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 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 13:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2014012613303278552-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #55440 |
On 2014-01-26 18:32:10 +0000, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> said:
> 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.
Aah! A flip-book! Why didn't you say so in your OP?
> 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?
Strangely enough, movies, videos, and even flip-books can have several
identical frames(pages) in the sequence.
> 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.
You are a sensitive lad aren't you?
Then it seems you need to refine the method your system delivers these
pictures to you. Perhaps programing the mysterious magical capture
device to only deliver an image after executing a capture, and not just
sucking it out of some odd archive of previously captured images. If it
hasn't captured a fresh image when you poll the device, or demand
delivery of an image, your device (I am reluctant to even call it a
camera) should capture a fresh image to deliver.
> 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.
There does seem to be a major communications failure in this thread
which can be summed up with this;
< https://db.tt/w0lFHgNy >
So, in the spirit of your current attitude;
< https://db.tt/OubkB9Fo >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 15:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lc44d1$v66$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55455 |
In article <2014012613303278552-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-26 18:32:10 +0000, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> said:
> > 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.
>
> Aah! A flip-book! Why didn't you say so in your OP?
Y'know, I realize I said I was done here, but I just can't help myself.
The level of obtuse being displayed demands an effort to comprehend. Is
it something that comes naturally, or does one need to cultivate it?
I wonder... have you ever heard of this somewhat newfangled linguistic
widget called an "analogy"?
<snippity>
> > 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.
>
> You are a sensitive lad aren't you?
<chuckle>
<snort>
<giggle>
<belly-laugh>
<ROTFLMAOASTC>
Oh lordy... I think I may have pulled something... MEDIC!!!!
>
> Then it seems you need to refine the method your system delivers these
> pictures to you.
<gasp> No! You can't POSSIBLY think so!
> Perhaps programing the mysterious magical capture
> device to only deliver an image after executing a capture, and not just
> sucking it out of some odd archive of previously captured images. If it
> hasn't captured a fresh image when you poll the device, or demand
> delivery of an image, your device (I am reluctant to even call it a
> camera) should capture a fresh image to deliver.
In an ideal world, said device might indeed be under my control, and
therefore subject to such reprogramming.
HOWEVER, being stuck in a non-ideal world, I'm coping the best I can by
trying to code around a shortcoming in the image source.
Since you seem to be analogy-, as well as understanding-impaired, I'll
give it one more go.
As explained elsewhere (in multiple ways, on multiple occasions, but
still somehow eluding DAMN NEAR EVERYBODY despite my efforts to be so
clear that no misunderstanding could be possible) my program is
snatching images from a webcam (AKA "pushing the button on the magic
box" of the analogy, AKA the original "assemble a stream of webcam
images" in my first post) that *NOMINALLY* updates the image on a
website every 60 seconds. Notice the emphasis on "nominally" - The
reality is that at times, for reasons unknown to me (and likely to
remain forever unknown, as, like I've said, the device in question isn't
under my control) the update frequency has been observed to vary from as
often as once per second to as seldom as once per month. The quicker
update frequency presents no significant problem - I simply pick off
whatever image happens to be available the next time my program counts
off another minute and polls the website where the image is parked. The
lower frequency updates, on the other hand, tend to result in movies
that are effectively nothing more than a still image with a ridiculously
huge file size. (Thus, in the analogy, I'm made sad, my "sensitive side"
comes out, and my "magic flip-book" becomes all soggy and hard to light.
Perhaps I ought to check and see if the manufacturer makes a
lacrimal-fluid resistant version...)
The original question, once the (attempted) explanation of what I was
trying to do was got past, boiled down to "Does Cocoa include a method
whereby one can compare two images and get back a YES/NO to the question
"Are these images two instances of the same image?" A dead simple
yes-or-no query.
A question that was, to give credit where it's due, answered by the
posting entity that calls itself "nospam", in the second post of this
thread - Specifically, that no, there is no such facility built into
Cocoa. From there, the thread quickly went completely off the rails
until I'm suddenly "the bad guy" somehow because almost nobody
responding was/is capable of enough reading comprehension to realize
that the only response needed was a simple "yes" or "no".
For anyone who might give a damn, I've coded a workaround that seems to
be doing the job just fine. I'll let it keep dumping debug reports for
another half a day or so, and if it continues to show no problems, call
it "good enough". I would have preferred not to NEED to do such coding,
but... <shrug> We don't always get what we prefer, right?
>
> > 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.
>
> There does seem to be a major communications failure in this thread
> which can be summed up with this;
> < https://db.tt/w0lFHgNy >
Sorry, I don't do links like that. For one thing, it just plain ain't
safe, and for another, I suspect that the destination is likely
something along the lines of "The Oatmeal" or "Rage" comics - works that
are so utterly devoid of even the slightest trace of amusement value I
can't even properly express how stupid I consider them to be.
>
> So, in the spirit of your current attitude;
> < https://db.tt/OubkB9Fo >
What I will do, however, is give you the benefit of the doubt, and
assume the sentiment you're trying to express with these nuggets,
whatever they might be, is something along the lines of "kiss my ass",
and simply say "right back atcha, chum."
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 18:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52e59846$0$10608$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55458 |
On 14-01-26 18:06, Don Bruder wrote: > As explained elsewhere (in multiple ways, on multiple occasions, but > still somehow eluding DAMN NEAR EVERYBODY I tried hard and doN't still know how you access the image data. > clear that no misunderstanding could be possible) my program is > snatching images from a webcam (AKA "pushing the button on the magic > box" of the analogy, AKA the original "assemble a stream of webcam > images" in my first post) Is your application talking diurectly to a web cam via USB for instance, and requesting an image which then comes to you via USB (and not by the web cam depositing a file somewhere) ? Your analogy of "pressing the button" indicates that you request the camera take a new current image and send the data to you. If you are talking to a camera directly, and that camera has no disk storage, than it cannot send you a stale image it has taken a minute ago. If that is the case, then we can't help you unless you provide brand/model so we can better understand how you could interact with that "magic box". My previous messages were based on the assumption that your "magic box" deposited files on a disk at some random intervals and that your app wanted to access those files but only process data you had not processed before. It appears now this is not the case. So you need to be a bit clearer about how the camera is connected and how your application obtaisn the data. Does it read files or does it get data direct from camera via USB or Wi-Fi or what ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bklkd7Fib1cU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55458 |
On 2014-01-26, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > [destructive rant snipped] > > As explained elsewhere (in multiple ways, on multiple occasions, but > still somehow eluding DAMN NEAR EVERYBODY despite my efforts to be so > clear that no misunderstanding could be possible) my program is > snatching images from a webcam (AKA "pushing the button on the magic > box" of the analogy, AKA the original "assemble a stream of webcam > images" in my first post) that *NOMINALLY* updates the image on a > website every 60 seconds. So rather than pulling images directly from a network camera, you are, in fact, pulling images from a web site indiscriminately? That's quite a different use case, as I see it. In that case, examining the "Last-Modified" HTTP header will tell you if the image is in fact new, which would allow you to refrain from pulling the same image more than once. -- 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 | 2014-01-27 13:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <270120141306010135%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55461 |
In article <bklkd7Fib1cU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > > As explained elsewhere (in multiple ways, on multiple occasions, but > > still somehow eluding DAMN NEAR EVERYBODY despite my efforts to be so > > clear that no misunderstanding could be possible) my program is > > snatching images from a webcam (AKA "pushing the button on the magic > > box" of the analogy, AKA the original "assemble a stream of webcam > > images" in my first post) that *NOMINALLY* updates the image on a > > website every 60 seconds. > > So rather than pulling images directly from a network camera, you are, > in fact, pulling images from a web site indiscriminately? That's quite a > different use case, as I see it. In that case, examining the > "Last-Modified" HTTP header will tell you if the image is in fact new, > which would allow you to refrain from pulling the same image more than > once. how hypocritical of you. apparently you don't understand that header may not always be correct and it's likely the file's modification date anyway. if a file copy alters the create date, then the modification date is likely also altered. if my idea is stupid, then so is yours. but what's really amusing is despite your idiotic ranting, you are actually suggesting a variant of what i originally suggested.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-27 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bknpgfF22s8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55485 |
On 2014-01-27, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <bklkd7Fib1cU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> > As explained elsewhere (in multiple ways, on multiple occasions, but >> > still somehow eluding DAMN NEAR EVERYBODY despite my efforts to be so >> > clear that no misunderstanding could be possible) my program is >> > snatching images from a webcam (AKA "pushing the button on the magic >> > box" of the analogy, AKA the original "assemble a stream of webcam >> > images" in my first post) that *NOMINALLY* updates the image on a >> > website every 60 seconds. >> >> So rather than pulling images directly from a network camera, you are, >> in fact, pulling images from a web site indiscriminately? That's quite a >> different use case, as I see it. In that case, examining the >> "Last-Modified" HTTP header will tell you if the image is in fact new, >> which would allow you to refrain from pulling the same image more than >> once. > > how hypocritical of you. > > apparently you don't understand that header may not always be correct > and it's likely the file's modification date anyway. Maybe you don't have enough experience with network cameras to see what's going on here. A common feature of network cameras is to automatically upload snapshots to an ftp/web server. The OP has stated that, for this particular camera, that upload happens at random intervals. The OPs software downloads the image from the web server at different intervals than the camera uploads them. Therefore when the OPs software downloads an image from the web server, the image on the server at the time may be the exact same image the OPs software got the last time it downloaded an image from the server. Examining the last-modified header / file modification date in this case will be sufficient to refrain from downloading the same image. If you can't wrap your little brain around that, contact your local therapist for assistance. You've proven yourself to be a complete jackass. Good work, Mary. -- 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 | 2014-01-27 23:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52e72fa1$0$49692$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55490 |
On 14-01-27 14:14, Jolly Roger wrote: > Maybe you don't have enough experience with network cameras to see > what's going on here. A common feature of network cameras is to > automatically upload snapshots to an ftp/web server. The OP has stated > that, for this particular camera, that upload happens at random > intervals. But in another post, he said his application grabbed images from the camera. (In which case, the issue isn't one of getting a new picture, but detecting if the scene has changed since the last picture was acquirted from the camera, and this is totally different than checking for a new file deposited by the camera in a directory at "regular" intervals. Until he tells us exactly how images are acquired and transfered, we can't help him since we don't know what he is getting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-28 04:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkoptaF8m5gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55501 |
On 2014-01-28, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-01-27 14:14, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> Maybe you don't have enough experience with network cameras to see >> what's going on here. A common feature of network cameras is to >> automatically upload snapshots to an ftp/web server. The OP has stated >> that, for this particular camera, that upload happens at random >> intervals. > > But in another post, he said his application grabbed images from the > camera. (In which case, the issue isn't one of getting a new picture, > but detecting if the scene has changed since the last picture was > acquirted from the camera, and this is totally different than checking > for a new file deposited by the camera in a directory at "regular" > intervals. Definitely. That is how I initially interpreted the use case, which is why I suggested he look at motiontrack, which excels at this sort of thing. > Until he tells us exactly how images are acquired and transfered, we > can't help him since we don't know what he is getting. Yeah I remember that, and suspect it was a mistake. You're certainly right, though: he didn't do a very good job at all asking for help! Oh well... -- 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 | 2014-01-29 14:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <290120141401455289%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55501 |
In article <52e72fa1$0$49692$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > Maybe you don't have enough experience with network cameras to see > > what's going on here. A common feature of network cameras is to > > automatically upload snapshots to an ftp/web server. The OP has stated > > that, for this particular camera, that upload happens at random > > intervals. > > But in another post, he said his application grabbed images from the > camera. (In which case, the issue isn't one of getting a new picture, > but detecting if the scene has changed since the last picture was > acquirted from the camera, and this is totally different than checking > for a new file deposited by the camera in a directory at "regular" > intervals. > > Until he tells us exactly how images are acquired and transfered, we > can't help him since we don't know what he is getting. yet that won't stop certain people from somehow determining that certain suggestions will not work without ever having tried them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-29 14:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <290120141401425129%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55490 |
In article <bknpgfF22s8U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> > As explained elsewhere (in multiple ways, on multiple occasions, but > >> > still somehow eluding DAMN NEAR EVERYBODY despite my efforts to be so > >> > clear that no misunderstanding could be possible) my program is > >> > snatching images from a webcam (AKA "pushing the button on the magic > >> > box" of the analogy, AKA the original "assemble a stream of webcam > >> > images" in my first post) that *NOMINALLY* updates the image on a > >> > website every 60 seconds. > >> > >> So rather than pulling images directly from a network camera, you are, > >> in fact, pulling images from a web site indiscriminately? That's quite a > >> different use case, as I see it. In that case, examining the > >> "Last-Modified" HTTP header will tell you if the image is in fact new, > >> which would allow you to refrain from pulling the same image more than > >> once. > > > > how hypocritical of you. > > > > apparently you don't understand that header may not always be correct > > and it's likely the file's modification date anyway. > > Maybe you don't have enough experience with network cameras to see > what's going on here. A common feature of network cameras is to > automatically upload snapshots to an ftp/web server. The OP has stated > that, for this particular camera, that upload happens at random > intervals. The OPs software downloads the image from the web server at > different intervals than the camera uploads them. Therefore when the OPs > software downloads an image from the web server, the image on the server > at the time may be the exact same image the OPs software got the last > time it downloaded an image from the server. Examining the last-modified > header / file modification date in this case will be sufficient to > refrain from downloading the same image. maybe you don't have enough experience with web servers to know that the last modified header is implementation dependent. what you describe *probably* will work but it is not guaranteed to always work. if you're going to criticize my suggestion of create date, then you don't get to make an similarly flawed suggestion (if not more so). but regardless, you've proven yourself to be a lying hypocrite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-27 01:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lc4c75$joi$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #55458 |
Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > For anyone who might give a damn, I've coded a workaround that seems to > be doing the job just fine. I'll let it keep dumping debug reports for > another half a day or so, and if it continues to show no problems, call > it "good enough". I'm interested in efficient ways to compare files. I'd be interested in seeing what you've worked up when you're satisfied with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 18:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lc4g82$c2o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55468 |
In article <lc4c75$joi$1@reader1.panix.com>, john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> wrote: > Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > > > > For anyone who might give a damn, I've coded a workaround that seems to > > be doing the job just fine. I'll let it keep dumping debug reports for > > another half a day or so, and if it continues to show no problems, call > > it "good enough". > > I'm interested in efficient ways to compare files. I'd be interested > in seeing what you've worked up when you're satisfied with it. Pretty simple, really - Especially considering the insanity that this thread has spawned. In my "try to grab a new image" routine, I grab the image as "current", then just loop through the first hundred bytes of the last image (saved as "previous" for this purpose) that was considered "new", XORing them against the same bytes in "current". If any of the XORs produce a non-zero, I break out of the loop, replace "previous" with "current" for next time around, and hand "current" back to the caller. If the XORs all come up zero, I drop "current" on the floor, and return nil to the caller to signal "no new image this time around - try again later". *VERY* simplistic, obviously won't catch differences beyond the first hundred bytes, and probably has other technically "unforgivable" problems, but so far, hasn't shown me a wrong choice, runs quick, and didn't take much "brain-sweat" to code. -- Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-28 02:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lc74hg$ft6$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #55472 |
Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > In article <lc4c75$joi$1@reader1.panix.com>, > john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> wrote: > > Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > > > > > > > For anyone who might give a damn, I've coded a workaround that seems to > > > be doing the job just fine. I'll let it keep dumping debug reports for > > > another half a day or so, and if it continues to show no problems, call > > > it "good enough". > > > > I'm interested in efficient ways to compare files. I'd be interested > > in seeing what you've worked up when you're satisfied with it. > Pretty simple, really - Especially considering the insanity that this > thread has spawned. > In my "try to grab a new image" routine, I grab the image as "current", > then just loop through the first hundred bytes of the last image (saved > as "previous" for this purpose) that was considered "new", XORing them > against the same bytes in "current". If any of the XORs produce a > non-zero, I break out of the loop, replace "previous" with "current" for > next time around, and hand "current" back to the caller. If the XORs all > come up zero, I drop "current" on the floor, and return nil to the > caller to signal "no new image this time around - try again later". Ok. You understand this approach will generate false duplicates and that you will miss frames that you would otherwise have included. > *VERY* simplistic, obviously won't catch differences beyond the first > hundred bytes, and probably has other technically "unforgivable" > problems, but so far, hasn't shown me a wrong choice, runs quick, and > didn't take much "brain-sweat" to code. Since your method will erroneously detect false duplicates, your QA process is failing to detect the errors. Do you have an alternative method for verifying your code? Right now it was quick to develop, runs fast, and produces the wrong answers. If the errors are within the tolerances of your project, that's your call. I'm curious as to why you seem reluctant to use existing utilities such as cmp(1) that are readily available under Mac OS X, which have a development time of zero, produce correct answers, and run blindingly fast. I just used cmp(1) to compare two equal 25M files on my iMac running Tiger: wall clock time was 0.12 seconds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-28 06:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lc8f7r$9s5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55499 |
In article <lc74hg$ft6$1@reader1.panix.com>, john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> wrote: > Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > > In article <lc4c75$joi$1@reader1.panix.com>, > > john hevelin <bwotte@panix.com> wrote: > > > > Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > For anyone who might give a damn, I've coded a workaround that seems to > > > > be doing the job just fine. I'll let it keep dumping debug reports for > > > > another half a day or so, and if it continues to show no problems, call > > > > it "good enough". > > > > > > I'm interested in efficient ways to compare files. I'd be interested > > > in seeing what you've worked up when you're satisfied with it. > > > Pretty simple, really - Especially considering the insanity that this > > thread has spawned. > > > In my "try to grab a new image" routine, I grab the image as "current", > > then just loop through the first hundred bytes of the last image (saved > > as "previous" for this purpose) that was considered "new", XORing them > > against the same bytes in "current". If any of the XORs produce a > > non-zero, I break out of the loop, replace "previous" with "current" for > > next time around, and hand "current" back to the caller. If the XORs all > > come up zero, I drop "current" on the floor, and return nil to the > > caller to signal "no new image this time around - try again later". > > Ok. You understand this approach will generate false duplicates > and that you will miss frames that you would otherwise have included. OK, you've caught my attention. How do I get "false duplicates"? Given two blocks of bytes, X and Y, if X[index] XOR Y[index] != 0, then it follows that X and Y aren't identical, and we can stop checking - all it takes is one difference to say for certain that the two blocks aren't the same. On the flip side, if X[index] XOR Y[index] == 0, then X and Y MIGHT be identical. In this case, more checking is in order. After some point (exactly what that point is would be a judgement call) enough "same" results accrete to declare that X is probably the same as Y, and bail out. In my case, I'm going with 100 same bytes as good enough to make the call. Someone else might want to go for 1000, or 10000, or whatever. I do realize that, unlike the "they're different" case, the only way to be *ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN* they're the same is to run through the entire block. -- 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 | 2014-01-27 10:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <do_ray_me-AAA335.10552727012014@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #55440 |
In article <lc3ka4$ft8$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > Let me give it one more try, this time perhaps at a level that a limited > understanding can cope with: > A *limited* understanding is essential to doing any science at all, it is the reason there can be no unlimitedly intelligent being (a God). An unlimited understanding would never be able to settle on any *one* pattern to fit any given set of data, an unlimited understanding would see too many possibilities and would be unable to choose between the possible interpretations. It is the more intelligent people who see different interpretations to IQ tests and can easily give answers that are not expected by the often less intelligent setters of the questions. How smart are you? Can you draw a certain lesson from what I have just informed you about? Do you need a hint? > 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. > When has magic ever been able to 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? > No. Because you do not explicitly say what counts as brand new. Is it: if it seems the same to you it counts as same, if not, not? To fashion a machine or algorithm to substitute for you needs this question answered. What's the matter with you, Don? > 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. You are not done. You will sit there and be here till the group as a whole says you are done. <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/jokes/germanPianist.html> -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 22:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120142210165375%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55381 |
In article <lc1opr$h1d$2@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > > Personally this whole project seems a little silly to me The OP should > > just make his time lapse cqptures and compile them into the video/movie > > format of his choice. Why worry if one frame appears visually identical > > tthe one before it, or the one after, That does happen in > > cinematography. > > I *DON'T* care if the frames are visually different. The first one could > be solid black, the next solid blue, and the one after that, solid red. > All I care about is "OK, I grabbed the first image. Now it's time to > grab a new image - did I get the same image I just got, or did I get a > new one?" then why do you care about pixel data? just look at the create date. if it's a new file, it will have a different date. end of problem. you can even sort on that to get the proper order of the files.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-25 21:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vtob2z47w7.fsf@ethel.the.log> |
| In reply to | #55402 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: > In article <lc1opr$h1d$2@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> > wrote: > > > > 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?" > > then why do you care about pixel data? > > just look at the create date. if it's a new file, it will have a > different date. end of problem. you can even sort on that to get the > proper order of the files. And if it is identical to the old file, it may also have a different date. So looking at the create date does not do what the poster needs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 14:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <260120141404360974%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55419 |
In article <vtob2z47w7.fsf@ethel.the.log>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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?" > > > > then why do you care about pixel data? > > > > just look at the create date. if it's a new file, it will have a > > different date. end of problem. you can even sort on that to get the > > proper order of the files. > > And if it is identical to the old file, it may also have a different > date. then it's not identical. identical means exactly the same. when one or more attributes are not the same, then it is not identical. if you don't understand the basics, how could you ever understand the more complicated stuff (which isn't even that complicated)? > So looking at the create date does not do what the poster > needs. if the create date is not modified when making a copy, then it most certainly will work. on the other hand, if you want to intentionally choose a copy method that does modify the create date, then obviously it won't work. either fix the copy routine or choose a different method. very simple. since the create date is preserved on the mac, it will work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-26 03:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bkjcq6F3qa4U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55381 |
On 2014-01-26, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > > 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?" Clearly if you had made this known at the very beginning, you'd have saved yourself and everyone else a lot of 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 | 2014-01-25 17:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52e43aef$0$12701$c3e8da3$69010069@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55356 |
On 14-01-25 16:27, Doug Anderson wrote: > 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 camera has no concept of time, then files get sent as raw data and the creation date on the computer will reflect the date of transfer, not the date of image capture. If the camera box transmits the same image twice, the two files may have identical content, but not necessarily identical creation dates. From the question posted by the OP, it would appear that he had done his preliminary homework before and had ruled out the simple answers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 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