Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 09/20/2014 18:09 (09/20/2014 18:09) |
| Message-ID | <slrnm1ra5j.qtr.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (7h & 5m) > Sandman |
In article <877g0yqyfs.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
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.SandmanFloyd L. Davidson
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.
The JPEG lossy format doesn't allow the original image to be resurected, but it doesn't prevent reversing the sharpening.
I just don't understand this. You know we make fun of your antique software all the time, and your only response is to lie down on the floor flailing and claiming we're jealous of what we're making fun of? This is seriously the best you can do?Floyd L. DavidsonThat is exactly the point. It just is not reversible.Sandman
That is, if you're using antique software and know nothing about modern software, in which case everything is 100% reversible. But hey, that's life on a 486 PC running ancient linux.
Here we go again, poor Sandman is jealous of the equipment I use. Apparently also jealous of the software too.
-- Sandman[.net]
09/13/2014-
