# help for low quality fish pics....



## MsAddicted (Jan 25, 2005)

Can anyone work with these photos and make the numbers readable? I am judging a TLA fishing (by photo) tournament and this person who sent me these is broken hearted. She accidentally had her camera on "movie" when she tried to photograph these. The pixel number is low and I just cant verify that the fish are what size they are supposed to be. I am hopeful but I realize that even you wizards down here can only do so much. I need them pretty quickly...by wednesday at the latest so if you have a chance to tinker tonight or tomorrow that would be great!

Thanks!


----------



## Terry G. (Jul 17, 2006)

the speck kinda looks like 29" when fliped over and the red kinda looks like 21???
sorry.


----------



## RR_TX (Nov 9, 2006)

on the 2nd picture, have her measure the tacklebox to help validate but I took what I thought was an inch and pasted it over the fish to guestimate 18.5"


----------



## MsAddicted (Jan 25, 2005)

Wow, I put up a post and its gone. Weird.

Thanks for trying! I just found I was guessing too...."kinda looks like" wasnt working for me, lol.

Thought about measuring and duplicating the penny and laying it down the length of the fish.


----------



## Betty Croaker (Feb 24, 2005)

Thanks everyone for trying. Kaylin go fish and have some fun. I will learn to check camera before just shooting. I will check with CVS and Ritz camera tomorrow.Thanks again


----------



## MsAddicted (Jan 25, 2005)

Hey Jackie! I talked with your competitor and she is cool with the pics as they are. Its not that people arent going to believe you! I sure do, thats a nice trout. I just didnt want anyone to give you a hard time.


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

So. Is that a penny on the deck? Penny = 19mm and the trout is 30 pennies long. Making the trout slighty more than 22.44 inches.


----------



## MsAddicted (Jan 25, 2005)

I knew someone would take up that challenge! Grayfish you are my hero! (again!)


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

Red is slightly more than 26.5 Coins. Call it 26.5 x 19mm or 18.82 inches.

If the coin is another denomination in either photo adjustments must be made. But based on the coin to finger width. I am betting they are pennies in both photos.


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

Different approach to spec. Different program. Spaces are all equal. Same results.

Will redo the red if you wish MsAddicted.


----------



## MsAddicted (Jan 25, 2005)

Yeah, they are pennies. Sorry I thougth I said that already. A penny was required to be in the photo. The measurements are coming up a tad short from what they should be. Wonder whats causing that. Red should be 21.5 and the trout just over 24. Interesting. CSI Grayfish :biggrin:


----------



## Capt Rick Hiott (Dec 14, 2007)

Now that was a pretty slick trick there GrayFish!!


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

MsAddicted said:


> Yeah, they are pennies. Sorry I thougth I said that already. A penny was required to be in the photo. The measurements are coming up a tad short from what they should be. Wonder whats causing that. Red should be 21.5 and the trout just over 24. Interesting. CSI Grayfish :biggrin:


The measurement claimed by the contestant on the trout could very well be true. That would be 2 pennies over the 30 penny distance I calculated. Or 6.6%. That is very small over one penny (1.25mm or about the scale width of the line in the picture I posted). Due to the pixelation of the image, I could not be that accurate in marking definitive edges on the penny. I should have stated an error factor in my original and for that I apologize.


----------



## Gator_Nutz (Sep 27, 2006)

The red I can see because the penny is actually sitting on the fish. With the trout however, the penny sits on the floor of the boat and not the fish. Wouldn't this make the width of the penny a little less than it would appear if it were sitting up on the fish since it would then in effect be closer to the camera? Take a picture of a penny on a table. Then measure the width in that picture. Then raise the penny up 3 or 4 inches, roughly whatever the thickness of the fish was, and take another picture (camera in same position). Wouldn't that second, closer penny appear larger than the first? Perhaps the trout is a little larger than first thought. Either way, they are both very nice fish and I wish I had caught them.


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

Gator_Nutz said:


> The red I can see because the penny is actually sitting on the fish. With the trout however, the penny sits on the floor of the boat and not the fish. Wouldn't this make the width of the penny a little less than it would appear if it were sitting up on the fish since it would then in effect be closer to the camera? Take a picture of a penny on a table. Then measure the width in that picture. Then raise the penny up 3 or 4 inches, roughly whatever the thickness of the fish was, and take another picture (camera in same position). Wouldn't that second, closer penny appear larger than the first? Perhaps the trout is a little larger than first thought. Either way, they are both very nice fish and I wish I had caught them.


Thank you. You are correct on that. I could not see what I was doing wrong. I knew I was wrong because I enhanced the picture and had my program extrapolate pixels in my enlargement of the picture. I have been working on that picture since I posted earlier.

Here is my extrapolated area of the tail area of the Trout. Interesting. If you let the programs help they do wonders. The program inserts pixels in between the existing pixels as I magnify the image and averages their color. This cause the image to soften so I don't do it much. In this case it shows something very interesting. I should have tried it first. I would call the fish a "5"  and based on the rest of image and measurements a 25" trout.


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

Not so lucky on the Redfish. Your call on this one. If you can get me a measurement on the width of the fish ruler I may be able to establish a more accurate length.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

good work, grayfish.


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

I tried to edit my last post on the trout. But I was too late. A comparison needs to be made between the ruler and the picture of the trount and ruler.


----------



## Betty Croaker (Feb 24, 2005)

You guys are good! The trout was 24 1/2. and the red was 21 1/2. It was a regular 38" check it stick. Actually in that cut the trout was 24. If you moved the tail a certain way it was then 24 1/2. I learned a valueable lesson. Always check your settings because you really can't see the pictures in the sunlight to check them. Thanks for all your hard work.


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Grayfish...you are amazing:wink: :biggrin:


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

Thank you stargazer. And for those interested.

I did more work on the red later and sent the results to MsAddicted. I was able to determine the Red was 21.5" And I was able to pull up just enough contrast after fiddling with some other settings to see the 2 on as the second number of the first set after the red's tail. I did not post it. (You can also just make it out in the one I posted earlier.) 

Also I redid the calculation on the tick marks. I used the penny to establish the width of the ruler and use it as my measurement standard. The stick was 2" wide by the way and I bisected the width to get the tick marks to 1". Did the same on the trout.

Here are my last efforts. I should have posted earlier.


----------

