Floyd L. Davidson
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:

Savageduck
On 2014-09-18 05:05:12 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:

Eric Stevens
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.

Savageduck
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.

Floyd L. Davidson
Yes it means exactly what I intended it to mean, which is very obvious to Eric, but not to you.

There is no claim that JPEG is "fully reversible", or for that matter even partially reversible.

All the BS is *you not being able to understand*.

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.

Floyd L. Davidson
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.

Those are *your* claims! (In Eric's rendition.)

Savageduck
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.

Floyd L. Davidson
Of course that is a total fabrication on your part. I said nothing about reversing a JPEG conversion.

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.

Floyd L. Davidson
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".

Regardless, none of that is what I said.

Savageduck
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?

Floyd L. Davidson
So 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.

Savageduck
I certainly donâEUR(Tm)t have the engineering background you and Floyd have, but I have a solid education in the sciences

Floyd L. Davidson
Solid as a pile of sand?

Savageduck
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.

Floyd L. Davidson
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.