Which free software could acquire 48 bits color depth pictures from a scanner ?

Wyatt Alsworth wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Walt-Kasner wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:

They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.

Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.

Don't start lying. It doesn't do anything for your credibility.

Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....

http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/int...erpolator.html

Notice that this is almost a decade old and it's an artificial situation
that doesn't occur in real life.

Which you'd know if you were educated.

I guess your electricity is useless too, that's been around for ages now.

Electricity hasn't changed in the past decade. Software has.

Idiot.

--
Ray Fischer

Wyatt Alsworth wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 18:50:57 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Walt-Kasner wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.

Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.

Or you're a liar who doesn't even use Photoshop professionally.

Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....

http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/int...erpolator.html

Outdated, artificial, and irrelevant.

Which you'd know if you were educated.

I guess your electricity is useless too, that's been around for ages now.

Electricity hasn't changed in the last decade, idiot. Software has.

--
Ray Fischer

gary porter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 18:50:57 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Walt-Kasner wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.

Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.

Or you're a liar who doesn't even use Photoshop professionally.

Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....

http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/int...erpolator.html

Outdated, artificial, and irrelevant.

Which you'd know if you were educated.

Do want to know the most hilarious part about your replies?

You and all others pride yourselves on wanting the most detail, the most
precision, the highest resolution, the best lenses and cameras that money can
try to buy.

Another dishonest strawman from anther stupid asshole

--
Ray Fischer

On 20 Nov 2008 17:35:20 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Wyatt Alsworth wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 18:50:57 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Walt-Kasner wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.

Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.

Or you're a liar who doesn't even use Photoshop professionally.

Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....

http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/int...erpolator.html

Outdated, artificial, and irrelevant.

Which you'd know if you were educated.

I guess your electricity is useless too, that's been around for ages now.

Electricity hasn't changed in the last decade, idiot. Software has.

Oh exalted purveyor of the most up-to-date of information. Please grace us all
with a web-page that shows a resampling algorithm, with controlled-test proof,
that surpasses the currently most powerful Resampling God - which we all call
"Lanczos-8". Until you show me that your false-god is more powerful, you are
nothing but an uneducated resident-troll and deserve no further replies from
anyone.

Jessie Smith wrote:
On 20 Nov 2008 17:35:20 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Wyatt Alsworth wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 18:50:57 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Walt-Kasner wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.

Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.

Or you're a liar who doesn't even use Photoshop professionally.

Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....

http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/int...erpolator.html

Outdated, artificial, and irrelevant.

Which you'd know if you were educated.

I guess your electricity is useless too, that's been around for ages now.

Electricity hasn't changed in the last decade, idiot. Software has.

Oh exalted purveyor of the most up-to-date of information. Please grace us all
with a web-page that shows a resampling algorithm, with controlled-test proof,
that surpasses the currently most powerful Resampling God - which we all call
"Lanczos-8".

Easy. Combine all of the resamples into one.

Oh, but that's too hard for you to understand. You think that people
NEED to rotate an image100 time, one degree at a time, instead of
just doing a single rotation. In fact, I bet you're even stupid
enough to believe that people NEED to do 100 one degree rotations.

--
Ray Fischer

On 20 Nov 2008 19:24:13 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Oh, but that's too hard for you to understand. You think that people
NEED to rotate an image100 time, one degree at a time, instead of
just doing a single rotation. In fact, I bet you're even stupid
enough to believe that people NEED to do 100 one degree rotations.

Yes, you now wholly admit that you are indeed 100% troll. If you have ever used
any graphic editors at all with bicubic and Lanczos-8 installed in them, you can
quickly see how even ONE resizing or ONE slight rotation leaves the image
details a muddy mess when using bicubic. Not so when doing the same thing again
on the same image with Lanczos-8 enabled and bicubic disabled.

Go crawl back into your troll-hole of dark and dank self-induced ignorance.

Earl-Torgens wrote:
On 20 Nov 2008 19:24:13 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Oh, but that's too hard for you to understand. You think that people
NEED to rotate an image100 time, one degree at a time, instead of
just doing a single rotation. In fact, I bet you're even stupid
enough to believe that people NEED to do 100 one degree rotations.

Yes, you now wholly admit that you are indeed 100% troll.

So now YOU admit that you don't have any rebuttal.

If you have ever used
any graphic editors at all with bicubic and Lanczos-8 installed in them, you can
quickly see how even ONE resizing or ONE slight rotation leaves the image

Yawn. The usual unsubstantiated bull****.

People aren't interested in your cult. Nobody cares. Your Holy
Lanczos-8 isn't useful enough for anybody to bother with.

--
Ray Fischer

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:06:19 -0600, Walt-Kasner
wrote:

On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.

Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.

Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....

http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/int...erpolator.html

You don't even need to do multiple steps of processing to see why
sinc/lanczon interpolation is better. The following is an example of
a single stage resize and the difference it can make.

First, a 100% crop of an area showing why some interpolators might
have problems. The regular pattern of the corrugations in the side of
the plane are trouble:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_ran...00937/sizes/o/

Now, a resize to 640x427 by Nikon PicturePerfect. Notice how the
corrugations cause morrie patterns:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_ran...37614/sizes/o/

And now a resize to 640x426 by XnView using sinc/lanczos interpolator.
No more morrie patterns from the corrugations. Only typical jpeg
artifacts that I could have removed by compressing it less:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_ran...00557/sizes/o/

Steve

Steve wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:06:19 -0600, Walt-Kasner
wrote:

On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.

Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.

Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....

http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/int...erpolator.html

You don't even need to do multiple steps of processing to see why
sinc/lanczon interpolation is better. The following is an example of

Nobody cares.

--
Ray Fischer

On 25 Nov 2008 06:18:26 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Steve wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:06:19 -0600, Walt-Kasner
wrote:

On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.

Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.

Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....

http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/int...erpolator.html

You don't even need to do multiple steps of processing to see why
sinc/lanczon interpolation is better. The following is an example of

Nobody cares.

It is predictable that you would say that. You're one of the many
pretend-photographer trolls that only cares about image quality from your
imaginary camera and not when editing needs to be done. (Typical troll-dom reply
from someone that's never held a camera nor ever done any editing.) Not
realizing that both tool-qualities are needed, both are related. Pay out the ass
for that imagined image quality, then the moment you have to crop and rotate or
resize, which you need to do with every dSLR photo because the OVF of 99% of all
dSLRs are always inaccurate for framing, you lose all that resolution that you
dearly paid for by not using the right software for the task.

If you don't use the right resizing/rotation algorithm in the editing required
when using images from a dSLR you might as well keep your 5-megapixel dSLR
instead of buying a 10-megapixel one. You will lose that much resolution by not
knowing what software that you need.

But then, only a pretend-photographer usenet-troll would answer in your manner.
A real photographer *would* care.