What's fraudulent about the Kos/PD overlay is that it does not reflect the reality. In order to get the borders and text of the Kos and PD images to perfectly overlay each other as you have shown, the aspect ratio of one or the other image needs to be altered, i.e. the height and width need to be changed by a disproportionate amount (squeezed or stretched) in order to "force" the two to overlay perfectly.
The reality is that when one or the other image is simply scaled, i.e. maintaining the aspect ratio and not resorting to any squeezing or stretching, and the widths of the borders are matched at the tops of each border, the border of the PD image is taller than the border of the Kos image, and the horizontal alignment of the text gets progressively worse as you go down below "CHILD'S NAME."
That's the reality. The only way reproduce what Polarik misrepresents as the reality is to either squeeze the PD image or stretch the Kos image vertically to force them to perfectly overlay.
Also, the laundry list of differences between the scanned image and the FactCheck photos are is full of factual errors. I'll address some of those in subsequent posts if this post is allowed.
k
I'm glad your here because now I can get feedback my way of doings things versus your way - which, for those not privy to our conversations, concerns the definition of "image," "aspect ratio," and the effects of cropping.
Now, in response to my question, "What's fradulent about the Kos/PD overlay, you said the following:
What's fraudulent about the Kos/PD overlay is that it does not reflect the reality. In order to get the borders and text of the Kos and PD images to perfectly overlay each other as you have shown, the aspect ratio of one or the other image needs to be altered, i.e. the height and width need to be changed by a disproportionate amount (squeezed or stretched) in order to "force" the two to overlay perfectly.
I'm surprised, Steve. I thougth that you'd be happy that I followed your recommendations as to how to do an overlay. I even used Xara Extreme like you did. I made an overlay of the PD COLB by setting its transparency level to 50% and then I aligned its center with the center of the Kos COLB. I locked the aspect ratio, and then I used the SHIFT-CLICK_DRAG operation which keeps the image in place, as well as the keeping the aspect ratio the same, while I expand the border of the PD COLB to approximately match the Kos COLB. NOTE: these operations needed to be done at low zoom levels (<20%) in order to see both of them fully. I then zoomed in at 100%, and continue to resize the PD COLB image until I could line up the top borders.
Then, I needed to rotate the PD COLB slightly to make it even with the Kos COLB. When the top border corners were aligned, I checked the bottom border corners and resized them until both the top corners and bottom corners were in the tightest alignment I could create.
Nothing was forced or otherwise massaged to get them to fit. I did not change the width independent of the height, or vice versa. The aspect ratio was maintained at all times.
Despite what you and your cohorts say about me on your own blog, I do not lie, and never have. I'm not perfect, and like everyone else, I make mistakes -- but not like the former folks, I'll always acknowledge my errors and make the necessary changes or retractions, provided that I can also locate the error, and replicate the methology used to find the error.
One thing that I refuse to do is to accept, prima facie, an unsubstantiated statement. There is a sort of mindset on the other blog that just by saying something, it becomes the Gospel.
OK, back to image analysis.
First of all, we need to keep in mind that the Kos COLB image is almost three times the size of the PD COLB image. Being off a pixel at the Kos level is no big deal. Whereas, being off one pixel on the PC COLB image, is a big deal.
Check it out. What exactly is "aspect ratio?" It is the relationship of height to width. So, the easiest way to determine the aspect ratio of an image is to divide its width by its height. Right? Well, that is what you told me; i.e., to compare "one whole image to another whole image."
Steve, you were complaining that the Kos COLB does not have the same aspect ratio of the PD COLB. Here are the actual dimensions of both "whole" COLB images and their calculated aspect ratios:
KOS COLB IMAGE: 2369 X 2427 pixels. 2369/2427 = 0.9772 aspect ratio
PD COLB IOMAGE: 900 X 921 pixels. 900/921 - 0.9761 aspect ratio
Basically, there is about one pixel difference in the height of the PD COLB image that accounts for the rather tiny difference between ratios. You know that I've mentioned over and over that the PD COLB was slightly distorted by its folds, and that can be verified by comparing its height to the other two COLBs from that time period as well as the ones from 2007 and 2008. If you let me have that one pixel (which, BTW, I did not add to my comparison), then the calculation of the PD COLB's aspect ratio would be 900/922 or 0.9761 -- the exact aspect ratio of the Kos COLB.
BUT, you know that I do things differently than you (which drives you batty). We can let the unbaised FReepers decide if my ideas are off-the-wall, or a sound methology.
iMHO, comparing two images that have the same, square COLB image, but are surrounded by radically different image margins, or canvas sizes. What you had so much trouble understanding is why I want to compare just the dimensions of the certificate itself rather than including their problematic margins. So, I measure the exact sizes of the certificates itself, from corner to corner, and from outside edges to outside edges. I'm not one for doing "eyeball" comparisons -- the more the human element is not involed, the better the precision.
I am using the actual dimensions of the Kos COLB image -- even though I refer to it as the FactCheck image, for continuity sake. Except for the absence of cropping, the FactCheck COLB and Kos COLB are exactly the same. So let's stick with the Kos version.
I stated in the paragraphs that followed the Kos COLB vs. the New 2007 COLB overlay that:
The next step was to compare the 2002 PD COLB to the FactCheck COLB . I measured the width of the FactCheck COLB image (2,369 pixels) and divided it by the width of the PD COLB image (900 pixels).
The result came out to be approximately 2.632, which was then used as a multiplier. I multiplied 2.632 times the height of the PD COLB (921 pixels). This is how one can make the size of the PD COLB image comparable to the size of the FactCheck COLB image.
I did not mention what was the product of 921 pixels x 2.632, but it happens to be 2,424 pixels. The exact height of the Kos image is 2,427 pixels. The three pixel difference is a result of that one pixel difference in the measured height of the PD COLB.
As I said before, had the PD COLB been scanned flat, the image height really would have been 992 pixels. Multiply that times 2.632 and you get 2,427 pixels.
If both the height and width are multiplied by the same constant, this has no effect whatsoever on the aspect ratio, which is also a constant.
Thus, the PD image was proportionally-scaled on both dimensions, and I produced the same matched overlays using either your method or my method.
