Re: Big cat really quite small

Alienjones wrote:
> In the words of Gordon Moat:
(snipped)

In the LATER words of Gordon Moat, as posted above, and in direct 
reference to our Douglas:
"I should point out that the original requests for me to view image
samples did NOT come directly from Douglas."
(Douglas claimed he had made the request.  He LIED.)
"I should also point out that the original claim that Douglas had was
that his algorithm did not LOSE any detail information. I am not sure
how or when that changed in the last year to a claim of adding or
increasing detail information; it is simply not possible regardless of
technology."
(Douglas claimed he could add "real detail", which of course Gordon
flatly and correctly refuted.)

Gordon then repeated:
"..I did NOT write the article for Douglas.."
and to clarify his point about Douglas not being able to do what he
said, he reinforced the salient point:
"Q: Did Douglas's images contain more detail information than the
original?"
"A: NO, ONLY MORE PIXELS."

The emphasis is mine, but those are direct quotes, and the whole thread
may be found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/th...
...so you can decide for yourself about Douglas and his lies.


Yes,
> This from a world recognized printing and photography specialist. Who do

> we believe?

Who indeed, Dougie.  I'll go with Gordon.  Which makes you a liar.

(O: