Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Aug 7, 2020.
Lol.. back to ignore.
Your confidence in the face of arguing that lossless compression actually doesn't mean lossless despite being shown a literal example of lossless compression is grotesque. If the obscenity filter were working properly all your posts would be scrambled.
You're literally just arguing you can't do something you were just shown an example of someone doing. Take the L and move on; this is stupid and none of us want the second-hand embarrassment you're forcing us to feel anymore.
My point was that you lose something when you compress - that was proven by whoever proved it. Whoever brought lossless into the equation, for whatever reason, is the one you should wagging your finger at, not moi.
DSC is a compression, things are lost when things are compressed - that is the OT point of contention. I never said it was visible, nor invisible.
Why do you think compression exists?
Funny, the internet has been using compressible streams with lossless reconstruction for data for decades.
its used in archives.
its used in game data and pak files.
its used in audio and video.
its used in graphics cards to reduce bandwidth requirements of data in vram
it works by using a dictionary index which knows when and where certain patterns are repeated, these patterns are ultimately stored once in the compressed data and when unpacked restored to the locations.
Stop trying to redefine things because you don't comprehend them.
If you lack the understanding of my point, that is on me, not you.
When you compress something, you remove something. Even if you are removing blank [null] data blocks, you are still removing something. When you decompress something, it is being reformed.
If that is what you are saying (and I think it is) then that is destructive transcoding. It is literally being taken apart and then compressed, removing whatever it can, which is the thing you are losing. Now, if you begin to decompress, or rather reconstruct, the thing - it is filling in the blank spaces using whatever methodology it was instructed to.
It would not be a smaller file size pre-decompression unless something was removed or 'lost'.
It is not lossless, because that contradicts the process of compression. This is also why I say it should be called 'super compression' or something, because it really is super, but, not lossless in its compressed form.
What sort of moron are you to still insist on your fatally flawed understanding of compression?
Lets keep it simple guys. For an average person to understand the flawed logic of compression being lossy as a standard.
You go in a shop, you buy clothes being on a hanger, you decide to put them in a bag to transfer them. It isn't the same cloth now, you ruined its shape? Despite being the same when you go home and put it on your hangers inside the wardrobe. OK.
Stop trying to redefine what compression is.
Next you'll be telling us that NTFS and Xpress16k aren't compression.
After much reading of the links people have given here (thx to all), there is nothing that invalidates my position.
Compression removes data, and therefore data is lost.
Decompression replaces it, and therefore the lost data is reconstructed.
I thank you for the links, I really do, but...lossless compression/destructive transcoding still loses data when it is destroyed, the fact it is virtually reconstructed when decompressed was never my point. My point stops at the point you compress. When you decompress - that is when your point becomes relevant.
ninja edit: My other point for which no one has answered yet, is about the 1.6:1 ratio monitors, where are they?
There is nothing wrong so you cannot call any defection with the whole situation nothing is lost. We do not understand your point. Next time when I go to supermarket I will not remove my products from cart to bag because they will be compressed and decompressed at home.
You speak for yourself, and that's fine. I've said what I came to say, and that's that - but I would like to know if there are any points to made regarding aspect ratios for computer monitors?
I remember getting in trouble for doing this. Think the last time this happened I was like 7 or 9? lol...
Can it be less cringe-worthy in the future? This is becoming a habit
Could you be less insulting to other members? This is becoming a habit, little man.
Just feel exhausted sometimes talking to you, then to be called rude feels like the pot calling the kettle black. When did you ever care what people said about anyone let alone you?
Can everyone just stop engaging with the obvious troll?
Vitamin capsules are compressed, so vitamin is damaged not flawless when decompressed. Multi fruit juice with vegetables is lossless only.
I try not to engage with him/her, but it's hard not to when they are so rude and dismissive of what someone else has tried to explain over two pages - because of...reasons.
Your explanation is terrible. The discussion was about DSC, which is a method of compressing data across a cable. You made a post that implied that there is no way to do this without reducing image quality. I questioned this because clearly there are lossless compression techniques that allow you to compress an image, send it across a medium and restore the original in full quality. You said there wasn't. You said lossless compression doesn't exist.
Anyone with a brain would assume you're referring to talking about data, packing it, then unpacking it. But no, you had to be pedantic and talk about the compressed file itself. No one in the world refers to lossless compression as the file itself being lossless. It's such a dumb position to take that I couldn't even consider it a possibility.
Bottom line is you can transfer an image from one machine to another, compress it in-between to reduce bandwidth across a cable and restore it perfectly on the other side with no quality loss. DSC doesn't do this but I clearly stated it's possible and it's 100% correct.
You've done this dozens of times in the past. Everyone sees through it. It's boring. I unblocked you for a while because it did seem like you were adding decent discussions to threads but here we are again.
Well. I guess GNC didn’t know what they bargained for did they...
Wasn't talking about you sir.