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 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-27 11:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-1FAF76.11141827012014@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #55441 |
In article <cxr47uvazy.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > My interpretation of "the same as" is that it means "identical." > Nothing could be more uncertain than *both* these expressions. Imagine being asked to continue the series, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... "in the same way" or in an "identical way"? Would it be to go 6 or some other number? No matter what number, n, is chosen, there is a rule or even a mathematical formula that has the first five places as given and the number n for the sixth place. You have a naive idea about "identity". Still, that mf you are responding to would know even less than you. At least you are sometimes amusing in your exasperations. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 16:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ilr47u5l5i.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #55464 |
dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> writes: > In article <cxr47uvazy.fsf@ethel.the.log>, > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > > > My interpretation of "the same as" is that it means "identical." > > > > Nothing could be more uncertain than *both* these expressions. I'm not claiming those expressions are "certain", whatever you mean by that. I am claiming that the expression "the same as" does not imply "similar to a human eye."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-27 11:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-B9D140.11440727012014@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #55466 |
In article <ilr47u5l5i.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> writes: > > > In article <cxr47uvazy.fsf@ethel.the.log>, > > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > My interpretation of "the same as" is that it means "identical." > > > > > > > Nothing could be more uncertain than *both* these expressions. > > I'm not claiming those expressions are "certain", whatever you mean by > that. > > I am claiming that the expression "the same as" does not imply > "similar to a human eye." It does not imply anything at all much except in a heavily understood context. The context has obviously not been well understood in this thread. In Don's problem, "similar to a human eye" surely has to be one of the implications. At least to his eye! But now, perhaps we have a question about implication. To me, if B is implied by A, you cannot have *A and not B*. I have written to The United Nations to let them know that this thread, a sort of Jesus Christ of threads, has the potential to contain all the world's misunderstandings, to take all of them on its shoulders, to bear all the suffering in itself. And thereby provide hope for all the present conflicts around the world to be exhausted of fuel. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-27 13:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <270120141306030223%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55466 |
In article <ilr47u5l5i.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > > > My interpretation of "the same as" is that it means "identical." > > > > Nothing could be more uncertain than *both* these expressions. > > I'm not claiming those expressions are "certain", whatever you mean by > that. > > I am claiming that the expression "the same as" does not imply > "similar to a human eye." it is when the human eye is doing the comparison. since he said he wants to make a movie, that's what's doing the comparison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-27 12:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnleclc4.rt4.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #55438 |
In message <i438kaaat1.fsf@ethel.the.log>
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."
If you are talking about images, it certainly can. Also with music.
Wife: Why are there seven copies of <some song>
Me: There aren't
Wife: Look, see? Same song.
Me: Well, one is the album version, one is a single version, one is a
12" single version, and 4 are live performances.
Wife: Like I said, seven copies of the same song.
--
For a very few, the sky's the limit. And, sometimes, not even that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-27 05:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqvbx5sfep.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #55475 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > In message <i438kaaat1.fsf@ethel.the.log> > 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." > > If you are talking about images, it certainly can. Also with music. Imply does not mean what you think it means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 12:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rJCdnSHDVp3W3XjPnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #55432 |
On 2014.01.26, 11:19 , Doug Anderson 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,
Exactly. He told us one thing but wanted something else and we jumped
to the unfounded conclusion that he wanted what he asked for.
--
“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
- Mike Tyson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkktomFdl1mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55434 |
On 2014-01-26, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2014.01.26, 11:19 , Doug Anderson 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, > > Exactly. He told us one thing but wanted something else and we jumped > to the unfounded conclusion that he wanted what he asked for. It's still not clear to me whether the so-called duplicate images are distinct captures of the same scene, or whether they are in fact exact duplicate images. -- 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 | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 12:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9eWdnR39CsTl2HjPnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #55435 |
On 2014.01.26, 12:08 , Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-01-26, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.01.26, 11:19 , Doug Anderson 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,
>>
>> Exactly. He told us one thing but wanted something else and we jumped
>> to the unfounded conclusion that he wanted what he asked for.
>
> It's still not clear to me whether the so-called duplicate images are
> distinct captures of the same scene, or whether they are in fact exact
> duplicate images.
It's likely not clear to the OP either.
--
“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
- Mike Tyson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkkve8Febc3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55436 |
On 2014-01-26, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2014.01.26, 12:08 , Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2014-01-26, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2014.01.26, 11:19 , Doug Anderson 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, >>> >>> Exactly. He told us one thing but wanted something else and we jumped >>> to the unfounded conclusion that he wanted what he asked for. >> >> It's still not clear to me whether the so-called duplicate images are >> distinct captures of the same scene, or whether they are in fact exact >> duplicate images. > > It's likely not clear to the OP either. How can that be? All one need do is look... -- 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 | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 15:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52e571e7$0$22472$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55435 |
On 14-01-26 12:08, Jolly Roger wrote: > It's still not clear to me whether the so-called duplicate images are > distinct captures of the same scene, or whether they are in fact exact > duplicate images. Read again. It was made clear. He is affraid to process an image he has already processed. Nothing to do with whether image+1 looks very much like image, but rather he doesn't want to process "image" twice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkle0pFhddaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55450 |
On 2014-01-26, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-01-26 12:08, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> It's still not clear to me whether the so-called duplicate images are >> distinct captures of the same scene, or whether they are in fact exact >> duplicate images. > > Read again. It was made clear. He is affraid to process an image he has > already processed. Nothing to do with whether image+1 looks very much > like image, but rather he doesn't want to process "image" twice. Yeah, that's clear now. Thanks. -- 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 | 2014-01-26 14:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <260120141404421287%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55432 |
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. to a computer, 'same as' means identical in every way. just one byte difference and it's no longer identical. to a human, 'same as' means perceptually identical. if it looks the same, then it's the same. two photos taken of the same scene are identical, even though the pixels will not be exactly the same. if it can't be seen, then it's not different. he said he wants to make a stop action movie from the images, which means the result is for human consumption, thus the second one applies. since he now says that's not the case, which means he didn't clearly say what he wanted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 12:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6q61p6bisr.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #55446 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 21:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkle3fFhddaU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55449 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 16:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mzwqhm5l73.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #55457 |
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: > 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. Here is a claim, yours I think, about implying: > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-27 01:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bklsnmFk9r2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55465 |
On 2014-01-27, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> writes: > >> 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. > > Here is a claim, yours I think, about implying: > >> 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. My words, "you seem to imply", meant I was unsure, but that's how it *seemed* to me. And in other posts, I was clearly asking a lot of questions about it, and said I wasn't clear on it. Not that it matters anymore. We've since moved past this. -- 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 | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 10:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lc3ka4$ft8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55430 |
In article <bkkopbFccv0U3@mid.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 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:
To hell with "snip" and "You say" - *READ THE DAMNED POST*!
Don't just skim it assuming you know what I'm trying to say - Actually
*READ* it. Particularly this part:
> > 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.
What's ambiguous about that?
Let me give it one more try, this time perhaps at a level that a limited
understanding can cope with:
I have a magic box.
It has a button on the top, and a slot in the front.
Every single time I push the button on the top of the box, a picture
falls out of the slot in the front. I never know for sure what the
picture will be, only that when I push the button, a picture will,
absolutely for certain-sure, fall out.
I don't know, or even care, how the box works - What goes on inside it
to make a picture fall out of the slot when the button is pushed is
something the world might never know - this is a magic box, after all,
and magic can't always be explained.
Usually, if I push the magic button exactly once every 60 seconds, a
brand new picture that I've never, ever, ever seen before falls out of
the slot. This makes me happy, and I smile and add the nice new picture
to a magic flip-book I'm building.
But sometimes - I don't know why, I only know that it's true - if I push
the button exactly once every 60 seconds, the picture that falls out is
*EXACTLY* the same as the picture that fell out the last time I pushed
the button. This makes me sad, and I cry a little bit because seeing the
exact same picture over and over and over and over and over again is
boring, and makes my magic flip-book boring, too. And who would want a
boring magic flip-book?
Since I don't like to be sad and cry, and I don't want a boring magic
flip-book, I need to figure out a way to decide if the picture that
falls out of the slot is a nice, happy new picture I've never seen
before, or if it's a yucky, sad old picture that I've already seen.
If it's a nice, happy new picture, I'll put it in my magic flip-book.
But if it's a yucky sad repeat picture, I want to throw it away so my
magic flip-book doesn't get boring and I don't have to be sad and cry.
Clear enough?
If so, great. If not, oh well. Think on it and figure it out for
yourself. Or don't. Either way, I'm done with the thread other than
perhaps following along to see how stupidly over-the-top you clowns can
take it.
--
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 18:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkl3udFf33uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55440 |
On 2014-01-26, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <bkkopbFccv0U3@mid.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> 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:
>
> To hell with "snip" and "You say" - *READ THE DAMNED POST*!
>
> Don't just skim it assuming you know what I'm trying to say - Actually
> *READ* it. Particularly this part:
>
>> > 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.
>
> What's ambiguous about that?
That little part all by itself? Not much.
> Let me give it one more try, this time perhaps at a level that a limited
> understanding can cope with:
Oh boy...here come the insults.
> I have a magic box.
>
> It has a button on the top, and a slot in the front.
>
> Every single time I push the button on the top of the box, a picture
> falls out of the slot in the front. I never know for sure what the
> picture will be, only that when I push the button, a picture will,
> absolutely for certain-sure, fall out.
>
> I don't know, or even care, how the box works - What goes on inside it
> to make a picture fall out of the slot when the button is pushed is
> something the world might never know - this is a magic box, after all,
> and magic can't always be explained.
>
> Usually, if I push the magic button exactly once every 60 seconds, a
> brand new picture that I've never, ever, ever seen before falls out of
> the slot. This makes me happy, and I smile and add the nice new picture
> to a magic flip-book I'm building.
>
> But sometimes - I don't know why, I only know that it's true - if I push
> the button exactly once every 60 seconds, the picture that falls out is
> *EXACTLY* the same as the picture that fell out the last time I pushed
> the button. This makes me sad, and I cry a little bit because seeing the
> exact same picture over and over and over and over and over again is
> boring, and makes my magic flip-book boring, too. And who would want a
> boring magic flip-book?
>
> Since I don't like to be sad and cry, and I don't want a boring magic
> flip-book, I need to figure out a way to decide if the picture that
> falls out of the slot is a nice, happy new picture I've never seen
> before, or if it's a yucky, sad old picture that I've already seen.
>
> If it's a nice, happy new picture, I'll put it in my magic flip-book.
>
> But if it's a yucky sad repeat picture, I want to throw it away so my
> magic flip-book doesn't get boring and I don't have to be sad and cry.
>
> Clear enough?
>
> If so, great. If not, oh well. Think on it and figure it out for
> yourself. Or don't. Either way, I'm done with the thread other than
> perhaps following along to see how stupidly over-the-top you clowns
> can take it.
Sure, that is more than clear enough.
It's just too bad you weren't clear from the start. Taking no
responsibility for yourself and slinging insults on those who are
sincerely trying to help you isn't good form, even if those trying to
help have made mistakes in trying to help. I do understand your
frustration - in fact I share it. But if you had been this clear about
it from the start, it would have saved you and everyone else some time.
--
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 | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 15:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52e572a7$0$22472$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55440 |
On 14-01-26 13:32, Don Bruder wrote: > But sometimes - I don't know why, I only know that it's true - if I push > the button exactly once every 60 seconds, the picture that falls out is > *EXACTLY* the same as the picture that fell out the last time I pushed > the button. OK, now I don't understand anymore. Are you saying you are affraid that a NEW picture is identical to a previously taken pricture ? In previous posts, you had made it look like you did not wish to process the same picture twice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 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