🚀 go-pugleaf

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)