Slashdot Mirror

Same here, I have a large pack. And then I have a separate bealt with just a camera pouch. I've got several other cases I can swap between the pack and the hip case using Tamrac's M.A.S. accessories.

Packs
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/584104-REG/Tamrac_338501_3385_Aero_Speed_Pack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/544651-REG/Tamrac_558801_5588_Expedition_8x_Backpack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425852-REG/Tamrac_554903_5549_Adventure_9_Backpack.html

Belt pouch
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/149821-REG/Tamrac_51901_519_Pro_Zoom_Pak.html

All compatible with their M.A.S. series of pouches
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/M-A-S-System-Accessories/ci/4312/N/4232860979

Same here, I have a large pack. And then I have a separate bealt with just a camera pouch. I've got several other cases I can swap between the pack and the hip case using Tamrac's M.A.S. accessories.

Packs
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/584104-REG/Tamrac_338501_3385_Aero_Speed_Pack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/544651-REG/Tamrac_558801_5588_Expedition_8x_Backpack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425852-REG/Tamrac_554903_5549_Adventure_9_Backpack.html

Belt pouch
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/149821-REG/Tamrac_51901_519_Pro_Zoom_Pak.html

All compatible with their M.A.S. series of pouches
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/M-A-S-System-Accessories/ci/4312/N/4232860979

Same here, I have a large pack. And then I have a separate bealt with just a camera pouch. I've got several other cases I can swap between the pack and the hip case using Tamrac's M.A.S. accessories.

Packs
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/584104-REG/Tamrac_338501_3385_Aero_Speed_Pack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/544651-REG/Tamrac_558801_5588_Expedition_8x_Backpack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425852-REG/Tamrac_554903_5549_Adventure_9_Backpack.html

Belt pouch
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/149821-REG/Tamrac_51901_519_Pro_Zoom_Pak.html

All compatible with their M.A.S. series of pouches
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/M-A-S-System-Accessories/ci/4312/N/4232860979

Same here, I have a large pack. And then I have a separate bealt with just a camera pouch. I've got several other cases I can swap between the pack and the hip case using Tamrac's M.A.S. accessories.

Packs
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/584104-REG/Tamrac_338501_3385_Aero_Speed_Pack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/544651-REG/Tamrac_558801_5588_Expedition_8x_Backpack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425852-REG/Tamrac_554903_5549_Adventure_9_Backpack.html

Belt pouch
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/149821-REG/Tamrac_51901_519_Pro_Zoom_Pak.html

All compatible with their M.A.S. series of pouches
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/M-A-S-System-Accessories/ci/4312/N/4232860979

Same here, I have a large pack. And then I have a separate bealt with just a camera pouch. I've got several other cases I can swap between the pack and the hip case using Tamrac's M.A.S. accessories.

Packs
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/584104-REG/Tamrac_338501_3385_Aero_Speed_Pack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/544651-REG/Tamrac_558801_5588_Expedition_8x_Backpack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425852-REG/Tamrac_554903_5549_Adventure_9_Backpack.html

Belt pouch
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/149821-REG/Tamrac_51901_519_Pro_Zoom_Pak.html

All compatible with their M.A.S. series of pouches
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/M-A-S-System-Accessories/ci/4312/N/4232860979

Sorry, first one I posted was a 15"

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/584104-REG/Tamrac_338501_3385_Aero_Speed_Pack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/544651-REG/Tamrac_558801_5588_Expedition_8x_Backpack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425852-REG/Tamrac_554903_5549_Adventure_9_Backpack.html

Sorry, first one I posted was a 15"

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/584104-REG/Tamrac_338501_3385_Aero_Speed_Pack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/544651-REG/Tamrac_558801_5588_Expedition_8x_Backpack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425852-REG/Tamrac_554903_5549_Adventure_9_Backpack.html

Sorry, first one I posted was a 15"

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/584104-REG/Tamrac_338501_3385_Aero_Speed_Pack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/544651-REG/Tamrac_558801_5588_Expedition_8x_Backpack.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425852-REG/Tamrac_554903_5549_Adventure_9_Backpack.html

Has several nice camera back packs that have laptop areas. Best of all, they're compatible with Tamrac's modular component system. So you can buy additional lens and accessories pouches and mount them on the back pack for expansion.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/544650-REG/Tamrac_558701_5587_Expedition_7x_Backpack.html

Here's a better idea. Get a cheap airline ticket to New York City. Go to B&H Photo / Video, wander around the acre of backpacks and such and find the one that works best for you.

Then slowly back away from everything else, otherwise you may find yourself needing 2 backpacks and a Pelican case.

Really, it's such a personal decision and there are so many choices. NYC is really nice this time of year....

(Personally, I use a LowePro DryZone 200 (It's completely waterproof) and ditch the Lapzilla for a 13 inch MacBook which works fine for tagging, organizing, storage and other road trip type things. Should be able to pick up one of them for a song these days).

And yet, not all FireWire camcorders are relics. Just saying.

Why did you run to JBHIFI for a price comparison?

Because it's 5 minutes away from where I am and it sells multiple brands of laptops. Controlling variables like that is important in comparisons, but you dont want a fair comparison because then you have to face the fact that Mac's are more expensive then the equivalent laptops.

And the little performance performance increase you may have gotten out of your i3 is better because of the newer architecture.

Fixed that for you, the megahertz myth has been dead for some time.

Also, any performance gains you would have gotten out of the Mac would have been killed by the slower drive. You don't understand how computers work, I/O is the bottleneck on systems running 5.4 K RPM drives.

US$1199

You do know Apple prevents me form buying that. I have to pay A$1400 in Australia which is US$1495. (BTW, Tax in Oz is a flat 10%)

But I decided to check out Dell's US web site. The Vostro with an i5 starts at US$711 without any student discounts (which is another form of goal post moving, lets use actual prices for comparison, I haven't been a student for 10 years so using this makes you look desperate to prove a point you know is false).

But here is a Toshiba Portege which has the same spec's as the Macbook and the Dell for only US$849 from a US store, you could probably get it cheaper but I'm not that familiar with the US market. Oh and BH Photo & Video will ship to Oz.. I also get Toshiba's warranty and renowned reliability.

Moving the goal posts?

Yes you are.

and it seems no matter how much you move them, it doesn't help your argument. You complained that I used Australian prices, then I proved exactly the same thing in US prices and you are yet to provide a single corroborating link, I think you're pulling your "facts" out of your arse and are afraid of what you might find if you actually tested what you are claiming.

Admit it, Mac's are overpriced.

There is another option for the rich - the $6000 43" ultra-widescreen curved monitor with a 2880x900 resolution. Go really crazy and get three of those for slightly less than the cost of a real rally car..

The device I'm describing is a host to both peripherals. This is the first one I could find but there are others too, some with screens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/434761-REG/Belkin_F5U203_USB_Anywhere_USB.html

They exist but are rare: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/706682-REG/Eizo_S2243WH_BK_FlexScan_S2243WH_BK_22_LCD.html

Also, they tend to be professional quality monitors with the professional quality price tag.

I just wish that someone would start taking laptop panels and putting them in a plastic case with a power supply and a DVI port. Seriously, how hard can that be?

A 4x5 camera with a digital back will also shoot much higher resolution than a DX digital camera. The point is also invalid, because realistically, a top-end DSLR actually costs less than a 4x5 camera with lenses and the cost of film and processing.

This is only valid if you shoot hundreds if not thousands of photos. Fact is is the major difference in cost between digital and film medium format cameras is the cost of the backs. And film backs are a lot cheaper than the thousands of dollars a digital back costs. Take for instance a Hasselblad H2F. B&H Photo and Video lists the price at $7000. A film back for it costs $400 and RVP 120mm Fujichrome Velvia film is $6. A Adapter Plate Kit for CF/CF-MS Digital Backs cost $900. That's more than twice as much for digital, and it is a dedicated interface for the Hasselblad CF Digital Back System not a digital back itself, than the film back. You can shoot a lot of film with just the difference in price.

Or take a DSRL instead of a medium camera with digital back. Canon's highest res DSRL is the EOS 1Ds Mark III which costs the same as the Hasselblad. Now which do you think is a better camera (rhetorical question, it depends on the use)? Or there's the Hasselblad H2F at $2700. And of course there are a number of cameras other than Hasselblad, such as Mamiya and Pentax.

Falcon

A 4x5 camera with a digital back will also shoot much higher resolution than a DX digital camera. The point is also invalid, because realistically, a top-end DSLR actually costs less than a 4x5 camera with lenses and the cost of film and processing.

This is only valid if you shoot hundreds if not thousands of photos. Fact is is the major difference in cost between digital and film medium format cameras is the cost of the backs. And film backs are a lot cheaper than the thousands of dollars a digital back costs. Take for instance a Hasselblad H2F. B&H Photo and Video lists the price at $7000. A film back for it costs $400 and RVP 120mm Fujichrome Velvia film is $6. A Adapter Plate Kit for CF/CF-MS Digital Backs cost $900. That's more than twice as much for digital, and it is a dedicated interface for the Hasselblad CF Digital Back System not a digital back itself, than the film back. You can shoot a lot of film with just the difference in price.

Or take a DSRL instead of a medium camera with digital back. Canon's highest res DSRL is the EOS 1Ds Mark III which costs the same as the Hasselblad. Now which do you think is a better camera (rhetorical question, it depends on the use)? Or there's the Hasselblad H2F at $2700. And of course there are a number of cameras other than Hasselblad, such as Mamiya and Pentax.

Falcon

Real 1.35v replacements for the old mercury batteries: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/96457-REG/Wein_W9901201_MRB625_Cell_1_35v_Zinc_Air.html

These are obvious. http://www.visioncarefilters.com/products_3M.html

If you decide to go this route, remember Google (or the SE of your choice) is your friend.

Took 3 seconds to find a 3M Model PF 17.0, listed on the site above for $104.05 at B&H for 56.50.

600mm is not all the way, it's just half-way there!

All it takes to view these videos in their native resolution is a $60,000 4k monitor like the one available here : http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/676516-REG/Astro_Design_Inc_DM_3410_4K_x_2K_10.html

For a billionaire, 60 grand is not even 1/100 of a percent of their total fortune. Not to mention that they could have google pay for the screen because technically messing around with 4k resolution is a business expense....(even if Larry or Sergey were using it to view equine pornography)

Ah, yes. The old "it cost more, therefore it must be better/newer/faster" generalization.

So, go have a look at what's actually available. You'll see that while the prices do vary wildly, there is very little variation in terms of the actual products (aside from packaging) other than a handful of products that appear to actually be independently engineered (which is not necessarily a good thing).

Just to pick one particular product: B&H sells it for $11.95. Computer Geeks has the same one for $7.99. Our hack-friendly friends at Sparkfun sell their copy for $10.99.

Meanwhile, buy.com has the same thing for $3.37 plus shipping. Deal Extreme is even cheaper at $1.85 including shipping, but you have to wait for it to cross the Pacific.

So...uh. Should I buy the expensive one from B&H, or the cheap one from Deal Extreme? B&H will certainly handle returns better in case the thing breaks or whatever, but for the price I can buy a small handful of these widgets from DX and spread out the MTBF myself.

(The rest of your post is spot-on.)

Where in the world were you a photo assistant? And are these US dollars?
BH Photo has Fuji Astia @ $4 USD a roll, add in $8 per roll to process and that's at Modern Age here in mid-town NYC, certainly not a drugstore.
Film may not be cheap but there's a big difference between $12 a roll and $35. Keep in mind those numbers would come down if you're buying or processing in bulk.

It looks like it may soon be time to get the RB67 out of the closet... The back is pricy, and it's 'only' 22 megapixel, but maybe the next generation will be denser & more affordable (I hope)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/660579-REG/Mamiya_322_022_DM_22_DM_Series_Digital.html#specifications

Adapter plate for RB67

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/567945-REG/Mamiya_310_246_310_246_RB67_Adapter_HX_702.html

It looks like it may soon be time to get the RB67 out of the closet... The back is pricy, and it's 'only' 22 megapixel, but maybe the next generation will be denser & more affordable (I hope)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/660579-REG/Mamiya_322_022_DM_22_DM_Series_Digital.html#specifications

Adapter plate for RB67

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/567945-REG/Mamiya_310_246_310_246_RB67_Adapter_HX_702.html

The availability of more 4K displays would not suddenly drive up the price on your 1080p screens so that you could no longer afford to buy a monitor.

Youll get the 4Kx2K monitor when 4Kx2K video becomes mainstream. Astro Systems DM-3400 56" Professional 4K LCD Monitor [$58,000]

You misunderstand me, I think.

Having a smaller sensor causes a variety of optical restrictions for creating lenses and taking photos. For instance, making a wide angle lens for a small sensor can be difficult because of the extremely short focal lengths involved. Also, with the relatively short focal lengths to obtain the same framing of an image, it's EXTREMELY difficult to get a shallow depth of field with a small sensor. For macro work it's great, because you can focus up close and still have a fair bit of depth to your image, but for things like portrait work, it's problematic.

It doesn't matter if the tiny sensor is 200 megapixels and the large sensor is only 5, often the more pleasing image will come from the larger sensor. Why do you think products like This one exist, and are able to command such a high price? Sure, there's a lot of resolution there, but it's the sensor size, and the compatibility with fantastic glass that sell it.

Kodak's "preview" patent says that you see all of the digital processing and sensor data? How do they manage that one on a tiny LCD? It's simply not the case that you get this with a digital preview. You see an approximation of what you will get. In fact, you see less than what you might using a viewfinder, especially if you are looking through a Minolta Alpha/Maxxum with Depth of Field preview.

Viewfinders, including ones that have a screen you view from a distance, have been around for a long time. In fact, maybe these people would like a few words with Kodak over their apparent patent:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/634635-USA/Rollei_66031_Hy6_Medium_Format_SLR.html

That's called a "Waist-level" viewfinder, and they've been around for a long time (the first Rolleiflex DLR I can find reference to is from 1931). In short, I would like to see the full Patent application, and how Kodak represented the prior art and prior implementations of representing an image on a screen. The other thing I would like to see are the licensing agreements with the other companies. The article only mentions that the companies license patents regarding digital photography, and say nothing of licensing this particular patent. An unusual omission, in my opinion.

Back to the original discussion, here's what the OP stated:

you don't NEED a big studio full of gear to record a song anymore, you can do it in your garage with a PC, some software and some microphones to record with

That is correct. $500 for computer + $500 for audio hw/sw + $1000 for instruments should be enough for a decent recording. It is not much at all. Provided you have the skill to use it you can make a good recording. Good enough to be published in Internet or burned on CD. So the OP is right when it comes to production cost for music.

Let's try to do this with a film. The cheap way is to go digital. Few thousand for a camera. Few thousand for lenses. Few thousand for computer powerful enough to edit the movie. Or you want the real stuff and will shoot film. Cameras are more expensive, and you need to buy and develop film. Wait, what about the lightning - you need it both for film and digital? A few thousand more. Just production costs. Compare this to the sums needed for making a song in your garage and you will understand why making your own movie - at least one that looks good - is not for everyone.

Camera scammers tend to give you a low price for the camera, but try to make you pay extra for the battery that was already included. Sometimes they sell units with no domestic warranty (gray market),

Selling gray market cameras is perfectly legal, provided that it is disclosed.

Reputable photo stores (like B&H Photo) offer regular & gray market then let you choose. B&H honor the warranty themselves.

The savings can be substantial. Here's a nice explanation of gray market: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/USGrey.jsp

I'm surprised GIMP doesn't do what you want.. I love it.

I print photos and while GIMP is fine for online work it lacks what many print artists demand. Like high colour bit depths. GIMP only offers 8 bits per colour channel, 24 bit total. PhotoShop does 32 bits per colour channel Supposedly GIMP 2.6 works with 16 bits per colour channel but in practice it doesn't. For professional prints CYMK is needed. That's comes standard in PS, GIMP requires a plug-in. GIMP also lacks other thing pro print photographers need. The digital darkroom forum at photo.net has some discussions on what photographers think of GIMP. Some like it, mostly for online work, and others don't like it because it does not do what they want or need.

On the two monitor thing, I ran them for years and LOVED it.

Same here. Years ago I was set up with dual monitors using Windows and Paint Shop Pro. A few months ago I bought a new LCD monitor I connected to my MBP, but I returned it. I've been looking at getting an HP LP2475w which has gotten good reviews from photographers. It may not be an Ezio, La Cie, or NEC monitor but it doesn't come with their price tags either. It's actually one of the cheapest LCDs with an H-IPS panel, currently about the best panels for graphics and photography.

Falcon

Say I'm out in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness I could upload some photos

If you can get a signal out there, then you're a fortunate person.

There maybe places wireless is available but for the most part I doubt wireless access is available without a satellite phone, which is slow and expensive. This is why I support expanding mobile broadband, whatever it be.

Also bear in mind that your upload speed may be orders of magnitude slower than your downstream speed, so you might be better off waiting until you get back home.

Notice I said "mobile broadband", when you're out in the field for weeks waiting may not be an option. While relatively large storage devices are available for digital cameras, that "large" is relative to most cameras. The DSLR cameras I'd like to get have 21 megapixel full-frame sensors. I'd also like to get a medium format camera, perhaps a 645 or 6x4.5mm, camera with a film and digital back. Hasselblad has digital backs 39 MP (5412 x 7212 pixels) and above in size. With 16 bit colour depths, that's a file size of 50MB and 117MB for raw and TIFF respectively.

Now using cable even transmitting files that big can take a while.

Falcon

Guess what the intended market for this is.....and that is the used price.

The fact that you look at photography as a technology rather than an art form, and link to youtube to show off 'good pictures' shows that we approach the subject from opposite points of view.

So while I agree that the most important aspect is the photographer and not the equipment, there is no doubt that you do get much better pictures from higher priced equipment. Without getting into too much detail, there are simply some things that are impossible to do with the cheaper stuff. For example the minimum aperture of a lens makes a huge difference in the type of picture you can take at a particular luminosity, or in the kind of effect you get at a particular focal length/DOF. Then there is the design of the diaphram affecting the look of the bokeh (more blades are better). Image stabilization is also a big help.

All of these things cost money to build, compare the price of this lens and this one, the only difference is in minimum aperture (F4 vs F2.8).

Notice that all that I gave as examples are for lenses, not bodies. This is because the lens is much more important than the camera body. You can use a cheap body and still take good pictures if you have a good lens. The reverse is not true. That xti, BTW, is an excellent body for the price, here's hoping you get some good glass for it.

The fact that you look at photography as a technology rather than an art form, and link to youtube to show off 'good pictures' shows that we approach the subject from opposite points of view.

So while I agree that the most important aspect is the photographer and not the equipment, there is no doubt that you do get much better pictures from higher priced equipment. Without getting into too much detail, there are simply some things that are impossible to do with the cheaper stuff. For example the minimum aperture of a lens makes a huge difference in the type of picture you can take at a particular luminosity, or in the kind of effect you get at a particular focal length/DOF. Then there is the design of the diaphram affecting the look of the bokeh (more blades are better). Image stabilization is also a big help.

All of these things cost money to build, compare the price of this lens and this one, the only difference is in minimum aperture (F4 vs F2.8).

Notice that all that I gave as examples are for lenses, not bodies. This is because the lens is much more important than the camera body. You can use a cheap body and still take good pictures if you have a good lens. The reverse is not true. That xti, BTW, is an excellent body for the price, here's hoping you get some good glass for it.

Yeah... a lot of people are unimpressed - DVI-DVI is fine, VGA too... but as soon as it detects HDMI, it only offers the comparable HDTV resolutions (if that) - my Westinghouse L2410NM 1920x1200 screen with 10.5.6 was happy at 1920x1200@60. 10.5.7, would only let it go to 1920x1080@30, interlacing. Pretty ugly bug.

Not using 1920x1080 just won't do. Actually I've been looking for an eSATA or ExpressCard 34 graphics card that has a higher resolution.

chromablue photography

That's why I want a larger higher res monitor, for photography. The HP LP2475w I link to is the cheapest 24" LCD with an IPS, H-IPS or S-IPS I don't recall which right now, I've found and it has some good reviews. It's one of the monitors recommended by people at photo.net..

Falcon

10.5.7 came out, and fucked everyone who was using a DVI-HDMI connector. 3 weeks later, they're still fucked, unable to use their monitors at full resolution. That's the latest in my long run of OS X bugs.

Really? Yeap. I've been thinking of getting an HP LP2475w to hook up to my MacBook Pro. Now I know not to use a DVI-HDMI connection. Then again, I'll have to check, but I think it only has a Display or mini Display port.

Falcon

What a bunch of crap. My data transfers so much cleaner over my Monster gold-plated ethernet cabling, I can easily hear the difference. Just because you're bit-deaf doesn't mean that there isn't real benefit to the rest of us.

Moran.

Some of my lenses are full-frame lenses, but most are 3/4 frame - including my 10.5mm fisheye. This is not a round image (probably due in part to having a target sensor size of 3/4 frame), and offers 180 deg (the degree symbol shows as Â, Slashdot really needs to read up on character encodings) image corner-to-corner.

I do some landscape work, but it's not too common for me to really pine after a super wide angle.

With the Nikon D3/D700 (their two latest full-frame bodies), you can put a DX lens (3/4 frame lens) on it, and it will use only the center 3/4 of the image sensor. So it's not like I'd have to completely abandon my DX lenses, but it would be producing a smaller pixel count image (6.1mp for a 12.3mp sensor I believe), and I would find an image at that resolution more limiting than the effects of a smaller sensor I believe.

Actually this might be a reason I'd invest in a higher pixel count full-frame body - if I could keep a DX lens running at around 12mp, that would ease my transition into the full-frame world.

Except that any good filter had metal coatings, and I doubt this would be able to fix the coating as well.

For example, a Heilopan UV/protective filter with SH-PMC coating has 16 layers of coatings on each side.

If you aren't going to use a fully multicoated filter, then you are degrading every picture taken with that $1.5K lens.

etc.

That way you KNOW what kind-of-stuff is on a card, just by looking at it.

Also, hit http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ and search

Delkin SDHC Pro

and you'll find the most incredibly cost-effective cards around ( fast 16GB for about $36! fast 8GB for about $15 iirc )

It's the same as notes in a notebook: one subject/page, so you can tear out that page and file it in ONE file/place.

If you want to grab all your music, and you have your music segregated onto the M-cards ( sharpie's good, colored sharpie's better ), you can grab 'em all & sort 'em out on the road ( no, I wanted the other one, with the Rosalind Tureck, or Heinrich Schiff... ).

Videos on V-1 V-2 etc... Simple, Obvious, Clear, Doesn't Waste Brainforce.

If, instead, you've got different *kinds* of stuff jumbled onto every card, clarity's boshed.

Clarity wins, everytime ( ask Apple corp about that, re their UI & apps ).

Cheers,

    Captain Obvious

Unfortunately a device like this is too desirable to be manufactured, but heres something close:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=7049&A=details&Q=&sku=448811&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation#specifications

It:

-does not require a paid subscription

-can store onto both the internal 250GByte hard drive and direct to DVD (also MiniDV if youre interested)

-connects to your computer via firewire so you can capture whatever you want. You can also pull content from the hard drive directly to your computer as it saves to either MPEG-2 or DV-AVI.

-is fairly expensive at $1,299

It does not:

-support HD

-tune programs natively; I/O is done through RCA or Component inputs

I dunno if youre going to find anything much closer.

Joey

A Kill-A-Watt might be a better choice for "power trimming", since you can get an instant reading of the power used by anything that plugs in.

On my website I have a couple of webcams that I grab the image from at a specific interval and store the result. Basically, if you get a Trendnet TV-IP201 and a Pentax 10mm f/1.2 lens with a C-mount to CS-mount adapter, you can just wget the image however often you want. Image processing is another issue, but I don't know anything about that.

A Kill-A-Watt might be a better choice for "power trimming", since you can get an instant reading of the power used by anything that plugs in.

On my website I have a couple of webcams that I grab the image from at a specific interval and store the result. Basically, if you get a Trendnet TV-IP201 and a Pentax 10mm f/1.2 lens with a C-mount to CS-mount adapter, you can just wget the image however often you want. Image processing is another issue, but I don't know anything about that.

For about $5,000 you can buy a complete set of recording equipment - the necessary laptop, software, mics, etc. to go with your instruments. If you want to do it on the cheap, well... that's why recording studios exist.

5 Grand isn't needed. Using a laptop, free software (Ubuntu Studio) an inexpensive interface, small mixer, & mics can be done for about half that. It works fine for the band I record. Many small bands already have most of the supplies already such as a laptop, mixer and microphones. If these already exist, then free software and an under $300 interface will work nicely.

Cheap is the under $30 Berhinger which does CD or DAT sample rates and bits. In Linux Ubuntu Studio it it truly plug an play as a USB input/output device. Open Audacity and select the USB audio for the source and hit record.
http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHUCA202

Don't record off a Sound Blaster compatible card except for maybe webcasts and other lower quality work. The hardware has a fixed bitrate, regardless of what you set in software.

The next step up in hardware will give you 96K 24 bit recordings.

Many studios are finding competion from the inexpensive gear that just works.

My setup excluding the already purchased computer cost under $500 for the mixer, a couple mics, and the interface. I have the ability to record 4 tracks at once and and layer over 30 tracks for post processing and adding wet tracks.

A typical session is recording the 4 drun tracks to a click track which are then played back while recording the back-up vocals, bass, keyboard and lead guitar. These are synced (remove latency) and then the lead vocal is recorded while the prior 8 tracks are played back. This is followed with adding wet tracks with EQ, effects, delay, reverb, etc. prior to the final mixdown for the CD.
Under $200 4 channel interface able to do 96K 24 bit recording is here;
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&m=Y&IC=PRI1394&A=RetrieveSku&Q=

For a little more money, recording 8 tracks at once is the studio standard for PC based recording studios, but mics, mixer, and interface will run over $500 for that set-up.
http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Echo-AudioFire8-8-Channel-FireWire-Audio-Interface?sku=247003

The cost of the set-up is less than a typical studio session. This recording in your own studio is common now that the high cost has been eliminated.

All those university students who have done photo projects with them and all those (admittedly often faux-) serious artists who use them might take issue with you. But, if you insist, take a step up in price to this camera and experience a consumer/student grade medium format camera that's really quite rewarding and definitely not a toy.

Or do you insist that "consumer-grade" must necessarily employ useless bells and whistles and silly flashing lights? If so...never mind.

...when was the last time you saw a "consumer" grade medium format film camera?

Uh, ... today?

Actually, I have been able to see the contours of very slight color or brightness change on large smooth surfaces that have a slight color or brightness gradient. In very "noisy" scenes, I can't see it nor do I expect to. Going from 24-bit to 30-bit (that's from 8-bit to 10-bit per color) can make a difference in removing that contouring effect.

Video standards for broadcasting and movie production already use what they call 10-bit resolution, which is 10 bits per each color. So this display would be just what they might want. The high end broadcast grade displays from companies like Sony already do 10-bit or better.

Some digital cameras are even going to 42-bit color (that's 14 bits per each color).

Obviously power to weight ratio is not the only thing that needs to be considered if the drone can reach that height. Other factors include operating range of the RC transceiver. Video transmission doesn't seem to be a problem. You can find a professional transmitter that can broadcast up to 2 miles LOS (though if your flying in the city LOS may be an issue). Then there's the issue of depth of field, or lack thereof. Aiming at an moving object with no concept of your distance from it is difficult. Then their wind to contend with which can vary a great amount at that altitude. It's not a issue for the drone because it is computer controlled and can compensate. If you could find a rc heli pilot that thinks they could pull it off, I'd love to hear about it.

Kodak will have the last laugh.

AAD (Analog Analog Digital), ADD (Analog Digital Digital), DDD (Digital Digital Digital), DDA (Digital Digital Analog)

The sad thing is you can't find Infrared film anymore (other than 35mm, and that may be in danger also) , because "everyone" is going digital.
It's a double edged sword for me, as I'm snapping up all these Hasselblads:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/v-system.aspx

- that everyone is discarding, $22,000. systems, tossed like yesterday's salad.
(But, please don't listen to me - they ARE worthless, those lenses too, TRASH, I tell you! You need the latest:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/522927-REG/Hasselblad_70380530_H3DII_39_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

There are experiments with holographic data storage systems:

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/443/ashley.html

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/443/ashle20.jpg

-as long term storage.

A generation of family / baby pictures will go down the tubes because no one thought about it.

We shoot products on digital (no loss) - but, that's it, the rest, 220 Velvia, 35mm slides and a cool dark place, - yeah, and I LIKE it like that.