iTunes 9.1.1 and artwork
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Woody on 18 May 2010 04:25 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > I want to know how you cannot understand that if your original image is > > 300x300 pixels and you were displaying it at (say) 500 x 500 pixels you > > beleive it could be true. > > Do you want to know that? Why do you want to know that? > > You've just asked me that question and I cannot understand it. > > I cannot understand your question for this reason: I do understand the > point you seem to assume I cannot understand. > > But what I've seen on coverflow is that no matter what the resolution of > the original, the coverflow version is worse. /No matter what/. > > <shrug> Don't ask me what's going on, it's just what I've seen. So have you tried it with a much lower resolution image? -- Woody
From: Rowland McDonnell on 18 May 2010 05:39 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > I want to know how you cannot understand that if your original image is > > > 300x300 pixels and you were displaying it at (say) 500 x 500 pixels you > > > beleive it could be true. > > > > Do you want to know that? Why do you want to know that? > > > > You've just asked me that question and I cannot understand it. > > > > I cannot understand your question for this reason: I do understand the > > point you seem to assume I cannot understand. > > > > But what I've seen on coverflow is that no matter what the resolution of > > the original, the coverflow version is worse. /No matter what/. > > > > <shrug> Don't ask me what's going on, it's just what I've seen. > > So have you tried it with a much lower resolution image? I see that you have contempuously ignored most of my post and all my queries posed to you - that's annoying and insulting of you. Why be so insulting, Woody? Why be so rude as to dismiss my queries like that while also expecting that I respond to yours, in a very rude and hypocritical fashion? Regarding your question to me - which I am addressing even though you were so ignorant and rude as to snip my queries to you without comment: "Much lower resolution range?" as a question makes no sense to me. I've noticed the problem I report when I slapped in low res images which ended up badly degraded, so I stuck high res scans in instead. They got degraded, but were okay to look at. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 18 May 2010 06:11
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > I want to know how you cannot understand that if your original image is > > > > 300x300 pixels and you were displaying it at (say) 500 x 500 pixels you > > > > beleive it could be true. > > > > > > Do you want to know that? Why do you want to know that? > > > > > > You've just asked me that question and I cannot understand it. > > > > > > I cannot understand your question for this reason: I do understand the > > > point you seem to assume I cannot understand. > > > > > > But what I've seen on coverflow is that no matter what the resolution of > > > the original, the coverflow version is worse. /No matter what/. > > > > > > <shrug> Don't ask me what's going on, it's just what I've seen. > > > > So have you tried it with a much lower resolution image? > > I see that you have contempuously ignored most of my post and all my > queries posed to you - that's annoying and insulting of you. OK, tell me what queries you are asking, I failed to see any. > "Much lower resolution range?" as a question makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to me either, which is why I didn't say that. > I've noticed the problem I report when I slapped in low res images which > ended up badly degraded, so I stuck high res scans in instead. They got > degraded, but were okay to look at. Now that is odd. If I put in low res images they look pretty much the same. -- Woody |