Directing to a picture

[Neredbojias]

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:40:51 +1000,

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:00 +1000,

http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html

...
Pictures are good though! .I don't know why some people here
have a problem
with sheep and other animals .. guilty perverse desires? :-]

The pictures are ...all either blurred or
over-compressed.

....

Aww, c'mon dorayme, get a decent monitor.

You mean your monitor corrects for what I am seeing on all my
monitors, half of which are almost brand new? C'mon mason!<g>

"New"? 800x600 new?

Mason, are you OK? Since Ed accused you of being deranged, it is
as if you have lemming like rushed to confirm the accusation?
What is going on. What the hell has the size of the monitor or
resolution got to do with me saying that many of my monitors are
new and in good condition?

I don't run an art gallery, just a photo album, but...

And this has got to do with what? That since it is not for sale
or for professional eyes, it is OK to dish up crap?

What *do* you see? Take the lamb photo as an example:

http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html

I see a poor quality, blurry image (almost *certainly* due to the
artifacts of jpg compression). Now, this can be due to poor
camera management, poor image software handling and possibly and
quite excusably combined with poor eyesight and perhaps even a
terrible old monitor that cannot distinguish between a sharp and
a blurry picture..

Actually, the images look good here (native display resolution of
1280 x 1024 LCD). Not the /very/ best but surely more than "ok."

And the cow is quite adorable. My wife thinks I should get another
guitar for my upcoming 60th birthday. I asked for a giraffe. She
doesn't think the homeowners' association rules would allow for it.
Even my arguments about the educational value to the neighborhood
children went unrewarded. Geez.

I have to agree with your wife. If you got a giraffe, you'd really be
sticking your neck out.

 

[dorayme]

Nope.

http://edmullen.net/temp/nopix.jpg

That is a different picture than the one that that sly old fox
Mason served me! In mine, I had a blurry date in white text in
the left bottom corner - "March 2004"

Or maybe your screen has a little man inside that guards over you
and he sits there with photoshop and gets rids of artifacts and
text that looks like it has been haltingly spat out by clogged or
partly drunken ink jet squirt holes.

Or maybe you have your screen set to much higher contrast than
mine where details get lost. If you are losing a whole bit of
white text, mygodmate, you have been missing out on a lot.

Perhaps it is no use showing you what I get because your monitor
will play tricks on it too?

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/whatigot.jpg>

 

[Neredbojias]

I could post one pixel at a time, let the viewer re-assemble it.
Would that be better?

Part of the situation relates to the monitor itself. Regardless of
resolution, some better-quality monitors show more detail per sample
size. dorayme evidently has one of these and so do I. I see some
"grift" in many of the images although it usually isn't real, real bad.
The pics in general *could be* a little better, however, *and* more
consistent in quality; I think that would help a lot.

 

[dorayme]

dorayme wrote: ....

Err, uh, dorayme? Your jpg looks just like mine - and looks fine. I'm
beginning to think something is amiss with your system. Or "something."
Weird.

Hello Ed... are you there? Woohoo earthling!

No comment about the date? It does not appear on your screen at
all and yet something is *amiss* with *my* system.

 

[dorayme]

dorayme wrote: ....

Fine, there's a date on the photo.

Which photo? The one you screenshot or the one I did? It is sort
of important to say. I see no date on yours but a date on mine.

That has never been mentioned kuntil
now.

When is now? In an earlier post I said:

"That is a different picture than the one that ...
Mason served me! In mine, I had a blurry date in white text in
the left bottom corner - "March 2004"

When you replied to the post in which I said this, you made no
mention at all of this!

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

No comment about the date? It does not appear on your screen at
all and yet something is*amiss* with*my* system.

If you look at the thumbnail page the date is there where the image does
not. Page info modification date Friday, July 23, 2010 5:21:07 PM hints
that ol' Mason did a little edit. THe first image did look overly
compressed with JPEG artifacts, this current image just looks blurry
with lack of depth of field, my guess low-light no-flash with wide open
aperture with focus set for sheep...

 

[dorayme]

If you look at the thumbnail page the date is there where the image does
not. Page info modification date Friday, July 23, 2010 5:21:07 PM hints
that ol' Mason did a little edit. THe first image did look overly
compressed with JPEG artifacts, this current image just looks blurry
with lack of depth of field, my guess low-light no-flash with wide open
aperture with focus set for sheep...

Yes, ... I trust you without me needing to look. It is too early
in the morning on a work day to risk looking at Mason's pictures.
What was interesting was that Ed could not see the difference
between the one I got (screenshotted for all to see) and the one
he got (and screenshotted). It reminds me how different screens
can be set, and how much information can be lost by overly
contrasted screens.

A small site I made for someone a few weeks back had a background
image of a moon flower, here's a *shrunk* version of a bit that
shows in a moderate sized window:

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/smallsample.jpg>

I was disappointed to see it almost not there on someone else's
monitor. That monitor simply lost information by being way off
balance and far too bright and contrasty. (btw it was someone's
iMac monitor, I mention because I know Mac and Windows have
traditionally had different gammas; but not the issue here).

It is a pest to have to CSS to the lowest common denominator, in
this case I suppose I could have made the image not quite so
transparent (it was a colour shot of mine, greyscaled and heavily
transparented to make it small in file size and light enough not
to interfere with readability as well as being large enough to
fill most screens without repeat).

So... I have been a bit annoyed by this problem - drat that the
world does not always see my moonflowers. And this has made me
psychopathically and derangedly aggressive towards poor old Ed...
Mason, I always feel aggressive towards naturally. <g>

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/smallsample.jpg>

I was disappointed to see it almost not there on someone else's
monitor. That monitor simply lost information by being way off
balance and far too bright and contrasty. (btw it was someone's
iMac monitor, I mention because I know Mac and Windows have
traditionally had different gammas; but not the issue here).

1.2 for Windows and 1.8 for Mac. Looks fine to me but I have my monitor
calibrated. Many folks do not and some LCD monitors over-saturate the
color and up the contrast...why I still have a CRT.

 

[dorayme]

1.2 for Windows and 1.8 for Mac. Looks fine to me but I have my monitor
calibrated. Many folks do not and some LCD monitors over-saturate the
color and up the contrast...why I still have a CRT.

LCDs are a pita to calibrate! The physical controls are
particularly awkward to use, pressing buttons in this and that
combination to move sliders this way and that and gee ... I hate
it. It is as if the buttons are programmed by someone that has
only just learnt elementary logic or maybe a devil! Give me a
scrolling wheel on the front of a monitor any day!

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Give me a
scrolling wheel on the front of a monitor any day!

But a scrolling wheel sooooo analog|yesterday! ;-)

 

[Neredbojias]

But I'd never have to lean down to pick up an apple again!

Oh geez, I hope you're not one of them deluded Mac fans!

(By the way, nice one!)

Kudos on your forthcoming sexigenarianism.

 

[dorayme]

But a scrolling wheel sooooo analog|yesterday! ;-)

Yes, and I like analogue clock faces, even analogue clock
controls (the kitchen one is the ultimate, you yank the hands
themselves to the position wanted!), I cars with steering wheels
(you know, instead of those that you might have to press eight
buttons in a certain logic to turn left or right, time controlled
for amount of turn etc). The truth is that humans need wheels and
the long screaming analoguey continuums of Jimmy Hendrix... they
are *built* for yesterday.

 

[dorayme]

copy-pasted from recent dorayme post:
(I did not get it and this worries me -- what else am I missing?)

=============

=============

Is the above a post to alt.html ? If not, how did it get here?
I have no kill filter. I looked at the 14,000 alt.htm's on my server.
Not that this particular post is vital, but is my server missing a wheel?

This post is to alt.mars. If you are getting it Mason, I know who
you are! Don't leave earth for any reason, you are a marked man.

 

[dorayme]

Actually, letting Mason leave Earth might be a good thing. Just a thought!

That is a horrible thought Ed, you have no idea what awaits him
outside this earthly lunatic asylum.