OldSchool-WI wrote:
_________________________
I see you have not lost your touch with posting YOUR ALTERED VERSION of my roofer post of a year ago! Where is the moderator and my implied copyright---particularly on alterations! MAY YOU HAVE COAL IN YOUR CHRISTMAS STOCKING ----from all those on UHH who are FED UP with your late night psychiatric meltdowns. This is indeed a site for opinions--mostly from experience and those subscribing here understand that. You can read things and take advice as you see fit. ........................ Eric
_________________________ br br I see you have no... (
show quote)
Never say Oldeskool never posts proof of his Foveons superiority, cuz he did it, as shown right here. But also never defend him against whoever says he never posts any proof, cuz he just resents it anywho.
(
Download)
As I said in my previous post an hour ago-------]"Shame, shame on you. This is a polite site so I will not express my thoughts on you ID-anonymous and your antics. You have been badgering me for nearly a year and that seems fine with the site moderator---so COAL IN BOTH YOUR STOCKINGS." i will just leave it at that as everybody following UHH must be familiar with your psychological deficit. And quit posting your "altered version" of my roofer to illicit a response. If only you were here in person, I might not be so polite.----ew
OldSchool-WI wrote:
As I said in my previous post an hour ago-------]"Shame, shame on you. This is a polite site so I will not express my thoughts on you ID-anonymous and your antics. You have been badgering me for nearly a year and that seems fine with the site moderator---so COAL IN BOTH YOUR STOCKINGS." i will just leave it at that as everybody following UHH must be familiar with your psychological deficit. And quit posting your "altered version" of my roofer to illicit a response. If only you were here in person, I might not be so polite.----ew
As I said in my previous post an hour ago------- &... (
show quote)
Eric, why don't you quit taking the bait this person casts out? And besides you wouldn't hit a girl would you?
RodeoMan wrote:
Eric, why don't you quit taking the bait this person casts out? And besides you wouldn't hit a girl would you?
______________________________(reply)
Thanks Rodeo, I never thought that UserId MIGHT be such--but that might explain much? But you are correct. I guess doctoring my roofer photo irks me the most.-------------Eric
OldSchool-WI wrote:
I guess doctoring my roofer photo irks me the most.-------------Eric
It's not doctored. It's just a copy of the thumbnail.
Here is the image you posted on January 14
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-725289-9.html#12850157The image is 2268x1512 pixels (3.43MP) and the file size is 2.93 megabytes.
It shows that you took the image with a Sigma SD9 on 4/17/2017 at 2:10AM (you did not have the clock set correctly).
It's not very impressive. Don't you have a better example?
selmslie wrote:
It's not doctored. It's just a copy of the thumbnail.
Here is the image you posted on January 14
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-725289-9.html#12850157The image is 2268x1512 pixels (3.43MP) and the file size is 2.93 megabytes.
It shows that you took the image with a Sigma SD9 on 4/17/2017 at 2:10AM (you did not have the clock set correctly).
It's not very impressive. Don't you have a better example?
It's not doctored. It's just a copy of the thumbn... (
show quote)
So, the previously posted version of this photo was deceptive. Not a good thing. Just the same, I don't see the susposed superiority over comparable cameras. It's a decent photo. Sharp, clear, and nicely exposed, as you would expect. Nothing more.
selmslie wrote:
It's not doctored. It's just a copy of the thumbnail.
Here is the image you posted on January 14
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-725289-9.html#12850157The image is 2268x1512 pixels (3.43MP) and the file size is 2.93 megabytes.
It shows that you took the image with a Sigma SD9 on 4/17/2017 at 2:10AM (you did not have the clock set correctly).
It's not very impressive. Don't you have a better example?
It's not doctored. It's just a copy of the thumbn... (
show quote)
If you think both of the images are the same...see an optometrist. They certainly aren't copies of each other faithfully...no?
Every forum have trolls...just stop feeding them.
They post non-sense and insults...for negative feedback.
Canisdirus wrote:
If you think both of the images are the same...see an optometrist. They certainly aren't copies of each other faithfully...no?
Every forum have trolls...just stop feeding them.
They post non-sense and insults...for negative feedback.
Don't you know the difference between a thumbnail and a full size image? Multiplication was taught in the 4th grade.
In this case the thumbnail was 735x645 (0.47MP). The full sized image was 2268x1512 pixels (3.43MP).
So far as image quality is concerned, they both suck.
LFingar wrote:
So, the previously posted version of this photo was deceptive. Not a good thing. Just the same, I don't see the susposed superiority over comparable cameras. It's a decent photo. Sharp, clear, and nicely exposed, as you would expect. Nothing more.
It's not sharp by modern standards. A 12MP iPhone image is sharper.
And the color rendition is awful. Despite the low contrast gray lighting, the guy's hair and clothing are full of purple. We can't tell if that's because of a bad lens or a problem in the Foveon process.
selmslie wrote:
It's not sharp by modern standards. A 12MP iPhone image is sharper.
And the color rendition is awful. Despite the low contrast gray lighting, the guy's hair and clothing are full of purple. We can't tell if that's because of a bad lens or a problem in the Foveon process.
Taking a second look I have to agree with you. So much for first impressions!
LFingar wrote:
Taking a second look I have to agree with you. So much for first impressions!
If the Sigma/Foveon folks are looking at Eric’s post’s they are probably thinking, “With friends like you, who needs enemies?”
selmslie wrote:
There is a more subtle way that a "perpetual" license can expire.
I had a copy of PS Elements 11 running on Windows 7. I needed to reinstall the operating system after a crash so I reinstalled it and entered the serial number.
But in order to get it to run it needed to be activated. Adobe would not activate it. The perpetual license turned out to be only temporary.
But I also had a copy of PSE 9 that I was able to install and it did not need to be activated. That license was truly perpetual.
There is a more subtle way that a "perpetual&... (
show quote)
A careful reading of the EULA (End User License Agreement — That "thing" you are supposed to have read before agreeing to it to install the software) will reveal exactly what you are licensing when you pay for software. Vendors change their EULAs all the time, often with each update, certainly with every upgrade or new version.
"Perpetual" generally means as long as you have the SPECIFIED hardware and the SPECIFIED operating system that work with the software you installed. If you get a new computer or upgrade your existing computer's OS beyond that which is/are compatible with the version of the application you have, you are out of luck and must either upgrade, or switch to another tool.
It's been that way ever since the first computers were sold for personal use. All software becomes obsolete. All operating systems become obsolete. All computers become obsolete. You aren't buying a 16-ounce hammer you can use for 50 years. It is what it is, so long as the entire support system remains the same. And speaking of support, don't expect much support for your OLD version after a new version of the software is released. There won't be ANY support for it five versions later.
OldSchool-WI wrote:
As I said in my previous post an hour ago-------]"Shame, shame on you. This is a polite site so I will not express my thoughts on you ID-anonymous and your antics. You have been badgering me for nearly a year and that seems fine with the site moderator---so COAL IN BOTH YOUR STOCKINGS." i will just leave it at that as everybody following UHH must be familiar with your psychological deficit. And quit posting your "altered version" of my roofer to illicit a response. If only you were here in person, I might not be so polite.----ew
As I said in my previous post an hour ago------- &... (
show quote)
Why are you so unappreciative ? Can you show us how this is an "altered version" ?
(
Download)
selmslie wrote:
Don't you know the difference between a thumbnail and a full size image? Multiplication was taught in the 4th grade.
In this case the thumbnail was 735x645 (0.47MP). The full sized image was 2268x1512 pixels (3.43MP).
So far as image quality is concerned, they both suck.
Eggs Ackley. The closer look has never been downloaded to a PC. Its simply a closer look at it.
selmslie wrote:
If the Sigma/Foveon folks are looking at Eric’s post’s they are probably thinking, “With friends like you, who needs enemies?”
Acoarst that assumes there really are any other remaining fans of Foveons. Seems obvious that Oldeskool is the whole show. No one stepped up to replace him when he falsely announced he was leaving. So, the Foveon Show features a cast of one, no understudies ... and no sponsors.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.