No he did help and he is right, I should not be replying.
Bashing my head into a wall would be more entertaining at this point.
I posted a picture that disproves what you are saying. You don't need a passive display to see it. Just cross your eyes the result is exactly the same.
No he did help and he is right, I should not be replying.
Bashing my head into a wall would be more entertaining at this point.
I posted a picture that disproves what you are saying. You don't need a passive display to see it. Just cross your eyes the result is exactly the same.
Photoshop contains many different ways to resize an image:
Bicubic uses a more advanced formula and can have different coefficients for different results
Nearest Neighbour
Bilinear
Bicubic (Best for smooth gradients)
Bicubic Smoother (Best for enlargement) ***
Bicubic Sharper (Best for reduction)
*** The method used when I resized from 720p to 1080p
Both eyes of the image was resized separately to avoid any interactions at the SBS edge of the PNS image.
You do need to use a decent resize method when comparing images of different resolution.
One way or another both are displayed on the native 1080p screen and the 720p hopefully resized well.
If the actual rezise results are bad when playing in 720p then my resized image is far from the true image for tha configuration.
I double checked the checkerboard image and my method of recreating the missing pixels was far from accurate.
Using a blur filter did create an image containing image information also in the missing pictures but created a very blurry image.
I have now written a program that makes the missing pixel the same color as the average of the four surrounding.
This is what I hope I already achieved before but that was not the case.
I have included a Half-res side by side now as well and there it can be seen how vertical resolution is reduced,
(look at the crosshair on the thin vertical lines or on the character)
At first I had trouble finding the differences with checkerboard compared to 1080p.
Checking for differences in photoshop revealed differences mostly at borders or in areas of high detail like the water.
There are noticable less detail on the main character and the the border of the text is a lot less sharp.
I'm sorry for misinforming when using a bad technique when restoring the lost image information from the CB image.
http://www.mediafire.com/?0f2792salkal87a
I still maintain that 1080p60hz 3D is the best (Dual-link DVI) but then that is the only thing my monitor supports.
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1327771215' post='1361887']
No he did help and he is right, I should not be replying.
Bashing my head into a wall would be more entertaining at this point.
I posted a picture that disproves what you are saying. You don't need a passive display to see it. Just cross your eyes the result is exactly the same.
[/quote]
"The missing resolution is there, you just have to cross your eyes to see it!!!!".
Come on. Really. And I thought you'd be reasonable. You didn't really understand ANY of my points explaining why this doesn't make any sense, did you? Did you even care to read them and at least try to understand what I'm trying to say? If so, and if you're still convinced I'm wrong, then please ARGUE why my reasoning is flawed.
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1327771215' post='1361887']
No he did help and he is right, I should not be replying.
Bashing my head into a wall would be more entertaining at this point.
I posted a picture that disproves what you are saying. You don't need a passive display to see it. Just cross your eyes the result is exactly the same.
"The missing resolution is there, you just have to cross your eyes to see it!!!!".
Come on. Really. And I thought you'd be reasonable. You didn't really understand ANY of my points explaining why this doesn't make any sense, did you? Did you even care to read them and at least try to understand what I'm trying to say? If so, and if you're still convinced I'm wrong, then please ARGUE why my reasoning is flawed.
I still maintain that 1080p60hz 3D is the best (Dual-link DVI) but then that is the only thing my monitor supports.
[/quote]
I'm still waiting for the download of your pics to be finished, but I'm sure they're very accurate. I'm amazed that you put this kind of effort into this. What you were looking for, by the way, is linear interpolation, which is not offered by IrfanView.
I'm looking forward to see the difference between SBS and CB. There should be one, but I expect it to be very subtle.
I still maintain that 1080p60hz 3D is the best (Dual-link DVI) but then that is the only thing my monitor supports.
I'm still waiting for the download of your pics to be finished, but I'm sure they're very accurate. I'm amazed that you put this kind of effort into this. What you were looking for, by the way, is linear interpolation, which is not offered by IrfanView.
I'm looking forward to see the difference between SBS and CB. There should be one, but I expect it to be very subtle.
Compared to SBS and CB passive interlaced 3D leaves a blank space where the actual information would be.
You need to sit very close to most TV to even see full 1080p resolution according to viewing distance calculator:
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
Viewing Distances based on Visual Acuity.
Even with a fairly large 60" TV you will need to sit closer than 2,4m.
Even reviews praising passive 3D TVs clearly states that you will notice the missing scanlines if you sit close to the TV.
If you no longer can percieve 1080p resolution because of your viewing distance you wouldn't benefit from twice the resolution.
The fact that your brain recieves a nice 3D picture doesn't mean you magically get missing detail back.
Is interlaced 3D really that great when you sit closer to the TV?
So now you you are quoting something I never said?
Why do you not understand that your eyes can combine two images?
Is there a loss... of course. Never said there wasn't. No one else here has said so either.
It is not nearly as bad as you make it out be.
My method of creating the CB image is to take the 1080p image.
Apply a CB mask so that the upper left pixel remains in the right eye and is removed in the left eye.
Remove all pixels that would be missing.
All the empty pixels are surrounded by 2, 3 or 4 real pixels.
I take the rounded average color value for R,G,B and apply them to the missing pixel.
I really don't want to change any of the real pixels.
Took maybe 2 pages of C# to get all the special cases right.
So now you you are quoting something I never said?
Why do you not understand that your eyes can combine two images?
Is there a loss... of course. Never said there wasn't. No one else here has said so either.
It is not nearly as bad as you make it out be.
[/quote]
Where, exactly, did I make it out as bad?
It was actually YOU who claimed that the filtering would look so bad with your bottom pictures. It doesn't nearly look as bad, for sure. It looks like the picture I made, or even more accurate, like the pics Flugan created.
And again, WE WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT INTERLEAVING, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CHECKERBOARD! So your whole reasoning, true or false, just doesn't apply AT ALL.
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1327772677' post='1361897']
@Grestorn
So now you you are quoting something I never said?
Why do you not understand that your eyes can combine two images?
Is there a loss... of course. Never said there wasn't. No one else here has said so either.
It is not nearly as bad as you make it out be.
Where, exactly, did I make it out as bad?
It was actually YOU who claimed that the filtering would look so bad with your bottom pictures. It doesn't nearly look as bad, for sure. It looks like the picture I made, or even more accurate, like the pics Flugan created.
And again, WE WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT INTERLEAVING, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CHECKERBOARD! So your whole reasoning, true or false, just doesn't apply AT ALL.
It does apply.
Checkerboard > line interleaving.
I just showed you that line interleaving has a perceived quality > than half-res.
Thus checkerboard has a perceived quality > half-res.
@Boke:
If you have to interpolate an image, in this case double the resolution in one direction, there are many algorithms how you can do it, some better other worse. Which one is the best is usualy a matter of debate. But they all have one thing in common: They can't work wonders. It's still can just use the information for half the resolution.
You might claim that scanlining (blanking out every second line) is a good way to do the scaling, and you are probably even right. This has been used a lot in the past, for example in the movie scenes for Wing Commander 3 back in the 90ies, where there was just not enough bandwidth for "full res" (being 640x400 back then). Also emulators for old games (MAME, SCUMMVM, DosBox) offer this option. Many people like it.
But it doesn't change the fact that it's still just an algorithm to scale an image which already lost half of the original resolution. And that was my point from the beginning. Nothing more and nothing less.
If you have to interpolate an image, in this case double the resolution in one direction, there are many algorithms how you can do it, some better other worse. Which one is the best is usualy a matter of debate. But they all have one thing in common: They can't work wonders. It's still can just use the information for half the resolution.
You might claim that scanlining (blanking out every second line) is a good way to do the scaling, and you are probably even right. This has been used a lot in the past, for example in the movie scenes for Wing Commander 3 back in the 90ies, where there was just not enough bandwidth for "full res" (being 640x400 back then). Also emulators for old games (MAME, SCUMMVM, DosBox) offer this option. Many people like it.
But it doesn't change the fact that it's still just an algorithm to scale an image which already lost half of the original resolution. And that was my point from the beginning. Nothing more and nothing less.
The mask took some time to create from scratch but here comes the magic of passive 3D.
I have created a line interleaved image.
As half the scanlines for each eye appears dark on a passive TV they are black in the image.
If I move to almost twice the maximum distance for 1080p resolution on my 23,6" screen.
165cm compared to the max distance of 90cm and my normal distance of 45cm I no longer can see the black lines.
interleaved image, not sure if the interleaving is correct or reversed as I don't have a passive display.
The image will either be black on a passive display or the intended scen depending on if the line order is correct.
http://www.mediafire.com/?geg3cc1s4s7ce7c
Wow, amazing... Thanks so much, Flugan. A really almost perfect "passive 3D simulator" ... :)
If I chose a different picture, would it be much effort to process it? Or would you be willing to give me your program (I'm used to work with C# myself), so I can do it myself?
Wow, amazing... Thanks so much, Flugan. A really almost perfect "passive 3D simulator" ... :)
If I chose a different picture, would it be much effort to process it? Or would you be willing to give me your program (I'm used to work with C# myself), so I can do it myself?
So now you you are quoting something I never said?
Why do you not understand that your eyes can combine two images?
Is there a loss... of course. Never said there wasn't. No one else here has said so either.
It is not nearly as bad as you make it out be.
[/quote]
Lying about what the other guy said is Grestorn's way of "winning an argument". For example, he said that I claimed that CB is 'lossless', 'full 1080P'. I never made any such statements, nothing resembling that. In fact, I have never used the term 'lossless' in any post.
He's sticking with his "CB isn't native resolution" BS and there is no changing that, no matter what the damage.
[quote name='boke' date='28 January 2012 - 10:44 AM' timestamp='1327772677' post='1361897']
@Grestorn
So now you you are quoting something I never said?
Why do you not understand that your eyes can combine two images?
Is there a loss... of course. Never said there wasn't. No one else here has said so either.
It is not nearly as bad as you make it out be.
Lying about what the other guy said is Grestorn's way of "winning an argument". For example, he said that I claimed that CB is 'lossless', 'full 1080P'. I never made any such statements, nothing resembling that. In fact, I have never used the term 'lossless' in any post.
He's sticking with his "CB isn't native resolution" BS and there is no changing that, no matter what the damage.
The application has hardcoded IO paths.
input: c:\storage\CB.png
output: c:\storage\CB2.png
While my initial CB.png had been processed in photoshop to remove the missing pixels as the application only reads the checkerboard pixels you can supply a full res 1080p 3D png and it will degrade the image according to the checkerboard pattern.
While my initial CB.png had been processed in photoshop to remove the missing pixels as the application only reads the checkerboard pixels you can supply a full res 1080p 3D png and it will degrade the image according to the checkerboard pattern.
Bashing my head into a wall would be more entertaining at this point.
I posted a picture that disproves what you are saying. You don't need a passive display to see it. Just cross your eyes the result is exactly the same.
Bashing my head into a wall would be more entertaining at this point.
I posted a picture that disproves what you are saying. You don't need a passive display to see it. Just cross your eyes the result is exactly the same.
I7 8700K
Asrock Killer Z370
G.Skill 16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
Gigabyte RTX 2080
Corsair AX1200 watts Platinum PSU
1tb Samsung 840 Evo SSD
BenQ 27 inch 4K monitor
Asus VG278H 27 inch 3D monitor
Bicubic uses a more advanced formula and can have different coefficients for different results
Nearest Neighbour
Bilinear
Bicubic (Best for smooth gradients)
Bicubic Smoother (Best for enlargement) ***
Bicubic Sharper (Best for reduction)
*** The method used when I resized from 720p to 1080p
Both eyes of the image was resized separately to avoid any interactions at the SBS edge of the PNS image.
http://nickyguides.digital-digest.com/bilinear-vs-bicubic.htm
You do need to use a decent resize method when comparing images of different resolution.
One way or another both are displayed on the native 1080p screen and the 720p hopefully resized well.
If the actual rezise results are bad when playing in 720p then my resized image is far from the true image for tha configuration.
I double checked the checkerboard image and my method of recreating the missing pixels was far from accurate.
Using a blur filter did create an image containing image information also in the missing pictures but created a very blurry image.
I have now written a program that makes the missing pixel the same color as the average of the four surrounding.
This is what I hope I already achieved before but that was not the case.
I have included a Half-res side by side now as well and there it can be seen how vertical resolution is reduced,
(look at the crosshair on the thin vertical lines or on the character)
At first I had trouble finding the differences with checkerboard compared to 1080p.
Checking for differences in photoshop revealed differences mostly at borders or in areas of high detail like the water.
There are noticable less detail on the main character and the the border of the text is a lot less sharp.
I'm sorry for misinforming when using a bad technique when restoring the lost image information from the CB image.
http://www.mediafire.com/?0f2792salkal87a
I still maintain that 1080p60hz 3D is the best (Dual-link DVI) but then that is the only thing my monitor supports.
Bicubic uses a more advanced formula and can have different coefficients for different results
Nearest Neighbour
Bilinear
Bicubic (Best for smooth gradients)
Bicubic Smoother (Best for enlargement) ***
Bicubic Sharper (Best for reduction)
*** The method used when I resized from 720p to 1080p
Both eyes of the image was resized separately to avoid any interactions at the SBS edge of the PNS image.
http://nickyguides.digital-digest.com/bilinear-vs-bicubic.htm
You do need to use a decent resize method when comparing images of different resolution.
One way or another both are displayed on the native 1080p screen and the 720p hopefully resized well.
If the actual rezise results are bad when playing in 720p then my resized image is far from the true image for tha configuration.
I double checked the checkerboard image and my method of recreating the missing pixels was far from accurate.
Using a blur filter did create an image containing image information also in the missing pictures but created a very blurry image.
I have now written a program that makes the missing pixel the same color as the average of the four surrounding.
This is what I hope I already achieved before but that was not the case.
I have included a Half-res side by side now as well and there it can be seen how vertical resolution is reduced,
(look at the crosshair on the thin vertical lines or on the character)
At first I had trouble finding the differences with checkerboard compared to 1080p.
Checking for differences in photoshop revealed differences mostly at borders or in areas of high detail like the water.
There are noticable less detail on the main character and the the border of the text is a lot less sharp.
I'm sorry for misinforming when using a bad technique when restoring the lost image information from the CB image.
http://www.mediafire.com/?0f2792salkal87a
I still maintain that 1080p60hz 3D is the best (Dual-link DVI) but then that is the only thing my monitor supports.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
No he did help and he is right, I should not be replying.
Bashing my head into a wall would be more entertaining at this point.
I posted a picture that disproves what you are saying. You don't need a passive display to see it. Just cross your eyes the result is exactly the same.
[/quote]
"The missing resolution is there, you just have to cross your eyes to see it!!!!".
Come on. Really. And I thought you'd be reasonable. You didn't really understand ANY of my points explaining why this doesn't make any sense, did you? Did you even care to read them and at least try to understand what I'm trying to say? If so, and if you're still convinced I'm wrong, then please ARGUE why my reasoning is flawed.
No he did help and he is right, I should not be replying.
Bashing my head into a wall would be more entertaining at this point.
I posted a picture that disproves what you are saying. You don't need a passive display to see it. Just cross your eyes the result is exactly the same.
"The missing resolution is there, you just have to cross your eyes to see it!!!!".
Come on. Really. And I thought you'd be reasonable. You didn't really understand ANY of my points explaining why this doesn't make any sense, did you? Did you even care to read them and at least try to understand what I'm trying to say? If so, and if you're still convinced I'm wrong, then please ARGUE why my reasoning is flawed.
[url="http://www.mediafire.com/?0f2792salkal87a"]http://www.mediafire...0f2792salkal87a[/url]
I still maintain that 1080p60hz 3D is the best (Dual-link DVI) but then that is the only thing my monitor supports.
[/quote]
I'm still waiting for the download of your pics to be finished, but I'm sure they're very accurate. I'm amazed that you put this kind of effort into this. What you were looking for, by the way, is linear interpolation, which is not offered by IrfanView.
I'm looking forward to see the difference between SBS and CB. There should be one, but I expect it to be very subtle.
http://www.mediafire...0f2792salkal87a
I still maintain that 1080p60hz 3D is the best (Dual-link DVI) but then that is the only thing my monitor supports.
I'm still waiting for the download of your pics to be finished, but I'm sure they're very accurate. I'm amazed that you put this kind of effort into this. What you were looking for, by the way, is linear interpolation, which is not offered by IrfanView.
I'm looking forward to see the difference between SBS and CB. There should be one, but I expect it to be very subtle.
You need to sit very close to most TV to even see full 1080p resolution according to viewing distance calculator:
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
Viewing Distances based on Visual Acuity.
Even with a fairly large 60" TV you will need to sit closer than 2,4m.
Even reviews praising passive 3D TVs clearly states that you will notice the missing scanlines if you sit close to the TV.
If you no longer can percieve 1080p resolution because of your viewing distance you wouldn't benefit from twice the resolution.
The fact that your brain recieves a nice 3D picture doesn't mean you magically get missing detail back.
Is interlaced 3D really that great when you sit closer to the TV?
You need to sit very close to most TV to even see full 1080p resolution according to viewing distance calculator:
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
Viewing Distances based on Visual Acuity.
Even with a fairly large 60" TV you will need to sit closer than 2,4m.
Even reviews praising passive 3D TVs clearly states that you will notice the missing scanlines if you sit close to the TV.
If you no longer can percieve 1080p resolution because of your viewing distance you wouldn't benefit from twice the resolution.
The fact that your brain recieves a nice 3D picture doesn't mean you magically get missing detail back.
Is interlaced 3D really that great when you sit closer to the TV?
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
So now you you are quoting something I never said?
Why do you not understand that your eyes can combine two images?
Is there a loss... of course. Never said there wasn't. No one else here has said so either.
It is not nearly as bad as you make it out be.
So now you you are quoting something I never said?
Why do you not understand that your eyes can combine two images?
Is there a loss... of course. Never said there wasn't. No one else here has said so either.
It is not nearly as bad as you make it out be.
Apply a CB mask so that the upper left pixel remains in the right eye and is removed in the left eye.
Remove all pixels that would be missing.
All the empty pixels are surrounded by 2, 3 or 4 real pixels.
I take the rounded average color value for R,G,B and apply them to the missing pixel.
I really don't want to change any of the real pixels.
Took maybe 2 pages of C# to get all the special cases right.
Apply a CB mask so that the upper left pixel remains in the right eye and is removed in the left eye.
Remove all pixels that would be missing.
All the empty pixels are surrounded by 2, 3 or 4 real pixels.
I take the rounded average color value for R,G,B and apply them to the missing pixel.
I really don't want to change any of the real pixels.
Took maybe 2 pages of C# to get all the special cases right.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
@Grestorn
So now you you are quoting something I never said?
Why do you not understand that your eyes can combine two images?
Is there a loss... of course. Never said there wasn't. No one else here has said so either.
It is not nearly as bad as you make it out be.
[/quote]
Where, exactly, did I make it out as bad?
It was actually YOU who claimed that the filtering would look so bad with your bottom pictures. It doesn't nearly look as bad, for sure. It looks like the picture I made, or even more accurate, like the pics Flugan created.
And again, WE WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT INTERLEAVING, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CHECKERBOARD! So your whole reasoning, true or false, just doesn't apply AT ALL.
@Grestorn
So now you you are quoting something I never said?
Why do you not understand that your eyes can combine two images?
Is there a loss... of course. Never said there wasn't. No one else here has said so either.
It is not nearly as bad as you make it out be.
Where, exactly, did I make it out as bad?
It was actually YOU who claimed that the filtering would look so bad with your bottom pictures. It doesn't nearly look as bad, for sure. It looks like the picture I made, or even more accurate, like the pics Flugan created.
And again, WE WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT INTERLEAVING, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CHECKERBOARD! So your whole reasoning, true or false, just doesn't apply AT ALL.
Checkerboard > line interleaving.
I just showed you that line interleaving has a perceived quality > than half-res.
Thus checkerboard has a perceived quality > half-res.
Checkerboard > line interleaving.
I just showed you that line interleaving has a perceived quality > than half-res.
Thus checkerboard has a perceived quality > half-res.
If you have to interpolate an image, in this case double the resolution in one direction, there are many algorithms how you can do it, some better other worse. Which one is the best is usualy a matter of debate. But they all have one thing in common: They can't work wonders. It's still can just use the information for half the resolution.
You might claim that scanlining (blanking out every second line) is a good way to do the scaling, and you are probably even right. This has been used a lot in the past, for example in the movie scenes for Wing Commander 3 back in the 90ies, where there was just not enough bandwidth for "full res" (being 640x400 back then). Also emulators for old games (MAME, SCUMMVM, DosBox) offer this option. Many people like it.
But it doesn't change the fact that it's still just an algorithm to scale an image which already lost half of the original resolution. And that was my point from the beginning. Nothing more and nothing less.
If you have to interpolate an image, in this case double the resolution in one direction, there are many algorithms how you can do it, some better other worse. Which one is the best is usualy a matter of debate. But they all have one thing in common: They can't work wonders. It's still can just use the information for half the resolution.
You might claim that scanlining (blanking out every second line) is a good way to do the scaling, and you are probably even right. This has been used a lot in the past, for example in the movie scenes for Wing Commander 3 back in the 90ies, where there was just not enough bandwidth for "full res" (being 640x400 back then). Also emulators for old games (MAME, SCUMMVM, DosBox) offer this option. Many people like it.
But it doesn't change the fact that it's still just an algorithm to scale an image which already lost half of the original resolution. And that was my point from the beginning. Nothing more and nothing less.
I have created a line interleaved image.
As half the scanlines for each eye appears dark on a passive TV they are black in the image.
If I move to almost twice the maximum distance for 1080p resolution on my 23,6" screen.
165cm compared to the max distance of 90cm and my normal distance of 45cm I no longer can see the black lines.
interleaved image, not sure if the interleaving is correct or reversed as I don't have a passive display.
The image will either be black on a passive display or the intended scen depending on if the line order is correct.
http://www.mediafire.com/?geg3cc1s4s7ce7c
I have created a line interleaved image.
As half the scanlines for each eye appears dark on a passive TV they are black in the image.
If I move to almost twice the maximum distance for 1080p resolution on my 23,6" screen.
165cm compared to the max distance of 90cm and my normal distance of 45cm I no longer can see the black lines.
interleaved image, not sure if the interleaving is correct or reversed as I don't have a passive display.
The image will either be black on a passive display or the intended scen depending on if the line order is correct.
http://www.mediafire.com/?geg3cc1s4s7ce7c
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
If I chose a different picture, would it be much effort to process it? Or would you be willing to give me your program (I'm used to work with C# myself), so I can do it myself?
If I chose a different picture, would it be much effort to process it? Or would you be willing to give me your program (I'm used to work with C# myself), so I can do it myself?
@Grestorn
So now you you are quoting something I never said?
Why do you not understand that your eyes can combine two images?
Is there a loss... of course. Never said there wasn't. No one else here has said so either.
It is not nearly as bad as you make it out be.
[/quote]
Lying about what the other guy said is Grestorn's way of "winning an argument". For example, he said that I claimed that CB is 'lossless', 'full 1080P'. I never made any such statements, nothing resembling that. In fact, I have never used the term 'lossless' in any post.
He's sticking with his "CB isn't native resolution" BS and there is no changing that, no matter what the damage.
@Grestorn
So now you you are quoting something I never said?
Why do you not understand that your eyes can combine two images?
Is there a loss... of course. Never said there wasn't. No one else here has said so either.
It is not nearly as bad as you make it out be.
Lying about what the other guy said is Grestorn's way of "winning an argument". For example, he said that I claimed that CB is 'lossless', 'full 1080P'. I never made any such statements, nothing resembling that. In fact, I have never used the term 'lossless' in any post.
He's sticking with his "CB isn't native resolution" BS and there is no changing that, no matter what the damage.
input: c:\storage\CB.png
output: c:\storage\CB2.png
While my initial CB.png had been processed in photoshop to remove the missing pixels as the application only reads the checkerboard pixels you can supply a full res 1080p 3D png and it will degrade the image according to the checkerboard pattern.
http://www.mediafire.com/?j6wu53uqx24q2xr
Masks used:
http://www.mediafire.com/?mhk1d78cfciod47
input: c:\storage\CB.png
output: c:\storage\CB2.png
While my initial CB.png had been processed in photoshop to remove the missing pixels as the application only reads the checkerboard pixels you can supply a full res 1080p 3D png and it will degrade the image according to the checkerboard pattern.
http://www.mediafire.com/?j6wu53uqx24q2xr
Masks used:
http://www.mediafire.com/?mhk1d78cfciod47
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com