If you upload the same image file 300 times there will be no degradation in the 300th upload.
The original source file does not change.
Now if you edit and save over the original 300 times, there will be a change.
If you download an image AND then upload it 300 times, it might change depending what the upload process does to the image. But THAT is not a viable test for "uploading an image 300 times".
Why would each upload use a different algorithm (process) to upload???
I think he doesn't understand what he did, or is not explaining it well.
Why are so many people "experts" on things they don't understand.
Longshadow wrote:
If you upload the same image file 300 times there will be no degradation in the 300th upload.
The original source file does not change.
Now if you edit and save over the original 300 times, there will be a change.
If you download an image AND then upload it 300 times, it might change depending what the upload process does to the image. But THAT is not a viable test for "uploading an image 300 times".
Why would each upload use a different algorithm (process) to upload???
I think he doesn't understand what he did, or is not explaining it well.
Why are so many people "experts" on things they don't understand.
If you upload the i same /i image file 300 times... (
show quote)
Boy, I under read that one!
Still have no idea why someone would be worried about repeated downloading and uploading.
Same thing will happen here, on Facebook, and a myriad of other places.
And his point was, that it happens?
Time to get some sleep...
Longshadow wrote:
If you upload the same image file 300 times there will be no degradation in the 300th upload.
The original source file does not change.
Now if you edit and save over the original 300 times, there will be a change.
Absolutely, an edited file will contain the changes plus artifacts created by the upload process.
Longshadow wrote:
If you download an image AND then upload it 300 times, it might change depending what the upload process does to the image. But THAT is not a viable test for "uploading an image 300 times".
Absolutely again. But I don't think he accurately described what he was doing. Seems to me the only way to get the "evolving" changes shown in his animated GIF would be to 1) upload the original; 2) download the resulting image; 3) upload that last image just downloaded; 4) same as 2) & 3).... rinse and repeat. Each successive generation would compress the prior compressed image and cascade into something totally unlike the original image. Digital inbreeding??
Why would anyone do what he tested?
Maybe he's talking about people copying images, then repetitive copying and uploading of copied images would do that.
Hah, digital inbreeding, good phrase.
Longshadow wrote:
Why would anyone do what he tested?
To illustrate the effect of copying copies instead of taking the time to get the original? What else could it be???
marvkaye wrote:
To illustrate the effect of copying copies instead of taking the time to get the original? What else could it be???
Haha, just like what we did with the Xerox machine in the 70s.
Just the result of copying a copy. It does say in the article that it was uploaded and then downloaded. It just does not make it clear that the previous download was the origin for the subsequent upload.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.