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 |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG degradation
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: edited, for brevity In 1977, a 256K word (1 megabyte +) DECSYSTEM-2040 did not cost 1 million dollars. Therefore the price on the core memory was lower than what you say the lowest price was. It didn't? How much did it cost including that amount of memory? And are you sure that was core? Arrgh. I'm sure the back-door memory on the one installed at Van Dusen Air was core. I can't cite a source for the price, either, it's just from memory. Hello, David: Oh, "from memory," eh? You're a punster, and didn't even know it. :-P Cordially, John Turco |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG degradation
ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 02:32:43 -0600, Ron Hunter wheezed: You are attempting to twist what I said, into what you want to believe. It doesn't work. Stubborn to the end, as usual, and believing only what suits you. At least I explained my reasoning, giving you the opportunity to find flaws in it, or maybe discover that a misunderstanding had us not talking about quite the same thing. You however, decided to cut and run. But if that's what works for you, hey, go for it! g Hello, ASAAR: Why don't you two, old codgers simply kiss and make up? g Cordially, John Turco |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG degradation
On 28 Jan 2007 21:27:16 EST, John Turco wrote:
Stubborn to the end, as usual, and believing only what suits you. At least I explained my reasoning, giving you the opportunity to find flaws in it, or maybe discover that a misunderstanding had us not talking about quite the same thing. You however, decided to cut and run. But if that's what works for you, hey, go for it! g Hello, ASAAR: Why don't you two, old codgers simply kiss and make up? g I'm willing. He can kiss my . . . uh, never mind. g |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG degradation
John Turco wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: J. Clarke wrote: edited, for brevity In 1977, a 256K word (1 megabyte +) DECSYSTEM-2040 did not cost 1 million dollars. Therefore the price on the core memory was lower than what you say the lowest price was. It didn't? How much did it cost including that amount of memory? And are you sure that was core? Arrgh. I'm sure the back-door memory on the one installed at Van Dusen Air was core. I can't cite a source for the price, either, it's just from memory. Hello, David: Oh, "from memory," eh? You're a punster, and didn't even know it. :-P Better than being a poet, anyway. |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG degradation
Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
I think iPhoto is like that too. In using Picasa2, the original image is retained even when a copy is edited. So, deleting the editing reverts to the original image with no loss or degradation. That is the beauty of Picasa2. Morton Linder If you save an edited copy (eg: using the "save as" command with a different file name), then by definition the original file still exists in an unaltered condition. It's only if you just save (hitting the "save" button) the edited image back onto the original (and effectively destroy it) does editing alter the original. |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG degradation
I think we shall have to agree to differ on the point of whether it's
"foolish" to keep a copy of the original compressed image in case the user decides to re-save. There's a difference between saving a file you've not changed at all (agreed, there's not a lot of point in that) and saving a file in which you have changed some stuff but, importantly, not the actual image data. That's often quite a useful and sensible thing to do. I don't have a "protect the users from themselves" philosophy. I keep the original image data because I personally make frequent changes to image files which have no impact on the image data itself and I'd rather not have my image degraded when I make those changes. I've yet to experience any disk thrashing as a result. Indeed I doubt it would prove an issue because the compressed data is only accessed twice - when you first read it and again if and when you decide to re-save without changing the image. Please. Why would anyone want to use a photo app. knowing that it's very limited. How limited is it, actually? I don't really want to get into a war of words about how useful or otherwise my application is. It's useful to me and that's my only design criterion. I offer it on the web because it has some features which others might find useful and there are a small number of people who have indeed found it useful. If you're not one of them then that's fine. No one is asking you to use it. Seeing as you've asked, it is limited to the extent that it doesn't attempt to be a photo editor. There are commercial packages which do that far better than I could ever expect to because I don't have the basic grounding in image processing technology. I have therefore concentrated on the more administrative tasks such as manipulating EXIF data. I have heard good reports of Irfanview and have no doubt that it's an excellent piece of software. I've never used it myself because I've never felt the need. No doubt many of the things my software does can also be done by Irfanview but that's not the point. I implemented my own as a training excercise and because I enjoy doing that sort of thing. Whether or not there are other packages around which do the same is really of no consequence. I say the licence features may vary from time to time because this isn't a commercial exercise and I don't want to be beholden to anyone when it comes to deciding what to put into my software. The way it works is that most features are free forever and a small number are only free for thirty days - by which time you should have been able to decide for yourself whether they were sufficiently useful to you to be worth a token one-off payment. I wasn't really intending to advertise my wares in this thread. I posted the web address purely to use my own application as a evidence in support of the claim that it isn't compulsory to recompress an image every time you save it. Regards Keith |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG degradation
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:39:00 GMT, Keith Sheppard wrote:
Please. Why would anyone want to use a photo app. knowing that it's very limited. How limited is it, actually? I don't really want to get into a war of words about how useful or otherwise my application is. It's useful to me and that's my only design criterion. I offer it on the web because it has some features which others might find useful and there are a small number of people who have indeed found it useful. If you're not one of them then that's fine. No one is asking you to use it. You're being overly sensitive. I'm used to authors providing at least general descriptions of what their software can be used for. What I've never seen until now is software that must first be downloaded and used before one would know if it is able to do what one might want. This has nothing to do with whether your software is useful or not. I'm sure that it is very useful for what you designed it to do. But I don't know what it can do so there's no way I can know whether it *I* might also find it useful. Guessing that I might not find it useful and closing with a snippy "No one is asking you to use it" pretty much guarantees that I won't, which appears to be what you want. So we both walk away happy. |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG degradation
You're being overly sensitive.
You're probably right and if so, I apologise. Just for the record, what I've tended to do with my software is to recommend it to anyone who has a specific problem which I think my application may be able to solve. It's not exactly my flagship product and I don't have the time or inclination (and probably not the skill) to enhance it to the point where it would be a serious competitor to the likes of Irfanview or whatever. It's therefore been shunted into a siding and the lack of information on the web page probably reflects its status. So we both walk away happy. OK, I think we've done this one to death. I'm on my way Regards Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
jpeg and jpeg 2000 | Conrad | Digital Photography | 71 | February 3rd 07 11:04 PM |
AF degradation of Canon EF 35mm f/2 lens | Jim Alexander | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | November 2nd 06 11:51 PM |
Nikon D70 RAW converted to JPEG - jpeg file size 3MB ? 5 MB? | Amit | Digital Photography | 1 | March 16th 06 06:50 PM |
cropping without degradation? | Brigitte | Digital Point & Shoot Cameras | 7 | December 20th 05 03:49 PM |
Cropping without degradation? | Brigitte | Digital Photography | 26 | November 12th 05 02:15 AM |