Lenses and sharpening

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:34:34 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-09-21 05:13:46 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:58:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


"Maximum entropy method in image processing".

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.

Here is a gal at Adobe who understands the concept of a non-destructive
workflow.
http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html

And here is an Adobe guy who knows about entropy.
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-me..._encoding.html
Scroll down to find the heading "Entropy Encoding".

that has absolutely nothing to do with a non-destructive workflow and
whether something is reversible.

Which is why your contributions to this thread have been meaningless
noise.

you have that backwards.

anything other than a non-destructive workflow is noise.

that includes thermodynamics, physics, entropy, flat earth and whatever
else was mentioned.

Ignoramus!

I knew that word was going to show up sooner or later. ;-)

I was thinking of Captain Haddock when I wrote that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

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.

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

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



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Every single file you work with in LR has a 1:1 preview file.

I have catalogued a number of files in LR but have not worked on
them.

Then you don't know. Stop talking about things you do not know anything
about.

Eric Stevens:
They clearly can't contain as much data or be
reconstructed to form a final export image.

Sandman:
Depends on whether or not you're exporting a full
resolution image, Eric. Just as I said.

Eric Stevens:
You are suggesting that files exported from LR are based on a
degraded (i.e. downsized) version of the original file. I very
much doubt that that is the case.

Sandman:
I have suggested no such thing, Eric. You would know that if you
knew how to read and comprehend English.

Once you look at the actual file sizes I think you will have to
conclude that I am correct.

Of course not, since you're not correct. As I said - every single image you
work with in Lightroom has a 1:1 preview file created for it. Every single
one. You can select when those 1:! files should expire and be purged, but
if you've worked with it, or even vviewed it in the develop module there
exists a 1:1 preview of the file.

You know nothing about these things, Eric, stop making claims about an
application you don't use.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
The *only* point Lightroom loads the original
file and applies the rendering chain in RAM is when
you're viewing an image in 100% zoom.

Eric Stevens:
Or when you export the image.

Sandman:
Depends on how you export it. If you export it as
a low-res highly compressed JPG, it can use the preview
file. Chances are that it doesn't, but it certainly could,
since the preview file *is* the current pixel data of the
image.

Eric Stevens:
So what happens when you want a high quality
TIFF of the same size as the original file? Do you expand by
resampling your low-res highly compressed JPG?

nospam:
questions like this mean you don't understand how it
works.

it *always* uses the original data. the cached previews are a
speed optimization for the user interface.

Eric Stevens:
I know that

Sandman:
No, you don't.

Eric Stevens:
but Sandman seems to disagree.

Sandman:
With what, you're ignorant question born from your ignorance about
the application? Well, yes.

Eric Stevens:
That's why I asked him that particular question.

Sandman:
No, you asked it because you have no clue how LR works.

I don't know why you don't bother writing my posts for me: you seem
to know *exactly* what I really meant. :-(

No, I am telling you the reason why you asked a question, not what you
"meant". The reason for the question was ignorance on your part.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Depends on how you export it. If you export it as a
low-res highly compressed JPG, it can use the preview file.
Chances are that it doesn't, but it certainly could, since
the preview file *is* the current pixel data of the image.

Eric Stevens:
So what happens when you want a high quality
TIFF of the same size as the original file? Do you expand by
resampling your low-res highly compressed JPG?

nospam:
questions like this mean you don't understand how it works.

it *always* uses the original data. the cached previews are a
speed optimization for the user interface.

Sandman:
Well, yeah. Every photo you look at in Lightroom is data from a
preview file. Lightroom creates three preview files for every
single photo in its catalog.

1. Thumbnail - used in grid views 2. Standard preview - created if
your monitor is smaller than 2048 pixels wide, used in all other
modules, except the develop module and loupe 3. 1:1 - used in all
modules if you have a large monitor, always used in the develop
module and in the loupe.

Every single time you're looking at an image in Lightroom, you're
looking at a preview file.

Which I previously described as a simulacrum.

Incorrectly so, yes.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
But it's not the same as the file you would -
say - send to a printer.

Sandman:
It could be, sure. It's an ordinary JPG, and most
printer drivers can handle them just fine. Again, you don't
know what you're talking about.

Eric Stevens:
I would send my best file to the printer, not a highly reduced
JPG.

Sandman:
They're not highly reduced, Eric. You are confused.

I have looked at the actual file sizes. I *know* they are reduced.

They're not reduced. You are looking at standard previews of images you
haven't worked with, since you're not a LR user. As I've said many times,
every single image you're working with has a 1:1 preview.

Sandman:
Here's some education for you.

In Lightroom, you the user can select whether standard previews
should be 1024, 1440, 1680, 2048 or 2880 pixels large, you can
also set the preview quality to low, medium or high.

BUT, Lightroom *always* use a 1:1 preview for the file you are
working with. You can select for how long these 1:1 previews
should be kept around, but for the files you're working with - and
would send to a printer in this hypothetical scenario - the
preview file is the exact same resolution as the original file.
Always.

You really don't know anything about Lightroom and should keep far
away from discussions about it.

Eric tried his hardest to ignore this part.

Depends on how you export it. If you export it as a
low-res highly compressed JPG, it can use the preview file.
Chances are that it doesn't, but it certainly could, since the
preview file *is* the current pixel data of the image.

Eric Stevens:
So what happens when you want a high quality TIFF of the same
size as the original file? Do you expand by resampling your
low-res highly compressed JPG?

Sandman:
Only if the original file is a low-res highly compressed JPG,
which of course it could be.

And TIFF's aren't "expanded" or "resampled". They're - like the
preview's - a 1:1 copy of the original file, the difference being
that TIFF can support a higher bit depth.

Again, you know nothing about these matters. You would do best to
just sit quiet.

Why didn't you?


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
The point we're making fun of is that you did add a
lossy middle step to your claim about the first process being
reversed by the third process with a lossy process in the
middle.

Floyd L. Davidson:
The JPEG lossy format doesn't allow the original image to be
resurected, but it doesn't prevent reversing the sharpening.

Sandman:
And that's what we're making fun of. The sharpening was added
before the lossy process was added. You can counteract it, and you
may be satisfied with it, but you haven't reversed it.

You are not qualified to voice an opinion.

Best endorsement I could ever get - ignorant troll says I'm not
"qualified". Haha!


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Savageduck:
He has a voice, he has an opinion. Why should he be disqualified
from stating it? The last time I looked Usenet was a free speech
forum, one of the last in existence.

My goodness, you are getting grumpy.

The fact that he is entitled to voice an opinion does not make him
qualified to do so.

You should be aware the Sandman has several times said things to
people like "you are not qulified to discuss this. Please step out
of the argument".

What, no Message-ID, Eric? Yet another claim from you that you will never
ever substantiate. No surprise there.

In this case he hasn't got the background or the training to
understand the subject, let alone voice an informed opinion. To make
matters worse, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, he denies
that the subject has any relevance to imaging or image processing.
Would you take advice on the workings of a GPS unit from someone who
was an avowed believer in a flat earth?

It is clear from everything that I've said that I am way more qualified to
discuss this subject than both you and Floyd, Eric. The fact that you don't
understand that just proves the point.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
1. HPS is, in the example, a pixel-altering process.
2. JPG compression is a pixel-altering process
3. Gaussian blur is a pixel-altering process.

3 can *NOT* reverse 1 with 2 in the middle. It is impossible. It
can *counteract* it and the end result may be satisfactory, but
number 1 has *NOT* been reversed. Pixels have been altered in the
interrim that 3 can not take into account.

You haven't understood my diagram above. Once I would have tried to
explain it to you but now I know there is no point.

Typical Eric, can't really respond to the facts above so he dances his
little dance while saying nothing.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
You failed again. Are you jusyt wildly googling and hoping that
something will support your incorrect claims? Seems that way.

"Maximum entropy method in image processing".

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

Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing

It has nothing to do with *thermodynamics* you old fool.

at least not in your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys
at Adobe who understand all this.

Yeah, let's see some quotes from the guys at Adobe and how they are
applying thermodynamics to their gaussian blur tool.

Duh, you just stumbled over your self again.

--
Sandman[.net]