From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
bugbear <bugbear(a)> wrote:
[the slime is pissed]

> All that knowledge, detail and analysus, compared to your repetition
> of "do your own homework" making you look bad?

The slime cannot but hide it's sources and proof: it hasn't
got any.

> Go on - offer something other than assertions, and we'll take you seriously.

No chance --- not in this life or the next. The slime is
truly discredited.

From: David J Taylor on
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.
> Why not take a few minutes and tell us why you're so pissed off. It'll
> be empowering for you. Won't break your anonymity, but will start to get
> you less pissed off.
> But it will take a bit of cajones to start the process.
> --
> john mcwilliams

Far better simply not to reply, John.

From: David J Taylor on
> I have to admit, JPEG's are getting better. The low ISO JPEG's from the
> Olympus E-P1 and E-P2 are very good. Gone (I hope) are the days when
> were artifacted, dynamic-range restricted "last resorts."

I've been consistently pleased with the JPEGs I've been getting from both
my P&S and my DSLR cameras. But I will admit than on a small minority of
photos it would have been nice to have the raw available to see whether
the resulting image could have been improved.

My background may influence my method and expectations, though. I have
mainly taken slides in the past, so getting the exposure correct in the
camera was always important, and I have worked a lot with TV systems so a
little white clipping seems quite natural and correct to me.

Happy Christmas!


From: Ofnuts on
On 25/12/2009 00:00, NameHere wrote:

> NOTHING that I will post here will ever convince anyone of anything.

Bzzzt. Wrong. You've already convinced us you are a psycho.

For the rest, well, imagine Louis Pasteur going around and saying "Hey
folks, there is no spontaneous generation... You don't believe me? Do
your own homework!" or Einstein: "Hey, mass and energy are equivalent!
YDBM?DYOH!" or Turing: "I've got this nice little machine that can
emulate any computing machinery, provided you have infinite amounts of
time and tape. YDBM?DYOH!". Nobody would have ever heard about them...
From: Ofnuts on
On 26/12/2009 19:52, NameHere wrote:

> I'm not going to do some very very simple homework for you, that only YOU
> alone can do to prove it to yourself. Go download Photoline for free,
> Use it to make a small 21x13 raster-graphic image (non-8x8
> pixel blocks). Rotate by 90-degree increments as much as you want. No edge
> pixels will get truncated nor changed. Edit one pixel, save it, load it,
> resave it, load it again, as many times as you want. Watch that pixel never
> change. You have 30 days on the demo to carry out this "complex" task to
> prove to yourself what I cannot prove for you by posting my own examples.

Ok, so

- installed Photoline (version 15.54, freshly downloaded).
- using another program (Gimp), created a 257x149 (both primes) picture
with a diagonal pattern on it, and saved it as a low quality JPEG
- loaded it in Photoline. Did 4 times:
- rotate 90 degrees clockwise
- save
- close
- load again

So I normally should end up with an image identical to my original.
Well, the image from Photoline is now 256x144. It's missing quite a few
pixels... So, if my homework is wrong, where did I err?