Lenses and sharpening

On 9/30/2014 2:21 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I forgot to mention the age of the article,

no you didn't.

Show me where

one cannot prove a negative.

IOW. You made another unprovable statement. I said that I did not
mention hte dae of an articel. YOu said I did. I asked where.
The only thing unprovable is the truth of your statement.

i said you didn't *forget*, not that it matters since the date is
completely irrelevant and you know it. it's nothing more than a
diversion because you are completely full of ****.

If it doesn't matter, why do you bring it up.

you're the one who brought it up.

you're trying to claim that somehow the math for the rgb-lab transform
has somehow changed in the time the article has been written. that's
absurd. it hasn't. only an idiot would make that claim.

Once again your use of a pejortive proves you are sick and have a need
to keep arguing. this link may help you.

http://www.psych.org/

take your own advice. you're the one who drops the first pejoratives.


Assuming argumento that you are right, whish is irelevant, you remind me
of my kids when they were in first grade.

"she started it."

--
PeterN

On 9/30/2014 6:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:21:04 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I forgot to mention the age of the article,

no you didn't.

Show me where

one cannot prove a negative.

IOW. You made another unprovable statement. I said that I did not
mention hte dae of an articel. YOu said I did. I asked where.
The only thing unprovable is the truth of your statement.

i said you didn't *forget*, not that it matters since the date is
completely irrelevant and you know it. it's nothing more than a
diversion because you are completely full of ****.

If it doesn't matter, why do you bring it up.

you're the one who brought it up.

you're trying to claim that somehow the math for the rgb-lab transform
has somehow changed in the time the article has been written. that's
absurd. it hasn't. only an idiot would make that claim.

From what I have read, I suspect the actual colour working space
inside Photoshop may have changed somewhere about CS2. That *would*
affect the transforms in and out of that space.

Stop annoying noense with facts.


--
PeterN

On 9/30/2014 6:17 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

you're trying to claim that somehow the math for the rgb-lab transform
has somehow changed in the time the article has been written. that's
absurd. it hasn't. only an idiot would make that claim.

From what I have read, I suspect the actual colour working space
inside Photoshop may have changed somewhere about CS2. That *would*
affect the transforms in and out of that space.

it didn't but even if it did, it doesn't matter.

rgb-lab-rgb is lossy. period.


You are talking theory, when I asked you for proof of your statement.
All you hve shown is a lin to an Intrnet group conversation.
It should be very easy for you to prove that you are correct. Absent
such proof I trust Dan Margulies's opinion, more than yours. p\Peroid.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

you're trying to claim that somehow the math for the rgb-lab transform
has somehow changed in the time the article has been written. that's
absurd. it hasn't. only an idiot would make that claim.

From what I have read, I suspect the actual colour working space
inside Photoshop may have changed somewhere about CS2. That *would*
affect the transforms in and out of that space.

it didn't but even if it did, it doesn't matter.

rgb-lab-rgb is lossy. period.

You are talking theory, when I asked you for proof of your statement.

proof was given.

All you hve shown is a lin to an Intrnet group conversation.

eric posted the link, not me. you got *that* wrong too.

It should be very easy for you to prove that you are correct.

i did, as did others.

Absent
such proof I trust Dan Margulies's opinion, more than yours. p\Peroid.

dan marguilis is wrong. period.

the link you keep referring to proves he is wrong, which means you
didn't read it.

it also means you are wrong (no surprise there) and you once again
demonstrate how much of a blithering idiot you are.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

you're trying to claim that somehow the math for the rgb-lab transform
has somehow changed in the time the article has been written. that's
absurd. it hasn't. only an idiot would make that claim.

From what I have read, I suspect the actual colour working space
inside Photoshop may have changed somewhere about CS2. That *would*
affect the transforms in and out of that space.

Stop annoying noense with facts.

look at that. another pejorative.

in another post, you said:
Once again your use of a pejortive proves you are sick and have a need
to keep arguing. this link may help you.

as usual, you fling them first. you're a lying hypocrite.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

you're trying to claim that somehow the math for the rgb-lab transform
has somehow changed in the time the article has been written. that's
absurd. it hasn't. only an idiot would make that claim.

Once again your use of a pejortive proves you are sick and have a need
to keep arguing. this link may help you.

http://www.psych.org/

take your own advice. you're the one who drops the first pejoratives.

Assuming argumento that you are right,

i am.

whish is irelevant,

it's very relevant, and what you've been arguing about for more than a
week.

you remind me
of my kids when they were in first grade.

"she started it."

another pejorative. how quickly you forget what you said. maybe this
will jog your memory:
Once again your use of a pejortive proves you are sick and have a need
to keep arguing. this link may help you.

try sticking to the facts for a change.

assuming you can understand them, that is.

On 9/30/2014 9:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

you're trying to claim that somehow the math for the rgb-lab transform
has somehow changed in the time the article has been written. that's
absurd. it hasn't. only an idiot would make that claim.

From what I have read, I suspect the actual colour working space
inside Photoshop may have changed somewhere about CS2. That *would*
affect the transforms in and out of that space.

it didn't but even if it did, it doesn't matter.

rgb-lab-rgb is lossy. period.

You are talking theory, when I asked you for proof of your statement.

proof was given.

All you hve shown is a lin to an Intrnet group conversation.

eric posted the link, not me. you got *that* wrong too.

It should be very easy for you to prove that you are correct.

i did, as did others.

cnned response .


Absent
such proof I trust Dan Margulies's opinion, more than yours. p\Peroid.

dan marguilis is wrong. period.

the link you keep referring to proves he is wrong, which means you
didn't read it.

it also means you are wrong (no surprise there) and you once again
demonstrate how much of a blithering idiot you are.


I would have to be one to accept your "proof."

--
PeterN

On 9/30/2014 9:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

you're trying to claim that somehow the math for the rgb-lab transform
has somehow changed in the time the article has been written. that's
absurd. it hasn't. only an idiot would make that claim.

From what I have read, I suspect the actual colour working space
inside Photoshop may have changed somewhere about CS2. That *would*
affect the transforms in and out of that space.

Stop annoying noense with facts.

look at that. another pejorative.

in another post, you said:
Once again your use of a pejortive proves you are sick and have a need
to keep arguing. this link may help you.

as usual, you fling them first. you're a lying hypocrite.


Deserved Response.

--
PeterN

On 9/30/2014 9:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

you're trying to claim that somehow the math for the rgb-lab transform
has somehow changed in the time the article has been written. that's
absurd. it hasn't. only an idiot would make that claim.

Once again your use of a pejortive proves you are sick and have a need
to keep arguing. this link may help you.

http://www.psych.org/

take your own advice. you're the one who drops the first pejoratives.

Assuming argumento that you are right,

i am.

whish is irelevant,

it's very relevant, and what you've been arguing about for more than a
week.

you remind me
of my kids when they were in first grade.

"she started it."

another pejorative. how quickly you forget what you said. maybe this
will jog your memory:
Once again your use of a pejortive proves you are sick and have a need
to keep arguing. this link may help you.

try sticking to the facts for a change.

assuming you can understand them, that is.


Desreved reaponse:


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Absent
such proof I trust Dan Margulies's opinion, more than yours. p\Peroid.

dan marguilis is wrong. period.

the link you keep referring to proves he is wrong, which means you
didn't read it.

it also means you are wrong (no surprise there) and you once again
demonstrate how much of a blithering idiot you are.

I would have to be one to accept your "proof."

you're not the final arbiter of what is true or not.

the fact is that rgb-lab-rgb is a lossy operation. period.

mathematics is not going to change because you have not accepted the
proof, one of which was in the link you refuse to read.