May I know where to find these programs?
aicne...@gmail.com
I have 2 questions for the gurus:
A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
bit.
You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
as I can.
In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
resizing, and whatnot.
Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix
platform.
B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
pictures REMAIN small.
But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension,
such as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very
grainy.
Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.
If you know of such a program, please kindly tell me.
And yes, I am willing to buy it.
Thank you all for your help !!
Best regards.
Don Stauffer
> Hi !
>
> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
> them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
> bit.
>
> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
eliminate or reduce them.
>
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
snip
> Best regards.
In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.
philo
"M-M" <nospa...@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-7F473...@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
> In article
> <41306507-48c7-4116...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
>>
Correct.
What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
convert all of them to tif
then edit the tif
A very good free program is GIMP
Dave
>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>>
>
>
>Correct.
>
>What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>convert all of them to tif
>
>then edit the tif
>
A JPG converted to TIFF does not contain any more color space than a
jpg. Of course it is better editing a tif than editing a jpg, but the
tif/jpg stories are exaggerated like the Mac vs PC stories.
I keep my valuable photos in tif but only the real special one's.
You editing get done in PSD (or not?) So, what is the bloody
difference when converting a jpg to psd and saving it as jpg?
Unless of course there is a possibility of re-editing.
All that can happen to a jpg on a CD is the CD to pack up.
And of course, the tiff will also be goodbye.
I am sure people are jumping on the jpg/tiff wagon
without knowing anything about the engine this
wagon is running on.
Marvin
> Hi !
>
> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
> them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
> bit.
>
> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
> Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
> as I can.
>
> In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
> quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
> resizing, and whatnot.
>
> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>
> I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix
> platform.
Elements may be a better choice. There are more powerful
programs, but thay take longer to learn. You can find free
trial versions of both on the Web. And a free program
called Gimp is highkly recommended.
>
> B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL.
> Like 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
>
> Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
> pictures REMAIN small.
>
> But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension,
> such as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very
> grainy.
Scanning at too high a resolution doesn't catch any more
detail, as you've found. 250 to 300 pixels per inch is
enough for normal photographic ptints.
>
> Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
> pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.
The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
"happens" in movies and TV shows. And too much
interpolation can cause artifacts in the image. I use
interpolation only to double the number of pixels 2X in the
width and height of the image.
Alan Browne
<->
> If you are talking about halftone dots, only those from paper printed on
> a printing press. Still, many editors have a halftone filter to
> eliminate or reduce them.
Scan software usually has a "descreen" filter, if that's what you're
referring to. Results are somewhat variable. However if you have a
special screen measurement ruler you can determine the screen pitch and
enter that into the filter parameters for very good results.
<->
>
> In general I think you will find that either Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop
> Elements will meet your needs. Each has a lot of processes and filters
> for restoring old images, and especially clone tools.
I believe you have to do "descreening" at scan time.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
Alan Browne
> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but can't add
> any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only "happens" in movies and
> TV shows.
But only after the key player (pro/antagonist) says the magic words to
the image technician:
"Zoom in there, that's it, now __enhance that, will you__."
philo
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:N92dnfWOT-BUZZvX...@giganews.com...
> philo wrote:
>> "M-M" <nospa...@ny.more> wrote in message
>> news:nospam.m-m-7F473...@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>> In article
>>> <41306507-48c7-4116...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>> convert all of them to tif
>>
>> then edit the tif
>>
>> A very good free program is GIMP
>
> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>
> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>
>
I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos
GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...
so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it won't
make much difference <G>
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:N92dnfWOT-BUZZvX...@giganews.com...
>> philo wrote:
>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>>
>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>>
>>
>
> I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos
So do most photographers, but that isn't the point.
>
> GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...
>
> so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it won't
> make much difference <G>
I've also recently found that the GIMP (I have it on PC (WinXP, Linux)
and Mac OS X) is fairly useless at managing large collections of photos
or doing batch edits (say, take a directory worth of images and generate
all those photos at a different size with a light Unsharp mask. Or
simply convert a batch of photos from raw/DNG to JPG's for distro.)
If GIMP has such capability, it seems well hidden.
George Kerby
On 5/10/09 11:17 AM, in article
ufvd055e1d7n89cou...@isp5.newshosting.com, "Voivod"
<V...@vod.con> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> scribbled:
>
>> philo wrote:
>>> "M-M" <nospa...@ny.more> wrote in message
>>> news:nospam.m-m-7F473...@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>>> In article
>>>> <41306507-48c7-4116...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>>> Save them as TIFF or Photoshop documents- anything but jpg.
>>>
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>>> convert all of them to tif
>>>
>>> then edit the tif
>>>
>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>>
>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>
> A seriously fucking stupid idiot.
>
You are speaking with first-hand knowledge, obviously. You need to identify
your Inner Child and beat the shit out of him - for starters...
John McWilliams
Ray Fischer
>Hi !
>
>I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
>A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of
>them dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a
>bit.
"digitizing"
>You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
>figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
>As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>
>Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much
>as I can.
Then you'll want to use a high-quality drum scanner and avoid any
cheap flatbed scanners. The point being that it's silly to worry
about invisible information loss from cleaning up ld photos when
you've thrown away much of the information in the scanning process.
And your understanding of graphics programs is incorrect. Many
operations do not "throw away" any details. Rotation on 90 degree
increments, for example. Cleaning, by definition, throws away
information about the dirt.
>In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
>quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning,
>resizing, and whatnot.
>
>Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
Photoshop.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
ray
> Hi !
>
> I have 2 questions for the gurus:
>
> A. I am in the middle of digitalizing really old pictures, some of them
> dating back to the 19th century, and trying to "clean" them up a bit.
>
> You know, old pictures have those dot and such, and I am trying to
> figure out a way to clean them up without losing any quality.
>
> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
That's true of JPEG images which feature 'lossy' compression - if you use
a 'lossless' format such as tiff, that will not happen.
>
> Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much as
> I can.
>
> In other words, I am looking for a program which preserve as much
> quality as it can while allowing me to do cropping, cleaning, resizing,
> and whatnot.
Has much more to do with image format rather than software.
>
> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>
> I am willing to buy the program. Either Windows or Mac or Unix platform.
You can certainly buy if you want, but if that's what you want to do, I'd
certainly try GIMP first - it's free.
>
> B. Some of the old photographs are small, and I mean, REALLY SMALL. Like
> 1 inch by 1.5 inch !
>
> Even when I max out the pixel in the scanning process, those tiny
> pictures REMAIN small.
>
> But when I enlarge them, that is, resize them to bigger dimension, such
> as from 1in X 1.5in to 3in X 4.5in, the result became very grainy.
>
> Need to know if there is a program which can help me blow up small
> pictures while not resulting in coarse grained picture.
No. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If you want more
resolution, you'll need a higher resolution scanner.
philo
> philo wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:N92dnfWOT-BUZZvX...@giganews.com...
>>> philo wrote:
>
>>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>>>
>>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I beleive in only minimal editing of my photos
>
> So do most photographers, but that isn't the point.
>
>>
>> GIMP has probably 100 more fetures than I'll ever need...
>>
>> so if another application has 200 more fetures than I'll ever need, it
>> won't make much difference <G>
>
> I've also recently found that the GIMP (I have it on PC (WinXP, Linux)
> and Mac OS X) is fairly useless at managing large collections of photos
> or doing batch edits (say, take a directory worth of images and generate
> all those photos at a different size with a light Unsharp mask. Or
> simply convert a batch of photos from raw/DNG to JPG's for distro.)
>
> If GIMP has such capability, it seems well hidden.
>
As I mentioned I only use GIMP minimally as my needs are few.
I did a real quick look at the tutorial and see GIMP does have batch
capabilities...but the batch must be run from the command line...
so you are quite right there...a lot of GIMP's capabilites are hidden
and not easily usable.
I think that for many people though, the "easy to access" features will
fit their needs
Jase Planck
>Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
Photoline
It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
only program that actually does it and can make that claim. It also has one
of the most efficient and exacting dust and scratch removal tools of any
50+ editors that I've ever tested over the years. When used properly it
manages to accomplish this task without muting real details. I would use no
other program for this function. You can find it under the menu Filter >
Quality > Remove Dust/Scratches. While you can use the healing-brush (in PL
its called the "repairing brush"), its clone brush is sometimes better in
experienced hands. It has a real-time preview feature. The brush area
showing what is being cloned in your chosen level of transparency. You can
see exactly what you are going to overlay in the new position before you
actually do it. This cuts down on many hours of clone/view/undo/re-clone
restoration time. It also allows you to clone image data from any color
channel or combo of color channels in any of 4 color-spaces (RGB, CMYK,
HIS, or Lab). For example: you can clone the L (luminosity) or I
(intensity) channel to repair a texture only, leaving the colors alone.
It also has 34+ different adjustment layer types. In Photoline they call
them "working layers". One of them you can program in any way you like by
designing your own filter-matrix for it, saving them as your own favorite
adjustment-layer effects. You can also do lossless adjustments of any type
on any portion of your images. After choosing and creating an adjustment
layer, flood-fill it with black to make its K (gray mask) layer
transparent. Or alternately you can use any combos of the H(ue),
I(ntensity), or S(aturation) channels of a working-layer as your brush.
Then use a white brush, graduated or with transparency, on that
adjustment-layer to use that adjustment-layer's effect like any normal
editing brush. Remember too, these can be used on any color channel in any
color-space. Save your work-in-progress in Photoline's Document PLD format
so you can go back and resume right where you left off, readjusting any of
the working-layer's types or properties whenever you want.
For resizing images in either direction Photoline is also the only
full-featured editor that includes a Lanczos-8 interpolation option for the
most exacting resizings and rotations without creating unwanted artifacts
or softening of details. Not even Photoshop CS4 is capable of using these
advanced Lanczos algorithms to preserve image details.
Download the 30-day demo. Don't be fooled by its small 17 meg size. It's a
workhorse of efficient precision programming. Sloppy overpaid-programmer's
bloatware it is not. No other program offers as much control and is as rich
in so many professional editing features. There is no other program that is
better for image restoration. I've tried, used, and rejected all others,
they don't even come close.
Ray Fischer
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>
>Photoline
>
> www.pl32.net
>
>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
such a claim.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John J
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net>
> scribbled:
>
>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>
> water...
There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.
Jase Planck
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net>
>scribbled:
>
>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>
>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>water...
>
>Tell me another lie, thanks.
You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
John McWilliams
> John J <no...@droffats.ten> found these unused words:
> Then wouldn't you have to select this 'mode' to further save when done or
> pausing in your alterations?
>
> I'd rather just save a full lossless type and not have a 'mistake' in
> selecting 'quality', eh?
>
I'd rather have a loss in x-posting. fu set.
John McWilliams
Ray Fischer
> Voivod <V...@vod.con> wrote:
>> Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net>
>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>water...
>>
>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>
>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>aggressive than the original compression ratio.
But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
affect many nearby pixels.
But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
something.
> Truly lossless jpg editing
>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
Into the realm of marketing BS.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Jase Planck
>Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net> wrote:
>> Voivod <V...@vod.con> wrote:
>>> Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net>
>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>
>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>water...
>>>
>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>
>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>aggressive than the original compression ratio.
>
>But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
>affect many nearby pixels.
So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
know how it works. Keep trolling and guessing just to get attention, fool.
Those who use Photoline and have tested this lossless jpg resaving aspect
of the software know it works remarkably well. Anyone can test it to see
that it doesn't change a thing in a resaved block of jpg compression other
than the one pixel that you purposely change. I too was amazed when I first
tested how well it works. Photoline's lossless jpg routines also don't care
about original image sizes and will retain the full data on partial
jpg-block image boundaries when doing rotations. Unlike other software that
has to truncate all images boundaries on an even multiple of 8x8 pixel
blocks when doing rotations losslessly. But instead, you would rather talk
out of your ass than test it for yourself to find out that you are, and
always will be, a simpleton, a moron, and an incredibly stupid dead-wrong
internet troll.
>
>But even so - who really cares? Obessing over some imperceptable
>compression artifacts is something for people who have the time to
>waste and not for people who are interested in accomplishing
>something.
I don't obsess over it, trolls like you do. I'm just correcting all of your
trolls' blatant errors, lies, and misinformation on one minor aspect of
Photoline. A minor one (note all the other qualities of Photoline that none
of you commented on) that when added up to the full package makes it the
very best editor available. When someone has a CD or DVD of scanned
archival photos all saved in jpg compression, and they lost the originals
or they were destroyed in a disaster, then you bet your ass that you care
if you can retain that original image information in any editing format you
choose. Especially when the client wants them back in jpg format because
that's the only format that their meager skills and printing software can
deal with.
>
>> Truly lossless jpg editing
>>in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
>
>Into the realm of marketing BS.
No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
like you who have never had any clue.
Dave Cohen
good job of preserving detail when sensibly used and most of this
bickering is based on theory and not visually detectable deterioration.
I believe the 'voi' in Voivod is some sort of hidden code for 'void in
the nod' or something like that, but what do I know.
Dave Cohen
CJ
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
> <jpl...@withheld.net> scribbled:
>
> You're funny. Come back often!
Unfortunately, he/she/it does, always with a different ID but the same
BS story "photoline is the greatest thing since sex".
--
Cliff
Savageduck
> Voivod wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
>> <jpl...@withheld.net> scribbled:
>>
>>> On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> <Le Snip>
>>>> Into the realm of marketing BS.
>>>
>>> No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking
>>> about and never had any clue", just like all the other useless
>>> brain-dead trolls like you who have never had any clue.
>>
>> You're funny. Come back often!
>
> Unfortunately, he/she/it does, always with a different ID but the same
> BS story "photoline is the greatest thing since sex".
You are correct. "Jase Plank" is the easily identified (though he
doesn't think so) P&S TROLL.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Jase Planck
>On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:55:34 -0500, Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net>
>Resorting to insults won't sell the vaporware you're trying to shill
>for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...
Photoline has been at the forefront of image editing software since 1995,
it is anything but "vaporware". See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors#List The
authors of Photoline even invented HDR techniques many years before Adobe
outright stole and then renamed their "combine images" technique (original
Photoline tool-name, translated from German) to HDR.
But because of idiot trolls and shills like you trying to pawn off less
capable software all these years to all the other fool-following idiots
online; only the more intelligent, independent, and more creative few know
of and use Photoline religiously. We like it that way. It's meant for the
independent creative artists -- unlike you. People who know what they are
doing don't have to depend on a thousand monkey-see tutorials online to
know how to use Photoline properly. This way jerks like you aren't in the
top 10 of graphic artists and you can only do what everyone else has
already done before. I'd change careers if I had to claim to like the
less-capable Photoshop because of all the available monkey-do tutorials and
books written on how to use it. I'd at least change software if I knew that
idiots like you knew how to use Photoline. Photoline is for people who know
how to think and reason for themselves. It's not for brain-dead
corporate-led sheep and uncreative monkey-mimicking internet trolls.
Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
ever be capable of.
Savageduck
Ray & John,
I am quite surprised that you haven't taken the time to check the
"Jase Plank" headers and note that he is none other than our resident
P&S TROLL.
So I would at this point discount all he has used to reel in everybody
in this thread.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Jase Planck
And yet, even if I was, it doesn't discount one thing I said. Only a real
troll would try to use your lame tactic.
Savageduck
It is time to don a fresh sock, the one you are currently wearing reeks
of TROLL.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
aicne...@gmail.com
There is one thing that hinders me from using drum scanner --- the
"Wet Mounting" method.
The old pictures are very old, some dated 19th century. I just don't
know what effect the fluid might do to the already fragile paper.
On May 10, 10:37 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net> wrote:
>>> Voivod <V...@vod.con> wrote:
>>>> Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net>
>>>>>It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>>only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>>
>>>>Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>>>water...
>>>>
>>>>Tell me another lie, thanks.
>>>
>>>You really shouldn't comment on something that you know nothing about.
>>>Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
>>>saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
>>>resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
>>>intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss. Those
>>>unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
>>>algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
>>>aggressive than the original compression ratio.
>>
>>But JPEG compresses blocks of pixels so a single pixel change will
>>affect many nearby pixels.
>
>So speaks someone who has never tested it in Photoline and doesn't even
>know how it works.
Written like an idiot who doesn't even know how JPEG compression works.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>for. It'll amuse me, but that won't put coin in your pocket...
>
>Photoline has been at the forefront of image editing software since 1995,
Which is why no major retailer sells it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ron Hunter
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> scribbled:
>
>> philo wrote:
>>> "M-M" <nospa...@ny.more> wrote in message
>>> news:nospam.m-m-7F473...@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>>>> In article
>>>> <41306507-48c7-4116...@z23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, every time we crop a picture, rotate it, or clean
>>>>> it, most graphic programs actually throw away a bit of the details. As
>>>>> the cropping, cleaning, resizing increases, more details are lost.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>> What I usually do is keep all my original jpg's
>>> convert all of them to tif
>>>
>>> then edit the tif
>>>
>>> A very good free program is GIMP
>> Yes indeed and you get what you pay for.
>
>
>> A much better paid for program is PS Elements and PS CS3/4.
>
>
For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
equal capability, but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
significant advantage.
nospam
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
> equal capability,
not even remotely true.
> but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
> significant advantage.
yes, gimp is free.
Alan Browne
> For the technical aspects they (GIMP and PS CS/4) are pretty much of
> equal capability, but the price/performance issue gives GIMP a really
> significant advantage.
An infinite advantage, as it's free.
Other than that it's not all that useful to me. The Linux v. I have
won't open a DNG properly. The Mac version will but neither used to
batch process files from the UI - or in a useful manner from the CL.
I'll stick with CS3 - heck, I'll upgrade to CS4 for $200.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Hachiroku
> Marvin wrote:
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but can't add
>> any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only "happens" in movies and
>> TV shows.
>
> But only after the key player (pro/antagonist) says the magic words to
> the image technician:
>
> "Zoom in there, that's it, now __enhance that, will you__."
Really. Always wanted a copy of that software.
DRS
news:FGCNl.348$5F2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
> aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
And the military. The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
imagry.
John J
> "Marvin" <phys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:FGCNl.348$5F2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>> aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>
> And the military.
Myth!
> The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
> that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
> imagry.
Nonsense. Most forms in our messy world cannot be literally reduced to
fractals, and thereby be the basis of up-scaling.
That's the kind of BS that Genuine Fractals tried to infer with their
product name. At the time popular publications were all excited by chaos
theory, fractals, all that.
It is over.
The only thing one can extrapolate is a perfectly decidable,
deterministic form's perfect base. Generally, our world, especially that
that you imagine the military to work in, is far too messy.
See recent work from, for example, Stephen Wolfram.
Martin Brown
> "Marvin" <phys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:FGCNl.348$5F2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>> aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>
> And the military.
And astronomers. But the magic words are point spread function and
deconvolution. Blind deconvolution if you are totally stuck. You can
only get a modest improvement of linear resolution in the very best
cases with excellent signal to noise data and you pay for it with
artefacts that were not actually present. It works best for point
sources on a mostly black background which belies its heritage. An
example is at:
http://www.astrovid.com/technical_documents/ASTROART%20SOFTWARE.pdf
However, if you need to read a numberplate or recognise a face that
small additional gain in fine detail can be significant. The problem is
usually couched in terms of finding a trial model of the world that when
measured with your imperfect imaging system would give the same blurred
image as you have actually observed (to within the noise).
There a lot of images that would fit this criterion so to choose a
representative one an additional constraint of either entropy or
smoothness is used to encourage good behaviour in the algorithm.
Software based on this approach was used to correct the early myopic
blurred Hubble space telescope images and determine the formulation of
COSTAR.
> The magic word is fractals but I don't have the maths to
> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the principle
> that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to enhance satellite
> imagry.
Fractals allow you to insert plausible fake detail at higher resolutions
that don't look out of place because it is self similar to the actual
image data. But it cannot get you magical results whatever the marketing
men may want to have you believe.
Regards,
Martin Brown
AH#2
http://www.americaswonderlands.com/image_resizing.htm
There are deeper explorations of non-deterministic (stochastic
resampling) methods. One could spend years at it.
Short answer - Q-Image is pretty good.
Kabuki
"John J" <no...@droffats.ten> wrote in message
news:1pednb3LOZUY8JDX...@supernews.com...
> DRS wrote:
>> "Marvin" <phys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:FGCNl.348$5F2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>>> aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>>
>> And the military.
>
> Myth!
>
interpolation is no longer necessary as the Israelis have developed a better
way to capture detail in the original
and applications other than military are proving quite useful
...................................................................................................
The recent development in Synthetic Aperture Radar
(SAR) technology has made possible a much higher resolution to be
achieved using a small antenna. The advantages of SAR have been
detailed in many books and journals, which record the concrete proof
and support behind the blossoming of SAR systems in worldwide [2].
Among them includes fine resolution achievable that made headline
when the technique first came to light, often credited to Carl Wiley of
Goodyear Aerospace in 1951 [3]. SAR has been shown to be very useful
over a wide range of applications, including high resolution geological
and topological mapping, snow monitoring [4], military surveillance,
http://ceta.mit.edu/pierb/pierb01/18.07102301.pdf
http://www.sandia.gov/radar/whatis.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/radar/sircxsar/petra2.html
Peter
news:4a0d6410$0$24369$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
My possibly overly simplistic understanding is that each pixel has a
relationship to its surrounding pixels, forming the image. If the number of
pixels is increased while maintaining this relationship you can have a
larger image without pixelization. The algorithms in different software
packages are designed to maintain this relationship.
Since all algorithms are compromises, different algorithms are designed to
optimize the desired result. e.g. one may be designed to maintain sharpness
and another color variance subtleties.
If you think I am wrong, please explain in simple layman's language.
--
Peter
If you can't explain it to a young child, you don't fully understand what
you are talking about. - Attributed to Einstein.
Bob Larter
>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>
> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
> water...
>
> Tell me another lie, thanks.
The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
90 degree rotates.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod <V...@vod.con> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net>
>> scribbled:
>>
>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>> water...
>>
>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>
> Photoline compares your edited data against the original image jpg data
> saved in memory. The only data that is changed from the original image when
> resaved in jpg format are your edited pixels. The original jpg data remains
> intact in your new edited image and there is no further loss.
That's very impressive, but it's not "completely lossless".
> Those
> unedited portions of your image are not run through the jpg compression
> algorithm again, unless you purposely choose a jpg compression much more
> aggressive than the original compression ratio. Truly lossless jpg editing
> in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections, those
> ancient perks that all other editors want to pride themselves on. I know
> you don't comprehend all this but others with more mental acuity and
> editing experience than you will find this interesting and important.
Oh please. It's not anywhere near as special as you think. You can avoid
the whole problem in any image editor by simply using a non-lossy file
format instead of JPEG, which is what actual experts do.
J. Clarke
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a0d6410$0$24369$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "Marvin" <phys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:FGCNl.348$5F2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net
>>> aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> The software I've mentioned can interpolate more pixels, but
>>> can't add any resolution. Zooming in to more detail only
>>> "happens" in movies and TV shows.
>>
>> And the military. The magic word is fractals but I don't have the
>> maths to
>> know precisely how they do it. But I do know they're using the
>> principle that you can enlarge fractals without losing detail to
>> enhance satellite imagry.
>>
>
>
> My possibly overly simplistic understanding is that each pixel has a
> relationship to its surrounding pixels, forming the image. If the
> number of pixels is increased while maintaining this relationship you
> can have a larger image without pixelization.
You can eliminate pixelization but what you get instead is blur. If there's
no data there then there's no way to recover it. Sure, you can do some
tweaking until you get something that looks like you've recovered data but
what you've really done is painted in your own preconceptions the hard way.
> The algorithms in
> different software packages are designed to maintain this
> relationship.
> Since all algorithms are compromises, different algorithms are
> designed to optimize the desired result. e.g. one may be designed to
> maintain sharpness and another color variance subtleties.
>
> If you think I am wrong, please explain in simple layman's language.
In layman's language, if the data is not there the data is not there and all
the tweaking in the universe will not put it there.
Bob Larter
> On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net> wrote:
>>> Truly lossless jpg editing
>>> in Photoline goes far beyond simple rotations and reflections,
>
> No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking about
> and never had any clue", just like all the other useless brain-dead trolls
> like you who have never had any clue.
You get this kind of reaction a lot, don't you? Have you ever considered
the possibility that it's not everyone else's problem, but yours?
Bob Larter
> Voivod wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
>> <jpl...@withheld.net> scribbled:
>>> No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking
>>> about and never had any clue", just like all the other useless
>>> brain-dead trolls like you who have never had any clue.
>> You're funny. Come back often!
>
> Unfortunately, he/she/it does, always with a different ID but the same
> BS story "photoline is the greatest thing since sex".
Please consider tossing him into alt.usenet.kooks, where he'd be very
on-topic. ;^)
Bob Larter
[...]
> Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
> you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
> perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
> ever be capable of.
Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?
Bob Larter
> On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>>>> Photoline
>>>>
>>>> www.pl32.net
>>>>
>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files,
>>>> the
>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>
>>> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
>>> such a claim.
>>>
>> Hah.
>
> Ray & John,
>
> I am quite surprised that you haven't taken the time to check the "Jase
> Plank" headers and note that he is none other than our resident P&S TROLL.
I beg to differ. I think he's a net-kook, rather than a troll.
Savageduck
> Jase Planck wrote:
> [...]
>> Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
>> you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
>> perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
>> ever be capable of.
>
> Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?
Apparently the World is his oyster!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), aicne...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there such program out there? If so, please tell me.
>>>>> Photoline
>>>>>
>>>>> www.pl32.net
>>>>>
>>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>>>
>>>> Most likely because they're the only ones dishonest enough, to make
>>>> such a claim.
>>>>
>>> Hah.
>>
>> Ray & John,
>>
>> I am quite surprised that you haven't taken the time to check the
>> "Jase Plank" headers and note that he is none other than our resident
>> P&S TROLL.
>
> I beg to differ. I think he's a net-kook, rather than a troll.
Kooky Troll!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Paul Tallison
LOL!
And yet ... they only have to test Photoline's lossless JPG editing feature
for themselves to find out that their contradictory and outdated beliefs
are wrong. Not to mention that it proves, without a doubt, that they truly
are the foolish blind-following morons as was originally claimed. The one
they call the "troll" is the only one who has been correct all along.
You unintelligent and ignorant idiot newsgroup-living trolls are just way
too funny, and so easy to reveal for what you truly are.
Paul Tallison
wrote:
>Voivod wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net>
>> scribbled:
>>
>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>
>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>> water...
>>
>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>
>The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
>90 degree rotates.
That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot. All other
programs truncate image dimensions on 8x8-pixel JPG block boundaries during
90-degree rotations. So even their "lossless" rotations aren't truly
lossless. Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation, the one in
Photoline will retain its original 15x15 pixel size no matter the number of
rotations. All other "lossless" editors throw away any pixel-border
proportions that won't fit into dimensions that aren't multiples of 8. If
you are designing toolbar-icons for software GUIs or your composition
depends on that small branch or water-highlight hanging at the edge, you're
screwed if you do any rotation in Photoshop. It just throws it away and you
remain clueless as to why.
Summation: You and all others are ignorant idiot brand-whore trolls with
little to no real-life experience.
Case closed.
nospam
<p...@antispam.org> wrote:
> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
Bob Larter
> CJ wrote:
>> Voivod wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
>>> <jpl...@withheld.net> scribbled:
> [...]
>>>> No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking
>>>> about and never had any clue", just like all the other useless
>>>> brain-dead trolls like you who have never had any clue.
>>> You're funny. Come back often!
>>
>> Unfortunately, he/she/it does, always with a different ID but the same
>> BS story "photoline is the greatest thing since sex".
>
> Please consider tossing him into alt.usenet.kooks, where he'd be very
> on-topic. ;^)
Disregard that, I suck cocks.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
----^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
John McWilliams
>
> That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot.
Says the very experienced idiot.
Savageduck
Hi,
Welcome back. fresh sock I see.
... and you must be getting desperate for attention turning this next
attempt into a massive X-post! by adding the following;
alt.graphics.photoshop,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,microsoft.public.design.gallery
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
Bob says kook, Sav says Troll, others say troll.
I say pest.
--
John McWilliams
Savageduck
kook, troll, pest!
I think we all agree.
It is a good thing his M.O. is solid. Identifiation is so easy.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Paul Tallison
You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly. Not that I
care. I wouldn't be foolish enough to financially support such lame-assed
programming just because someone else claims to use it. They can't even
include Lanczos resampling algorithms in it. Even freeware IrfanView is
better than Photoshop on that account.
How sad they are. Just as sad as all those who blindly and foolishly
support them all these years.
nospam
<p...@antispam.org> wrote:
> >> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
> >> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
> >> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
> >
> >uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
>
> You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel FINALLY
> fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.
> But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.
who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
is needed.
John McWilliams
>
> How sad they are. Just as sad as all those who blindly and foolishly
> support them all these years.
So how many shares of Adobe have you shorted, shorty?
removed: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop, alt.graphics.photoshop,
microsoft.public.design.gallery
John McWilliams
Identification, too! :)
The only one I disagree with is an upper case T in troll. That should be
reserved for those who are actually clever.
--
john mcwilliam s
Peter
news:gukfs...@news3.newsguy.com...
Of course there must be data there. My posting was, and still is directed to
maintaining the illusion of what is present on really big blowups.
If I want to add missing details I use PainterX.
--
Peter
Savageduck
You might have noticed that I have made the appropriate correction.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
I did, and thanks. I was just spouting off in general, as I regard a
real Troll a work of genius. Sadly, they've left the building several
years ago.
--
John McWilliams
Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre?
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> CJ wrote:
>>> Voivod wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
>>>> <jpl...@withheld.net> scribbled:
>> [...]
>>>>> No, into the realm of "you don't know what the hell you are talking
>>>>> about and never had any clue", just like all the other useless
>>>>> brain-dead trolls like you who have never had any clue.
>>>> You're funny. Come back often!
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, he/she/it does, always with a different ID but the same
>>> BS story "photoline is the greatest thing since sex".
>>
>> Please consider tossing him into alt.usenet.kooks, where he'd be very
>> on-topic. ;^)
>
> Disregard that, I suck cocks.
Oh cute, my impersonator is back again. I thought you'd wimped out?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 15:09:44 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-15 12:39:29 -0700, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> Jase Planck wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls like you say "baaaaaa" a lot, don't
>>>> you. You have it down pat. Say it again. You do it so well. You have
>>>> perfected the art of saying "baaaaaa". Unfortunately it's all that you'll
>>>> ever be capable of.
>>> Does anyone know which newsgroup is this kook's 'home' group?
>> Apparently the World is his oyster!
>
> LOL!
>
Fuck off, troll.
Bob Larter
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:06:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Voivod wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck <jpl...@withheld.net>
>>> scribbled:
>>>
>>>> It allows for completely lossless editing and resaving of JPG files, the
>>>> only program that actually does it and can make that claim.
>>> Losslessly resaving in a lossy format? Next you'll be walking on
>>> water...
>>>
>>> Tell me another lie, thanks.
>> The only possible completely lossless operations I know of on JPEGs are
>> 90 degree rotates.
>
> That's because you're an ignorant and inexperienced idiot. All other
> programs truncate image dimensions on 8x8-pixel JPG block boundaries during
> 90-degree rotations. So even their "lossless" rotations aren't truly
> lossless. Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image in
> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation, the one in
> Photoline will retain its original 15x15 pixel size no matter the number of
> rotations.
You've never actually tried this in Photoshop, have you?
Bob Larter
Which is what sane people do...
whisky-dave
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a10f34f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <853s051ucdccmqjt0...@4ax.com>, Paul Tallison
>> <p...@antispam.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
>>>>> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image
>>>>> in
>>>>> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
>>>> uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
>>> You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel
>>> FINALLY
>>> fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
>>
>> it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
>> if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.
>>
>>> But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.
>>
>> who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
>> is needed.
>
> Which is what sane people do...
You don't have to be sane do you? :-0
Now you're starting to worry me. :)