Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves

In article 2014082114182137296-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

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.

I started this when I asked:

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

...and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me:

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

yep. he confused the two.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:26:33 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
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.

I was asked about using Unicode, so I replied. I didn't bring it up, I
was questioned as to whether I was using it. I responded that OE does
not have a setting to use Unicode, it has a setting to use Uuencode.
How is that giving the impression of comparing the two?

'Comparring' is not the same as 'related'.

I was stating
what the option in OE is, that is all. I wasn't giving any impression,
what happened is that some drew their own conclusion as to what I was
saying.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:22:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Sandman:
No, it uses another class for reading, I've already told you about
this.

it uses a whole slew of other classes for all sorts of stuff,
including nsfilemanager for file management, which ultimately calls
fread.

the fact is that the developer calls nsimage to read a file or url
and that's what happens. they do not call nsimagerep directly.

They can, and sometimes have to, if the image file is in a format that
there isn't a native NSImageRep for.

that's not the normal situation.

My point was that support for reading image file formats is not in NSImage,
it is just a data container. It's a pretty important distinction in the
current discussion.

actually it isn't.

It helps clarify matters in an important area.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:22:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The NSImage class serves many purposes, providing support for the
following tasks: Loading images stored on disk or at a specified
URL. ...

- (id)initWithContentsOfFileNSString*) filename -
(id)initWithContentsOfURLNSURL*) aURL

that's reading.

No, it uses another class for reading, I've already told you about this.

"The NSImage class itself is capable of managing image data in a variety of
formats. The specific list of formats is dependent on the version of the
operating system but includes many standard formats such as TIFF, JPEG,
GIF, PNG, and PDF among others. Each format is managed by a specific type
of image representation object, whose job is to manage the actual image
data."

NSImage uses an NSImageRep object to actually read the image data. There is
one for each supported image format.

Does this apply to reading raw files?

it'll read raw directly, with a default conversion.

It will read all raws directly?

there's nothing like it on any other platform.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:22:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The problem is that you are both so set in your views that you are
talking past each other. I understand what Sandman is saying and I
understand what nospam is saying and I don't disagree with either. But
there is a point of view which has not been thoroughly explained.

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.

The same logic applies to the use of an 8 bit slider to control a 16
bit image.

all it needs is a slider that doesn't map 1 pixel per value. it's very
easy to do.

Yep.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


"The NSImage class itself is capable of managing image data in a variety
of formats. The specific list of formats is dependent on the version of the
operating system but includes many standard formats such as TIFF, JPEG,
GIF, PNG, and PDF among others. Each format is managed by a specific type
of image representation object, whose job is to manage the actual image
data."

NSImage uses an NSImageRep object to actually read the image data. There
is one for each supported image format.

Does this apply to reading raw files?

it'll read raw directly, with a default conversion.

It will read all raws directly?

anything included in apple's raw support, which is all it can do,
obviously.

On 2014-08-21 21:18:21 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-08-21 20:05:38 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

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.

I started this when I asked:

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

...and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me:

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

....and it seems I screwed things up further when I typed "±" instead of
the intended "â‰*". ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-08-21 21:52:15 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


"The NSImage class itself is capable of managing image data in a variety
of formats. The specific list of formats is dependent on the version of the
operating system but includes many standard formats such as TIFF, JPEG,
GIF, PNG, and PDF among others. Each format is managed by a specific type
of image representation object, whose job is to manage the actual image
data."

NSImage uses an NSImageRep object to actually read the image data. There
is one for each supported image format.

Does this apply to reading raw files?

it'll read raw directly, with a default conversion.

It will read all raws directly?

anything included in apple's raw support, which is all it can do,
obviously.

Yup! For example, here is an NEF opened in Apple's Preview, and it
looks just fine.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_876.jpg

However if I try to edit that NEF I will get this message:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_877.jpg

Preview will let you view RAW files, but it isn't a RAW convertor.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/21/2014 6:04 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-21 21:18:21 +0000, Savageduck
said:

On 2014-08-21 20:05:38 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

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.

I started this when I asked:

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

...and it went downhill from there when *PAS* responded to me:

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

...and it seems I screwed things up further when I typed "±" instead of
the intended "â‰*". ;-)


Typos are a wet noodle offense. (For those who don't understand the
penalty for a typo is fifty lashes with a wet noodle.) ;-)


--
PeterN

In article ,
lid says...

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.

Now, ask yourself why someone who is aware of that might make such a
statement and if your head doesn't explode while you're thinking about
it, get back to us when you figure it out.