Evolution runs fine under Apple's X11, though a native port would be nice... it's a fine IMAP client in its own right, regardless of the Exchange features.
The big problem is getting those Exchange features - those are only available via the Exchange Connector for Evolution, which is a commercial product and is not available for OSX using X11. If there was a native port of Evolution then we'd still need a supported version of Connector, and would still have to pay for it.
Embedding fonts is optional in PDF for many reasons. If you were to create such a digital fax standard based on PDF, you'd simply require embedding (or embedding of anything but standard fonts if you want), much like other PDF specs like PDF/X define a set of requirements - you'd also define any other limitations you'd need to impose for various reasons (color space limits, size restrictions, etc). It's not a limitation of the format - sometimes embedding is unnecessary and burdensome (adds unnecessary bloat), and sometimes it's needed (when you can't predict the final rendering environment). For a standard, like PDF/fax, you'd pick and choose the parts of PDF that are allowed and those that aren't, and leave it to the libraries/apps generating PDF to enforce compliance.
Distiller and many PDF libraries have a concept of PDF profiles, where you can force compliance to certain rules in your PDFs.
PDF is perfect for the file format aspect of this - it supports a number of encoding schemes for imaging (you may want JPEG for color, continuous tone images, and ZIP for 1 bit B&W for instance), and it is well supported on most platforms already. It's also better suited to documents created digitally, as it can get far better quality and smaller storage requirements when saving text elements and vectors natively, instead of rasterizing first (like you must with JPEG, baseline TIFF, PNG, etc). For scan-to-PDF you're stuck with raster, obviously.
As for the scanning engine, that's outside of PDF's scope, but Adobe's Acrobat Professional package does allow scanning to PDF via TWAIN, on Windows at least. On the Mac, you generally scan to a host app like Photoshop, at which point it's trivial to output a PDF (from any app on OSX).
Correction: JPEG (and nearly every other modern image format) includes a resolution marker which, along with the dimensions in pixels, is used to compute the print size.
It doesn't say explicitly 6" x 4" @ 300ppi. It says 1800x1200 @ 300ppi, and you work the other direction.
Name something you can do on Windows in a GUI that you can't do on Mac OSX? In fact Apple's GUIs for their server editions (Server Admin, Workgroup Manager, Server Monitor, etc) are very nice and in every way more sophisticated than AppleShareIP on Mac OS9. And the command line is always there if you want it, to extend the capabilities of the system or just to make your life easier.
The presence of a command line is an *enhancement* to the operating system, not an admission of defeat. It brings power that wasn't there before - thousands of applications that didn't exist on the Mac before, and flexibility in interacting with your OS that you can't expect from a GUI.
Except that's exactly what it's for - SVG *is* a text-only view, or at least it lets you have one. SVG would be much more friendly to text-only browsers than, say, Flash which is just an opaque blob to lynx. An SVG aware text browser could strip out the graphic objects and just display the data in the document. An xslt style sheet could do the same...
Oh, I agree, it doesn't nullify the DMCA case entirely; the complaint would be about the subversion of a copy protection mechanism, not piracy. This is where it gets interesting, though - it potentially pits the creative rights of one group against the DMCA-protected rights of others.
It could make a good argument for a new exception to the DMCA (there are others, including new ones proposed by the LoC) - the breaking of a content protection system for the purpose of retrieving one's own creative property, regardless of whether the system is obsolete or not (since that's an access issue for consumers, not rights holders).
MacroVision is not added to consumer-created tapes, just like CSS isn't used by consumer-created DVD Video. There is no copy protection that would prevent you from duping your own copyrighted material from VHS to VHS, or DVD-R to DVD-R.
The original message was dead-on - it'll be interesting to see Ritz use DMCA to prevent users access to their own copyrighted photos.
100% of the original luminosity data is preserved, only the color component is interpolated. This is a benefit of YUV (or similar color model) image processing... in fact many modern compression techniques take advantage of the human eyes higher sensitivity to luminosity than to color - this is essentially the inverse of that process.
So it's not as bad, entirely, as if you (as you did) thought about this is pure RGB terms... the interpolation (demosaic as others have called it) most likely does not occur in RGB space, for the specific reason of preserving the luminosity data in full.
I do a lot of photography without ever having published in a magazine - there is often a point besides just that, though I don't get where you're trying to go with that... are you implyiing that because Sony is using a 4-color filter in a Bayer pattern that the images won't work in normal outputs? That's just silly.
FWIW, I once, in a pinch, did a shoot for Aviation Week on a Sony DSC-F1 (640x480)... after an enormous amount of cleanup (off the best shots) it was passable, but even in a dry trade magazine wasn't nearly the best results of the issue (the images looked good, just didn't hold enough for even a 4x2.5" placement).
Resolution is hardly everything... many folks will take a 3-5 megapixel DSLR over a 5-6 megapixel prosumer model any day.
Relevant factors:
Lens systems - most low-end digicams come with shit for lenses, little more than a transparent glob of plastic... chromatic abberations are common, spherical focus problems, color fringing, etc. Chip - the size, filter configuration (3-color Bayer, 4-color Bayer, Foveon X3, etc), presence of microlenses or not, mfg process (CCD vs CMOS), and other concerns all impact imaging quality (subjective), depth of field, sample depth (8, 10, 12bit/component), noise (or lack thereof), pixel blooming, speed/sensitivity, etc Camera - just like pro's don't say "Hell, that little point and click does 35mm too, why do I need my 10k worth of Canon gear to do the same", there's no comparing the qualities of a pro camera - the body, controls, post-processing (white balance controls, noise suppression, compression, etc), AF system, with that of a cheap consumer camera.
In other words, in many cases a 3MP image shot by a pro on a quality DSLR of a year or two ago will still surpass anything you can do with that 5-6MP Minolta you just got.
Yes, consumer magazines and newsprint typically have terrible resolution... but still, garbage in = garbage out (it's all relative). Besides, a pro shooting for a major magazine will use pro equipment - that's why it exists... it gives them the fine control they need to get a shot that will pass the photo editors muster. Snap shots on his wife's camera might suit in a pinch, but it won't go over well. I think you underestimate the challenges of professional photography...
It depends how you define pro... no pro (in your definition) would be caught dead with a Sigma SD9 right now either, it's got far too many imaging issues (regardless of the theoretically preferable sensor configuration).
The Sony will appeal to folks straddling the line, who might have considered an E-20 in the past, or who are looking at the low-end SLRs, don't have an existing investment in compatible lenses, and need a good performer at a reasonable price. I use a variety of cameras all the time, and I am very seriously considering the F828 while I wait on the 6MP+ DSLR market to mature and come down to reality.
If I had my druthers, I'd buy an EOS-1Ds for myself right now - but short of that, this is the most thrilling camera for me when you balance the price, performance, and other factors. If you simply MUST have a standard lens mount, then you can't go too wrong with the EOS-10D right now.
That's like saying what's the point of sampling images/sound/video at higher than 8bit/component because that's all monitors can display. By sampling at a higher frequency than the output, you have better precision data to work with... of course, since this is a Bayer pattern CCD it's still only sampling one component per pixel, but presumably the emerald filter helps produce better interpolated color across a wider (or smoother) spectrum.
I use LAME excessively for production work... well not daily, as we don't produce audio that much, but at least monthly, and in the beginning of the project it was nonstop. LAME is an excellent tool for serious production work - shell scripting is certainly less aggravating than scripting Cleaner (as I'm sure you'll agree!). I haven't used MPEG4IP extensively, so I can't comment on the process... but I'd suspect a simple wrapper script and it would be as easy as anything (though of course it still doesn't mean it's fast, or an efficient encoder!).
PS, I thought I read that there were no current plans for scalability in AVC? I was a bit shocked by that. Maybe it was in your interview in the recent edition of DV?
Except Sherlock already existed for many years on the Mac OS - Sherlock 3 was to many a simple extension of the "Web Services" concept both earlier versions of Sherlock, Watson, and many other apps had been toying with.
I still have a Watson license... and every damn time I fire it up there's an annoying update notice... I can't use the app without it annoying me. Watson is free to innovate, but it's been stagnant for over a year now and I'm not sad Apple rolled a similar GUI Web Services app into the OS... in fact, while most of Watson's data seems to come from screen scraping (requiring no end to the updates, or else the modules quit working), Sherlock seems to be a real Web Services client (read: SOAP, XML-RPC, and XPath).
Crying for Watson is nuts - compare it as a product on fair and equal footing... it's barely done a thing in ages, despite the probably 30 updates I've been forced to run. I can imagine an innovative Web Services client, but this is no longer (and may never have been) one.
BTW, the square pixel equivalent I mentioned above for DVD is only valid for 4x3 DVDs... widescreen video would have an even smaller square pixel equivalent, so this video would be even larger relatively speaking!
I don't know what version you downloaded, but the main (100MB) file I got is significantly higher-res than DVD. DVD is typically 720x480 (NTSC) or in square pixels 640x480, this was 1000x540. That's 540000 pixels versus an effective 307200 pixels, or about 75% more area. It was also encoded at a whopping 5266kilobit/second bitrate, which i more than necessary and explains why some people are having trouble playing it even on decent machines (5Mbit averages in Sorenson 3 is pretty extreme!). This is definitely the highest bitrate Sorenson 3 encoded movie I've ever seen publicly distributed.
Btw, QT playback on Windows has a lot to do with the video acceleration mode setting. Obviously Sorenson 3 is pretty well optimized for Intel (contrary to other posts) as the same.dll powers Linux/x86 players well
Regardless of cookies, Google doesn't rank or modify searches to benefit advertisers, though it allows advertisers to target specific search criteria. Google isn't tweaking it's results for this case, and it wouldn't explain it anyway
Agreed, in many cases raw performance is better on the Wintel side these days, yet the tools and usability question is still open. The best solution, for me, is to have and use both - my Macs are just plain more productive, but when I need to go to render, or compress an MPEG-2, or warm my apartment, nothing beats the performance:cost ratio of a homebuilt PC.
Informative? You claim to have made a major technical decision based on your interpretation of an advertisement, and you get rated "Informative"?
Bottom line, this is why organizations have configuration labs - to test products before they go out and just buy them and slap them on the network, assuming they'll work "seamlessly" (whatever that means!). OSX has some work to go before it is perfectly integrated, "seamlessly" (meaning effortlessly?), into your Active Directory services, but that doesn't excuse you telling your users about features you did not personally verify (or even try to apparently), based on interpretation of a word in an ad. Get a grip.
Most PocketPCs are 320x240... in fact I don't know of a single one that's 320x480, though there are many CE/CE.net devices with much higher rez (tablet and clamshell portables).
Apple *does* include the functionality to use OS7/8/9 apps in OSX, you just didn't bother to find that out. This article is about *ne hardware* not booting OS9 anymore - something that was bound to happen eventually, and not suprising if you know anything about the pairing of the Mac OS and Apple hardware. Essentially, Apple is just choosing not to continue to update OS9 for new hardware - which they've always had to do previously whenever new hardware was launched. Why should they update an OS they've long-since put on EOL, and which they already provide a solution for? Regardless, OS9 will still continune to boot within OSX, as it always has been able to, in the form of "Classic" - which will provide the exact capabilities you are attacking them for not providing.
Get your facts straight. You have a right not to like Apple - but at least know what you're talking about.
I'm sorry, but thats absolutely crap. My girlfriend and future wife told me that if I bought her a diamond our engagement is off. She researched the DeBeers story herself and decided that she'd no sooner wear such a product of war, rape, and poverty than she'd wear a depleted-uranium bullet on her finger.
Not all women are vapid, materialistic, diamond-whores. Find a smart one, problem solved.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution runs fine under Apple's X11, though a native port would be nice... it's a fine IMAP client in its own right, regardless of the Exchange features.
The big problem is getting those Exchange features - those are only available via the Exchange Connector for Evolution, which is a commercial product and is not available for OSX using X11. If there was a native port of Evolution then we'd still need a supported version of Connector, and would still have to pay for it.
Embedding fonts is optional in PDF for many reasons. If you were to create such a digital fax standard based on PDF, you'd simply require embedding (or embedding of anything but standard fonts if you want), much like other PDF specs like PDF/X define a set of requirements - you'd also define any other limitations you'd need to impose for various reasons (color space limits, size restrictions, etc). It's not a limitation of the format - sometimes embedding is unnecessary and burdensome (adds unnecessary bloat), and sometimes it's needed (when you can't predict the final rendering environment). For a standard, like PDF/fax, you'd pick and choose the parts of PDF that are allowed and those that aren't, and leave it to the libraries/apps generating PDF to enforce compliance.
Distiller and many PDF libraries have a concept of PDF profiles, where you can force compliance to certain rules in your PDFs.
PDF is perfect for the file format aspect of this - it supports a number of encoding schemes for imaging (you may want JPEG for color, continuous tone images, and ZIP for 1 bit B&W for instance), and it is well supported on most platforms already. It's also better suited to documents created digitally, as it can get far better quality and smaller storage requirements when saving text elements and vectors natively, instead of rasterizing first (like you must with JPEG, baseline TIFF, PNG, etc). For scan-to-PDF you're stuck with raster, obviously.
As for the scanning engine, that's outside of PDF's scope, but Adobe's Acrobat Professional package does allow scanning to PDF via TWAIN, on Windows at least. On the Mac, you generally scan to a host app like Photoshop, at which point it's trivial to output a PDF (from any app on OSX).
Correction: JPEG (and nearly every other modern image format) includes a resolution marker which, along with the dimensions in pixels, is used to compute the print size.
It doesn't say explicitly 6" x 4" @ 300ppi. It says 1800x1200 @ 300ppi, and you work the other direction.
Name something you can do on Windows in a GUI that you can't do on Mac OSX? In fact Apple's GUIs for their server editions (Server Admin, Workgroup Manager, Server Monitor, etc) are very nice and in every way more sophisticated than AppleShareIP on Mac OS9. And the command line is always there if you want it, to extend the capabilities of the system or just to make your life easier.
The presence of a command line is an *enhancement* to the operating system, not an admission of defeat. It brings power that wasn't there before - thousands of applications that didn't exist on the Mac before, and flexibility in interacting with your OS that you can't expect from a GUI.
Yeah, and just about as useful as those text browsers that strip out HTML formatting and display basic data.
Except that's exactly what it's for - SVG *is* a text-only view, or at least it lets you have one. SVG would be much more friendly to text-only browsers than, say, Flash which is just an opaque blob to lynx. An SVG aware text browser could strip out the graphic objects and just display the data in the document. An xslt style sheet could do the same...
Oh, I agree, it doesn't nullify the DMCA case entirely; the complaint would be about the subversion of a copy protection mechanism, not piracy. This is where it gets interesting, though - it potentially pits the creative rights of one group against the DMCA-protected rights of others.
It could make a good argument for a new exception to the DMCA (there are others, including new ones proposed by the LoC) - the breaking of a content protection system for the purpose of retrieving one's own creative property, regardless of whether the system is obsolete or not (since that's an access issue for consumers, not rights holders).
No, that's not how MacroVision works. It's a flag set in content (for a hefty fee, of course!), not a generic always-on protection.
This is how it works in both VHS and DVD.
Let me be the first to call BULL**T on that.
MacroVision is not added to consumer-created tapes, just like CSS isn't used by consumer-created DVD Video. There is no copy protection that would prevent you from duping your own copyrighted material from VHS to VHS, or DVD-R to DVD-R.
The original message was dead-on - it'll be interesting to see Ritz use DMCA to prevent users access to their own copyrighted photos.
That's not entirely true:
100% of the original luminosity data is preserved, only the color component is interpolated. This is a benefit of YUV (or similar color model) image processing... in fact many modern compression techniques take advantage of the human eyes higher sensitivity to luminosity than to color - this is essentially the inverse of that process.
So it's not as bad, entirely, as if you (as you did) thought about this is pure RGB terms... the interpolation (demosaic as others have called it) most likely does not occur in RGB space, for the specific reason of preserving the luminosity data in full.
I do a lot of photography without ever having published in a magazine - there is often a point besides just that, though I don't get where you're trying to go with that... are you implyiing that because Sony is using a 4-color filter in a Bayer pattern that the images won't work in normal outputs? That's just silly.
FWIW, I once, in a pinch, did a shoot for Aviation Week on a Sony DSC-F1 (640x480)... after an enormous amount of cleanup (off the best shots) it was passable, but even in a dry trade magazine wasn't nearly the best results of the issue (the images looked good, just didn't hold enough for even a 4x2.5" placement).
Resolution is hardly everything... many folks will take a 3-5 megapixel DSLR over a 5-6 megapixel prosumer model any day.
Relevant factors:
Lens systems - most low-end digicams come with shit for lenses, little more than a transparent glob of plastic... chromatic abberations are common, spherical focus problems, color fringing, etc.
Chip - the size, filter configuration (3-color Bayer, 4-color Bayer, Foveon X3, etc), presence of microlenses or not, mfg process (CCD vs CMOS), and other concerns all impact imaging quality (subjective), depth of field, sample depth (8, 10, 12bit/component), noise (or lack thereof), pixel blooming, speed/sensitivity, etc
Camera - just like pro's don't say "Hell, that little point and click does 35mm too, why do I need my 10k worth of Canon gear to do the same", there's no comparing the qualities of a pro camera - the body, controls, post-processing (white balance controls, noise suppression, compression, etc), AF system, with that of a cheap consumer camera.
In other words, in many cases a 3MP image shot by a pro on a quality DSLR of a year or two ago will still surpass anything you can do with that 5-6MP Minolta you just got.
Yes, consumer magazines and newsprint typically have terrible resolution... but still, garbage in = garbage out (it's all relative). Besides, a pro shooting for a major magazine will use pro equipment - that's why it exists... it gives them the fine control they need to get a shot that will pass the photo editors muster. Snap shots on his wife's camera might suit in a pinch, but it won't go over well. I think you underestimate the challenges of professional photography...
It depends how you define pro... no pro (in your definition) would be caught dead with a Sigma SD9 right now either, it's got far too many imaging issues (regardless of the theoretically preferable sensor configuration).
The Sony will appeal to folks straddling the line, who might have considered an E-20 in the past, or who are looking at the low-end SLRs, don't have an existing investment in compatible lenses, and need a good performer at a reasonable price. I use a variety of cameras all the time, and I am very seriously considering the F828 while I wait on the 6MP+ DSLR market to mature and come down to reality.
If I had my druthers, I'd buy an EOS-1Ds for myself right now - but short of that, this is the most thrilling camera for me when you balance the price, performance, and other factors. If you simply MUST have a standard lens mount, then you can't go too wrong with the EOS-10D right now.
That's like saying what's the point of sampling images/sound/video at higher than 8bit/component because that's all monitors can display. By sampling at a higher frequency than the output, you have better precision data to work with... of course, since this is a Bayer pattern CCD it's still only sampling one component per pixel, but presumably the emerald filter helps produce better interpolated color across a wider (or smoother) spectrum.
Ben,
I use LAME excessively for production work... well not daily, as we don't produce audio that much, but at least monthly, and in the beginning of the project it was nonstop. LAME is an excellent tool for serious production work - shell scripting is certainly less aggravating than scripting Cleaner (as I'm sure you'll agree!). I haven't used MPEG4IP extensively, so I can't comment on the process... but I'd suspect a simple wrapper script and it would be as easy as anything (though of course it still doesn't mean it's fast, or an efficient encoder!).
PS, I thought I read that there were no current plans for scalability in AVC? I was a bit shocked by that. Maybe it was in your interview in the recent edition of DV?
Cheers,
Roger
Except Sherlock already existed for many years on the Mac OS - Sherlock 3 was to many a simple extension of the "Web Services" concept both earlier versions of Sherlock, Watson, and many other apps had been toying with.
I still have a Watson license... and every damn time I fire it up there's an annoying update notice... I can't use the app without it annoying me. Watson is free to innovate, but it's been stagnant for over a year now and I'm not sad Apple rolled a similar GUI Web Services app into the OS... in fact, while most of Watson's data seems to come from screen scraping (requiring no end to the updates, or else the modules quit working), Sherlock seems to be a real Web Services client (read: SOAP, XML-RPC, and XPath).
Crying for Watson is nuts - compare it as a product on fair and equal footing... it's barely done a thing in ages, despite the probably 30 updates I've been forced to run. I can imagine an innovative Web Services client, but this is no longer (and may never have been) one.
BTW, the square pixel equivalent I mentioned above for DVD is only valid for 4x3 DVDs... widescreen video would have an even smaller square pixel equivalent, so this video would be even larger relatively speaking!
I don't know what version you downloaded, but the main (100MB) file I got is significantly higher-res than DVD. DVD is typically 720x480 (NTSC) or in square pixels 640x480, this was 1000x540. That's 540000 pixels versus an effective 307200 pixels, or about 75% more area. It was also encoded at a whopping 5266kilobit/second bitrate, which i more than necessary and explains why some people are having trouble playing it even on decent machines (5Mbit averages in Sorenson 3 is pretty extreme!). This is definitely the highest bitrate Sorenson 3 encoded movie I've ever seen publicly distributed.
.dll powers Linux/x86 players well
Btw, QT playback on Windows has a lot to do with the video acceleration mode setting. Obviously Sorenson 3 is pretty well optimized for Intel (contrary to other posts) as the same
Regardless of cookies, Google doesn't rank or modify searches to benefit advertisers, though it allows advertisers to target specific search criteria. Google isn't tweaking it's results for this case, and it wouldn't explain it anyway
Agreed, in many cases raw performance is better on the Wintel side these days, yet the tools and usability question is still open. The best solution, for me, is to have and use both - my Macs are just plain more productive, but when I need to go to render, or compress an MPEG-2, or warm my apartment, nothing beats the performance:cost ratio of a homebuilt PC.
Informative? You claim to have made a major technical decision based on your interpretation of an advertisement, and you get rated "Informative"?
Bottom line, this is why organizations have configuration labs - to test products before they go out and just buy them and slap them on the network, assuming they'll work "seamlessly" (whatever that means!). OSX has some work to go before it is perfectly integrated, "seamlessly" (meaning effortlessly?), into your Active Directory services, but that doesn't excuse you telling your users about features you did not personally verify (or even try to apparently), based on interpretation of a word in an ad. Get a grip.
Most PocketPCs are 320x240... in fact I don't know of a single one that's 320x480, though there are many CE/CE.net devices with much higher rez (tablet and clamshell portables).
Apple *does* include the functionality to use OS7/8/9 apps in OSX, you just didn't bother to find that out. This article is about *ne hardware* not booting OS9 anymore - something that was bound to happen eventually, and not suprising if you know anything about the pairing of the Mac OS and Apple hardware. Essentially, Apple is just choosing not to continue to update OS9 for new hardware - which they've always had to do previously whenever new hardware was launched. Why should they update an OS they've long-since put on EOL, and which they already provide a solution for? Regardless, OS9 will still continune to boot within OSX, as it always has been able to, in the form of "Classic" - which will provide the exact capabilities you are attacking them for not providing.
Get your facts straight. You have a right not to like Apple - but at least know what you're talking about.
I'm sorry, but thats absolutely crap. My girlfriend and future wife told me that if I bought her a diamond our engagement is off. She researched the DeBeers story herself and decided that she'd no sooner wear such a product of war, rape, and poverty than she'd wear a depleted-uranium bullet on her finger.
Not all women are vapid, materialistic, diamond-whores. Find a smart one, problem solved.