Sprintscan 35+, 10 bits vs 8 bits

[Lorenzo J. Lucchini]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:18:02 +0200, "Lorenzo J. Lucchini"

[snip]

Cite please.

--- start ---

sorry, I just can't agree. Yeah, they're inaccurate.

First you don't agree and then, on the same line, you agree, and then
you go on not agreeing again.

Let's put this quote into context, with "context" being what we said after
that quote:


--- CUT ---

That's inconsistent. You can't say you disagree and then in the same
breath confirm what I just said (i.e. that what you disagree with is
actually correct).

You said they're massively inaccurate.
I said I they are inaccurate.

Clearly I interpreted you "massively" as meaning "too much, for any
purpose", which is what I do not agree with.

--- CUT ---


As you see, I had already explained why that was not a contradiction.

And by the way, even without my interpretation of your "massively" (which,
could have been wrong, like any interpretation, but still it seems quite an
intuitive interpretation to me), my phrase would still *not* be a
contradiction: "I can't agree that they are massively inaccurate; they are
inaccurate" is not a contradiction.

When faced with a contradiction you admit it. And then do it again.

Ok, this sounds like a real contradiction, actually, it *is* a
contradiction: I can't say that "I know all this but argue against it".

What I meant was "I know all this, but argue against the implications you
attribute to it". I'm sorry for the over-concise, contradictory "well...
yes".

And yet you then continue to argue against these "true points".

I don't see a contradiction here, even without seeing the context. I
definitely can say that you're right in some specific case, "but" not in
general, or not in the case at hand.

But let's indeed look a the context...


--- CUT ---

The root problem, Lorenzo, is that no matter how hard you try - and
you do try very hard! ;o) - you just can't get around the fact that
applying changes at scan time is a bad idea in all but most trivial of
cases.

Hmm... I can't really deny this when speaking about what I do with *my*
scanner, since *I* could scan at 16-bit, but instead prefer to scan at
8-bit and make some scan time adjustments.
In this case, you're obviously right (though, you know, people make
compromises for speed, storage space and all, and I don't think mine is
so terrible a compromise if done carefully).

But in the OP's case, he *cannot* scan at 10-bit (let alone 16-bit),
instead he *has* to work with 8-bit data.

--- CUT ---


So, apparently I said you were right about a case that wasn't the one
discussed in the thread! Come on!

And then you go on to immediately contradict yourself again.

Etc... etc...

--- end ---

And that's only *some* contradictions in *one* single message!
Need more? ;o)

If you like...

However, please restrict your definition of "contradiction" to what the
dictionary says a contradiction is. Only one over three of those you cited
I recognize as a contradiction.

[snip]

by LjL
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Don]

You said they're massively inaccurate.
I said I they are inaccurate.

Clearly I interpreted you "massively" as meaning "too much, for any
purpose", which is what I do not agree with.

And that's the problem. First, you make unsubstantiated assumptions,
and then without confirming them, race to make an even less
substantiated guess based on those incorrect assumptions. And we end
up chasing ghosts...

"Massively" is simply a statement of fact. It means "a lot". It has
*no* reflection on subjective perception of quality whatsoever!

"too much, for any purpose" is a *subjective qualitative* judgment
*you* assigned to it wantonly! It's your *personal opinion*!

!=> Such low quality may be perfectly acceptable to many and it may be
totally unacceptable to others. I don't make any statements in this
regard either way! <=!

And by the way, even without my interpretation of your "massively" (which,
could have been wrong, like any interpretation

There you go! Instead of interpreting focus on what was actually said.

In this case, you're obviously right (though, you know, people make
compromises for speed, storage space and all, and I don't think mine is
so terrible a compromise if done carefully).

But in the OP's case, he *cannot* scan at 10-bit (let alone 16-bit),
instead he *has* to work with 8-bit data.

So, apparently I said you were right about a case that wasn't the one
discussed in the thread! Come on!

"Full context" means quoting the reply as well:

You're missing the point! Struggling to *try* (!) and keep those two
bits (without really knowing if that attempt is successful) will
produce *worse* results than by using the alternative option where you
know what you're doing

Don't digress into "two bits" because that's not the point. Even with
those two bits present the proposed method of scanner software editing
would result in worse quality for many reasons, all outlined in the
thread, where you can find them. *That's* the point.

However, please restrict your definition of "contradiction" to what the
dictionary says a contradiction is. Only one over three of those you cited
I recognize as a contradiction.

And that itself is a contradiction! ;o)

Seriously though, that's one of the problems. Nobody is being
contradictory of purpose (well, not in a serious discussion) and
failure to recognize or acknowledge a contradiction (for whatever
reason) is one reason why we end up running around in circles...

Don.

 

[Roger S.]

Don wrote: ""Massively" is simply a statement of fact. It means "a
lot". It has *no* reflection on subjective perception of quality
whatsoever!

and then:
"too much, for any purpose" is a *subjective qualitative* judgment
*you* assigned to it wantonly! It's your *personal opinion*!"

This again? I read "massively" in this context as hyperbole, as we're
not talking about something "massive" and the magnitude of the problem
is arguably not "massive" either.

Don continued:
"Such low quality may be perfectly acceptable to many..."

Such low quality is a statement of relative values- compared to what
and in whose judgment? The answer is in Don's judgment, and read
together with the above statement reads exactly how Lorenzo interpreted
it, as a subjective qualitative statement.

Lorenzo wrote:
">And by the way, even without my interpretation of your "massively"
(which, could have been wrong, like any interpretation"
Don responded:
"There you go! Instead of interpreting, focus on what was actually
said. "

Well, all reading is an act of interpretation. That Don's writing is
full of subjective value judments and lends itself to multiple
unintended interpretations is Don's problem. That he doesn't recognize
it and believes all of his statements to be objective truths from the
heavens makes these conversations pointless.

 

[Don]

Don continued:
"Such low quality may be perfectly acceptable to many..."

Such low quality is a statement of relative values- compared to what
and in whose judgment? The answer is in Don's judgment, and read
together with the above statement reads exactly how Lorenzo interpreted
it, as a subjective qualitative statement.

No, the decrease in quality is a factual statement because compared to
*original* data the data in question is *compromised* and, therefore,
of lower quality. That's not a judgment but a simple fact.

What *is* a judgment is whether this lower quality is acceptable or
not. Such compromised data may be acceptable to some, and may not be
acceptable to others. I pass no judgment on either choice.

That Don's writing is
full of subjective value judments and lends itself to multiple
unintended interpretations is Don's problem. That he doesn't recognize
it and believes all of his statements to be objective truths from the
heavens makes these conversations pointless.

Ah... Sorry... For a moment there, I thought you were objective and
took your message seriously. My mistake... :-(

Don.

 

[ljlbox]

Don ha scritto:

No, the decrease in quality is a factual statement because compared to
*original* data the data in question is *compromised* and, therefore,
of lower quality. That's not a judgment but a simple fact.

It's a fact for you. I think I have party demonstrated (partly, not
fully, but I'm willing to go further if I can understand exactly where
you disagree) that your so-called "fact" is wrong, and that it's
actually backwards -- the data in question represent an *improvement*
over the "original" data, which are otherwise treated in a way that
doesn't maximize what's possible to obtain from the "internal" bits.

Even if you didn't put "I" in the statement of your "fact", it remains
as much an opinion as my own "facts", as I don't think you've quite
substantiated it.

On the other hand, *I* have done my best, especially in the most
recent, long article, to substantiate my facts -- even though I
perfectly realize that "my best" isn't nearly the asme as "the best".

Your labelling my explanations as "irrelevant" doesn't quite cut it, as
I do *not* think they are irrelevant (oh, dangit, I've used "I"
again... I guess I just can't help it!).

[snip]

by LjL
(e-mail address removed)