Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS

wrote:

Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?

that's how.

There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode.

It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and UUencode is a
binary to text encoding method.

I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no setting for
Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case.

no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different things.

You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a silly
qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode are the
same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has a
setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least for some
of us.

uuencode is a way to encode binary files (not individual characters)
into plain text for sending through email or usenet. it's long been
replaced by mime in email and yenc in usenet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uuencoding

As a complete file, the uuencoded output for a plain text file named
cat.txt containing only the characters Cat would be

begin 644 cat.txt
#0V%T
`
end

unicode is a character set that can handle just about any character in
any language.

the problem is that outlook doesn't use unicode and will show and/or
send the wrong characters. it's broken and incompatible with the rest
of the world. replace it.

In article , says...

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS

wrote:

Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?

that's how.

There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode.

It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and UUencode is a
binary to text encoding method.

I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no setting for
Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case.

no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different things.

You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a silly
qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode are the
same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has a
setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least for some
of us.


The problem is that you gave too much information to someone who can't
figure out what to do with it.

"OE doesn't have a setting for Unicode" was enough. Adding the note
that it has "uuencode" simply confused poor nospam.

uuencode is a way to encode binary files (not individual characters)

into plain text for sending through email or usenet. it's long been
replaced by mime in email and yenc in usenet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uuencoding

As a complete file, the uuencoded output for a plain text file named
cat.txt containing only the characters Cat would be

begin 644 cat.txt
#0V%T
`
end

unicode is a character set that can handle just about any character in
any language.

the problem is that outlook doesn't use unicode and will show and/or
send the wrong characters. it's broken and incompatible with the rest
of the world. replace it.

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?

that's how.

There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode.

It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and UUencode is a
binary to text encoding method.

I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no setting for
Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case.

no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different things.

You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a silly
qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode are the
same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has a
setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least for some
of us.

The problem is that you gave too much information to someone who can't
figure out what to do with it.

"OE doesn't have a setting for Unicode" was enough. Adding the note
that it has "uuencode" simply confused poor nospam.

the only person who is confused is the one who thinks that uuencode is
somehow relevant to unicode.

i know what uuencoding is.

In article , PAS
wrote:

Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?

that's how.

There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode.

It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and UUencode is a
binary to text encoding method.

I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no setting for
Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case.

no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different things.

You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a silly
qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode are the
same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has a
setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least for some
of us.

obviously you don't understand much of anything.

when you say it doesn't have a setting for unicode but does for
uuencode, you are confusing the two.

it's like saying photoshop elements has no setting for cmyk but has
gaussian blur.

outlook does not have unicode. it's broken.

whether it handles uuencoding or not makes no difference whatsoever,
and uuencoding isn't even used anymore.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS
wrote:

Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?

that's how.

There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode.

It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and UUencode is
a
binary to text encoding method.

I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no setting
for
Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case.

no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different
things.

You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a
silly
qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode are
the
same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has a
setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least for
some
of us.

obviously you don't understand much of anything.

when you say it doesn't have a setting for unicode but does for
uuencode, you are confusing the two.

it's like saying photoshop elements has no setting for cmyk but has
gaussian blur.

outlook does not have unicode. it's broken.

whether it handles uuencoding or not makes no difference whatsoever,
and uuencoding isn't even used anymore.

Plonk!

On 2014-08-21 15:20:43 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014082107292958999-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?

Good question with no good answers. I'm using Outlook Express as a
newsreader and using plain text to send messages and using Uuencode for
replies.

Uuencode is the problem. Do you have an option to use Unicode (UTF8)?

uuencode is not the same as unicode.

Agreed. I didn't say they were. They serve two different purposes, and
I probably shouldn't have suggested that was where the problem lay.
Perhaps I should have said; "It seems the inability for OE to use
Unicode (UTF8) might be the reason it can't produce ±."

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014082109073211082-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?

Good question with no good answers. I'm using Outlook Express as a
newsreader and using plain text to send messages and using Uuencode for
replies.

Uuencode is the problem. Do you have an option to use Unicode (UTF8)?

uuencode is not the same as unicode.

Agreed. I didn't say they were. They serve two different purposes, and
I probably shouldn't have suggested that was where the problem lay.
Perhaps I should have said; "It seems the inability for OE to use
Unicode (UTF8) might be the reason it can't produce ±."

it might be able to produce and read it but it's the wrong code and
will be different in other people's apps.

non-unicode software causes all sorts of problems.

On 21 Aug 2014 11:04:50 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
It's possible to have a 10 bit scale (1024) which is divided
into 8 bit steps (256). If the 256 step scale is what is
displayed to the user, each step on the scale causes 4 steps on
the internal scale. This causes loss of granularity in the
user's control over the 10 bit scale but it doesn't in anyway
affect the 10 bit scale. It certainly doesn't convert it to 8
bit.

Sandman:
No one has talked about conversion.

The topic was monitors. That the UI controls are (generally) 8 bit
controls that can not give values that have more granularity than
8 bit at most. Which is perfectly fine since your monitor can't
show you any more than 8 bit output.

But, in the case of a 10 bit monitor, it could (potentially) show
you more data, but the user has no way to tell the software to
access that 75% extra granularity.

Is it a big problem? Of course not, people would rarely *if ever*
need that kind of granularity and 8 bit is perfectly fine and will
be for decades more. The topic was just the merits of a 10 bit
monitor.

In short, a 14 bit RAW file is loaded into a 32/64 bit workspace,
outputted to a 8 bit monitor and giving the user (in the case of
LR) less-than 8 bit controls.

And it's the possible conversions implied by this last paragraph
which are at the heart of my curiousity.

In which case it certainly *does* get converted to 8 bit, which you said in
your earlier post that it certainly *didn't*.

I started that paragraph by saying "It is possible to have a 10 bit
scale ..." and it was only after discussing some other possibilities
that I said "It certainly doesn't convert it to 8 bit." That was a
hypothetical situation I was discussing. I wasn't trying to apply the
argument to any real world case.

Only, I took it to mean that you meant that the *data* isn't converted,
which of course it isn't. The output is.

It's converted for display on the external scale.

But now you're saying that you were in reference to the conversion to 8 bit
for the display, which makes your earlier statement incorrect.

The actual data remains invisible, inside the machine.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:51:24 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
.. .
In article , PAS
wrote:

Correct, but, how did we get ± turned into a "?" in your
response?
Are you perhaps not using Unicode for your replies?

that's how.

There is no setting in Outlook Express to use Unicode, it's
Uuencode.

It's not comparable. Unicode is a character set, and UUencode is
a
binary to text encoding method.

I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no setting
for
Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case.

no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different
things.

You like to argue for the sake of it, don't you (I know, that's a
silly
qustion to ask you)? When did I ever say Unicode and Uuencode are
the
same? I said that OE does not have a setting for Unicode, it has a
setting for Uuencode. This is not hard to understand, at least for
some
of us.

obviously you don't understand much of anything.

when you say it doesn't have a setting for unicode but does for
uuencode, you are confusing the two.

it's like saying photoshop elements has no setting for cmyk but has
gaussian blur.

outlook does not have unicode. it's broken.

whether it handles uuencoding or not makes no difference whatsoever,
and uuencoding isn't even used anymore.

Plonk!

I don't know why you should 'plonk' him. In most of your replies on
this subject you do seem to mention uuencode when unicode is
mentioned. This gave the impression that you thought the two were
related.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Nowhere does he claim that the exposure
slider in Lightroom is actually a simple/true brightness slider that
adjusts brightness in a linear fashion.

yes he does.

No he doesn't, here's the quote that you snipped

Floyd L. Davidson
08/12/2014

"Isn't that rather obvious from what I said. "Exposure" can
only be changed with shutter speed and aperture, before the
picture is taken. Which does not stop several software
programs from incorrectly labeling the brightness adjustment
as "exposure"."

Here he has just expressed his opinion the the control labelled exposure
should say brightness, not that it should behave in any way differently,
just that it should have a different name.

his opinion is wrong.

calling it brightness would confuse the user because it works
differently than a brightness control.

again, this is a very simple concept.

A simple concept that you can't understand. As sid pointed out in
another article, Abobe says it is a brightness adjustment.

as i said, that's a simplistic way to describe it.

the point which you still miss is that it's not the *same* as a simple
brightness adjustment, thus it *must* have a different name.

naming two controls 'brightness' when they do different things would
confuse users.

simple stuff, yet you still can't understand it.