Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 2014-09-21 03:29 (2014-09-21 13:29) |
| Message-ID | <9p9s1adobarshq7ike4u13n1smri549vkv@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Savageduck |
| Followups | Sandman (8h & 59m) > Eric Stevens |
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 17:59:44 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:
SavageduckMy goodness, you are getting grumpy.
On 2014-09-20 23:14:24 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:Eric StevensSavageduck
On 20 Sep 2014 16:09:13 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:SandmanEric Stevens
In article <877g0yqyfs.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:SandmanThe 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.Floyd L. Davidson
The JPEG lossy format doesn't allow the original image to be resurected, but it doesn't prevent reversing the sharpening.
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.
You are not qualified to voice an opinion.
He has a voice, he has an opinion. Why should he be disqualified from stating it? The last time I looked Usenet was a free speech forum, one of the last in existence.
The fact that he is entitled to voice an opinion does not make him qualified to do so.
You should be aware the Sandman has several times said things to people like "you are not qulified to discuss this. Please step out of the argument".
In this case he hasn't got the background or the training to understand the subject, let alone voice an informed opinion. To make matters worse, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, he denies that the subject has any relevance to imaging or image processing. Would you take advice on the workings of a GPS unit from someone who was an avowed believer in a flat earth? --
Regards,
Eric Stevens
2014-09-13-
