1 Sep
2011
1 Sep
'11
11:56 p.m.
film will outlast a solar flare though
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On 08/31/2011 07:45 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
Is it at least the case that someone can
"see the damn image" (which
I hear you there. But what about getting just a human-usable version of
the image, without all the metadata? The original discussion here was
comparing the non-losability of film-based images (which is a farce anyway,
as negatives do deteriorate over time no matter how well-kept they are)
which won't have all that metadata anyway. If the "flattened" image
isn't
present in a particular PSD file (is it possible for it not to be?) is it at
all possible to "get there from here", as it were?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
is usually the end point of digital imaging
anyway) even if a lot of the
metadata, layering, etc etc aren't usable?
Unless the "flattened" (composited) image is baked in, then you can see
most of the constituent parts (e.g. image layers, masks) but you can't
see what the whole would actually look like. Which is why my tool is
really aimed at scavenging what can be scavenged
(
http://telegraphics.com.au/**svn/psdparse/trunk<http://telegraphics.com.…
there's a very fast
command line converter to Gimp XCF in there, too).
As for metadata, some of the structure of it is documented, but detailed
interpretation is another matter. Again -- this speaks to a desire to
hinder competition& interoperability. If the Gimp knew exactly how to
render a PSD, then this would probably eat away at Adobe's extortionate
licensing :)