Ah, it was something in the sheet name that was causing the issues.  I chose to rename the sheet used the same name and resaved it.  After that no problems.  Must have been a hidden character or something.

I envy some things Mathematica can do.  I can't say which company is better to work for.  I think Wolfram is a much bigger company and I would agree it is more flexible, and more responsive.  Both companies I believe are focused on creating great tools for their customers.  I don't think either company does not care about it's customers, both do.

And the business sleight of hand I will call it -  Taking a random fuzzy image and using deconvolve is quite different than using an deconvolved image that has been convolved by the same program .. which is what I believe is what happened with the one image, I think you agreed with your likely explanation.  

Curiously what was Maplesofts reply to the factual list that was presented to them above? 

You mentioned the document was not updated but also note that Mathematica's comparison also did not correct/update their side of the story either. 

I detected a slight mocking in the comparison of Maple on Mathematica's website. 

I think Maple respects Mathematica as a competitor as shown in the Maplesoft comparison as it also highlights areas where Mathematica proved better.

@Samir Khan Already looks interesting.  Be interested to know what it's about.  I should have made that 15 points.  I didn't expect anyone else to vote up, I will be the third person to vote up then.  Thanks for letting me know.

Most of your blogs I find quite interesting.

@JonMcLoone your comments are most welcome. 

I have noticed Mathematica doesn't yet have a Mathematica10 comparison to Maple2015

Ok thanks for the explanation, makes sense now as to why the white value stayed high for the first half of the animation.

@Carl Love That one image is one to question.  Probably similar to unsharp mask.  The lisence plate one though I do agree is genuine.

 ** I've changed the title of the post from images to image to more reflect the issue in question. **

@Carl Love "restore a blurred image" the only way I think Mathematica could fix that image the way they show is if Mathematica itself blurred the image in the first place. 

Of course this is a Maple forum.  Maple doesn't have a similar function.  We have convolve but not deconvolve.  And as for Mathematica to pull a stunt like that gets to the heart of business trickery (guile).

Deconvolve might be a command Maple could add in the future? 

Comparisons are constructive.  They show the user or prospective buyer where the weaknesses and strengths are, mainly weaknesses since the strengths are marketed for sales.

In a corporate sense it shows what areas need to be improved on, or included, in the next release. 

I can't see a comparison as being silly.

So being that the site is not indexed by google I wonder if the search within mapleprimes will be adjusted.

It seems if the first 3 points created don't describe a plane it fails.

with(geom3d):

point(A,0,0,0),point(B,1,0,0),point(C,2,1,0),point(E,2,0,0):#swapping points E and C

AreCoplanar(A,B,C,E)
                                       true

@rit I don't think this will help but worth a try.  Try loading the plots package with(plots): first and see what happens.  It could be the internal plot command is somehow messed up and loading the plots package may fix it at least temporarily.

@rit works in M18