Trance_Allstar
I love lamp
- 18 March 2006
Re: PES 2009 News, Discussion and Rumours
Yeah I realize that, which was why i said "clearly visible" (meaning "easily visible") regarding the specific picture of the PSM magazine.
You could see individual paper fibers if you have high enough resolution and zoom. But the low-res picture that was posted was most likely not enough to make any conclusion, which was my point.
Plus, since GIANNI did in fact use that low-res image to make a case of it being fake since you could not see print dots, he logically must have expected to see print dots big enough and visible enough to appear on such a low-res image. Which means that his conclusion that it was fake was indeed based on a false premise, being that you'd be able to spot print dots on low-res pictures (and since he spoke very generally about it, it sounded like it would always be possible to see print dots, which clearly isn't the case since I used my Mag as an example).
I never said that print dots aren't visible, but I said that even with my human eye I couldn't see dots on my RESET mag, so it would be absurd to make a case that print dots should be expected on a very low-res mag scan.
Long story short, I don't see how he was correct in any other way than stating that yes, print dots do exist in certain printing techniques (a claim which I haven't challenged in any way).
Actually Gianni is correct. You may not see it with the human eye but scanning an image and zooming in 300% + will clearly show the print marks he is talking about.
Yeah I realize that, which was why i said "clearly visible" (meaning "easily visible") regarding the specific picture of the PSM magazine.

Plus, since GIANNI did in fact use that low-res image to make a case of it being fake since you could not see print dots, he logically must have expected to see print dots big enough and visible enough to appear on such a low-res image. Which means that his conclusion that it was fake was indeed based on a false premise, being that you'd be able to spot print dots on low-res pictures (and since he spoke very generally about it, it sounded like it would always be possible to see print dots, which clearly isn't the case since I used my Mag as an example).
I never said that print dots aren't visible, but I said that even with my human eye I couldn't see dots on my RESET mag, so it would be absurd to make a case that print dots should be expected on a very low-res mag scan.
Long story short, I don't see how he was correct in any other way than stating that yes, print dots do exist in certain printing techniques (a claim which I haven't challenged in any way).

Last edited: