom Callahan]

I don't know the technical terms but this is what it looks like to me: when
I see the image in Outlook Express it's smaller (27x15 cm or so) because I
have the folders column on the left hand side of the screen. If I open it
then I get a full screen image of about 33x22 cms). Going to the Warbirdz
site it opens as a 32 x 20 cm image. The Warbirdz image is the better of
the three from a viewer's perspective. Does the dpi change? I dunno. I
just know what looks good. Maybe the key is that on thw Warbirdz site it's
a largepic and for the newsgroup it's downsized to save bandwidth.
That's why we visit both locations. Show us a good photo in the newsgroup
and we know it's better on Warbirdz.
It's not something that jumps out to people. You are trying to make us
think.......
Regards from Pensacola, Tom

"Richard Connell" > wrote in message
...
> The attachment size is 116k, but the size of the image on the website is
> 76k. I can't distinguish the difference visually.
>
> Richard
>
> "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.
>>
>>
>
>

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
"Glenn" > wrote:

They look the same to me. Viewed using MT-Newswatcher and Safari on an
Intel Mac/OS10.4.10

[Robert Sveinson]

"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.

It looks to me that the one that you posted with
your question is not as fuzzy as the one posted to the url.
IMHO anyway.

Robert
>
>

[Luke]

"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.


The monitor will have more impact on how you see the pictures. on my
viewsonic hi-res flat panel, I can tell th edifference between these two
copies, but only barely. The one on the webpage shows some evidence of
compression, but you have to look real hard to see it. I had to move both
images directly over each other and toggle the windows to see the changes.


Luke

[Grumpy AuContraire[_2_]]

Glenn wrote:
> 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.
>


The photo at the website appears to be a mite bit sharper to me...

JT

[Ron Monroe]

I am doing the same thing that Tom Callahan did, except, my computer is
connected to my Sony 1080 HD TV. I even blew them bot up to 200 %, where
they start to fall apart, and they still look the same to me.
Ron

"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.
>
>

[MomDude]

"Glenn" > wrote:

>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.

I'm viewing your "direct" image in IrfanView and the Warbirdz.net
image in IE7, using a Dell hi-rez flatscreen. I've overlapped them to
compare various parts of the pictures, such as the Opera House in the
lower left, and I'm unable to see any difference between them. Hope
that helps...

MomDude

[rustyknuckle]

Glenn; I downloaded the pic from the newsgroup then the website.
The website pic was 96 dpi and the newsgroup came in at 72 dpi.
Viewing @ 300%, strangely enough the 72 dpi was a mite sharper.
I couldn't see any difference at the normal 100% view.

For what that may be worth.......

RK

[Glenn[_2_]]

"Tom Callahan" > wrote in message
...
>I don't know the technical terms but this is what it looks like to me:
>when I see the image in Outlook Express it's smaller (27x15 cm or so)
>because I have the folders column on the left hand side of the screen. If
>I open it then I get a full screen image of about 33x22 cms). Going to the
>Warbirdz site it opens as a 32 x 20 cm image. The Warbirdz image is the
>better of the three from a viewer's perspective. Does the dpi change? I
>dunno. I just know what looks good. Maybe the key is that on thw Warbirdz
>site it's a largepic and for the newsgroup it's downsized to save
>bandwidth.
> That's why we visit both locations. Show us a good photo in the newsgroup
> and we know it's better on Warbirdz.
> It's not something that jumps out to people. You are trying to make us
> think.......

Not at all. On my monitor it is so different it's not funny. The sky is just
a series of pastel lines basically.
I've noticed that compression is more visible since I got this monitor but
this image is by far the worst.

[Glenn[_2_]]

"rustyknuckle" > wrote in message
. net...
> Glenn; I downloaded the pic from the newsgroup then the website.
> The website pic was 96 dpi and the newsgroup came in at 72 dpi.
> Viewing @ 300%, strangely enough the 72 dpi was a mite sharper.
> I couldn't see any difference at the normal 100% view.
>
> For what that may be worth.......
>
> RK
>
OK thanks guys.
I'm going to show all these replies to the webmaster now and ask her to
explain why my images
look different. If you could just see the difference I am seeing it would
amaze you. I don't understand why it looks
that way. All the work was done on this computer. Both images are the same,
as most of you agree (although some see some
minor differences)

Oh that's weird. I just went back to the image on the website and it's
normal again ????????????????????????? WTF

God I hate computers.

[Jon Woellhaf]

Glenn,

If this happens again, consider taking a photo of the poorer quality image
on your monitor. From your description, it sounded like it was obviously
different. They looked virtually the same to me.

Jon

"Glenn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rustyknuckle" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Glenn; I downloaded the pic from the newsgroup then the website.
>> The website pic was 96 dpi and the newsgroup came in at 72 dpi.
>> Viewing @ 300%, strangely enough the 72 dpi was a mite sharper.
>> I couldn't see any difference at the normal 100% view.
>>
>> For what that may be worth.......
>>
>> RK
>>
> OK thanks guys.
> I'm going to show all these replies to the webmaster now and ask her to
> explain why my images
> look different. If you could just see the difference I am seeing it would
> amaze you. I don't understand why it looks
> that way. All the work was done on this computer. Both images are the
> same, as most of you agree (although some see some
> minor differences)
>
> Oh that's weird. I just went back to the image on the website and it's
> normal again ????????????????????????? WTF
>
> God I hate computers.
>

[John Meyer]

In article >,
"Glenn" > wrote:

> "Tom Callahan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I don't know the technical terms but this is what it looks like to me:
> >when I see the image in Outlook Express it's smaller (27x15 cm or so)
> >because I have the folders column on the left hand side of the screen. If
> >I open it then I get a full screen image of about 33x22 cms). Going to the
> >Warbirdz site it opens as a 32 x 20 cm image. The Warbirdz image is the
> >better of the three from a viewer's perspective. Does the dpi change? I
> >dunno. I just know what looks good. Maybe the key is that on thw Warbirdz
> >site it's a largepic and for the newsgroup it's downsized to save
> >bandwidth.
> > That's why we visit both locations. Show us a good photo in the newsgroup
> > and we know it's better on Warbirdz.
> > It's not something that jumps out to people. You are trying to make us
> > think.......
>
> Not at all. On my monitor it is so different it's not funny. The sky is just
> a series of pastel lines basically.
> I've noticed that compression is more visible since I got this monitor but
> this image is by far the worst.

That sounds like your monitor is set to display thousands of colors
rather than millions.

--
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus (341- 270 BC)

[Glenn[_2_]]

"John Meyer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Glenn" > wrote:
>
>> "Tom Callahan" > wrote in
>> message
>> ...
>> >I don't know the technical terms but this is what it looks like to me:
>> >when I see the image in Outlook Express it's smaller (27x15 cm or so)
>> >because I have the folders column on the left hand side of the screen.
>> >If
>> >I open it then I get a full screen image of about 33x22 cms). Going to
>> >the
>> >Warbirdz site it opens as a 32 x 20 cm image. The Warbirdz image is the
>> >better of the three from a viewer's perspective. Does the dpi change?
>> >I
>> >dunno. I just know what looks good. Maybe the key is that on thw
>> >Warbirdz
>> >site it's a largepic and for the newsgroup it's downsized to save
>> >bandwidth.
>> > That's why we visit both locations. Show us a good photo in the
>> > newsgroup
>> > and we know it's better on Warbirdz.
>> > It's not something that jumps out to people. You are trying to make us
>> > think.......
>>
>> Not at all. On my monitor it is so different it's not funny. The sky is
>> just
>> a series of pastel lines basically.
>> I've noticed that compression is more visible since I got this monitor
>> but
>> this image is by far the worst.
>
> That sounds like your monitor is set to display thousands of colors
> rather than millions.


It does, or did. It resolved itself. But picture me looking at the same
image. one in my saved folder on my D Drive and the one on my webpage.
Both are identical files but one displays differently.

[CWO4 Dave Mann]

Glenn wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


In the upper left corner --- that's a Connie, right?

I looked at both images using my 21" Dell flat LCD with an NVidia
GEFORCE 6800 video card, running at maximum speed and resolution and
size on a Linux AMD64 CPU with 4GB of RAM, and using The GIMP graphics
application.

One image looked a slight bit less "full" than the other, but I think my
results are probably subjective .. No preference over either image.

HTH, YMMV, LSMFT

Dave

[Martin Helms]

"Glenn" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> 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.
>
Having downloaded both pics, I ran a quick and dirty per-pixel comparison of
both using Adobe Photoshop.
The result can be seen in the attached file.
Dark areas (preferably true black) mark pixels that are absolutely
identical, bright (preferably true white) areas mark pixels that are 100%
different (directly contrary, eg black and white).
Shades of grey thereby indicate how much similar or different each pixel of
both images is.

As you can see, the image is mostly black, hence indicating little
difference in both versions.
There is, however, a slight one and it is indeed visible, though it requires
both a good monitor as well as good eyes and expertise to spot it (I'll
therefore claim I posses all of them ;)).

Anyway, since both images already have a difference in size (byte-wise), and
are also using a lossy compression (JPEG), one can definately conclude they
WILL be different, no matter what.
The true question is rather how much and does it matter :)

The comparison image is hence saved in the lossless, albeit big, PNG format
to not falsify any of the differences.
I hereby also want to apologize for the somewhat big size.

If you brighten up the image (or better yet, enhance contrast and/or gamma),
you will see the difference even better.
I just didn't do that because it could qualify as cheating (making it stick
out more than it actually does).

As a sidenote:
As you can see, the white spots are arranged in a quadratic shape, so-called
macro blocks, each 8x8 pixels in dimension.
That is because of the JPEG compression that will subdivide each image to
such 8x8 pxs blocks and compress each independantly.
This is also the cause for bad image quality on higher compression rating on
high-contrast areas in the picture.
A wavelet compression, such as featured by JPEG2000 will harvest much better
results with such complicated image material.
This is also the reason why JPEG isn't very well-suited for screenshots or
text images, btw.


PS: Since some of you wrote about the DPI differencies:
That does not matter at all when viewing the image on your computer screen.
DPI are only involved in analogue-digital or digital-analogue conversion
(i.e. scanning the picture or printing it).
If you are using IrfanView (a free and great image viewer for Windows,
http://www.irfanview.net ), you can freely adjust the DPI of an image, with
no results at all to the display on your screen.
Size (as on the screen) is only determined by the pixel dimensions.
Of course, it depends on the size and resolution of your minotr, too, which
is why you cannot ultimately say "This image is 15*10cm large!" - it may be,
but only for you on your current screen.
Once again me meet the DPI, this time, of the monitor.
The smaller the actual dimensions of it are and the more pixels it can
display (= higer resoltuion), the higher its DPI will be, and the smaller
(if meausered by a ruler put on the screen) the image will appear.
Also, when scanning and printing, using the same DPI setting for both (e.g.
300 DPI, which should be good enough for ordinary prints on normal paper),
the copy image will appear just as large as it was in reality.
Print with twice the DPI of the scan and it will be half as large (per
dimension, hence 1/4th in area) or half the amount for the vice versa.



Sincerely hoping to have cleared up more confusion than caused, ;)

Martin

[Rex[_2_]]

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.
>
>

[Jon Woellhaf]

"CWO4 Dave Mann" wrote
> ... HTH, YMMV, LSMFT

How many people under 60 know what LSMFT means? (Without cheating)

[Jim Morris[_3_]]

"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)

[Ron Monroe]

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)
>

[Avsec]

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

Avsec

[Grumpy AuContraire[_2_]]

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...)

[RVB[_2_]]

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
;-)

[RobG]

"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)

[The Raven]

"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/downloads/batfink/sounds/wings.mp3

[Grumpy AuContraire[_2_]]

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

[Andrew Kalten]

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

[Norm DePlume]

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.

[akalten]

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

[Norm DePlume]

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.

[akalten]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:06:59 -0700, Norm DePlume wrote:

> 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.

Human imagination can be wanton. If you present a more or less random
pattern, such as an ink blot, to the average person, he is likely to
discover many things within the meaningless form -- but such things
will have no basis in reality. That's why we always need an objective
measure.

Cyber conversations can be problematic for the same reason. If one
seeks provocation, perhaps only unconsciously, then one will tend to
discover provocation whether it exists or not.

Science is more than a white coat and a job in a laboratory. Science
is the ability to discover what really exists despite the trickery
of imagination.

AK

[Pat Heuvel]

Glenn wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Gday Glenn,

The missing bytes are the EXIF data. Any differences in compression
would be noticeable by the artifacts around any high-contrast edges (for
example, the aircraft in flight).

Regards, and thanks for wonderful images,
Pat

[Popov.fr]

On 2007-11-30 04:45:13 +0100, Pat Heuvel > said:

> Gday Glenn,
>
> The missing bytes are the EXIF data. Any differences in compression
> would be noticeable by the artifacts around any high-contrast edges
> (for example, the aircraft in flight).
>
> Regards, and thanks for wonderful images,
> Pat

Exact, there no EXIF data and no ICC profil in the picture from the web.
You can see the differences when you open the two files in the same
progam. (preview in macos X 10.4 in my example)
The newsgroup file is daker and you can see less artifacts than the web one.