jbm@eos.UUCP (Jeffrey Mulligan) (05/20/89)
From article <8426@venera.isi.edu>, by raveling@venera.isi.edu (Paul Raveling): < As for my personal view, it depends on the image. My scale < for acquired images runs about like this: < XXX Yuch (call it porn) -- Deleted < XX Distasteful, no "syntactic" value -- Deleted < X Distasteful, but kept for algorithm testing < R Sometimes mediocre to poor & deleted, < Sometimes cute or artful or otherwise nice & kept; < If marginally valuable, usually deleted. < G Sometimes mediocre to poor & deleted, < Sometimes valuable & kept. < If marginally valuable, usually kept Q1: How do rate the much-used lenna image [girl in hat with feather]? Q2: How about the original (uncropped) centerfold version of the same? -- Jeff Mulligan (jbm@aurora.arc.nasa.gov) NASA/Ames Research Ctr., Mail Stop 239-3, Moffet Field CA, 94035 (415) 694-6290
spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) (05/20/89)
In article <3681@eos.UUCP> jbm@eos.UUCP (Jeffrey Mulligan) writes: >From article <8426@venera.isi.edu>, by raveling@venera.isi.edu (Paul Raveling): > >< As for my personal view, it depends on the image. My scale >< for acquired images runs about like this: >< [scale deleted] > >Q1: How do rate the much-used lenna image [girl in hat with feather]? Sexist. >Q2: How about the original (uncropped) centerfold version of the same? Even more sexist. -- spl Steve Lamont, sciViGuy EMail: spl@ncsc.org North Carolina Supercomputing Center Phone: (919) 248-1120 Box 12732/RTP, NC 27709
hutch@celerity.uucp (Jim Hutchison) (05/22/89)
article <4488@alvin.mcnc.org> spl@mcnc.org.UUCP (Steve Lamont) writes: >article <3681@eos.UUCP> jbm@eos.UUCP (Jeffrey Mulligan) writes: >>Q1: How do rate the much-used lenna image [girl in hat with feather]? >Sexist. Sexist? A feather is sexist? She is a lovely young woman with a feather in her hat. If I hadn't been told, I'd never have known she had little else on. By the look in her eyes and the demure smile on her face I was sure she knew things beyond the ken of mortal men. I realize that this is a feeling, and not rationale, but atleast I explained my reasoning. The 'mona lisa' is sexist too? >>Q2: How about the original (uncropped) centerfold version of the same? >Even more sexist. Sexist? Sexy? '72 playboy, so I hear. If I digitize a picture (within copyright) of a grecian statue of a nymph in full splendor, I would consider it art. If she is having a jolly bit of fun with a faun (satyr), it may be erotica. If she is being raped by Zeus, then it is either devine, sexist pornography supporting the degradation of women, or furthor evidence of the depravity of the ancient greek gods. The rating of graphical databases based on moral virtue is unfortunately necessary. Since some like it and some don't. Some want the mix 50/50, some don't. Some want it not at all, some want it. Does anyone know of a bitmap format which includes raster overlayss and transparency (for figleaves and soft focus)? Hell has a format for storing frame composition at the end of its press format tapes, but I have never heard of a disk based *standard* for frame composition. Renderman is close, but I am not sure how well the stream description extends. /* Jim Hutchison {dcdwest,ucbvax}!ucsd!celerity!hutch */ /* Disclaimor: I am not an official spokesman for FPS computing */
falk@sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) (06/01/89)
In article <3681@eos.UUCP>, jbm@eos.UUCP (Jeffrey Mulligan) writes: > > Q1: How do rate the much-used lenna image [girl in hat with feather]? > > Q2: How about the original (uncropped) centerfold version of the same? Does that even exist? Who has it (i.e. where can I get it?) -- -ed falk, sun microsystems sun!falk, falk@sun.com card-carrying ACLU member.