Off topic.

Douglas wrote:
So...
You have another approach for someone targeting you with insults over a
long, long period of time because their feeble mind cannot comprehend a
process I helped pioneer?
I suppose this is yet another reference to Douglas' magical
interpolation 'algorythm', that our 'feeble' brains cannot comprehend.
It is the algorythm that:
- he lied about (he showed 'results' that he claimed were enlarged when
they were demonstrably *reduced*)
- he claimed added *real* detail (see quotes below), using the analogy
of CSI-type processing that would bring up those satellite image number
plates all nice and clear..(O: (but he showed no examples, of
course...)
- he refused to demonstrate or have tested on *any* sample image
(because, of course, he said it would result in it being reverse
engineered!) (and no, not even a scan of a print..)
- he misquoted and/or misrepresented comments by people like Gisle
Hannemyr, Gordon Moat and even our local Colin D, all of whom have had
to post 'corrections' on Douglas' wild claims.

Some of these people were quite positive about his large prints, but
none saw original files, nor any evidence of the 'algorythm's 'magic'.
I don't dispute Douglas can, occasionally, do a nice print - I've seen
them at his market stall. Some were ok, but he (or his photographers)
clearly have problems with dynamic range, colour balance and focus, and
he needs glasses if he thinks they show more than about 150 dpi real
detail. They are exactly what I would expect (or worse) from the sort
of 6-8Mp files he uses to create them, and they are mostly printed on
quite roughly textured canvas - eeurrgh..

By the way, I think Colin D is still waiting on an apology from Doug -
see "20D LIKES IT HOT !"
And Annika and others are still waiting for Doug to prove he has/had a
1DS MkII - see "D-Mac, I'm calling you out!"

What if I told someone publicly that you had no credibility in your
occupation? How would handle the prick when he's on the other side of the
world?
First, I would refrain from the gutter language and angry insults..
And what do other *credible* people do when people question their
claims? - they prove them wrong. Mike Chaney (QImage), Gisle Hannemyr,
Bart van der Wolf and many many others simply post *verifiable*
samples. Douglas knows you can't reverse engineer from a sample crop,
but he needs an excuse.

It didn't matter that I sent example prints to people who participate
in the groups.
Douglas sent one to Colin D. He said it was nice, but he had no
original image to test and disputed many of Douglas' comments - and he
is now waiting for that apology.
He sent others to Gordon Moat. He said they were nice too, but then
made it very clear that you could not manufacture detail as Douglas
claims. Gordon posted here to clarify his statements and point out
Douglas' untruths. - see "Enlarging digital images - examples".
Anyone can check these threads (in rec.photo.equipment.35mm). Doug can
try to pull his *webpages* quickly and pretend they never existed, but
these threads are archived in many locations.

Douglas promised samples to others, including Gisle, Annika, Avery and
some others I believe, but they never happened - he claimed that
addresses went astray, etc... A request from Mike Russell
(Curvemeister) to get an enlargement done of one of his images also
resulted in Douglas disappearing rapidly. Uhuh...

He just changed his tack and kept spouting insults because HE
didn't have any qualifications to pass judgment and never got any examples
enlargements.
Then why didn't Douglas just ignore him, and why hasn't he ever posted
proof? The reverse engineering claim has zero credibility.

He is like way too many cowardly people on Usenet who carry on with
appalling behaviour, comfortable in the knowledge their insults and jibes
will never prompt a confrontation in person. If this moron said to anyone in
a face to face conversation what he says from hiding, he's spend more time
in hospital than on his computer.
How apt - note that throughout this thread, the insults and threats are
all coming from just one very hypocritical source...

I'll happily leave it be but I'll never put up with the likes of him heaping
**** on me. He has no qualifications to do it, no right to do it and no
brains doing it either. Tell me an alternative way to handle him and I will.
Otherwise... This is how I respond to feeble minded morons who insults me
because I once made a claim he didn't believe. How pathetic. Every day (now
that it's common practice) people enlarge postcard size images and print
them on canvas.
Yup. And they *look* like over-enlarged postcard images, they show no
'added real detail'. And on some types of images (large macro shots of
flowers are a good example), they might be quite passable if you don't
get close. But what exactly did Douglas say? These are Douglas'
words, quoted exactly:

===== Quote from "Enlarged digital images with more detail than the
original", comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
Pictorial evidence that it is indeed possible to enlarge a digital
image
which has a normal print size of 6.5" x 10" at 300 dpi, to 24" x 36"
poster
print with 720 dpi and still maintain the same sharpness and detail -
even
adding detail which was never there in the first place.
=====
Read that carefully. He claims that a 6x10 image at 300 dpi (a big
postcard!), becomes a 24x36 at 720 (?!) dpi with the "same sharpness
and detail", and even clarifies it - "adding detail that was never
there.." 6Mp becomes 447Mp, with *new* detail. Uhuh. Now if you read
what he said carefully, you *could* possibly interpret "the same level
of detail" to mean he has added nothing but interpolated pixels, but
isn't that stating the absolutely bleeding obvious? Remember, it's in
a thread that is titled "Enlarged digital images with more detail than
the original"...

Noone disputes that he *can* enlarge something to ridiculous sizes -
anyone can. What we do argue about is what the result will look like.
And of course none of the samples he has sent around have been
enlarged from a postcard.. have they, Douglas? (O;

When I said a few years ago I could do it and refused to elaborate on the
algorithm, he and a equally idiotic mark got on their soapbox and began what
has become a tirade of belittling insults because they didn't believe it
possible. It is and every day of the year it's done by other canvas printers
all over the world.
Repeating a straw man (just like the other one about me thieving your
images, or Mark2's moth - like what the heck is that about??) doesn't
make him any less flammable. If Douglas read the paragraphs above
again, and again, until it finally sunk in, then maybe he might
actually start to debate the real issue. Nobody said he couldn't do it
- it was the added detail and level of sharpness that was at issue.

You have a problem with that, suggest an alternative. Nothing else has
worked
Being truthful, and posting real verifiable examples would work fine.
But Douglas cannot seem to do either of those.

and I'm not about to give up my right to participate (and provide
useful process information) in these groups because of the actions of three
zealots with no brains.
Mark Morgan is just one of them.
At last count it was significantly more than 3 who dispute Douglas'
claims, which have run the gamut from enlargement, to perspective (and
more non-existent algorythms to control it), to depth of field
calculations, to dynamic range, to comparisons of prosumers to medium
format... and on all these he has tripped and fallen over his own
words. Since his return about a week ago, I see Douglas has *already*
had arguments with at least 6 different people. Thank heavens he has
me killfiled!

Douglas of course has every right to participate and make his comments,
*as does everyone else*.

(O: