Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | PeterN |
Date | 09/22/2014 04:04 (09/21/2014 22:04) |
Message-ID | <lvo03q1128p@news6.newsguy.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | nospam |
Followups | nospam (2h & 37m) > PeterN |
nospamSince you htink I am hat dumb, in the interesting of communicationg, restate your "proof."
In article <lvn6m002g9b@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter@verizon.net> wrote:nospamPeterNnospamPeterNnospamPeterNnospamchris murphy and andrew rodney in that thread pointed out dan margulis' errors, and many, many other people do so in other venues. dan is often wrong.PeterN
And your documents to prove hime wrong are:
in the above link. duh. are you that stupid?
there are other references, but that one will suffice.PeterNnospam
It so happens that I often switch between LAB and RGB, and have never see a loss.
just because you can't see a difference doesn't mean there isn't a difference.
there's no visible loss with jpg at its highest setting, so according to you, jpeg is lossless.
idiot.
talking to yourself again. I ask for proof and you call me names. There is an obvious conclusion to be draw.
the obvious conclusion is that you are a blithering idiot.
the proof is in the link and has already been pointed out more than once. it's a simple thing to do. have you done it? no. instead, you spew nonsense, demonstrating just how much of an idiot you are.
You made a statement, I asked for proof, and you trun to pejoratives.
proof was provided.
if you aren't going to bother reading it (even before you asked) and doing what it describes, then my response is very appropriate and not pejorative at all.
No 132 "proof was provided."
it was.PeterNnospam
I knew tht answer before you posted it. Though posssibly you might have used "you wouldn't understand it."
you don't.