[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:Mark,

Did you calculate the width difference....?
Is that the same line in each case....? I am not at home and have no measure....

Yeah, it's same line. I got 183 pixel units for Chaney and 191 for Hargis - a 4.4% difference. It's on page 3.

That's a rough estimate, of course, so - to make Ben happy - we could build in an uncertainty of (say) ± 1 pixel unit. That would give us a difference in the 3.3% to 5.5% range.

I'm happy with the truth.

And you still aren't telling it, are you?

How can you measure what no longer exists?

Why do you claim you can?

The distances do not disappear. Open your eyes.

If you don't like my figures, then please feel free to post your own. Do some work for a change.

It's the same with analogue photographs. Does degradation make it completely meaningless to measure distances in n-generation copies? Should only original negatives (or trannies) be used for that purpose?