DRAGONFLIES LOVE THE 20D !

Dmac wrote:
What would anyone do with 2"x3" print anyway?
He's cropped it so far, that's all it would make without my magic
interpolation routine which he doesn't have!


You really aren't that dense are you?
Do you even understand why I posted the full-sized crop?
Would you have posted the entire 3504x2336 pic?
If you really wanna troll, start up your boat motor.

Annika1980 wrote:
Dmac wrote:
Go easy Mark, he's very sensitive about his images, you'll destroy
his day if you get critical. What would anyone do with 2"x3" print
anyway? He's cropped it so far, that's all it would make without my
magic interpolation routine which he doesn't have!


Dmac, the only interpolation routine I've seen of yours that works is
the one that you use on your ego and your perceived abilities as a
photographer.

You are pretty good at talking the talk, I'll give you that.
Producing verifiable results is a different matter.
"All hat and no cattle," as they say in Texas.

As for the miniscule amount of color noise that PW mentioned, that is
easily swept away in Camera RAW. Things really can get messy at 3200
ISO, however, but the results are still 100x better than film at
equivalent ISOs.

"Magic interpolation routine?"



--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:

"Magic interpolation routine?"

Yeah, haven't you heard?
D-Mac has a magical super-secret super-size algorithm which really
isn't an algorithm at all, but instead consists of him going in and
manually adding pixels. At least that's all my spy has been able to
tell me ... it is super-secret ya know.
But anyway, according to D-Mac, this technique blows away anything
offered by Photoshop, Genuine Fractals, pxl Smartscale, or Extensis
penis pumps.
It'll take postage size images will make huge wall murals from them.
All this according to D-Mac, of course, since nobody has ever been able
to confirm this by seeing before-and-after pics. You see, for this
technique to work it must remain super-secret. In fact, even D-Mac
himself doesn't know if it's 100% accurate. But hey, I gotta believe
him .... after all he's been taking pics since Nixon was elected.
Plus, he's a pro. I mean 14 Australian women shopping at the local
pier can't be wrong.

Annika1980 wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:

"Magic interpolation routine?"


Yeah, haven't you heard?
D-Mac has a magical super-secret super-size algorithm which really
isn't an algorithm at all, but instead consists of him going in and
manually adding pixels. At least that's all my spy has been able to
tell me ... it is super-secret ya know.
But anyway, according to D-Mac, this technique blows away anything
offered by Photoshop, Genuine Fractals, pxl Smartscale, or Extensis
penis pumps.
It'll take postage size images will make huge wall murals from them.
All this according to D-Mac, of course, since nobody has ever been able
to confirm this by seeing before-and-after pics. You see, for this
technique to work it must remain super-secret. In fact, even D-Mac
himself doesn't know if it's 100% accurate. But hey, I gotta believe
him .... after all he's been taking pics since Nixon was elected.
Plus, he's a pro. I mean 14 Australian women shopping at the local
pier can't be wrong.


You really are a jerk Hogan.
While you were away, there was an exchange of information between the
only American posting in these groups who has actually seen one of my
enlargements... If you try real hard, you might be able to guess his
name, even check out what he said about it on his web site. A long way
off the ridicule you heap on me. But I suppose you get that when someone
hasn't got the talent to do it himself.

Without having any first hand knowledge, you make a total ass out of
yourself. Why should that surprise me? You've been doing that for years.

My algorithm is older than Pixel smartscale and considerably different
than Genuine Fractals but obviously not as good as the ball pump you use
to puff up your nuts whenever anyone disagrees with you.

Evidence , mate. Has been given to people qualified to pass judgment,
not some back woods golf caddie who dreams of greatness he will never
achieve. You really ought to learn self control fella. Get your hand off
your cock and you might discover other people can do what you cannot.

I went through this crap of disbelief with Alan Browne a couple of years
ago. As I recall, a few month ago I offered to send you an example and
you declined the offer, preferring I assume, to live in the deluded
world of a hillbilly where if it don't happen on your hill, it can't
happen at all.

For as long as I can recall, you have maintained if you can't do
something, no one else can either. Wrong mate, you are just a backwoods
boy with an expensive hobby and attitude to match.

--
From Douglas...
My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au

Dmac wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:

"Magic interpolation routine?"


Yeah, haven't you heard?
D-Mac has a magical super-secret super-size algorithm which really
isn't an algorithm at all, but instead consists of him going in and
manually adding pixels. At least that's all my spy has been able to
tell me ... it is super-secret ya know.
But anyway, according to D-Mac, this technique blows away anything
offered by Photoshop, Genuine Fractals, pxl Smartscale, or Extensis
penis pumps.
It'll take postage size images will make huge wall murals from them.
All this according to D-Mac, of course, since nobody has ever been
able to confirm this by seeing before-and-after pics. You see, for
this technique to work it must remain super-secret. In fact, even
D-Mac himself doesn't know if it's 100% accurate. But hey, I gotta
believe him .... after all he's been taking pics since Nixon was
elected. Plus, he's a pro. I mean 14 Australian women shopping at
the local pier can't be wrong.


You really are a jerk Hogan.
While you were away, there was an exchange of information between the
only American posting in these groups who has actually seen one of my
enlargements... If you try real hard, you might be able to guess his
name, even check out what he said about it on his web site. A long way
off the ridicule you heap on me. But I suppose you get that when
someone hasn't got the talent to do it himself.

Without having any first hand knowledge, you make a total ass out of
yourself. Why should that surprise me? You've been doing that for
years.
My algorithm is older than Pixel smartscale and considerably different
than Genuine Fractals but obviously not as good as the ball pump you
use to puff up your nuts whenever anyone disagrees with you.

Evidence , mate. Has been given to people qualified to pass judgment,
not some back woods golf caddie who dreams of greatness he will never
achieve. You really ought to learn self control fella. Get your hand
off your cock and you might discover other people can do what you
cannot.
I went through this crap of disbelief with Alan Browne a couple of
years ago. As I recall, a few month ago I offered to send you an
example and you declined the offer, preferring I assume, to live in
the deluded world of a hillbilly where if it don't happen on your
hill, it can't happen at all.

For as long as I can recall, you have maintained if you can't do
something, no one else can either. Wrong mate, you are just a
backwoods boy with an expensive hobby and attitude to match.

From this vantage point, mate...you not only took some masterful bait, but
you also swallowed it whole, digested it fully, and crapped out hook...the
line...and the sinker.

But that aside...if you can do this so effectively without original detail,
then why would you ever invest in a higher MP digicam? Clearly you don't
require the detail it provides.

What say you?

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Dmac wrote:
While you were away, there was an exchange of information between the
only American posting in these groups who has actually seen one of my
enlargements...

Link and references please, Douglas. If you are referring to Gordon
Moat..? Gordon clarifies his 'support' here, very tactfully:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...c2af22e84217b/

Read the last two posts by Gordon carefully. It's hardly a glowing
endorsement, in fact he states, in relation to your infamous claim of
'added detail':

GordonQ: Did Douglas's images contain more detail information than the
original?
GordonA: No, only more pixels.
....
GordonQ: Can someone with a reasonable level of professional
experience,
Gordonknowledge, and commercially available algorithms, and using a
Gordonprofessional level wide format inkjet system, reproduce the
results
GordonDouglas obtained?
GordonA: Yes.
(oh dear. so much for the 'magic'..)
....
GordonIf Douglas defines "detail" as pixels of colour information,
then
Gordonhe is correct. However, I do NOT consider that proper usage.

(capitalisation is mine)

And of course, you dismissed Gisle Hannemyr, the person who runs this
EXCELLENT site showing interpolation comparisons:
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/interpolation.html
...as a 'Norwegian joker'. That was after you refused any form of
testing on your magical (and, of course, completely non-existent)
algorithm. The request still sits on Gisle's webpage, waiting for
Douglas. Your bluff was called, very publicly.

What I think is most funny is Douglas's claims that:

1. His algorithm is patented.
(Needless to say, no such patent exists. Feel free to correct me on
this Douglas, or anyone - just post the patent number..)

2. He has sold it for a huge sum to.. wait for it... SAMSUNG!!! See:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.p...f72c3aad9c839/
(he was posting as his alter-egos, 'Alien Jones' and 'BigPix',
unfortunately this stuff is a looong way down..)

Well, armed with some Douglie technology, it's no wonder Samsung are
doing so well, in the er.. er... interpolation business....?


PS - I also stumbled on this post from Doug, back in 2004, about him
using Woolworths ('I plan to do this with all my work now'..). Worth a
giggle, I think. Does this sound like a professional?
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.p...4fbf06b438b96/

You're endless entertainment, Doug! Keep it up!!
(O:

Dmac wrote:
I went through this crap of disbelief with Alan Browne a couple of years
ago. As I recall, a few month ago I offered to send you an example and
you declined the offer, preferring I assume, to live in the deluded
world of a hillbilly where if it don't happen on your hill, it can't
happen at all.

Instead of acting like such a Sensitive Sheila whenever someone calls
you on your bull****, why not shut us up by posting a simple example
for all to see? And I'll give you a little secret of my own if you
promise not to tell anybody. You don't even have to post the whole
image. Just crop out part of it that is representative of the whole
and enlarge that portion. This will save lotsa bandwidth in addition
to saving you hours of time that you spend manually creating all those
new pixels.
Remember D-Mac, this is just our little secret.

Oh yeah, one more thing ... if you do decide to finally accept this
challenge (which I doubt) leave off the sharpening routines. We can do
that ourselves.

Annika1980 wrote:
Dmac wrote:
I went through this crap of disbelief with Alan Browne a couple of
years ago. As I recall, a few month ago I offered to send you an
example and you declined the offer, preferring I assume, to live in
the deluded world of a hillbilly where if it don't happen on your
hill, it can't happen at all.

Instead of acting like such a Sensitive Sheila whenever someone calls
you on your bull****, why not shut us up by posting a simple example
for all to see? And I'll give you a little secret of my own if you
promise not to tell anybody. You don't even have to post the whole
image. Just crop out part of it that is representative of the whole
and enlarge that portion. This will save lotsa bandwidth in addition
to saving you hours of time that you spend manually creating all those
new pixels.
Remember D-Mac, this is just our little secret.

Oh yeah, one more thing ... if you do decide to finally accept this
challenge (which I doubt) leave off the sharpening routines. We can
do that ourselves.

I suspect that Doug's "Top Secret ALGORITHM" is merely the same kind of
incremental and repetetive up-sampling that we're all quite aware of. -But
the word **ALGORITHM** sounds much more impressive...


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson