Re: This is why I always wait for the sale.

[Brian Cluff]

For an extra $100 you could get this stuff and have a processor that is 
twice as fast and a video card that is around 6 times as fast.  It 
should easily save you the extra $100 by keeping you from buying yet 
another computer for much longer of course you have to be 
comfortable assembling your own computer.


LG Electronics Internal Super Multi Drive Optical Drives GH24NSC0B 

Logisys CS301BK Mid Tower Computer Case with 480W PSU Black 

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 750Ti 2GB GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 DVI HDMI DisplayPort 
Graphics Card ZT-70605-10M 

WD Blue 1TB Desktop Hard Disk Drive - 7200 RPM SATA 6 Gb/s 64MB Cache 
3.5 Inch - WD10EZEX 

Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1600 MHz (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory 
(CML8GX3M2A1600C9) 

ASUS Micro ATX DDR3 2000 AMD AM3+ Motherboard M5A78L-M/USB3 

AMD FX-8370 Black Edition 8 Core CPU Processor AM3+ 4300Mhz 125W 16MB 
FD8370FRHKBOX 



Brian Cluff

On 01/11/2016 04:00 PM, Keith Smith wrote:




http://www.staples.com/product_1548334?cm_lm=keith%40netcodeman.com&om_rid=keith%40netcodeman.com&cid=EM%3ALOS_Browse_Bluecore 






---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

This is why I always wait for the sale.

[Keith Smith]

http://www.staples.com/product_1548334?cm_lm=keith%40netcodeman.com&om_rid=keith%40netcodeman.com&cid=EM%3ALOS_Browse_Bluecore


--
Keith Smith
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Online Asynchronous Board Meeting Tools?

[Victor Odhner]

Thanks, Brian, for your reply to:
  Re: OT: Copying text from PDF to text on Mac corrupts words containing “t"

(The ligature treatment could explain why only this one poster’s emails have 
that problem.)

I was producing minutes for an online meeting we had for a Board of Trustees. 
We would not have been able to get a quorum in time to meet a deadline, and we 
just had to discuss and approve the sending of a grant request. There were over 
100 emails over 37 hours. It worked out well, considering, but of course that’s 
not the best way.

What I’d really like would be a forum application especially friendly for a 
meeting involving discussions, motions, seconds and votes, where people can 
check in asynchronously.

I imagine something like the following:
Chair creates a “Meeting” entry that will collect all discussion.
A fixed list of user names is entered.
Members can pop in and out, over several days.
Each time member joins, a web page is presented displaying all discussion to 
date for that meeting. Member would scroll to the bottom to proceed.
It can produce a page formatted for printing. That page would look rather like 
output from a chat. It would be only plain or rich text, *not* be formatted as 
a table or have structural features that would complicate copying and pasting, 
because producing the document is an important purpose.
Some sort of timestamps would be nice, but should be unobtrusive.
Does anybody know a forum service that might come close?

I’ve looked at some summary pages for online meeting tools, but they don’t go 
into much detail, so I’ll have to visit each one.
I might also look at enjin which is really for gamers but that’s not a problem.

Thanks,
Victor
___

On Jan 9, 2016, at 19:17:50, Brian Cluff  wrote:

On 01/09/2016 05:26 PM, Victor Odhner wrote:
> Many words containing “ti” or “tt” or some other combinations with
> the letter “t” get corrupted when I use copy and paste, from PDF
> text that looks normal. Some software interprets the PDF correctly
> for display and printing, and some software fails to understand this
> encoding involving the letter “t”.

My best guess would be that they are using some form of font ligature so
that tt, ti and probably ff fi etc etc get transformed into a different
unicode character that doesn't exist in the font that the application
that you are pasting to is using.

> Of course if someone can tell me a better way to save Thunderbird
> messages with headers into a document...

Just right click on the message and select "Save As".  In the lower left
corner change "All Files" to "Text Files", then make sure to change the
file name suffix to .txt and you should get a clean text copy complete
with the headers.

Brian Cluff
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: Recommended laserjet repair.

[Mark Phillips]

One more thoughtbuy your next printer at Best Buy and get the 2 year
Geek Squad support plan. Then, as the 2 years is rolling around and there
is an issue, get it repaired or replaced. You can also extend the warranty
while the device is still in warranty.

My hp printers last about 5-8 years, so donating them after that service
life is easy. ;)

Mark

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Matt Birkholz 
wrote:

> > From: Mark Phillips 
> > Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:03:55 -0700
> >
> > When my printer has an issue I do the following -
> >
> > 1. Google a repair video [...]
> >
> > 2. Donate the printer [...]
> >
> > Good luck!
>
> Thanks.  I took it apart (as much as intended for regular servicing)
> and cleaned up the black toner (yes, with a vacuum!), gambled $50 on a
> new black developer unit, and am getting clean prints again.  I hope I
> have not jinxed it, boasting here (thumbing my nose at Chaos!) but I
> hope for another 5 years.  Sorry: no video.
>
> A good idea though -- the repair videos.  Thanks.
>
> Throw away $400 every 2 years?  Not in this house.
>
> Happy Procrastination Monday Morning, everyone!
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: superimpose image

[Stephen Partington]

We are human, therefore

:-D

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Brian Cluff  wrote:

> Yeah, your right... that's what I meant, and what I do Brain fart!
>
> Brian Cluff
>
>
> On 01/11/2016 11:15 AM, Stephen Partington wrote:
>
> Careful about using multiple F-Stops. it can alter your depth of field and
> give you really weird hazing. it is usually better to alter shutter speed
> if anything. so the depth of feild and ISO noise is the same.
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Brian Cluff  wrote:
>
>> While you can use software to fake it, it doesn't give you the same
>> quality as you would get from 3 separate images shot at different F Stops.
>> The biggest difference you will see when using a single image is that the
>> darker parts of your fake HDR image will be very grainy/noisy and there
>> will also be some noise that spills over to the rest of the image.
>>
>> You can do a lot better if your single image is a RAW image with it's
>> higher bit-depth instead of it's JPEG equivalent, but even then, without
>> the longer exposure time that you would get from using a larger F-stop the
>> data simply isn't there is be able to expand for HDR (really tonemaped)
>> images.
>>
>> Brian Cluff
>>
>>
>> On 01/11/2016 09:48 AM, Michael Havens wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering... would using software to over/under expose an image be
>> the same as taking 3 images which have been physically altered? Less wear
>> and tear on the camera is good!
>>
>> Also, I was watching a tutorial on luminance hdr and in his version the
>> software had a bunch of variation of an hdr which could be modified. My
>> version doesn't seem to have that. Is there a setting?
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Brian Cluff < 
>> br...@snaptek.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Use LuminanceHDR for exposure blending.  GIMP is waay too much work
>>> to get just one way to blending the images.  Luminance on the other hard
>>> offers a tons of different methods and then you can tweak the settings
>>> within each method.  It's all very easy and gives you much better results.
>>>
>>> Brian Cluff
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2016 05:51 PM, Michael Havens wrote:
>>>
 thank you so much man. I really appreciate it. I certaainly will devote
 10% of my available   brain to these videos tomorrow. Do you know of any
 videos or text teaching how to do exposure blending with gimp2.8? all
 the tuts  I've been finding are incomplete or are how to do it with 2.2!

 On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Brian Cluff >>> > wrote:

 There's a ton of ways to do what you want.  The biggest thing you
 will have to worry about is lighting.  For instance, if you are
 putting something that was lit from the left into a scene that was
 lit from the right, then there is little you can do. No matter how
 carefully you add it to your scene your brain will always tell you
 there is something wrong with the picture.

 I tend to use a couple of different techniques to put one image into
 another.
 If the background is a relatively solid color, I'll use a technique
 similar to this example for cutting out images while preserving fine
 details (hair in this example)... hint, you don't use ANY of the
 selection tools, or copy and past.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnbxtMCHKV0
 or
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jle81ofRLok
 or
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quAChCnK_Dk

 The other way I like combine image is brushing out the background
 using layer masks as demonstrated in this video with the leg:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHJAJziWDs0

 I usually use a combination of the 2 techniques since you rarely get
 perfect results with either method.

 All these methods ultimately use layer masks, which is a much better
 way to combine photos than cutting and pasting since you can tweak
 what is transparent or not back and both without having to commit to
 a certain part of an image like you do with cutting and pasting.

 Brian Cluff


 On 01/07/2016 02:58 PM, Michael Havens wrote:

> I found a way to super impose an image but it looks tacky.
> The method I learned was to open both files and then to select the
> image you want to put on the other with fuzzytool. I found that
> didn't work so I used the path tool. Well I cut the image out but
> the paste doesn't look good. It is out of scale. For the purposes
> I need WHat ithe best way to cut a house out and put it on a blue
> sky?
>
> --
> :-)~MIKE~(-:
>
>
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - 
> PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> 
> To subscrib

Re: superimpose image

[Brian Cluff]

Yeah, your right... that's what I meant, and what I do Brain fart!

Brian Cluff

On 01/11/2016 11:15 AM, Stephen Partington wrote:
Careful about using multiple F-Stops. it can alter your depth of field 
and give you really weird hazing. it is usually better to alter 
shutter speed if anything. so the depth of feild and ISO noise is the 
same.


On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Brian Cluff > wrote:


While you can use software to fake it, it doesn't give you the
same quality as you would get from 3 separate images shot at
different F Stops.
The biggest difference you will see when using a single image is
that the darker parts of your fake HDR image will be very
grainy/noisy and there will also be some noise that spills over to
the rest of the image.

You can do a lot better if your single image is a RAW image with
it's higher bit-depth instead of it's JPEG equivalent, but even
then, without the longer exposure time that you would get from
using a larger F-stop the data simply isn't there is be able to
expand for HDR (really tonemaped) images.

Brian Cluff


On 01/11/2016 09:48 AM, Michael Havens wrote:

I was wondering... would using software to over/under expose an
image be the same as taking 3 images which have been physically
altered? Less wear and tear on the camera is good!

Also, I was watching a tutorial on luminance hdr and in his
version the software had a bunch of variation of an hdr which
could be modified. My version doesn't seem to have that. Is there
a setting?

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Brian Cluff mailto:br...@snaptek.com>> wrote:

Use LuminanceHDR for exposure blending.  GIMP is waay too
much work to get just one way to blending the images. 
Luminance on the other hard offers a tons of different

methods and then you can tweak the settings within each
method.  It's all very easy and gives you much better results.

Brian Cluff

On 01/07/2016 05:51 PM, Michael Havens wrote:

thank you so much man. I really appreciate it. I
certaainly will devote
10% of my available   brain to these videos tomorrow. Do
you know of any
videos or text teaching how to do exposure blending with
gimp2.8? all
the tuts  I've been finding are incomplete or are how to
do it with 2.2!

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Brian Cluff
mailto:br...@snaptek.com>
>> wrote:

There's a ton of ways to do what you want.  The
biggest thing you
will have to worry about is lighting.  For instance,
if you are
putting something that was lit from the left into a
scene that was
lit from the right, then there is little you can do.
No matter how
carefully you add it to your scene your brain will
always tell you
there is something wrong with the picture.

I tend to use a couple of different techniques to put
one image into
another.
If the background is a relatively solid color, I'll
use a technique
similar to this example for cutting out images while
preserving fine
details (hair in this example)... hint, you don't use
ANY of the
selection tools, or copy and past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnbxtMCHKV0
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jle81ofRLok
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quAChCnK_Dk

The other way I like combine image is brushing out
the background
using layer masks as demonstrated in this video with
the leg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHJAJziWDs0

I usually use a combination of the 2 techniques since
you rarely get
perfect results with either method.

All these methods ultimately use layer masks, which
is a much better
way to combine photos than cutting and pasting since
you can tweak
what is transparent or not back and both without
having to commit to
a certain part of an image like you do with cutting
and pasting.

Brian Cluff


On 01/07/2016 02:58 PM, Michael Havens wrote:

I found a way to super impose an image but it
looks tacky.
The method I learned was to open both files and
then to select the
image you want to put on the other with
   

Re: superimpose image

[Brian Cluff]

Oops, I guess I should have read the whole thread before replying. I 
could have saved myself a bunch of typing.


Brian Cluff

On 01/11/2016 10:14 AM, Stephen Partington wrote:
Cameras are usually good for 5-30 actuations if not more (Ie 
mirrorless cameras)


But the issue with using software to do the over/under expose of the 
image you loose the on site expanded dynamic range. Newer cameras can 
have some crazy dynamic range, but if you have an older camera or one 
that just doesn't have it Multiple exposures is about the only way to 
really get the data you need. and ideally you are doing this to expand 
you baseline, and extremes parts of the exposure.


Doing this in software from the same image, even is you do have a raw 
image to work with you are still imited to +/- 5-7Ev in most cases. I 
think sony can push as far as 11 to 14 but i would need to check my 
sources.


With set of images for HDR you move your EV to + and - 3-5 that then 
gives you a huge dynamic range to get details out of the brights and 
shadows.


On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Michael Havens > wrote:


I was wondering... would using software to over/under expose an
image be the same as taking 3 images which have been physically
altered? Less wear and tear on the camera is good!

Also, I was watching a tutorial on luminance hdr and in his
version the software had a bunch of variation of an hdr which
could be modified. My version doesn't seem to have that. Is there
a setting?

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Brian Cluff mailto:br...@snaptek.com>> wrote:

Use LuminanceHDR for exposure blending.  GIMP is waay too
much work to get just one way to blending the images. 
Luminance on the other hard offers a tons of different methods

and then you can tweak the settings within each method.  It's
all very easy and gives you much better results.

Brian Cluff

On 01/07/2016 05:51 PM, Michael Havens wrote:

thank you so much man. I really appreciate it. I
certaainly will devote
10% of my available   brain to these videos tomorrow. Do
you know of any
videos or text teaching how to do exposure blending with
gimp2.8? all
the tuts  I've been finding are incomplete or are how to
do it with 2.2!

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Brian Cluff
mailto:br...@snaptek.com>
>> wrote:

There's a ton of ways to do what you want.  The
biggest thing you
will have to worry about is lighting. For instance, if
you are
putting something that was lit from the left into a
scene that was
lit from the right, then there is little you can do.
No matter how
carefully you add it to your scene your brain will
always tell you
there is something wrong with the picture.

I tend to use a couple of different techniques to put
one image into
another.
If the background is a relatively solid color, I'll
use a technique
similar to this example for cutting out images while
preserving fine
details (hair in this example)... hint, you don't use
ANY of the
selection tools, or copy and past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnbxtMCHKV0
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jle81ofRLok
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quAChCnK_Dk

The other way I like combine image is brushing out the
background
using layer masks as demonstrated in this video with
the leg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHJAJziWDs0

I usually use a combination of the 2 techniques since
you rarely get
perfect results with either method.

All these methods ultimately use layer masks, which is
a much better
way to combine photos than cutting and pasting since
you can tweak
what is transparent or not back and both without
having to commit to
a certain part of an image like you do with cutting
and pasting.

Brian Cluff


On 01/07/2016 02:58 PM, Michael Havens wrote:

I found a way to super impose an image but it
looks tacky.
The method I learned was to open both files and
then to select the
image you want to put on the other with fuzzytool.
I found that
didn't work so I used the path

Re: superimpose image

[Stephen Partington]

Careful about using multiple F-Stops. it can alter your depth of field and
give you really weird hazing. it is usually better to alter shutter speed
if anything. so the depth of feild and ISO noise is the same.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Brian Cluff  wrote:

> While you can use software to fake it, it doesn't give you the same
> quality as you would get from 3 separate images shot at different F Stops.
> The biggest difference you will see when using a single image is that the
> darker parts of your fake HDR image will be very grainy/noisy and there
> will also be some noise that spills over to the rest of the image.
>
> You can do a lot better if your single image is a RAW image with it's
> higher bit-depth instead of it's JPEG equivalent, but even then, without
> the longer exposure time that you would get from using a larger F-stop the
> data simply isn't there is be able to expand for HDR (really tonemaped)
> images.
>
> Brian Cluff
>
>
> On 01/11/2016 09:48 AM, Michael Havens wrote:
>
> I was wondering... would using software to over/under expose an image be
> the same as taking 3 images which have been physically altered? Less wear
> and tear on the camera is good!
>
> Also, I was watching a tutorial on luminance hdr and in his version the
> software had a bunch of variation of an hdr which could be modified. My
> version doesn't seem to have that. Is there a setting?
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Brian Cluff  wrote:
>
>> Use LuminanceHDR for exposure blending.  GIMP is waay too much work
>> to get just one way to blending the images.  Luminance on the other hard
>> offers a tons of different methods and then you can tweak the settings
>> within each method.  It's all very easy and gives you much better results.
>>
>> Brian Cluff
>>
>> On 01/07/2016 05:51 PM, Michael Havens wrote:
>>
>>> thank you so much man. I really appreciate it. I certaainly will devote
>>> 10% of my available   brain to these videos tomorrow. Do you know of any
>>> videos or text teaching how to do exposure blending with gimp2.8? all
>>> the tuts  I've been finding are incomplete or are how to do it with 2.2!
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Brian Cluff < 
>>> br...@snaptek.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> There's a ton of ways to do what you want.  The biggest thing you
>>> will have to worry about is lighting.  For instance, if you are
>>> putting something that was lit from the left into a scene that was
>>> lit from the right, then there is little you can do. No matter how
>>> carefully you add it to your scene your brain will always tell you
>>> there is something wrong with the picture.
>>>
>>> I tend to use a couple of different techniques to put one image into
>>> another.
>>> If the background is a relatively solid color, I'll use a technique
>>> similar to this example for cutting out images while preserving fine
>>> details (hair in this example)... hint, you don't use ANY of the
>>> selection tools, or copy and past.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnbxtMCHKV0
>>> or
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jle81ofRLok
>>> or
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quAChCnK_Dk
>>>
>>> The other way I like combine image is brushing out the background
>>> using layer masks as demonstrated in this video with the leg:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHJAJziWDs0
>>>
>>> I usually use a combination of the 2 techniques since you rarely get
>>> perfect results with either method.
>>>
>>> All these methods ultimately use layer masks, which is a much better
>>> way to combine photos than cutting and pasting since you can tweak
>>> what is transparent or not back and both without having to commit to
>>> a certain part of an image like you do with cutting and pasting.
>>>
>>> Brian Cluff
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2016 02:58 PM, Michael Havens wrote:
>>>
 I found a way to super impose an image but it looks tacky.
 The method I learned was to open both files and then to select the
 image you want to put on the other with fuzzytool. I found that
 didn't work so I used the path tool. Well I cut the image out but
 the paste doesn't look good. It is out of scale. For the purposes
 I need WHat ithe best way to cut a house out and put it on a blue
 sky?

 --
 :-)~MIKE~(-:


 ---
 PLUG-discuss mailing list - 
 PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
 
 To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
 http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - 
>>> PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
>>> 
>>> To subscribe, unsubscrib

Re: superimpose image

[Brian Cluff]

While you can use software to fake it, it doesn't give you the same 
quality as you would get from 3 separate images shot at different F Stops.
The biggest difference you will see when using a single image is that 
the darker parts of your fake HDR image will be very grainy/noisy and 
there will also be some noise that spills over to the rest of the image.


You can do a lot better if your single image is a RAW image with it's 
higher bit-depth instead of it's JPEG equivalent, but even then, without 
the longer exposure time that you would get from using a larger F-stop 
the data simply isn't there is be able to expand for HDR (really 
tonemaped) images.


Brian Cluff

On 01/11/2016 09:48 AM, Michael Havens wrote:
I was wondering... would using software to over/under expose an image 
be the same as taking 3 images which have been physically altered? 
Less wear and tear on the camera is good!


Also, I was watching a tutorial on luminance hdr and in his version 
the software had a bunch of variation of an hdr which could be 
modified. My version doesn't seem to have that. Is there a setting?


On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Brian Cluff > wrote:


Use LuminanceHDR for exposure blending.  GIMP is waay too much
work to get just one way to blending the images. Luminance on the
other hard offers a tons of different methods and then you can
tweak the settings within each method.  It's all very easy and
gives you much better results.

Brian Cluff

On 01/07/2016 05:51 PM, Michael Havens wrote:

thank you so much man. I really appreciate it. I certaainly
will devote
10% of my available   brain to these videos tomorrow. Do you
know of any
videos or text teaching how to do exposure blending with
gimp2.8? all
the tuts  I've been finding are incomplete or are how to do it
with 2.2!

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Brian Cluff mailto:br...@snaptek.com>
>> wrote:

There's a ton of ways to do what you want.  The biggest
thing you
will have to worry about is lighting.  For instance, if
you are
putting something that was lit from the left into a scene
that was
lit from the right, then there is little you can do. No
matter how
carefully you add it to your scene your brain will always
tell you
there is something wrong with the picture.

I tend to use a couple of different techniques to put one
image into
another.
If the background is a relatively solid color, I'll use a
technique
similar to this example for cutting out images while
preserving fine
details (hair in this example)... hint, you don't use ANY
of the
selection tools, or copy and past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnbxtMCHKV0
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jle81ofRLok
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quAChCnK_Dk

The other way I like combine image is brushing out the
background
using layer masks as demonstrated in this video with the leg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHJAJziWDs0

I usually use a combination of the 2 techniques since you
rarely get
perfect results with either method.

All these methods ultimately use layer masks, which is a
much better
way to combine photos than cutting and pasting since you
can tweak
what is transparent or not back and both without having to
commit to
a certain part of an image like you do with cutting and
pasting.

Brian Cluff


On 01/07/2016 02:58 PM, Michael Havens wrote:

I found a way to super impose an image but it looks tacky.
The method I learned was to open both files and then
to select the
image you want to put on the other with fuzzytool. I
found that
didn't work so I used the path tool. Well I cut the
image out but
the paste doesn't look good. It is out of scale. For
the purposes
I need WHat ithe best way to cut a house out and put
it on a blue sky?

--
:-)~MIKE~(-:


---
PLUG-discuss mailing list
-PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org

>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail
settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman

Re: superimpose image

[Michael Havens]

YeahI was figuring something like thaht but I needed to ask to get
the technical explanation. Thank you!
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: superimpose image

[Stephen Partington]

Cameras are usually good for 5-30 actuations if not more (Ie
mirrorless cameras)

But the issue with using software to do the over/under expose of the image
you loose the on site expanded dynamic range. Newer cameras can have some
crazy dynamic range, but if you have an older camera or one that just
doesn't have it Multiple exposures is about the only way to really get the
data you need. and ideally you are doing this to expand you baseline, and
extremes parts of the exposure.

Doing this in software from the same image, even is you do have a raw image
to work with you are still imited to +/- 5-7Ev in most cases. I think sony
can push as far as 11 to 14 but i would need to check my sources.

With set of images for HDR you move your EV to + and - 3-5 that then gives
you a huge dynamic range to get details out of the brights and shadows.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Michael Havens  wrote:

> I was wondering... would using software to over/under expose an image be
> the same as taking 3 images which have been physically altered? Less wear
> and tear on the camera is good!
>
> Also, I was watching a tutorial on luminance hdr and in his version the
> software had a bunch of variation of an hdr which could be modified. My
> version doesn't seem to have that. Is there a setting?
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Brian Cluff  wrote:
>
>> Use LuminanceHDR for exposure blending.  GIMP is waay too much work
>> to get just one way to blending the images.  Luminance on the other hard
>> offers a tons of different methods and then you can tweak the settings
>> within each method.  It's all very easy and gives you much better results.
>>
>> Brian Cluff
>>
>> On 01/07/2016 05:51 PM, Michael Havens wrote:
>>
>>> thank you so much man. I really appreciate it. I certaainly will devote
>>> 10% of my available   brain to these videos tomorrow. Do you know of any
>>> videos or text teaching how to do exposure blending with gimp2.8? all
>>> the tuts  I've been finding are incomplete or are how to do it with 2.2!
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Brian Cluff >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> There's a ton of ways to do what you want.  The biggest thing you
>>> will have to worry about is lighting.  For instance, if you are
>>> putting something that was lit from the left into a scene that was
>>> lit from the right, then there is little you can do. No matter how
>>> carefully you add it to your scene your brain will always tell you
>>> there is something wrong with the picture.
>>>
>>> I tend to use a couple of different techniques to put one image into
>>> another.
>>> If the background is a relatively solid color, I'll use a technique
>>> similar to this example for cutting out images while preserving fine
>>> details (hair in this example)... hint, you don't use ANY of the
>>> selection tools, or copy and past.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnbxtMCHKV0
>>> or
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jle81ofRLok
>>> or
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quAChCnK_Dk
>>>
>>> The other way I like combine image is brushing out the background
>>> using layer masks as demonstrated in this video with the leg:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHJAJziWDs0
>>>
>>> I usually use a combination of the 2 techniques since you rarely get
>>> perfect results with either method.
>>>
>>> All these methods ultimately use layer masks, which is a much better
>>> way to combine photos than cutting and pasting since you can tweak
>>> what is transparent or not back and both without having to commit to
>>> a certain part of an image like you do with cutting and pasting.
>>>
>>> Brian Cluff
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2016 02:58 PM, Michael Havens wrote:
>>>
 I found a way to super impose an image but it looks tacky.
 The method I learned was to open both files and then to select the
 image you want to put on the other with fuzzytool. I found that
 didn't work so I used the path tool. Well I cut the image out but
 the paste doesn't look good. It is out of scale. For the purposes
 I need WHat ithe best way to cut a house out and put it on a blue
 sky?

 --
 :-)~MIKE~(-:


 ---
 PLUG-discuss mailing list -PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
 
 To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
 http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
>>> 
>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> :-)~MIKE~(

Re: superimpose image

[Michael Havens]

I was wondering... would using software to over/under expose an image be
the same as taking 3 images which have been physically altered? Less wear
and tear on the camera is good!

Also, I was watching a tutorial on luminance hdr and in his version the
software had a bunch of variation of an hdr which could be modified. My
version doesn't seem to have that. Is there a setting?

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Brian Cluff  wrote:

> Use LuminanceHDR for exposure blending.  GIMP is waay too much work to
> get just one way to blending the images.  Luminance on the other hard
> offers a tons of different methods and then you can tweak the settings
> within each method.  It's all very easy and gives you much better results.
>
> Brian Cluff
>
> On 01/07/2016 05:51 PM, Michael Havens wrote:
>
>> thank you so much man. I really appreciate it. I certaainly will devote
>> 10% of my available   brain to these videos tomorrow. Do you know of any
>> videos or text teaching how to do exposure blending with gimp2.8? all
>> the tuts  I've been finding are incomplete or are how to do it with 2.2!
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Brian Cluff > > wrote:
>>
>> There's a ton of ways to do what you want.  The biggest thing you
>> will have to worry about is lighting.  For instance, if you are
>> putting something that was lit from the left into a scene that was
>> lit from the right, then there is little you can do. No matter how
>> carefully you add it to your scene your brain will always tell you
>> there is something wrong with the picture.
>>
>> I tend to use a couple of different techniques to put one image into
>> another.
>> If the background is a relatively solid color, I'll use a technique
>> similar to this example for cutting out images while preserving fine
>> details (hair in this example)... hint, you don't use ANY of the
>> selection tools, or copy and past.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnbxtMCHKV0
>> or
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jle81ofRLok
>> or
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quAChCnK_Dk
>>
>> The other way I like combine image is brushing out the background
>> using layer masks as demonstrated in this video with the leg:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHJAJziWDs0
>>
>> I usually use a combination of the 2 techniques since you rarely get
>> perfect results with either method.
>>
>> All these methods ultimately use layer masks, which is a much better
>> way to combine photos than cutting and pasting since you can tweak
>> what is transparent or not back and both without having to commit to
>> a certain part of an image like you do with cutting and pasting.
>>
>> Brian Cluff
>>
>>
>> On 01/07/2016 02:58 PM, Michael Havens wrote:
>>
>>> I found a way to super impose an image but it looks tacky.
>>> The method I learned was to open both files and then to select the
>>> image you want to put on the other with fuzzytool. I found that
>>> didn't work so I used the path tool. Well I cut the image out but
>>> the paste doesn't look good. It is out of scale. For the purposes
>>> I need WHat ithe best way to cut a house out and put it on a blue
>>> sky?
>>>
>>> --
>>> :-)~MIKE~(-:
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> PLUG-discuss mailing list -PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
>>> 
>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
>> 
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> :-)~MIKE~(-:
>>
>>
>> ---
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>
>> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>



-- 
:-)~MIKE~(-:
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: Recommended laserjet repair.

[Matt Birkholz]

> From: Mark Phillips 
> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:03:55 -0700
> 
> When my printer has an issue I do the following -
> 
> 1. Google a repair video [...]
> 
> 2. Donate the printer [...]
> 
> Good luck!

Thanks.  I took it apart (as much as intended for regular servicing)
and cleaned up the black toner (yes, with a vacuum!), gambled $50 on a
new black developer unit, and am getting clean prints again.  I hope I
have not jinxed it, boasting here (thumbing my nose at Chaos!) but I
hope for another 5 years.  Sorry: no video.

A good idea though -- the repair videos.  Thanks.

Throw away $400 every 2 years?  Not in this house.

Happy Procrastination Monday Morning, everyone!
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: Looking for Backup Service Recommendations

[Ed]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Mark Phillips 
wrote:

> I have been using altdrive for a few years, but I have recently discovered
> that I cannot access my backup files, even though their application says
> the backups are created successfully. After going around in circles with
> customer support (they say they can access the backups, but I cannot access
> them from my computer), it seems they may have devolved into more of a scam
> than a legitimate business.
>
> I am looking for another backup solution. Any recommendations? I pay about
> $50/year for about 500 GB of storage to altdrive to backup one computer. I
> had hoped to add a couple more if the service proved to be any good.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
> ---
>
> I like Tarsnap https://www.tarsnap.com/
they bill in picodollars - and it's encrypted
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss