TIFF vs JEPG
in [Scanners]
|
Prev: canon F914900
Next: Canon FB 630 U - Driver
From: Joe on 24 Apr 2006 08:14 > Don is willing to respond over and over with long winded words Yes he is long winded but he doesn't call people names and sticks only to his famous facts. As I said most of that is over my head and his messages always seem to rub some people the wrong way but I like that he doesn't respond to provocations and waste bandwidth. And believe you me your name calling is nothing compared to how others have tried to provoke him. So that's why I say give it a rest. Your heckling is doing nothing to him but is only annoying the rest of us. > Has Don ever once posted an image to back up any of his claims? Yes he has many times. Joe
From: Raphael Bustin on 24 Apr 2006 09:21 On 24 Apr 2006 05:14:22 -0700, "Joe" <Joe_Nanaimo(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >As I said most of that is over my head and his messages always seem to >rub some people the wrong way but I like that he doesn't respond to >provocations and waste bandwidth. Joe, are you kidding me? Don's posts are some of the longest you'll see anywhere on USENET. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. He responds point-by-point to any criticism, however slight, to explain with mountains of words that the fault can't possibly lie in his logic. What he hasn't shown, in this case, is a single example to back up his claims. Why do you suppose that is? How can you defend that? rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Bart van der Wolf on 24 Apr 2006 09:27 "Joe" <Joe_Nanaimo(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1145880862.747575.123410(a)y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> Don is willing to respond over and over with long winded >> words > > Yes he is long winded but he doesn't call people names > and sticks only to his famous facts. A lot of his "famous facts" are misinformation, presented as if they were facts. He may not call people names, but he does insult the intelligence of several of the regular posters to this newsgroup, which may become a bit irritating after several years. A kill-file does help in reducing the irritation, but that won't solve the misinformation issue for relative "newbies". Be glad that some are willing to challenge his false claims, otherwise the misinformation would rule in this newsgroup. > As I said most of that is over my head and his messages > always seem to rub some people the wrong way but I like > that he doesn't respond to provocations and waste bandwidth. He also doesn't present an example of his JPEGs "sticking out as a sore thumb" claim. Instead he claims anyone of a different opinion (even when based on examples) to be "factually incorrect", despite the evidence presented. Makes "some people" wonder why? Bart
From: Bart van der Wolf on 24 Apr 2006 09:51 "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gvqdnRDSu_gc3dHZRVn-vA(a)comcast.com... > > "Raphael Bustin" <foo(a)bar.com> wrote in message > news:sqbl4251p9lj47l60viahpte77b852cd8t(a)4ax.com... >> ... >> At 10:1 or 20:1 compression, artifacts will be apparent. > > Maybe. Maybe not. > > If I magnify the images I can see the artifacts. But when > I look at them at 1:1 magnification, I can't. And that's exacly how JPEG was intended to lose information for the benefit of more compression, while perceivably maintaining a decent output quality. Since human vision is more sensitive to luminance than chromaticity differences, the most sacrifices are made in the chroma detail. Nothing wrong with that, it's a trade-off by design. It also means that if image use is repurposed, it would be better to recreate a JPEG from the original source/data for that different purpose, rather that mutilate the JPEG any further. Cumulation of errors may become disturbingly visible quite fast when reprocessing and resaving is done with JPEGs. Whether the end result is adequate, is up to the user. Bart
From: Scott W on 24 Apr 2006 11:44
Joe wrote: > > Don is willing to respond over and over with long winded words > > Yes he is long winded but he doesn't call people names and sticks only > to his famous facts. To me it seems Don is being a bit dishonest in all of this. By now Don has surly repeated the test that Rafe I and have both done and has found the same thing we did, there is no visual difference between the original tiff and the jpeg saved at quality 12. It would have been a good idea had he don't this test before spewing out his opinion that the jpeg would stick out like a sore thumb, nothing like checking your "facts" before putting them out. But he did not take the time to do this, it takes about 2 minutes BTW. But instead of modifying his position to something a bit less extreme when Rafe showed a counter example he simply attacked Rafe's example. I would say Don has done anything but take the high road here, he is wrong and he knows is but he is willing at question others methods rather then admit he was wrong. Scott |