May I know where to find these programs?
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
:: E-mail to friend 
scribbled:
>Jase Planck wrote:
>> On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>>> Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>>>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>>> water...
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>>> You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>>> Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>>> saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>>> resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>>> intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>>> unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>>> algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>>> aggressive than the original compression ratio.
>>> But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
>>> affect many nearby pixels.
>>
>> So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
>> know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.
>>
>> Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
>> of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
>> that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
>> than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
>> tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
>> about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
>> jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
>> has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
>> blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
>> out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
>> always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
>> internet troll.
>>
>>
>>> But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
>>> compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
>>> waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
>>> something.
>>
>> I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
>> trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
>> Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
>> of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
>> very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
>> archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
>> or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
>> if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
>> choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
>> that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
>> deal with.
>>
>>>> Truly lossless jpg editing
>>>> in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
>>> Into the realm of marketing BS.
>>
>> No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
>> and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
>> like you who have never had any clue.
>>
>I've never used Photoline so I can't comment. Jpeg does a remarkably
>good job of preserving detail when sensibly used and most of this
>bickering is based on theory and not visually detectable deterioration.
>I believe the 'voi' in Voivod is some sort of hidden code for 'void in
>the nod' or something like that, but what do I know.
>Dave Cohen
Nothing, and it shows.
  |
  |
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> scribbled:
>
>> philo wrote:
>>> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
>>> news:nospam.m-m-7F4737.10352410052009@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>>> In article
>>>> <41306507-48c7-4116-9044-9c6570944732@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>>> convert all of them to tif
>>>
>>> then edit the tif
>>>
>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>
> A seriously fucking stupid idiot.
>
For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
equal capability, but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
significant advantage.
| |
|
In article <L6udnXoZN4tCRZrXnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
> equal capability,
not even remotely true.
> but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
> significant advantage.
yes, gimp is free.
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
> equal capability,
not even remotely true.
> but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
> significant advantage.
yes, gimp is free.
| |
|
Ron Hunter wrote:
> For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
> equal capability, but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
> significant advantage.
An infinite advantage, as it's free.
Other than that it's not all that useful to me. The Linux v. I have
won't open a DNG properly. The Mac version will but neither used to
batch process files from the UI - or in a useful manner from the CL.
I'll stick with CS3 - heck, I'll upgrade to CS4 for $200.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
> For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
> equal capability, but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
> significant advantage.
An infinite advantage, as it's free.
Other than that it's not all that useful to me. The Linux v. I have
won't open a DNG properly. The Mac version will but neither used to
batch process files from the UI - or in a useful manner from the CL.
I'll stick with CS3 - heck, I'll upgrade to CS4 for $200.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
| |
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:57:55 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but can't add
>> any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only "happens" in movies and
>> TV shows.
>
> But only after the key player (pro/antagonist) says the magic words to
> the image technician:
>
> "Zoom in there, that's it, now __enhance that, will you__."
Really. Always wanted a copy of that software.
> Marvin wrote:
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but can't add
>> any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only "happens" in movies and
>> TV shows.
>
> But only after the key player (pro/antagonist) says the magic words to
> the image technician:
>
> "Zoom in there, that's it, now __enhance that, will you__."
Really. Always wanted a copy of that software.
| |
|
"Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
And the military. The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
imagry.
news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
And the military. The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
imagry.
| |
|
DRS wrote:
> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>
> And the military.
Myth!
> The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
> that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
> imagry.
Nonsense. Most forms in our messy world cannot be literally reduced to
fractals, and thereby be the basis of up-scaling.
That's the kind of BS that Genuine Fractals tried to infer with their
product name. At the time popular publications were all excited by chaos
theory, fractals, all that.
It is over.
The only thing one can extrapolate is a perfectly decidable,
deterministic form's perfect base. Generally, our world, especially that
that you imagine the military to work in, is far too messy.
See recent work from, for example, Stephen Wolfram.
> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>
> And the military.
Myth!
> The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
> that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
> imagry.
Nonsense. Most forms in our messy world cannot be literally reduced to
fractals, and thereby be the basis of up-scaling.
That's the kind of BS that Genuine Fractals tried to infer with their
product name. At the time popular publications were all excited by chaos
theory, fractals, all that.
It is over.
The only thing one can extrapolate is a perfectly decidable,
deterministic form's perfect base. Generally, our world, especially that
that you imagine the military to work in, is far too messy.
See recent work from, for example, Stephen Wolfram.
| |
|
DRS wrote:
> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>
> And the military.
And astronomers. But the magic words are point spread function and
deconvolution. Blind deconvolution if you are totally stuck. You can
only get a modest improvement of linear resolution in the very best
cases with excellent signal to noise data and you pay for it with
artefacts that were not actually present. It works best for point
sources on a mostly black background which belies its heritage. An
example is at:
http://www.astrovid.com/technical_documents/ASTROART%20SOFTW ARE.pdf
However, if you need to read a numberplate or recognise a face that
small additional gain in fine detail can be significant. The problem is
usually couched in terms of finding a trial model of the world that when
measured with your imperfect imaging system would give the same blurred
image as you have actually observed (to within the noise).
There a lot of images that would fit this criterion so to choose a
representative one an additional constraint of either entropy or
smoothness is used to encourage good behaviour in the algorithm.
Software based on this approach was used to correct the early myopic
blurred Hubble space telescope images and determine the formulation of
COSTAR.
> The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
> that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
> imagry.
Fractals allow you to insert plausible fake detail at higher resolutions
that don't look out of place because it is self similar to the actual
image data. But it cannot get you magical results whatever the marketing
men may want to have you believe.
Regards,
Martin Brown
> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>
> And the military.
And astronomers. But the magic words are point spread function and
deconvolution. Blind deconvolution if you are totally stuck. You can
only get a modest improvement of linear resolution in the very best
cases with excellent signal to noise data and you pay for it with
artefacts that were not actually present. It works best for point
sources on a mostly black background which belies its heritage. An
example is at:
http://www.astrovid.com/technical_documents/ASTROART%20SOFTW ARE.pdf
However, if you need to read a numberplate or recognise a face that
small additional gain in fine detail can be significant. The problem is
usually couched in terms of finding a trial model of the world that when
measured with your imperfect imaging system would give the same blurred
image as you have actually observed (to within the noise).
There a lot of images that would fit this criterion so to choose a
representative one an additional constraint of either entropy or
smoothness is used to encourage good behaviour in the algorithm.
Software based on this approach was used to correct the early myopic
blurred Hubble space telescope images and determine the formulation of
COSTAR.
> The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
> that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
> imagry.
Fractals allow you to insert plausible fake detail at higher resolutions
that don't look out of place because it is self similar to the actual
image data. But it cannot get you magical results whatever the marketing
men may want to have you believe.
Regards,
Martin Brown
| |
|
Here is a good lay-person's overview of some interpolation techniques:
http://www.americaswonderlands.com/image_resizing.htm
There are deeper explorations of non-deterministic (stochastic
resampling) methods. One could spend years at it.
Short answer - Q-Image is pretty good.
http://www.americaswonderlands.com/image_resizing.htm
There are deeper explorations of non-deterministic (stochastic
resampling) methods. One could spend years at it.
Short answer - Q-Image is pretty good.
| |
|
"John J" <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote in message
news:1pednb3LOZUY8JDXnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@supernews.com...
> DRS wrote:
>> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>>
>> And the military.
>
> Myth!
>
interpolation is no longer necessary as the Israelis have developed a better
way to capture detail in the original
and applications other than military are proving quite useful
............................................................ ........................................
The recent development in Synthetic Aperture Radar
(SAR) technology has made possible a much higher resolution to be
achieved using a small antenna. The advantages of SAR have been
detailed in many books and journals, which record the concrete proof
and support behind the blossoming of SAR systems in worldwide [2].
Among them includes fine resolution achievable that made headline
when the technique first came to light, often credited to Carl Wiley of
Goodyear Aerospace in 1951 [3]. SAR has been shown to be very useful
over a wide range of applications, including high resolution geological
and topological mapping, snow monitoring [4], military surveillance,
http://ceta.mit.edu/pierb/pierb01/18.07102301.pdf
http://www.sandia.gov/radar/whatis.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/radar/sircxsar/petra2.html
news:1pednb3LOZUY8JDXnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@supernews.com...
> DRS wrote:
>> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>>
>> And the military.
>
> Myth!
>
interpolation is no longer necessary as the Israelis have developed a better
way to capture detail in the original
and applications other than military are proving quite useful
............................................................ ........................................
The recent development in Synthetic Aperture Radar
(SAR) technology has made possible a much higher resolution to be
achieved using a small antenna. The advantages of SAR have been
detailed in many books and journals, which record the concrete proof
and support behind the blossoming of SAR systems in worldwide [2].
Among them includes fine resolution achievable that made headline
when the technique first came to light, often credited to Carl Wiley of
Goodyear Aerospace in 1951 [3]. SAR has been shown to be very useful
over a wide range of applications, including high resolution geological
and topological mapping, snow monitoring [4], military surveillance,
http://ceta.mit.edu/pierb/pierb01/18.07102301.pdf
http://www.sandia.gov/radar/whatis.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/radar/sircxsar/petra2.html
| |
|
"DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a0d6410$0$24369$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>
> And the military. The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths
> to
> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
> that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
> imagry.
>
My possibly overly simplistic understanding is that each pixel has a
relationship to its surrounding pixels, forming the image. If the number of
pixels is increased while maintaining this relationship you can have a
larger image without pixelization. The algorithms in different software
packages are designed to maintain this relationship.
Since all algorithms are compromises, different algorithms are designed to
optimize the desired result. e.g. one may be designed to maintain sharpness
and another color variance subtleties.
If you think I am wrong, please explain in simple layman's language.
--
Peter
If you can't explain it to a young child, you don't fully understand what
you are talking about. - Attributed to Einstein.
news:4a0d6410$0$24369$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>
> And the military. The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths
> to
> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
> that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
> imagry.
>
My possibly overly simplistic understanding is that each pixel has a
relationship to its surrounding pixels, forming the image. If the number of
pixels is increased while maintaining this relationship you can have a
larger image without pixelization. The algorithms in different software
packages are designed to maintain this relationship.
Since all algorithms are compromises, different algorithms are designed to
optimize the desired result. e.g. one may be designed to maintain sharpness
and another color variance subtleties.
If you think I am wrong, please explain in simple layman's language.
--
Peter
If you can't explain it to a young child, you don't fully understand what
you are talking about. - Attributed to Einstein.
| |
|
Voivod wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
> scribbled:
>
>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>
> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
> water...
>
> Tell me another lie, thanks.
The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
90 degree rotates.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
> scribbled:
>
>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>
> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
> water...
>
> Tell me another lie, thanks.
The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
90 degree rotates.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
| |
|
Jase Planck wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>> scribbled:
>>
>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>> water...
>>
>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>
> You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
> Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
> saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
> resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
> intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss.
That's very impressive, but it's not "completely lossless".
> Those
> unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
> algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
> aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
> in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
> ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
> you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
> editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
Oh please. It's not anywhere near as special as you think. You can avoid
the whole problem in any image editor by simply using a non-lossy file
format instead of JPEG, which is what actual experts do.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>> scribbled:
>>
>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>> water...
>>
>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>
> You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
> Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
> saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
> resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
> intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss.
That's very impressive, but it's not "completely lossless".
> Those
> unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
> algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
> aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
> in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
> ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
> you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
> editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
Oh please. It's not anywhere near as special as you think. You can avoid
the whole problem in any image editor by simply using a non-lossy file
format instead of JPEG, which is what actual experts do.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
| |
|
Peter wrote:
> "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a0d6410$0$24369$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>>
>> And the military. The magic word is fractals but I don't have the
>> maths to
>> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the
>> principle that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to
>> enhance satellite imagry.
>>
>
>
> My possibly overly simplistic understanding is that each pixel has a
> relationship to its surrounding pixels, forming the image. If the
> number of pixels is increased while maintaining this relationship you
> can have a larger image without pixelization.
You can eliminate pixelization but what you get instead is blur. If there's
no data there then there's no way to recover it. Sure, you can do some
tweaking until you get something that looks like you've recovered data but
what you've really done is painted in your own preconceptions the hard way.
> The algorithms in
> different software packages are designed to maintain this
> relationship.
> Since all algorithms are compromises, different algorithms are
> designed to optimize the desired result. e.g. one may be designed to
> maintain sharpness and another color variance subtleties.
>
> If you think I am wrong, please explain in simple layman's language.
In layman's language, if the data is not there the data is not there and all
the tweaking in the universe will not put it there.
> "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a0d6410$0$24369$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>>
>> And the military. The magic word is fractals but I don't have the
>> maths to
>> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the
>> principle that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to
>> enhance satellite imagry.
>>
>
>
> My possibly overly simplistic understanding is that each pixel has a
> relationship to its surrounding pixels, forming the image. If the
> number of pixels is increased while maintaining this relationship you
> can have a larger image without pixelization.
You can eliminate pixelization but what you get instead is blur. If there's
no data there then there's no way to recover it. Sure, you can do some
tweaking until you get something that looks like you've recovered data but
what you've really done is painted in your own preconceptions the hard way.
> The algorithms in
> different software packages are designed to maintain this
> relationship.
> Since all algorithms are compromises, different algorithms are
> designed to optimize the desired result. e.g. one may be designed to
> maintain sharpness and another color variance subtleties.
>
> If you think I am wrong, please explain in simple layman's language.
In layman's language, if the data is not there the data is not there and all
the tweaking in the universe will not put it there.
| |
|
Jase Planck wrote:
> On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> Truly lossless jpg editing
>>> in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
>> Into the realm of marketing BS.
>
> No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
> and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
> like you who have never had any clue.
You get this kind of reaction a lot, don't you? Have you ever considered
the possibility that it's not everyone else's problem, but yours?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
> On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> Truly lossless jpg editing
>>> in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
>> Into the realm of marketing BS.
>
> No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
> and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
> like you who have never had any clue.
You get this kind of reaction a lot, don't you? Have you ever considered
the possibility that it's not everyone else's problem, but yours?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
| |
|
Jase Planck wrote:
[...]
> Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
> you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
> perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
> ever be capable of.
Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
[...]
> Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
> you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
> perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
> ever be capable of.
Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
| |
|
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>>>> Photoline
>>>>
>>>> www.pl32.net
>>>>
>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files,
>>>> the
>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>
>>> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
>>> such a claim.
>>>
>> Hah.
>
> Ray & John,
>
> I am quite surprised that you haven't taken the time to check the "Jase
> Plank" headers and note that he is none other than our resident P&S TROLL.
I beg to differ. I think he's a net-kook, rather than a troll.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
> On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>>>> Photoline
>>>>
>>>> www.pl32.net
>>>>
>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files,
>>>> the
>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>
>>> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
>>> such a claim.
>>>
>> Hah.
>
> Ray & John,
>
> I am quite surprised that you haven't taken the time to check the "Jase
> Plank" headers and note that he is none other than our resident P&S TROLL.
I beg to differ. I think he's a net-kook, rather than a troll.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
| |
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 15:09:44 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-05-15 12:39:29 -0700, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Jase Planck wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
>>> you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
>>> perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
>>> ever be capable of.
>>
>> Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?
>
>Apparently the World is his oyster!
LOL!
And yet ... they only have to test Photoline's lossless JPG editing feature
for themselves to find out that their contradictory and outdated beliefs
are wrong. Not to mention that it proves, without a doubt, that they truly
are the foolish blind-following morons as was originally claimed. The one
they call the "troll" is the only one who has been correct all along.
You unintelligent and ignorant idiot newsgroup-living trolls are just way
too funny, and so easy to reveal for what you truly are.
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-05-15 12:39:29 -0700, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Jase Planck wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
>>> you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
>>> perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
>>> ever be capable of.
>>
>> Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?
>
>Apparently the World is his oyster!
LOL!
And yet ... they only have to test Photoline's lossless JPG editing feature
for themselves to find out that their contradictory and outdated beliefs
are wrong. Not to mention that it proves, without a doubt, that they truly
are the foolish blind-following morons as was originally claimed. The one
they call the "troll" is the only one who has been correct all along.
You unintelligent and ignorant idiot newsgroup-living trolls are just way
too funny, and so easy to reveal for what you truly are.
| |
|
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:06:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>> scribbled:
>>
>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>> water...
>>
>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>
>The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
>90 degree rotates.
That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot. All other
programs truncate image dimensions on 8x8-pixel JPG block boundaries during
90-degree rotations. So even their "lossless" rotations aren't truly
lossless. Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation, the one in
Photoline will retain its original 15x15 pixel size no matter the number of
rotations. All other "lossless" editors throw away any pixel-border
proportions that won't fit into dimensions that aren't multiples of 8. If
you are designing toolbar-icons for software GUIs or your composition
depends on that small branch or water-highlight hanging at the edge, you're
screwed if you do any rotation in Photoshop. It just throws it away and you
remain clueless as to why.
Summation: You and all others are ignorant idiot brand-whore trolls with
little to no real-life experience.
Case closed.
wrote:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>> scribbled:
>>
>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>> water...
>>
>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>
>The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
>90 degree rotates.
That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot. All other
programs truncate image dimensions on 8x8-pixel JPG block boundaries during
90-degree rotations. So even their "lossless" rotations aren't truly
lossless. Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation, the one in
Photoline will retain its original 15x15 pixel size no matter the number of
rotations. All other "lossless" editors throw away any pixel-border
proportions that won't fit into dimensions that aren't multiples of 8. If
you are designing toolbar-icons for software GUIs or your composition
depends on that small branch or water-highlight hanging at the edge, you're
screwed if you do any rotation in Photoshop. It just throws it away and you
remain clueless as to why.
Summation: You and all others are ignorant idiot brand-whore trolls with
little to no real-life experience.
Case closed.
| |
|
In article <h20s0599noq41u40st9vopr3k3llfjhpmc@4ax.com>, Paul Tallison
<pt@antispam.org> wrote:
> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
<pt@antispam.org> wrote:
> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
| |
|
Paul Tallison wrote:
>
> That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot.
Says the very experienced idiot.
>
> That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot.
Says the very experienced idiot.
| |
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:16:44 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <h20s0599noq41u40st9vopr3k3llfjhpmc@4ax.com>, Paul Tallison
><pt@antispam.org> wrote:
>
>> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
>> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
>> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
>
>uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly. Not that I
care. I wouldn't be foolish enough to financially support such lame-assed
programming just because someone else claims to use it. They can't even
include Lanczos resampling algorithms in it. Even freeware IrfanView is
better than Photoshop on that account.
How sad they are. Just as sad as all those who blindly and foolishly
support them all these years.
>In article <h20s0599noq41u40st9vopr3k3llfjhpmc@4ax.com>, Paul Tallison
><pt@antispam.org> wrote:
>
>> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
>> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
>> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
>
>uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly. Not that I
care. I wouldn't be foolish enough to financially support such lame-assed
programming just because someone else claims to use it. They can't even
include Lanczos resampling algorithms in it. Even freeware IrfanView is
better than Photoshop on that account.
How sad they are. Just as sad as all those who blindly and foolishly
support them all these years.
| |
|
In article <853s051ucdccmqjt04ktrms2ql7htr01bg@4ax.com>, Paul Tallison
<pt@antispam.org> wrote:
> >> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
> >> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
> >> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
> >
> >uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
>
> You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
> fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.
> But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.
who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
is needed.
<pt@antispam.org> wrote:
> >> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
> >> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
> >> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
> >
> >uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
>
> You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
> fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.
> But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.
who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
is needed.
| |
|
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gukfs20ol5@news3.newsguy.com...
> Peter wrote:
>> "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4a0d6410$0$24369$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>>>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>>>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>>>
>>> And the military. The magic word is fractals but I don't have the
>>> maths to
>>> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the
>>> principle that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to
>>> enhance satellite imagry.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My possibly overly simplistic understanding is that each pixel has a
>> relationship to its surrounding pixels, forming the image. If the
>> number of pixels is increased while maintaining this relationship you
>> can have a larger image without pixelization.
>
> You can eliminate pixelization but what you get instead is blur. If
> there's
> no data there then there's no way to recover it. Sure, you can do some
> tweaking until you get something that looks like you've recovered data but
> what you've really done is painted in your own preconceptions the hard
> way.
>
>> The algorithms in
>> different software packages are designed to maintain this
>> relationship.
>> Since all algorithms are compromises, different algorithms are
>> designed to optimize the desired result. e.g. one may be designed to
>> maintain sharpness and another color variance subtleties.
>>
>> If you think I am wrong, please explain in simple layman's language.
>
> In layman's language, if the data is not there the data is not there and
> all
> the tweaking in the universe will not put it there.
>
Of course there must be data there. My posting was, and still is directed to
maintaining the illusion of what is present on really big blowups.
If I want to add missing details I use PainterX.
--
Peter
news:gukfs20ol5@news3.newsguy.com...
> Peter wrote:
>> "DRS" <drs@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4a0d6410$0$24369$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> "Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:FGCNl.348$5F2.318@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>>>> aicnevivnoc@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>>>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>>>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>>>
>>> And the military. The magic word is fractals but I don't have the
>>> maths to
>>> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the
>>> principle that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to
>>> enhance satellite imagry.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My possibly overly simplistic understanding is that each pixel has a
>> relationship to its surrounding pixels, forming the image. If the
>> number of pixels is increased while maintaining this relationship you
>> can have a larger image without pixelization.
>
> You can eliminate pixelization but what you get instead is blur. If
> there's
> no data there then there's no way to recover it. Sure, you can do some
> tweaking until you get something that looks like you've recovered data but
> what you've really done is painted in your own preconceptions the hard
> way.
>
>> The algorithms in
>> different software packages are designed to maintain this
>> relationship.
>> Since all algorithms are compromises, different algorithms are
>> designed to optimize the desired result. e.g. one may be designed to
>> maintain sharpness and another color variance subtleties.
>>
>> If you think I am wrong, please explain in simple layman's language.
>
> In layman's language, if the data is not there the data is not there and
> all
> the tweaking in the universe will not put it there.
>
Of course there must be data there. My posting was, and still is directed to
maintaining the illusion of what is present on really big blowups.
If I want to add missing details I use PainterX.
--
Peter
| |
|
Paul Tallison wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 15:09:44 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-15 12:39:29 -0700, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> Jase Planck wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
>>>> you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
>>>> perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
>>>> ever be capable of.
>>> Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?
>> Apparently the World is his oyster!
>
> LOL!
>
> And yet ... they only have to test Photol[SLAP!]
Fuck off, troll.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 15:09:44 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-15 12:39:29 -0700, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> Jase Planck wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
>>>> you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
>>>> perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
>>>> ever be capable of.
>>> Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?
>> Apparently the World is his oyster!
>
> LOL!
>
> And yet ... they only have to test Photol[SLAP!]
Fuck off, troll.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
| |
|
Paul Tallison wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:06:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>> scribbled:
>>>
>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>> water...
>>>
>>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>> The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
>> 90 degree rotates.
>
> That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot. All other
> programs truncate image dimensions on 8x8-pixel JPG block boundaries during
> 90-degree rotations. So even their "lossless" rotations aren't truly
> lossless. Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation, the one in
> Photoline will retain its original 15x15 pixel size no matter the number of
> rotations.
You've never actually tried this in Photoshop, have you?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:06:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jplanck@withheld.net>
>>> scribbled:
>>>
>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>> water...
>>>
>>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>> The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
>> 90 degree rotates.
>
> That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot. All other
> programs truncate image dimensions on 8x8-pixel JPG block boundaries during
> 90-degree rotations. So even their "lossless" rotations aren't truly
> lossless. Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation, the one in
> Photoline will retain its original 15x15 pixel size no matter the number of
> rotations.
You've never actually tried this in Photoshop, have you?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
| |
|
nospam wrote:
> In article <853s051ucdccmqjt04ktrms2ql7htr01bg@4ax.com>, Paul Tallison
> <pt@antispam.org> wrote:
>
>>>> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
>>>> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
>>>> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
>>> uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
>> You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
>> fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
>
> it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
> if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.
>
>> But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.
>
> who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
> is needed.
Which is what sane people do...
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
> In article <853s051ucdccmqjt04ktrms2ql7htr01bg@4ax.com>, Paul Tallison
> <pt@antispam.org> wrote:
>
>>>> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
>>>> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
>>>> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
>>> uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
>> You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
>> fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
>
> it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
> if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.
>
>> But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.
>
> who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
> is needed.
Which is what sane people do...
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^--------------------------------------------------- ------------
| |
|
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a10f34f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <853s051ucdccmqjt04ktrms2ql7htr01bg@4ax.com>, Paul Tallison
>> <pt@antispam.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
>>>>> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image
>>>>> in
>>>>> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
>>>> uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
>>> You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel
>>> FINALLY
>>> fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
>>
>> it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
>> if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.
>>
>>> But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.
>>
>> who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
>> is needed.
>
> Which is what sane people do...
You don't have to be sane do you? :-0
Now you're starting to worry me. :)
news:4a10f34f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <853s051ucdccmqjt04ktrms2ql7htr01bg@4ax.com>, Paul Tallison
>> <pt@antispam.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
>>>>> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image
>>>>> in
>>>>> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
>>>> uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
>>> You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel
>>> FINALLY
>>> fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
>>
>> it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
>> if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.
>>
>>> But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.
>>
>> who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
>> is needed.
>
> Which is what sane people do...
You don't have to be sane do you? :-0
Now you're starting to worry me. :)
| |
|
| Pages (2): [ « ‹ 1 2] | |
| Previous Topic: | forgot shortcut |
| Next Topic: | Lightroom "not responding" with Mac 10.5.7 update? |
Adobe Photoshop plug-ins, tools, tutorials and user discussions