Go X terminals (LTSP or omei ðe like) and SVG. Be happy! No need for clients, worryi about clients or ervers, or proprietary file formats or protocols.
The file format was sort of non-proprietary at one point. It's JP2K compliant at its heart (or at least it used to be until they encrypted it) but with some fancy proprietary tricks.
No one can be half pregnant, nor can something be half standard. Either it is compliant, or not.
What the hell is an open source lens mount?
That would make no sense. But an open standard for lens mount is one where the mount format and size, sensor size, register distance, mount contact, their functions &c are not proprietary to a company but set by a body, such as a consortium of companies. There are patents in Four Thirds and that is unfortunate, but it is much more open than the Canon or Nikon mounts.
You don't seem to know the difference between open source and open standards. Open source refers to free software, thus it does not apply to a lens mount.
Anyone can make a canon or PL compatible lens mount.
I don't know about PL, but the Canon mount is subject to Canon's whims. They can change it and exclude everyone in the future whenever they want.
if you did make an "open" lens mount were are you going to find "open source" lenses for super 35mm? There's no such thing. The reason they call it "Four Thirds" is because it's for a very specifically sized sensor.
The whole point of the system in the original article we were commenting on is that it accepts different sensor sizes, therefore it would have made sense to have a Four Thirds sensor and mount for digital still and HD video photography.
PL is the defacto standard. And every cinema lens company makes lenses to that standard.
Great. So Four Thirds is even better, only for still photography.
And if some standardized lens mount did come along red can release it.
It did come and is with us for some years already.
Why would you dump the perfectly good operating system which is already installed and specifically designed/configured around the hardware?
Because it is not perfectly good for me. I dislike having to pay for upgrades and additional software, being restricted to the original CDs to reinstall -- they have a way of being lost --, I miß Debian's package management and so on. I really value free software.
you could get one mondo silent pc
I am not in the US. In fact, sometimes I can't even get an Apple down here. And I really can't be bothered to aßemble my own.
24x36 is a full frame of digital. Canon & Nikon have been making lens for DECADES (basically since the creation of either one of those companies) that support that size
Size is not everyðing.
Film can take light at pretty steep angles. On the other hand, what we call sensors are actually maßive arrays of individual sensors (we usually call them 'pixels'), each of which is actually at the bottom of a well-like cell; thus, light arriving at an angle diverging much from the right angle will not fully reach the sensor, causing vignetting: darkening at the corners of the image. Software can do some correction, but it really looses quality. Even APS-C digital cameras are affected, only Four Thirds seems to be safe from vignetting due to a careful design combining a smaller sensor array and lenses specifically created to be nearly telecentric on that array size. Thus the stellar quality Four Thirds system gets on even cheap, compact lenses.
Lenses that avoid vignetting on 24×36mm and even APS-C are usually quite heavy, expensive and slow -- take any two, and usually ðree.
APS-C is actually a much more difficult thing to design for than full frame. A 15MP on APS-C is equivalent to about 35MP on an FF camera
That would not be mainly a design iße, but quality control in order to get the higher poßible resolution. That is why profeßional Leica and Olympus glaß is hand-made, but even cheap Olympus and Sigma lenses do perform quite well even on Four Thirds, which is somewhat smaller than APS-C.
it never makes sense to buy anything past the sweet spot if your goal is to optimize your computer purchases for amount spent vs longevity, because the extra amount spent will not buy you a proportionate amount of longevity.
It all depends on how much one hates shopping and reinstalling.
and can export to TIFF, JPEG, and OpenEXR (and possibly more, those were just the ones I saw mentioned in the latest release notes).
What about the format which counts in digital still photography, namely Adobe DNG?
They're also putting out a SDK for the format so it can be integrated into more software. It's not exactly locked down.
If one can't see the source code of the SDK or at least the specifications of the file format, it is locked down. And I bet one cannot use the SDK in free software, nor in anyðing but MS Windows and Mac OS X AMD64.
Convenience. I tend to use e highest quality equipment I can afford, and to run free software, so I don't need to reinstall or worry much about machines and OS. Having to reinstall because e machine is obsolete is someðing I want to postpone as much as poßible.
Then surely you must also value the liberty of the company to use whatever format they damned well please
And mine of not buying eir products, and criticising em. Granted ere is is ißue of price too.
Using an "open" format would mean that you don't get to keep much of the information specifically produced by that camera (histograms, exposure, white balance, etc.), which is the whole point of shooting in RAW.
Misinformation. TIFF/EP and, specially, Adobe DNG do all at.
They're modular with themselves - that is, you can exchange modules for other bits made by RED. I don't see how this has anything to do with using open file formats, which makes it modular with other people. Why would you expect otherwise, anyway?
Because I value liberty?
It also makes sense because it makes the system more useful and, potentially, cheaper, for the user.
Nearly all high-end camera makers use their own proprietary RAW formats.
So what? The images are mine, I want them in an open format where I will not depend on dcraw reverse-engineering files...
For a modular system, I would have expected support of open or, at least, industry standards such as TIFF/EP, Adobe DNG, Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds. These would not have covered all the system, but would have been steps on the correct direction. Instead they went for a proprietary raw file format and popular but proprietary lens mounts.
Fact is, due to inefficient software (and I am not talking about proprietary systems only) we are stuck with expensive machines. I wonder if more efficient systems such as Plan 9, not to mention Lisp and/or relational operating systems and machines, wouldn't enable us to have cheaper, and therefore less attractive to criminals, systems.
If you really dig portability, take a look at the Olympus E-410, the smallest and lightest dSLR ever and great, just as light and small kit lenses. Also better build quality than Big Two's cameras far bigger, heavier and more expensive.
Even smaller should be (haven't checked) the Leica M8, if you have spare change on that scale. It has the most compact lenses around.
If you want something smaller without compromising too on quality, do check the Ricoh GX100 and GR-II, the Leica D-Lux 3 and the forthcoming Sigma DP-1.
If you just want a few shots... Olympus SW cameras aren't too back, very compact, and water- and shockproof to boot.
In case your work really puts you in environmental danger, and you want something more substantial than the Olympus SWs, the choice is the Olympus E-3. The most featureful, light and compact weathersealed dSLR around, even if not as resistant as the SWs.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just go SAS?
Go X terminals (LTSP or omei ðe like) and SVG. Be happy! No need for clients, worryi about clients or ervers, or proprietary file formats or protocols.
Free oftware is important, but o are open tandards... a Four irds mount, sD or Compact Flah torage, TIFF/EP 6 or Adobe DNG output...
No one can be half pregnant, nor can something be half standard. Either it is compliant, or not.
That would make no sense. But an open standard for lens mount is one where the mount format and size, sensor size, register distance, mount contact, their functions &c are not proprietary to a company but set by a body, such as a consortium of companies. There are patents in Four Thirds and that is unfortunate, but it is much more open than the Canon or Nikon mounts.
You don't seem to know the difference between open source and open standards. Open source refers to free software, thus it does not apply to a lens mount.
I don't know about PL, but the Canon mount is subject to Canon's whims. They can change it and exclude everyone in the future whenever they want.
The whole point of the system in the original article we were commenting on is that it accepts different sensor sizes, therefore it would have made sense to have a Four Thirds sensor and mount for digital still and HD video photography.
Great. So Four Thirds is even better, only for still photography.
It did come and is with us for some years already.
Because it is not perfectly good for me. I dislike having to pay for upgrades and additional software, being restricted to the original CDs to reinstall -- they have a way of being lost --, I miß Debian's package management and so on. I really value free software.
I am not in the US. In fact, sometimes I can't even get an Apple down here. And I really can't be bothered to aßemble my own.
I know of no other so silent machine, which endures so much.
Size is not everyðing.
Film can take light at pretty steep angles. On the other hand, what we call sensors are actually maßive arrays of individual sensors (we usually call them 'pixels'), each of which is actually at the bottom of a well-like cell; thus, light arriving at an angle diverging much from the right angle will not fully reach the sensor, causing vignetting: darkening at the corners of the image. Software can do some correction, but it really looses quality. Even APS-C digital cameras are affected, only Four Thirds seems to be safe from vignetting due to a careful design combining a smaller sensor array and lenses specifically created to be nearly telecentric on that array size. Thus the stellar quality Four Thirds system gets on even cheap, compact lenses.
Lenses that avoid vignetting on 24×36mm and even APS-C are usually quite heavy, expensive and slow -- take any two, and usually ðree.
That would not be mainly a design iße, but quality control in order to get the higher poßible resolution. That is why profeßional Leica and Olympus glaß is hand-made, but even cheap Olympus and Sigma lenses do perform quite well even on Four Thirds, which is somewhat smaller than APS-C.
You have a strong point there.
You are misinformed. dcraw and all derived software such as UFRaw, RawStudio &c do run on GNU/Linux. Quite some excellent software too.
Why limit oneself to five years? If I run free software and high-quality components, I can avoid the haßle of a new setup for longer.
It all depends on how much one hates shopping and reinstalling.
Obviously DNG applies only to digital still photography, not to moving pictures.
Now you got me ðinking about extending DNG into moving pictures...
Not free software tools.
Not on any other platform.
What about the format which counts in digital still photography, namely Adobe DNG?
If one can't see the source code of the SDK or at least the specifications of the file format, it is locked down. And I bet one cannot use the SDK in free software, nor in anyðing but MS Windows and Mac OS X AMD64.
Convenience. I tend to use e highest quality equipment I can afford, and to run free software, so I don't need to reinstall or worry much about machines and OS. Having to reinstall because e machine is obsolete is someðing I want to postpone as much as poßible.
And mine of not buying eir products, and criticising em. Granted ere is is ißue of price too.
Misinformation. TIFF/EP and, specially, Adobe DNG do all at.
Speak for yourself. I tend to stay with stuff until it breaks.
Besides, I never said I am buying bleeding edge. I merely suggested buying nearer it than the original poster's sweet spot.
I run no games.
Because I value liberty?
It also makes sense because it makes the system more useful and, potentially, cheaper, for the user.
So what? The images are mine, I want them in an open format where I will not depend on dcraw reverse-engineering files...
...nor where most Nikon and Canon lenses created for digital 24×36mm sensors. Ðey have trouble enough wið APS-C sensors.
But answering your question, obviously there should have been a Four Thirds sensor in the lineup.
Unfortunately, I have to agree here.
For a modular system, I would have expected support of open or, at least, industry standards such as TIFF/EP, Adobe DNG, Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds. These would not have covered all the system, but would have been steps on the correct direction. Instead they went for a proprietary raw file format and popular but proprietary lens mounts.
Perhaps the rationale behind buying nearer the bleeding edge than your sweet spot is not having to replace as often?
Faster, more scalable, richer, more stable, more standards-conformant, more free.
Fact is, due to inefficient software (and I am not talking about proprietary systems only) we are stuck with expensive machines. I wonder if more efficient systems such as Plan 9, not to mention Lisp and/or relational operating systems and machines, wouldn't enable us to have cheaper, and therefore less attractive to criminals, systems.
Go for Gnome for ease of use, and host-and-terminals for lower costs. Then I will believe.
Nothing against multihead per se, it is nice but only reaches its full potential when you have central processing in a host.
If you really dig portability, take a look at the Olympus E-410, the smallest and lightest dSLR ever and great, just as light and small kit lenses. Also better build quality than Big Two's cameras far bigger, heavier and more expensive.
Even smaller should be (haven't checked) the Leica M8, if you have spare change on that scale. It has the most compact lenses around.
If you want something smaller without compromising too on quality, do check the Ricoh GX100 and GR-II, the Leica D-Lux 3 and the forthcoming Sigma DP-1.
If you just want a few shots... Olympus SW cameras aren't too back, very compact, and water- and shockproof to boot.
In case your work really puts you in environmental danger, and you want something more substantial than the Olympus SWs, the choice is the Olympus E-3. The most featureful, light and compact weathersealed dSLR around, even if not as resistant as the SWs.