Slashdot Mirror
1,028,000 Digital Photographs
cdneng2 writes "Rob Galbraith has an in-depth article on the digital
photo process of Sports Illustrated. The article walks through SI's digital workflow of Super Bowl XXXVIII as it sorts through the 16,183 digital pictures shot by eleven of
the magazine's staff photographers and the process all the way to the cover of the magazine. Sorry, no Janet Jackson or swimsuit pics in this article."
Sorry, no Janet Jackson or swimsuit pics in this article.
I feel hostile towards people who dares to think that it was an attractive sight. Under no circumstance could a human person enjoy seeing a saggy pound of mutated flesh hanging from an ancient carcass with a face attached which can only be described as a cross between Michael Jackson and fucking Skeletor.
Oh, please. His presidency will be remembered for 8 years of staggering economic growth and a failed impeachment.
Storing the image with in a lossless format like PNG will not result in any loss of information. What you get from the CCD is what you store in the PNG, no image processing done.
- These characters were randomly selected.
go run to your mommy/wife and tell her how much you hated your dad, chief.
I was expecting something like the way the photos are processed, kind of cropping, sharpening and this stuff. Instead the article goes on to specify what brand of computers or use card readers they use and how many images they capture before they have a good shot. Not worthy of reading definetely.
especially if they happen to use *cough*faulty*cough* drives (deathstar, some WD's, etc.).
I wonder what sort of camera they used.
If they were digital, wat sort of storage device (CF, SD, SM, MS, microdrive, paper&pencil, etc.) was used for the cameras (knowing the model of the camera will lead to the type of media)?
Gross! Why would anyone in this world want to look at the old not even a has-been's saggy droopy pathetic boob.
What a lot of trouble for pictures of silly game that doesn't matter at all.