Originally Posted by
Superguy
I believe she uses a Nikon as well and does the same thing you are. But you got my point ... we're likely seeing a highly compressed JPEG while the screener is seeing a full resolution raw image.
I work with RAW images(CRW, CR2-(Canon), 3FR (Hasselblad), IIQ (PhaseOne), MEF, MFW, MOS (Mamiya)) exclusively in my workflow. the only reason I have jpegs is because the lab I'm using doesn't take TIFF or PSD files. Raw files are jam packed full of data that can be processed anyway you would like. It can be equivalent of a film negative and with the help of the software you can develop the image any way you would like just in the chemical dark room (Push, Pull, alternative chemistry, solarize, etc). Jpegs on the other hand are like slides after the processing/initial save only degrade from there (like duped slides).
The images i have seen are extremely highly compressed (level 4 or 5 jpegs or worse for those familiar with PS, closest film comparison is TMAX 3200 pushed to 12800 ie big popcorn sized grain) and scaled down from the native image for posting on the web. I deconstructed some of the editing and cleaned the file, but definitely there is a lot of resolution that TSA isn't telling us about, as even through the compression artifacts you can clearly see everything, so no one is seeing anything.
Considering how old these images are and the rate of both technology and image processing software i would say the nude-o-scopes probably have 2-4x better resolution then the images were seeing, and curtis is lying about. These older images were probably in the 3-6 megapixel range (1600x1200 to 3000x2000 pixels). I wouldn't be surprised if the images on the nude-o-scopes was in the 15-30 megapixel range (4750x3150 to 9400x6300 pixels). The average consumer level LCD screen is 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 that leaves lots of room for zooming and pixel peeping by the smurf perv in the box.
If i could get one native file off from the scanner i could pass it along to a imaging forensic analyst I know and can deconstruct the whole image and get all of the details from the image and all of the underlying data to give the whole picture.
Im surprised someone hasn't already posed as some big shot from a large company looking at one of these perverted devices and got a presentation from the company and gotten all of the info everyone wants and wiki-leaked it.
Originally Posted by
eyecue
To answer your question ALOT.
To answer your other statement, you only get one shot at it. No dosimeters, those damn things are expensive.
1. Define Alot, theres a wide berth on definitions on that one.
2. Dosimeters are not expensive your believing and drinking to much 3.4oz TSA koolaid shots again.
Quick check of
google shows that depending on the type and service they cost less then those cheap tin wannabe badges.
Then would you mind sharing where you got your medical, chemistry, physics or any other degrees you may have.