| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 1,633 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
I bought this proof set the other day only because the 8 in 1968 was exploding off of this Kennedy half. It is evident from the pictures. I don't see doubling, but I know there are extra thickness doubling from my Lincoln variety research. I'm not into proofs, if someone could explain to me what is up with this coin I would appreciate it! Thanks.   |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2651 Posts |
I don't get what you mean by "Exploding 8" to me it looks like the lighting...notice the "I" and "T" catch the light the same way...or am I missing something? If you explain better you might get some more responses cause I don't understand (I do consider myself a rookie though) Its pretty though!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
802 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1374 Posts |
Thanks for the reply!
It is definitely not lighting on the 8 making it pop out. Yes, it is bolded. The 8 seems twice as thick as the 196. Just look at the date, doesn't the 8 seem to really explode out of the coin compared to the rest of the date?
In fact, the D in GOD seems to have the same attribute.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Both the 8 and the D in GOD are reflecting so much, that you can see it just north. Compare it to the other numbers, letters and you don't see the same. If you click on my high rez photos, I think you will really see the difference. It is NOT lighting. Also, the D and 8 look much larger when compared to the rest of the coin. Plus, they are at different lighting angles in the same picture.
Edited by Drsandman2
07/19/2011 03:57 am
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
There is no dam reason for a 16MB image to illustrate a date. It's too big to even copy into Irfanview to get it all on one page. Even without seeing a pix, tho, it sounds like the same strong last digit that occurs on all halves from 65-69. Why the last digits were dug deeper, I have no idea. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
It looks like the 8 has the cameo effect and the other digits do not. Weird.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2651 Posts |
I guess I see what you mean...It does look like its higher up...or wider...I was just seeing the pretty shiny stuff...lol...
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
I think the cameo is stronger on the 8 which makes it visually "pop" out at you. Same effect as on the 2003 "ghost 3" proof cents but in reverse. On the 2003 cents everything else had a strong cameo but the 3 didn't and it seemed to "disappear".
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Cool, thanks to those with positive feedback.
It was my understanding that I should post pics of the entire coin, front and back, when asking for help. I believe I got the images down to 2MB before posting. Excuse the heck outta me!
Edited by Drsandman2
07/19/2011 2:50 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Posting the whole image is fine, but a 2 MB image is rather large. Two images, nearly 4 MB took my computer nearly six minutes to download. I'm just glad I wasn't on dial-up, yes some people still use it, it would have taken over half an hour.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
406 Posts |
It looks like the "S" mintmark is jumping out as well.
I don't know if it's my monitor settings or what, but the pics showed up just fine on my 24" flatscreen monitor.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote:
I believe I got the images down to 2MB before posting. Excuse the heck outta me!
My comments were constructive, and here's a bit more: Back in the day, it took three hours to DL a 200K image. 16mb is 80 times that big. 50k is plenty big enough for most purposes. The properties say the images are 16mb each. You are correct in picturing both sides, and sometimes the rim, when asking questions. However, when the image is five times as high and wide as the typical screen, viewers are only seeing 4% of the coin, so they still have nothing to work with. It's like trying to ID someone by only seeing their left nostril. Having a huge amount of background wastes times ULing, DLing, storing, and everything through the system. Crop to just the coin. A big out-of-focus pix is not as good as a small one that's clear. Equipment can take GB and prolly TB images. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote:
I don't know if it's my monitor settings or what, but the pics showed up just fine on my 24" flatscreen monitor. 24" still is huge for a monitor. What are your resolution settings (1600*2400, etc)? Is there a dotted line around the image? If so, you're seeing an automatically shrunk version. Click on the pix to see the original. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
24" is not THAT big. 30" is big. I've got a 30" with a 20" to the right of it, rotated in portrait format. 3760x1600 panoramic desktop, baby.
50-100k is a good size for photos. 100-200k if you need to show a lot of detail. It's also important to match the file size to the image resolution and content. Sometimes a 4 megapixel image will look worse than a 1 megapixel image at the same file size just because of compression artifacts. Getting good looking, appropriately sized images is not a trivial task.
|
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 1,633 |
|
Posted 07/19/2011 03:27 am
