"Alienjones" <Alienjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g0iehk$sgc$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Only because it doesn't substantiate your fraudulent claims.
"Information"
and "detail" are not the same thing.
He and you are confusing image elements with data.
Wouldn't image elements also be data ??
> Silicon Graphics (the pioneers of digital imaging) describe more data in
an
> image file as more detail in a graphic.
What does Slicon Graphics have to do with your wild claims ??
>
> If there were no more detail, it would be impossible to make a print any
> larger than it's original size.
Bull**** ! As you well know you can enlarge a digital print but you
cannot
increase the detail in the enlargment beyond the detail in the original
photo.
> The bit you fail (as usual) to comprehend is the descriptions I use are
not
> mine but those of the inventors of digital images.
YOU made the ridiculous claims that YOUR program that YOU INVENTED could
do
all this. My what a short and selective memory yu have, Douglas.
>
> Who do we believe?
Definitely not a liar and fraund like you, Douglas.
A runaway hiding under an assumed name or the
> inventors (Silicon Graphics) of digital images?
Can you explain how Silicon Graphics got involved in this ? I don't
remember them making any of these claims, only you.
>
> 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.
There goes your memory problem again. We remember things a little bit
differently:
I would believe Gordon as well. Let's see what he has to say here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/f0bc2af22e84217b/
Douglas has NEVER proven what he claims (namely that he can "add real
detail" and that he can enlarge a 6x4 print up to 36x24 and actually
INCREASE the detail level to 720 ppi (yes, his words!) in the process..
He has been caught out lying on numerous occasions, using falsified
images. Here's just one example:
http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples
And what about this:
I would also believe this guy. A quote from and old post:
"Colin D:
I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the
smoothness and foreground definition with my setup here, and
attributed that to your magic algorithm. Little did I realize
that it was stitched, and I guess you could say that you stitched
me up as well.
To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I
am sorely pissed off at being used to sup****t your 'algorithm'
with a misrepresented print.
If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.
In utter disgust,
Colin D."
Or this:
" Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo
From: Colin_D <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300
Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use)
Declaration to all readers of this thread:
At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the
print he sent me.
By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty
stitched images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he
sent me, the
right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames
used in the other half?
Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to
be trusted.
Colin D. "
>
> 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.
It looks like you are the liar Douglas as has been proved time after
time.
>
> 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.
>
Wow, I'll bet he shaking in his boots ! I now I just pissed myself but
I
think that was from laughing so hard :)
|
