The dilemma is that Facebook can be very useful as a marketing tool for pro shooters. For example, I'm a motorsports photographer and I do have my own website. But there are a lot of teams and drivers on Facebook. It's a great way to get exposure for my work but their sill rights-grabbing TOS makes me very reluctant to put my work out there.
The main problem here is the claim of the right to sublicense. As a professional photographer, if taken literally, it would mean I would be unable to offer an exclusive license to anyone because FB can sublicense.
I know a lot of photographers who are very reluctant to post their work on FB because of their idiotic TOS. And, potentially, FB could be very useful as a marketing tool for photographers.
"The 2005 estimate shows that servers and associated equipment burned through 5 million kW of power"
Watts is a measure of power, which they correctly state, but it's odd to say that something "burned through 5 million kW" since, being power, that's a rate of energy use rather than the amount of energy itself (which should be in Killowatt-hours or Joules).
I think that's correct but, still, you've got a ship with 1000 people and no more than a handful of holodecks. Yet it seems like there's never a wait to get in. It seems like they'd have to sign up weeks or months in advance.
Yeah, that'll be helpful when it comes time to pay the mortgage. No money but hey, look at this, Reuters and Yahoo used my picture and didn't pay me. Whoopee!
...asuming it works as claimed. Myspace is chock-full of copyright violations of still pictures and videos and the typical Myspace user seems to not have a clue.
The pixels the camera companies are talking about when they give their "megapixel" spec are pixels after demosaicing. dabraun is correct: with the exception of the Foveon sensor, each photosite produces only one of red, green, or blue and that only becomes an RGB pixel after demosaicing. That's why he has the word "pixel" in quotes.
Yes, he mixes some reasonably realistic schemes with stuff that's a pure crock. He seems to have no skepticism whatsoever. Good article on the "hydrino" nonsense here: http://www.phact.org/e/z/hydrino.htm
That's not quite correct. Remember that RAW files contain the sensor Bayer pattern data, not actual pixels. The conversion to pixels happens during the demosaicing process which, in the case of RAW files, happens later on in your computer, not in the camera. In the case of the 1Ds MkII, the camera has 4992 x 3328, each of which is 16 bits (actually 12, but I think the files are stored are written as two bytes/photosite), so that's about 33 MB.
Nikon DLSRs give you the choice of storing RAW files as either compressed or uncompressed; I'm not familiar with Canons. I agree that compressing already compressed files won't gain you anything and will probably make things worse.
The person who pays for the work deserves to own the work. This is the same idiotic logic where we have photographers owning the rights to YOUR wedding pics, even though you paid for them. If the creator wants to own the rights, then the creator should PAY for them.
You have this completely backwards. Photographers own the copyright to your wedding pictures because you paid for prints, not the rights to the pictures. Offer to pay the photographer more and you may be able to negotiate a copyright transfer. It's ridiculous to suggest that the creator has to pay for the rights he already has.
Granted, but what's the purpose of the ISS? It almost seems like it's to give the shuttle something to do. That's not to say that shuttle astronauts haven't done really great things with the repair of the Hubble being the most spectacular, but I can't help but think that the space program has been going down the wrong path for many years.
Politics--specifically, the Nixon administration and Congress--didn't help matters.
They're spam-spewing bots, not solitaire-playing bots. Yahoo chat has been plagued with spambots for years and, as far as I can tell, no one at Yahoo cares.
The Internet will not survive if people are forced to respect the intellectual property of others and not steal copyrighted material? That's just plain silly.
The difference in energy required is substantial. For orbital flight you need a large tangential component of velocity so the spacecraft falls around the earth as it's pulled down by the force of gravity and the energy needed to do that is much more than what's required to reach low earth orbit altitude. Like 30 times more.
Actually (though not that I'm going to run out and buy one), $8000 isn't so bad. Digital backs for medium format cameras can easily cost $20,000 and up. No, it wouldn't make much sense unless you can earn enough money from it to more than pay for it.
"This means there's a multiplier that must be applied when computing f-stops".
No, the f/stop is the ratio of the diameter of the aperture and the focal length and has nothing to do with the size of the imager. The only thing that happens is that, with a smaller imager, less of the image circle the lens projects is used so there's an effective crop relative to full-frame, so the field of view is less. The f/stop is the same since both the focal length and the aperture are the same.
Yes, and what does the sensor being the same physical size as a piece of 35 mm film have to do with it "reproducing the quality of 35 mm film?" The number of pixels and how they are handled has more to do with quality than the physical size of the sensor. Also, digital backs for medium-format cameras have been around for some time and are generally regarded as easily surpassing the quality of 35 mm film.
And, the Nikon D2h had wi-fi capabilities first. And, this is more a studio camera than something a sports photographer would use, so the Sports Illustrated reference is a bit off as well.
Except that if you have to keep shooting until you get something decent you're still depending on "getting lucky"; it's just that you'll have more lucky shots in 10,000 pictures than you'll have in 1000.
It may seem like an unlikely set of conditions but it's happened to me six or seven times in the last couple of weeks. It's annoying that, for the first time since I've gotten my beloved TiVo, I can no longer be certain that it'll actually record what I request. That DirecTV won't admit there's a problem is just plain irresponsible, IMO.
Re:This is true of most technology
on
Camera Phone Tips
·
· Score: 1
Quite true. I know people who think nothing of spending thousands of dollars on high-end digital cameras and then go around shooting in "Program" mode and use direct, on-camera flash. The results are predictably bad. Then they talk about wanting to get an even better camera. My advice is to buy a dang book and learn to use what they have.
Slashdot Mirror
The dilemma is that Facebook can be very useful as a marketing tool for pro shooters. For example, I'm a motorsports photographer and I do have my own website. But there are a lot of teams and drivers on Facebook. It's a great way to get exposure for my work but their sill rights-grabbing TOS makes me very reluctant to put my work out there.
The main problem here is the claim of the right to sublicense. As a professional photographer, if taken literally, it would mean I would be unable to offer an exclusive license to anyone because FB can sublicense.
I know a lot of photographers who are very reluctant to post their work on FB because of their idiotic TOS. And, potentially, FB could be very useful as a marketing tool for photographers.
"The 2005 estimate shows that servers and associated equipment burned through 5 million kW of power"
Watts is a measure of power, which they correctly state, but it's odd to say that something "burned through 5 million kW" since, being power, that's a rate of energy use rather than the amount of energy itself (which should be in Killowatt-hours or Joules).
Don't forget that the energy required for orbit is at least twenty-five times that of a suborbital flight. It's a hugely more difficult task.
I think that's correct but, still, you've got a ship with 1000 people and no more than a handful of holodecks. Yet it seems like there's never a wait to get in. It seems like they'd have to sign up weeks or months in advance.
Nope, it just means you have good taste in automobiles.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is _5_30/ai_n16714533
Yeah, that'll be helpful when it comes time to pay the mortgage. No money but hey, look at this, Reuters and Yahoo used my picture and didn't pay me. Whoopee!
...asuming it works as claimed. Myspace is chock-full of copyright violations of still pictures and videos and the typical Myspace user seems to not have a clue.
The pixels the camera companies are talking about when they give their "megapixel" spec are pixels after demosaicing. dabraun is correct: with the exception of the Foveon sensor, each photosite produces only one of red, green, or blue and that only becomes an RGB pixel after demosaicing. That's why he has the word "pixel" in quotes.
Yes, he mixes some reasonably realistic schemes with stuff that's a pure crock. He seems to have no skepticism whatsoever. Good article on the "hydrino" nonsense here: http://www.phact.org/e/z/hydrino.htm
It's already been done: the Pontiac Aztek.
That's not quite correct. Remember that RAW files contain the sensor Bayer pattern data, not actual pixels. The conversion to pixels happens during the demosaicing process which, in the case of RAW files, happens later on in your computer, not in the camera. In the case of the 1Ds MkII, the camera has 4992 x 3328, each of which is 16 bits (actually 12, but I think the files are stored are written as two bytes/photosite), so that's about 33 MB.
Nikon DLSRs give you the choice of storing RAW files as either compressed or uncompressed; I'm not familiar with Canons. I agree that compressing already compressed files won't gain you anything and will probably make things worse.
I'll have to try that. Hey, I'm not wrong, I'm too precise!
The person who pays for the work deserves to own the work. This is the same idiotic logic where we have photographers owning the rights to YOUR wedding pics, even though you paid for them. If the creator wants to own the rights, then the creator should PAY for them.
You have this completely backwards. Photographers own the copyright to your wedding pictures because you paid for prints, not the rights to the pictures. Offer to pay the photographer more and you may be able to negotiate a copyright transfer. It's ridiculous to suggest that the creator has to pay for the rights he already has.
This got modded to a 5? Sheesh...
Granted, but what's the purpose of the ISS? It almost seems like it's to give the shuttle something to do. That's not to say that shuttle astronauts haven't done really great things with the repair of the Hubble being the most spectacular, but I can't help but think that the space program has been going down the wrong path for many years.
Politics--specifically, the Nixon administration and Congress--didn't help matters.
They're spam-spewing bots, not solitaire-playing bots. Yahoo chat has been plagued with spambots for years and, as far as I can tell, no one at Yahoo cares.
The Internet will not survive if people are forced to respect the intellectual property of others and not steal copyrighted material? That's just plain silly.
The difference in energy required is substantial. For orbital flight you need a large tangential component of velocity so the spacecraft falls around the earth as it's pulled down by the force of gravity and the energy needed to do that is much more than what's required to reach low earth orbit altitude. Like 30 times more.
Actually (though not that I'm going to run out and buy one), $8000 isn't so bad. Digital backs for medium format cameras can easily cost $20,000 and up. No, it wouldn't make much sense unless you can earn enough money from it to more than pay for it.
"This means there's a multiplier that must be applied when computing f-stops".
No, the f/stop is the ratio of the diameter of the aperture and the focal length and has nothing to do with the size of the imager. The only thing that happens is that, with a smaller imager, less of the image circle the lens projects is used so there's an effective crop relative to full-frame, so the field of view is less. The f/stop is the same since both the focal length and the aperture are the same.
Yes, and what does the sensor being the same physical size as a piece of 35 mm film have to do with it "reproducing the quality of 35 mm film?" The number of pixels and how they are handled has more to do with quality than the physical size of the sensor. Also, digital backs for medium-format cameras have been around for some time and are generally regarded as easily surpassing the quality of 35 mm film.
And, the Nikon D2h had wi-fi capabilities first. And, this is more a studio camera than something a sports photographer would use, so the Sports Illustrated reference is a bit off as well.
Except that if you have to keep shooting until you get something decent you're still depending on "getting lucky"; it's just that you'll have more lucky shots in 10,000 pictures than you'll have in 1000.
It may seem like an unlikely set of conditions but it's happened to me six or seven times in the last couple of weeks. It's annoying that, for the first time since I've gotten my beloved TiVo, I can no longer be certain that it'll actually record what I request. That DirecTV won't admit there's a problem is just plain irresponsible, IMO.
Quite true. I know people who think nothing of spending thousands of dollars on high-end digital cameras and then go around shooting in "Program" mode and use direct, on-camera flash. The results are predictably bad. Then they talk about wanting to get an even better camera. My advice is to buy a dang book and learn to use what they have.