1 Heath or Rosenberg's Monitor at Sutton, NSW
Identification history
| Varanus rosenbergi | 21 Feb 2018 | GeoffRobertson | ||
| Varanus rosenbergi | 21 Feb 2018 | Whirlwind |
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
Significant sighting
MichaelMulvaney noted:
21 Feb 2018
A new Canberra Nature Map location for this vulnerable species, which fills in a previous distribution gap, suggesting connection between dispersed individual sightings.
User's notes
Found this fellow wandering around our house before going under a shipping container. Similar behaviour a few years ago.
12 comments
Whirlwind
wrote:
21 Feb 2018
After posting these images, I notice that they have been slightly cropped, cutting off a fraction from the head and tail.
MichaelBedingfield
wrote:
7 Mar 2018
All photos uploaded are edited and reduced in size and definition, for efficiency reasons. The original is stored. The image presented on the sighting is not the original. Your photos are a non-standard shape - a bit longer than normal.
MichaelBedingfield
wrote:
8 Mar 2018
It is good to crop the images as it generally improves photo quality.
Whirlwind
wrote:
9 Mar 2018
So what is a standard shape? I cannot find anything on this site that provides that information. When I cropped my original image that process then caused the image to look more panoramic in shape. Perhaps that is the reason for you to think it is non-standard in shape.
Plus, why did you say that my photo is not the original? The camera I used is an old Canon EOS that does not have a GPS location sensor. I therefore used Geosetter to embed the coordinates. This subsequently created a copy of my photo. Perhaps I uploaded the wrong one. Nevertheless, it seems to me that they are exactly the same. If I uploaded the other image would that make a difference?
Plus, why did you say that my photo is not the original? The camera I used is an old Canon EOS that does not have a GPS location sensor. I therefore used Geosetter to embed the coordinates. This subsequently created a copy of my photo. Perhaps I uploaded the wrong one. Nevertheless, it seems to me that they are exactly the same. If I uploaded the other image would that make a difference?
Mike
wrote:
9 Mar 2018
It's good you have made a significant contribution. I think what has happened is you cropped the top/bottom off the photo so made it narrower than the camera picture ratio which is probably 4:3 or maybe 6:4 (as in a 6x4 print), then the image shown on the website was cropped to make it a 4:3 ratio again. You will see that the thumbnails are cropped again so they are square. Phone camera pictures often have a 16:9 ratio which is similar to TV these days.
The best way to crop pictures is to maintain the original ratio and most software allows this. I always try to leave a bit of room at the edge.
Probably what MichaelB means by the "original" is the one you uploaded no matter how you have changed it by cropping etc. That gets stored but what everyone sees is a lower resolution standard shape and square thumbnails for extra images - when you click on a thumbnail you get and image that is 'standard' shape.
The best way to crop pictures is to maintain the original ratio and most software allows this. I always try to leave a bit of room at the edge.
Probably what MichaelB means by the "original" is the one you uploaded no matter how you have changed it by cropping etc. That gets stored but what everyone sees is a lower resolution standard shape and square thumbnails for extra images - when you click on a thumbnail you get and image that is 'standard' shape.
wombey
wrote:
9 Mar 2018
As a moderator the main issue for me is are the features I need for positive id present. What format it is in is irrelevant unless something like the tail has been cropped on an animal for which that feature is required for me to be sure. Of course this does not account for what ever other uses the image may be required for. On the subject of the tail, it is very helpful if all the tail is included for rosenbergi as varius can sometimes have double banding at the base but not at the tip as a recent example demonstrated. Without finally seeing the end of the tail it could have easily been miss identified.
MichaelBedingfield
wrote:
9 Mar 2018
Hi Whirlwind
I think Mike has explained the situation quite well.
I think Mike has explained the situation quite well.
MichaelBedingfield
wrote:
10 Mar 2018
If you are not satisfied with the visible appearance of this sighting you could go back to your original photos and crop them into a more standard rectangle shape. Then you could use the "Edit" function to replace the older ones.
Whirlwind
wrote:
20 Mar 2018
Thanks Michael, unfortunately I've deleted my original photos after cropping. I did so to save space. Certainly something to consider in the future.
JohnBundock
wrote:
21 Mar 2018
Can you make a copy of the cropped photo then edit that with "Revert to original"? if you can do that you will have the original photo and can them start again from scratch, cropping to the sizes suggested above.
Location information
- Places Sutton, NSW
Sighting information
- 1 Abundance
- 23 Jan 2018 11:28 AM Recorded on
- Whirlwind Recorded by
-
Collections
Significant sightings Featured sightings Reptiles and Frogs Monitors & Geckos Whirlwind
Species information
- Varanus rosenbergi Scientific name
- Heath or Rosenberg's Monitor Common name
- Sensitive
- Very rare / threatened
- Non-invasive or negligible
- 725 images trained Machine learning
- External link More information
Record quality
- Images or audio
- More than one media file
- Verified by an expert moderator
- Nearby sighting(s) of same species
- GPS evidence of location
- Description
- Additional attributes
