|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org writes > > >> However, reading your hi-fi analogy again > >That was a bad analogy, since audio "waves" can be >reasonably accurately completed by interpolation, and image >data can not. Image data can have 0 slope, audio can not. >Audio data always has a slope. You clearly understand even less about audio than you do about image processing Austin. All images are finite and therefore contain a minimum frequency - just as audio does. Just because humans can't hear ULF audio doesn't mean it doesn't exist as audio. I suspect from Bob's reference to the use of FTs in crystallography he has a better understanding of this than you are exhibiting, and has probably forgotten more about the subject than you ever knew. You seem to believe that anything outside of your knowledge does not exist (as in the issue of UK patent law) or is wrong. In both instances you have just publicly displayed the limits of your knowledge without even realising it. Can I suggest you read some image processing textbooks before going much more out of your depth and embarrassing yourself further. I'll even recommend some basic reading material for you if necessary. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users