Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 09/19/2014 00:26 (09/19/2014 10:26) |
Message-ID | <mtmm1athqh2oaeti59euriqqfcurbqaieh@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (8h & 40m) |
SandmanFloyd's usage of 'reversible process' applies directly to image processing. You would understand this if you had had any training in a relevant subject. --
In article <bg8l1a97jt385u28t6d063kdfqmjtdch24@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
Not in the strictly technical sense in which Floyd was using the term.
Yes, in a very strictly technical sense. In every sense of the word.
I disagree with you.
Your agreement isn't necessary for facts to be true.Eric StevensSandman
Floyd disagrees with you.
Floyd will disagree with anything factual.Eric StevensSandman
Leaving out the question of native language, what experience or training have you had to qualify you to dispute Floyd and my use of the term "reversible process"?
Since you have been spouting irrelevant nonsense about thermodynamics, and Floyd thinks JPG compression is reversible, I am not interested in either of your incorrect views of the term. I am telling you what the correct usage and definition means when it pertains to the current topic - image processing.