Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Floyd L. Davidson |
Date | 09/18/2014 08:43 (09/17/2014 22:43) |
Message-ID | <877g11whs0.fld@barrow.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Savageduck |
Followups | Savageduck (52m) > Floyd L. Davidson |
SavageduckYes it means exactly what I intended it to mean, which is very obvious to Eric, but not to you.
On 2014-09-18 05:05:12 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:Eric StevensSavageduck
Yes, I found that text, but I don't think that it means what you seem to think it means. He wasn't claiming that JPEG is fully reversible: everybody knows that it isn't.
It means exactly what he intended it to mean. You are putting words in his mouth when you become his advocate and say that he wasnâEUR(Tm)t claiming that the JPEG is fully reversible. That is your spin on what he didnâEUR(Tm)t say.
Actually that is not quite what I said. I said the sharpen is reversible. I did not say fully reversible, I did not say the "original image sharpness" would be fully restored.Eric Stevens
an alternative series of processes: 1. Sharpen image. 2. Save file as JPEG 3. Apply Gaussian blur to JPEG image to recover original image sharpness.
SavageduckOf course that is a total fabrication on your part. I said nothing about reversing a JPEG conversion.
However you challenged me to support my claim that he actually said that. Remember? Yo said yourself; âEURoeNo one who understood what we we trying to talk about would claim that a JPG conversion is a reversible process.âEUR âEUR¦but Floyd did, and Floyd knows what he is talking about, and he means what he says.
Again, that is extremely close but lets not suggest that the "sharpness of the original image" is *fully* recovered. In other words "sharpness of the original image" is not the same as "original sharpness".Eric Stevens
I understood him to be saying that inspite of the losses of a JPEG conversion, recovery of the original sharpness is possible if the original sharpening process used a high pass filter. That while saving as a JPEG will always cause losses, this will not prevent a Gaussian blur operation from recovering the sharpness of the original image.
SavageduckSo why do you insist on making absurd claims suggesting the meaning is other than precisely what is stated! Your argument on this is a total fabrication on your part. It's dishonest and lacks integrity.
Regardless of what you understood him to mean, what did he actually say? I doubt that Floyd would be please with anybody being so bold as to paraphrase his words. He does mean what he says doesnâEUR(Tm)t he?
I certainly donâEUR(Tm)t have the engineering background you and Floyd have, but I have a solid education in the sciencesSolid as a pile of sand?
and I have had years of experience in microbiology and lab work, all of which strangely led me down another career path solidly entrenched in investigation. One of the things I have been quite good at over the last 30+ years is remembering and pinning down inconstancies in statements. They can be revealing. So rather than put words in his mouth, let Floyd's words stand on their own without your interpretation.As every criminal trial attorney is aware, a typical police officer is very good at twisting words to insinuate guilt where none exists. You *create* the "inconstancies" to pin down.