In article , PeterN
wrote:

He may be technically correct,

at least you finally admit i'm correct.

Only partially.

nope. what i said is completely correct. again, go read a book on
signal theory.

but the discussion is about commercially
acceptable results.

no it isn't.
than you changed it without fair notice.

i didn't change a thing.

the original post to which i responded was about *sampling* *errors*,
not what is commercially acceptable:
No AA filter = lots of sampling errors, some visible, some less.

Creative directors don't give a rat's rear end about
technicalities.

yes they do.

Typical ****ing from you.

They look for the impression created by the image. (At
least the successful ones have that standard.)

that's true, but it does not negate knowing about the technical side of
things.

the truly successful ones understand both.

They are too busy to get involved with techno-babble. They want results.

they can't get results if technical issues prevent it.

nobody, not even creative directors, can get around sampling theory.

BTW I have business and personal relationships with several, and
categorically state that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. IOW you
don't know WTF you are talking about.

except you're wrong, which means *you* don't know wtf you are talking
about.

furthermore, even if your personal relationships included the pope, it
would not invalidate nyquist/shannon. perhaps you've heard of them,
although i suspect not.

but since you and your cohorts think that you know better, why don't
you put your money where your mouth is and go prove it. you'll be
*very* famous if you can demonstrate nyquist/shannon is bunk.