Slashdot Mirror

I suppose that using IR imagery will be ok when it is easy to buy IR film or IR camcorders? Whoops - maybe it is just fancy IR imaging equipment that is off-limits.

I'd much rather have seen a decision allowing warrantless passive technology (e.g. IR imaging, RF monitoring, etc) but forbidding the use of active technology (e.g. radar, xray, etc).

I posted this last time we had an OLED article, but for those who missed it:
Kodak has been working on OLED for a while...

... from Kodak.

DCS1000, not to be confused with the Kodak DCS 660 Digital Camera

• Very thin and flexible
• Wide viewing angle: 160 degrees
• No need for a backlight

• Very thin and flexible
• Wide viewing angle: 160 degrees
• No need for a backlight

Well first off, I can often see the individual pixels in SFX shots. I know you probably don't believe me, but it's true. Some SFX shots are so bad they stick out like a sore thumb, but even in the better ones, you can usually spot the pixels by looking for something with a straight edge and watching the jaggies go by.

Secondly, maybe your company doesn't do it, but some SFX houses do things at 4K resolution. Even "Wonder Boys", not exactly a big-budget, effects-laden film, had shots done at 4K resolution. Just read this article in Kodak's "Cinema Notes", it mentions how the effects shots were done at 4K resolution. If even a no-action, mostly-talking movie is doing effects at 4K today, don't you think big-budget action movies will be doing 4K effects in the future?

And lastly, if your co-workers don't have good enough eyes to spot 1280x1024 video, even when sitting close to the screen, they really don't have any business being in the movie industry in my opinion. Sorry, I know that sounds a little insulting, but that's how I feel about it. I can easily tell the difference, and I'm not even in the movie industry! Someone calling themselves a professional really ought to have at least as discriminating eye as me.

Actually for photographs, it is newspaper/magazine quality. According to agfaphoto and kodak magazine quality is 150-175 lpi and for art quality books/magazine it its 175-250 lpi.

The hyperlink provided by alacrityfitzhugh contained a space, so here's a link without the space.
This really is the 'real thing'

The real thing

I think that is addressed under the keyword scalability: "Perhaps the most far-reaching innovations have been brought by the Keck, with virtually unlimited scalability of the telescope primary optics". The Keck telescope consists of 36 smaller mirrors (supplied by Kodak). Since for such big telescopes active optical control (meaning that the mirror(s) can be deformed slightly by special elements under them) is necessary anyway to counteract athmospheric effects and structural relaxation in different positions the problem of microadjusting all those smaller mirrors could be addressed by the active optics (though this is apparently still an issue).

This might also mean that the OWL could already start working before the main mirror is completely assembled, probably starting with the outer ring to make most of the diameter.

As far as my experiences have gone, Nikon makes great digital cameras with lots of useful features. My Coolpix 950 has served me very well. For instance, one unique feature it sports is one where it will take a number of shots in a row and automatically select the sharpest and only save that one! Very nice in low light. Kodak also makes nice cameras. My first camera was a one-megapixel Kodak DC200. I took to school every day and ended up with over 3,600 pictures by the time I got my new Nikon! Kodak generally has very good lenses with accurate color balance.

Be sure to get at least 2 megapixels. By now you can get 3 if you really want to shell out the money. Of course, when you get into the professional models, the sky's the limit. I've seen an in creadible 6 megapixel that Kodak makes for thousands of dollers. At this point, digitals can really replace film cameras, since often these cameras are traditional film cameras with the film area replaced with digital circuitry; professionals can therefore use their lenses.

Be careful about interpolation; some companies will try to pass off their cameras as a higher res then they really are. Fuji and Agfa are two examples with their SuperCCD and PhotoGenie technologies, respectively. While these special techniques might do more then a typical resample, they are still no substitute for a higher CCD. Same applies for "digital zoom". That's marketing speak for resizing or resampling in the camera. Don't expect anything from it.

One more thing: be careful what kind of media you are investing in. Some like Sony's Mavica line, but I would rather not carry around a bunch of unreliable floppy disks if I don't have to. Also, Sony's other new camera uses their own Memory Stick format too, which will make me avoid them flat out. I've already invested a lot in CompactFlash, and I don't want to support a proprietary format with no real advantages and a few disadvantages (higher price, lower space, etc.) CompactFlash is, IMHO, the better standard when compared to Smartmedia, as it is generally cheaper and available in higher capacities. There are two types of Compactflash slots; type 1, and type 2. Type 2 slots are really nice; they take IBM Microdrives that hold 340 megs of pictures!

By now, Digital Cameras can definately take very good pictures that rivel film based cameras. When they are printed out on a modern color ink-jet priter with photo paper, they make very sharp prints indeed! I would encourage anyone to go to a local computer store and print some sample photos from a store inkjet. Or even better: you can download a jpeg from Imaging Resource and print it out. You WILL be impressed.

• My First Digital was a Kodak DC20. Smallest, lightest, cheapest. Least number of features. Takes 8 sub-640x480 photos, or 16 really crap postage stamps. A wonderful camera at the time - Kodak made it and it's software so damn easy to use. A wonderful way to learn what you want in a digital camera.
• More recently I purchased a FujiFilm MX-2700. At the time it was the smallest 2.3MegaPixel camera available. It's great, the quality is superb, but I needed to buy a monopod to keep it stable enough to make it worth while, especially in low light. I've taken some wonderful fireworks photos, some of which you might still be able to find at fireworks.krisjohn.net. The only drawback is that there's no optical zoom, but later versions have fixed that. As a general digital, this family is by far the best - it's so small that you don't mind carrying it around on the off-chance that they'll be something to shoot. Highly recommended. Oh, I'm currently using it as a webcam - on and off.
• Most recently I bought a GameBoy camera, for artsy stuff, and I must say that it's the most fun I've had with digital photography in ages. I've got an extra memory cart (from datel), plus a GB Xchanger and Mad Catz cable to transfer images to my PC. I can take about 120 shots before having to return to base. Not for serious stuff, but no equal in the fun stakes.
• At work we got an old Ricoh digital free with a big colour printer/copier. It's about the same vintage as my DC20, with shots of approximately the same quality. Ricoh have made some good cameras since then, but this one shows it's age much more than my DC20.
• The latest purchase at work was a Kodak DC265. It was bought for quality, ease of use and robustness - and it's performed admirably on all counts. If you don't mind something chunky, this is my recommendation for an all-round camera, but make no mistake, it is large and heavy. Ours appears to have a few problems transferring images - it's potentially a dud in that respect - but I've got round that by using a PCMCIA adapter to transfer images, which is a recommended procedure anyway (so damn fast).
• Lasty, two of the staff have digital camera's of their own. One is an Olympus something (sorry) and the other is a Canon Pro something (sorry again). They're HUGE and they're rarely seen. Not being able to pack them inside a bag or briefcase really limits their use. That's why I recommend the small end, and why I bought an MX-2700.

• My First Digital was a Kodak DC20. Smallest, lightest, cheapest. Least number of features. Takes 8 sub-640x480 photos, or 16 really crap postage stamps. A wonderful camera at the time - Kodak made it and it's software so damn easy to use. A wonderful way to learn what you want in a digital camera.
• More recently I purchased a FujiFilm MX-2700. At the time it was the smallest 2.3MegaPixel camera available. It's great, the quality is superb, but I needed to buy a monopod to keep it stable enough to make it worth while, especially in low light. I've taken some wonderful fireworks photos, some of which you might still be able to find at fireworks.krisjohn.net. The only drawback is that there's no optical zoom, but later versions have fixed that. As a general digital, this family is by far the best - it's so small that you don't mind carrying it around on the off-chance that they'll be something to shoot. Highly recommended. Oh, I'm currently using it as a webcam - on and off.
• Most recently I bought a GameBoy camera, for artsy stuff, and I must say that it's the most fun I've had with digital photography in ages. I've got an extra memory cart (from datel), plus a GB Xchanger and Mad Catz cable to transfer images to my PC. I can take about 120 shots before having to return to base. Not for serious stuff, but no equal in the fun stakes.
• At work we got an old Ricoh digital free with a big colour printer/copier. It's about the same vintage as my DC20, with shots of approximately the same quality. Ricoh have made some good cameras since then, but this one shows it's age much more than my DC20.
• The latest purchase at work was a Kodak DC265. It was bought for quality, ease of use and robustness - and it's performed admirably on all counts. If you don't mind something chunky, this is my recommendation for an all-round camera, but make no mistake, it is large and heavy. Ours appears to have a few problems transferring images - it's potentially a dud in that respect - but I've got round that by using a PCMCIA adapter to transfer images, which is a recommended procedure anyway (so damn fast).
• Lasty, two of the staff have digital camera's of their own. One is an Olympus something (sorry) and the other is a Canon Pro something (sorry again). They're HUGE and they're rarely seen. Not being able to pack them inside a bag or briefcase really limits their use. That's why I recommend the small end, and why I bought an MX-2700.

But I definately think that it is concievable that in a few (10) years that we will start to see the disapearance of film and the appearance of high quality digital alternatives, for about the same price as their celluoid cousins. Personally, I can't wait!

But if you are looking for an awesome digital camera (still) definately check out the top of the line Kodak camera one built on the Ni kon F5 and one built on the Canon Eos 1N, also, polaroid makes a cool one, but my personal fave is the Leica Studio Digital camera. Ohhh, I want one :)

But I definately think that it is concievable that in a few (10) years that we will start to see the disapearance of film and the appearance of high quality digital alternatives, for about the same price as their celluoid cousins. Personally, I can't wait!

But if you are looking for an awesome digital camera (still) definately check out the top of the line Kodak camera one built on the Ni kon F5 and one built on the Canon Eos 1N, also, polaroid makes a cool one, but my personal fave is the Leica Studio Digital camera. Ohhh, I want one :)

I'm a fan of the Kodak DC290, which uses compact flash cards for image storage (which I can also swap into my handheld PC). I own a DC265, which is 1.5 years old, takes 1536 x 1024 images, and its output has been fine for print publications (except glossy stuff). The camera came with a 16MB card, which takes about 40 photos at max quality. I bought a 40 meg card and get about 100 photos, which gives me all the storage I need, with no need to carry around 140 floppy disks! (Plus, the average user doesn't need max quality, for web or screen output. I could easily take hundreds of photos at lower quality.)

Kodak owners should join the digita mailing list which is excellent for peer technical support. The DC220, 260, 265, and 290 cameras run the Digita operating system, which allows you to write custom configuration scripts (for example, quickly set your camera for certain lighting conditions you encounter frequently). The only major drawback with the Kodak (and most digitial cameras) is that it cannot go fully manual like the Mavica and has only the standard 3X zoom. But, I gladly trade that for Kodak's many other merits (and I'll buy a zoom lens if it ever becomes really important). Its auto settings and white balancing make it really easy for me to hand this camera to my mom or other helpless person and still get nice photos. The DC290 is currently selling in the $680 range at shopper.com. (dang, my DC265 originally cost $800!)

I'm a fan of the Kodak DC290, which uses compact flash cards for image storage (which I can also swap into my handheld PC). I own a DC265, which is 1.5 years old, takes 1536 x 1024 images, and its output has been fine for print publications (except glossy stuff). The camera came with a 16MB card, which takes about 40 photos at max quality. I bought a 40 meg card and get about 100 photos, which gives me all the storage I need, with no need to carry around 140 floppy disks! (Plus, the average user doesn't need max quality, for web or screen output. I could easily take hundreds of photos at lower quality.)

Kodak owners should join the digita mailing list which is excellent for peer technical support. The DC220, 260, 265, and 290 cameras run the Digita operating system, which allows you to write custom configuration scripts (for example, quickly set your camera for certain lighting conditions you encounter frequently). The only major drawback with the Kodak (and most digitial cameras) is that it cannot go fully manual like the Mavica and has only the standard 3X zoom. But, I gladly trade that for Kodak's many other merits (and I'll buy a zoom lens if it ever becomes really important). Its auto settings and white balancing make it really easy for me to hand this camera to my mom or other helpless person and still get nice photos. The DC290 is currently selling in the $680 range at shopper.com. (dang, my DC265 originally cost $800!)

For serious work you still have to look at the Nikon D1, Kodak DCS560 and the like for good external flash support, interchangeable lenses such as telephoto, macro, fish-eye, decent filtering, anti moire, low noise and other features most consumer and prosumer camera vendors keep the buyer totally unaware of. Having a gazillion pixels does you little good if the optics smudge the image and the CCD is noisy, slow and has a poor dynamic range. If you want a good and cheap digital camera, you still have to buy two different ones.

The Mavicas, while the floppy stuff is kinda handy, are sort of big and clunky to hold. While the floppy storage is kind of neat, a single floppy doesn't really hold *that* much; a 32MB (or larger) compact flash chip holds a shitload of pics.

And, for this sort of device, the fewer moving parts the better, I'm inclined to think; I've seen enough cheap-ass floppy drives go bad in PC's that I get a little cagey about having one in a $600 digital camera. (Yes, I imagine Sony's got some pretty good hardward in there, but still).

Overall, from the admittedly limited experience I've had with 'em, the Kodaks are pretty swanky.

The DC240 product page
Kodak Digital Cameras product page
--

The Mavicas, while the floppy stuff is kinda handy, are sort of big and clunky to hold. While the floppy storage is kind of neat, a single floppy doesn't really hold *that* much; a 32MB (or larger) compact flash chip holds a shitload of pics.

And, for this sort of device, the fewer moving parts the better, I'm inclined to think; I've seen enough cheap-ass floppy drives go bad in PC's that I get a little cagey about having one in a $600 digital camera. (Yes, I imagine Sony's got some pretty good hardward in there, but still).

Overall, from the admittedly limited experience I've had with 'em, the Kodaks are pretty swanky.

The DC240 product page
Kodak Digital Cameras product page
--

---

I do web page design, programming, and have a number of outdoor interests. Since I haven't replaced my last digital camera (stolen), I'm in the market for a new one.

With Kodak offering a VGA camera (a.k.a. the Palm Pix) I see an all in one solution.

With the two combined I can take photos of a disc golf course or event, label them, make notes about the photos and upload the page as soon as I get home. Using a portable keyboard makes the whole thing much easier and allows me to carry the whole production on the course.

One final comment:
"Remember, when color film came out, the quality of motion pictures went down." - Yeah, the Wizard of OZ sucked until Pink Floyd released a new sountrack... :)

-----

I do web page design, programming, and have a number of outdoor interests. Since I haven't replaced my last digital camera (stolen), I'm in the market for a new one.

With Kodak offering a VGA camera (a.k.a. the Palm Pix) I see an all in one solution.

With the two combined I can take photos of a disc golf course or event, label them, make notes about the photos and upload the page as soon as I get home. Using a portable keyboard makes the whole thing much easier and allows me to carry the whole production on the course.

One final comment:
"Remember, when color film came out, the quality of motion pictures went down." - Yeah, the Wizard of OZ sucked until Pink Floyd released a new sountrack... :)

-----

For more info about OLED, look on Kodak's site:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/produc ts/specialProducts/OEL/oelIndex.shtm l

But here's a product that puts to practice a real breakthrough in flat panel display technology. (though I'm not sure about it's power consumption).

iFire Flat Panel Displays
Compared with most other flat panel technologies, an iFire flat panel display is a very simple device. It does not involve vacuum like CRT and FED; gases like PDP; or liquids like LCD. This results in reduced susceptibility to shock, vibration and breakage. Unlike LCD that relies on multiple fluorescent tubes to light up the display, iFire flat panel displays emit light from the front portion of the display. This results in a wider viewing angle and a crisper, clearer image. The simple screen printing methods also translate into lower costs, and higher yields, thus producing an affordable flat panel display for the mass consumer market.
http://www.ifire.com/technology/compar e.html

From Kodak's CD-R Overview.

The InfoGuard protection system includes a special coating that resists damage due to scratches, dirt, rough handling or other common mishaps. As a result, it's reasonable to expect a life of 100 years or more when discs are stored in average
home or office conditions.



--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?

• The strongARM only requires about 400 milliwatts vs. the crusoe's 1 watt.
• The crusoe has compatibility with existing software (not just x86) via the code morphing whereas the strongARM is a platform unto itself.
• The crusoe might have a faster clock cycle, but are the extra megahertz used up by the CodeMorphing?

I'm also wondering what the overclocking potential of such a low heat dissipating CPU must be :-)! Imgine one of these babies in a cryotech tower (this is more or less a joke - laugh, damn it!).

-- kwashiorkor --
Pure speculation gets you nowhere.

CD-R longevity reports CD-ROM's (the stamped ones) will last basically as long as you want them too, IIRC. CD-R's (the dye based cd-rom workalike) is claimed to have about 95% reliability at 75-100 years, depending on the brand if stored in a dark place at about room tempature (25c, about 75F). CD-RW's are worse, from what I've heard, but this is mearly hearsay.. Also to keep in mind, if you keep you disks in a light place, a humid place, or in a hotter place, the disk life would be much much shorter. Check out Kodak's permanance page for more info on how temperature, light, and humidity affect CD-R's. There is other good info in their other sections you can reach from this page too. However, in 10 years you will probably consolidate your collection onto a whole lot less of whatever format we have to replace DVD-Rs (or on high capacity DVD-Rs for that matter..), so reliability beyond that is not really an issue. At worst, if you plan on recopying every 35 years or so(1/3 to 1/2 the claimed reliable shelf life), you should have no problems. (BTW, all info for this post was found by doing a search for "cd-r permanence" at www.google.com. A little searching goes a long way ;-)

No, but I have projected 35mm slides shot on good film (e.g. Kodak Professional Ektachrome) to well above that size.. And the grain wasn't all that noticeable. At any rate it was much better than the 1280x1000 or whatever they're showing Star Wars at.

bnf