TIFF vs JEPG
in [Scanners]
|
Prev: canon F914900
Next: Canon FB 630 U - Driver
From: Don on 16 Apr 2006 07:05 On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:50:00 -0400, Raphael Bustin <foo(a)bar.com> wrote: >>There are far too many unknowns here i.e. it appears you've done two >>separate scans which, sort of, defies the whole purpose. > >What gave you that idea, Don? This: --- start --- On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:31:07 -0400, Raphael Bustin <foo(a)bar.com> wrote: >These are each 1000 x 1000 pixel crops straight off >the scanner. --- end --- The "these" and "straight off the scanner" suggest *two scans*. One scan saved as JPG and the other scan saved as TIFF. For the purposes of this test, that's virtually useless because of misalignment. >>So, before >>downloading them and then digress and waste time, we need to clearly >>define the testing environment. > >Try not wasting our time by making unfounded >assumptions about what you're looking at. What assumptions? I'm asking for *clarification* exactly because I do *not* want to make any assumptions! If you were clear, precise and methodical in your submission (as I was in my message!) there would be no ambiguity. I was genuinely trying to avoid exactly these pointless digressions and waste of time - but apparently in vain... :-( >This is a scan snippet straight off the scanner. Same >scan snippet in both cases, saved two different >ways (ie., as TIF in one case and as JPG in the other.) Saved from where? From the scanner program or from an editor later? The above again seems to suggest two scans. Has the crop been done in scanner software or in an image editor (some versions of Photoshop "clip" bit depth). Etc. Etc. Etc... All those are examples of important factors with direct *consequences* on the testing procedure which is why establishing the proper testing environment is both essential and crucial! If you don't (or refuse to) understand that then there's very little hope of me proving anything to you. >I said as much when I presented these images. Why are >you playing stupid? Because the results disprove your >own "expert" opinions? Here we go... Insults... You know very well by now that I don't respond in kind. You will also note (or maybe not?) that I very patiently and precisely specified the environment for an objective test. If you had any *legitimate* objections to that you would've addressed them. You touchy impatience seems to suggest otherwise. And your eagerness to resort to insults confirms it. Don.
From: Don on 16 Apr 2006 07:05 On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 16:46:32 -0400, "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >And as Don was the first to say, I'm right too for myself and >people sharing my goals. > >If you're going to put many hours into scanning - figure out >which goals you have, and what meets your needs. Then invest the >right amount of time and megabytes to meet them. That's all I'm saying! However, the important thing (and my point) is to make those decisions based on reliable facts. And this goes for everything, from a casual highly compressed JPG to a meticulous drum scan, even though the actual relevant facts in each individual case may be different. Don.
From: Don on 16 Apr 2006 07:05 On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:07:15 -0400, Raphael Bustin <foo(a)bar.com> wrote: >>If I ever get a job as director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art >>and need a good man to do scanning, Don is someone I would want >>to call. I would know that the scans he did are as perfect as >>one could make them. > >Hahaha. Don would be too busy "disassembling" the code for >the scanner driver and complaining about the incompetent fools >that designed it. So, according to you "ignorance is bliss"? In other words, Don knows too much, and that's bad. Huh? Since when has knowing the subject and the software comprehensively become a "bad thing"? That attitude may explain your other difficulties re testing. Don.
From: Don on 16 Apr 2006 07:05 On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 02:03:47 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf(a)no.spam> wrote: >History tells that that might be a little too much to ask for ... ;-) Actually, it tells exactly the opposite. But you always did have trouble with facts and reality. History, as you again just affirmed above, also tells that you're still pathologically obsessed with Don's messages. Gee! My own personal stalker! I'm flattered! ;o) And all that caused by your stewing and pining for your lovely Ed after he was chased away by hordes of angry "VueScam" users! Don.
From: Noons on 16 Apr 2006 07:47
Raphael Bustin wrote: > Child, right-click on the image. Your browser > tells you the size, in pixels. Or suck it into your > image editor and get the info that way. That tells me the pixels of the CURRENT image, not how much of a crop it is of whatever the original was. It would REALLY help if you READ what I wrote instead of jumping into stupid, childish and misplaced paroquialism. > You whined that you didn't know the magnification. > I showed you that the information was there and > that you were just playing dumb. No, you're just demonstrating you are yet another blithering idiot too busy with the size of his own head to even read. Size of an image is NOT the magnification of the image, you fool. Got it or do you need smaller words? > The crop in question is 0.25" x 0.25" of a scan of > a slide at 4000 dpi, at the scan resolution. Says who? Where is the original for comparison? What, I'm supposed to believe whatever you say because "you posted it on the Internet"? Get lost. > Read the text on the page that those images > came from. It's all spelled out in detail. No. You can shove the text where the sun doesn't shine. And those images didn't come from any page: you published an URL for an IMAGE, not a PAGE. There is a difference, although I suspect you're too much of a fool to notice... > You know how to peel back a URL, don't you, > Mr. Noons? You understand that, given this URL -- > > <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/chrome_41_jpg.jpg> > > there's likely to be more of the same here? Yes, I do know and have known for a lot longer than you have. However, like I said before: I couldn't give a damn. You put the URL forward as an example of something it isn't. It's YOUR task to provide something that makes sense if you want to use it in an argument. Not fishing for clicks to your site. Got it? > Why does the crop size matter? Because it defines the magnification, you bumbling idiot. > Why does the magnification matter? Because you can't see ANY diference at low magnifications like I said at the very start, you bumbling fool. > I've showed the > same exact image, saved as TIF and then > as JPG, and asked you to point out the > differences. And I told you that without putting forward the exact content of the original and the crop size and hence the magnification, it's useless to provide such a picture. Which part of it didn't you understand? > You can't, so you evade. I have proved that you're nothing but yet another bumbling idiot peddling about for clicks to his site and incapable of sustaining ANY argument without resorting to childishness and utter stupidity. I don't feel like navigatring your site for any information. If anything, I'd be misinformed from what I've seen here so far. If you want to enter a text discussion with "proof", I suggest you put forward some good argumentation instead of plugs. Otherwise you might be shown for the fool you are. Which basically boils down to: I don't have time to waste with fools like you. Good bye. |