Autolevel and autocontrast erratic

[tomsi42]

But it is not obvious why "it is not trivial to fix." (I assume that means "It is difficult to fix.") It worked well in Bibble, so it would seem like the solution is known.

I don't see why it should be trivial to fix. The ASP internals is completely different from Bibble. For all we know the auto-functions in Bibble was part of the Kodak engine they used there. By throwing out that engine it probably means that have to code the functions from scratch.

[gregglee]

But it is not obvious why "it is not trivial to fix." (I assume that means "It is difficult to fix.") It worked well in Bibble, so it would seem like the solution is known.

I don't see why it should be trivial to fix. The ASP internals is completely different from Bibble. For all we know the auto-functions in Bibble was part of the Kodak engine they used there. By throwing out that engine it probably means that have to code the functions from scratch.

If you think I said it is trivial to fix, you have made a semantic error.
"Not obvious why 'it is not trivial to fix' '" is not equivalent to "It is trivial to fix."

I imitated Jeff's construction for dramatic effect, using passive voice and "not", but since each "not" modifies a different word (and is said by a different person), this is not a double negative that resolves to a positive. (Examples of double negatives would be "not 'not trivial' "or "not 'not obvious' ".)

In my original statement I could substitute "you didn't explain" for "it is not obvious"

===================================
I said it's "not obvious" in the first place because Jeff's post said nothing about it. No information at all is arguably not an obvious explanation.

No official source I have found has said anything like "ASP internals is completely different from Bibble." In fact no official source, as far as I know, has said anything about internal changes, let alone why they might make them. Jeff has posted to ASP forum all of 3 times. (One of those was about the Bibble web site being down, so only 2 about ASP.) The announcement email to Bibble users said that ASP included all the Bibble 5.2.3 fixes plus interface changes. It mentioned no additional functional changes.

Another forum member has said AL is earlier in the process in ASP, but even if that is correct, it's not obvious why that makes the fix difficult, assuming they understand how their code works.

But I haven't read every single post in the ASP forum, or the Bibble forum, so if you can point me to the source for "The ASP internals is completely different from Bibble" I would definitely like to see what it has to say.

[tomsi42]

If you think I said it is trivial to fix, you have made a semantic error.
"Not obvious why 'it is not trivial to fix' '" is not equivalent to "It is trivial to fix."

It might not your meaning, but it's hard not to read into your statement that you implied it the way I read it. And if you had substitute "you didn't explain" for "it is not obvious" it would not change how it sounds to me. Then again English isn't my native tongue, and is heavily influenced by the British and Australian versions of the language.

I don't know how much you follow this forum, and how familiar you are with Bibble, but one thing that has been discussed a lot here, is that the Kodak libraries used in Bibble 5 has been replaced. From what I understand those parts were a large part of the Bibble internals.

[gregglee]

If you think I said it is trivial to fix, you have made a semantic error.
"Not obvious why 'it is not trivial to fix' '" is not equivalent to "It is trivial to fix."

It might not your meaning, but it's hard not to read into your statement that you implied it the way I read it. And if you had substitute "you didn't explain" for "it is not obvious" it would not change how it sounds to me. Then again English isn't my native tongue, and is heavily influenced by the British and Australian versions of the language.

I don't know how much you follow this forum, and how familiar you are with Bibble, but one thing that has been discussed a lot here, is that the Kodak libraries used in Bibble 5 has been replaced. From what I understand those parts were a large part of the Bibble internals.

Interesting. Certainly the ironic use of "not ___" is a US english idiom. And a common one. Remember Jeff used it first; I just mimicked. Probably same in Canadian. I can't say about British or Australian use let alone other languages. I was asking Jeff, who is located not only in the same country, but 150 miles down the road in the same state. I was confident he would read as I intended.
============
If join dates in B5 forum are correct, I have been around 3 years longer than you.
============
I don't know you and don't intend anything personal in the next statement, but many forum (any forum) discussions seems to be speculation (and gotcha games) from those with no inside knowledge. Not really useful except as entertainment. Does any of the discussion you mention include official or inside sources or perhaps analysis of program files? I can see that the folder structures and all the files that are text based (txt xml xmp queue batch ui, etc.) seem to be the almost entirely the same. I haven't tried looking at dlls.

I'll try search, but a specific link would save me time.

[tomsi42]

Interesting. Certainly the ironic use of "not ___" is a US english idiom. And a common one. Remember Jeff used it first; I just mimicked. Probably same in Canadian. I can't say about British or Australian use let alone other languages. I was asking Jeff, who is located not only in the same country, but 150 miles down the road in the same state. I was confident he would read as I intended.

It's the nuances that bites you - or me in this case

If join dates in B5 forum are correct, I have been around 3 years longer than you.

I started looking into Bibble (4) about a year before joining the B5 forum, so I'm the grasshopper here.

I don't know you and don't intend anything personal in the next statement, but many forum (any forum) discussions seems to be speculation (and gotcha games) from those with no inside knowledge. Not really useful except as entertainment. Does any of the discussion you mention include official or inside sources or perhaps analysis of program files? I can see that the folder structures and all the files that are text based (txt xml xmp queue batch ui, etc.) seem to be the almost entirely the same. I haven't tried looking at dlls.

I'll try search, but a specific link would save me time.

There are no official information as far a I know, it's more a conclusion I have drawn form reading the comments from people who are well known in the community (and probably was in the beta program). Threads like this and responses like this are many that tals about removal of the kodak engine. For me as a software developer, that means a large rewrite. That why posted what I did - that things that looks simple to fix, not necessarily is that. Experienced software developers also falls into that trap once in a while.

[B4b5]

the British and Australian versions of the language.

The only thing I know in Austrailian is "Shrimp on the barbie" the rest is all British to me!

[gregglee]

Search found only one comment from a bibble staff member regarding kodak engine. That is the second post in this thread. And it was not the primary focus of the post, but incidental to correcting one comment in the previous post about v4 monitor profiles.

I don't know how this relates to the AL or AC functions.

[FalCT60]

Hello,

Might I add... IMO, autolevel is quite useless and (this is a fact) not compatible at all with autocontrast : checking both settings will result in pictures randomly over-over-overexposed.
The best choice, I think, is to deactivate autolevel and adjust the contrast when needed. The results are far much better.

Regards,

J.-Luc

[gregglee]

Might I add... IMO, autolevel is quite useless

I believe that was the point of the first sentence of my Original Post. Auto Contrast also. Both did work in BibblePro however.

and (this is a fact) not compatible at all with autocontrast : checking both settings will result in pictures randomly over-over-overexposed.

You are right, but no one commenting in this thread suggested using them together.

For more complete explanation of AL versus AC see: http://forum.corel.com/EN/viewtopic.php ... 32#p240232

[FalCT60]

Might I add... IMO, autolevel is quite useless

I believe that was the point of the first sentence of my Original Post.

Sorry... I didn't understand it that way...

and (this is a fact) not compatible at all with autocontrast : checking both settings will result in pictures randomly over-over-overexposed.

You are right, but no one commenting in this thread suggested using them together.

Maybe... But I did activate both them once in B5, which resulted in some awfully burnt pictures. Hence my remark.

For more complete explanation of AL versus AC see: http://forum.corel.com/EN/viewtopic.php ... 32#p240232

One of the very few threads I didn't read. It clearly explains what I experienced before and why it is so.
And I like very much your idea of being able to apply AC or any other run once setting on a series of pictures.

Regards,

J.-Luc