Xref: utzoo misc.headlines:25801 rec.photo:20815 sci.electronics:19767 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!samsung!think.com!mintaka!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!tonyb From: tonyb@titania.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Tony Berke) Newsgroups: misc.headlines,rec.photo,sci.electronics Subject: Re: News photo contains "smart glitch?" Message-ID: Date: 30 Apr 91 17:31:20 GMT References: <5110@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43 Lines: 29 In-Reply-To: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov's message of 28 Apr 91 00:04:41 GMT In article <5130@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes: In article <5110@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes... >have short segments shifted cleanly to the left at a point It was with acute chagrin that I realized later that the effect was caused not by a shift to the left of selected parts of the image, but by a repeated horizontal band in the photograph about .05 inch high and going all the way across. Incidentally, the most likely cause for the glitch was that it was read out of a computer memory twice. The implication: the age of computer-processed news photographs has definitely arrived. This sort of goof doesn't *have* to be too scary. I didn't catch your original posting, so I don't know where the picture was published, but I can tell you that lots of newpapers scan images and pass them around that way for layout and screening. Some well heeled papers (Newsday and USA Today come to mind) even have cute satellite-linked portable scanners, allowing photographers to get color or b/w images into the papre from remote locations before deadlines. Any of these innocuous uses could have allowed a 'glitch' like you saw to happen. As for the *other* things that people do with photos after they've been scanned, see my other posting! Tony Berke (tonyb@juliet.ll.mit.edu)