關於 why do we have visual images ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

根據計算，100萬人遊行隊伍要從維多利亞公園排到廣東；200萬人遊行則要排到泰國。

順道一提香港15～30歲人口約莫100出頭萬人。以照片人群幾乎都是此年齡帶來看，兩個數字都是明顯誇大太多了。

另一個可以參考的是1969年的Woodstock Music & Art Fair，幾天內湧進40萬人次，照片看起來也是滿山滿谷的人。（http://sites.psu.edu/…/upl…/sites/851/2013/01/Woodstock3.jpg）

當年40萬人次引發驚人的大塞車，幾乎花十幾個小時才逐漸清場。

而香港遊行清場速度明顯快得多。

順道一提，因此運動而認定「你的父母不愛你」的白痴論述也如同文化大革命時的「爹親娘親不如毛主席親」般開始出現：

https://www.facebook.com/SaluteToHKPolice/videos/350606498983830/UzpfSTUyNzM2NjA3MzoxMDE1NjMyMTM4NjY3MTA3NA/

EVERY MAJOR NEWS outlet in the world is reporting that two million people, well over a quarter of our population, joined a single protest.
.
It’s an astonishing thought that filled an enthusiastic old marcher like me with pride. Unfortunately, it’s almost certainly not true.
.
A march of two million people would fill a street that was 58 kilometers long, starting at Victoria Park in Hong Kong and ending in Tanglangshan Country Park in Guangdong, according to one standard crowd estimation technique.
.
If the two million of us stood in a queue, we’d stretch 914 kilometers (568 miles), from Victoria Park to Thailand. Even if all of us marched in a regiment 25 people abreast, our troop would stretch towards the Chinese border.
.
Yes, there was a very large number of us there. But getting key facts wrong helps nobody. Indeed, it could hurt the protesters more than anyone.
.
For math geeks only, here’s a discussion of the actual numbers that I hope will interest you whatever your political views.
.
.
DO NUMBERS MATTER?
.
People have repeatedly asked me to find out “the real number” of people at the recent mass rallies in Hong Kong.
.
I declined for an obvious reason: There was a huge number of us. What does it matter whether it was hundreds of thousands or a million? That’s not important.
.
But my critics pointed out that the word “million” is right at the top of almost every report about the marches. Clearly it IS important.
.
.
FIRST, THE SCIENCE
.
In the west, drone photography is analyzed to estimate crowd sizes.
.
This reporter apologizes for not having found a comprehensive database of drone images of the Hong Kong protests.
.
But we can still use related methods, such as density checks, crowd-flow data and impact assessments. Universities which have gathered Hong Kong protest march data using scientific methods include Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Baptist University.
.
.
DENSITY CHECKS
.
Figures gathered in the past by Hong Kong Polytechnic specialists using satellite photo analysis found a density level of one square meter per marcher. Modern analysis suggests this remains roughly accurate.
.
I know from experience that Hong Kong marches feature long periods of normal spacing (one square meter or one and half per person, walking) and shorter periods of tight spacing (half a square meter or less per person, mostly standing).
.
.
JOINERS AND SPEED
.
We need to include people who join halfway. In the past, a Hong Kong University analysis using visual counting methods cross-referenced with one-on-one interviews indicated that estimates should be boosted by 12% to accurately reflect late joiners. These days, we’re much more generous in estimating joiners.
.
As for speed, a Hong Kong Baptist University survey once found a passing rate of 4,000 marchers every ten minutes.
.
Videos of the recent rallies indicates that joiner numbers and stop-start progress were highly erratic and difficult to calculate with any degree of certainty.
.
.
DISTANCE MULTIPLIED BY DENSITY
.
But scientists have other tools. We know the walking distance between Victoria Park and Tamar Park is 2.9 kilometers. Although there was overspill, the bulk of the marchers went along Hennessy Road in Wan Chai, which is about 25 meters (or 82 feet) wide, and similar connected roads, some wider, some narrower.
.
Steve Doig, a specialist in crowd analysis approached by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), analyzed an image of Hong Kong marchers to find a density level of 7,000 people in a 210-meter space. Although he emphasizes that crowd estimates are never an exact science, that figure means one million Hong Kong marchers would need a street 18.6 miles long – which is 29 kilometers.
.
Extrapolating these figures for the June 16 claim of two million marchers, you’d need a street 58 kilometers long.
.
Could this problem be explained away by the turnover rate of Hong Kong marchers, which likely allowed the main (three kilometer) route to be filled more than once?
.
The answer is yes, to some extent. But the crowd would have to be moving very fast to refill the space a great many times over in a single afternoon and evening. It wasn’t. While I can walk the distance from Victoria Park to Tamar in 41 minutes on a quiet holiday afternoon, doing the same thing during a march takes many hours.
.
More believable: There was a huge number of us, but not a million, and certainly not two million.
.
.
IMPACT MEASUREMENTS
.
A second, parallel way of analyzing the size of the crowd is to seek evidence of the effects of the marchers’ absence from their normal roles in society.
.
If we extract two million people out of a population of 7.4 million, many basic services would be severely affected while many others would grind to a complete halt.
.
Manpower-intensive sectors of society, such as transport, would be badly affected by mass absenteeism. Industries which do their main business on the weekends, such as retail, restaurants, hotels, tourism, coffee shops and so on would be hard hit. Round-the-clock operations such as hospitals and emergency services would be severely troubled, as would under-the-radar jobs such as infrastructure and utility maintenance.
.
There seems to be no evidence that any of that happened in Hong Kong.
.
.
HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?
.
To understand that, a bit of historical context is necessary.
.
In 2003, a very large number of us walked from Victoria Park to Central. The next day, newspapers gave several estimates of crowd size.
.
The differences were small. Academics said it was 350,000 plus. The police counted 466,000. The organizers, a group called the Civil Rights Front, rounded it up to 500,000.
.
No controversy there. But there was trouble ahead.
.
.
THINGS FALL APART
.
At a repeat march the following year, it was obvious to all of us that our numbers were far lower that the previous year. The people counting agreed: the academics said 194,000 and the police said 200,000.
.
But the Civil Rights Front insisted that there were MORE than the previous year’s march: 530,000 people.
.
The organizers lost credibility even with us, their own supporters. To this day, we all quote the 2003 figure as the high point of that period, ignoring their 2004 invention.
.
.
THE TRUTH COUNTS
.
The organizers had embarrassed the marchers. The following year several organizations decided to serve us better, with detailed, scientific counts.
.
After the 2005 march, the academics said the headcount was between 60,000 and 80,000 and the police said 63,000. Separate accounts by other independent groups agreed that it was below 100,000.
.
But the organizers? The Civil Rights Front came out with the awkward claim that it was a quarter of a million. Ouch. (This data is easily confirmed from multiple sources in newspaper archives.)
.
.
AN UNEXPECTED TWIST
.
But then came a twist. Some in the Western media chose to present ONLY the organizer’s “outlier” claim.
.
“Dressed in black and chanting ‘one man, one vote’, a quarter of a million people marched through Hong Kong yesterday,” said the Times of London in 2005.
.
“A quarter of a million protesters marched through Hong Kong yesterday to demand full democracy from their rulers in Beijing,” reported the UK Independent.
.
It became obvious that international media outlets were committed to emphasizing whichever claim made the Hong Kong government (and by extension, China) look as bad as possible. Accuracy was nowhere in the equation.
.
.
STRATEGICALLY CHOSEN
.
At universities in Hong Kong, there were passionate discussions about the apparent decision to pump up the numbers as a strategy, with the international media in mind. Activists saw two likely positive outcomes.
.
First, anyone who actually wanted the truth would choose a middle point as the “real” number: thus it was worth making the organizers’ number as high as possible. (The police could be presented as corrupt puppets of Beijing.)
.
Second, international reporters always favored the largest number, since it implicitly criticized China. Once the inflated figure was established in the Western media, it would become the generally accepted figure in all publications.
.
Both of the activists’ predictions turned out to be bang on target. In the following years, headcounts by social scientists and police were close or even impressively confirmed the other—but were ignored by the agenda-driven international media, who usually printed only the organizers’ claims.
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION
.
Skip this section unless you want additional examples to reinforce the point.
.
In 2011, researchers and police said that between 63,000 and 95,000 of us marched. Our delightfully imaginative organizers multiplied by four to claim there were 400,000 of us.
.
In 2012, researchers and police produced headcounts similar to the previous year: between 66,000 and 97,000. But the organizers claimed that it was 430,000. (These data can also be easily confirmed in any newspaper archive.)
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION TOO
.
Unless you’re interested in the police angle. Why are police figures seen as lower than others? On reviewing data, two points emerge.
.
First, police estimates rise and fall with those of independent researchers, suggesting that they function correctly: they are not invented. Many are slightly lower, but some match closely and others are slightly higher. This suggests that the police simply have a different counting method.
.
Second, police sources explain that live estimates of attendance are used for “effective deployment” of staff. The number of police assigned to work on the scene is a direct reflection of the number of marchers counted. Thus officers have strong motivation to avoid deliberately under-estimating numbers.
.
.
RECENT MASS RALLIES
.
Now back to the present: this hot, uncomfortable summer.
.
Academics put the 2019 June 9 rally at 199,500, and police at 240,000. Some people said the numbers should be raised or even doubled to reflect late joiners or people walking on parallel roads. Taking the most generous view, this gave us total estimates of 400,000 to 480,000.
.
But the organizers, God bless them, claimed that 1.03 million marched: this was four times the researchers’ conservative view and more than double the generous view.
.
The addition of the “.03m” caused a bit of mirth among social scientists. Even an academic writing in the rabidly pro-activist Hong Kong Free Press struggled to accept it. “Undoubtedly, the anti-amendment group added the extra .03 onto the exact one million figure in order to give their estimate a veneer of accuracy,” wrote Paul Stapleton.
.
.
MIND-BOGGLING ESTIMATE
.
But the vast majority of international media and social media printed ONLY the organizers’ eyebrow-raising claim of a million plus—and their version soon fed back into the system and because the “accepted” number. (Some mentioned other estimates in early reports and then dropped them.)
.
The same process was repeated for the following Sunday, June 16, when the organizers’ frankly unbelievable claim of “about two million” was taken as gospel in the majority of international media.
.
“Two million people in Hong Kong protest China's growing influence,” reported Fox News.
.
“A record two million people – over a quarter of the city’s population” joined the protest, said the Guardian this morning.
.
“Hong Kong leader apologizes as TWO MILLION take to the streets,” said the Sun newspaper in the UK.
.
Friends, colleagues, fellow journalists—what happened to fact-checking? What happened to healthy skepticism? What happened to attempts at balance?
.
.
CONCLUSIONS?
.
I offer none. I prefer that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. This is just a rough overview of the scientific and historical data by a single old-school citizen-journalist working in a university coffee shop.
.
I may well have made errors on individual data points, although the overall message, I hope, is clear.
.
Hong Kong people like to march.
.
We deserve better data.
.
We need better journalism. Easily debunked claims like “more than a quarter of the population hit the streets” help nobody.
.
International media, your hostile agendas are showing. Raise your game.
.
Organizers, stop working against the scientists and start working with them.
.
Hong Kong people value truth.
.
We’re not stupid. (And we’re not scared of math!)

What Are Ground Control Points (GCPs) and How Do I Use Them?
A Guide to Using Ground Control Points with Drone Mapping Software
If you work with drone mapping software, you’ve no doubt heard talk of ground control points (GCPs). Used often in the surveying industry, as well as in virtual design and construction, GCPs greatly increase the global accuracy of drone maps. Although they are not necessary in every situation, GCPs are a vital tool for precision mapping. But what exactly are ground control points? And how do you go about using them correctly?

To help crack the code on ground control points, we’ve put together this short guide to using GCPs with drone mapping software.

What Are Ground Control Points?
So what exactly are ground control points? Ground control points are large marked targets on the ground, spaced strategically throughout your area of interest. If you use ground control points with your aerial map, you first need to determine the RTK GPS coordinates at the center of each. (We’ll explain how to do this a little later.) The ground control points and their coordinates are then used to help drone mapping software accurately position your map in relation to the real world around it.

It might be helpful to think of your GCPs as a series of thumbtacks placed on your drone map. Because the drone mapping software knows the exact location of each of these “thumbtacks”, it can reference their locations when it matches up all of the other points on the map.
When and Why Are GCPs Important?
When used correctly, ground control points greatly improve the global accuracy of your drone map. That is to say, they help ensure that the latitude and longitude of any point on your map corresponds accurately with actual GPS coordinates. This is important in situations where precision mapping and true global accuracy are needed. As we mentioned above, surveying companies generally use GCPs, because a high level of global accuracy is important in most of the work that they do. Virtual design and construction is another sector that often requires this level of precision drone mapping.

Landpoint, a surveying company based in Louisiana, uses ground control points when creating drone maps used for topographical surveying. Using GCPs on an 85-acre map, their team conducted an accurate aerial survey, saving over 80 man hours compared to traditional land survey methods.

Each drone mapping project is unique, and not all projects require a high level of global accuracy. Because of this, it is important to assess each project individually before you decide to take the extra step of using GCPs. But generally speaking, projects like geo-referenced overlays, design documents and land title surveys benefit from the use of ground control points. In an upcoming post, we’ll take a deeper look at which types of projects are best suited for using GCPs.

How to Construct a Ground Control Point
There is no one right way to make a ground control point. One important thing to remember is that the GCP must be easily visible in your aerial imagery. This is achieved by using high-contrast colors and by making sure the ground control point is large enough to be seen from your particular flight altitude. We generally recommend flying at 300 feet with a frontlap and sidelap of 70/75 when using ground control points. Keep in mind that this may change dependent upon the area you are mapping. Learn more by reading our recent post about mapping accuracy and reviewing our GCP support documents.

A number of companies do sell pre-made, portable ground control points. However, many drone users simply fashion their own.
This well constructed GCP was spray painted onto the concrete using a stencil. Notice that the marker is large enough to be visible from far away. A center mark helps eliminate any confusion as to where the center point is located.

If you’re unable to mark GCPs with paint, there are a variety of low-cost ways to make markers with items available from any local hardware store. The weather-resistant rubber and vinyl markers seen above end up costing about $5 each and are very durable.

Measuring the Location of Your GCPs
As we mentioned above, it is important to measure the GPS coordinates at the center of each ground control point. To do this, you need either a Real Time Kinematic (RTK) or Post Processing Kinematic (PPK) GPS receiver. Trimble and Leica products are commonly used for high-accuracy GPS measurements. New, lower-cost alternatives have recently come onto the market as well. Hiring a surveyor to measure the location of your ground control points is also an option.

Do not use a phone or tablet to measure the location of your ground control points. The accuracy of these devices is very similar to that of a drone’s onboard GPS system and will not deliver precise results. Instead, use one of the previous methods listed above, such as an RTK or PPK GPS receiver.

Best Practices for Using Ground Control Points with Drone Mapping Software
Of course, if you use ground control points with drone mapping software, it is important to use them correctly. Follow these best practices to help ensure your GCPs serve their intended purpose and improve the accuracy of your map.

Use a minimum of 4 large GCPs: DroneDeploy requires a minimum of 4 ground control points. Each should measure at least four feet. No more than 10 are usually needed for larger maps.

Evenly distribute your GCPs on the ground: For most maps of moderate size, we recommend 5 GCPs, one located near each corner and one located in the center, as pictured above. Also, make sure GCPs are spaced far enough apart, to avoid confusion. As a general rule, if you can see more than one GCP in an image, they are too close together.

Create a buffer zone around your map’s perimeter: We recommend a buffer zone between the edges of your map and any ground control points. This ensures there is enough image coverage to carry out reprocessing. The size of your buffer zone should be somewhere between 50–100 feet, depending on the overlap of your flight. A higher overlap produces more images and generally requires less buffer zone.

Be aware of elevation changes: If the area being mapped has noticeable elevation changes like hills, mines and valleys, make sure to place at least one ground control point on each of the different major elevations.

Make sure your GCPs are unobstructed: Visual obstructions like overhangs, snow, shade or glare make ground control points difficult to identify on your drone map.

Know Your EPSG code: Before processing your map in DroneDeploy, you must enter the EPSG code that relates to your GPS measurements. Choose your EPSG code by modifying the settings of your GPS measurement device. In most cases, we recommend using WGS84 (EPSG: 4326).

各位觀眾，#高重黎 ～～～！！

●新刊發行 | New Release

Voices of Photography 攝影之聲
Issue 22 : #高重黎專號
The Kao Chung-Li Issue

「攝影是時間的機器／攝影是存在的機器／攝影是遺忘的機器／攝影是鬥爭的機器／攝影是詩的機器／攝影是秩序的機器／攝影是快感的機器／攝影是機器的機器」___高重黎

一個幽靈——影像機器的幽靈——在島上遊蕩。

從實驗電影、攝影、動畫、雕塑、影像裝置、視覺玩具發明乃至影像論述書寫，高重黎源源不絕、型態多樣而難以被歸類定位的創作展演，正體現了觀看、影像與歷史的複雜纏繞，以及對於影像不曾止歇、永無終點的提問與思考，是台灣影像藝術創作圖景中極具實驗性與顛覆性的刺點。

高重黎對於「影像生產」如何影響攝影史發展的敏銳問題意識，使他在一個沒有屬於自己的影像生產工具的攝影島嶼裡，透過自行發明、手工產製影像機械裝置，嘗試在只熱衷「生產影像」並由影像消費主導的貧血的視覺文化中，尋索解答；他甚而將眼睛化為攝／放映機，使腦袋變成底片，將嘴做揚聲器，讓自己徹底變成一台人肉影像機器，以他的身體與影像實踐，試圖翻攪、超克當前攝影史發展中看似難以撼動的權力構型。

「攝影是什麼？電影是什麼？看是什麼？」高重黎張大眼睛問。「為什麼我們沒有屬於自己的攝影搖籃、童年、電影的黃金時代？為什麼我們沒有自己的視覺感知、神經的論述原理？為什麼我們沒有自己的影像機器工業呢？⋯⋯」在這份專號裡，我們將探索這些問題的答案，沿著高重黎的創作理路，踏上這一趟影像思索的長征。

為了準備這份專號，我們反覆造訪、整理高重黎經年累積、龐大而散落的創作資料，在他堆滿各類影像器械機具而難以探底的影像庫房中，挖掘他早期的八釐米影片、幻燈片與手稿，收錄他未曾曝光的照片、物件、動畫繪稿、工作筆記與私房收藏，並輯錄他的多篇論述。

此外，我們特別邀集影像研究者張世倫、許芳慈、郭昭蘭、劉永晧與陳煒宗，析論高重黎的影像觀與創作構成，以及藝術家林鉅對高重黎其人其事的白描素寫；同時收錄已故作家陳映真以高重黎作品論辯現代主義藝術與批判意識的評述文字，還有高重黎的長篇訪談。

製作藝術家專號對我們來說永遠是一項艱鉅的挑戰，在此要特別感謝高重黎先生對我們的信任、支持與寬容，無私地與我們分享他的創作生活。我們難以完整呈現他豐富的面向，僅能在有限的條件能力下，做為跨步初探高重黎的一份創作紀錄，並將我們從一位藝術家的影像思考中獲取的啟發，分享給我們親愛的讀者朋友。

● 購書 | Order : http://bit.ly/2BOBXea
● 訂閱 | Subscribe : http://bit.ly/2tTlqn6

A spectre is haunting the island - the spectre of the imaging machinery.

Through experimental films, photography, animation, sculptures, image installations, visual toy inventions and even essays on visual imagery, Chung-Li Kao exemplifies the complex relationship between viewing, imagery and history, and has never stopped questioning and reflecting on imagery through diverse forms of creation that defy classification. Kao is indeed the most experimental and subversive punctum in Taiwan’s visual arts scene.

Acutely aware of how "image production" influences the development of the history of photography, Kao tries to look for a solution within the anemic visual culture dominated by a preference for "produced images" and the consumption of imagery, on this photographic island that possesses no means of its own to produce images and instead relies on inventions of the imaging machinery. He even transforms himself into a human imagery machine - his eyes a projector, his brain a negative, his mouth a loudspeaker. Using his body and putting imagery into practice, Kao attempts to overturn and surpass the seemingly unmovable power structure that is so deeply entrenched in the development of contemporary photographic history.

"What is photography? What are films? What is it to ‘see’?" Kao asks, his eyes wide. "Why do we not have our own cradle of photography, childhood, or golden age of movies? Why do we not have our own theories of visual perception and neurology? Why do we not have our own imaging machinery industry?" In this special issue, we attempt to answer these questions as we embark on this long journey of reflection, along the lines of Kao’s principles of creation.

In preparation for this issue, we visited Kao several times and compiled his vast and scattered collection of work which has accumulated over the years. We uncovered his earlier 8mm films, slides and manuscripts as we dug through his storeroom, filled to no end with all sorts of imagery machines. We also included in this issue never-before-seen photographs, animated drafts, working notes, objects from his personal collection and several of his essays.

In addition, we invited imagery researchers Shih-Lun Chang, Fang-Tze Hsu, Jau-Lan Guo, Yung-Hao Liu and Wei-Tsung Chen to discuss Kao’s imagery perspective and processes, and artist Ju Lin to talk about Kao and his work. At the same time, we also included the late author Ying-Zhen Chen’s commentary on modernist artwork and critical awareness through the lens of Kao’s works, as well as an in-depth interview with the artist himself.

It will always be a daunting challenge to us when it comes to preparing an artist issue. We would like to express our gratitude to Mr. Chung-Li Kao for his trust, support and generosity, and for sharing his life of art creation with us without any reservations. With our limited capability, we are unable to put into print the entirety of the rich orientation of his art, but what we can do is to share with our beloved readers a record of Kao’s creations and the inspiration we got from the imagery reflections of an artist.

---
Voices of Photography 攝影之聲
www.vopmagazine.com

This Mind Movie is focused on “Believing in Yourself”. Mind Movies are short videos filled with positive affirmations, inspiring visual images and motivating music. By watching this mind movie, it will assist in a reprograming our subconscious mind (just like updating the OS system in our brain). The process is called “visualization” and is applied by many of the world's most successful people - from CEOs and billionaires to athletes and musicians – to fuel their life with power and get their mind to perform at their peak each day.

Just want to take this opportunity to thank Dr Joe Dispenza for showing us the power of our minds in his book "Becoming Supernatural". Highly recommended!

Please subscribe to my channel
https://www.youtube.com/alankong1979
Instagram: @alanreborn79
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/alan.kong1
Medium: https://medium.com/@alankong_62615

Positive Quotes From Celebrities Used in this video:
It doesn’t matter what you do. It matters who you are.
You’re perfect when you’re comfortable being yourself.
Pleasure is always derived from something outside you, whereas you arises from within.
It’s never too late to take a leap of faith and see what will happen – and to brave in life.
What makes you different is what makes you beautiful.
Life is too short to worry what others say about you.
Listen. Pay attention. Treasure every moment.
Nothing is impossible; the word itself says I’m possible!
You can’t let your failures define you. You have to let your failures teach you.
Never give up on something you love.
Never listen to anybody that tries to discourage you.
When something is important enough, you do it even if the odds are not in your favour.
Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.
Smile and let everyone know that today you’re a lot stronger than you were yesterday.
A lot of people are afraid to say what they want. That’s why they don’t get what they want.
Live as if you were to die tomorrow…Learn as if you were to live forever.
Knowing is not enough; We must apply…Willing is not enough; We must do.
Setting goals is the first step in turning the invisible into the visible.
You are ready and able to do beautiful things in this world.
You don’t learn to walk by following the rules, you learn by doing and by falling over.
If you are not happy, you can become happy. Happiness is a choice.
They are so many great things in life; why dwell on negativity?
One day, the people that didn’t believe in you will tell everyone how they met you.

#GoodVibesOnly #BelieveAndAchieve #StayPositive