endre_st_lsvik

<p>Well, yes, here's a suggestion: <a href="http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/">Exiftool</a>.</p>

<p>This seems very interesting, but I sadly understand extremely little of what you try to show. If the video had audio commentary, or at least some text overlay, it would have been way easier to follow. Also, I think, at least for my part, that you assume a bit too much knowledge on my side - even more guidance through the videos, explaining and pointing out what the tool shows and highlights, would benefit - at least for me.</p>

<p>Are you talking about noise?</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise</p>

<p>"Pixelation" is when you get "jaggies" due to overzooming. I find this very strange with 12 MP on 5x7. As in completely impossible.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixelation</p>

<p>Why don't you crop out a piece of the image w/o any celebrities, and post it here?</p>

<p>"sRGB is a standard RGB color space created cooperatively by HP and Microsoft in 1996 for use on monitors, printers, and the Internet."</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srgb</p>

<p>It is a sort of "middle ground" that every device should be able to replicate. (And as we know, "common ground" and "largest common denominator" usually don't give the ultimate solution to any problem: sRGB on its hand has not got a very good color gamut: "sRGB is sometimes avoided by high-end print publishing professionals because its color gamut is not big enough, especially in the blue-green colors, to include all the colors that can be reproduced in CMYK printing.")</p>

<p>" The sRGB color space is well specified and is designed to match typical home and office viewing conditions, rather than the darker environment typically used for commercial color matching.<br /> Nearly all software was and is designed with the assumption that an 8-bit-per-channel image file placed unchanged onto an 8-bit-per-channel display will appear much as the sRGB specification dictates. "</p>

<p>Several browsers don't know how to handle any other color space - they don't even read it out from the file, they just directly dump the pixels it decodes from the file to the video card, ignoring completely the color space you've saved with the file. The same goes for many simple image viewers. Then, the video card sends those bytes to the screen. And the screen is probably somewhat near sRGB too.</p>

<p>So my suggestion is to go with sRGB for files meant for "standard public consumption".</p>

<p>I am yet not expert on color spaces, though. However, the Wikipedia article also reads: "As the recommended color space for the Internet, sRGB should be used for editing and saving all images intended for publication to the WWW. Images intended for professional printing via a fully color-managed workflow, e.g. prepress output, sometimes use another color space such as Adobe RGB (1998), which allows for a wider gamut."</p>

<p>The "boxing" around the numbers are obvious JPEG compression artifacts. The reason for them appearing around the numbers, is that the number represent such a hard delimiting opposed to natural shading in an image. You'd get the same if you simply took a picture of such numbers written on a textured wall or whatever, and compressed it as hard. The same goes for that "bug" on one of the zeros.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg#Effects_of_JPEG_compression</p>

<p>The exif info doesn't sadly do jack - at least I'd discredit it. Somebody pointed out that the editingprogram would leave data about itself. That is absurd: I can just edit the file in a hex editor - I happen to be very confident in that one aspect, since I've personally made a JPEG/TIFF decoder (the Exif information inside a JPEG file is actually, strangely enough, embedded as a complete TIFF file inside it! That TIFF file is embedded in the APP1 segment of the file).</p>

<p>Also, if you have the higher resolution without the artifacts, why don't you use that instead?</p>

<p>The way to proof that the numbers are consistent with the artifacts, is to take some RAW file, stick those same numbers on it, then compress it to JPEG with hard compression. You'd get the same.</p>

<p>The problem is that any such file is just not proof at all. They are just bytes - I can make it by hand right here. I could have taking it with a recent high quality canon camera where I zoomed some lens to the correct width, stuck on the numbers, cropped and resized it, compressed it to the right compression ratio and with the same technique as that camera does, and then just taken another image that WAS taken around that time with that camera and ripped out the "data stream" of that and inserted my newly doctored picture. The date is really not a problem - I'd just change that in the Exif info. Or way more simply, if I still had the camera, just take a picture with the camera, setting the date back!</p>

<p>Exif and the on-image date should at least lend some credit, but it would not be a "proof" in any way.</p>

<p>The only way to get a proof, is if you'd get the files somehow actually datestamped, e.g. physically by putting the images on a CD or stick, put that in an envelope, tape it with "non-tamper-tape", and have it dated and signed by some official. (The same procedure is to establish copyright, I believe). You'd have to open it again in court with all the judges present - let the judge open it of course - after some guy told everone that this cannot be a faked.</p>

<p>HOWEVER: You'd have a really good case if somehow Google or/and Yahoo or/and Internet Archive had these pictures indexed some time around that date. So if you have put them online for some reason - go find some index of it!</p>

<p>The judge should use "common sense" - you found the place that disgusting, so you took that many pictures. It seems absurd that you'd go to this length to discredit the landlord. Does the landlord have other complaints? That might be helped by the "shocking proof" of taking an image in court.</p>

<p>He might also just be trying to scare you. </p>

<p>Finally, I just have to say: Poor you folks. I had that same shit happen to me in Calif. USA when I was there studying. Apparently all landlords there see the deposit as THEIR money. Here in Norway, you'd have to pretty much burn down the place, on purpose, before it was allowed to take any of the depoist money. You ALWAYS get your money back, unless you really have done some bad stuff to the place.</p>

 

<p>Converting JPEG to TIFF is utterly meaningless. If you've gone down to JPEG, you've already killed all the good info - you've "developed" the image so to speak (actually, that analogy is pretty accurate, even). Converting it back to TIFF is meaningless - it'd be exactly like scanning a print: You don't get the negative back.</p>

<p>You want to give them the rawest format possible. Full resolution, full color, full bit depth (a proper camera take their pictures in 12 or 14 or 16 bits per color - not 8 as in JPEG). This is the best format to archive - as one does not know what happens in the future in regard to processing and "developing" digital information - it will just obviously become better. Do not convert anything to JPEG.</p>

<p>However, I'd convert your CR2s or whatever RAW format your camera produce to DNG first - the "Digital NeGative". DNG is a standard format, as for example PDF, and all RAW readers in the universe knows how to handle it. And they also will in the future - something that not necessarily can be said about one of the iterations of RAW formats some "random" camera producer cooks up. Maybe Canon is bankrupt in 2090?</p>

<p>Several cameras these days have started to use DNS "natively" - there is really technically no reason not to (DNG is specifically made to be a superset of all other RAW formats - and it has room for extensions). It is actually built on the TIFF standard (the structure of the file), and is as such extensible, but also standard. And it is nearly dead simple. So this will be a trend, I sincerely hope. And actually believe. You professional photographers should definitely demand it.</p>

<p>Do you need to send both? If you can, obviously just send the digital file - that'd be cheaper, no? Else, send whatever print you come up with - and the digital RAW (DNG) file, unaltered. That'd be like sending the negative along. Possibly, if you have made color adjustments or any other editing that is important to the outcome, send a JPEG too - that'd be your "developed" image file, so that they could see the artist's idea of how this should look.</p>

<p>Have you read up on color spaces?<br>

Check out these articles on Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightness_(color)">Lightness</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSL_and_HSV">HSL and HSV</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab_color_space">Lab color space</a>.</p>

<p>I sadly have a boatload of APS films. I want to scan these and forget about the sad fact that my youthly half-year Asia/India trip was documented with a compact APS camera!<br>

Do anyone have a good idea for where to search for preferrably used such things? Ebay didn't turn up any good candidates.<br>

My amazing logic facilities tells me that there should be many of these stored in different attics and cellars around the world, as APS has fully died by now, and people that own an APS scanner have probably already scanned all their films - so they could sell it to me!</p>