Forums

Mark,

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

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.

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?

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:The first is the fact that Altgens shows him alongside the limo - and even you and Mark admit that he's larger in size than the other motorcycle cops, therefore MUST be closer to Altgens.

Yes, I agree Chaney is it would seem further forward but not by much - measure the wind shields.......they are almost the same.....

Sheer speculation.

You have no idea how much closer Chaney is to Altgens... you have no idea how far away ANY of these distances were.

You admit that the evidence supports Chaney being right where he's seen, yet desperately deny it.

P.S. Still demonstrating your cowardice over the Railroad shots issue...

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?

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

I think my irony meter just burst.

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

I think my irony meter just burst.

Here's an example (originally a .tiff file) - but posted here as a jpg:
Now here's a closeup of the above jpg (on the left) with the original .tiff format on the right:
One doesn't have to be a graphics design artist to note the difference... you pretend that you can accurately measure pixels that no longer exist on the ear to the left...

But that's simply dishonesty on your part.

I noticed that you didn't say one word about the lack of photos & video for James Chaney's asserted conversation with Chief Curry...

Why is that, Mark?

I thought you weren't afraid of the topic of James Chaney?

(07-29-2016, 01:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

(07-29-2016, 02:13 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

I think my irony meter just burst.

(07-29-2016, 05:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

I think my irony meter just burst.

Here's an example (originally a .tiff file) - but posted here as a jpg:

Now here's a closeup of the above jpg (on the left) with the original .tiff format on the right:

One doesn't have to be a graphics design artist to note the difference... you pretend that you can accurately measure pixels that no longer exist on the ear to the left...

But that's simply dishonesty on your part.

I noticed that you didn't say one word about the lack of photos & video for James Chaney's asserted conversation with Chief Curry...

Why is that, Mark?

I thought you weren't afraid of the topic of James Chaney?

Wow, that's some nasty compression artifacts.

Tell you what, Ben, this is the maximum quality version of my diagram. Feel free to put Chaney wherever you want him to be and make your own measurements.




As for the motorcycle windshields, the AP and Corbis HQs are easy enough to find on the interwebs. Feel free to make your own measurements on them as well.

Report back to us when you're done. You won't do that, of course, because the results will scare the living daylights out of you.

(08-01-2016, 01:20 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-29-2016, 01:41 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

(07-29-2016, 02:13 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote: [ -> ]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote: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?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

I think my irony meter just burst.

(07-29-2016, 05:21 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote: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?

The fact that you keep running from answering the question shows that you know the truth.

You've been schooled.

I think my irony meter just burst.

Here's an example (originally a .tiff file) - but posted here as a jpg:

Now here's a closeup of the above jpg (on the left) with the original .tiff format on the right:

One doesn't have to be a graphics design artist to note the difference... you pretend that you can accurately measure pixels that no longer exist on the ear to the left...

But that's simply dishonesty on your part.

I noticed that you didn't say one word about the lack of photos & video for James Chaney's asserted conversation with Chief Curry...

Why is that, Mark?

I thought you weren't afraid of the topic of James Chaney?

Wow, that's some nasty compression artifacts.

Tut tut tut.... that's not even compressed nearly as much as it could have been... as I recall, I only used 50% compression.

That's why I included the original that the closeup came from - so everyone can see what JPEG compression does... and that the original still looks quite good. (until you do a closeup.)

You've just been schooled, Mark... yet again.

You pretend pixels can be accurately measured on JPEGS - I've just proven THAT YOU CANNOT DO IT.

(08-01-2016, 01:20 PM)Mark Ulrik Wrote: [ -> ]Tell you what, Ben, this is the maximum quality version of my diagram. Feel free to put Chaney wherever you want him to be and make your own measurements.



As for the motorcycle windshields, the AP and Corbis HQs are easy enough to find on the interwebs. Feel free to make your own measurements on them as well.

Report back to us when you're done. You won't do that, of course, because the results will scare the living daylights out of you.

Change of topic, I see.

First let's deal with JPEG compression... until you can produce something showing that you could accurately measure pixels that no longer exist - you've been proven wrong.

Complaining that there are "compression artifacts" doesn't change the fact THAT IT ALWAYS HAPPENS WITH JPEG COMPRESSION.