Sandman
In article <69jp1adfm872bdd91ot20kgl7lfavflok8@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
As I have already written, he said that the sharpening of the original image can be recovered after sharpening by HPS even after the image has been saved as a JPG.

Sandman
Which requires that the JPG compression is reversed as well. Floyd didn't realize this because he doesn't know how these things work.

Eric Stevens
Unfortunately he knows too much, compared with the rest of us.

Sandman
Hahaa, I am literally laughing out loud here. Floyd is one of the most ignorant troll's I've even come across.

Eric Stevens
I did wonder when he threw in that JPEG conversion but I finally he concluded that he was trying to make a point.

Sandman
The point he made is that image processing is a field he knows nothing about. But we all knew that already.

Eric Stevens
What I think Floyd was saying

Sandman
There's a lot of that from you; "What I think Floyd meant was", "What I think Floyd was saying was" and so on.

Eric Stevens
Image 1 --->Apply HPS settings --->Save as JPEG --->Reverse HPS gets you to the same place as Image 1 --->Save as JPEG

Sandman
No, it DOES NOT. You're as ignorant as Floyd, Eric.

1. HPS is, in the example, a pixel-altering process. 2. JPG compression is a pixel-altering process 3. Gaussian blur is a pixel-altering process.

3 can *NOT* reverse 1 with 2 in the middle. It is impossible. It can *counteract* it and the end result may be satisfactory, but number 1 has *NOT* been reversed. Pixels have been altered in the interrim that 3 can not take into account.

You guys are so ignorant about this that it's not even funny anymore.