JPEG degradation

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

edited, for brevity

In 1977, a 256K word (1 megabyte +) DECSYSTEM-2040 did not cost 1
million dollars. Therefore the price on the core memory was lower than
what you say the lowest price was.

It didn't? How much did it cost including that amount of memory? And
are you sure that was core?

Arrgh. I'm sure the back-door memory on the one installed at Van Dusen
Air was core. I can't cite a source for the price, either, it's just
from memory.


Hello, David:

Oh, "from memory," eh? You're a punster, and didn't even know it. :-P


Cordially,
John Turco

ASAAR wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 02:32:43 -0600, Ron Hunter wheezed:

You are attempting to twist what I said, into what you want to believe.
It doesn't work.

Stubborn to the end, as usual, and believing only what suits you.
At least I explained my reasoning, giving you the opportunity to
find flaws in it, or maybe discover that a misunderstanding had us
not talking about quite the same thing. You however, decided to cut
and run. But if that's what works for you, hey, go for it! g


Hello, ASAAR:

Why don't you two, old codgers simply kiss and make up? g


Cordially,
John Turco

On 28 Jan 2007 21:27:16 EST, John Turco wrote:

Stubborn to the end, as usual, and believing only what suits you.
At least I explained my reasoning, giving you the opportunity to
find flaws in it, or maybe discover that a misunderstanding had us
not talking about quite the same thing. You however, decided to cut
and run. But if that's what works for you, hey, go for it! g


Hello, ASAAR:

Why don't you two, old codgers simply kiss and make up? g

I'm willing. He can kiss my . . . uh, never mind. g

John Turco wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

edited, for brevity

In 1977, a 256K word (1 megabyte +) DECSYSTEM-2040 did not cost 1
million dollars. Therefore the price on the core memory was lower than
what you say the lowest price was.
It didn't? How much did it cost including that amount of memory? And
are you sure that was core?
Arrgh. I'm sure the back-door memory on the one installed at Van Dusen
Air was core. I can't cite a source for the price, either, it's just
from memory.


Hello, David:

Oh, "from memory," eh? You're a punster, and didn't even know it. :-P

Better than being a poet, anyway.

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
I think iPhoto is like that too.


In using Picasa2, the original image is retained even when a
copy is edited. So, deleting the editing reverts to the
original image with no loss or degradation. That is the beauty
of Picasa2.
Morton Linder

If you save an edited copy (eg: using the "save as" command with a
different file name), then by definition the original file still exists
in an unaltered condition.
It's only if you just save (hitting the "save" button) the edited image
back onto the original (and effectively destroy it) does editing alter
the original.

I think we shall have to agree to differ on the point of whether it's
"foolish" to keep a copy of the original compressed image in case the user
decides to re-save. There's a difference between saving a file you've not
changed at all (agreed, there's not a lot of point in that) and saving a
file in which you have changed some stuff but, importantly, not the actual
image data. That's often quite a useful and sensible thing to do.

I don't have a "protect the users from themselves" philosophy. I keep the
original image data because I personally make frequent changes to image
files which have no impact on the image data itself and I'd rather not have
my image degraded when I make those changes. I've yet to experience any
disk thrashing as a result. Indeed I doubt it would prove an issue because
the compressed data is only accessed twice - when you first read it and
again if and when you decide to re-save without changing the image.

Please. Why would anyone want to use a photo app. knowing that
it's very limited. How limited is it, actually?
I don't really want to get into a war of words about how useful or otherwise
my application is. It's useful to me and that's my only design criterion.
I offer it on the web because it has some features which others might find
useful and there are a small number of people who have indeed found it
useful. If you're not one of them then that's fine. No one is asking you
to use it.

Seeing as you've asked, it is limited to the extent that it doesn't attempt
to be a photo editor. There are commercial packages which do that far
better than I could ever expect to because I don't have the basic grounding
in image processing technology. I have therefore concentrated on the more
administrative tasks such as manipulating EXIF data.

I have heard good reports of Irfanview and have no doubt that it's an
excellent piece of software. I've never used it myself because I've never
felt the need. No doubt many of the things my software does can also be
done by Irfanview but that's not the point. I implemented my own as a
training excercise and because I enjoy doing that sort of thing. Whether or
not there are other packages around which do the same is really of no
consequence.

I say the licence features may vary from time to time because this isn't a
commercial exercise and I don't want to be beholden to anyone when it comes
to deciding what to put into my software. The way it works is that most
features are free forever and a small number are only free for thirty days -
by which time you should have been able to decide for yourself whether they
were sufficiently useful to you to be worth a token one-off payment.

I wasn't really intending to advertise my wares in this thread. I posted
the web address purely to use my own application as a evidence in support of
the claim that it isn't compulsory to recompress an image every time you
save it.

Regards
Keith

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:39:00 GMT, Keith Sheppard wrote:

Please. Why would anyone want to use a photo app. knowing that
it's very limited. How limited is it, actually?
I don't really want to get into a war of words about how useful or otherwise
my application is. It's useful to me and that's my only design criterion.
I offer it on the web because it has some features which others might find
useful and there are a small number of people who have indeed found it
useful. If you're not one of them then that's fine. No one is asking you
to use it.

You're being overly sensitive. I'm used to authors providing at
least general descriptions of what their software can be used for.
What I've never seen until now is software that must first be
downloaded and used before one would know if it is able to do what
one might want. This has nothing to do with whether your software
is useful or not. I'm sure that it is very useful for what you
designed it to do. But I don't know what it can do so there's no
way I can know whether it *I* might also find it useful. Guessing
that I might not find it useful and closing with a snippy "No one is
asking you to use it" pretty much guarantees that I won't, which
appears to be what you want. So we both walk away happy.

You're being overly sensitive.
You're probably right and if so, I apologise.

Just for the record, what I've tended to do with my software is to recommend
it to anyone who has a specific problem which I think my application may be
able to solve. It's not exactly my flagship product and I don't have the
time or inclination (and probably not the skill) to enhance it to the point
where it would be a serious competitor to the likes of Irfanview or
whatever. It's therefore been shunted into a siding and the lack of
information on the web page probably reflects its status.

So we both walk away happy.
OK, I think we've done this one to death. I'm on my way

Regards
Keith