On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 05:46:21 -0000, in alt.astronomy, BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 4, 9:52 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 03:09:22 -0000, in alt.astronomy, BradGuth
>>
>>
>>
>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 4, 5:17 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:57:54 -0000, in alt.astronomy, BradGuth
>>
>> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >For some reason my PC and of its Usenet access is getting summarily
>> >> >nailed once again. So, here's one more lose cannon shot in the dark.
>>
>> >> an apt description of yourself and you actions,guth...
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Ak'toh'di
>>
>> >Dear Bob Officer (aka alt.usenet.kooks),
>> >OOPS! you folks don't even know what a composite image of essentially
>> >36 radar looks per pixel means.
>>
>> I don't think you even understand what that means.
>
>The question has always been upon yourself.
Considering my 1st MOS was Radarman, I suspect I fully understand the
term, and how it the technology works.
You seem to not use the terminology correctly.
That usually indicates something is a amiss.
>> > Silly me for thinking you folks were
>> >0.1% as smart as Einstein. And here I'd once thought that not all of
I failed to point out your ad hominem attack, didn't I.
>> >Usenet atheists were nearly as dumbfounded past the point of no
>> >return, as I'd once thought. Sorry, my mistake.
>>
>> >Why don't you show us how PhotoShop or whatever's equal or better is
>> >supposed to work, using the very same Magellan GFI file image of 225
>> >meters/pixel (converted to JPEG format), as I have done. Go right
>>
>> So you started off with an Image of 225m/px and started Re-sampling.
>> Do you have any idea of what you are doing with each one of these
>> manipulations?
>
>Yes I do.
It doesn't even appear you understand how the re-sampling filters
algorithms work. You don't seem to be able even to state what sort of
re-sampling filter you used. Not all re-sampling filters are created
equally.
Most users of Gimp would understand that. BTW Gimp is much more
powerful than Photoshop.
>> The question remains what algorithm did you use for re-sampling? How
>> much loss or data degradation did you introduce with every step? I
>> see every step you introduced more and more artifacts into each
>> frame.
>
>All I can say is you'll need to do your own thing, trying out a good
>half a dozen PhotoShop features in order to see whatever cleans up
>your resampling the best.
LOL. You missed the point, Brad. With each and every clean up process
you are introducing artifacts. Those artifacts degrade the image.
>>
>> Did you use a Lancers, Mitchell or Bell Filter?
>
>I've tried out most everything that I could get my honest hands on,
Honest? Somehow you seem to not be honest...
>including at least four other photo enhancement versions of digital
>enlargement that did nearly as well if not somewhat better depending
>upon what you'd care to interpret from such an enlargement process,
>that's obviously limited by the original 36 look stack of 225 m/pixel
>format.
LOL... you don't have a clue what is happening when you point and
click. you are truly a windows wizard. You are in the end a True
idiot without a clue to what you are doing.
>BTW, my best PhotoShop enhancement features are not a tenth as good as
>what's out there, and available to the likes of yourself.
>
>Don't forget about the 43 degree look-see, as making that image nearly
>3D worthy.
>
>Most of every prime dimention we're looking at is still basically that
>of 225 meters or greater. So, think big rather than small.
Brad image will carry more info, one with a 1 meter/ pixel or 225
meters /pixel.
and
If an initial image has a 225m/pixel resolution, can any manipulation
of the image ever gain a greater than 225m/pixel resolution?
>> How much degradation was used with you converted formats to a lossy
>> jpg format?
>
>Zero degradation, which only proves that you don't know what the hell
>you're talking about. Especially since you folks haven't one example
>of anything to share.
>
You claiming a zero loss jpg image from a GFI image after you
re-sampled a section of an 225m/pixel image 8x ?
You have to be kidding. Brad, you are kidding aren't you? or are you
totally clueless?
>> >ahead and knock our socks off. Show us what's supposedly so entirely
>>
>> I see you are still evading the questions.
>
>We see that as per usual, you're still not going to put up or shut up.
you need to specify what you did to the image, to get those pixelated
artifacts Waving your hands is fairly useless.
>>
>> >hot and perfectly natural about that very same location.
>>
>> I don't see anything hot in your image data.
>
>That's odd, as I interpret all sorts of nasty geothermal related
>factors. Of course in braille graphic mode you'd be hard pressed to
>see much of anything without your white cane and trusty dog.
I see and your expertise in geology and radar satellite imaging comes
from where?
>BTW, I do believe that absolutely terrific looking fluid arch is
Beliefs at not based in science.
--
Ak'toh'di
|
|