Lenses and sharpening

On 2014-09-21 10:41:47 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
It's just that it's not fully reversible in the strict sense
that Floyd used it.

nospam:
it is, but in a different way.

two different uses of the term.

the problem is that he won't acknowledge there can be other
meanings because he's never used the software in question and is
talking out his ass.

There is no other meaning which can be applied to the term 'fully
reversible' as used in physics.

Which is irrelevant, since no one in this thread has talked about a
reversible process as used in physics.

It's a good thing it isn't 1960 and we are trying to figure out a wet
darkroom chemistry reversible process.
Damn! It's nice not to have those lingering fragrances around any more.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 9/20/2014 5:09 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


Instead of arguing just to argue, you could have easily said that PS can
be used either non-destructivelyt, or destructively. You will have made
an accurate and useful statement.

if you would only read before you spout, you'd realize that is actually
what i said, and on numerous occasions.

idiot.


Yes you did. But, not at the beginning of the discussion. You wold
rather make nasty comments and argue.



--
PeterN

On 9/20/2014 5:09 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Go purchase some more eggs. they will not be scrambled.

there is no twisting and you clearly have no idea what you're talking
about.

scrambling eggs is not a non-destructive workflow and nobody ever said
it was.

if you think scrambling eggs is non-destructive, then you're far dumber
than i thought, which is already rather dumb.

Learn to read. You might even learn something.

take your own advice, although i doubt you'll learn anything.

I strongly suspect that yu have a list of arguments that you make,
whether or not they are appplicable.

then you suspect wrong.


And we have your word for it, despite ypur perisstent use of the same
statements. No mater who you are arguing with.
--
PeterN

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Eric Stevens:
"Maximum entropy method in image processing".

Sandman:
Has nothing to do with thermodynamics, Eric. You
know, the ignorant claim you made that I was laghing at?

Floyd L. Davidson:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princip...aximum_entropy

"This is the way the maximum entropy principle is most often
used in statistical thermodynamics."

Apparently it does have something to do with thermodynamics.

Sandman:
You're as dumb as Eric.

The principle of maximum entropy is applicable to many fields -
that does NOT mean that all those fields have anything to do with
each other, like when Eric wanted thermodynamics have anything to
do with sharpening an image.

Why are you working so hard to make yourself look like a complete
moron?

Apparently this is too complex (involving more than one dictionary
definition, several theories, and dozens of big words) for some
people.

The simple explanation for you is just that they are all tightly
related to something known roughly as "entropy", which is often
suggested to be a measure of disorder.

You'll just have to accept that increased disorder is the reason
UnSharpMask is a non-reversible process as opposed to Sharpen.

So, you're going to stand in the dumb corner next to Eric Stevens and say
that Thermodynamics is related to Image Processing because both field are
applicable to maximum entropy?

Here's a hat for you, little boy.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article 2014092105585322090-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-09-21 10:18:52 +0000, Sandman said:

Sandman:
Not in LR. They are a mandatory part of the image
import and workflow process.

nospam:
yes in lightroom. it has various options for
previews and if it needs a bigger preview than it has
cached, it will need to rerender it.

Sandman:
Exactly.

Eric Stevens:
And that's what happens when you export an image.

Sandman:
Nope. LR doesn't render a preview when it exports an image.

Unless you export to DNG.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_920.jpg

Right, it renders *thumbnails* for formats that support it. That's not the
kind of preview I was in reference to, however.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014-09-21 17:09:24 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 2014092105585322090-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-09-21 10:18:52 +0000, Sandman said:

Sandman:
Not in LR. They are a mandatory part of the image
import and workflow process.

nospam:
yes in lightroom. it has various options for
previews and if it needs a bigger preview than it has
cached, it will need to rerender it.

Sandman:
Exactly.

Eric Stevens:
And that's what happens when you export an image.

Sandman:
Nope. LR doesn't render a preview when it exports an image.

Unless you export to DNG.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_920.jpg

Right, it renders *thumbnails* for formats that support it. That's not the
kind of preview I was in reference to, however.

I know. I know. I was just being a little silly there.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 9/20/2014 8:38 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


But you sould know that nosense knows much more than Dan Margulies.

i do, as do most people, but that's not the point.

read the thread before you say more stupid stuff.

chris murphy and andrew rodney in that thread pointed out dan margulis'
errors, and many, many other people do so in other venues. dan is often
wrong.

And your documents to prove hime wrong a

in the above link. duh. are you that stupid?

there are other references, but that one will suffice.

It so happens that I often switch between LAB and RGB, and have never
see a loss.

just because you can't see a difference doesn't mean there isn't a
difference.

there's no visible loss with jpg at its highest setting, so according
to you, jpeg is lossless.

idiot.

talking to yourself again. I ask for proof and you call me names. There
is an obvious conclusion to be draw.

the obvious conclusion is that you are a blithering idiot.

the proof is in the link and has already been pointed out more than
once. it's a simple thing to do. have you done it? no. instead, you
spew nonsense, demonstrating just how much of an idiot you are.


You made a statement, I asked for proof, and you trun to pejoratives.

proof was provided.

if you aren't going to bother reading it (even before you asked) and
doing what it describes, then my response is very appropriate and not
pejorative at all.


No 132 "proof was provided."
I knew tht answer before you posted it. Though posssibly you might have
used "you wouldn't understand it."



--
PeterN

On 9/20/2014 10:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip
What I am saying is, this tread has become very silly with all sorts of
folks disagreeing, and talking at cross purposes.


You left off the part where some are taking the other sie of the
argument they started with.


--
PeterN

On 9/20/2014 10:08 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in
your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who
understand all this.

i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a
non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull****
being spewed here.

I'm sure they do.

so you finally agree it's reversible. amazing.

I've never denied it.

yes you have.

It's just that it's not fully reversible in the
strict sense that Floyd used it.

it is, but in a different way.

two different uses of the term.

the problem is that he won't acknowledge there can be other meanings
because he's never used the software in question and is talking out his
ass.


# 3. "talking out his
ass."

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

chris murphy and andrew rodney in that thread pointed out dan
margulis'
errors, and many, many other people do so in other venues. dan is
often
wrong.

And your documents to prove hime wrong a

in the above link. duh. are you that stupid?

there are other references, but that one will suffice.

It so happens that I often switch between LAB and RGB, and have never
see a loss.

just because you can't see a difference doesn't mean there isn't a
difference.

there's no visible loss with jpg at its highest setting, so according
to you, jpeg is lossless.

idiot.

talking to yourself again. I ask for proof and you call me names. There
is an obvious conclusion to be draw.

the obvious conclusion is that you are a blithering idiot.

the proof is in the link and has already been pointed out more than
once. it's a simple thing to do. have you done it? no. instead, you
spew nonsense, demonstrating just how much of an idiot you are.

You made a statement, I asked for proof, and you trun to pejoratives.

proof was provided.

if you aren't going to bother reading it (even before you asked) and
doing what it describes, then my response is very appropriate and not
pejorative at all.

No 132 "proof was provided."

it was.

I knew tht answer before you posted it. Though posssibly you might have
used "you wouldn't understand it."

you don't.