Posted on 06/23/2011 5:46:53 AM PDT by arthurus
If the document was scanned as you presented, it would not require a high compression optimization.
Um...you don’t seem to understand how limited storage space was at that time.
Yeah, another assumption that you'd be wrong about. I've been an Apple man since I was an undergrad. Oh, and I studied and trained on the 6502 processor used in the original Apple II when I was an undergrad. I don't know if someone could be deeper into Apple than I unless their last name is Wozniak
As a computer engineer, Kodak employee and observer of document processing you have yet to explain why these documents were massaged as you claim to produce these flaws, or how you know this massaging even took place, or when, or where. It's all theory and conjecture on your part. Occam's Razor.
360dpi is a high-res scan relative to document processing some 25 years ago. Yes, I’m talking about BHO’s BC having been scanned in the 1980s - when I remember studying document compression via sectional decomposition, variable bit depths, and other techniques for cramming thousands/millions of documents into seemingly impossibly small storage spaces, a time when a PC with 10MB storage seemed vast.
Take a screenshot of the window you are looking at this very text in (characters are about a dozen pixels high). Save it as a .JPG at very high compression (say, 15/100). View the result; you’ll see halos.
Don’t know why you think the HI one was scanned recently. Pretty obvious it wasn’t.
I did explain, and in detail. And I was going to include “Mac” in the guess, but passed in favor of brevity; point is you’re using a windowing OS on an Intel processor with color screen and mouse (or mimicking trackpad) - not a printing terminal or Braille display.
Precisely why B&D records of this vintage are and were stored on microfiche. Non-volatile electronic memory didn't exist in 1961. A record this old, if genuine, would likely have been printed directly from microfiche onto security paper, but that doesn't explain all the massaging you claim happened with all the format changes, blowing up to poster size, etc., that created all these flaws, does it? It was just someone being "nice", right?
Um, what? Storage space?
It is a scan of a supposed hard copy...at least that is what we were told.
Oh, you gave an explanation all right, but you have absolutely no way of knowing that is what occurred and have offered absolutely nothing to back up your claims. You can't because you weren't there. Neither was I. There are a lot of things that could cause the flaws, not just what you explained.
They printed from the legally-acceptable digitized copy made presumably in the ‘80s. They’re not going to dig out the fragile fiche or paper unless absolutely necessary, which satisfying a bunch of conspiracy theorists isn’t. All the “massaging” was a matter of course as I explained. The “halo” effect is a normal artifact of extreme image compression on low resolution data, which is obvious from the final image.
And you don’t even understand the term “posterizing”, which has nothing to do with “blowing up to poster size”.
I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
Obviously it’s a scan of a hard copy.
WHEN the scan occurred is what some here don’t seem to understand.
JPG at very high compression (say, 15/100).
Hmmm, I use Adobe PS and Adobe Image Ready, no such setting so I have no clue what you're talking about.
But here is a jpg screen shot of the original blown up 547%, new image made, re sized to 800X500 and optimized to 60 (high). Note, no halos:
If you weren't there and, thus do not have first hand knowledge of how the documents were handled over the past 50 odd years you simply do not know for sure what happened. Your explanation is merely a theory, and is only one of many possible explanations. Your theory does not explain the layering that shows up, nor does it explain other issues detailed in this and other videos on this topic. That is my point and you don't seem to grasp it for whatever reason. If you have direct knowledge of the handling of this document and how that handling caused the flaws, let's see it. Otherwise, your "theory" is a SWAG. I've held a MSEE for nigh onto 30 years now. I'm pretty sure I can stay with you, technically speaking. I've read your theories. Let's see the facts.
Thanks for the ping!
I’ve never met you, but I can guess you’re using a Windows-type PC with monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. to access FR and post this stuff - because it’s just what people do and how things work at a certain point in technological history. While you were fixing copiers, I was studying document decomposition & compression in light of severe storage limitations. I don’t have to see the building to guess how they used common technology to solve normal office document management problems, and see how modern rendering of old files produces predictable artifacts.
*******
Obama: Do you have any idea why President Obama had to go to all the trouble to order a NEW long form birth certificate from Hawaii?
Do you think that he simply lost his own long form birth certificate?
If he lost it, I would think that he lost it in 2007 or earlier, because the short form we see on the internet is stamped 2007, which tells me that President Obama was without a long form birth certificate for at least four years: 2007 to 2011.
2007 SHORT FORM: I wonder why Senator Obama ordered a short form birth certificate in 2007 when we now know that a person could order either a short or long form back in 2007.
OBAMA'S MOTHER'S SIGNATURE: I'm sorry, but Obama's mother's signature---especially where "Stanley" is in parenthesis---looks so strange to me that I have trouble believing that Obama's mother signed that long form birth certificate.
For instance, I would like to see a long form birth certificate from any where in the world where a parent signed it with his/her first name in parenthesis.
To me, putting "Stanley" in parenthesis is an insult to Obama's mother, and I just CANNOT see her signing her name is such a bizarre manner.
But you CAN imagine a forger putting something so out of the ordinary on the document......
The point is, mine is real. The HI one is not.
Note there are no halo's on mine and the security markings never disappear like the HI one.
Your experimental proof of the falsity of ctdonath2's theory reminds me of what Benjamin Franklin said:
It is a terrible thing to see a beautiful theory beaten to death by a gang of ruthless facts.
How limited storage space was on April of 2011? Not very limited.
“In fact, they were quite rare in the ‘60’s because they were so expensive.”
Not rare for governments and large companies at the time.
Don’t know why you think the HI one was scanned recently. Pretty obvious it wasn’t.
Really, they just had two copies lying around which they scanned years ago? If the idiot doesn't have a REAL and ORIGINAL birth certificate, (Not an Abstract) I don't care what he produces, i'm going to assume he's in violation of eligibility requirements. After all the games he's played this is the only reasonable assumption left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.