Since the initial release of our MultiscaleAdaptiveStretch (MAS) tool in December, we've been reading many reviews and observing some very interesting reactions. I must say that the reception of this new tool has been, overall, very positive.
There's one line of argument, however, that has surprised me quite a bit. Well, not really surprised in the sense of something unexpected, but the kind of surprise one experiences whenever faced with certain types of arrogance and insolence that are very difficult to get used to.
What I've read, and what surprised me so much, is that with MAS we've finally filled a gap: we finally have a tool capable of setting the average background value of an image, or what's known as a target background parameter. This is very interesting because, frankly, I was unaware of this issue until now. In fact, if my memory serves me right, we've had several tools capable of doing this for about 20 years, and in some cases even longer. Namely: MaskedStretch, AutoHistogram, and the ScreenTransferFunction/HistogramTransformation combo, not to mention how easily this can be done in PixelMath.
Well, sorry, maybe I'm getting confused. Oh, no, I'm right, I just checked in PixInsight: these tools have been around for ages. So that "gap" doesn't exist and never has, probably since long before whoever is pointing it out was able to ask an AI that copies our source code.
The worst part of all this is that they're trying to convey the idea that we've copied something or someone with MAS. Well, no. We never do such a thing, simply for two essential reasons: it's not our style, and we don't need to. Could it be that whoever is shamelessly copying us is trying to defend the indefensible?
There's one line of argument, however, that has surprised me quite a bit. Well, not really surprised in the sense of something unexpected, but the kind of surprise one experiences whenever faced with certain types of arrogance and insolence that are very difficult to get used to.
What I've read, and what surprised me so much, is that with MAS we've finally filled a gap: we finally have a tool capable of setting the average background value of an image, or what's known as a target background parameter. This is very interesting because, frankly, I was unaware of this issue until now. In fact, if my memory serves me right, we've had several tools capable of doing this for about 20 years, and in some cases even longer. Namely: MaskedStretch, AutoHistogram, and the ScreenTransferFunction/HistogramTransformation combo, not to mention how easily this can be done in PixelMath.
Well, sorry, maybe I'm getting confused. Oh, no, I'm right, I just checked in PixInsight: these tools have been around for ages. So that "gap" doesn't exist and never has, probably since long before whoever is pointing it out was able to ask an AI that copies our source code.
The worst part of all this is that they're trying to convey the idea that we've copied something or someone with MAS. Well, no. We never do such a thing, simply for two essential reasons: it's not our style, and we don't need to. Could it be that whoever is shamelessly copying us is trying to defend the indefensible?
