Lenses and sharpening

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Again - 3 can not reverse 1 with 2 in the middle. Try to get that through
your old thick skull.

If you remove 2, then 3 can reverse 1. Simple mathematics, I'll show it to
you:

1. 5 * 5 = 25
2. 25 * 0.99 = 24.75
3. 24.75 / 5 = 4.95

That's what the above steps does. Step one is sharpening, step two is JPG
compression - a *LOSSY* process and step 3 is blur. Step 3 has *NOT*
reversed the algorithm in step 1, we do NOT have the same value as we
started with.

Remove the second step:

1. 5 * 5 = 25
2. 25 / 5 = 5

Now the first algorithm (multiplication) has been reversed by the second
algorithm (division) and the result is the same as what we started with.

These are *facts* Eric, not guesses or mere claims. This is how mathematics
works.


No wonder you took up art. :-(

Even simple math and logic flies far over Eric's head. No surprise there.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Dunno about Gaussian blur but they seem to be heavily into this
sort of thing in their advanced output techniques. See
http://tinyurl.com/p2l3u9x It's built into Photoshop for the
user to get at. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Sandman:
Why can't you READ, Eric? I am asking you to show me how Adobe
applies *THERMODYNAMICS* in *IMAGE PROCESSING*. I'm using caps
here, perhaps it'll be easier for you to read?

First, convince me you are capable of understanding. How far does
your present knowledge extend.

It's the other way around, Eric. You're the one that needs to convince
others that you have the first clue. Every single thing you've said in this
thread has been shot down.

Sandman:
And a book by Brad Dayley is not information from Adobe, you
confused old man.

Are you saying he made it up?

Made what up? I'm correctly stating that a book from him isn't information
from Adobe. And this is your reply? Seriously?

Are you really saying that this is information from Adobe, then? That would
be fun.

The truth of the matter is that you were not previously aware of the
use within Photoshop and have been caught flat footed. Now all you
have left is abuse and bluster.

The use of...what? Thermodynamics? You're right, I wasn't previously aware
of that, and I am currently not aware of that, since you have been
hilariously unable to substantiate that claim of yours.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Which is irrelevant, since no one in this thread has
talked about a reversible process as used in physics.

Eric Stevens:
Floyd was

Sandman:
Nope.

You stupid ....

Eric Stevens:
and I understood what he was saying.

Sandman:
Nope.

How on earth can you tell?

--- bulk smug ignorance deleted ---

Run away from the facts, Eric. They're dangerous.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
And here is an Adobe guy who knows about
entropy.
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-me..._encoding.html
Scroll down to find the heading "Entropy Encoding".

Sandman:
I can't find the heading about thermodynamics, did
you paste in the wrong link?

Eric Stevens:
You don't seem to know that entropy is a concept which emerged
from thermodynamics.

Sandman:
I do, but that doesn't mean that image processing has anything to
do with thermodynamics, you old fool.

It's like saying that "Occam's Razor" emerged from philosphy, and
since it can be applied to a debate about dog breeding - dog
breeding is a philosphy. That's the idiocy you're spewing.

The astonishing thing is that you can think you can stand there
spouting this sort of rubbish without having anyone laugh at you.

Fool.

Haha! You're a never-ending stream of non-replies. What, couldn't Google
help you this time? :-D


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
You're as dumb as Eric.

The principle of maximum entropy is applicable to many fields
- that does NOT mean that all those fields have anything to do
with each other, like when Eric wanted thermodynamics have
anything to do with sharpening an image.

Why are you working so hard to make yourself look like a
complete moron?

Eric Stevens:
If he was doing that, he would just have to model himself on
you. :-)

Sandman:
If he did, he would actually have to know what he was talkking
about, so that's not an option available to him.

So you know what you are talking about?

Obviously.

Please tell us why we should believe that.

Because I substantiate my claims, remember?

When I say that a mathematical algorithm cannot be reversed by an inverse
mathematical algorithm when there is a lossy process between them I use
examples to illustrate this in a pedagogic manner with simple math that
illustrate that in way that my ten year old daughter could understand.

When I say that any image process in LR is 100% reversible I substantiate
that by pointing to the fact that LR uses a parametric editing principle,
where every thing you do to an image is fully reversible.

When I say that "reversible process" doesn't only mean that it must be
reversed by another process, I use the dictionary to show you what
"reversible" means.

Your input thus far has been to point to irrelevant thermodynamic
principles that have nothing to do with this topic at hand, which is solely
due to the fact that you don't understand what is being discussed.

In short (this is the part you'll ignore in your followup):

This claim he

Floyd L. Davidson
Lenses and sharpening
09/15/2014

"If the sharpening is done with UnsharpMask that cannot be
done. USM is not reversible."

Is an incorrect claim. Had Floyd known anything about this, he would have
said that it isn't reversible by using a reverse algorithm, which is true,
but UnSharp mask, as an image effect *is* reversible when using modern
tools.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 9/22/2014 12:42 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

And your documents to prove hime wrong a

in the above link. duh. are you that stupid?

there are other references, but that one will suffice.

It so happens that I often switch between LAB and RGB, and have never
see a loss.

just because you can't see a difference doesn't mean there isn't a
difference.

there's no visible loss with jpg at its highest setting, so according
to you, jpeg is lossless.

idiot.

talking to yourself again. I ask for proof and you call me names. There
is an obvious conclusion to be draw.

the obvious conclusion is that you are a blithering idiot.

the proof is in the link and has already been pointed out more than
once. it's a simple thing to do. have you done it? no. instead, you
spew nonsense, demonstrating just how much of an idiot you are.

You made a statement, I asked for proof, and you trun to pejoratives.

proof was provided.

if you aren't going to bother reading it (even before you asked) and
doing what it describes, then my response is very appropriate and not
pejorative at all.

No 132 "proof was provided."

it was.

I knew tht answer before you posted it. Though posssibly you might have
used "you wouldn't understand it."

you don't.

Since you htink I am hat dumb, in the interesting of communicationg,
restate your "proof."

read the link eric provided.

either it's over your head or you'd rather argue.

https://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_p...on/ACT-LAB-dam
age.htm


Typical error 404

--
PeterN

In article , Sandman
wrote:

nospam:
that's false.

you can work with an image without ever using the develop
module with it.

Savageduck:
Personally, I don't use *Quick Develop* in the
Library module.

nospam:
that's one way, but not the only way. another is syncing
adjustments over a batch of files.

Sandman:
Which, by the way, I wouldn't call "work with" them. You've just
batch-edited a bunch of photos, not actually worked with any of
them. You've only worked with one, then.

you might not, but everyone else does.

those images have been edited *without* a preview.

True enough, as I said. I wasn't in reference to that kind of "work", but
if you want to nitpick a small detail to try to falsify my otherwise 100%
correct statement, be my guest - it doesn't change anything of what I said.

Any real photographer that uses LR to work with their photos would have 1:1
previews of their photos.

again, not always. real photographers can and often do edit images in
batches. it's one of lightroom's more useful features.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

the proof is in the link and has already been pointed out more than
once. it's a simple thing to do. have you done it? no. instead, you
spew nonsense, demonstrating just how much of an idiot you are.

You made a statement, I asked for proof, and you trun to pejoratives.

proof was provided.

if you aren't going to bother reading it (even before you asked) and
doing what it describes, then my response is very appropriate and not
pejorative at all.

No 132 "proof was provided."

it was.

I knew tht answer before you posted it. Though posssibly you might have
used "you wouldn't understand it."

you don't.

Since you htink I am hat dumb, in the interesting of communicationg,
restate your "proof."

read the link eric provided.

either it's over your head or you'd rather argue.

https://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_p...on/ACT-LAB-dam
age.htm

Typical error 404

it worked for you the first time.

either that or you're lying.

On 22 Sep 2014 07:29:43 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
No, quite correct. See, for example:
http://tinyurl.com/mbrhs3e

Sandman:
Again, thermodynamics have nothing to do with image
processing.

Eric Stevens:
A *lot* of people don't agree with you.

Sandman:
Incorrect.

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-me..._encoding.html

Not a single word about thermodynamics, also has nothibng to with with
image processing.

http://www.johnloomis.org/ece563/not...y/entropy.html
"In the case of an image ... "

Not a single word about thermodynamics, also has nothing to do with image
processing

http://brainacle.com/calculating-ima...w-and-why.html

Not a single word about thermodynamics, also has nothing to do with using
maximum entropy in image processing.

http://www.esrf.eu/computing/Forum/i...R/entropy.html

Not a single word about thermodynamics, also has nothing to do with image
processing.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../ip0808-1.html

First link that quotes the second law of thermodynamics, but alas - it has
nothing to do with neither image processing or using maximum entropy in
image processing. This is a text about artistically interesting images
based on their percieved entropy.

You can carry on from there.

My god, this was the hardest you've ever failed thus far. You have to stop
google-linking stuff you haven't looked at yourself even.

This is what happens when you spout off about things you know nothing
about, you're reduced to google like crazy to try to find *something* that
may related to what you think you're saying.

Sandman:
You're flailing, Eric.

Eric Stevens:
And you are way out of your depth.

Sandman:
Ironic.

Like an anchor.

Indeed. There is no way to recover from this, I'm afraid. You'll forever be
the clueless moron that has to comment on things he knows nothing about. I
won't claim you had any credibility before this, because you didn't, but
you sure went the extra mile to make sure no one ever mistakes you for
having it.


There should be some nett merit in talking to you but I'm fraid there
isn't. This time when you go down you will stay down.

- PLONK -
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:22:23 -0400, nospam
wrote:

there's nothing to add. a non-destructive workflow has a specific
meaning, not what you make it up to be.

The same way that 'reversible process' has a specific meaning?

You are a hoot.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens