Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 13:55:30 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.vintage
Subject: Re: Some experiment results - what do you all think?
From: retrowavelength <retrowavelength@yahoo.com>
References: <5AE3A728.3010109@yahoo.com> <XnsA8D36610AAE2Eroakerblackcompany@216.166.97.131>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Message-ID: <PbadnYgD1pa_iHvHnZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 13:55:30 -0500
Lines: 58
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Vu3hrnOavkgpZoyhZtxQaH2z74Npbd7cWA/zYymI4vQwk71v8xcQCC/MsiaP0hw8mc9IbrPre95xZMA!g3o2yTkCQdNrBa7WbOeeYuJQ5bFSumoIpOTwdAB4A0NM/KAnl8yvTvSKliFLJREXfE91pdxj4w==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3383
X-Received-Bytes: 3505
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2797877585
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.vintage:15303
> retrowavelength <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:5AE3A728.3010109@yahoo.com:
>
>> Thought I'd try to unwarp some of the perspective distorted pictures
>> that have been turning up here (& you know where). Some of them are
>> quite interesting & some haven't been seen elsewhere in any decent
>> version. I've found some are just not do-able due to poor resolution
>> caused by extreme angles. And the software I was using to remove the
>> perspective distortion isn't perfect at doing the work.
>>
>> Anyway, I did a batch and wanted to post them here to see if y'all
> think
>> this work is worthwhile or if the perspective distorted pictures are
>> either "not a problem" or preferable to a "correction" that may also be
>> somewhat distorted if compared to a good scan.
>>
>> Let me know what you think.
>>
>> --rwl
>>
>
>
>
> I like the idea, pending a proper scan, but I think it depends on what
> the "collector's" objective is. That is, for example, whether the
> collection is of "good" pictures or "original" pictures (but then who's
> to say what is either). Maybe an addendum to the file name could be
> added to indicate what has been done to an original file, but then, that
> information would probably soon be lost in history.
>
> (Yea, I know, I'm a big help.)
>
> You've certainly done a nice job on these. The hardest ones will be
> those with not only a sharp angle, but a bend in the original page.
>
>
watermark in the "fixed" picture there may be no sure way to keep the truth
in evidence. I almost like best the ones that came out with bent edges
because they sort-of self-advertise that the image is a modified one.
My objective primarily was to be able to undistort images for
identification uses. Which was one reason I asked for feedback - I thought
that maybe the mind & eye can assess the perspective in the originals &
make an ID without help.
Secondarily, I hoped to sometimes get a better-looking image than had been
available to me before - I don't think any undistorting will match qualtiy
with a decent scan or snapshot of a photo.
I guess I'll keep playing with it & post a batch when I get some acceptable
results.
Thanks!
--rwl
|
|