[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...

Kindly publish the photo you're using.

Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.

Kindly explain what you mean. Last time I checked, JPEG was a file format for raster images.

Here is just one of thousands of online explanations...

Now, where's your admission that your pixel counts are nonsense?

In other words, you have no clue. Let me help. When I use the expression "pixel count," I'm talking about letting my raster graphics editor (in this case Paint.NET) do the work for me. Its line tool gives me the length in "pixels" (not a count, but rather a measure of length, using the width (or height) of a single pixel as unit):


  pixels.png (Size: 77.89 KB / Downloads: 129)

[David Healy]

THUD!

Charade time...

[Mark Ulrik]

David Healy Wrote:THUD!

Charade time...

A reference, no doubt, to Ben's "You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's."

[David Healy]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

David Healy Wrote:THUD!

Charade time...

A reference, no doubt, to Ben's "You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's."

son, only a fool would take to the bank serious interpretation of a 72dpi JPEG image. Get a grip!

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Kindly explain what you mean. Last time I checked, JPEG was a file format for raster images.

Here is just one of thousands of online explanations...

Now, where's your admission that your pixel counts are nonsense?

In other words, you have no clue.

I just proved otherwise. I cited for my statement... you still refuse to cite.

You're now trying to deny that JPEG is not a lossy compression method.

You won't cite for any such claim. You CANNOT cite for a falsehood.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Let me help. When I use the expression "pixel count," I'm talking about letting my raster graphics editor (in this case Paint.NET) do the work for me. Its line tool gives me the length in "pixels" (not a count, but rather a measure of length, using the width (or height) of a single pixel as unit):

Can't be done on a photo that's not raw data. You no longer HAVE the original photo. You can get close, but anyone asserting distance at the pixel level simply doesn't know what they're talking about. So you're getting schooled... you ignored my cite (probably didn't bother to click through) so here's a few bits I collected online to educate you:

Quote:Remember, because the image is compressed and saved to JPEG which is a “loss” file format, much of the initial image information and detail is discarded and cannot be recovered.

Quote:JPEG is "lossy", meaning that the image you get out of decompression isn't quite identical to what you originally put in.

Quote:JPEG has a hard time with very sharp edges: a row of pure-black pixels adjacent to a row of pure-white pixels, for example. Sharp edges tend to come out blurred unless you use a very high quality setting. Edges this sharp are rare in scanned photographs, but are fairly common in GIF files: borders, overlaid text, etc. The blurriness is particularly objectionable with text that's only a few pixels high. If you have a GIF with a lot of small-size overlaid text, don't JPEG it.

Now, explain to everyone how you're measuring distance in pixels WHEN THE PIXELS MAY NO LONGER EXIST.

Or run again...

P.S. For anyone that wants to learn, simply take a lossless photo, such as a PNG or GIF, resave it as a JPG - then load both photos at the same time, zoom in close on some particular feature in both photos, and note the difference. The difference will be more dramatic as you increase the compression level of the JPG. Mark doesn't want to do this, since he'd learn who's telling the truth, and who's ignorant of photo compression.

[Mark Ulrik]

David Healy Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

David Healy Wrote:THUD!

Charade time...

A reference, no doubt, to Ben's "You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's."

son, only a fool would take to the bank serious interpretation of a 72dpi JPEG image. Get a grip!

Right out of the CT playbook: When busted, make random demands. "Could you make that 96dpi?" "I don't like the background color." "Why not lovely pink?" "I don't trust your fancy software." "Who needs math?" "Trust me when I tell you he's right alongside JFK" "All my friends agree with with me, so why can't you?"

[Ben Holmes]

David Healy Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

David Healy Wrote:THUD!
Charade time...

A reference, no doubt, to Ben's "You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's."

son, only a fool would take to the bank serious interpretation of a 72dpi JPEG image. Get a grip!

I don't mind relative measurements of larger or smaller... but when I hear people speaking of pixel measurements on a lossy format, I just have to laugh!

Mark, bow out now while you can... because I can easily produce example duplicate photos in lossless and lossy format, and show the ABSOLUTE difference between them. Take your time, Google is your friend, look up the topic of photo compression.

[Ben Holmes]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

David Healy Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:A reference, no doubt, to Ben's "You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's."

son, only a fool would take to the bank serious interpretation of a 72dpi JPEG image. Get a grip!

Right out of the CT playbook: When busted, make random demands. "Could you make that 96dpi?" "I don't like the background color." "Why not lovely pink?" "I don't trust your fancy software." "Who needs math?" "Trust me when I tell you he's right alongside JFK" "All my friends agree with with me, so why can't you?"

Who's been "busted"???

I've QUOTED & cited for what I've stated. You cannot do pixel accurate measurements on jpgs... THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE DATA... what's so hard to understand about that?

Tell us Mark - why can't you simply admit the truth? JPG is a lossy format, and I understand that you didn't know that, but you've been schooled, and it's time to give up your claim that you can measure to the pixel on a format that simply doesn't have the data.

[David Healy]

and then nutters will take an interpolated field of video (one of 2 fields that make up a single frame) save THAT as a .jepg file and wonder what the big problem is. "It's a frame 237 (or some such) isn't it?"

Good luck with the troll, Ben. My problem with these guys when it comes to the film/photographic record is they KNOW this, yet they persist. Kinda points toward something else... diversion, they got N-O-T-H-I-N-G these days--lmao!

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

David Healy Wrote:son, only a fool would take to the bank serious interpretation of a 72dpi JPEG image. Get a grip!

Right out of the CT playbook: When busted, make random demands. "Could you make that 96dpi?" "I don't like the background color." "Why not lovely pink?" "I don't trust your fancy software." "Who needs math?" "Trust me when I tell you he's right alongside JFK" "All my friends agree with with me, so why can't you?"

Who's been "busted"???

You have. On your silly speculation that Chaney is right alongside JFK in Altgens. Remember? It is, after all, the reason why you're so desperately trying to derail the conversation.

Ben Holmes Wrote:I've QUOTED & cited for what I've stated. You cannot do pixel accurate measurements on jpgs... THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE DATA... what's so hard to understand about that?

Tell us Mark - why can't you simply admit the truth? JPG is a lossy format, and I understand that you didn't know that, but you've been schooled, and it's time to give up your claim that you can measure to the pixel on a format that simply doesn't have the data.

Amazing. Yes, of course, JPEG is a lossy format, but atomic clock precision is hardly required here. It's doesn't really matter that much whether you estimate Hargis to be 20% or 25% or 30% farther away than Chaney. It's still significantly more than suggested by the difference in windshield width.

Let me remind you that your original claim was this:

Quote:You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...

But you can do pixel counts on JPEGs. You can always do pixel counts on raster graphics. Results may vary, of course, depending on compression method and level. The question is whether the deviations are significant and relevant. In this case, they aren't. You're just blowing smoke because you've realized that the math is against you.