A GREAT handheld computer, and a LOUSY cell phone. I've been on ATT since pre-cingular days... haven't had dropped calls or speed issues through my LG, Samsung, or other phone(s) and definitly not with my current Galaxy.
I'd stand side-by-side with IPhones since day one and have no issues when they have all had trouble finding a simple connection.
IPhone on Verizon will be interesting... I expect it'll show one of two things... either the IPhone is as I think it is ad it'll do the same as it rolls out across Verizon... or that ATT has been shuffling the IPhone off to bad data lines after it's hit the cell tower.
But its your WORK experience that gets you THROUGH that door. I've been in this industry for almost 25 years... no, I'm not that old... I started as a Software Engineer at Intel when I was a Senior in HIGH SCHOOL. I already had almost 4 years of part time experience in Software when I got that job. Did my BSCS-EE get me any jobs? Nope. By the time my fellow high school alums got into the workforce, I was making at least twice what they could get coming out of college. When I've hired (and I was in a hiring role when my compatriots got into the job market) A degree would get you past my HR or Recruiter, but it took experience to get past me.
On the other hand... you SHOULD get a masters... and do it part time while you're working in the industry. But get an MBA. THAT will help your career enormously one day. but it'll be a dozen or so years before that'll pay for itself.
Solid point... there is a difference between the conspiracy theorists and factualists. Funny though that the factualists always promote their ideas as theory (Could it be......?) vs. the theorists who always promote their ideas as fact.
And I bet not random vandalism either. Come on... think. (all of the following was from local news sources)
Union or disgruntled ATT person? No... ALL fibers were cut in the manholes, and they were clearly labeled for each carrier affected: ATT, Verizon, Sprint, AboveNet, Nextel,
Random Vandalism? Done in two places: South San Jose and Redwood City, and Redwood City's lines were cut multiple times in several different manholes.
They also knew enough to cut Fiber rather than the Copper lines... no copper was cut, even though all of the manholes carried labeled copper as well. This tells me that it was not random vandalism either or a mistake by copper stealing persons.
This tells me that it was intentional... by someone. I'm also NOT a tin-hat believer in conspiracy theories, but this could easily be a quick test by a terrorism group to see how effective it would be, test emergency resources, and see how long it would take to fix it.
As others here have said... it's not all that difficult to get into the underground lockers and conduits. Hell... most are marked pretty clearly on the manholes what's down there (sewer, steam, storm-drain, communications)
Again, I'm not an alarmist or a conspiracy-theorist, but if you add this to the hacking of the national electrical grid a few days ago. Think of what could be done with a dozen or so people in each of a few key urban areas (say... 10 or so around the country) all at once, coordinate that with hacking the grid and/or other things. Oh... then add in Conficker or something worse that we don't yet know is there on a bunch of kiosks and/or infrastructure. Heh... there are what... 6 en-route ATC centers across the US, and they all use phone for coordinating between themselves and local ATC centers. Even with fallback procedures it could cause a short-term mess.
Well.. it makes me think. Not enough to stock up on survival supplies... but it makes me think.
Titanium, Tungston Carbide, Stainless Steel, and I wouldn't be suprised if you could get him to do Iridium or Iridium plated. Alsc does some unique treatments to hardwood mated with metal, Stone and metal, Carbon Fiber and metal... other types of unique metal treatments.
And some really cool stressed-metal diamond mountings for Engagement/wedding rings. If he don't have it, He can make it... if he can't make it it doesn't exizt.
Me: Currently and for the past 5 years, United 1K (that's minimum 100 segments or 100,000 miles/year)
2006 and 2007 Contenental Platinum (minimum 70,000 miles in a year in addition to above).
Marriott Double Platinum (single platinum requires 100 nights a year+, dbl.plat. requirements are "undocumented")
Hertz Gold President's Circle
My current year-to-date mileage as of 31 March 2008: 47,393 BIS all on United
This does not include the 6 segments (3 flights) I've taken since April 1 or the one I have at 3:40pm (EDT) today.
(for those not used to the BIS acronymn, that's "BUTT IN SEAT", no bonus miles included)
For the past 3 years in a row, I've done between 150,000 and 210,000 miles BIS. I should cross over my million miles lifetime on United sometime in October if the current schedule continues. This does not include other airlines.
Scariest part of ALL those miles? Every last one of them from the past 4 years is *INSIDE* the contenental United States (although I expect a couple of international legs this year).
All that having been said: IN NO F-ING WAY DO I WANT CELL PHONES ON MY FLIGHTS!!!!! NO WAY, NO HOW.
I'll take internet access in a heartbeat (play online poker as I traverse the country, catch up on/. etc) But please no phones!
Read www.flyertalk.com (home of all true road-warriors) if you want to answer your question SoulMaster...the airplane rides are our only down-time. We need to be left alone to decompress. If you could read the UAL Communispace (an invitation only site for top-tier UAL flyers to talk to management), you'd find the same. They asked us, the vote was 99.9% against cell, and 99.9% FOR internet with restrictions on VOIP. We all have noise cancellation or blocking headsets/earphones to shut out the world of other people talking, babies crying etc... we have to.
I'm not going to get into the proprietary vs. open issue... but it seems to me that it would be easier to get the OSX version running on Linux rather than the Windows version via WINE.
Lots of useless and some useful advice here. Let me give you mine: 1 - I assume you know this is what you want to do. If not, see other posts as they're fairly accurate. 2 - Easiest way to get a job is to do the job. Start acting like a manager, start doing the job and it'll become yours even if you have to go elsewhere to get it. (If you can't manage, you can't make a case for being a manager at another company, and if you've never done it you can't make a case). 3 - Make the Director's/CIO's job easy. That's the whole idea behind a manager is to make life easier for the people up the chain. Figure out the best way to do that and get it done. This is the part where people say you're political or brownnosing or whatever. That's one way to do it but it doesn't have to be brown-nosing to make someone else's job easier) 4 - DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT make yourself indispensible as an engineer (or whatever job you have). If you do they'll never promote you. If you can't let go of the daily work once you're a manager, then you're failing. 5 - If you want to stay where you are and move into that job, again... start doing the job. Make it obvious you're the manager's replacement if/when (s)he goes away. Make sure you train your own replacement while you're doing this. That's the best way to mentor a team and prepare to move up.
Yep, and I'd trade my problems for a bit of hayfever, arthritis, or excema too... but that's my point. Assuming the plague can't be avoided by keeping things clean (no.. not anti-bacterial clean), there are treatments out there for it. Smallpox has a vaccine. I'm not saying all vaccines or antibiotics are a bad thing, I'm saying overuse is. I'm not even saying this particular drug is bad just because it fights things by using your immune system.
What galls me is all the people who walk around saying they're doing things to boost the immune system. the Info-mercials that sell stuff to pump up the immune system. Gyms sell it, Drug stores sell it. People tout it.
Yeah.... maybe your boosted immune system "only" gives you some hay fever and arthritis. BUT that's only fractionally higher and more like the high end of normal. Boosting your immune system can quickly lead to some really nasty stuff.... REALLY nasty. Stuff that can kill you as well as and more quickly than the Plague or smallpox.. oh... and far more painfully than either of those. Not to mention that the heightened immune system doesn't stop you from getting sick it just fights it off harder... often making the symptoms worse.
As a few other people pointed out, a boosted immune system isn't a good thing. A Healthy immune system is. No, I'm not a bioligist, Doctor, Immunologist, Rheumatologist, or Endocrinologist... but I have one of each in my contact list (Ok... so the Biologist is a friend who gave it up for Software engineering.... but I do have the others).
A heightened immune system causes Psoriasis, Psoriatic Arthritis, Osteo Arthritis, Rheumatoid arthritis, Allergies, Graves Syndrome, Crohn's Disease, and a whole host of things that range from unpleasant (allergies and Osteo Arthritis) to seriously painful (Psoriatic Arthritis) to life threatening (Crohn's and very severe psoriasis). I live it every day. It's ranging from my major discomfort with the current 5000+ pollen count on my business trip to Atlanta (where I'm sitting now) where Zyrtec is barely effective, to my Psoriasis (which gets worse when my immune system gets excitied like it is with my allergies pumped up) that leaves me with large raw bloody areas that pass for skin. Yeah... I know... you really wanted to read that while you ate dinner... welcome to my life.
Trust me... DON'T overactivate your immune system.... live well, take antibiotics only when you HAVE to and for as long as you have to, and enjoy a normal and healthy immune system.
Too true... and with all of the high intensity lighting up on the ceiling and other light bulbs burning away nearby you could really see that it's got that cold cast of a flourescent bulb.
Having been named a charter member of the "Anal Grammarian Society" by the wife of a former boss and mentor, I should have caught that. You're exactly right: A typo
I buy "daylight" incandescents and those are fine. Honestly, for about 10 years now I've bought pretty much nothing but "Daylight" halogen... so I got a "daylight" CFL. The light was too blue.... way too blue and cold and like every other flourescent I've got (my garage is completely lit by flourescent) and have ever seen.... in fact, it's the same color as the light in the office where I'm sitting right now.
Good god I hope California does put in a minimum efficiency rather than just outlawing Incandescants....
I decided to be a good citizen and replace the burnt out bulb in my bathroom this weekend with a Daylight CFL that's rated at "42 watts but gives off as much light as a 100w incandescant". I put it in, turned it on, and could get the damned thing out of there fast enough. The light color just sucked... was far too "flourescent" for anyone to stand. I'm sure *someone* out there likes the sterility and coldness of flourescent light, but it sure ain't me and my wife. I went back to Home Depot, returned the bulb, and bough a high effeciency Halogen that takes 27 watts but puts out as much light as a 100 watt bulb. The perfect color of light, higher effeciency than the CFL, and lasts two years.... and it's an "incandescent" that would be outlawed.
When was the last time you or your wife answered you phone with one hand? The last time you dialed with one hand? The last time you dialed the phone without looking at it?
Basic functionality.... I want to be able to answer or dial with one hand while I'm on a train standing there holding on to the rail. When I'm walking through an airport pulling my rollaboard. When I'm walking down the street with my breifcase in my hand....
Multi-gesture interface is kewl on a PDA.... but not when you're trying to dial or answer with one hand... or keep your eyes on the road while feeling for that little bump on the 5 key to dial by feel.
That alone is enough to keep an iPhone out of my pocket.
right now... it isn't JUST the TiVo...it's all DVR's (homebrew or not).
Anyone notice that NBC and now ABC is dinking around with the start and finish times of their shows?? No big deal you may say.... the DVR takes care of all that.... but let's look at the PATTERN....
ER now starts at 9:59pm rather than 10PM on Thursday nights... why?? Because CSI over on CBS is almost the ratings grabber that ER is. Think about it, I have my DVR programmed to pick up both ER and CSI, I have to set a priority on one, it happens to be ER. The DVR can't reconcile the 1 minute overlap of the two shows, and so ONLY ER RECORDS. Now I have to either 1. Watch CSI in real time (defeating the purpose of a DVR) or 2. Record by time/channel (Defeating some of the utility of a DVR) or 3. Not see CSI, at least on occasion.... probably the option that most people would take who live with a DVR. Most with DVR's would just not watch?? Hmmm.... did I hear a ratings point or two just fall to the floor?
It's obvious to anyone who thinks for 5 seconds that the networks are trying to upset the DVR viewing of other networks' shows by moving the start/end time a minute or two this way or that.
Best of all worlds is for the DVR's to come up with a scheme to combat this.... I can think of two easily implemented changes that will go 99% to fixing it. But it needs to be fixed.
As an experiment, I asked everyone if they could spot the digital captures. No one could with any consistency (they basically were just guessing.) Even my service bureau couldn't pick them out, and they had printed both!
Ahhh.... but don't forget that your comparison was made to prints "...made primarily from my drum-scanned 6x7 transparencies". Digitally captured and printed. I notice a difference between 11x14 prints made from my scanned negatives, and 11x14 prints made from traditionally enlarged negatives, same exact origin, same final output. Try your same test using traditional Fujichrome prints.... well... maybe not as there's always something lost in the translation in Ciba- or Fuji-chrome prints.
Hard to compare apples to apples here I suppose.
It was then that I realized that digital had passed the "good enough" test. Not perfect, but "good enough". I'm sure it's just a question of time till it passes your "good enough" test too.
You may be right..... But keep in mind that I went to contact printing because enlargers weren't good enough to suit me, and I went to platinum because silver wasn't good enough either. But I suppose you're right.
I think the argument for "new art form" vs. "evolution of an art form" is a bigger debate than either of us want to get into.... I can see easy arguments for and against both sides... and if you couldn't tell I always try to play the devil's advocate no matter what my real personal opinion.
My real world experience has shown that compared to analog capture, digital quality behaves as if it were one format better than it is.
I wish I could say the same thing. Have you ever noticed the difference on television between taped and filmed shows? The videotaped shows have an edge... a harshness that filmed shows just don't have. The resolution of tape and film both are higher than the final output, and the output resolution (NTSC) is the same, but the look and feel are distinctly different to me. I would assume it is as well for most people as more and more television is filmed.
Digital image capture and output is that way to me when compared to "Analog" image capture and output. I can walk into a gallery and 99% of the time I can spot which are digital and which aren't... Since I go to galleries with other photographers, I know they can too, as can my wife (who isn't a photographer BTW). On the other hand, some images really benefit from that feel IMHO, such as fashon and most product photography.
As prices continue to come down, even for small volume and boutique operations, even large-format art photographers like yourself will make the switch, for qualitative reasons.
Maybe.... Maybe. Of course they said the same thing about painting when photography made it's debut. I'm more inclined to think that it's as it is today.... they're two different but similar art forms. Some expressions of that art can use Digital to great effect, while other expressions cannot. History saw the same with Painting vs. Photography... or the one that no one seems to argue is the possibility of Digital Sculpture using one of the interesting stereo-lithography tools. Just design your sculpture in Autocad, ship it off, and get a perfect sculpture in return.
I can see in your work (which is beautiful by the way)...
Thank you for the complement. I'm really wishing I had some more of my current work up on my site.
that it would be great to be able to capture digital, retouch, and output back to 11x14 neg for platinum printing, removing the loss of quality and waste of time associated with the film/scan/film dance you need to do now.
Again... you may be right. I actually tried doing that with some scans from a BetterLight back that I rented for my Bronica, but when comparing that to a TechPan negative processed in C41 developer, or APX 100 in ABC-Pyro that was scanned and output to a larger format... the Digital capture just didn't have the smoothness of tone that the film does. It could be that the scanned 4x5 negative is a lot higher resolution than the capture from the back, but I'll also admit that I may just be jaded... But hopefully I'm not as jaded as some who completely discount Digital and don't admit that it's the right tool for some jobs.
Off topic, have you done any experimenting with digital infrared?
Honestly? No. but I'm sure you noticed that I have some IR work up on my site. I've seen and read several articles on the subject, and it just doesn't have the look and feel that I look for. On that same note, I've also worked with Illford SFX, Konica's IR film, and the line of Maco black and white IR films, and frankly I don't like any of them. They don't have the look and feel of the Kodak HIE/HSI which seems to work best for me and my style. Problem is the formats available... Kodak discontinued HSI in 4x5, and bulk-loading the 70mm for medium format is a pain, although I do it (note: I don't use the re-spooled 120 cut-down that's available on the web, I use a 70mm film back for my Bronica). I really wish I could get what I want in 4x5 or 8x10.
Well... we could argue the high contrast issue, after all, the ISO standard for film resolution tests does specifiy a far lower contrast ratio than 1000:1
But the rest of your post harkens back to the last one I responded to, and makes a valid point. The real issue is the right tool for the right job. I'd argue that "the average photographer" isn't going to use this particular camera, but then again the average photographer isn't going to use the camera-lens-film-processes that I use either.
But the blanket statement that this is the right tool for every job since the quality matches or exceeds 35mm film is false. It's false on a technical level, many feel that it's false on a subjective level.
It's the Linux/Windows debate... it's the AMD/Intel debate.... it's the Wintel/Macintosh debate, the Palm/PocketPC debate... ad-nauseum. What's the best tool for you to accomplish what you want/need to accomplish?
Wrong. So wrong. Nice imposing numbers and stats, though.
In the real world...
FINALLY... someone who does actually get it.
For what you do, Digital capture is where it's at. If I were doing photojournalism, sports, weddings, most forms of portraiture, I'd use digital... PERIOD. For what I do I can't use digital (well... capture or final output at least). I use 4x5 film (sometimes larger), scan the negative, output an 11x14 negative and contact print from there using platinum.
It's only about where the rubber meets the road.
And your destination is different from mine... so must our tools and techniques. Did I make generalizations? Yep... but the original story made a blanket statement that this camera produced the same quality as 35mm film due to it's technical specs, and you and I BOTH know that the technical specs mean nothing in the final result. The tools for an efficient workflow may be different for us, but it's our BRAINS that determine the final quality.... not the electronics (or lack thereof) in our tools.
You are wrong. Firstly, the sensor does indeed resolve 12 bits per pixel (at least on my camera) which is evident when using the RAW sensor data for image manipulaton.
Let's start with that RAW data comment. The standard definition of RAW format is actually (as expressed by Canon and others) the data file captured by the camera's image sensor, with minimal in-camera processing applied. In this sense, it is the digital equivalent to the film negative. In other words, it is not LOSSY compressed (i.e. JPEG... note several manufacturers including Canon do use lossless compression in RAW format), and ignores settings for white balance, sharpening, contrast, etc. Honestly, few people outside the camera manufacturers know what is and isn't in their respective RAW formats. It has very little to do with the sensor output.
Let's skip ahead a little in your comment as the rest deals with color depth: Secondly, you confuse dynamic range and resolution. Dynamic range is the difference between the darkest and brightest spot captured simultaneously. Resolution is how many steps there are between two the two extreemes.
You are indeed correct, and if you re-read my original post, you'll see that I discuss color depth SEPERATELY from resolution. To quote the beginning of the line, I said: Let's now look at color depth... Seperate discussion and not included in the resolution calculation.
When the sensor data is passed through bayer interpolation algorithms you may actually increase the resolution some above the individual 12bit sensor elements
You are correct in that the De-Mosaic interpolation *can* produce any number of bits per pixel from the Bayer filter pattern, but when you read the CMOS sensor specs from the manufacturer, you'll see that the photosite outputs are column multiplexed into a 16 bit value. 16 bits per photosite, 4 photosites per pixel (Bayer filter pattern: 1 Red, 1 Blue, 2 Green). The extra Green sensor is used in the de-mosaic algorithm and ultimately the real image is 1 RGB set... e.g. 12 bits.
But... It's been a while since I worked on CMOS sensors, so I'll drop the color depth portion of my discussion in favor of someone with more current experience.
A "line pair" is one black line and one white line, just two pixels, not four.
There are some informative comments in this thread, but yours is not one of them
Sigh.... Read the term LINE PAIR again.... a line pair is a discernable PAIR of lines seperated by a contrasting line. In order to resolve a line pair, there must be two lines with a space between them. To define one pair from another pair there must be at least one space between each pair. It is therefore required to have 4 points to differentiate one pair from another pair. Before you argue "overlap" the calculation of 4 pixels per line pair would be off by 1 across the entire set of line pairs (1 line pair takes 3 pixels, 2 takes 7 pixels, 3 lp takes 11 pixels) and since we're talking about resolution across a single frame of film, I'm off by 1 pixel in each dimension... so two pixels out of 40 million.
Maybe a little homework is in order... The Photographic and Imaging Manufacturers Association (PIMA) is participating in an ISO TC42 effort to update the earlier optical resolution measurement standards (ISO 12233:2000) to reflect Digital photgraphy and photomicrography:
Edwards, Parulski, & Holm, "Setting Standards--Developing Standards in Electronic Imaging", PEI, February 1998, 48-52.
Then there's that pesky color depth issue I mentioned
And.... by the way.... I decided to not confuse the issue further by stating that a single pixel on a CMOS sensor can only resolve Red, Green, OR Blue, so it actually takes a minimum of 3 sensor pixels for a single output pixel that would equal a single grain-clump on film, so you'll need to multiply film's effective mega-pixel count by 3. (See pretty much any CMOS Sensor Manufacturer's website, or even howstuffworks.com.) OOPS... I almost forgot that CMOS sensors are not as sensitive to Green light, so all CMOS sensors have twice as many green sensitive pixels as red and blue... so that number is actually 4. (Yes.... I realize this isn't quite as true for the Foveon sensor, but very few cameras are actually shipping with the Foveon). So one could actually argue that 35mm film's effective resolution is closer to 160 mega-pixels, but I'll not do that.
Slashdot Mirror
A GREAT handheld computer, and a LOUSY cell phone. I've been on ATT since pre-cingular days... haven't had dropped calls or speed issues through my LG, Samsung, or other phone(s) and definitly not with my current Galaxy.
I'd stand side-by-side with IPhones since day one and have no issues when they have all had trouble finding a simple connection.
IPhone on Verizon will be interesting... I expect it'll show one of two things... either the IPhone is as I think it is ad it'll do the same as it rolls out across Verizon... or that ATT has been shuffling the IPhone off to bad data lines after it's hit the cell tower.
But its your WORK experience that gets you THROUGH that door. I've been in this industry for almost 25 years... no, I'm not that old... I started as a Software Engineer at Intel when I was a Senior in HIGH SCHOOL. I already had almost 4 years of part time experience in Software when I got that job. Did my BSCS-EE get me any jobs? Nope. By the time my fellow high school alums got into the workforce, I was making at least twice what they could get coming out of college. When I've hired (and I was in a hiring role when my compatriots got into the job market) A degree would get you past my HR or Recruiter, but it took experience to get past me.
On the other hand... you SHOULD get a masters... and do it part time while you're working in the industry. But get an MBA. THAT will help your career enormously one day. but it'll be a dozen or so years before that'll pay for itself.
Solid point... there is a difference between the conspiracy theorists and factualists. Funny though that the factualists always promote their ideas as theory (Could it be... ...?) vs. the theorists who always promote their ideas as fact.
Nope... I don't know who did it... it just made me think. I didn't say it was terrorism, just mentioned that I'd considered it.
As for the rest of your comment, I'll let it lay where it will.
And I bet not random vandalism either. Come on... think. (all of the following was from local news sources)
Union or disgruntled ATT person? No... ALL fibers were cut in the manholes, and they were clearly labeled for each carrier affected: ATT, Verizon, Sprint, AboveNet, Nextel,
Random Vandalism? Done in two places: South San Jose and Redwood City, and Redwood City's lines were cut multiple times in several different manholes.
They also knew enough to cut Fiber rather than the Copper lines... no copper was cut, even though all of the manholes carried labeled copper as well. This tells me that it was not random vandalism either or a mistake by copper stealing persons.
This tells me that it was intentional... by someone. I'm also NOT a tin-hat believer in conspiracy theories, but this could easily be a quick test by a terrorism group to see how effective it would be, test emergency resources, and see how long it would take to fix it.
As others here have said... it's not all that difficult to get into the underground lockers and conduits. Hell... most are marked pretty clearly on the manholes what's down there (sewer, steam, storm-drain, communications)
Again, I'm not an alarmist or a conspiracy-theorist, but if you add this to the hacking of the national electrical grid a few days ago. Think of what could be done with a dozen or so people in each of a few key urban areas (say... 10 or so around the country) all at once, coordinate that with hacking the grid and/or other things. Oh... then add in Conficker or something worse that we don't yet know is there on a bunch of kiosks and/or infrastructure. Heh... there are what... 6 en-route ATC centers across the US, and they all use phone for coordinating between themselves and local ATC centers. Even with fallback procedures it could cause a short-term mess.
Well.. it makes me think. Not enough to stock up on survival supplies... but it makes me think.
http://www.boonerings.com/
Titanium, Tungston Carbide, Stainless Steel, and I wouldn't be suprised if you could get him to do Iridium or Iridium plated. Alsc does some unique treatments to hardwood mated with metal, Stone and metal, Carbon Fiber and metal... other types of unique metal treatments.
And some really cool stressed-metal diamond mountings for Engagement/wedding rings. If he don't have it, He can make it... if he can't make it it doesn't exizt.
(A very satisfied customer)
Ok, I'll bite:
/. etc) But please no phones!
Me: Currently and for the past 5 years, United 1K (that's minimum 100 segments or 100,000 miles/year)
2006 and 2007 Contenental Platinum (minimum 70,000 miles in a year in addition to above).
Marriott Double Platinum (single platinum requires 100 nights a year+, dbl.plat. requirements are "undocumented")
Hertz Gold President's Circle
My current year-to-date mileage as of 31 March 2008: 47,393 BIS all on United
This does not include the 6 segments (3 flights) I've taken since April 1 or the one I have at 3:40pm (EDT) today.
(for those not used to the BIS acronymn, that's "BUTT IN SEAT", no bonus miles included)
For the past 3 years in a row, I've done between 150,000 and 210,000 miles BIS. I should cross over my million miles lifetime on United sometime in October if the current schedule continues. This does not include other airlines.
Scariest part of ALL those miles? Every last one of them from the past 4 years is *INSIDE* the contenental United States (although I expect a couple of international legs this year).
All that having been said:
IN NO F-ING WAY DO I WANT CELL PHONES ON MY FLIGHTS!!!!! NO WAY, NO HOW.
I'll take internet access in a heartbeat (play online poker as I traverse the country, catch up on
Read www.flyertalk.com (home of all true road-warriors) if you want to answer your question SoulMaster...the airplane rides are our only down-time. We need to be left alone to decompress. If you could read the UAL Communispace (an invitation only site for top-tier UAL flyers to talk to management), you'd find the same. They asked us, the vote was 99.9% against cell, and 99.9% FOR internet with restrictions on VOIP. We all have noise cancellation or blocking headsets/earphones to shut out the world of other people talking, babies crying etc... we have to.
But please god, no cells on flights.
D.
I'm not going to get into the proprietary vs. open issue... but it seems to me that it would be easier to get the OSX version running on Linux rather than the Windows version via WINE.
Lots of useless and some useful advice here. Let me give you mine:
1 - I assume you know this is what you want to do. If not, see other posts as they're fairly accurate.
2 - Easiest way to get a job is to do the job. Start acting like a manager, start doing the job and it'll become yours even if you have to go elsewhere to get it. (If you can't manage, you can't make a case for being a manager at another company, and if you've never done it you can't make a case).
3 - Make the Director's/CIO's job easy. That's the whole idea behind a manager is to make life easier for the people up the chain. Figure out the best way to do that and get it done. This is the part where people say you're political or brownnosing or whatever. That's one way to do it but it doesn't have to be brown-nosing to make someone else's job easier)
4 - DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT make yourself indispensible as an engineer (or whatever job you have). If you do they'll never promote you. If you can't let go of the daily work once you're a manager, then you're failing.
5 - If you want to stay where you are and move into that job, again... start doing the job. Make it obvious you're the manager's replacement if/when (s)he goes away. Make sure you train your own replacement while you're doing this. That's the best way to mentor a team and prepare to move up.
Yep, and I'd trade my problems for a bit of hayfever, arthritis, or excema too... but that's my point. Assuming the plague can't be avoided by keeping things clean (no.. not anti-bacterial clean), there are treatments out there for it. Smallpox has a vaccine. I'm not saying all vaccines or antibiotics are a bad thing, I'm saying overuse is. I'm not even saying this particular drug is bad just because it fights things by using your immune system.
What galls me is all the people who walk around saying they're doing things to boost the immune system. the Info-mercials that sell stuff to pump up the immune system. Gyms sell it, Drug stores sell it. People tout it.
Yeah.... maybe your boosted immune system "only" gives you some hay fever and arthritis. BUT that's only fractionally higher and more like the high end of normal. Boosting your immune system can quickly lead to some really nasty stuff.... REALLY nasty. Stuff that can kill you as well as and more quickly than the Plague or smallpox.. oh... and far more painfully than either of those. Not to mention that the heightened immune system doesn't stop you from getting sick it just fights it off harder... often making the symptoms worse.
As a few other people pointed out, a boosted immune system isn't a good thing. A Healthy immune system is. No, I'm not a bioligist, Doctor, Immunologist, Rheumatologist, or Endocrinologist... but I have one of each in my contact list (Ok... so the Biologist is a friend who gave it up for Software engineering.... but I do have the others).
A heightened immune system causes Psoriasis, Psoriatic Arthritis, Osteo Arthritis, Rheumatoid arthritis, Allergies, Graves Syndrome, Crohn's Disease, and a whole host of things that range from unpleasant (allergies and Osteo Arthritis) to seriously painful (Psoriatic Arthritis) to life threatening (Crohn's and very severe psoriasis). I live it every day. It's ranging from my major discomfort with the current 5000+ pollen count on my business trip to Atlanta (where I'm sitting now) where Zyrtec is barely effective, to my Psoriasis (which gets worse when my immune system gets excitied like it is with my allergies pumped up) that leaves me with large raw bloody areas that pass for skin. Yeah... I know... you really wanted to read that while you ate dinner... welcome to my life.
Trust me... DON'T overactivate your immune system.... live well, take antibiotics only when you HAVE to and for as long as you have to, and enjoy a normal and healthy immune system.
$8.00 a bulb? Damned right I returned it.
Too true... and with all of the high intensity lighting up on the ceiling and other light bulbs burning away nearby you could really see that it's got that cold cast of a flourescent bulb.
D.
Er.... well....
Having been named a charter member of the "Anal Grammarian Society" by the wife of a former boss and mentor, I should have caught that. You're exactly right: A typo
Mea Culpa
D.
I buy "daylight" incandescents and those are fine. Honestly, for about 10 years now I've bought pretty much nothing but "Daylight" halogen... so I got a "daylight" CFL. The light was too blue.... way too blue and cold and like every other flourescent I've got (my garage is completely lit by flourescent) and have ever seen.... in fact, it's the same color as the light in the office where I'm sitting right now.
True daylight, 5000 Kelvin, isn't this blue...
D.
Good god I hope California does put in a minimum efficiency rather than just outlawing Incandescants....
I decided to be a good citizen and replace the burnt out bulb in my bathroom this weekend with a Daylight CFL that's rated at "42 watts but gives off as much light as a 100w incandescant". I put it in, turned it on, and could get the damned thing out of there fast enough. The light color just sucked... was far too "flourescent" for anyone to stand. I'm sure *someone* out there likes the sterility and coldness of flourescent light, but it sure ain't me and my wife. I went back to Home Depot, returned the bulb, and bough a high effeciency Halogen that takes 27 watts but puts out as much light as a 100 watt bulb. The perfect color of light, higher effeciency than the CFL, and lasts two years.... and it's an "incandescent" that would be outlawed.
Uhhh.... ok.... does it?
When was the last time you or your wife answered you phone with one hand?
The last time you dialed with one hand?
The last time you dialed the phone without looking at it?
Basic functionality.... I want to be able to answer or dial with one hand while I'm on a train standing there holding on to the rail. When I'm walking through an airport pulling my rollaboard. When I'm walking down the street with my breifcase in my hand....
Multi-gesture interface is kewl on a PDA.... but not when you're trying to dial or answer with one hand... or keep your eyes on the road while feeling for that little bump on the 5 key to dial by feel.
That alone is enough to keep an iPhone out of my pocket.
D.
right now... it isn't JUST the TiVo...it's all DVR's (homebrew or not).
Anyone notice that NBC and now ABC is dinking around with the start and finish times of their shows?? No big deal you may say.... the DVR takes care of all that.... but let's look at the PATTERN....
ER now starts at 9:59pm rather than 10PM on Thursday nights... why?? Because CSI over on CBS is almost the ratings grabber that ER is. Think about it, I have my DVR programmed to pick up both ER and CSI, I have to set a priority on one, it happens to be ER. The DVR can't reconcile the 1 minute overlap of the two shows, and so ONLY ER RECORDS. Now I have to either 1. Watch CSI in real time (defeating the purpose of a DVR) or 2. Record by time/channel (Defeating some of the utility of a DVR) or 3. Not see CSI, at least on occasion.... probably the option that most people would take who live with a DVR. Most with DVR's would just not watch?? Hmmm.... did I hear a ratings point or two just fall to the floor?
It's obvious to anyone who thinks for 5 seconds that the networks are trying to upset the DVR viewing of other networks' shows by moving the start/end time a minute or two this way or that.
Best of all worlds is for the DVR's to come up with a scheme to combat this.... I can think of two easily implemented changes that will go 99% to fixing it. But it needs to be fixed.
As an experiment, I asked everyone if they could spot the digital captures. No one could with any consistency (they basically were just guessing.) Even my service bureau couldn't pick them out, and they had printed both!
Ahhh.... but don't forget that your comparison was made to prints "...made primarily from my drum-scanned 6x7 transparencies". Digitally captured and printed. I notice a difference between 11x14 prints made from my scanned negatives, and 11x14 prints made from traditionally enlarged negatives, same exact origin, same final output. Try your same test using traditional Fujichrome prints.... well... maybe not as there's always something lost in the translation in Ciba- or Fuji-chrome prints.
Hard to compare apples to apples here I suppose.
It was then that I realized that digital had passed the "good enough" test. Not perfect, but "good enough". I'm sure it's just a question of time till it passes your "good enough" test too.
You may be right..... But keep in mind that I went to contact printing because enlargers weren't good enough to suit me, and I went to platinum because silver wasn't good enough either. But I suppose you're right.
I think the argument for "new art form" vs. "evolution of an art form" is a bigger debate than either of us want to get into.... I can see easy arguments for and against both sides... and if you couldn't tell I always try to play the devil's advocate no matter what my real personal opinion.
Thanks for the lively discussion!
Indeed. I've enjoyed it!
My real world experience has shown that compared to analog capture, digital quality behaves as if it were one format better than it is.
I wish I could say the same thing. Have you ever noticed the difference on television between taped and filmed shows? The videotaped shows have an edge... a harshness that filmed shows just don't have. The resolution of tape and film both are higher than the final output, and the output resolution (NTSC) is the same, but the look and feel are distinctly different to me. I would assume it is as well for most people as more and more television is filmed.
Digital image capture and output is that way to me when compared to "Analog" image capture and output. I can walk into a gallery and 99% of the time I can spot which are digital and which aren't... Since I go to galleries with other photographers, I know they can too, as can my wife (who isn't a photographer BTW). On the other hand, some images really benefit from that feel IMHO, such as fashon and most product photography.
As prices continue to come down, even for small volume and boutique operations, even large-format art photographers like yourself will make the switch, for qualitative reasons.
Maybe.... Maybe. Of course they said the same thing about painting when photography made it's debut. I'm more inclined to think that it's as it is today.... they're two different but similar art forms. Some expressions of that art can use Digital to great effect, while other expressions cannot. History saw the same with Painting vs. Photography... or the one that no one seems to argue is the possibility of Digital Sculpture using one of the interesting stereo-lithography tools. Just design your sculpture in Autocad, ship it off, and get a perfect sculpture in return.
I can see in your work (which is beautiful by the way)...
Thank you for the complement. I'm really wishing I had some more of my current work up on my site.
that it would be great to be able to capture digital, retouch, and output back to 11x14 neg for platinum printing, removing the loss of quality and waste of time associated with the film/scan/film dance you need to do now.
Again... you may be right. I actually tried doing that with some scans from a BetterLight back that I rented for my Bronica, but when comparing that to a TechPan negative processed in C41 developer, or APX 100 in ABC-Pyro that was scanned and output to a larger format... the Digital capture just didn't have the smoothness of tone that the film does. It could be that the scanned 4x5 negative is a lot higher resolution than the capture from the back, but I'll also admit that I may just be jaded... But hopefully I'm not as jaded as some who completely discount Digital and don't admit that it's the right tool for some jobs.
Off topic, have you done any experimenting with digital infrared?
Honestly? No. but I'm sure you noticed that I have some IR work up on my site. I've seen and read several articles on the subject, and it just doesn't have the look and feel that I look for. On that same note, I've also worked with Illford SFX, Konica's IR film, and the line of Maco black and white IR films, and frankly I don't like any of them. They don't have the look and feel of the Kodak HIE/HSI which seems to work best for me and my style. Problem is the formats available... Kodak discontinued HSI in 4x5, and bulk-loading the 70mm for medium format is a pain, although I do it (note: I don't use the re-spooled 120 cut-down that's available on the web, I use a 70mm film back for my Bronica). I really wish I could get what I want in 4x5 or 8x10.
By the way.....
You do some really nice work!
Makes me want to finish getting my site updated and current. If there were only 27 hours in a day.
Cheers.
Lord, not this crap again.
Well... we could argue the high contrast issue, after all, the ISO standard for film resolution tests does specifiy a far lower contrast ratio than 1000:1
But the rest of your post harkens back to the last one I responded to, and makes a valid point. The real issue is the right tool for the right job. I'd argue that "the average photographer" isn't going to use this particular camera, but then again the average photographer isn't going to use the camera-lens-film-processes that I use either.
But the blanket statement that this is the right tool for every job since the quality matches or exceeds 35mm film is false. It's false on a technical level, many feel that it's false on a subjective level.
It's the Linux/Windows debate... it's the AMD/Intel debate.... it's the Wintel/Macintosh debate, the Palm/PocketPC debate... ad-nauseum. What's the best tool for you to accomplish what you want/need to accomplish?
In the real world
For what you do, Digital capture is where it's at. If I were doing photojournalism, sports, weddings, most forms of portraiture, I'd use digital... PERIOD. For what I do I can't use digital (well... capture or final output at least). I use 4x5 film (sometimes larger), scan the negative, output an 11x14 negative and contact print from there using platinum.
It's only about where the rubber meets the road.
And your destination is different from mine... so must our tools and techniques. Did I make generalizations? Yep... but the original story made a blanket statement that this camera produced the same quality as 35mm film due to it's technical specs, and you and I BOTH know that the technical specs mean nothing in the final result. The tools for an efficient workflow may be different for us, but it's our BRAINS that determine the final quality.... not the electronics (or lack thereof) in our tools.
Cheers and good success.
You are wrong. Firstly, the sensor does indeed resolve 12 bits per pixel (at least on my camera) which is evident when using the RAW sensor data for image manipulaton.
Let's start with that RAW data comment. The standard definition of RAW format is actually (as expressed by Canon and others) the data file captured by the camera's image sensor, with minimal in-camera processing applied. In this sense, it is the digital equivalent to the film negative. In other words, it is not LOSSY compressed (i.e. JPEG... note several manufacturers including Canon do use lossless compression in RAW format), and ignores settings for white balance, sharpening, contrast, etc. Honestly, few people outside the camera manufacturers know what is and isn't in their respective RAW formats. It has very little to do with the sensor output.
Let's skip ahead a little in your comment as the rest deals with color depth:
Secondly, you confuse dynamic range and resolution. Dynamic range is the difference between the darkest and brightest spot captured simultaneously. Resolution is how many steps there are between two the two extreemes.
You are indeed correct, and if you re-read my original post, you'll see that I discuss color depth SEPERATELY from resolution. To quote the beginning of the line, I said: Let's now look at color depth... Seperate discussion and not included in the resolution calculation.
When the sensor data is passed through bayer interpolation algorithms you may actually increase the resolution some above the individual 12bit sensor elements
You are correct in that the De-Mosaic interpolation *can* produce any number of bits per pixel from the Bayer filter pattern, but when you read the CMOS sensor specs from the manufacturer, you'll see that the photosite outputs are column multiplexed into a 16 bit value. 16 bits per photosite, 4 photosites per pixel (Bayer filter pattern: 1 Red, 1 Blue, 2 Green). The extra Green sensor is used in the de-mosaic algorithm and ultimately the real image is 1 RGB set... e.g. 12 bits.
But... It's been a while since I worked on CMOS sensors, so I'll drop the color depth portion of my discussion in favor of someone with more current experience.
There are some informative comments in this thread, but yours is not one of them
Sigh.... Read the term LINE PAIR again.... a line pair is a discernable PAIR of lines seperated by a contrasting line. In order to resolve a line pair, there must be two lines with a space between them. To define one pair from another pair there must be at least one space between each pair. It is therefore required to have 4 points to differentiate one pair from another pair. Before you argue "overlap" the calculation of 4 pixels per line pair would be off by 1 across the entire set of line pairs (1 line pair takes 3 pixels, 2 takes 7 pixels, 3 lp takes 11 pixels) and since we're talking about resolution across a single frame of film, I'm off by 1 pixel in each dimension... so two pixels out of 40 million.
Maybe a little homework is in order... The Photographic and Imaging Manufacturers Association (PIMA) is participating in an ISO TC42 effort to update the earlier optical resolution measurement standards (ISO 12233:2000) to reflect Digital photgraphy and photomicrography:
Then there's that pesky color depth issue I mentioned
And.... by the way.... I decided to not confuse the issue further by stating that a single pixel on a CMOS sensor can only resolve Red, Green, OR Blue, so it actually takes a minimum of 3 sensor pixels for a single output pixel that would equal a single grain-clump on film, so you'll need to multiply film's effective mega-pixel count by 3. (See pretty much any CMOS Sensor Manufacturer's website, or even howstuffworks.com.) OOPS... I almost forgot that CMOS sensors are not as sensitive to Green light, so all CMOS sensors have twice as many green sensitive pixels as red and blue... so that number is actually 4. (Yes.... I realize this isn't quite as true for the Foveon sensor, but very few cameras are actually shipping with the Foveon). So one could actually argue that 35mm film's effective resolution is closer to 160 mega-pixels, but I'll not do that.