Lightroom vs. Apertu Curves

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:52:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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?


At this point you could have said "Yes".

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

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.

"PAS" plonking nospam? It's his own loss... :-p
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

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.

Eric Stevens:
Does this apply to reading raw files?

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

It will read all raws directly?

All ~300 supported cameras, yes.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article 2014082115173465607-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Does this apply to reading raw files?

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

Eric Stevens:
It will read all raws directly?

nospam:
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.

Uh, why do you say that? It has already converted that NEF file into a RGB
bitmap for you. It's just saying that for your edits to be saved, it needs
to save it as another format. That's RAW conversion...


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , PAS wrote:

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

nospam:
that's how.

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

Sandman:
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.

Right, but I got the impression that you said it like one would say "The
word document isn't in English, it's in .zip".




--
Sandman[.net]

In article , J. Clarke wrote:

PAS:
I never claimed they are compatible. I said there is no
setting for Unicode, it's Uuencode. That is still the case.

nospam:
no it isn't the case at all. they are two entirely different
things.

PAS:
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.

No confusion here. But the comment is akin to saying "OE doesn't support
Unicode, but it can print to my laserjet printer". Unicode support and
laserjet printing has no relation to each other and I got the idea that PAS
thought they were comparable as if he thought that UUencode was a character
set.

He has since told me he didn't think that so there is no problem. I just
wanted to correct a possible confusion.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , PAS wrote:

PAS:
Plonk!

Eric Stevens:
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?

Surely you can see that this is a possible interpretation?

"It doesn't support Unicode, it's Latin 1"

This is you saying that it doesn't support one character set, and that it
does support another character set.

"It doesn't support Unicode, it supports a bluetooth keyboard"

This is you saying that it doesn't support one character set, and then
mentioning - in relation to that - something positively not related to it.

"It doesn't support Unicode, it's UUencode"

Same here. But given the similarity in naming, the reader could easily be
led to the impression that you think they are related. That you are listing
what it does and doesn't support in relation to the question you were
given, and that it's rather logical to not assume that you were knowingly
posting something totally unrelated to the question.






--
Sandman[.net]

On 22 Aug 2014 05:49:41 GMT, Sandman wrote:

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.

Eric Stevens:
Does this apply to reading raw files?

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

It will read all raws directly?

All ~300 supported cameras, yes.

I had already understood that from what you had written. nospam had
slightly confused the situation by writing:

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

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

I wasn't quite sure what he meant by a 'default conversion'.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"nospam" wrote in message
...
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.

Nope.

"android" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

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.

"PAS" plonking nospam? It's his own loss... :-p
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

I'm already regretting it