TIFF vs JEPG
in [Scanners]
|
Prev: canon F914900
Next: Canon FB 630 U - Driver
From: Bruce on 26 Apr 2006 14:56 Don, Because this is a public forum, some of us feel a responsibility to point it out when someone sounding knowledgeable is giving false information. This situation infuriates the people who have bothered to report their detailed honest observations because you respond by disrespecting them, claiming: 1. Their examples are inadequate 2. They are misrepresenting or being untruthful 3. They have not read the thread 4. That they are off topic If you are correct, all it would take is one example to show us a case where a single high quality setting JPG compression causes artifacts that "stand out like a soar thumb". Instead you dogmatically stick to your own theoretical assumptions with out either looking at images or investigating the fact that under the high quality JPG settings we are discussing the specific compression algorithms you object to are not in play. Instead of saying that it is obvious and you know better, but we are too blind, incompetent, or deceitful, get off your high horse and educate us. Show us the respect to present even one example. Or direct us to a reference that shows it. (and don't insult us with examples of 8x8 artifacts at low quality settings) Bruce Don wrote: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:07:01 -0400, "rafe b" <rafeb(a)foobar.com> wrote: > >>> I do not know who is right and who is wrong because all that is over my >>> head. >> Why make that assumption? Why not just try it and see? > > Because your insults have driven him away. > > Not to speak for Joe but since he appears to have gone back to > lurking, here's the key point you "accidentally" overlooked: > > --- start --- > On 25 Apr 2006 07:23:54 -0700, "Joe" <Joe_Nanaimo(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> But he does not go on and on trying to pick a fight and provoke someone >> who is ignoring him. To me that is a Good Thing. >> >> So even if what you say is true I like much more what he does to what >> his many critics do. > --- end --- > > That's what you should be answering because pretending to be all > reasonable all of a sudden is not fooling anyone. > > And I can see why. Sure, we all may have lashed out at one time or > another but reasonable people realize it, apologize and move on. > > They don't go on for weeks, in essence, having a flame war with > themselves. No wonder people are turned off and question credibility > of such protracted outbursts. > > Don.
From: Don on 27 Apr 2006 09:39
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:56:39 -0400, Bruce <XXbg2gX(a)XvirginiaX.Xedu> wrote: First of all, Bruce, you haven't answered any of my questions last time, but are instead just re-stating the same old *misinterpretations* I've already addressed. You may not have seen that message so let me draw your attention to: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:35:36 +0200, Don Please read that in full before responding. It covers everything you are raising here (again!). >Because this is a public forum, some of us feel a responsibility to >point it out when someone sounding knowledgeable is giving false >information. Absolutely! And that's done by providing *objective facts*! It's not done by calling people names and then trying (unsuccessfully) to taunt them (for weeks!) into a flame war. >This situation infuriates the people who have bothered to report their >detailed honest observations because you respond by disrespecting them, >claiming: >1. Their examples are inadequate No, I never said that! That's a prime example of people *reading into* what I wrote instead of *reading* what I wrote. Again: There isn't enough information to even make a judgment whether the examples are adequate or not! If that information is not supplied then the examples are unsuitable and meaningless. But you now jump the gun and *misinterpret* that to mean I'm somehow passing judgment on the examples. That's the problem! >2. They are misrepresenting or being untruthful Oh come on, Bruce! I asked you already to substantiated that but instead of facts you're just repeating baseless accusations. Again: !!!===> Please provide a *single* quote *in context* where I have accused anyone of lying. Be precise and specific. <===!!! Don't respond with what you think or feel. Facts, please! >3. They have not read the thread If they post "examples" violating virtually all conditions for an objective test I have posted then they have not read the thread. STOP! Before you misinterpret that as you did above, the conditions I posted are *not* etched in stone. Again: Are *not* etched in stone! If a reasonable person disagrees, then they challenge those conditions (in a civilized manner), or ask for clarification. A reasonable person does *not* ignore that (i.e. doesn't read the thread!!!) and posts unsuitable "examples" willy-nilly and then demands a response!? Not to mention all the abuse and insults. >4. That they are off topic Anyone who doesn't read the thread and then taunts people with abuse and insults is off topic. >If you are correct, all it would take is one example to show us a case >where a single high quality setting JPG compression causes artifacts >that "stand out like a soar thumb". Instead you dogmatically stick to >your own theoretical assumptions with out either looking at images or >investigating the fact that under the high quality JPG settings we are >discussing the specific compression algorithms you object to are not in >play. Do you really, seriously think - given the current environment i.e., *self-induced* feeding frenzy - that anything posted now would get even a semblance of a fair shake? To engage in that would be the ultimate exercise in futility! Given all the unprovoked abuse already, common sense tells us they have all their future insults on the ready just waiting to unleash more. That's why they're so frustrated because I'm not falling for their transparent baiting. And it's not only me who has seen through this charade and phony indignation but others like Joe, Golden, etc. >Instead of saying that it is obvious and you know better, but we are too >blind, incompetent, or deceitful, get off your high horse and educate >us. Show us the respect to present even one example. Or direct us to a >reference that shows it. (and don't insult us with examples of 8x8 >artifacts at low quality settings) Again, that shows you haven't read the message! The outlined procedure clearly said *all the way up to TIF*! So where do you get this "low quality" then? Again, read the messages *in full context*. Don't read selectively or cherry pick. Anyway, I've addressed all that above. You're just repeating unsubstantiated misinterpretations. Don. |