patrick.net

Bottom line, he'd jump that junk in a heartbeat.

I don't know fake tits are a hard sell to me as well. I like women comfortable in their own skin.

Well... That's what actually happened..

Ceffer says

Bottom line, he'd jump that junk in a heartbeat.

He could tell they were fake because they didn't jiggle with the jumping. Stupid bolt-on cunt. MEN KNOW.

Women who feel disadvantaged in the attraction arena become delusional about their breasts. Having an exaggerated set of sproingers is a fantasy, and frankly, it attracts more moths to the flames than not. They don't call it the dumb stick for nothing.

Bitches are proud of those fake fuckers. My wife has had a couple of friends get sproingers, and if you DON'T pointedly dwell on them, they are offended. Also, they have had enhanced success attracting daft gomers to their webs. Ha, Ha, I said a funny, pointed, LOL!

Truck surfing didn't work out so well. We walk down there all the time.

LOL! I put this in the funny picture thread because if you believe this is a self garroting mark then......... Looks like cheap lipstick.

With regard to what I previously said:

I (think?) I improved it. Included is a reference to a product from Amazon, complete with a QR code to a 2nd grade teacher who bought a poster, but only of the prediction. They loved it!

I also have a higher resolution image, because @Patrick is downgrading images. This is the high resolution image:

https://i.ibb.co/7WQ3zst/gay-marriage.png



The QR code points to: https://www.amazon.com/What-Will-Happen-Marriage-Legalized/dp/B00JPJW2IK - read the review. If it's deleted, I put it in archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20230628084644/https://www.amazon.com/What-Will-Happen-Marriage-Legalized/dp/B00JPJW2IK

The obliviousness of a 2nd grade teacher is kind of astounding. I would have been 7-8 then, back then I was that oblivious, but not at 10 when I was starting to hear the bus chatter on what "sex" was.. Turns out there was a reason why the younger kids sat at the front, and the older ones in back.

Patrick says

Inspecting, this picture, I think it's been modified in order to create this illusion. Fooling around with luminesce levels, I got this:



I think somebody booted up photoshop and artificially darkened the picture because the original picture can't be recovered. I think they set a threshold for "black" and made that all black.

I don't believe fur can possibly be that black.

I missed the cat the first time, thanks!

richwicks says

I think somebody booted up photoshop and artificially darkened the picture because the original picture can't be recovered.

I don't know it could have been taken with a camera that cell phones had around 2006. They were poor quality, low res, and saturation and bright levels were crap. Next to no detail in any photo.

NuttBoxer says

I missed the cat the first time, thanks!

Yeah, I was like "but it IS a broken chair", but then I made out the eyes. You can easily see the cat if you go to full screen, if anything outside of the picture is on a black background.

Tenpoundbass says

I don't know it could have been taken with a camera that cell phones had around 2006. They were poor quality, low res, and saturation and bright levels were crap. Next to no detail in any photo.

Do you know about luminosity levels? So, in digital photography, you get a "look" that is tape, and a "look" that is film. The earlier video cameras were linear, but later ones had the film spline.

What changes is that low level brightness levels are compressed together in terms of their luminosity, and bright levels, are compressed together in bright levels. That's how you could instinctively tell if something was recorded on tape versus film. That's why black people looked so dark on film, and when you saw them on camera they appeared to be much lighter.

For example: I reversed it for the image above:



The curve for luminosity for FILM looks something like this:



The straight line is what video tape looked like in 1990, and the curved one is more like film. They (apparently?) do this so that the sky won't just drown out what you're trying to record, and when it's dark, you can't see it anyhow.

What's kind of neat about this is you can take a video tape, and make it more "film like". If you've ever seen some cheap soap opera from the 1980's, you could see that it was on video tape. You could also tell the difference if a television show was done "live" versus being pre-recorded, which was almost always on film.

OK now do Lab space values and the corresponding D50 white point.

Earlier cameras were dark, you had to bring them in a photo editing program on your computer to brighten them up.
And they still looked washed out and crappy.
I think my previous statement stood on its own in the realm of plausible without a lesson in luminosity heuristics.

Tenpoundbass says

OK now do Lab space values and the corresponding D50 white point.

Earlier cameras were dark, you had to bring them in a photo editing program on your computer to brighten them up.
And they still looked washed out and crappy.
I think my previous statement stood on its own in the realm of plausible without a lesson in luminosity heuristics.

You probably know more than I do. I read about the curve of luminosity somewhere, and I tried it out. There's 2 episodes of the original Twilight Zone done that were on video tape, and it SHOWS. If I ever figure out how to apply the luminosity levels on video with ffmpeg, and not just a single image, I'll fix them.

You know - I've seen the Twilight Zone on television where they modified it, to appear like tape - it seemed "cheap". I was at my neighbor's place, and we happened upon an episode, and I was like "wait, I have this" and moved the same episode to his television, so he could see it properly. I think they do this so you won't record - you certainly wouldn't want to, it just looks awful.

You might be right about early cameras on phones, but I suspect somebody who knows more than me was fucking around. It is kind of funny as a cat picture. I'm not an expert in photography, but I know a TINY bit about it. I used to work for RCA. People who are like "4K is WAY BETTER than 1080p" - nope. You can tell the difference in video on 720 to 1080 - but above that, unless it's a static image, no. That's why those values were picking. 720 is plenty really. Some mutants can tell the difference between 4K and 8K on a static image, but above 8K - nobody can. I think the default video quality for all of time in the future will be 4K, maybe even 1080p.

EDIT: Apparently SIX episodes were shot on tape of the Twilight Zone:

"The Lateness of the Hour"
"Static"
"The Whole Truth"
"Night of the Meek"
"Twenty Two"
"Long Distance Call"

The Lateness of the Hour I remember, it just looked terrible. I'd like to fix it, if there is an ffmpeg filter for it.

Yeah those channels on the digital over the air antennas show classic reruns that are poor quality like that.
You buy HD TV's and spend money on HD antennas, and the networks intentionally broadcasts in LoFi.

What was limiting about those early digital cameras was the 800 X 600 resolution. Remember that Sony Camera that took pictures and saved them to a floppy disk?
Later came some of the first snazzy Digital cameras like Sony Cool Pic was only 3 mp resolution. But it was the size of the Nokia Chicklet phone with the cool sounding telescoping lens. The resolution, contrast and saturation still sucked though. It wasn't until we got at least 8 mp things started looking up. To me nothing short of 12mp will do.

Tenpoundbass says

Yeah those channels on the digital over the air antennas show classic reruns that are poor quality like that.

They are going through effort to fuck up the video. It's not an artifact of the broadcast - also this was on cable, but that doesn't matter. It looked TERRIBLE. They went through effort to make it look AWFUL.

Tenpoundbass says

What was limiting about those early digital cameras was the 800 X 600 resolution. Remember that Sony Camera that took pictures and saved them to a floppy disk?

I don't know precisely, but probably technology constraints. I had (actually still have) an early Kodak Camera - great color pickup, but 32 pictures, and the batteries have to be replaced, and it doesn't work on rechargables.

Here's a picture I took with my Kodak, and also messed with in gimp to remove some stuff with that camera:



You can see the grain in the picture, except where I did some editing. I used for foster Samoyeds, and that was her "rescue picture" - we had to make them look appealing, and I kept her, and good decision. She was a good dog and I was best possible owner for her. Need a 5' tall teddy bear? There's one in my closet, but I don't know if I want to sell it.. I have good memories of that dog, she was very good.

Tenpoundbass says

It wasn't until we got at least 8 mp things started looking up. To me nothing short of 12mp will do.

I disagree, higher resolution makes editing easier for certain, you can do digital zooms, but I think at 4K, that was enough. That's 8mp but I guess if you got it, flaunt it.

There's a company BTW that does an interesting technology for camera capture, but it's rarely used. What they do is stack the red / green / blue on top of each other instead of making a Bayer filter. Oh, here it is, Foveon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor

But Bayer filters are typically used, which reduces the ability to detect light to 1/3rd:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

With Foveon, each photodetector detects the level of color, and if the wavelength is too long, it passes to the next level and if THAT is too long, it goes to the next level. It didn't do as well as it should although it's CLEARLY a superior technology, because we suck at identifying color but Bayer filters lose 2/3rds of the photons though absorbtion so they don't work as well in low light levels. We see mostly in black and white, and our brain makes up shit to fill in the color. That's why we have 4:2:2 chroma subsampling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling

It's so weird in engineering to see the limitations of your own perception. Color isn't very important, you could take a color film, and reduce the resolution of the chroma DRASTICALLY and not notice it. Everything we have is engineered around the limits of our perception, from MP3 to video H.265. I wonder if animals can see it or hear it. I bet most of them can hear it, but not see it.

The real joke, is that this is a REAL ARTICLE:

https://nypost.com/2022/03/22/zelensky-we-wont-join-nato-if-that-brings-peace/

richwicks says

Perhaps I'm more discerning than you. But that picture looks like the light levels are all over the place. If you brought it in and tried to balance it and make it look better. Then the colors start tinting green, and gets grainy. And if you view a 600 X 800 picture on a modern high res computer you need to zoom in to see better detail then that's when it goes to pot.

We took thousands of film camera photos of the kids as babies and growing toddlers, by time they were elementary age. Digital cameras became a thing.
They just did not hold up to our expectations. We weren't happy with the results until at least 8mp.

I mean if you just want an image to text back to the wife while your out shopping, its good, but if you want a saved memory they are not. They just look so pedestrian even worse than 110 camera roll film or Polaroid.

Tenpoundbass says

I mean if you just want an image to text back to the wife while your out shopping, its good, but if you want a saved memory they are not. They just look so pedestrian even worse than 110 camera roll film or Polaroid.

You're entirely wrong. Consider what we had for photographs just 50 years ago, or 100. The photograph above was taken in 2002 or so, brand new technology. The sensor on the Kodak doesn't even exist anymore.

richwicks says

The photograph above was taken in 2002 or so, brand new technology. The sensor on the Kodak doesn't even exist anymore.

I had an Indian engineer that has worked on imaging hardware in the past. Tell me that every sensor in a digital camera were the exact same. There are only a few manufacturers around the world. Every digital camera used the exact same part. What makes it 1mp vs 12mp is the processor and imaging software embedded in the chip on the camera. That was way back in 2013, I don't know if that is still the case..

Tenpoundbass says

What makes it 1mp vs 12mp is the processor and imaging software embedded in the chip on the camera. That was way back in 2013, I don't know if that is still the case..

I see this as possible.

Tenpoundbass says

I had an Indian engineer that has worked on imaging hardware in the past. Tell me that every sensor in a digital camera were the exact same. There are only a few manufacturers around the world. Every digital camera used the exact same part. What makes it 1mp vs 12mp is the processor and imaging software embedded in the chip on the camera. That was way back in 2013, I don't know if that is still the case..

Not quite. A lot of phones and point-and-shoot cameras do use the same camera capture sensors around the same generation of products (sensor makers' output go through generations every 3-5 years), but the digital SLR's and professional digital video cameras have different sensors, much larger sensors for better signal-to-noise ratio (due to lamda/D quantum limit; wavelength over feature size, the size of each light-trapping pit a "pixel"). It wouldn't make sense for a phone or a P+S camera to have a large sensor that would cost much more money. Also, until 2017, Sony was making CCD sensors of various sizes while Canon was making CMOS sensors of various sizes, before Sony switched to CMOS. IIRC, Canon started making large CMOS sensors back around 2000.

Snail physicists have no explanation, except they don't look older when they get back.

Ok, I am starting to warm up to the quirky new chief engineer in Star Trek: Strange New Worlds:

"I still have a bunker in Vermont in case this whole ‘no-money socialist utopia’ thing turns out to be a fad.”

#NoMoneySocialistUtopiaThing

Patrick says

Put glasses, powder and horn rim glasses on it and it could be a CNN anchor.

We got this text regularly.