Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Costella "blur mistake" claim in the THZFH.


Craig Lamson
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm afraid this is going to get lost in the Who is Bill MIller thread.

Is Costella correct in this claim that there is a blur mistake in some of the Zapruder frames Life published?

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html

Lets take just one simple example of Costella's "science"and see exactly how well he did in his research and how well his "peers and experts, like you Jack, did at reviewing his work.

Costella tells us this in his section on the blur mistake...

"Some people might ask: could Life magazine have just “sharpened” the image before publication?

Unfortunately, in 1963 there was no way to sharpen images, without modern computers. "

Well thats just not the case. Since I understand how the process of sharpening a conventional photographic image works USING FILM, I knew Costella was blowing smoke. But I wanted to know if the information existed and was easily available on the net to a researcher and his team of experts who might be working on a book. All it took was a google search and a wealth of informagtion was available at my fingertips about the process of using UNSHARP MASKING to sharpen film based photographs without the use of a computer. Now I'm sure that many of you have used unsharp masking in photo processing software to sharpen up digital images. But did you know that this process was actually developed to be used with film?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

Unsharp masking is an image manipulation technique now familiar to many users of digital image processing software, but it seems to have been first used in Germany in the 1930s as a way of increasing the accutance, or apparent sharpness, of photographic images.

In the original process, a large-format glass plate negative was contact-copied on to a low contrast film or plate to create a positive. However, the positive copy was made with the copy material in contact with the BACK of the original, rather than emulsion-to-emulsion, so it was blurred. After processing this blurred positive was replaced in contact with the back of original negative. When light was passed through both negative and in-register positive (in an enlarger for example), the positive partially cancelled some of the information in the negative.

Because the positive was intentionally blurred, only the low frequency (blurred) information was cancelled. In addition, the mask effectively reduced the dynamic range of the original negative. Thus, if the resulting enlarged image is recorded on contrasty photographic paper, the partial cancellation emphasizes the high frequency (fine detail) information in the original, without loss of highlight or shadow detail. The resulting print appears sharper than one made without the unsharp mask because of the increased accutance.

In the photographic procedure the amount of blurring can be controlled by changing the softness or hardness (from point light to fully diffuse) of the light source used for the initial unsharp mask exposure, while the strength of the effect can be controlled by changing the contrast and density (i.e. exposure and development) of the unsharp mask.

In traditional photography unsharp masking was usually used on monochrome materials, however special panchromatic soft-working black and white films were available for masking photographic colour transparencies. This was especially useful to control the dynamic (density) range of a transparency intended for photomechanical reproduction.

We don't know what processes Life magazine used to prepare the Zapruder frames that Costella questions in his blur mistake segment. Its clearly possible that they could have used unsharp masking to increase the sharpness of the frames in question for publication.

Costella was wrong to assert that sharpening of photographs was impossible without a computer. It is possible and the process might have been used in the Life images. As such his agrument about the "blur mistake" is suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
I'm afraid this is going to get lost in the Who is Bill MIller thread.

Is Costella correct in this claim that there is a blur mistake in some of the Zapruder frames Life published?

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html

Lets take just one simple example of Costella's "science"and see exactly how well he did in his research and how well his "peers and experts, like you Jack, did at reviewing his work.

Costella tells us this in his section on the blur mistake...

"Some people might ask: could Life magazine have just “sharpened” the image before publication?

Unfortunately, in 1963 there was no way to sharpen images, without modern computers. "

Well thats just not the case. Since I understand how the process of sharpening a conventional photographic image works USING FILM, I knew Costella was blowing smoke. But I wanted to know if the information existed and was easily available on the net to a researcher and his team of experts who might be working on a book. All it took was a google search and a wealth of informagtion was available at my fingertips about the process of using UNSHARP MASKING to sharpen film based photographs without the use of a computer. Now I'm sure that many of you have used unsharp masking in photo processing software to sharpen up digital images. But did you know that this process was actually developed to be used with film?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

Unsharp masking is an image manipulation technique now familiar to many users of digital image processing software, but it seems to have been first used in Germany in the 1930s as a way of increasing the accutance, or apparent sharpness, of photographic images.

In the original process, a large-format glass plate negative was contact-copied on to a low contrast film or plate to create a positive. However, the positive copy was made with the copy material in contact with the BACK of the original, rather than emulsion-to-emulsion, so it was blurred. After processing this blurred positive was replaced in contact with the back of original negative. When light was passed through both negative and in-register positive (in an enlarger for example), the positive partially cancelled some of the information in the negative.

Because the positive was intentionally blurred, only the low frequency (blurred) information was cancelled. In addition, the mask effectively reduced the dynamic range of the original negative. Thus, if the resulting enlarged image is recorded on contrasty photographic paper, the partial cancellation emphasizes the high frequency (fine detail) information in the original, without loss of highlight or shadow detail. The resulting print appears sharper than one made without the unsharp mask because of the increased accutance.

In the photographic procedure the amount of blurring can be controlled by changing the softness or hardness (from point light to fully diffuse) of the light source used for the initial unsharp mask exposure, while the strength of the effect can be controlled by changing the contrast and density (i.e. exposure and development) of the unsharp mask.

In traditional photography unsharp masking was usually used on monochrome materials, however special panchromatic soft-working black and white films were available for masking photographic colour transparencies. This was especially useful to control the dynamic (density) range of a transparency intended for photomechanical reproduction.

We don't know what processes Life magazine used to prepare the Zapruder frames that Costella questions in his blur mistake segment. Its clearly possible that they could have used unsharp masking to increase the sharpness of the frames in question for publication.

Costella was wrong to assert that sharpening of photographs was impossible without a computer. It is possible and the process might have been used in the Life images. As such his agrument about the "blur mistake" is suspect.

There are many arcane factoids in photographic history. That does not

mean that all were practical or in widespread use.

As I recall, Costella specifically faults the Life reproductions as blurry

and soft, so it is doubtful that Life was using ANY sharpening process.

Therefore the above is just an interesting non sequitur.

In my darkroom experience, I always preferred printing slightly

contrastier than ideal, which increases the APPARENT sharpness;

that makes the blacks blacker and the whites whiter, and provides

greater separation of the mid tones, though not necessarily the

"ideal" image. However, most of my prints were specifically made

to be HALFTONED, and for halftone reproduction such prints are

superior for newspaper reproduction.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid this is going to get lost in the Who is Bill MIller thread.

Is Costella correct in this claim that there is a blur mistake in some of the Zapruder frames Life published?

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html

Lets take just one simple example of Costella's "science"and see exactly how well he did in his research and how well his "peers and experts, like you Jack, did at reviewing his work.

Costella tells us this in his section on the blur mistake...

"Some people might ask: could Life magazine have just “sharpened” the image before publication?

Unfortunately, in 1963 there was no way to sharpen images, without modern computers. "

Well thats just not the case. Since I understand how the process of sharpening a conventional photographic image works USING FILM, I knew Costella was blowing smoke. But I wanted to know if the information existed and was easily available on the net to a researcher and his team of experts who might be working on a book. All it took was a google search and a wealth of informagtion was available at my fingertips about the process of using UNSHARP MASKING to sharpen film based photographs without the use of a computer. Now I'm sure that many of you have used unsharp masking in photo processing software to sharpen up digital images. But did you know that this process was actually developed to be used with film?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

Unsharp masking is an image manipulation technique now familiar to many users of digital image processing software, but it seems to have been first used in Germany in the 1930s as a way of increasing the accutance, or apparent sharpness, of photographic images.

In the original process, a large-format glass plate negative was contact-copied on to a low contrast film or plate to create a positive. However, the positive copy was made with the copy material in contact with the BACK of the original, rather than emulsion-to-emulsion, so it was blurred. After processing this blurred positive was replaced in contact with the back of original negative. When light was passed through both negative and in-register positive (in an enlarger for example), the positive partially cancelled some of the information in the negative.

Because the positive was intentionally blurred, only the low frequency (blurred) information was cancelled. In addition, the mask effectively reduced the dynamic range of the original negative. Thus, if the resulting enlarged image is recorded on contrasty photographic paper, the partial cancellation emphasizes the high frequency (fine detail) information in the original, without loss of highlight or shadow detail. The resulting print appears sharper than one made without the unsharp mask because of the increased accutance.

In the photographic procedure the amount of blurring can be controlled by changing the softness or hardness (from point light to fully diffuse) of the light source used for the initial unsharp mask exposure, while the strength of the effect can be controlled by changing the contrast and density (i.e. exposure and development) of the unsharp mask.

In traditional photography unsharp masking was usually used on monochrome materials, however special panchromatic soft-working black and white films were available for masking photographic colour transparencies. This was especially useful to control the dynamic (density) range of a transparency intended for photomechanical reproduction.

We don't know what processes Life magazine used to prepare the Zapruder frames that Costella questions in his blur mistake segment. Its clearly possible that they could have used unsharp masking to increase the sharpness of the frames in question for publication.

Costella was wrong to assert that sharpening of photographs was impossible without a computer. It is possible and the process might have been used in the Life images. As such his agrument about the "blur mistake" is suspect.

There are many arcane factoids in photographic history. That does not

mean that all were practical or in widespread use.

As I recall, Costella specifically faults the Life reproductions as blurry

and soft, so it is doubtful that Life was using ANY sharpening process.

Therefore the above is just an interesting non sequitur.

Well, no. Read Costella's piece again. You have it backwards. The problem I pointed out was that Costella was wrong when he stated there was no was to sharpen the image without a computer.

In my darkroom experience, I always preferred printing slightly

contrastier than ideal, which increases the APPARENT sharpness;

that makes the blacks blacker and the whites whiter, and provides

greater separation of the mid tones, though not necessarily the

"ideal" image. However, most of my prints were specifically made

to be HALFTONED, and for halftone reproduction such prints are

superior for newspaper reproduction.

Therefore the above is just an interesting non sequitur.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid this is going to get lost in the Who is Bill MIller thread.

Is Costella correct in this claim that there is a blur mistake in some of the Zapruder frames Life published?

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html

Lets take just one simple example of Costella's "science"and see exactly how well he did in his research and how well his "peers and experts, like you Jack, did at reviewing his work.

Costella tells us this in his section on the blur mistake...

"Some people might ask: could Life magazine have just “sharpened” the image before publication?

Unfortunately, in 1963 there was no way to sharpen images, without modern computers. "

Well thats just not the case. Since I understand how the process of sharpening a conventional photographic image works USING FILM, I knew Costella was blowing smoke. But I wanted to know if the information existed and was easily available on the net to a researcher and his team of experts who might be working on a book. All it took was a google search and a wealth of informagtion was available at my fingertips about the process of using UNSHARP MASKING to sharpen film based photographs without the use of a computer. Now I'm sure that many of you have used unsharp masking in photo processing software to sharpen up digital images. But did you know that this process was actually developed to be used with film?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

Unsharp masking is an image manipulation technique now familiar to many users of digital image processing software, but it seems to have been first used in Germany in the 1930s as a way of increasing the accutance, or apparent sharpness, of photographic images.

In the original process, a large-format glass plate negative was contact-copied on to a low contrast film or plate to create a positive. However, the positive copy was made with the copy material in contact with the BACK of the original, rather than emulsion-to-emulsion, so it was blurred. After processing this blurred positive was replaced in contact with the back of original negative. When light was passed through both negative and in-register positive (in an enlarger for example), the positive partially cancelled some of the information in the negative.

Because the positive was intentionally blurred, only the low frequency (blurred) information was cancelled. In addition, the mask effectively reduced the dynamic range of the original negative. Thus, if the resulting enlarged image is recorded on contrasty photographic paper, the partial cancellation emphasizes the high frequency (fine detail) information in the original, without loss of highlight or shadow detail. The resulting print appears sharper than one made without the unsharp mask because of the increased accutance.

In the photographic procedure the amount of blurring can be controlled by changing the softness or hardness (from point light to fully diffuse) of the light source used for the initial unsharp mask exposure, while the strength of the effect can be controlled by changing the contrast and density (i.e. exposure and development) of the unsharp mask.

In traditional photography unsharp masking was usually used on monochrome materials, however special panchromatic soft-working black and white films were available for masking photographic colour transparencies. This was especially useful to control the dynamic (density) range of a transparency intended for photomechanical reproduction.

We don't know what processes Life magazine used to prepare the Zapruder frames that Costella questions in his blur mistake segment. Its clearly possible that they could have used unsharp masking to increase the sharpness of the frames in question for publication.

Costella was wrong to assert that sharpening of photographs was impossible without a computer. It is possible and the process might have been used in the Life images. As such his agrument about the "blur mistake" is suspect.

so, is it *on-the-record* that LIFE Magazine used this "sharpening" process on any Z-frames they published? For that matter, on any image they published? EVER?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid this is going to get lost in the Who is Bill MIller thread.

Is Costella correct in this claim that there is a blur mistake in some of the Zapruder frames Life published?

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html

Lets take just one simple example of Costella's "science"and see exactly how well he did in his research and how well his "peers and experts, like you Jack, did at reviewing his work.

Costella tells us this in his section on the blur mistake...

"Some people might ask: could Life magazine have just “sharpened” the image before publication?

Unfortunately, in 1963 there was no way to sharpen images, without modern computers. "

Well thats just not the case. Since I understand how the process of sharpening a conventional photographic image works USING FILM, I knew Costella was blowing smoke. But I wanted to know if the information existed and was easily available on the net to a researcher and his team of experts who might be working on a book. All it took was a google search and a wealth of informagtion was available at my fingertips about the process of using UNSHARP MASKING to sharpen film based photographs without the use of a computer. Now I'm sure that many of you have used unsharp masking in photo processing software to sharpen up digital images. But did you know that this process was actually developed to be used with film?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

Unsharp masking is an image manipulation technique now familiar to many users of digital image processing software, but it seems to have been first used in Germany in the 1930s as a way of increasing the accutance, or apparent sharpness, of photographic images.

In the original process, a large-format glass plate negative was contact-copied on to a low contrast film or plate to create a positive. However, the positive copy was made with the copy material in contact with the BACK of the original, rather than emulsion-to-emulsion, so it was blurred. After processing this blurred positive was replaced in contact with the back of original negative. When light was passed through both negative and in-register positive (in an enlarger for example), the positive partially cancelled some of the information in the negative.

Because the positive was intentionally blurred, only the low frequency (blurred) information was cancelled. In addition, the mask effectively reduced the dynamic range of the original negative. Thus, if the resulting enlarged image is recorded on contrasty photographic paper, the partial cancellation emphasizes the high frequency (fine detail) information in the original, without loss of highlight or shadow detail. The resulting print appears sharper than one made without the unsharp mask because of the increased accutance.

In the photographic procedure the amount of blurring can be controlled by changing the softness or hardness (from point light to fully diffuse) of the light source used for the initial unsharp mask exposure, while the strength of the effect can be controlled by changing the contrast and density (i.e. exposure and development) of the unsharp mask.

In traditional photography unsharp masking was usually used on monochrome materials, however special panchromatic soft-working black and white films were available for masking photographic colour transparencies. This was especially useful to control the dynamic (density) range of a transparency intended for photomechanical reproduction.

We don't know what processes Life magazine used to prepare the Zapruder frames that Costella questions in his blur mistake segment. Its clearly possible that they could have used unsharp masking to increase the sharpness of the frames in question for publication.

Costella was wrong to assert that sharpening of photographs was impossible without a computer. It is possible and the process might have been used in the Life images. As such his agrument about the "blur mistake" is suspect.

so, is it *on-the-record* that LIFE Magazine used this "sharpening" process on any Z-frames they published? For that matter, on any image they published? EVER?

Does not matter. The point is that it is POSSIBLE. Costella says it is IMPOSSIBLE. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Craig Lamson' wrote:

...

Does not matter. The point is that it is POSSIBLE. Costella says it is IMPOSSIBLE. End of story.

I'd say the beginning of the story: show us, examples that is. After all I provided examples of optical printing techniques, not to mention equipment nomenclatures. Surely this wasn't going to pass unnoticed....

Or is the technique simply illusion. After all, one can NOT make a soft edge negative and/or photo SHARP! So show us a few of these darkroom illusions....:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Craig Lamson' wrote:
...

Does not matter. The point is that it is POSSIBLE. Costella says it is IMPOSSIBLE. End of story.

I'd say the beginning of the story: show us, examples that is. After all I provided examples of optical printing techniques, not to mention equipment nomenclatures. Surely this wasn't going to pass unnoticed....

Or is the technique simply illusion. After all, one can NOT make a soft edge negative and/or photo SHARP! So show us a few of these darkroom illusions....:blink:

Well David they made the unsharp mask process in Photoshop based on the same principals. If you don't think it works, fine with me. Try a google on local contrast.

As for examples I'm still waiting for Costella to provide empirical examples of the claims he has made. What's the matter, the scientist can't use a camera?

The story is over regardless of your feelings. Costella screwed up with this claim. The only question that remains is will he correct it.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Craig Lamson' wrote:
...

Does not matter. The point is that it is POSSIBLE. Costella says it is IMPOSSIBLE. End of story.

I'd say the beginning of the story: show us, examples that is. After all I provided examples of optical printing techniques, not to mention equipment nomenclatures. Surely this wasn't going to pass unnoticed....

Or is the technique simply illusion. After all, one can NOT make a soft edge negative and/or photo SHARP! So show us a few of these darkroom illusions....:blink:

Well David they made the unsharp mask process in Photoshop based on the same principals. If you don't think it works, fine with me. Try a google on local contrast.

As for examples I'm still waiting for Costella to provide empirical examples of the claims he has made. What's the matter, the scientist can't use a camera?

The story is over regardless of your feelings. Costella screwed up with this claim. The only question that remains is will he correct it.

If he graces this forum re debating the above, be prepared to go technical........ he be the one who does the CODE!

Who is THEY, please? Frankly, the argument is a none starter. As IF we don't know the photo/film printing industry is fraught with illusion -- i.e., making something out of nothing, eh? Or, as they say, no tickey-no washy!

I do recall Kai Krauss had a hand in writing quite a few of Photoshop's primary plug-in filters, unsharp mask and gaussian blur comes to mind (sometime after Adobe's creation of the Illustrator program). Kai went on to other great software advances in plug-in filters, app's and things, Kai's Power Tools and MetaCreations specifically. Perhaps you know Kai, I met him at Brooks, Santa Barbara [when Brian Ratty was on staff there] -- Kai was a student there (way back when)

Have you heard JCostella Ph.D has made great advances in image compression/decompression schemes-codec? HD too! Released just a few weeks ago....

If he chooses to debate, I suspect he's grounded in basics - word to the wise

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Craig Lamson' wrote:
...

Does not matter. The point is that it is POSSIBLE. Costella says it is IMPOSSIBLE. End of story.

I'd say the beginning of the story: show us, examples that is. After all I provided examples of optical printing techniques, not to mention equipment nomenclatures. Surely this wasn't going to pass unnoticed....

Or is the technique simply illusion. After all, one can NOT make a soft edge negative and/or photo SHARP! So show us a few of these darkroom illusions....:blink:

Well David they made the unsharp mask process in Photoshop based on the same principals. If you don't think it works, fine with me. Try a google on local contrast.

As for examples I'm still waiting for Costella to provide empirical examples of the claims he has made. What's the matter, the scientist can't use a camera?

The story is over regardless of your feelings. Costella screwed up with this claim. The only question that remains is will he correct it.

If he graces this forum re debating the above, be prepared to go technical........ he be the one who does the CODE!

Who is THEY, please? Frankly, the argument is a none starter. As IF we don't know the photo/film printing industry is fraught with illusion -- i.e., making something out of nothing, eh? Or, as they say, no tickey-no washy!

I do recall Kai Krauss had a hand in writing quite a few of Photoshop's primary plug-in filters, unsharp mask and gaussian blur comes to mind (sometime after Adobe's creation of the Illustrator program). Kai went on to other great software advances in plug-in filters, app's and things, Kai's Power Tools and MetaCreations specifically. Perhaps you know Kai, I met him at Brooks, Santa Barbara [when Brian Ratty was on staff there] -- Kai was a student there (way back when)

Have you heard JCostella Ph.D has made great advances in image compression/decompression schemes-codec? HD too! Released just a few weeks ago....

If he chooses to debate, I suspect he's grounded in basics - word to the wise

They..are the photoshop team David...as you well know. Why debate the process or the code David, thats a strawman.

And yes I am aware of Costella's jpg-clear. Interesting, but of no use in this discussion. He can code...great...can he use a camera?

The question and answer in this case is simple and the process nor the code have nothing to do with it. If you say something is impossilbe without modern computers and the truth is that it is, you have made a mistake. Thats the answer. The question still remains...will Costella correct his mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Craig Lamson' wrote:
...

Does not matter. The point is that it is POSSIBLE. Costella says it is IMPOSSIBLE. End of story.

I'd say the beginning of the story: show us, examples that is. After all I provided examples of optical printing techniques, not to mention equipment nomenclatures. Surely this wasn't going to pass unnoticed....

Or is the technique simply illusion. After all, one can NOT make a soft edge negative and/or photo SHARP! So show us a few of these darkroom illusions....:)

Well David they made the unsharp mask process in Photoshop based on the same principals. If you don't think it works, fine with me. Try a google on local contrast.

As for examples I'm still waiting for Costella to provide empirical examples of the claims he has made. What's the matter, the scientist can't use a camera?

The story is over regardless of your feelings. Costella screwed up with this claim. The only question that remains is will he correct it.

If he graces this forum re debating the above, be prepared to go technical........ he be the one who does the CODE!

Who is THEY, please? Frankly, the argument is a none starter. As IF we don't know the photo/film printing industry is fraught with illusion -- i.e., making something out of nothing, eh? Or, as they say, no tickey-no washy!

I do recall Kai Krauss had a hand in writing quite a few of Photoshop's primary plug-in filters, unsharp mask and gaussian blur comes to mind (sometime after Adobe's creation of the Illustrator program). Kai went on to other great software advances in plug-in filters, app's and things, Kai's Power Tools and MetaCreations specifically. Perhaps you know Kai, I met him at Brooks, Santa Barbara [when Brian Ratty was on staff there] -- Kai was a student there (way back when)

Have you heard JCostella Ph.D has made great advances in image compression/decompression schemes-codec? HD too! Released just a few weeks ago....

If he chooses to debate, I suspect he's grounded in basics - word to the wise

They..are the photoshop team David...as you well know. Why debate the process or the code David, thats a strawman.

And yes I am aware of Costella's jpg-clear. Interesting, but of no use in this discussion. He can code...great...can he use a camera?

The question and answer in this case is simple and the process nor the code have nothing to do with it. If you say something is impossilbe without modern computers and the truth is that it is, you have made a mistake. Thats the answer. The question still remains...will Costella correct his mistake.

not a strawman Craig, after all, most digital photo plug-in filters (specifically Photoshop's) were brought to life by darkroom folks (in search for something they could not do in their labs and/or darkrooms.... with the aid and assistance of a coder of course....

Till I see examples, comparisions AND documentation -- no mistake....

I've never seen a blurry photos edges enhanced in a old-time photo lab..... softened yes, sharpend NO....

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Craig Lamson' wrote:
...

Does not matter. The point is that it is POSSIBLE. Costella says it is IMPOSSIBLE. End of story.

I'd say the beginning of the story: show us, examples that is. After all I provided examples of optical printing techniques, not to mention equipment nomenclatures. Surely this wasn't going to pass unnoticed....

Or is the technique simply illusion. After all, one can NOT make a soft edge negative and/or photo SHARP! So show us a few of these darkroom illusions....:)

Well David they made the unsharp mask process in Photoshop based on the same principals. If you don't think it works, fine with me. Try a google on local contrast.

As for examples I'm still waiting for Costella to provide empirical examples of the claims he has made. What's the matter, the scientist can't use a camera?

The story is over regardless of your feelings. Costella screwed up with this claim. The only question that remains is will he correct it.

If he graces this forum re debating the above, be prepared to go technical........ he be the one who does the CODE!

Who is THEY, please? Frankly, the argument is a none starter. As IF we don't know the photo/film printing industry is fraught with illusion -- i.e., making something out of nothing, eh? Or, as they say, no tickey-no washy!

I do recall Kai Krauss had a hand in writing quite a few of Photoshop's primary plug-in filters, unsharp mask and gaussian blur comes to mind (sometime after Adobe's creation of the Illustrator program). Kai went on to other great software advances in plug-in filters, app's and things, Kai's Power Tools and MetaCreations specifically. Perhaps you know Kai, I met him at Brooks, Santa Barbara [when Brian Ratty was on staff there] -- Kai was a student there (way back when)

Have you heard JCostella Ph.D has made great advances in image compression/decompression schemes-codec? HD too! Released just a few weeks ago....

If he chooses to debate, I suspect he's grounded in basics - word to the wise

They..are the photoshop team David...as you well know. Why debate the process or the code David, thats a strawman.

And yes I am aware of Costella's jpg-clear. Interesting, but of no use in this discussion. He can code...great...can he use a camera?

The question and answer in this case is simple and the process nor the code have nothing to do with it. If you say something is impossilbe without modern computers and the truth is that it is, you have made a mistake. Thats the answer. The question still remains...will Costella correct his mistake.

not a strawman Craig, after all, most digital photo plug-in filters (specifically Photoshop's) were brought to life by darkroom folks (in search for something they could not do in their labs and/or darkrooms.... with the aid and assistance of a coder of course....

Till I see examples, comparisions AND documentation -- no mistake....

I've never seen a blurry photos edges enhanced in a old-time photo lab..... softened yes, sharpend NO....

Its not my fault your education in these matters is so lacking.

Your answers await...the link is www.google.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...