On Tuesday 16 January 2007 05:59 pm, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 17:52 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 January 2007 02:17 pm, Mike
Linksvayer wrote:
> > > There is no such thing as
"upsampling" so this logic cannot apply to
> > > versions of a work at higher resolution than
offered.
> >
> > Surely I can take a 1024X768 picture, double its
dimensions and them
> > massage the result to not be as pixelated.
I would not get the original work, but I would get a work at
the original
resolution which IIRC, some were talking about.
> >
> > I think this may be what people mean by
upsampling.
>
> I think you've discovered a NEW COMPRESSION ALGORITHM!
Drop everything
> and post to Slashdot.
You think? With my fairly low user number I might just get
modded insightful
if someone is in a rush! Well, perhaps funny then.
I know what you meant, and certainly in the general case,
and the ones we are
concerned about, your meaning is correct. I was just
pointing out that people
might be using the term in a different way than you were
saying was
impossible.
all the best,
drew
--
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/262954
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|