Maybe a stupid question...
POSTED BY: Tiger
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 17:03
VIEWED: 8545
PAGE 3 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by Shuggie:
Weren't you the one who had a go a me for being this blunt?
Touche. I meant to say, "I think you're misinformed."
Quote:Well, either you're missing something, or you've achieved a fundamental breakthrough of some kind. I mean really fundamental -- this is like basic scientific law. In which case I will dine on crow -- at your Nobel Prize celebration!
Here's where theory and practice seem to diverge. It shouldn't make any difference - but in the case of DivX, in my experience, it can.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Well, either you're missing something, or you've achieved a fundamental breakthrough of some kind. I mean really fundamental -- this is like basic scientific law. In which case I will dine on crow -- at your Nobel Prize celebration!
What I find insulting about this is that I've already explained that I know that decompression doesn't magically re-generate missing information. I know there's something else going on, I even speculated on 2 or 3 possibilities as to what it might be. But for some reason that I really can't fathom (I upset you in the past?) you chose to ignore that and make jokes at my expense.
Shug
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm sorry if you thought I was making fun of you. But you keep insisting on something having happened that's scientifically impossible. Now, science can be wrong, but I'm not going to believe it's wrong just because you say it is. That's the only point I was trying to make.
Originally posted by Shuggie:
What I find insulting about this is that I've already explained that I know that decompression doesn't magically re-generate missing information. I know there's something else going on, I even speculated on 2 or 3 possibilities as to what it might be. But for some reason that I really can't fathom (I upset you in the past?) you chose to ignore that and make jokes at my expense.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
But you keep insisting on something having happened that's scientifically impossible.
No I'm not. Go back and read what I said again. Is a bug in software 'scientifically impossible?' Could applying lossy compression twice (unnecessarily) cause degradation of the image? So is it impossible that removing an unnecessary stage of lossy compression could help?
I really think that what you think I'm saying and what I'm actually saying are two different things.
Maybe I haven't explained myself very well but I really can't face going over it in detail just to prove myself not an idiot.
But now that I've calmed down I will at least accept that you intended no insult.
Shug
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME