My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Posted 11 Sept. 2006 22:35:11

Last sentence should read : In any case it would not compare to the originality of a negative and it's attempt at duplication which needs nothing added to it,and is always intrincically distinguishable from a copy of it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br /> In any case it would not compare to the originality of a negative and it's attempt at duplication which needs nothing added to it,and is always intrincically distinguishable from a copy of it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I conceded that the data (image) would be identical (intrinsically indistinguishable from a copy), but the "file" itself <b>would be </b> intrinsically distinguishable from a copy of it.

I was thinking more along these lines:
www.exif.org/samples.html
Click on one of the FULL INFO links for an example. My assumption is that one or some of these items will change with copies. It might just be "digitized date" vs. "original date". I'm trying to find out for sure.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but remember, all I'm saying is that suppose a person posted an image on the internet from a photo they took in their backyard with one of these cameras. Further suppose the photo was so wonderful, that some nefarious character decided to steal it, and claim it as his own.

My contention is that the owner of the "original" file would win in court. No more, no less.

rd

O.K. Lets try a newer horse altogether. A film negative is as close to an original as one can get. One can view it first hand directly. A digital file can never be viewed first hand in it's original form; it must be viewed through a computer. As for the older horse- a film negative degrades more with duplication than does a digital file when each is reproduced as close to ideally as possible; making the film negative closer to "an original. Whatever, maybe i'm old fashioned; i like the look of film negatives printed better. Digital looks flat or hyper-real homoginized, or more man made; it never has the organic taoistic flow pattern of real film grain. The same goes for digital CD. In one note on a CD i can hear lets say 100 aspects to it. On a 33 1/3 vinyl record, it sounds like 1000 aspects, rich with no sudden drop offs like all digital always has. One can never reproduce a curve digitally as accurately as analog. It always looks and sounds like steps. The higher the "tech" the higher the "wreck."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />The same goes for digital CD. In one note on a CD i can hear lets say 100 aspects to it. On a 33 1/3 vinyl record, it sounds like 1000 aspects, rich with no sudden drop offs like all digital always has. One can never reproduce a curve digitally as accurately as analog. It always looks and sounds like steps. The higher the "tech" the higher the "wreck."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think we exhausted the discussion of "negative" vs. "file", and I'm pretty sure anyone reading this knows what I've said, and what you've said. So, I'm going to leave it at that and move on.

Regarding your above comment. You are right. But it's still early. Let me relay a little story that is relevent to the discussion.

I remember when I was working in Milpitas, Ca, there was a chess battle going on between a British Master, and a Cray Supercomputer. I'm thinking 1996 or so, to 2000. I could be wrong on the dates and the details, but the essence of the story is that the Brit won the first few times. He finally lost, but I think the software people cheated a little, and did a mid-game adjustment to the program. They beat him the last time. That was 5 or 6 years ago. I don't know if anyone has tried it lately, but I'm inclined to think that was the last time a person was going to win.

The same is true for "analog" vs. "digital". I'd be willing to bet anything that if there was a contest, it's more of a "Coke" or "Pepsi" kind of contest, with predictable results, than anything else, given the same power output and speakers. In your example above, you're only talking about one order of magnitude (100 to 1000), so if you're right about that, it stands to reason that there will eventually be 100,000,000 to 1000 against analog. That's the way it works.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[rderosa, Re: E03-00824] Where is the east side of the mouth that is depicted in the animation of the 1998 image? Where is the nose? Where is the east eye, and eyebrow? Also, where is the west side of the mouth?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I thought you were aware of my analysis of that particular image at metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/...Face/Preliminary.asp . If so, what was unclear about my comparison of the 2001 and 1998 images, and the answers to your questions I offered there? Cannot all differences be explained easily by the known differences in viewing and lighting angles?

For example, if the nostrils did not disappear in an overhead shot, then we would be worried that they were a "trick of light and shadow" because, on a 3-D mesa, they should be perpendicular to the ground and therefore visible only from south of the Face but not from overhead. The fact that they disappeared in an overhead shot is consistent with their being true 3-D nostrils, not an inconsistency.

BTW, I see lots of discussion of pereidolia in my absence, but none of it seemed to address the most basic discriminant of pareidolia vs. artificiality: <i>All</i> pareidolic images are 2-D and dependent on some particular viewing or lighting angle, whereas clearly artificial images such as Mt. Rushmore, the Sphinx, or the Kennedy bust are 3-D and retain their basic impression under a wide range of different viewing and lighting angles. I saw no mention of this in numerous posts while I was away. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />If so, what was unclear about my comparison of the 2001 and 1998 images, and the answers to your questions I offered there? Cannot all differences be explained easily by the known differences in viewing and lighting angles?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Remember, I'm responding to this:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So let's work on that. What do you see or not see that raises most of your doubts? We can't stand shoulder-to-shoulder to view images, but we can approximate that by looking at renditions of various images until we agree what is or is not present in them.-Tom<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I'm asking you to commit to the image I posted, and then we take it from there. I thought we agreed to that.

rd