The Soviet Union cared more about life than the US? The Soviet Union?? HAHAHAHAAH!!!
What part of "used for propaganda" you did not get?
BTW: in your example Nedelin actually cared about lives enough to go out and join the party himself. Of course, it so happened that he was also an idiot.
How is that differnt from NASA brass behaviour with Columbia foam hit - I do not know though. At least they did not have guts to go out and watch the landing:)
To be fair, the Soviets accomplished large engineering projects because they just didn't give a fuck about quality control, economics, or long-term consequences.
Funny. I now work for an american corporation, and did work closely with NASA. And we indeed give a fuck about quaity control, economics, or long-term consequences. A very long, hard fuck.
But statistics is a stubbron thing. Russian space craft, from boosters to landers do have higher success rate. Go figure.
Actually, they do not have to. Before you donate you have to acknoledge that you will not donate over $200 through Amazon.
I know the disclosure rule - that is why I am testing. I have never had donated anything to politicians before. If I get a solicitation in any form - Amazon did not follow their stated privacy policy.
Your math is way off. Energy density for thermonuclear reaction is several orders of magnitudes higher then that.
Think nukes. A few pounds of active material device yields energy equivalent to burning some million tons (2000+ pound per ton) of coal.
Women can buy all the tech feteshes they want, vibrators with build in wireless and such, but the goatse.cx domain must be brought back to life!
Long live free speech.
Considering that the vast majority of "desktops" would be for specialized systems, such as POS terminals, TiVo screens, cell phones and PDA's, Linux desktop is already as easy or easier to use then Windows.
I usually use Windows, BTW. And I find nothing complicated with KDE desktop.
I am assuming there the box you use isn't a standard home PC... but maybe it can be done now. I still have a slight doubt about latitude, but I'll go for it.:-)
Even for several hundred photos stitching/interpolation can be done on a reasonable modern computer. I do not do overlapped interpolation, but frequently take panarama shots and stich them - incredible results and very easy.
Dynamic range of color for interpolated shots will be indeed much better. Taking into account that you can do absolutely any type of transforamtion/normalization of the resulting image for essentially free, film does not hold a candle to solid state sensors.
Many of this possiblilities are not utilized in the cameras you buy for the simple reason that what is sold is good enough. When the market matures we will see improvements of quality.
As for convinience - give me a break, he had a cadillac full of gear and was spending hours setting a shot and hour in the lab with postprocessing. Good medium format sensor, interpolation software and postprocessing software are so incredibly easy to use he would defnitely master it in now time.
Example on how you can use the available information.
Adams was using something close to 1 minute exposure. What you can do, even with a cheapo 5 Mp camera. - take 100 shots during this this time. My box can do so automatically - storage with 1Gb+ CF is not a problem. Then load it into computer and interpolate. If you move the camera slightly between shots, even better. You will get effective resolution to the tune of 500++ Mega pixels. FAR better then you can achieve with the best film. The only problem will be how to print it - but that's another question (also solvabble even with todays technology). Much better contrast and color depth too - with interpolation off multiple shots. Software is available - even if it is not in wide use.
That is why is is used in scientific applications. Minute for minute of exposure, photon for photon, "digital" sensor produce FAR more information for you to use then best film can.
for the kind of art that Adams did, no way in hell.
You are dead wrong. Now I can tell you how, if you understand.
Adams was using something close to 1 minute exposure. What you can do, even with a cheapo 5 Mp camera. - take 100 shots at this time. My box can do so automatically - storage with 1Gb+ CF is not a problem. Then load it into computer and interpolate. If you move the camera slightly between shots, even better. You will get effective resolution to the tune of 500 Mega pixels. FAR better then you can achieve with the best film. The only problem will be how to print it - but that's another question (also solvabble even with todays technology). Much better contrast and color depth too - with interpolation off multiple shots. Software is available - even if it is not in wide use.
That is why is is used in scientific applications. Minute for minute of exposure, photon for photon, "digital" sensor produce FAR more information for you to use then best film can.
You just do not know how to use them correcly. You will learn.
That you who have been a dick, assuming that I I do not know what I am talking about. I do. And about outdoor photography as well.
Physics is physics. Limits on reolution in optical systems work the same way. Properties of the detector, when you are considering resolution and sensitivity work the same way. So when folks around here tout film "superioer" resolution and sensitivity - they are comparing apples to oranges, not me.
You want to compare a shot taken with a $10K plus large format camera at 1 minute exposure? I hope you will not compare it to your point and shoot digital box. Get a scanning back - or shoot multiple images in this one minute and stitch. You will get more information available from the "digital" (not the best terminology) sensor. No if or buts - apples for apples "digital" sensors win. They are just not yet used this way - it is too fresh a technology for many pros to make a switch. In science experiments, when you are fighting to that very last bit of available data the pressure to adapt superior technology is much higher - and the choice is obvious.
P.S. The most bizarre use of film imaging I have done was assembling several tons of lead sheets nterlayed with film (well below 40 in sensitivity) for cosmic rays studies. I ahve looked at film grains in microscope until blue in the face - back in college.
In fact I did. I have worked extensively with vboth film and SoliSte image taken with lenses larger then 1m in diameter. If you guessed it - I was in astronomy for quite some time. The only area in photography where resolution and dynamic range and nothing else matter.
All modern telescopes switched to solid state detectors for imaging. That's you who does not know what he is talking about.
as a guess, you would need at least a 600 megapixel digital camera to match the resolution of Adams' 8 X 10 photos
Wrong. First: lenses will not resolve enough information for 600Mp. Second: Resolution is not the only issue.Digital has less noise. Period.
How do I know that? I processed astronomical images for quite a long period in my life. That's the area where you need every last bit of data available. That's the only area of photography where resolution and dynamic range, and nothing else matters (like digital postprocessing that snaks film abilities silly).
Most modern telescopes switched from film to solid state detectors. They give you more information. Do not argue - you will be wrong. I have personally worked with images taken with 2 meter lenses - at the physical limits of resolution. Tell me you tried anything close in size and complexity. We used to work with film - it is all computerized SS detectors now. All of them.
They also give you much more flexibility in processing, but that's not important in astronomy.
Or just you do not know what modern digital medium format backs (22Mp+) are capable of. And they cost the same as a high end large format.
Lens can not resolve more then a modern digital sensor can capture. A lot of serious work nowdays is done with digital. The rest of professional are jsut going through therapy after they learn that their expensive equipment is already obsolete.
I know - it is painful to admit that your pile of very expensive toys is obsolete.
Good digital back already has more information then a medium format film (like scanning backs). Combined with far superiour capabilities of a digital darkroom image quality is already leagues ahead.
Sell your toys while you still can. Nobody will give a dime for them few years from now.
I can assure you that resolving two lines does not tell you all the story about the amount the information available in the image.
Digital has less noise, consistent and predicatable grain. Sensor surface is flatter then film and can be focused better. It gives you more inforamtion to use then a comparably resolving film. And at some point - not too far out, you hit the lens limit.
And information is not everything. With digital you can shoot more, store more and process it much better without degradation and loss whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting paid 1/4 for job satisfaction? Nah..
What part of "used for propaganda" you did not get?
BTW: in your example Nedelin actually cared about lives enough to go out and join the party himself. Of course, it so happened that he was also an idiot.
How is that differnt from NASA brass behaviour with Columbia foam hit - I do not know though. At least they did not have guts to go out and watch the landing :)
Funny. I now work for an american corporation, and did work closely with NASA. And we indeed give a fuck about quaity control, economics, or long-term consequences. A very long, hard fuck.
But statistics is a stubbron thing. Russian space craft, from boosters to landers do have higher success rate. Go figure.
The region lost 62,000 jobs last year and shed 268,000 between the end of 2000 and the end of last year.
So it will take about 10 years to get back to 2000 at this rate.
But honestly - there are still too many people out here.
How would they sell this past ADA (American With Disabilities Act)? You can not code something ONLY with color.
It is a Rocket Sheep.
Actually, they do not have to. Before you donate you have to acknoledge that you will not donate over $200 through Amazon.
I know the disclosure rule - that is why I am testing. I have never had donated anything to politicians before. If I get a solicitation in any form - Amazon did not follow their stated privacy policy.
Just want to see what happens: how many solicitation for donations I will receive. That will test how much do they sell my personal information.
Your math is way off. Energy density for thermonuclear reaction is several orders of magnitudes higher then that.
Think nukes. A few pounds of active material device yields energy equivalent to burning some million tons (2000+ pound per ton) of coal.
What the fuck fo you mean? I have my Id since ancient fucking times.
Fuck Karma. I have plenty.
Women can buy all the tech feteshes they want, vibrators with build in wireless and such, but the goatse.cx domain must be brought back to life! Long live free speech.
Considering that the vast majority of "desktops" would be for specialized systems, such as POS terminals, TiVo screens, cell phones and PDA's, Linux desktop is already as easy or easier to use then Windows.
I usually use Windows, BTW. And I find nothing complicated with KDE desktop.
That is some dedication and talent. Artwork! *_s_l_a_s_d_o_t_s_u_c_k_s_*_s_l_a_s_h_d_o_t_s_u_x_
s_/_____\____REPORT___\___DUPES____/____\_______s_ _
l|___I___|_____________\__________|______|______l_ _
a|__LOVE_`.__Call_1-800-SUCKTACO__|_______:_____a_ _
s`___M____|_____________|________\|_______|_____s_ _
h_\__I____|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____h_ _
d__\__C___\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____d_ _
o___\__H___\_-~____________________~-_\____|____o_ _
t____\__A____\_________.--------.______\|__|____t_ _
s______\__E__\______//_________(_(__C__\___|____s_ _
u_______\__L.__C____)_________(_(___C___|__/____u_ _
c_______/\_|___C_____)/__/.__\_(____C___|_/_____c_ _
k______/_/\|___C_____)|_MODS_|__(___C___/__\____k_ _
s_____|___(____C_____)\_HERE_/__//__C_/_____\___s_ _
*_____|____\__C_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__*_ _
s____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__s_ _
l____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_l_ _
a___|______R_______/____|_____|__\____________|_a_ _
s___|___F__E______|____/___/.__\__\____F__S___|_s_ _
d___|___U__A___/_/____|__SERVER_|__\____U_P____|d_ _
o___|__C___L__/_/______\__/\___/____|___C__E___|o_ _
t__|___K__N__/_/________|____|_______|__k__E___|t_ _
s__|______E___|_________|____|_______|_____C___|s_ _
u__|______W__|__________|____|_______|_____H___|u_ _
x__|______S__|__________|____|_______|_________|x_ _
*_s_l_a_s_d_o_t_s_u_c_k_s_*_s_l_a_s_h_d_o_t_s_u_x_
SCO can say: "I can eat glass. That does not hurt me"
To check urgent e-mail and get some files I really need when and were I need it? Certainly. I will expense it later anyway.
Dynamic range of color for interpolated shots will be indeed much better. Taking into account that you can do absolutely any type of transforamtion/normalization of the resulting image for essentially free, film does not hold a candle to solid state sensors.
Many of this possiblilities are not utilized in the cameras you buy for the simple reason that what is sold is good enough. When the market matures we will see improvements of quality.
As for convinience - give me a break, he had a cadillac full of gear and was spending hours setting a shot and hour in the lab with postprocessing. Good medium format sensor, interpolation software and postprocessing software are so incredibly easy to use he would defnitely master it in now time.
Adams was using something close to 1 minute exposure. What you can do, even with a cheapo 5 Mp camera. - take 100 shots during this this time. My box can do so automatically - storage with 1Gb+ CF is not a problem. Then load it into computer and interpolate. If you move the camera slightly between shots, even better. You will get effective resolution to the tune of 500++ Mega pixels. FAR better then you can achieve with the best film. The only problem will be how to print it - but that's another question (also solvabble even with todays technology). Much better contrast and color depth too - with interpolation off multiple shots. Software is available - even if it is not in wide use. That is why is is used in scientific applications. Minute for minute of exposure, photon for photon, "digital" sensor produce FAR more information for you to use then best film can.
You are dead wrong. Now I can tell you how, if you understand.
Adams was using something close to 1 minute exposure. What you can do, even with a cheapo 5 Mp camera. - take 100 shots at this time. My box can do so automatically - storage with 1Gb+ CF is not a problem. Then load it into computer and interpolate. If you move the camera slightly between shots, even better. You will get effective resolution to the tune of 500 Mega pixels. FAR better then you can achieve with the best film. The only problem will be how to print it - but that's another question (also solvabble even with todays technology). Much better contrast and color depth too - with interpolation off multiple shots. Software is available - even if it is not in wide use.
That is why is is used in scientific applications. Minute for minute of exposure, photon for photon, "digital" sensor produce FAR more information for you to use then best film can.
You just do not know how to use them correcly. You will learn.
Physics is physics. Limits on reolution in optical systems work the same way. Properties of the detector, when you are considering resolution and sensitivity work the same way. So when folks around here tout film "superioer" resolution and sensitivity - they are comparing apples to oranges, not me.
You want to compare a shot taken with a $10K plus large format camera at 1 minute exposure? I hope you will not compare it to your point and shoot digital box. Get a scanning back - or shoot multiple images in this one minute and stitch. You will get more information available from the "digital" (not the best terminology) sensor. No if or buts - apples for apples "digital" sensors win. They are just not yet used this way - it is too fresh a technology for many pros to make a switch. In science experiments, when you are fighting to that very last bit of available data the pressure to adapt superior technology is much higher - and the choice is obvious.
P.S. The most bizarre use of film imaging I have done was assembling several tons of lead sheets nterlayed with film (well below 40 in sensitivity) for cosmic rays studies. I ahve looked at film grains in microscope until blue in the face - back in college.
All modern telescopes switched to solid state detectors for imaging. That's you who does not know what he is talking about.
How do I know that? I processed astronomical images for quite a long period in my life. That's the area where you need every last bit of data available. That's the only area of photography where resolution and dynamic range, and nothing else matters (like digital postprocessing that snaks film abilities silly). Most modern telescopes switched from film to solid state detectors. They give you more information. Do not argue - you will be wrong. I have personally worked with images taken with 2 meter lenses - at the physical limits of resolution. Tell me you tried anything close in size and complexity. We used to work with film - it is all computerized SS detectors now. All of them.
They also give you much more flexibility in processing, but that's not important in astronomy.
Lens can not resolve more then a modern digital sensor can capture. A lot of serious work nowdays is done with digital. The rest of professional are jsut going through therapy after they learn that their expensive equipment is already obsolete.
I know - it is painful to admit that your pile of very expensive toys is obsolete.
Good digital back already has more information then a medium format film (like scanning backs). Combined with far superiour capabilities of a digital darkroom image quality is already leagues ahead.
Sell your toys while you still can. Nobody will give a dime for them few years from now.
I can assure you that resolving two lines does not tell you all the story about the amount the information available in the image.
Digital has less noise, consistent and predicatable grain. Sensor surface is flatter then film and can be focused better. It gives you more inforamtion to use then a comparably resolving film. And at some point - not too far out, you hit the lens limit.
And information is not everything. With digital you can shoot more, store more and process it much better without degradation and loss whatsoever.