Jump to content

How Big is This Bass


gordon p

Recommended Posts

Here is a fish my brother caught on the Wisconsin River in late Sept. approx 15 years ago. Any guesses as to the size ? post-324-0-78153600-1390783101_thumb.jpg We did not measure it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, I did just that and I am waiting for him to tell me the measurement. John, agree about the jaw....which is why I think it's a 20" + fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your brother is doing a good job of long arming it. That is an old In-Fisherman trick. To make the fish look bigger stick it way out toward the camera. After Ron Lindner, Jimmie Houston is the best at long arming it. It is based on using parallax to distort the apparent size relationship between objects in the picture. Dr. Rob Optics can tell us about it in detail. The only objective 1:1 size relationship in the pic is your brothers hands since they are on the fish. Based on that I say more than 18 and less than 22. Maybe 20.

 

jamie (James Riani) was really good at estimating true sizes from photos since his work in photography and graphics gave him a lot of practice. He is a site member though I do not see him posting much lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still waiting for my brother to measure his finger..................Mike G, I wouldn't say he was holding the fish way towards the camera as his elbows are still bent tho I get your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah. This all presupposes a standard way to measure a fish. I once measured a bas that delivered readings of 19,18, and 19 on the same wet bump board. First it was 19 till I closed its mouth the way you are supposed to. Then it was 18 till I compressed the lobes of the tail the way you are supposed to. Then it was 19 again. This was a pretty controlled measurement-no parallax. The nose of the fish was up against the stop on the end of the board and the tail was flat out top of the ruler on the board. Now if one were to use a yardstick or a flexible tape... That is why I say ask Jamie and go with whatever he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20.07 inches, +/- a quarter of an inch.

 

I estimate the width of the visible portion of the fish's eyeball to be 17mm, slightly larger than the fingernail on his middle finger. (Mine is 15mm.)

 

It takes 30 eyeballs to go from the tip of the mouth to the tip of the tail. That's 510mm, or 20.07 inches.

 

If you increase the eyeball width estimate by just 1mm and recalculate, the total length estimate becomes 21.25". But I think a 21" is in a whole different class visually.

 

Gordon, with all the photos you have of smallies in similar poses, surely you've got one that's very close and that you have a measurement on.

measure.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am willing to accept the scorn that may be heaped on me by my brothers in the ISA, but Eric, ........I rarely measure fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric's hypothesis is purely speculation from an algebraic and mathematical standpoint. While his thesis has some obvious merits, there are definite flaws in the totality. He completely dismisses the triangulation of the sunlight vs. the angle of the fish and completely misses the equation of shadow on the day in question. Also, If the subject had subjected himself to a high salt diet which is likely given the “vacation” style atmosphere most anglers assume in these conditions, the said subject's fingers would definitely be swollen with water retention creating a whole different set of variables in which to consider. Since neither thumb is actually showing and a thumb is the prime indicator of finger length (see jozwiak vs thumb) we now have no factual basis for his findings. Furthermore, siting the lack of specific merits, I find the preponderance of these estimates here to be highly unwarranted in their lack of credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly the point I was trying to explain.

 

I think it may to be too advanced for the masses here.

 

"The running time of the algorithm is thus extremely slow"

 

 

 

Stooge sort is a recursive sorting algorithm with a time complexity of O(nlog 3 / log 1.5 ) = O(n2.7095...). The running time of the algorithm is thus extremely slow compared to efficient sorting algorithms, such as Merge sort, and is even slower than Bubble sort, a canonical example of a fairly inefficient and simple sort.

The algorithm is defined as follows:

  • If the value at the end is smaller than the value at the start, swap them.
  • If there are three or more elements in the current list subset, then:
    • Stooge sort the initial 2/3 of the list
    • Stooge sort the final 2/3 of the list
    • Stooge sort the initial 2/3 of the list again
  • else: exit the procedure

The algorithm gets its name from slapstick routines of the Three Stooges, in which each stooge hits the other two.[citation needed]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...