May I know where to find these programs?

A
Posted By
aicnevivnoc
May 10, 2009
Views
2180
Replies
72
Status
Closed
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.

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.

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

DS
Don Stauffer
May 10, 2009
wrote:
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.
M
M-M
May 10, 2009
In article
,
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.
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.

Sounds like you need a better scanner. If you scan at 1200 dpi, a 1.5 inch photo becomes 6 inches at 300 dpi. Unless of course the original is grainy to start. If you can see more detail in the original under a magnifying glass than with your naked eye, a better scanner would do it. —
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
P
philo
May 10, 2009
"M-M" wrote in message
In article
,
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
D
Dave
May 10, 2009
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.
M
Marvin
May 10, 2009
wrote:
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.
I’ve used Paint Shop Pro for years. Today, Photoshop
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.
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.
AB
Alan Browne
May 10, 2009
Don Stauffer wrote:
<->
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.
AB
Alan Browne
May 10, 2009
philo wrote:
"M-M" wrote in message
In article
,
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.


— 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.
AB
Alan Browne
May 10, 2009
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__."


— 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.
P
philo
May 10, 2009
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
philo wrote:
"M-M" wrote in message
In article
,
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>
V
Voivod
May 10, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

philo wrote:
"M-M" wrote in message
In article
,
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.
AB
Alan Browne
May 10, 2009
philo wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
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.


— 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.
K
keepout
May 10, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 15:47:49 GMT, Marvin wrote:

wrote:
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.
Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much as I can.

If the keyword is ‘valuable’, why are you wasting your time in a news group ?

What you need to do is shop for someone that does this on a professional basis and doesn’t have a BBB bad file. And some of them take and make slide show DVD’s out of the photos. Though the personal touch would be better. Pricier, but much less than OJT on valuable photos.

What you want to do needs more than a 1st time beginner with hobby software. I would think the 1st thing to do with those shots is re-take the shots with a camera with a macro lens or macro setting. That will do 2 things, it will bring out every pimple and error on the old photos, and give you a backup so you can put the ‘valuable’ photos back in the vault while you attempt a restore with someone that knows what they’re doing.
A tripod or monopod should guarantee a good shot. A bean bag can be used instead of a tripod.
GK
George Kerby
May 10, 2009
On 5/10/09 11:17 AM, in article
, "Voivod"
wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

philo wrote:
"M-M" wrote in message
In article
,
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…
JM
John McWilliams
May 10, 2009
George Kerby wrote:
On 5/10/09 11:17 AM, in article
, "Voivod"
wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

philo wrote:
"M-M" wrote in message
In article
,
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…
You could take care re cross posting, and/or set followups to one group.
R
rfischer
May 10, 2009
wrote:
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
R
ray
May 10, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700, aicnevivnoc wrote:

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.

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.
MR
Mike Russell
May 10, 2009
wrote:
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.
Since these are valuable family pictures, I wish to preserve as much as I can.

This can certainly be done with Photoshop. One quick and convenient way to get rid of dots and spots is by circling the affected area with the lasso tool, and then using the dust and scratches command, located under Filters>Noise.

Probably the best resource for this kind of work is
http://www.retouchpro.com/ . There are any number of people there who love to help with this kind of work. You can upload an image there and usually several people will take a crack at fixing it.

BTW – ignore the haters – every news group and web site has them, unfortunately, and they like nothing better than to have you respond to them.

Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com
P
philo
May 10, 2009
Alan Browne wrote:
philo wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
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
JP
Jase Planck
May 10, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), 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. 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.
V
Voivod
May 10, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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.
R
rfischer
May 10, 2009
Jase Planck wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), 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
JJ
John J
May 10, 2009
Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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…

There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.
J
jaSPAMc
May 11, 2009
John J found these unused words:

Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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…

There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.

Doesn’t that -=presume=- that the original was saved/created in that ‘mode’. 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?
JP
Jase Planck
May 11, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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.
JM
John McWilliams
May 11, 2009
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:
John J found these unused words:

Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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…
There is a lossless mode in the JPEG standard.

Doesn’t that -=presume=- that the original was saved/created in that ‘mode’. 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.
R
rfischer
May 11, 2009
Jase Planck wrote:
Voivod wrote:
Jase Planck
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
JP
Jase Planck
May 11, 2009
On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Jase Planck wrote:
Voivod wrote:
Jase Planck
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 8×8 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.
V
Voivod
May 11, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:55:34 -0500, Jase Planck
scribbled:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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.

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…
V
Voivod
May 11, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
scribbled:

On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Jase Planck wrote:
Voivod wrote:
Jase Planck
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 8×8 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.

You’re funny. Come back often!
C
Cliff
May 11, 2009
Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
scribbled:

On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Jase Planck wrote:
Voivod wrote:
Jase Planck
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 8×8 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.

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
DC
Dave Cohen
May 11, 2009
Jase Planck wrote:
On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Jase Planck wrote:
Voivod wrote:
Jase Planck
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 8×8 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.
I’ve never used Photoline so I can’t comment. Jpeg does a remarkably 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
S
Savageduck
May 11, 2009
On 2009-05-10 20:26:08 -0700, "CJ" said:

Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
scribbled:

On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, (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
JP
Jase Planck
May 11, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:18:45 -0400, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:55:34 -0500, Jase Planck
scribbled:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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.

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.
S
Savageduck
May 11, 2009
On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams said:

Ray Fischer wrote:
Jase Planck wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), 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.

So I would at this point discount all he has used to reel in everybody in this thread.

Regards,
Savageduck
JP
Jase Planck
May 11, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:17:27 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:

On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams said:

Ray Fischer wrote:
Jase Planck wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), 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.

So I would at this point discount all he has used to reel in everybody in this thread.

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.
S
Savageduck
May 11, 2009
On 2009-05-10 21:23:57 -0700, Jase Planck said:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:17:27 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:

On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams said:

Ray Fischer wrote:
Jase Planck wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), 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.

So I would at this point discount all he has used to reel in everybody in this thread.

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.

It is time to don a fresh sock, the one you are currently wearing reeks of TROLL.

Regards,
Savageduck
A
aicnevivnoc
May 11, 2009
Thank you for your suggestion for Drum Scanning.

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, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
  wrote:
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        
R
rfischer
May 11, 2009
Jase Planck wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Jase Planck wrote:
Voivod wrote:
Jase Planck
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
R
rfischer
May 11, 2009
Jase Planck wrote:
Voivod wrote:
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,

Which is why no major retailer sells it.


Ray Fischer
V
Voivod
May 11, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:02:39 -0500, Jase Planck
scribbled:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:18:45 -0400, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:55:34 -0500, Jase Planck
scribbled:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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.

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.

Comedy gold! Let’s forward this to the Photoline people, maybe they’ll include it in their sales pitch! "Photoline, not for Idiot fool-following sheep and trolls!"

Dance for me some more!
V
Voivod
May 11, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:29:14 -0400, Dave Cohen
scribbled:

Jase Planck wrote:
On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Jase Planck wrote:
Voivod wrote:
Jase Planck
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 8×8 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.
I’ve never used Photoline so I can’t comment. Jpeg does a remarkably 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

Nothing, and it shows.
RH
Ron Hunter
May 11, 2009
Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:54:49 -0400, Alan Browne
scribbled:

philo wrote:
"M-M" wrote in message
In article
,
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.
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.
N
nospam
May 11, 2009
In article , Ron Hunter
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.
AB
Alan Browne
May 11, 2009
Ron Hunter wrote:

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.
M
mike
May 11, 2009
In article <kVMNl.3917$
says…
Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
scribbled:

On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Jase Planck wrote:
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.

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".
Probably better than sex – according to the tutorial you can use it to draw a helicoptor! Just see how far you get suggesting _that_ to your nearest-and-dearest…

Mike
H
Hachiroku
May 15, 2009
On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:57:55 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

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.
D
DRS
May 15, 2009
"Marvin" wrote in message
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.
JJ
John J
May 15, 2009
DRS wrote:
"Marvin" wrote in message
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.
MB
Martin Brown
May 15, 2009
DRS wrote:
"Marvin" wrote in message
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%20SOFTW ARE.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
JS
jac.stafford
May 15, 2009
Here is a good lay-person’s overview of some interpolation techniques: 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.
K
Kabuki
May 15, 2009
"John J" wrote in message
DRS wrote:
"Marvin" wrote in message
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
P
Peter
May 15, 2009
"DRS" wrote in message
"Marvin" wrote in message
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. 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.
BL
Bob Larter
May 15, 2009
Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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.


W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est —^—-^————————————————— ————
JU
jclarke.usenet
May 15, 2009
Peter wrote:
"DRS" wrote in message
"Marvin" wrote in message
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.
BL
Bob Larter
May 15, 2009
Jase Planck wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:30:10 -0400, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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.

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.


W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est —^—-^————————————————— ————
BL
Bob Larter
May 15, 2009
Jase Planck wrote:
On 11 May 2009 01:58:39 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Jase Planck wrote:
[…]
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.

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?


W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est —^—-^————————————————— ————
BL
Bob Larter
May 15, 2009
CJ wrote:
Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
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. ;^)


W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est —^—-^————————————————— ————
BL
Bob Larter
May 15, 2009
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?


W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est —^—-^————————————————— ————
BL
Bob Larter
May 15, 2009
Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-05-10 18:08:56 -0700, John McWilliams said:

Ray Fischer wrote:
Jase Planck wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 04:13:18 -0700 (PDT), 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.


W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est —^—-^————————————————— ————
PT
Paul Tallison
May 15, 2009
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 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!

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.
PT
Paul Tallison
May 16, 2009
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:06:31 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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 8×8-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 15×15 pixel image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15×15 pixel image in Photoshop ends up being 8×8 pixels after just one rotation, the one in Photoline will retain its original 15×15 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.
N
nospam
May 16, 2009
In article , Paul Tallison
wrote:

Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15×15 pixel image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15×15 pixel image in Photoshop ends up being 8×8 pixels after just one rotation,

uh, no it doesn’t. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
BL
Bob Larter
May 16, 2009
Bob Larter wrote:
CJ wrote:
Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
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 —-^—-^————————————————– ————-
JM
John McWilliams
May 16, 2009
Paul Tallison wrote:
That’s because you’re an ignorant and inexperienced idiot.

Says the very experienced idiot.
PT
Paul Tallison
May 16, 2009
On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:16:44 -0700, nospam wrote:

In article , Paul Tallison
wrote:

Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15×15 pixel image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15×15 pixel image in Photoshop ends up being 8×8 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.

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.
N
nospam
May 16, 2009
In article , Paul Tallison
wrote:

Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15×15 pixel image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15×15 pixel image in Photoshop ends up being 8×8 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 15×15 image will become 8×8 is if it is deliberately resized to 8×8.

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.
P
Peter
May 16, 2009
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
Peter wrote:
"DRS" wrote in message
"Marvin" wrote in message
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.

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
BL
Bob Larter
May 16, 2009
Bob Larter wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
CJ wrote:
Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 21:34:04 -0500, Jase Planck
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 —^—-^————————————————— ————
BL
Bob Larter
May 18, 2009
Paul Tallison wrote:
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 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!

And yet … they only have to test Photol[SLAP!]

Fuck off, troll.


W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est —^—-^————————————————— ————
BL
Bob Larter
May 18, 2009
Paul Tallison wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 05:06:31 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

Voivod wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:18:01 -0500, Jase Planck
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 8×8-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 15×15 pixel image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15×15 pixel image in Photoshop ends up being 8×8 pixels after just one rotation, the one in Photoline will retain its original 15×15 pixel size no matter the number of rotations.

You’ve never actually tried this in Photoshop, have you?


W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est —^—-^————————————————— ————
BL
Bob Larter
May 18, 2009
nospam wrote:
In article , Paul Tallison
wrote:

Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15×15 pixel image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15×15 pixel image in Photoshop ends up being 8×8 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 15×15 image will become 8×8 is if it is deliberately resized to 8×8.

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…


W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est —^—-^————————————————— ————
W
whisky-dave
May 18, 2009
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
nospam wrote:
In article , Paul Tallison
wrote:

Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15×15 pixel image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15×15 pixel image in
Photoshop ends up being 8×8 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 15×15 image will become 8×8 is if it is deliberately resized to 8×8.

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. 🙂

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections