Fractal Design Pop Air RGB Black TG review
Palit GeForce GTX 1630 4GB Dual review
FSP Dagger Pro (850W PSU) review
Razer Leviathan V2 gaming soundbar review
Guru3D NVMe Thermal Test - the heatsink vs. performance
EnGenius ECW220S 2x2 Cloud Access Point review
Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora HPE 360 LCS cooler review
Noctua NH-D12L CPU Cooler Review
Silicon Power XPOWER XS70 1TB NVMe SSD Review
Hyte Y60 chassis review
Asus ROG Strix XG27UQ review
Posted by: on: 08/07/2020 02:12 PM [
87 comment(s) ]
In this review, we look at the ROG Strix XG27UQ, and what a fantastic product we test today. In specifications and quality I mean, as the ROG Strix XG27UQ is a 27" Ultra HD slash HDR rated monitor. This 3840x2160 pixels monitor can handle 144Hz combined with GSYNC and is a DCS monitor, and that means no chroma subsampling issues.
Read article
Advertisement
pages « < 15 16 17 18
Deleted member 213629
Unregistered
Unregistered
Posted on: 08/17/2020 01:53 AM
Well. I guess GNC didn’t know what they bargained for did they...
Understood
Vitamin capsules are compressed, so vitamin is damaged not flawless when decompressed. Multi fruit juice with vegetables is lossless only. 
Well. I guess GNC didn’t know what they bargained for did they...
Can everyone just stop engaging with the obvious troll?
Understood
Loobyluggs
Senior Member
Posts: 4766
Senior Member
Posts: 4766
Posted on: 08/17/2020 10:15 AM
Your explanation is terrible. The discussion was about DSC, which is a method of compressing data across a cable. You made a post that implied that there is no way to do this without reducing image quality. I questioned this because clearly there are lossless compression techniques that allow you to compress an image, send it across a medium and restore the original in full quality. You said there wasn't. You said lossless compression doesn't exist.
Anyone with a brain would assume you're referring to talking about data, packing it, then unpacking it. But no, you had to be pedantic and talk about the compressed file itself. No one in the world refers to lossless compression as the file itself being lossless. It's such a dumb position to take that I couldn't even consider it a possibility.
Bottom line is you can transfer an image from one machine to another, compress it in-between to reduce bandwidth across a cable and restore it perfectly on the other side with no quality loss. DSC doesn't do this but I clearly stated it's possible and it's 100% correct.
You've done this dozens of times in the past. Everyone sees through it. It's boring. I unblocked you for a while because it did seem like you were adding decent discussions to threads but here we are again.
Wasn't talking about you sir.
Your explanation is terrible. The discussion was about DSC, which is a method of compressing data across a cable. You made a post that implied that there is no way to do this without reducing image quality. I questioned this because clearly there are lossless compression techniques that allow you to compress an image, send it across a medium and restore the original in full quality. You said there wasn't. You said lossless compression doesn't exist.
Anyone with a brain would assume you're referring to talking about data, packing it, then unpacking it. But no, you had to be pedantic and talk about the compressed file itself. No one in the world refers to lossless compression as the file itself being lossless. It's such a dumb position to take that I couldn't even consider it a possibility.
Bottom line is you can transfer an image from one machine to another, compress it in-between to reduce bandwidth across a cable and restore it perfectly on the other side with no quality loss. DSC doesn't do this but I clearly stated it's possible and it's 100% correct.
You've done this dozens of times in the past. Everyone sees through it. It's boring. I unblocked you for a while because it did seem like you were adding decent discussions to threads but here we are again.
Wasn't talking about you sir.
itpro
Senior Member
Posts: 1361
Senior Member
Posts: 1361
Posted on: 08/17/2020 10:46 AM
We must just stop it here. People should try and understand base differences. Lossy-loseless and compressed-uncompressed.
BMP is loseless uncompressed vs JPG is a lossy format compared to original file and can be compressed if needed.
WAV is loseless uncompressed vs FLAC is a loseless format compared to original file and can be compressed if needed.
The same goes for any signal, regardless the type of data. DSC just compresses and stays loseless. It is not lossy. That's it!
We must just stop it here. People should try and understand base differences. Lossy-loseless and compressed-uncompressed.
BMP is loseless uncompressed vs JPG is a lossy format compared to original file and can be compressed if needed.
WAV is loseless uncompressed vs FLAC is a loseless format compared to original file and can be compressed if needed.
The same goes for any signal, regardless the type of data. DSC just compresses and stays loseless. It is not lossy. That's it!
Loobyluggs
Senior Member
Posts: 4766
Senior Member
Posts: 4766
Posted on: 08/17/2020 11:04 AM
We must just stop it here. People should try and understand base differences. Lossy-loseless and compressed-uncompressed.
BMP is loseless uncompressed vs JPG is a lossy format compared to original file and can be compressed if needed.
WAV is loseless uncompressed vs FLAC is a loseless format compared to original file and can be compressed if needed.
The same goes for any signal, regardless the type of data. DSC just compresses and stays loseless. It is not lossy. That's it!
When it is in a compressed sate, part of the original data is lost - therefore 'lossless' is a non sequiter term, hence why I have said over three pages what I have said.
If no data was lost, it would not be smaller in size.
DSC is a destructive form of transcoding. Data is destroyed. Data is lost. Data is then reformed. Data is then decompressed.
There are 3 parts to any compression. The original file. The compressed file. The decompressed file.
Please tell me I have made myself clear on this, if not, PLEASE correct me, especially if I have not made myself clear enough. None of this is on anyone but me, in that if there is any misunderstanding, it's on me to correct it.
That is that.
We must just stop it here. People should try and understand base differences. Lossy-loseless and compressed-uncompressed.
BMP is loseless uncompressed vs JPG is a lossy format compared to original file and can be compressed if needed.
WAV is loseless uncompressed vs FLAC is a loseless format compared to original file and can be compressed if needed.
The same goes for any signal, regardless the type of data. DSC just compresses and stays loseless. It is not lossy. That's it!
When it is in a compressed sate, part of the original data is lost - therefore 'lossless' is a non sequiter term, hence why I have said over three pages what I have said.
If no data was lost, it would not be smaller in size.
DSC is a destructive form of transcoding. Data is destroyed. Data is lost. Data is then reformed. Data is then decompressed.
There are 3 parts to any compression. The original file. The compressed file. The decompressed file.
Please tell me I have made myself clear on this, if not, PLEASE correct me, especially if I have not made myself clear enough. None of this is on anyone but me, in that if there is any misunderstanding, it's on me to correct it.
That is that.
pages « < 15 16 17 18
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 13754
Your explanation is terrible. The discussion was about DSC, which is a method of compressing data across a cable. You made a post that implied that there is no way to do this without reducing image quality. I questioned this because clearly there are lossless compression techniques that allow you to compress an image, send it across a medium and restore the original in full quality. You said there wasn't. You said lossless compression doesn't exist.
Anyone with a brain would assume you're referring to talking about data, packing it, then unpacking it. But no, you had to be pedantic and talk about the compressed file itself. No one in the world refers to lossless compression as the file itself being lossless. It's such a dumb position to take that I couldn't even consider it a possibility.
Bottom line is you can transfer an image from one machine to another, compress it in-between to reduce bandwidth across a cable and restore it perfectly on the other side with no quality loss. DSC doesn't do this but I clearly stated it's possible and it's 100% correct.
You've done this dozens of times in the past. Everyone sees through it. It's boring. I unblocked you for a while because it did seem like you were adding decent discussions to threads but here we are again.