Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images?
Date: 26 Jan 2014 21:47:28 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <bkle3fFhddaU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <lbrnpr$q5o$1@dont-email.me> <xwlhy6jn6u.fsf@ethel.the.log> <2ridndio-M0kOnzPnZ2dnUVZ8kmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <2fd2jijlbb.fsf@ethel.the.log> <Lcudnbvj4oa5JXzPnZ2dnUVZ8oOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <161tzyjibp.fsf@ethel.the.log> <5cKdnS2-vfr0cX_PnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <ecfvocdh8s.fsf@ethel.the.log> <r_WdnVO3yP2VQn7PnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews.com> <6jy523synp.fsf@ethel.the.log> <250120141345247892%nospam@nospam.invalid> <vey523eopt.fsf@ethel.the.log> <250120141630000472%nospam@nospam.invalid> <yxmwijeogq.fsf@ethel.the.log> <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <lc1opr$h1d$2@dont-email.me> <2014012517510124273-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <lc2hj5$loj$2@dont-email.me> <bkkopbFccv0U3@mid.individual.net> <eappned8cd.fsf@ethel.the.log> <260120141404421287%nospam@nospam.invalid> <6q61p6bisr.fsf@ethel.the.log>
X-Trace: individual.net OVa5SRLzopMoZjKoqQU24gT+PVFofUNWdjSkvAuIGqq2Ow4wRh
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xy6l4uuvnAvIniSDz8c075GhHHY=
X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1<n@LQ!aZ7vLO_nWbK~@T'XIS0,oAJcU.qLM dk/j8Udo?O"o9B9Jyx+ez2:B<nx(k3EdHnTvB]'eoVaR495,Rv~/vPa[e^JI+^h5Zk*i`Q;ezqDW< ZFs6kmAJWZjOH\8[$$7jm,Ogw3C_%QM'|H6nygNGhhl+@}n30Nz(^vWo@h>Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin)
Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:55457

On 2014-01-26, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> In article <eappned8cd.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson
>> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > > In your OP, you seem to imply that this
>> > > network camera captures images of a scene at irregular intervals, and
>> > > that you have a collection of those images that you want to process to
>> > > eliminate captures of the scene that are not substantially
>> > > different.
>> > 
>> > No, he didn't imply that. He specifically used the words "the same
>> > as."
>> > 
>> > Not "look the same," not "similar to a human eye."
>> 
>> 'the same as' is vague. 
>
> Agreed.  But it does not "imply" similar to a human eye as posters are
> claiming it does.

Not claiming - questioning. Big difference.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR