Adama Diakhaby - Submissions - Cut Out Player Faces Megapack
85121813
Background and Stadium Packs
Timeline
@77david54 your source is not looking at the camera so i think its not the ideal.
I would tend to agree @77david54. It's a good source, but the one posted earlier is superior imo and there's nothing wrong with it. Remember, just because an image is more recent doesn't automatically make it better.
I would tend to agree @77david54. It's a good source, but the one posted earlier is superior imo and there's nothing wrong with it. Remember, just because an image is more recent doesn't automatically make it better.
I did not say that the other source was bad even if it seems to be a pre-cut and we lose details in the hair. I post the original source which is in 72dpi , the pending one which has been enlarged to 400% is in 2dpi in photopea.com , therefore in very low resolution.
The two Metz players have also been enlarged to 200%. I don't really know how it enlarged , but apparently we lose in resolution or so i did not understand something.
I did not say that the other source was bad even if it seems to be a pre-cut and we lose details in the hair. I post the original source which is in 72dpi , the pending one which has been enlarged to 400% is in 2dpi in photopea.com , therefore in very low resolution.
The two Metz players have also been enlarged to 200%. I don't really know how it enlarged , but apparently we lose in resolution or so i did not understand something.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here due to the language barrier. Tbh, there is very little hair detail in the source you uploaded so it won't make that much of a difference. As julkjulk said, the fact your source is not looking at the camera makes it less than ideal, especially when there's a perfectly acceptable source available already…
I've cut the below from the source originally provided, which was quite easy and resulted in a very decent cut imo, as originally suspected.
@77david54 your source is not looking at the camera so i think its not the ideal.
My anti-virus detected a trojan when i scanned the image you sent me so don't communicate with me anymore. I scanned the same image that you posted on the forum , and there my anti-virus does not detect a trojan , how weird ?
My anti-virus detected a trojan when i scanned the image you sent me so don't communicate with me anymore. I scanned the same image that you posted on the forum , and there my anti-virus does not detect a trojan , how weird ?
It's the same size in fact (1.7MB), and it opens fine for me. As suspected, your antivirus probably just flagged a false positive and you have no reason to be alarmed. Frankly, I think one should be more careful with these kind of accusations.
It's the same size in fact (1.7MB), and it opens fine for me. As suspected, your antivirus probably just flagged a false positive and you have no reason to be alarmed. Frankly, I think one should be more careful with these kind of accusations.
I did some research and you are right , this is a false positive so i apologize to @julkjulk . This is the first time that my anti-virus detects something suspicious on this site and no luck that it happens on an image sent to my personal mailbox.
Here is the name of the site to scan an image with several anti-virus “ virustotal.com ” , very useful.
I did some research and you are right , this is a false positive so i apologize to @julkjulk . This is the first time that my anti-virus detects something suspicious on this site and no luck that it happens on an image sent to my personal mailbox.
Here is the name of the site to scan an image with several anti-virus “ virustotal.com ” , very useful.
no problem mate!
@77david54 your source is not looking at the camera so i think its not the ideal.