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."
The poster to this story is pretty funny... I think most of us nerds here cared more about that dangling tit than anything else in the game. Then again... I think most everyone cares about the dangling tit more than the actual game.
History has a funny way of remembering things. If you don't believe me, think about how many people sum up the Clinton presidency into one word: blowjob.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
I hadn't thought of that angle of it. One of the problems with old fashioned cameras was the fact that you only had so much film...You could only CARRY so much.
But with a high end digital camera it practically unlimited, as long as you can offload your chips. So you don't have to pick your shots so carefully; I've never met a photographer who wouldn't rather take 10 pictures of the same thing than just one, because it's impossible to tell which picture will end up being the best. Now they can do that and it doesn't cost them a damn dime. I bet SI is getting swamped with digital photos.
At the root of it though, it's just another facet of the same problem indemic to tech...How do you deal with the massive amount of info that you can now obtain.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
No dual G5's yet.
Thanks to the Quark Publishing System, which is not Mac OS X compatible. (from Page 3 of the article)
- Tony
These guys should be using dedicated image processors, like SGI boxes. They're just using souped up PCs & Macs. Sure you can have dual Xeons with gigabytes of RAM, but I still think an SGI can beat the pants off the harware these guys are using.
"Think we edit fast?" Fine asks, as more images flash by. "I'd be going faster if this shitty computer wasn't so slow." That shitty computer is a dual-Xeon 2.4GHz machine with 1.5GB of RAM.
:)
I wonder why the story's author didn't realize that the bottleneck is probably the shitty IDE drive, not the dual processors and heap of RAM... Shitty computer indeed. It oughtta be able to display images faster than "Fine" can see them. Shitty software or shitty drive interface is my diagnosis.
Yeah, but they may have had lenses from their film cameras... that seems to be one of the major big selling points for a professional/near professional grade digital SLR.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
RAW 12-bit (which the 1Ds captures) is a lossless representation of a bitmap with 24 or 32 bit color. RAW is the raw data from the CCDs of the camera itself, with a much higher color range. They capture 12bit Bayer patern, IIRC.
The RAW files are saved, to be converted into CMYK for printing, not RGB colorspace that PNG, JPEG and other monitor-centric display technologies use. The JPEGs are merely for previewing on a monitor.
RAW and JPEG are captured because that's the two formats the cameras they use spit out.
More details here.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Hell, photoshop shouldn't even be in a real journalists office.
Show me what happened, not an artists conception of what happened.
Just because you use photoshop doesn't mean you're mucking with the journalistic integrity of a photo. Color correction, contrast adjustment, sharpening, etc are all perfectly valid processes that don't alter the story of 'what happened'.
dan.
I assume that you are a more conservative person than I. While I respect your right to feel whatever you like:
1) Kids see nudity. Whether it's walking in on mommy and daddy in bed, a parent changing, whatever.... unless an adult freaks out about it, it's generally not a big deal. Worst case, they might ask some questions about anatomy that they'll need to know the answers to anyway.
2) "being offended" is really your decision. Another person can't offend you. (for example, A friend might jokingly say "Hey, asshole" and I'd laugh. A stranger does it and I might get mad. The reaction is MINE, not the speakers.
3) Honestly, it's a complicated and rough world. Perhaps if kids weren't shielded from it as much they would be more well adjusted. As it is, people lose their minds over a breast. God forbid we have 6 billion of them on the planet...
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
You're going to be in for a rude awakening if you ever visit some European beaches..
One of the things they go into in Photography class is the myth of objective reality in photographs. A LOT of reality gets filtered out between the 4-D, 5-senses world the photographer was in, and the cropped 2-D, 1-sense, heavily cropped, selective picture you see.
By waiting a few moments or changing the angle or focus of the camera somewhat, a good photographer can totally change the meaning of the photograph.