Re: Big cat really quite small

Mark Thomas wrote:
> 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:

There is a moot point about a file containing more information or detail 
when it's larger. He and you are confusing image elements with data. 
Silicon Graphics (the pioneers of digital imaging) describe more data in 
an image file as more detail in a graphic.

If there were no more detail, it would be impossible to make a print any 
larger than it's original size. The bit you fail (as usual) to 
comprehend is the descriptions I use are not mine but those of the 
inventors of digital images.

Who do we believe? A runaway hiding under an assumed name or the 
inventors (Silicon Graphics) of digital images?

Very clearly you and a bunch of no hopers with no qualifications to make 
the calls you do, have embarked on a terribly wrongful campaign to 
discredit me when highly qualified people who have been given the 
information about my enlargements with no requirement to do anything but 
tell it like it is... Have all agreed it (was in 2005) a revolution in 
digital imagery.

You can continue to clutch at straws and try to make out I lied by 
saying the process "adds detail". To someone with no education in the 
field of Science (you) I suppose the fact the people were stoned in the 
dark ages for suggesting the world was round is lost on you.

Fact one.
a 10 pixel x 10 pixel image will yield only 100 dots of detail.

Fact two.
A 100 pixel x 100 pixel image will yield 1000 dots of detail.

If I add 90 pixels to a 100 pixel image, I am increasing the detail of 
the image by 90%.

Many time in the past you have gotten far too many things wrong and told 
far too many lies about me to let you get away with it here.

You have stalked me since 2004. Using classic on-line bullying tactics 
you obviously learned in the school ground. Stop it. You are wrong in 
what you say, do and how you behave. If you don't stop it now, I'll take 
the second step with your ISP and get a court order to restrain you. How 
will that go down with your new job?

You've been warned. Ignore it at your peril.