That's pretty much exactly what I'm arguing... though you were right to use a different term. The problem doesn't lie in the language, but the fact that most people don't yet understand the proper way to use it and prevent such bad implementations.
Bloat in applications that take over a minute to start up on 1Ghz+ boxes. Trust me - I worked for a library that had a Java front-end to their circulation database. Let me emphasize, it was a front-end to a database. I'm not saying it's Java's fault, but Java does have a reputation of having stupidly written programs. I suspect, however, that this is because everybody woke up and yelled "implement Java!" This lead to a huge influx of people who learned Java by reading a book, then started writing code. Hopefully that will change at some point...
I would argue that the paper I've written for college is not a public nuisance. If a company makes money by cleaning up litter, good for them. s/litter/spam/ and read again. As long as they're not making their own market by sending the same spam, I'm fine with it. So no, spam filter comparison is fine, term papers are not.
And yet, in the state of Maine, only men can now be charged with indecent exposure in public. Why? Well, a judge ruled in a case there that the law read "display of genitalia," and since the girl(s?) charged have the female characteristic of internal genitalia... well, they can run around in birthday suits. I don't know how well that judgement will hold up in future cases, but it's an interesting tidbit.
How many of those traffic accidents are caused by psychotic, speeding photographers trying to express you onto the front of tomorrow's tabloids? Paparazzi are the scum of photography, and her death was definitely a negligent manslaughter caused by irresponsible acts. Couple that with her already high popularity...
I've read it, and here's my take: he's comparing scans and digital imaging. For his purposes, a 1D is the right answer; that camera is absolutely beautiful.
Now that we're past that pleasantry, you can take your Ansel Adams relevancy comment and shove it. This guy is talking about digital prints on 8x10 - 11x14 paper of color imagery. Ansel Adams picked what he used because it was the best tool available for getting the absolute highest photographic quality. DIGITAL CAN NOT YET MATCH FILM at 8x10 negative sizes in black & white that are printed on images measured in the double-digits of feet.
For the Nth time, digital is spectacular and is the future of most photography. It cannot yet beat the highest end film systems, nor will it within sight. SLRs are great cameras, but they don't have the same features that Adams used with his view cameras. And good luck putting together a Gigapixel image with an f/64 aperature using an SLR - it'd take all day, and then there are the distortion issues with the stitching process anyway.
This is not about the merits of digital vs. film in all regards, this is speculation about what Ansel Adams would have done. I may be wrong, but as far as my guess goes with the criteria he used, he wouldn't use digital for his primary purposes. He'd use it like a quick Polaroid proof... maybe... and sure as hell not the reccomendation from the Nikon guy.
Everybody seems to keep veering off from the point: yes, if you really wanted to use digital, you could pull it off with tradeoffs between exposure and lab-time. The simple, flat, plain, definitive point, however, is that all the points you mentioned of how a photograph can cope with digital point out why it wouldn't be done. A digital print will not yet surpass a lovingly done black & white large format exposure, and even if it did reach that - even if the quality could reach it... would Ansel Adams have left his love of the darklab for a "digital darklab?"
Digital is indeed an immense portion of the future of photography, but the quotes from the Nikon guy are absolute marketing bullshit that's not even intended to sell that particular product (why? because somebody paying that much understands it's bull and people who buy into it are buying in at lower levels... unless you have too much money to give a shit). You have valid points, but topicality is something you're leaving behind.
To finalize things: here are what I believe the requirements of Ansel Adams would be to accept digital in place of his film:
Same exposure latitude as the highest end B&W films
Same resolution as the highest end B&W films at 8x10 negative sizes
Shots able to be taken using the same methods as his film cameras. Though this links to above somewhat, I'm saying that it's unnaccaptable to have 10 different receptors fired at different times to try and make the same exposure lattitude / detail
A receptor that is not a scanning type like most (all?) large-format digital backs are. When the shutter trips, it has to hit the sensor exactly like it would film because you change the composition if you don't.
A method of making prints from the digital image with the same clarity, contrast, and resolution as a film enlarger.
AND, even if you accomplished all that, you'd have to break his love of the analog darkroom, because what he did was an art. I don't think he felt any less joy about the time he spent in a darklab than what I do because his concern was much more about the art than the science, even though he used the science to perfect the art.
Screw the resolution debate... that's a debate that's only going to be solved by 1:1 comparison. Even if that proves true though, digital still doesn't match the exposure latitude of print film. Digital, print, slide - they all have there places and their formats that will always have certain advantages.
Is digital an acceptal form of photography that surpasses what most people would ever be capable of reaching? Definitely. Is it something that would be able to substitute for the methods and devices used by Ansel Adams? Definitely not with the technology we have today, and definitely not with anything that I've heard in the most remote planning stages.
Digital is not in any way catching up to what Ansel Adams used. Digital is catching up to the high-end 35mm gear. Ansel Adams worked with large format negatives (8x10in typically, IIRC). Comparing the size of the two formats should alone tell you why nothing digital would be his way.
I'm not to say that digital is not here and is not high quality - I'd nearly die for a digital SLR; I am saying that somebody who believes he'd adopt digital photography anywhere near the form of what it is today does not understand the topic.
Get a (virtual) machine that you have root on. Add stuff to/etc/aliases when you are worried about spam. I've got an old pentium on a free Frame Relay (damn, life IS good) that does absolutely wonderful.
Sun Micro kicked everybody's ass. Read across the board, they had the cheapest cost per performance and though Fujitsu systems really shined through on the 1000GB test, they're still SPARC architecture and still running Solaris.
Truthfully, I'm not a Sun fanboy (I just think they make cool shiny toys that cost a lot). Despite their corporate issues of late, they can still flex when it comes time to move things. Given any of those system built into a decent cluster (note that no pure Sun solutions were clustered), I think something worthwhile might show up.
Even if you disagree with me on those points though, you do have to agree that the/. article itself just sucked.
Re:View from a government agency
on
Does IT Matter?
·
· Score: 1
The ones that combine red and blue colors with the green to make all sorts of pretty images can do that too... just because it got faster and has more doesn't always mean it became less reliable.
Most windows computers I've used are stup to allow any user to delete C:\. The anology may not be perfect, but the point is the same - complete prevention of allowing users to run attached executables is not the right answer.
Put shortly, DivX can be as good as DVD for less space... but not at 4.7GB to 700. Most 4.7GB disks are not entirely the feature. You can a short feature to look decent for 700 MB, but I'd guess only a 1:2 compression rate for something really pretty looking. Try watching an action movie that's been DivX'd... it can be painful if it's not encoded correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty much exactly what I'm arguing... though you were right to use a different term. The problem doesn't lie in the language, but the fact that most people don't yet understand the proper way to use it and prevent such bad implementations.
Bloat in applications that take over a minute to start up on 1Ghz+ boxes. Trust me - I worked for a library that had a Java front-end to their circulation database. Let me emphasize, it was a front-end to a database. I'm not saying it's Java's fault, but Java does have a reputation of having stupidly written programs. I suspect, however, that this is because everybody woke up and yelled "implement Java!" This lead to a huge influx of people who learned Java by reading a book, then started writing code. Hopefully that will change at some point...
I would argue that the paper I've written for college is not a public nuisance. If a company makes money by cleaning up litter, good for them. s/litter/spam/ and read again. As long as they're not making their own market by sending the same spam, I'm fine with it. So no, spam filter comparison is fine, term papers are not.
Well, yes, but - for all those actions it takes, don't you think somebody should have stood up, pointed at this one, and gone "duh?"
It's currently 2 degrees out here, with a windchill factor of -13, and the low tonight will be -15. Shaddup.
And yet, in the state of Maine, only men can now be charged with indecent exposure in public. Why? Well, a judge ruled in a case there that the law read "display of genitalia," and since the girl(s?) charged have the female characteristic of internal genitalia... well, they can run around in birthday suits. I don't know how well that judgement will hold up in future cases, but it's an interesting tidbit.
How many of those traffic accidents are caused by psychotic, speeding photographers trying to express you onto the front of tomorrow's tabloids? Paparazzi are the scum of photography, and her death was definitely a negligent manslaughter caused by irresponsible acts. Couple that with her already high popularity...
A college student who enjoys driving fancy cars, even for short distances?
My personal favorite: Network Protocols -> Microsoft -> TCP/IP. Ummm... no?
Now that we're past that pleasantry, you can take your Ansel Adams relevancy comment and shove it. This guy is talking about digital prints on 8x10 - 11x14 paper of color imagery. Ansel Adams picked what he used because it was the best tool available for getting the absolute highest photographic quality. DIGITAL CAN NOT YET MATCH FILM at 8x10 negative sizes in black & white that are printed on images measured in the double-digits of feet.
For the Nth time, digital is spectacular and is the future of most photography. It cannot yet beat the highest end film systems, nor will it within sight. SLRs are great cameras, but they don't have the same features that Adams used with his view cameras. And good luck putting together a Gigapixel image with an f/64 aperature using an SLR - it'd take all day, and then there are the distortion issues with the stitching process anyway.
This is not about the merits of digital vs. film in all regards, this is speculation about what Ansel Adams would have done. I may be wrong, but as far as my guess goes with the criteria he used, he wouldn't use digital for his primary purposes. He'd use it like a quick Polaroid proof... maybe... and sure as hell not the reccomendation from the Nikon guy.
Digital is indeed an immense portion of the future of photography, but the quotes from the Nikon guy are absolute marketing bullshit that's not even intended to sell that particular product (why? because somebody paying that much understands it's bull and people who buy into it are buying in at lower levels... unless you have too much money to give a shit). You have valid points, but topicality is something you're leaving behind.
To finalize things: here are what I believe the requirements of Ansel Adams would be to accept digital in place of his film:
- Same exposure latitude as the highest end B&W films
- Same resolution as the highest end B&W films at 8x10 negative sizes
- Shots able to be taken using the same methods as his film cameras. Though this links to above somewhat, I'm saying that it's unnaccaptable to have 10 different receptors fired at different times to try and make the same exposure lattitude / detail
- A receptor that is not a scanning type like most (all?) large-format digital backs are. When the shutter trips, it has to hit the sensor exactly like it would film because you change the composition if you don't.
- A method of making prints from the digital image with the same clarity, contrast, and resolution as a film enlarger.
AND, even if you accomplished all that, you'd have to break his love of the analog darkroom, because what he did was an art. I don't think he felt any less joy about the time he spent in a darklab than what I do because his concern was much more about the art than the science, even though he used the science to perfect the art.Is digital an acceptal form of photography that surpasses what most people would ever be capable of reaching? Definitely. Is it something that would be able to substitute for the methods and devices used by Ansel Adams? Definitely not with the technology we have today, and definitely not with anything that I've heard in the most remote planning stages.
I'm not to say that digital is not here and is not high quality - I'd nearly die for a digital SLR; I am saying that somebody who believes he'd adopt digital photography anywhere near the form of what it is today does not understand the topic.
I once did that on my old 486... 300+ disks later...
Get a (virtual) machine that you have root on. Add stuff to /etc/aliases when you are worried about spam. I've got an old pentium on a free Frame Relay (damn, life IS good) that does absolutely wonderful.
Truthfully, I'm not a Sun fanboy (I just think they make cool shiny toys that cost a lot). Despite their corporate issues of late, they can still flex when it comes time to move things. Given any of those system built into a decent cluster (note that no pure Sun solutions were clustered), I think something worthwhile might show up.
Even if you disagree with me on those points though, you do have to agree that the /. article itself just sucked.
The ones that combine red and blue colors with the green to make all sorts of pretty images can do that too... just because it got faster and has more doesn't always mean it became less reliable.
Tastee Wheat billboard in a subway-like area. Don't remeber exactly right now, just got back from seeing it on IMAX and am too tired...
Most windows computers I've used are stup to allow any user to delete C:\. The anology may not be perfect, but the point is the same - complete prevention of allowing users to run attached executables is not the right answer.
Does that mean you discrouage running 9x? Well, we all do I suppose...
Yes, rm has a confirm capability? Guess what happens after you've seen it 10 times: you just hit 'y' automatically. Same result.
Seriously... I want to know where you work that 5 minutes of downtime == $137,000... the ROI on that is insane!
Put shortly, DivX can be as good as DVD for less space... but not at 4.7GB to 700. Most 4.7GB disks are not entirely the feature. You can a short feature to look decent for 700 MB, but I'd guess only a 1:2 compression rate for something really pretty looking. Try watching an action movie that's been DivX'd... it can be painful if it's not encoded correctly.
Like it wasn't bad enough working for one already.... "Alright, everyone in the pool!"