Fortified position for lost village????

[Chadeaux]

Example:

Tell me about this image --- what is it an image of, and what ia the subject doing?

View attachment 1467736

Later, after you answer, I'll post the original 25 mp image and we'll see if you're right.

Remember, images are only pixels. This version is reduced in a manner and percentage similar to what a Samsung 4 would do to an image that was shared by taking a screen shot.

Have fun!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Ditlihi]

No, the photo has more "information" ... but since it is shrunk down to the size of a smart phone screen's resolution, it isn't visible or something that could be reliably pulled from the image.

i.e., more pixels give you more ACTUAL information, fewer pixels give you junk when looking for details.

I could process it so much that something would be visible, but the lack of pixels to define what it actually is would be quite misleading. That is because shrinking an image that much distorts the pixels and removes detail. It can make the image appear to contain things that are not there as much as it can cause details that are actually there to be lost.

Hmm. Much like the imagination does.

All the more reason to only invest confidence in the ones you trust, and look for confirmation in reliable research sources.

The human mind can be a tricky thing, often making it's own order out of chaos when it's truly only...chaos. Be cautious in trying to make something fit the order we seek. In making a square peg fit in a round hole, we can lose the edges...or our peripheral vision.

Take care, and best wishes,

Dit

 

[Chadeaux]

Hmm. Much like the imagination does.

All the more reason to only invest confidence in the ones you trust, and look for confirmation in reliable research sources.

The human mind can be a tricky thing, often making it's own order out of chaos when it's truly only...chaos. Be cautious in trying to make something fit the order we seek. In making a square peg fit in a round hole, we can lose the edges...or our peripheral vision.

Take care, and best wishes,

Dit

So. you're brave enough to make insults but not to take my test. That's okay. You are allowed to blow up the picture all you want though and try.

All you've and your "buddy" have proved so far is that the ONLY REASON you're here is to insult people. You NEVER to contribute anything CONSTRUCTIVE.

You can criticize others without being so insulting. Try it, you'll like it.

 

[Ditlihi]

So. you're brave enough to make insults but not to take my test. That's okay. You are allowed to blow up the picture all you want though and try.

All you've and your "buddy" have proved so far is that the ONLY REASON you're here is to insult people. You NEVER to contribute anything CONSTRUCTIVE.

You can criticize others without being so insulting. Try it, you'll like it.

I suggest you check yourself, Sir, before casting "stones".

Good luck and Good Day to you.

 

[Chadeaux]

I suggest you check yourself, Sir, before casting "stones".

Good luck and Good Day to you.

Clarify please.

 

[dsty]

These hidey holes looks like those that remind me of K G C / outlaw type, I worked one that had a map rock and indicated 3 large burials and 18 burials of 11, 000. each, they were all gone. They were scattered over 1 and a half section, had a flat rock 15 ft wide and 20 ft long with several small ( 1 " X 1" ) man made holes and 5 larger holes 4 " wide X 3'" deep. This one that's kinda like the one you posted held Jewels from Old Mexico Most of the gold came from Mexico also

 

[Nwaher]

The pics were took with my phone then I screen shot the picture on my phone nothing was shrunk

 

[Nwaher]

I believe someone mention 3 hallways this is number 2 same place as other but I haven't found a 3rd

 

[boogeyman]

What more " information" would you need, that you couldn't get from a screenshot?

I'd advise anyone against uploading pics directly, any location information can easily be obtained through such carelessness.

Agreed on the exif info getting out if you don't have GPS turned off on your phone. That can be easily fixed! Get a copy of EXIF PILOT! It's freeware, easy to use to remove the GPS info & other info from photos.

As far as what more info from a screenshot goes, do this test. Take a pic with your phone or camera Ul it to your puter and take a screen shot of the pic. Open them side by side. See how much detail is lost in the screen shot? A lot? Another thing is everytime you resave your pictures a little data gets lost. Do this test! Take a pic. Open it on your puter. Now re save it with a different name. Do this two or three times. Open all these pics and compare you'll see the difference.

Teach the hands & the brain will follow!

 

[Ditlihi]

Agreed on the exif info getting out if you don't have GPS turned off on your phone. That can be easily fixed! Get a copy of EXIF PILOT! It's freeware, easy to use to remove the GPS info & other info from photos.

As far as what more info from a screenshot goes, do this test. Take a pic with your phone or camera Ul it to your puter and take a screen shot of the pic. Open them side by side. See how much detail is lost in the screen shot? A lot? Another thing is everytime you resave your pictures a little data gets lost. Do this test! Take a pic. Open it on your puter. Now re save it with a different name. Do this two or three times. Open all these pics and compare you'll see the difference.

Teach the hands & the brain will follow!

Agreed, Boogey. Just keep in mind when attempting to pull information from a zoomed in photograph, regardless of pixel size or configuration, one must be wary of seeing things that really aren't there...or missing the larger picture. One would be well advised to take several landscape size pics, then follow up with close ups of interesting features. It's difficult enough to diagnose a site with our bare eyes, without adding mental clutter and confirmation bias to the mix...which is always a stumbling block when interpreting photographs alone, much less in a group setting.

And Excellent advice on EXIF PILOT. I would also add that you use similar applications on all Android devices, tablets, etc. Thank you!

 

[Chadeaux]

The pics were took with my phone then I screen shot the picture on my phone nothing was shrunk

I don't think you deliberately resized them, although you would be perfectly within your rights if you chose to do so. What happened is the camera is using fewer pixels to display the image than are contained in the image. While not shrinking the image, it reduces the resolution.

My point is:

1. The images you are posting were originally taken in landscape mode (phone turned with the long axis horizontal) but when you actually post the images they are in portrait mode (phone turned with the long axis vertical) with large areas of black (letterboxing). At the minimum, your phone is shrinking the image (reducing the resolution) by 75% since you are not taking up the entire screen area with the image as you did when taking the picture.

2. Does your camera shoot 3 megapixel images? That is roughly what you are posting (2.9 MP to be exact) with the letterboxing ... the images are the same size as a standard HD television screen (1080 X 1920) but are turned vertical instead of horizontal. Thus, when I crop out the letterboxing (the black areas), it results in an image with the dimensions of 1080 X 607 (just short of 2/3 MP). That means that only 1/4 of the image you are posting is of your subject.
​

3. In digital photography, "pixels" = "detail", therefore, "more pixels" = "more detail". When the number of pixels in an image are reduced, that "compresses" the information contained and thus less detail can be extracted.
​

Just trying to help.

 

[Chadeaux]

Agreed on the exif info getting out if you don't have GPS turned off on your phone. That can be easily fixed! Get a copy of EXIF PILOT! It's freeware, easy to use to remove the GPS info & other info from photos.

Another possible solution: Get a camera that does not record GPS information to the EXIF data because they don't have GPS. There are several relatively cheap cameras that do good work but do not record any GPS information. One good choice would be something like an older Canon or Nikon digital camera from a pawn shop.

Whatever you do, try to get a camera that shoots RAW images (jpg images are inherently lossy, but RAW images work much better in preserving details.

BTW, Corel's Paintshop Pro will let you remove the EXIF data from your images before posting.

 

[Chadeaux]

View attachment 1468310

 

[Charl]

View attachment 1468310

Your last two attachments have been invalid.....

 

[Chadeaux]

Your last two attachments have been invalid.....

Ah, same challenge extended to Ditlihi. What animal is in this image, and what are they doing?

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1467736

After you answer, I'll post a 20 MP version of the simple reject picture. (It is not a good image for publication, but excellent for our test)

Have fun.

As for the image in question ... apparently the image in my last post was invalid ... it is a cropped image in the original resolution it was posted to the site. I did not enlarge it, I simply removed the letterboxing.

The image I submitted in my last post is 1080 pixels wide and 607 pixels tall. That means it has a total of 655,560 pixels (1080 X 607 = 655,560), about 2/3 of a megapixel. What is a megapixel? A simple 1 megapixel image shot in 1 x 1 format would be 1024 pixels wide and 1024 pixels tall meaning it contains 1,048,576 pixels (1024 X 1024 = 1,048,576).

If I misunderstood though, please clarify what you meant.

 

[Charl]

Ah, same challenge extended to Ditlihi. What animal is in this image, and what are they doing?

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1467736

After you answer, I'll post a 20 MP version of the simple reject picture. (It is not a good image for publication, but excellent for our test)

Have fun.

As for the image in question ... apparently the image in my last post was invalid ... it is a cropped image in the original resolution it was posted to the site. I did not enlarge it, I simply removed the letterboxing.

The image I submitted in my last post is 1080 pixels wide and 607 pixels tall. That means it has a total of 655,560 pixels (1080 X 607 = 655,560), about 2/3 of a megapixel. What is a megapixel? A simple 1 megapixel image shot in 1 x 1 format would be 1024 pixels wide and 1024 pixels tall meaning it contains 1,048,576 pixels (1024 X 1024 = 1,048,576).

If I misunderstood though, please clarify what you meant.

I simply meant that when I clicked on the attachment in comment #61 and # 73, this was the result:

 

[Charl]

I get the same result in comment #75. Invalid attachment....

 

[Charl]

If the image posted is not visible within the body of the comment, it is almost always an "invalid attachment" and there will be no image visible when one clicks on the attachment. If you're uploading an image, it should be visible already, and not require any clicks....

 

[Ditlihi]

I get the same result in comment #75. Invalid attachment....

I don't click on unidentifiable attachments.

 

[Charl]

I don't click on unidentifiable attachments.

Smart man. Did not think of that. It's a common enough occurance on TNet, so I was not thinking of any potential harm resulting....