hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: digital photos (Charles Tuttle?)

  • Subject: Re: digital photos (Charles Tuttle?)
  • From: Bill Nash raffi@sympatico.ca
  • Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:38:55 -0500

At 10:24 AM 02/16/2003, ctuttle39@juno.com wrote:
Greetings to all you digital photo experts,

I have just taken several photos of longipes 'Katsuragawa Beni', and
while observing the photos, I have noticed:

**when the photo is shown at 50% size, the veins are red all the way out
to the end of the leaves and the base of the leaf is very red;
** at 75% size, the red is more concentrated in the veins, less scattered
and heavy in the base of the leaf; and
** at 100% photo size, the red is visible up 1/3 of the way into the base
of the leaf, but not visible in the veins the rest of the way to the leaf
tip.

The 100% size is similar to when the necked eye observes the plant.  Now
does this means that the red is there, but becomes observable only when
the pixels become more concentrated at 50%, making the red show up
better?  Better take Jim Wilkins' class at Hosta College - 3 weeks away!.

Would welcome explanations???  Kevin and Jim?

Charles Tuttle
in snowy (similar to everyone else) Columbus OH

 >>---- hi'Charles ----->> Please be advised?..this is just my 
unbiased-opinion; and of course I am NO-EXPERT on this.  TODAY I SHALL BE 
KEVIN & JIM <whoever they are> *laughter?*

Further to what Altara already wrote you, I would like to respond directly 
on your question: as to whether or not photographs are lying on their 
coloring, (an "optical illusion!..or NOT?" as Altara put it?); and for the 
sake of discussion alone?

LET'S LOOK AT THIS FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE; that is to say, blowing up 
a photo'graph into a larger-size?  We know that, a new larger-sized digital 
pixels DIGI-PIX: become more and more pixilated (more distorted and out of 
focus?) with each size increase which we do -- right?
     I am going to take the position THAT I HONESTLY BELIEVE:
-- If you see the red-coloring moving into the leaf-veining; and this 
extends to the very tips of leaves (as was the case in your 50% 
photo-example?) THEN THIS IS "A MORE TRUE IMAGE" than the 75% and 100% 
blow-ups you are comparing to?  Suggesting to me, that the red-color is 
definitely present, in the gene-pool factors of Katsuragawa?
<subnote> I would also like to suggest, that the red-coloring of this 
cultivar: is present in leaf-cell-tissue likewise, having studied many 
digitals via computer. And most particularly, in those 
digital-image-samples, which you have shown me?
-- When you double the size of an image; which is like your (50% verses 
100% examples?), the image-resolution-quality (per 
pixel-complexity/application?) within the photo, becomes more and more 
pixilated, by every size-expansion done?  This happens every time you save 
a digital image (using the JPEG-format particularly?); and this happens 
via, THE IMAGE COMPRESSION FACTORS WITHIN "filename.jpg" (JPEG-imaging 
formats) on every save to disk function.

*NOW LET'S BRING TO MIND SOME SPECIAL IMAGE CREATOR SPECIALISTS...shall we?*
Bill Meyer, whom created the 'Hosta 
Color-Wheel'  http://www.hostasports.com/color_wheel.htm for the 'Sports 
Committe': is probably the most knowledgeable person we have, pertaining to 
this coloring-topic you question?

I've seen e-mails on yahoogroups.com/hostapix; wherein Bill Meyer has tried 
to educate those of us fooling around with digital-imaging; and I'm going 
to mention some of his most advanced suggestions related to the best way to 
do digital-color-imaging (a very complex Topic, due to many factors in play?).

Will's BEST ADVICE, and Bob Axmear also advised us on this (creator of The 
Internet Hosta Library [ www.hostalibrary.org ] -- they have emphasized 
this point many times over, trying to teach everyone how to make good 
digital-images?

<subnote> What the above is leaning into is: how to do 'TRUE-IMAGING' on 
computer (and I will simply call this ("VIRTUAL-REALITY in the making of 
your digi-pix!"), for lack of better wording.

THE POINT HERE
To avoid the severe-digital-image-pixilation (distortion of pixels within 
an image?) I.E.. pixel-compression done in saving of an image, say in 
"filename.jpg" format; THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO HAVE THIS NOT HAPPEN:

1) Do not save any images *using compression of image-sizes* (jpeg) while 
you are doing the initial setups (draft-up modes?), of your digi-pix 
creation?  If you prefer to use JPEG, then use the "Save As" button (not 
Save?) function, and this allows you to select no compression at all.  OR 
Use imaging formats, that do no compression at all (like microsoft bitmap 
"filename.bmp") or "filename.tif" (TIF format?).

Please keep in mind, that:
-- making high resolution (Virtual Reality Published Pictures?) is 
too-complex for me to get into here;
-- most scanners, are doing true-imaging in 16 million colors; and digital 
cameras are probably more precise?
-- Digi-Pix being made mostly for Internet-use/Group-sharing, are usually 
done to take advantage of such things as *disk-size/speed-of-loading* 
hence, these are not usually made at a (1200 dots-per-inch, or highter?) 
pixel-resolution, as is done in printing/publishing.  This means, all 
digital pix done in true-imaging (highest quality possible?); WITH NO 
COMPRESSION BEING DONE AT SAVING TO DISK: are going to be many mega bytes 
by file-size; and therefore, they cannot be saved to floppy disks.  A super 
fast-speed computer will also be required to edit, save and move these kind 
of files around. As an example, an 8" by 10" digital-image print-setup, 
might be 100,000,000 bytes (100 million bytes by it's file-size = one 
single file/uncompressed.

Just a few personal thoughts here Charlie, and I'm thinking, that all you 
have to do to prove my rhetoric-ramblings above...
 >>--- and suggesting RED IS THERE!---> you will see this, if you have 
digital-images done at the highest-resolution-possible; and of course, when 
you save these to disk, USE AN IMAGING-FORMAT HAVING *NO COMPRESSION 
FACTORS AT ALL*..IN PLAY?  And excuse me please CHAS? -- I am not 
suggesting in the least -- that you don't know how to make good digial 
images? *grin*

just a few thoughts and hope this helps <<sumpin?>>

B>)) "bill nash guelph ontario canada zone four" <raffi@sympatico.ca> 
and/or <wnash1093@rogers.com> 
---

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN





 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index