Moose wrote:
> ...
>
> The key point is that the R-L processing for the full image took 1.5
> hours, while what I did was essentially instantaneous on the sample and
> would be only a few seconds for the whole image.
Yes, and it's a key point I did understand when I mentioned that, to my
eye, it was "a fine line" between them. That, coupled with your pointed
problems with the presentation and examples in the original article, had
me question the "return on investment", even with my R-L preference.
Cheers,
Marc
Noosa Heads, Oz
http://www.parknmeter.com/gallery
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|