Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #55220 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-01-23 10:42 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-01-23 22:06 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 10:42 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 14:24 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 13:00 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 21:11 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 16:38 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> - 2014-01-24 01:57 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 18:03 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 21:25 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-23 16:31 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 16:57 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-23 17:02 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 21:28 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 16:32 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 16:22 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-23 19:48 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 23:54 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-24 08:09 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-24 08:44 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 22:06 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-23 23:37 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-23 20:46 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-23 23:19 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-23 18:38 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-24 00:49 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-23 19:59 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 15:25 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-23 18:37 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 16:05 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-23 19:47 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 17:10 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-24 17:42 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-24 16:42 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-24 20:08 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-25 10:54 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 15:31 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-25 17:31 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-01-25 17:57 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 03:09 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 23:02 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 05:04 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-25 10:58 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 10:29 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-25 13:39 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 13:45 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 13:27 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 16:30 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 13:33 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 16:52 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 17:31 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-25 22:35 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 17:49 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 22:55 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 18:33 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 19:42 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-25 17:38 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 22:50 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 02:49 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-26 14:21 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 15:17 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-26 14:04 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 00:17 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 19:42 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 12:23 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 02:54 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 02:52 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 03:32 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:55 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 05:02 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-26 14:04 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 18:03 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 17:49 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-25 15:59 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 00:24 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 19:42 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-25 17:30 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 02:57 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 22:46 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 03:49 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:55 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 12:08 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-25 17:31 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 13:00 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-25 20:13 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 16:15 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 18:07 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-25 18:24 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 02:58 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-25 17:36 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-25 17:51 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-26 00:39 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 15:43 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 08:19 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 16:31 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 09:54 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 18:14 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 10:44 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 19:10 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-27 11:14 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 16:22 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-27 11:44 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-27 13:06 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-27 12:48 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-27 05:49 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-26 12:05 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 17:08 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-26 12:27 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 17:37 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-26 15:36 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 21:46 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-26 14:04 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 12:16 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 21:47 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 16:21 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-27 01:57 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-26 10:32 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 18:54 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-26 15:40 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-01-26 13:30 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-26 15:06 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-26 18:20 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 23:35 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-27 13:06 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-27 19:14 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-27 23:18 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-28 04:27 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-29 14:01 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-29 14:01 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> - 2014-01-27 01:19 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-26 18:28 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> - 2014-01-28 02:26 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-28 06:35 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-27 10:55 +1100
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 21:41 -0800
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-26 14:04 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 03:13 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 17:30 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> - 2014-01-25 18:51 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-25 19:06 +0000
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 15:37 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 15:35 -0500
Re: Any quick, easy way to compare two images? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 22:06 -0500
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 22:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120142255449064%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55407 |
In article <52e48517$0$45923$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > that's an exif tag *in* the file, not metadata within the file system. > > The OP has specified there is NO EXIF data in the images. He has not > specified is file creation dates available to his app reflect data > transfer timestamp, or image file creation. actually he didn't. savageduck brought up exif tags, and the creation date in the exif. that wasn't what i was referring to. > Remember, images are transfered to his systrem at regular intervals, and > may transfer the same image more than once if the camera ghas not > regerated the image file in that interval. without knowing the specs of the camera, there's no way to know what it does or doesn't do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 12:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-A11CB7.12083926012014@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #55368 |
In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> Why worry if one frame appears visually identical
> tthe one before it, or the one after, That does happen in
> cinematography.
Because the film might then be too long to view for some practical
purposes?
--
dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 17:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2014012517312260083-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #55376 |
On 2014-01-26 01:08:41 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:
> In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> Why worry if one frame appears visually identical
>> tthe one before it, or the one after, That does happen in
>> cinematography.
>
> Because the film might then be too long to view for some practical
> purposes?
Then one needs to ask what the purpose of this production might be?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 13:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-065A62.13004626012014@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #55380 |
In article <2014012517312260083-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-26 01:08:41 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:
>
> > In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Why worry if one frame appears visually identical
> >> tthe one before it, or the one after, That does happen in
> >> cinematography.
> >
> > Because the film might then be too long to view for some practical
> > purposes?
>
> Then one needs to ask what the purpose of this production might be?
OK. Let me.
HEY, OP, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR PRODUCTION?
(In a house I was living in, a ringtail possum had got into the roof
and I had taken some steps to block it from re-entering but could not
be sure it was out? I set up a camera to take a movie for hours on end
but then could not be bothered to spend so much time or attention
examining the hours of footage to see if there was a significant
ringtailpossum change in the frames... I made a post about ways to
tell with software... but it became clear that the possum had gone by
then...)
--
dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 20:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lc21vg$loj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55387 |
In article <do_ray_me-065A62.13004626012014@news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:
> In article <2014012517312260083-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2014-01-26 01:08:41 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:
> >
> > > In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> > > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Why worry if one frame appears visually identical
> > >> tthe one before it, or the one after, That does happen in
> > >> cinematography.
> > >
> > > Because the film might then be too long to view for some practical
> > > purposes?
> >
> > Then one needs to ask what the purpose of this production might be?
>
> OK. Let me.
>
> HEY, OP, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR PRODUCTION?
NUNYA FUGGIN BIDNESS! :)
But seriously, it's a "because I decided I wanted to do it" project.
Does it need to have some purpose beyond that?
>
> (In a house I was living in, a ringtail possum had got into the roof
> and I had taken some steps to block it from re-entering but could not
> be sure it was out? I set up a camera to take a movie for hours on end
> but then could not be bothered to spend so much time or attention
> examining the hours of footage to see if there was a significant
> ringtailpossum change in the frames... I made a post about ways to
> tell with software... but it became clear that the possum had gone by
> then...)
Heh... Possum-inspired software development... Who'da thunk it? :)
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 16:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-77AAB3.16151526012014@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #55413 |
In article <lc21vg$loj$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > But seriously, it's a "because I decided I wanted to do it" project. > Does it need to have some purpose beyond that? No. There's nothing at all wrong with that. But sometimes a purpose sheds light on the problem. Without such a purpose, it is a more difficult task to get people to understand exactly what it is you are looking for. As you have found. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 18:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <twwqhn3389.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #55380 |
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> On 2014-01-26 01:08:41 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:
>
> > In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Why worry if one frame appears visually identical
> >> tthe one before it, or the one after, That does happen in
> >> cinematography.
> > Because the film might then be too long to view for some practical
> > purposes?
>
> Then one needs to ask what the purpose of this production might be?
One doesn't really need to ask this.
The OP asked a reasonable question. It has reasonable answers.
Presumably he has a reason for wanting to do what he wants to do. Why
is it important to tell him he shouldn't want to do it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 18:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2014012518242126472-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #55390 |
On 2014-01-26 02:07:34 +0000, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>
>> On 2014-01-26 01:08:41 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why worry if one frame appears visually identical
>>>> tthe one before it, or the one after, That does happen in
>>>> cinematography.
>>> Because the film might then be too long to view for some practical
>>> purposes?
>>
>> Then one needs to ask what the purpose of this production might be?
>
> One doesn't really need to ask this.
>
> The OP asked a reasonable question. It has reasonable answers.
>
> Presumably he has a reason for wanting to do what he wants to do. Why
> is it important to tell him he shouldn't want to do it?
You misunderstand me. It isn't important to tell him he shouldn't want
to do it. It might help to find a solution to his problem if his
purpose was clear to those pondering a solution.
What is the point in offering a possible solution, if the OP's response
is "No, that's not what I want"? As much as I understand he is
concerned about his camera sneaking a duplicate, or two into the frame
set, I am still baffled as to what camera might behave in this way, and
I have been using cameras of various types for some 55+years now. That
includes surveillance cameras. Every frame I have ever seen captured
has been unique, never a duplicate. So there are a few pieces of the
OP's story missing.
Why would he believe his camera is behaving in this odd way?
Why is he uncertain of the originality of each frame?
...and WTF is he going to do with this once he figures it out and comes
up with a result he might be happy with?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 02:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkjbuuF3qa4U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55390 |
On 2014-01-26, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>
>> On 2014-01-26 01:08:41 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:
>>
>> > In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why worry if one frame appears visually identical
>> >> tthe one before it, or the one after, That does happen in
>> >> cinematography.
>> > Because the film might then be too long to view for some practical
>> > purposes?
>>
>> Then one needs to ask what the purpose of this production might be?
>
> One doesn't really need to ask this.
>
> The OP asked a reasonable question. It has reasonable answers.
>
> Presumably he has a reason for wanting to do what he wants to do. Why
> is it important to tell him he shouldn't want to do it?
It's the only way jackasses who have an invalid position can defend that
position.
--
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120142210135210%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55390 |
In article <twwqhn3389.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > > Then one needs to ask what the purpose of this production might be? > > One doesn't really need to ask this. actually one does, since it helps figure out what is really needed. otherwise people must guess. > The OP asked a reasonable question. It has reasonable answers. no, he asked a convoluted question that was poorly described and confused people, then got pissed when the answers weren't what he asked. > Presumably he has a reason for wanting to do what he wants to do. Why > is it important to tell him he shouldn't want to do it? maybe, but it also might not be the best solution to what he wants to do, which is likely given his confusion in how he asked the question. many times, describing the problem and the desired goal helps people come up with solutions that the person never thought of. in other words, 'what are you really trying to do?'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 17:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lc1opr$h1d$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55368 |
In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-25 21:33:25 +0000, Doug Anderson
> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:
>
> > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
> >
> >> In article <vey523eopt.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson
> >> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> if he wants to know it's a different *file*, all that needs to be done
> >>>> is compare the creation date. there's no reason to bother with
> >>>> comparing pixels.
> >>>
> >>> That might work, but it might not. Depending on the protocal by which
> >>> the file was tranmitted to his computer, the creation dates could be
> >>> different even though the contents of the files are identical.
> >>
> >> if the creation date was changed (or any other attribute or metadata),
> >> then it's not an exact copy.
> >
> > You want to add anything else to opinions you express that betray you
> > know nothing about what you are talking about?
> >
> > If I have a file I made yesterday (call it file1), I can make a copy
> > today and call it file2. The creation date of file1 will be yesterday
> > and of file2 will be today.
> >
> > But if I do a diff or a cmp on file1 and file2, they will be shown to
> > be identical as they contaion the _same_ data on a byte-by-byte basis.
> >
> > Just try it if you don't believe me - don't waste 30 posts saying black
> > is white.
>
> Personally this whole project seems a little silly to me The OP should
> just make his time lapse cqptures and compile them into the video/movie
> format of his choice. Why worry if one frame appears visually identical
> tthe one before it, or the one after, That does happen in
> cinematography.
I *DON'T* care if the frames are visually different. The first one could
be solid black, the next solid blue, and the one after that, solid red.
All I care about is "OK, I grabbed the first image. Now it's time to
grab a new image - did I get the same image I just got, or did I get a
new one?"
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 17:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2014012517510124273-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #55381 |
On 2014-01-26 01:36:31 +0000, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> said:
> In article <2014012515592033890-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-01-25 21:33:25 +0000, Doug Anderson
>> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <vey523eopt.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson
>>>> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> if he wants to know it's a different *file*, all that needs to be done
>>>>>> is compare the creation date. there's no reason to bother with
>>>>>> comparing pixels.
>>>>>
>>>>> That might work, but it might not. Depending on the protocal by which
>>>>> the file was tranmitted to his computer, the creation dates could be
>>>>> different even though the contents of the files are identical.
>>>>
>>>> if the creation date was changed (or any other attribute or metadata),
>>>> then it's not an exact copy.
>>>
>>> You want to add anything else to opinions you express that betray you
>>> know nothing about what you are talking about?
>>>
>>> If I have a file I made yesterday (call it file1), I can make a copy
>>> today and call it file2. The creation date of file1 will be yesterday
>>> and of file2 will be today.
>>>
>>> But if I do a diff or a cmp on file1 and file2, they will be shown to
>>> be identical as they contaion the _same_ data on a byte-by-byte basis.
>>>
>>> Just try it if you don't believe me - don't waste 30 posts saying black
>>> is white.
>>
>> Personally this whole project seems a little silly to me The OP should
>> just make his time lapse captures and compile them into the video/movie
>> format of his choice. Why worry if one frame appears visually identical
>> to the one before it, or the one after, That does happen in
>> cinematography.
>
> I *DON'T* care if the frames are visually different.
That was not quite what I said.
> The first one could be solid black, the next solid blue, and the one
> after that, solid red.
> All I care about is "OK, I grabbed the first image. Now it's time to
> grab a new image - did I get the same image I just got, or did I get a
> new one?"
If you are doing this project as some sort of time lapse photography
exercise, then each frame SHOULD be unique just based on capture time.
Why would you not trust your camera to capture the images one at a
time? Even if it ran for several hours, and it was tough for you to
differentiate between adjacent frames, each frame should be unique. So,
if you have 5 solid black frames in a row, followed by 5 solid blue,
and then 5 solid red frames, each should be unique based on capture
time, not duplicates of the first obviously different frame set.
What is it about your camera which makes you suspect that it is just
duplicating subsequent frames? That would be very odd behavior indeed.
...and finally, what is the purpose of this project?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 00:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lc2hj5$loj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55384 |
In article <2014012517510124273-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> If you are doing this project as some sort of time lapse photography
> exercise, then each frame SHOULD be unique just based on capture time.
> Why would you not trust your camera to capture the images one at a
> time?
Did *ANYBODY* who's still nit-picking at this thread actually *READ* my
initial post and the clarification in response to "nospam" back at the
start of this thread? I did my best to explain things so that between
the two, I thought it should be all but impossible to not understand
what I'm doing. (I thought the first one alone was pretty clear, but
considering the East Elbonian clusterfuck this thread has turned into...)
Here - eyeball it yourself:
What follows is the body of the message I'm talking about. Or, retrieve
it yourself - Message-ID: <lbrvrh$7ua$1@dont-email.me>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> In article <230120141424174937%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <lbrnpr$q5o$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Long story short, I'm messing with an app to assemble a stream of webcam
> > > images into a crude stop-motion movie.
> > >
> > > Since the images may arrive at irregular intervals, I'd like to be able
> > > to do something similar to this:
> > >
> > > NSImage *PreviousImage; // Global to the class
> > >
> > > -(NSImage *)getNewImage:(NSString *)ImageSourceURL
> > > {
> > > NSImage *NewImage = [self grabImageFrom:ImageSourceURL];
> > > if (MAGIC)
> > > {
> > > // Yes, it's a new image
> > > if (PreviousImage)
> > > [PreviousImage release]; // Dump the old one, if any
> > > PreviousImage = [NewImage copy]; // replace with new one
> > > return NewImage; // and send the new one back to caller
> > > }
> > > else
> > > // Nope, image hasn't changed.
> > > return nil;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Where "MAGIC" needs to be a routine that returns a YES/NO to the
> > > question "Is NewImage the same as PreviousImage"?
> > >
> > > Is there a reasonably painless cocoa/core foundation way to do this, or
> > > am I stuck going right down onto the metal and doing a pixel-by-pixel
> > > comparison "by hand"?
> > >
> > > From what I've managed to find in the various cocoa docs, it *LOOKS* as
> > > though the "compare" type methods I can spot decide on equality by
> > > saying "Is this *POINTER* to an NSImage the same as this *OTHER POINTER*
> > > to an NSImage?", without actually looking at the images themselves -
> > > only the pointers to them. Which makes it look as though, should I
> > > assign two identical images to two different NSImages, they'll compare
> > > "not the same", despite the fact that they're identical. Or am I
> > > mis-reading things?
> >
> > the default comparison is by pointer, so you'd need to write your own
> > equality (and hash) methods. how would it know what you consider
> > 'equal' ? it can't.
>
> That's what I was afraid the docs were saying... <sigh>
>
> > also keep in mind that the camera won't produce pixel identical results
> > on every frame, even when nothing has changed,
>
> That alone could be used to tell me "This is a new image". I don't care
> if the content of the image has changed, or how, or by how much - I only
> care that the two images either are, or are not, two copies of the same
> image.
>
> Lemme clarify...
> The source I'm using obviously runs a loop something along the lines of
> "wake up, get an image from the camera, turn it into a JPG file, and
> stick it someplace on the server so the world can get to it, then go to
> sleep for a while". The problem is that "for a while" isn't a stable
> value - Sometimes it's once per minute, sometimes once per 62 seconds,
> sometimes once per second, sometimes once per hour, with no indication
> of what condition(s) make it vary. I want to grab every available image,
> but NOT grab umpty-nine copies of an image that's been sitting there for
> who-knows-how-long
>
> > so you can't just loop
> > through all pixels and compare. the values will vary slightly.
>
> I don't see why not - Like I said above, I don't care if the *image
> content* changes - only that "the image" I get is or is not the same one
> I got the last time I grabbed it.
>
> > this is also something that's been solved before, so you probably can
> > find existing image matching or motion detection code.
>
> For what I'm trying to do, image matching and/or motion detection is
> likely to be overkill on the order of using a sledgehammer to peel a
> hard boiled egg.
>
> If I have to look at the pixels, I expect something as simple as ANDing
> them together and calling it "new" if I get back a not-the-same value
> from the operation should do the trick.
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 15:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkkopbFccv0U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55420 |
On 2014-01-26, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <2014012517510124273-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> If you are doing this project as some sort of time lapse photography
>> exercise, then each frame SHOULD be unique just based on capture time.
>> Why would you not trust your camera to capture the images one at a
>> time?
>
> Did *ANYBODY* who's still nit-picking at this thread actually *READ* my
> initial post and the clarification in response to "nospam" back at the
> start of this thread? I did my best to explain things so that between
> the two, I thought it should be all but impossible to not understand
> what I'm doing. (I thought the first one alone was pretty clear, but
> considering the East Elbonian clusterfuck this thread has turned into...)
>
> Here - eyeball it yourself:
>
> What follows is the body of the message I'm talking about. Or, retrieve
> it yourself - Message-ID: <lbrvrh$7ua$1@dont-email.me>
[snip]
You say:
"I'm messing with an app to assemble a stream of webcam images into a
crude stop-motion movie." and that you need "a routine that returns a
YES/NO to the question "Is NewImage the same as PreviousImage"".
Then later you say:
"I want to grab every available image, but NOT grab umpty-nine copies of
an image that's been sitting there for who-knows-how-long"
The reason we are still talking about this is you have not sufficiently
articulated what you want. 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.
What you have failed to do, as far as I am aware, is explain how any of
those images are what you consider to be "duplicates", nor what you
would consider to be "different".
I have such network cameras in my home right now. I have some
hand-written software that polls them whenever I leave the house to
capture images from the cameras and store them on a file server, and
then later create a QuickTime movie consisting of a stream of those
captured images. From one moment to the next, there may be multiple
image file snapshots of that scene. These are distinctly different image
captures of a scene that is not changing by much. So I end up with a
stream of images that capture a scene over a time span. And while I can
visually see with my eye that not much in the scene changed, the images
(due to JPEG compression artifacts, ISO noise, and other factors such as
natural lighting changes) are distinctly different such that a simple
comparison algorithm such as diff will report that all of the imags are
different, which will not tell me whether the changes are worth my
attention. So I use a piece of software called motiontrack
<http://motiontrack.sourceforge.net> to compare the images in such a way
that allows me to assign a threshold to each comparison representing the
amount of change in the scene I am willing to allow before I take
action.
If scenes that appear similar to the naked eye yet have no interesting
changes is what you consider to be an unwanted "duplicate image",
that's one thing. But if you are saying that somehow you are getting
perfect replica duplicate images somehow, that's a whole different
thing. So you really need to clarify this. Which is it, really?
--
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 08:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eappned8cd.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #55430 |
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: (snip) > The reason we are still talking about this is you have not sufficiently > articulate what you want. But he has.. The reason we are still talking about it is that some people jumped to the wrong conclusion about what he wanted, and this being usenet, they won't let go no matter how clearly he articulates it. > 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 only way I can see for someone to be confused is if they read the subject line (which was a bit ambiguous) but not the post.. Of course _no one_ on USENET would ever do that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkkrj5FdencU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55432 |
On 2014-01-26, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: > > (snip) > >> The reason we are still talking about this is you have not sufficiently >> articulate what you want. > > But he has.. The reason we are still talking about it is that some > people jumped to the wrong conclusion about what he wanted, and this > being usenet, they won't let go no matter how clearly he articulates > it. > >> 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." Sorry, but the phrase "the same as" can be interpreted in several ways. He needs to be more explicit here to remove ambiguity. > Not "look the same," not "similar to a human eye." While he may not have used these words, it's still not clear to me what he really means. And if the duplicate copies are truly exact copies, how are they being generated? > The only way I can see for someone to be confused is if they read the > subject line (which was a bit ambiguous) but not the post.. Of course > _no one_ on USENET would ever do that! No, the confusion is from a lack of information. -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 09:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <i438kaaat1.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #55433 |
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: > On 2014-01-26, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: > > > > (snip) > > > >> The reason we are still talking about this is you have not sufficiently > >> articulate what you want. > > > > But he has.. The reason we are still talking about it is that some > > people jumped to the wrong conclusion about what he wanted, and this > > being usenet, they won't let go no matter how clearly he articulates > > it. > > > >> 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." > > Sorry, but the phrase "the same as" can be interpreted in several > ways. Perhaps. But it does not imply "not substantially different."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkl1kdFejueU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55438 |
On 2014-01-26, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: > >> On 2014-01-26, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: >> > >> > (snip) >> > >> >> The reason we are still talking about this is you have not >> >> sufficiently articulate what you want. >> > >> > But he has.. The reason we are still talking about it is that some >> > people jumped to the wrong conclusion about what he wanted, and >> > this being usenet, they won't let go no matter how clearly he >> > articulates it. >> > >> >> 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." >> >> Sorry, but the phrase "the same as" can be interpreted in several >> ways. > > Perhaps. But it does not imply "not substantially different." But that's your own interpretation, based on your own assumptions, due to the lack of information provided. Again, the OP needs to better clarify his needs. The images in question are either: (a) exact duplicate images where image content is literally the same Note that file system metadata might be different, even if the image content is exactly the same. If such image files are in the same directory, for instance, the file names might differ. Also, as previously discussed, depending on how the images were duplicated, things like creation/modification dates may also differ, even if the image content is exactly the same. (b) distinct captures of a scene where the image content varies between captures While such image content might vary slightly due to things like JPEG compression, natural lighting, and other factors, the image content may appear to be similar to the human eye, or may appear significantly different to the human eye if something in the scene moved or changed. Depending on which is the case, the solution needed can be substantially different. And until the OP makes his needs clear, finding the right solution will not be an efficient process for him. -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 10:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cxr47uvazy.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #55439 |
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: > On 2014-01-26, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: > > > >> On 2014-01-26, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: > >> > > >> > (snip) > >> > > >> >> The reason we are still talking about this is you have not > >> >> sufficiently articulate what you want. > >> > > >> > But he has.. The reason we are still talking about it is that some > >> > people jumped to the wrong conclusion about what he wanted, and > >> > this being usenet, they won't let go no matter how clearly he > >> > articulates it. > >> > > >> >> 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." > >> > >> Sorry, but the phrase "the same as" can be interpreted in several > >> ways. > > > > Perhaps. But it does not imply "not substantially different." > > But that's your own interpretation, based on your own assumptions, due > to the lack of information provided. My interpretation of "the same as" is that it means "identical." You can certainly interpret it some other way if you like. But regardless of how you choose to interpret it, the phrase "the same as" does not, in spite of your claim, "imply" something other than identical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 19:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkl4tiFf33uU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55441 |
On 2014-01-26, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: > >> On 2014-01-26, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > > My interpretation of "the same as" is that it means "identical." Ok. > You can certainly interpret it some other way if you like. I wasn't sure how to interpret it. > But regardless of how you choose to interpret it, the phrase "the same > as" does not, in spite of your claim, "imply" something other than > identical. It was more a question of *what* was "identical" (the files, or just the image content). Anyhow, turns out you were right. Good on you. : ) -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web