O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

On 8/13/2013 6:37 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

in other words, they're the same size as i said, and not just number of
pixels, but the size on disk too.

The size diffrence must have
been due to a factor that I did not consider.

different jpeg compression.

possibly. I thought I had only one variable in each of the three images.

I think, but I'm not sure, that PS defaults to last used JPG
compression. So if you open the original image which was compressed at,
say, 60% and then saves it at compression level 80%, then the size will
differ. At the time of saving the copy, you may not have readily been
able to see the original files compression level (as far as I know, PS
has no way to show this).

That could be the answer.


--
PeterN

On 8/13/2013 7:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-08-13 15:33:58 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/13/2013 6:07 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

What I found interesting is that the original jpeg image was 48.7 kb.

out of the camera?

I reduced the ppi to 24 & 10, and saved the two reduced images. Both
reduced images were the same size, 42 kb.

in other words, they're the same size as i said, and not just number of
pixels, but the size on disk too.

The size diffrence must have
been due to a factor that I did not consider.

different jpeg compression.

possibly. I thought I had only one variable in each of the three images.

Did you resample when you changed ppi?
If you did the physical document size should remain the same and the
pixel dimensions will change as will the file size. If you don't
resample the pixel dimensions will remain the same, as will the file
size. However, the physical document size (print) will change due to
fitting the different number of pixels into the same pixel dimensions.
This image will appear to be the same size with no pixel dimensional
change on a display.

So, here we have an image file 648x960 @ 360 ppi, 528KB & 648x960 @ 72
ppi, 518KB. Both display on screen at the same size with no discernible
quality difference. However, if you try to print images from those files
you will find a change from a decent looking 8'' x 12'' to a downright
awful and pixelated 41'' x 61''.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...NC5967-E1w.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...C5967-E1pw.jpg



Yup!
Now onward to more important things.

--
PeterN

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:44:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


what if it works properly and really does filter out the crap?

I will be astonished.

the early users of autofocus, autoexposure and many other features were
astonished when they saw that the automation did as good or better than
they did.

Exposure, focus etc are the result of a physical measurement. Whether
or not an image is crap is not determined by measurement but often by
subjective judgement. I don't see how you can automate that.

if you want over- or underexposed photos or out of focus photos, don't
use something that filters them.

I do get over or underexposed photographs when I push the limits. I
don't always throw them away but try to salvage them in
post-processing.

meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed
and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos
that aren't.

Then they will miss some damn good photographs.

it's not judging a photo on composition. it just filters out the
mistakes. everyone has some of those.

They are not always mistakes.

people used to want to choose their own focus. now they trust autofocus
systems to do the right thing, and most af systems have options to tune
it for various situations and can focus faster and more reliably than
humans can.

And you are now advocating letting the camera sustitute its
preferences for your own. :-(

nope. the user is always in control.

I don't follow. You are letting the camera make decisions about
whether or not an image is junk, yet you say the user is in control. I
would have though that meant the user was making decisions.

the user decides when and where to use a given feature and how it's
configured.

modern autofocus systems have several options, including single focus
versus continuous, how many focus points to use, whether the camera
tracks the subject or the user sets the focus point, etc.

But the resulting shots may not be all perfect but, even then, some of
them may still be highly desirable.

face detection with autofocus is another example. normally, when
someone takes photos of people, they want to focus on their face, not
the trees behind them or whatever. the camera can detect the face and
use that as a focus target. if you don't want that and prefer the trees
to be in focus, don't enable the feature. very simple.

it's a tool. learn how to use it and it works very well. if you don't
learn how to use it then it might not do what you want. no surprise
there. don't blame the camera when you don't know what you're doing. if
you tell it to do something, it will do it. if you don't want it to do
that, don't tell it to do it.

The decision not to tell it is mine.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:36:04 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

if you want over- or underexposed photos or out of focus photos, don't
use something that filters them.


IOW it would filter out images like this. And tell you which ones work.

http://deniseippolito.com/blurs/

Stop lying, Peter.

There is something wrong here. Peter hasn't lied and I don't see how
he could in the circumstances. But Sandman thinks Peter has lied. Is
there a chance that Sandman doesn't understand the correct use of the
word 'lying'?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:53:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-13 09:28:00 -0700, Sandman said:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

they don't want to
relinquish control.

I thought automatic cars were quite popular in the USA more so then the UK,
not sure about other countries.

automatic transmissions are popular but that's not the same.

people fear self-driving cars. they're legal in 3 states so far, but
you can be sure the average person isn't going to want to get into one
any time soon, despite the fact they are *much* safer than when a human
drives.

Same goes for airplanes. Computers can now take off, fly and land
airplanes 100% without human intervention, and most of the latest
airplane accidents have been due to pilots taking control over the plane
where the computer probably would have handled the situation a lot
better.

But I don't think a single person in the world would jump on an airplane
where the pilot seats were empty.

Then there are the flying cultures, such as in Korea's Asiana Airlines
where they are so dependent on computer assisted glide slope landings
that they can't handle visual approaches that are second nature to
pilots trained in the West. That is what happened with the recent
Asiana crash at SFO, and the 1999 Korean Airways crash on take-off at
London Stansted Airport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214

As indicated in the Wikipedia article there seems to have been some
confusion amongst the crew over the setting and operation of the
autothrottle. This is consistent with the events of the crash.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:30:16 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 8/12/2013 11:27 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


Yup! My CP-5700 had the best shot feature, but I only tried it out and
stopped using it once it was clear that the camera's selection of "Best
shot" was not necessarily what I was looking for. If it did something
like actually saving each of those captures to give the shooter the
option of reviewing the group to make a manual selection, I might have
been happier. Something like WB bracketing, perhaps.


How can that be. You must be some kind of Luddite. You actually think
you know more than the software in the camera.

A, sarcasm in lieu of a coherent argument.

Nothing sarcastic at all. Read what he wrote.

Savageduck really does think he knows more than the software in the
camera.

You will find your photography improving immensely if you buy a camera
with "Best Shot" selection capabilities.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-08-13 20:49:10 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:53:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-13 09:28:00 -0700, Sandman said:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

they don't want to
relinquish control.

I thought automatic cars were quite popular in the USA more so then the UK,
not sure about other countries.

automatic transmissions are popular but that's not the same.

people fear self-driving cars. they're legal in 3 states so far, but
you can be sure the average person isn't going to want to get into one
any time soon, despite the fact they are *much* safer than when a human
drives.

Same goes for airplanes. Computers can now take off, fly and land
airplanes 100% without human intervention, and most of the latest
airplane accidents have been due to pilots taking control over the plane
where the computer probably would have handled the situation a lot
better.

But I don't think a single person in the world would jump on an airplane
where the pilot seats were empty.

Then there are the flying cultures, such as in Korea's Asiana Airlines
where they are so dependent on computer assisted glide slope landings
that they can't handle visual approaches that are second nature to
pilots trained in the West. That is what happened with the recent
Asiana crash at SFO, and the 1999 Korean Airways crash on take-off at
London Stansted Airport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214

As indicated in the Wikipedia article there seems to have been some
confusion amongst the crew over the setting and operation of the
autothrottle. This is consistent with the events of the crash.

There appears to be a serious cockpit culture issue with both Asiana &
Korean Airlines. The cockpit communications between flight crew and
familiarity with visual approach procedures was decidedly lacking.
Two US pilots who had flown for Asiana after they retired, one from
United and one from Delta, both reported this problem of the Korean
pilots dependance on automated systems. The ex-United pilot reported
that one Korean Asiana couldn't execute a normal visual approach into
LAX. He told the American pilot "I don't need to know that. We don't do
that." They had to go around and the American captain had to make the
visual approach and landing.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:21:31 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

if you print it, then the ppi is determined by the number of pixels /
size of print. if you don't print it, then there is no ppi because
there are no inches.

What does print have to do with anything. Stop twisting.

i'm not twisting a thing. ppi is only relevant when printing. if you're
not printing, it's meaningless.

Actually the quoted figure of 72ppi is relevant to the older Apple
displays. (It may still be relevant but I don't know that). The
Microsoft standard was 1/3 greater - 96dpi - for the usual Microsoft
reasons.

Many older CRTs used to have a pitch of 72dpi but towards the end they
began creeping up. My present LCD has 92dpi.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-08-13 20:55:38 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:30:16 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 8/12/2013 11:27 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


Yup! My CP-5700 had the best shot feature, but I only tried it out and
stopped using it once it was clear that the camera's selection of "Best
shot" was not necessarily what I was looking for. If it did something
like actually saving each of those captures to give the shooter the
option of reviewing the group to make a manual selection, I might have
been happier. Something like WB bracketing, perhaps.


How can that be. You must be some kind of Luddite. You actually think
you know more than the software in the camera.

A, sarcasm in lieu of a coherent argument.

Nothing sarcastic at all. Read what he wrote.

Savageduck really does think he knows more than the software in the
camera.

I'll let you know when I find that camera that can figure out my intentions.

You will find your photography improving immensely if you buy a camera
with "Best Shot" selection capabilities.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Exposure, focus etc are the result of a physical measurement. Whether
or not an image is crap is not determined by measurement but often by
subjective judgement. I don't see how you can automate that.

if you want over- or underexposed photos or out of focus photos, don't
use something that filters them.

I do get over or underexposed photographs when I push the limits. I
don't always throw them away but try to salvage them in
post-processing.

you still can do that.

meanwhile, the rest of the world likes their photos properly exposed
and in focus and won't have a problem with something that flags photos
that aren't.

Then they will miss some damn good photographs.

not necessarily, and most people aren't interested in pushing the
limits. they want well exposed and in focus images.

it's not judging a photo on composition. it just filters out the
mistakes. everyone has some of those.

They are not always mistakes.

then don't delete them.

learn how to properly use such a tool and when to use it, rather than
dismiss it outright without even considering how it could be useful.

I don't follow. You are letting the camera make decisions about
whether or not an image is junk, yet you say the user is in control. I
would have though that meant the user was making decisions.

the user decides when and where to use a given feature and how it's
configured.

modern autofocus systems have several options, including single focus
versus continuous, how many focus points to use, whether the camera
tracks the subject or the user sets the focus point, etc.

But the resulting shots may not be all perfect but, even then, some of
them may still be highly desirable.

nothing is perfect.

all autofocus needs to do is do a better job than humans do, which it
definitely does in most situations.

there are edge cases where it might not be appropriate, and then you
just turn it off.

face detection with autofocus is another example. normally, when
someone takes photos of people, they want to focus on their face, not
the trees behind them or whatever. the camera can detect the face and
use that as a focus target. if you don't want that and prefer the trees
to be in focus, don't enable the feature. very simple.

it's a tool. learn how to use it and it works very well. if you don't
learn how to use it then it might not do what you want. no surprise
there. don't blame the camera when you don't know what you're doing. if
you tell it to do something, it will do it. if you don't want it to do
that, don't tell it to do it.

The decision not to tell it is mine.

yep.