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 |
#401
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Sandman: This is the statement: Eric Stevens Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? 04/19/2014 "Well of course he didn't actually say that. The particular meaning congealed from with a cloud of diffuse verbiage." Just how do I go about falsifying that statement, Eric? My inability to falsify a vague statement based on an unknown number of vague sources does not mean that the statement is correct. Eric Stevens: Your ability to falsify that statement is equalled only by your my ability to point you to a single source. Sandman: I haven't asked you to point to a single source. I have asked you to support your statement, if it requires multiple sources, then so be it. I'm waiting. If you will be happy with multiple sources then my earlier suggestion that you read the thread should be sufficient. I have read the thread and can find no such sources, which is why I am waiting for you to substantiate your claim. I'm waiting. -- Sandman[.net] |
#402
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
On 22 Apr 2014 05:15:20 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Sandman: This is the statement: Eric Stevens Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? 04/19/2014 "Well of course he didn't actually say that. The particular meaning congealed from with a cloud of diffuse verbiage." Just how do I go about falsifying that statement, Eric? My inability to falsify a vague statement based on an unknown number of vague sources does not mean that the statement is correct. Eric Stevens: Your ability to falsify that statement is equalled only by your my ability to point you to a single source. Sandman: I haven't asked you to point to a single source. I have asked you to support your statement, if it requires multiple sources, then so be it. I'm waiting. If you will be happy with multiple sources then my earlier suggestion that you read the thread should be sufficient. I have read the thread and can find no such sources, which is why I am waiting for you to substantiate your claim. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I'm waiting. Patiently, I hope. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#403
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Eric Stevens: Your ability to falsify that statement is equalled only by your my ability to point you to a single source. Sandman: I haven't asked you to point to a single source. I have asked you to support your statement, if it requires multiple sources, then so be it. I'm waiting. Eric Stevens: If you will be happy with multiple sources then my earlier suggestion that you read the thread should be sufficient. Sandman: I have read the thread and can find no such sources, which is why I am waiting for you to substantiate your claim. There are none so blind as those who will not see. There are none so full of **** than those that refuse to support their claims. Sandman: I'm waiting. Patiently, I hope. No, knowingly. I knew you wouldn't support your claim, you never do. You just make claims and then claim that others are blind if they don't agree with the claim. It's your thing. That's why you have no credibility. For me, such things are important, which is why you see me *always* support my claims, like earlier, when Tony called me a liar when saying that the Colonial store consisted of some 70% "hobby stuff", I then proceeded to prove that I was pretty much dead on with that estimate. That's how you support a claim, not by telling Tony that he's blind if don't know it. -- Sandman[.net] |
#404
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
On 4/21/2014 10:11 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:14:01 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 4/21/2014 6:34 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:10:29 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: I've never said it was not destructive. you did ask why a conversion to and from lab would matter. I don't think I asked that. I have asked why converting to Lab would require more conversions than to any other working color space. You still haven't told me. For all practical photographic purposes there is no visible differences. Alan Browne has posted some examples in alt.photography. I went a step further, using Alan's images I applied a small curve adjustment in LAB that should have brought some of the darker areas into a portion of the LAB color space that is outside the gamut of the RGB space. I converted the LAB image back into RGB, and saved it together with a copy of the LAB image. nospam was invited by both Alan And myself to duplicate the experiment, and has given nothing but transparent excuses for his failure to post a duplicable experiment. Well, there are all sorts of secondary questions about black point, rendering intent etc with such conversions. But my point is that Lab mode is surely not the only mode PS which requires color conversion and I can see no reason why that conversion should be any more lossy than any of the others. It isn't. it's a lot less lossy. Some of us like working in LAB mode, for reasons previously stated. To minimize troll comments, let's just say for certain operations I prefer to work in LAB. -- PeterN |
#405
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:
Sandman: For me, such things are important, which is why you see me *always* support my claims, like earlier, when Tony called me a liar when saying that the Colonial store consisted of some 70% "hobby stuff", I then proceeded to prove that I was pretty much dead on with that estimate. The figure is a patently false statement. Claiming that the store is "70% hobby stuff" is a claim about the store's inventory. No it isn't, troll. It's a claim about how much floor space is devoted to "hobby stuff". Do you know how I know? Because I made the claim. That's how. Stop trying to tell me what I mean. And learn to read English. Unless you did an inventory, and counted the items, you have no idea of what percentage is "hobby stuff". Even so - by counting single items, the store is probably a lot more than 70% "hobby stuff" given the size of all the model kits stashed on top of each other row after row. It can be contended that the store has a 100% inventory of "hobby stuff" since camera products can be "hobby stuff". Semantics, the idiot trolls last resort. You found out that I was correct about my claim so you have to argue on and on and twist things as much as possible so you can fool yourself into thinking that your explicit claim about me lying wasn't incorrect. You were caught making an incorrect claim, and you REFUSE to admit it, like you ALWAYS do. Since I started to talk to you, you haven't admitted to ONE. SINGLE. ERROR. ever. And you've made *plenty* as I've shown many many times. Sandman: That's how you support a claim, not by telling Tony that he's blind if don't know it. No, you support a claim by making a sensible claim in the first place. WTF? How dumb are you? You can't support a claim by making a "sensible claim", how brain damages did you get when the truck hit you, Tony? That's one of the dumbest things you've, and we all know you've said some really dumb ****. That goes staright into the quote file -- Sandman[.net] |
#406
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
On 2014.04.20, 19:00 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:41:43 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: On 2014.04.19, 09:59 , nospam wrote: the conversions are also not lossless, something which is trivial to prove. make the conversion and subtract from the original. if they're identical, the result will be zero, which it definitely is not, and on an image i randomly picked, it's noticeable without subtracting. I just did this on a high key light image. See these 4 images. [1] Original (now in .jpf (JPEG2000) to save space) (aka: the Lab copy) https://www.dropbox.com/s/esuc08yizh...40323_0002.jpf [2 Original ( .jpg to save space) (aka: the RGB copy) https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2ni8bpm73...opy%20copy.jpg [3] The difference (substraction - in jpg) (aka: nospam is wrong) https://www.dropbox.com/s/yuum3sfit6...323_0002-D.jpg [4] The difference (with sharpening on the Lab copy, jpg) (aka: test that difference works). https://www.dropbox.com/s/3uwyuwun56...23_0002-SD.jpg Procedu -Image was loaded as raw and duplicated to a 2nd image. -First image was changed to Lab -First image was saved as TIFF (from Lab 'space') ([1] above) -2nd image was saved as TIFF (from RGB 'space') ([2] above) -Both images were re-loaded (they loaded as Lab and RGB - just as they were saved). -Copied the 2nd image and added it as a layer over the first. -Difference would not work when one layer was in Lab and the other in RGB. -Converted the first image back to RGB, then replaced the 2nd image asa layer again. *Difference was pure black (no differences - [3] above) ================================================== ====== -Sharpened the 2nd image to verify that differences would pop out (they did) and replaced the layer over the 1st image with it. *The sharpening difference showed ([4] above) ================================================== ====== So not only were the differences invisible to the eye they were NOT AT ALL shown by differencing. Of course you're welcome to show differently. That's an interesting experiment. It may be that the difference shown is not due to RGB vs Lab. I suspect you might get a similar result if you compare RGB-16 bit to RGB-8 bit (to RGB-32 bit) etc. i.e. the difference is an artifact of *any* transform. I'm not saying there are no differences - there are no VISIBLE differences - even using the difference or subtract function to pull them out. If there are differences they are at such a small level as to not show. I'd venture that it would take manyconversions to maybe make something show up or drastic colour changes in the image in one mode or the other - and if you're doing that then little changes due to conversion are not worth mention. The fact that I'm working at 16 bit is important - whatever changes occur (if any) occur in the low order bits - and that will not show on a monitor and definitely not in a print. -- "Big data can reduce anything to a single number, but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude." -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07 |
#407
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
On 2014.04.20, 19:45 , nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne wrote: The only time you might see a difference would be if there were colors in the LAB spectrum that are not in the RGB spectrum, and those differences would rarely be noticable in a photograph. A good point - but nospam's contention is conversion differences. Let's color the situation. The files were taken from raw, reduced in size, saved as TIFF in each RGB and Lab. Re-loaded and compared (differenced). There is not a hint of delta. http://tinyurl.com/m35p59t RGB http://tinyurl.com/mldetvx Lab http://tinyurl.com/mvl6vwj Diff there's a difference there too. A visible difference? None at all. None in the images. None in the difference. i did: image/duplicate, append -converted to the name. image/mode/lab image/mode/rgb image/calculations, original on top, converted below, subtract mode optionally, just before the calculation step, switch between the two images while looking at the histogram palette. there's a difference. then do the calculation step. Show your results. Show an image. Show a visible difference. Stop making claims without supporting evidence. -- "Big data can reduce anything to a single number, but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude." -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07 |
#408
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:
Sandman: For me, such things are important, which is why you see me *always* support my claims, like earlier, when Tony called me a liar when saying that the Colonial store consisted of some 70% "hobby stuff", I then proceeded to prove that I was pretty much dead on with that estimate. Tony Cooper: The figure is a patently false statement. Claiming that the store is "70% hobby stuff" is a claim about the store's inventory. Sandman: No it isn't, troll. It's a claim about how much floor space is devoted to "hobby stuff". Do you know how I know? Because I made the claim. That's how. Stop trying to tell me what I mean. And learn to read English. Oh, so you meant what you didn't say? No, I meant what I said. Tony Cooper: Unless you did an inventory, and counted the items, you have no idea of what percentage is "hobby stuff". Sandman: Even so - by counting single items, the store is probably a lot more than 70% "hobby stuff" given the size of all the model kits stashed on top of each other row after row. Yes. I'm sure. Balsa strips are probably inventoried individually. What the size of the kit is has little to do with percentage of inventory that kit represents. You seem to confuse "quantity" with "size". There you go inventing things again. Why can't you read English? Or, is this another place where I'm supposed to know what you meant because you wrote it, and not take what you wrote as what you meant? If you're confused, like you always are, ask me. If you continue to interprete stuff like a moron, be prepared to be laughed at again, and again, and again. Tony Cooper: It can be contended that the store has a 100% inventory of "hobby stuff" since camera products can be "hobby stuff". Sandman: Semantics, the idiot trolls last resort. And yet most of your arguments are based on defending your bumbling attempts to write a sentence that means what you want it to mean. More lies from Tony. Your failures in lexical semantics are the source of much of disagreements here. Incorrect. Sandman: That's how you support a claim, not by telling Tony that he's blind if don't know it. Tony Cooper: No, you support a claim by making a sensible claim in the first place. Sandman: WTF? How dumb are you? You can't support a claim by making a "sensible claim", If your claim is sensible in the first place, the support for it is often self-evident and certainly easier to provide. But that's not what you said, moron. You said, and I quote your idiotic rambling he "No, you support a claim by making a sensible claim in the first place" - Tony "Andreas Skitsnack" Cooper Yeah, that's how stupid you are. The claim has to be sensible to be supported because your support has to relate to actual claim made, not the non-sensible way you originally made the claim. Keep telling yourself that. Sandman: how brain damages did you get when the truck hit you, Tony? No truck hit me. Let alone a Volvo. It must have, you went from rambling troll to hypermoron in the course of like two days. Nothing you say ever make any sense what so ever. You're far beyond any help now, you're stuck down in troll drain forever. I would pity you if you hadn't been such an asshole on the way down. -- Sandman[.net] |
#409
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:13:30 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: On 2014.04.20, 19:00 , Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:41:43 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: On 2014.04.19, 09:59 , nospam wrote: the conversions are also not lossless, something which is trivial to prove. make the conversion and subtract from the original. if they're identical, the result will be zero, which it definitely is not, and on an image i randomly picked, it's noticeable without subtracting. I just did this on a high key light image. See these 4 images. [1] Original (now in .jpf (JPEG2000) to save space) (aka: the Lab copy) https://www.dropbox.com/s/esuc08yizh...40323_0002.jpf [2 Original ( .jpg to save space) (aka: the RGB copy) https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2ni8bpm73...opy%20copy.jpg [3] The difference (substraction - in jpg) (aka: nospam is wrong) https://www.dropbox.com/s/yuum3sfit6...323_0002-D.jpg [4] The difference (with sharpening on the Lab copy, jpg) (aka: test that difference works). https://www.dropbox.com/s/3uwyuwun56...23_0002-SD.jpg Procedu -Image was loaded as raw and duplicated to a 2nd image. -First image was changed to Lab -First image was saved as TIFF (from Lab 'space') ([1] above) -2nd image was saved as TIFF (from RGB 'space') ([2] above) -Both images were re-loaded (they loaded as Lab and RGB - just as they were saved). -Copied the 2nd image and added it as a layer over the first. -Difference would not work when one layer was in Lab and the other in RGB. -Converted the first image back to RGB, then replaced the 2nd image asa layer again. *Difference was pure black (no differences - [3] above) ================================================== ====== -Sharpened the 2nd image to verify that differences would pop out (they did) and replaced the layer over the 1st image with it. *The sharpening difference showed ([4] above) ================================================== ====== So not only were the differences invisible to the eye they were NOT AT ALL shown by differencing. Of course you're welcome to show differently. That's an interesting experiment. It may be that the difference shown is not due to RGB vs Lab. I suspect you might get a similar result if you compare RGB-16 bit to RGB-8 bit (to RGB-32 bit) etc. i.e. the difference is an artifact of *any* transform. I'm not saying there are no differences - there are no VISIBLE differences - even using the difference or subtract function to pull them out. If there are differences they are at such a small level as to not show. I'd venture that it would take manyconversions to maybe make something show up or drastic colour changes in the image in one mode or the other - and if you're doing that then little changes due to conversion are not worth mention. The fact that I'm working at 16 bit is important - whatever changes occur (if any) occur in the low order bits - and that will not show on a monitor and definitely not in a print. There should be no argument about any of this. It's obvious from first principals. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#410
|
|||
|
|||
Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP?
On 2014.04.20, 19:45 , nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne wrote: The only time you might see a difference would be if there were colors in the LAB spectrum that are not in the RGB spectrum, and those differences would rarely be noticable in a photograph. A good point - but nospam's contention is conversion differences. Let's color the situation. The files were taken from raw, reduced in size, saved as TIFF in each RGB and Lab. Re-loaded and compared (differenced). There is not a hint of delta. http://tinyurl.com/m35p59t RGB http://tinyurl.com/mldetvx Lab http://tinyurl.com/mvl6vwj Diff there's a difference there too. i did: image/duplicate, append -converted to the name. image/mode/lab image/mode/rgb image/calculations, original on top, converted below, subtract mode optionally, just before the calculation step, switch between the two images while looking at the histogram palette. there's a difference. then do the calculation step. I have yet to see your proof of discernible (visible) changes in conversion from RGB to Lab in PS. Still in the queue is it? -- "Big data can reduce anything to a single number, but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude." -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A sad time for Sony/Minolta DSLR users | Chris Malcolm[_2_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | June 3rd 12 10:41 AM |
A sad time for Sony/Minolta DSLR users | Joe Kotroczo | Digital Photography | 0 | May 31st 12 08:14 PM |
A sad time for Sony/Minolta DSLR users | Joe Kotroczo | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | May 31st 12 08:14 PM |
GIMP and UFraw | jeff worsnop | Digital Photography | 8 | December 8th 08 04:23 AM |