My pareidolia knows no bounds.

There's a way to give these images perspective. A simple mathematical comparison. I don't mean to give you a homework assignment, but if you want to, there's an easy way to put this into perspective.
rd
[/quote]

Rich, you have me at a disadvantage. What is your objective here?

Malcolm Scott

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />

I guess we ARE going to have to define the word 'error'.

LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Larry, I don't think there is a question of what the word "error" means.

At least that's not what I meant.

It's more a question of calling whatever the so-called pareidolic (new, or whatever)image is an "error".

It may not be what the person who programmed the computer wanted, but it's no more of an error than the pareidolic (modern, ressler) images we see are an "error".

Calling them an error would be tantamount to when the originalists called pareidlia some kind of mental disorder.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />
You take a picture of a B, and your recognizer says "I recognize that ... it's an A".
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One other point, Larry. That's not what's happening. It's not saying "it's an A", it's finding some random pattern that it thinks is also another "B" that it's looking for.

In other words, the programmer tells it to find "B"s, and it does. Just because we know one of them isn't really a B, doesn't mean it's an error. Maybe it's <b>too good at finding "B"s</b>.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />Rich, you have me at a disadvantage. What is your objective here?
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's always been my contention that if we can see something clearly enough, we'd all pretty much agree what it is.

All I'm attempting to do is compare the resolution of an image we can't see clearly with one we can see clearly.

Just like I said, if you find the resolution is much worse (land-based pixel size is bigger) than my Mt Rushmore image, than we can conclude we need more resolution to clear up the matter.

On the other hand, if your land-based pixel size is smaller than my Mt. Rushmore scene (i.e., you have better resolution)and yet it still looks questionable like that, than in all probability it's merely a case of pareidolia (modern).

You might not agree with my reasoning, but I think it's logical and valid.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />The pattern IS recognized.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree. Computer based pareidolia (ressler) is the same as human based Pareidolia (ressler).

rd

Larry, here's a thought: The programmer is still making an error in his algorithm.