Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!pullnews.sonic-news.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!pe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk!blueyonder!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!feeder.news-service.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.webeweb
Subject: Re: Ping jorj - About Digital watermarks, with examples - "Jenna_digimarked_level1.jpg" 721.9 KBytes yEnc
From: MrD <MrD@email.org>
References: <KfSdnWDo3u2PwF_XnZ2dnUVZ8lQAAAAA@giganews.com> <hLGdnRjwepqGB1_XnZ2dnUVZ_hxi4p2d@giganews.com> <Xns9C9613A27AAE0MrD.email.org@127.0.0.1> <hLGdnRvwepq3LV_XnZ2dnUVZ_hxi4p2d@giganews.com>
Organization: Your Company
Message-ID: <Xns9C962B36BF2E1MrD.email.org@127.0.0.1>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Date: 30 Sep 2009 02:15:17 GMT
Lines: 115
NNTP-Posting-Host: 5a3ede99.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=A3YO>HV\M;ETE2gdJ]P=SGL?0kYOcDh@J;E7AhGfXIN@@97\KkFiXYC^<Y:ADc1_HL8AXV^baa7l@XFY\9FlSEKM
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.webeweb:1092
jorj <jorj@hea.ven> wrote in
news:hLGdnRvwepq3LV_XnZ2dnUVZ_hxi4p2d@giganews.com:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:56:12 +0000, MrD wrote:
>
>> jorj <jorj@hea.ven> wrote in
>> news:hLGdnRjwepqGB1_XnZ2dnUVZ_hxi4p2d@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:17:19 +0000, NottyBrother wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here you have jenna.jpg, I nice girl I met online. This photo is
>>>> the reference an is not digitally watermarked
>>>>
>>>> The other photos are the same picture but watermarked, each one
>>>> with a different strength.
>>>>
>>>> Level 1 is less visible but less durable Level 4 is more visible
>>>> but more durable.
>>>>
>>>> I inserted a Transaction code "69696969"
>>>>
>>>> You can read This transaction code with in several ways:
>>>>
>>>> If you have Photoshop CS4, use the Digimarc plugging. you can also
>>>> use the executable I am posting, and run read watermarks from
>>>> context menu in explorer (if you don't trust me, what I fully
>>>> understand, you can download it free from Digimarc site.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I removed in all images all metadata, like EXIF, XMP, Photoshop
>>>> meta, etc.. even the thumbnail so it will not be an issue when
>>>> comparing the files.
>>>>
>>>> As you will be able to see, digitally watermarking CHANGES the
>>>> color of pixels of the image.
>>>>
>>>> feel free to crop, resize, etc and check for yourself if you can
>>>> have get watermarks removed without destroying the picture...
>>>>
>>>> In my tests, long time ago, with a 1200dpi wax color printer and a
>>>> 1200 dpi scanner, the digital watermarked survived after I
>>>> printed the photo and scanned it.
>>>>
>>>> Any doubt, fell free to reply please... After all this is ALSO a
>>>> discussion group :-)
>>>>
>>>> With all respect,
>>>
>>> See?
>>>
>>> Webe did not use digimarc. I never said they did. Also (here it is
>>> again.. ready?) I NEVER SAID I REMOVED THE FUCKING WATERMARK.
>>> Remember when I said that before? Oh, that's the part you didn't
>>> bother to read... just like you probably won't read it again this
>>> time.
>>>
>>> Meh.
>>>
>>> I said there was a way to flood the server and cause it to dump
>>> UNWATERMARKED pictures. I know this and I know how watermarked pics
>>> from them look, because I wrote the fucking software to do what I
>>> already told you I did.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot for assuming I don't know what I am talking about.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot for assuming you do.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot for assuming everyone uses digimarc.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot because you assume when I say webe watermarked
>>> their shit I said they used digimarc - I said no such thing.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot because you obviously didn't read what I said, you
>>> just saw one thing you could disagree with then right back trying
>>> to prove AGAIN that I could not do something I never said I did.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot because you obviously are more interested in
>>> talking than listening. Then you try to cover it up telling me
>>> "respect." Bullshit, you didn't politely disagree you simply said I
>>> was wrong - when, in fact, it's you who is entirely in the wrong
>>> here. Of course you will never admit it - but then again, I will
>>> never care so we're even.
>>>
>>> Feel free to visit March on the better servers and grab the
>>> "kleenXBuMod" bunny sets 63,64,65. I'm the one who grabbed those
>>> off webe's servers and I'm the one who wrote the code that did it.
>>> Do compare these to any other sets of that range you find. If you'd
>>> care to disagree further about what constitutes a watermark, feel
>>> free to reply to someone who cares. I said way too much already,
>>> but I doubt Goldberg or Greene or whatever his name is is gonna be
>>> coming after me for infringment.
>>>
>>>
>> wow - and i thought i was the bad guy :)
>
> Of course you are. We all are. Where YOU been?
>
>> Quote:
>> "Of course you will never admit it - but then again, I will never
>> care so we're even."
>>
>> Yet you rant off as if you do actually ... care ;)
>
> I care only about myself. It pleases me to be a dick.
>
> No, we are not what we eat.
>
>
lmao - ok, where have i been?? In the toilet, where else?
he he he... point taken, welcome to the "Dick Club" - BTW,
i am member #1
MrD
|
|
![Favorite](javascript:myfavor('http://nzbot.com/article/alt.binaries.pictures.webeweb/1092h', 'Re: Ping jorj - About Digital watermarks, with examples - "Jenna_digimarked_level1.jpg" 721.9 KBytes yEnc')){kind=link}