If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#681
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
"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 it's long been replaced by mime in email and yenc in usenet.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. |
#682
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
|
#683
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
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. |
#684
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
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. |
#685
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
"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! |
#686
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
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 |
#687
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
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. |
#688
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
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 |
#689
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Copies
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 |
#690
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library? | Sandman | Digital Photography | 15 | May 15th 14 05:09 PM |
PhotoShop Elements, Aperture and Lightroom | nospam | Digital Photography | 0 | May 23rd 08 10:09 PM |
PhotoShop Elements, Aperture and Lightroom | C J Campbell | Digital Photography | 1 | May 23rd 08 10:08 PM |
Aperture, Lightroom: beyond Bridge; who needs them? | Frank ess | Digital Photography | 0 | June 4th 07 06:42 PM |
Lightzone/Lightroom/Aperture | D.M. Procida | Digital SLR Cameras | 20 | April 27th 07 07:00 AM |