It's just one more thing to design, build, test, and draw power. A few weeks of work + a few ounces at millions of dollars per pound = really expensive and unnecessary.
Sometimes e-mail annoucements to friends of mine get shoved into their spam folder. I've had numerous legitimate business e-mails put into my spam folder.
The problem is that alot of people don't bother ever looking in their spam folder, because they assume the system is wisely only putting spam there. "Oh but I didnt get your e-mail" is something I hear alot, when its been falsely spam-positived.
Weirdly enough, sometimes identical e-mails from nearly identical sources will have one marked as spam sometimes, and the other not.
Getting spam is bad. Having non-spam marked as spam and dealt with accordingly is worse.
I be sure and click the "not spam" button in gmail, in the hopes that actually does something akin to training the filter... but who knows if it really does.
They also have power to run machines that stir milk because health regulations require it.
They're not anti-tech. They're against being "tethered" to the outside world or less than self sufficient. I read an interesting story that one firm was using the amish to beta test a solar powered LED emergency lamp. They rigged them onto buggies. Very high tech, but since they required no replacement parts or anything but the sun to function, the amish found them fine to use.
This is why generators are generally okay (so long as its used for essential tools like welders and such). I'm curious what they think of the fuel to power a generator as though... a necessary evil perhaps.
Phones were hotly debated for awhile, but now they're viewed as useful tools, so long as they're kept away from where they might be distracting (such as the home) and used for business alone.
Why do I care what's coming through the lens if that's not what I'll get on "film"? You guys are arguing like somehow there's a mystical value in looking through a periscope at your scene.
Theres no mystical value in being able to see the scene at eyeball resolution, as you said yourself. No current camera LCD can do fine-grained manual focus, and refresh rates are far too slow for real action. Go to a football game and ask the pros on the sidelines what they think of LCD preview on cameras. You'll get laughed away.
You're right though about seeing the photo at the 'end process' - but this is only feasible in the studio. My studio's digital 4x5 Sinar is tethered to a G5 and displays what it sees on the monitor. Of course this is a totally non-portable camera setup.
Sure, the SLRs have fast autofocus, but there's no technical reason for that to be restricted to SLRs.
Yes there is, as I said. The hardware autofocus sensors are positioned where the light is reflected into them by the mirror. As these are hardwired devices, they can update fast enough for continuous autofocus and subject tracking. On a P&S where all the light goes to the CCD, the camera must rely on a slow iterative algorithm ran by the CPU to focus. This will never be fast enough for real action and contributes to the significant delay in shots taken.
SLR's viewfinders have the "virtues" of (a) not previewing depth of field (unless you clamp down the aperture, whereupon everything goes dim),
This effect would be the same on an LCD, even if it had enough resolution to actually be useful in prevewing DOF.
(b) not previewing the actual framing correctly (it almost always crops the final picture)
Nonsense. A good SLR viewfinder has a FOV as good as any P&S.
(c) not previewing what will actually come out in the final photograph (in terms of whether the picture is even going to come out.)
Only if you have no idea what you're doing, or how to use a camera.
And the mirror mechanism introduces a delay in taking the photograph. (Indeed, one of the coolest features of the Olympus OM-2 was that it metered exposure using light reflected off the film AFTER the mirror had been raised, because lighting changes during this delay could occasionally ruin photographs.)
This is mainly for flash metering. Reading ambient incident light off the film is a bit harder than reading flash pulses:) Modern flash systems now use the matrix meters and pre-flashes with the mirror down for accurate flash. This works better than off the film because different films have different reflectivity - and CCDs are not very reflective at all.
2) No digital preview. This seems to me a horrible and unnecessary flaw in digital SLRs. With a good non-SLR camera I can preview motion blur in my photographs and manually adjust exposure settings for time exposures while seeing the results in real time.
Theres no "digital preview" because theres a mirror in the way. This is why you can have a true optical viewfinder that shows you exactly what the lens sees.
"preview" motion blur? ha, talk about turning a deficiency into a feature. You can see motion blur because the frame rate of the LCD is so abysmal compared to an optical viewfinder that doesnt have a frame rate. Try manual focusing or stopping action with your LCD screen - you can't.
Further, the mirror redirects light into the hardware autofocus sensors. P&S cameras use an algorithm that analyzes the sensor and uses the CPU to calculate focus. This is too slow for anything resembling action, much less doing things like continuous autofocus, trap focus etc. The hardware sensors are much faster.
red eye is caused by the flash being too close to the lens, causing light to be bounced directly off the subject's retina and back into the lens. You need more oblique lighting to eliminate it.
And that means you need a flash far away from the lens, and is thus a large camera.
I don't understand why cameras with big sensors need to be SLR. Are there professional grade cameras with interchangable lenses that don't depend on the optical viewfinder?
Short answer: They don't, technically. Epson just came out with a digital rangefinder with an APS sized sensor (like most DSLR's have).
Long answer: The reason you don't want to use an LCD screen on a DSLR for most things is for creative control. Try manually focusing... with the current displays, this is very difficult because everything looks reasonably sharp unless its VERY out of focus. Another reason is the hardware autofocus modules on DSLR's use the mirror to reflect light into them. Your P&S cameras use an algorithm that calculates focus through the camera's CPU. Dedicated hardware is much faster than that.
The real problem with fading is how well exposed it is to air. I put my ink jet prints within a few days under air tight album pages. You can get these in the photo album aisle of office depot or whatever.
They use static electricity to seal a plastic cover to a semi-sticky covered card backing, making a tight seal around a photo.
a. Costco isn't everywhere. b. Some of us don't trust the minimum wage button-pushers for color accuracy. c. It's a fun hobby and a great way to learn the various aspects of color management and printing.
The photos I print myself come out orders of magnitude better looking than those I get printed at the drugstore because I manage and profile the entire process myself from photoshop -> qimage.
If you want pro-quality color repro with archival longetivity, use a service like mpix or white house custom color.
Sinkholes are commonly caused by water seepage - say if you break a water main and wash away the sand beneath the surface, you can open up a big ass hole in the ground.
Florida is prone to sinkholes, but breaking water pipes all over the place exacerbates the problem.
Theres really no excuse for this kind of shoddy workmanship. Some contractor must've really low-balled the bid and probably hired some illegal day laborers or other unskilled workers to carry it out. (pure speculation of course)
Unfortunately jet engines only work up to around mach 3 and a little past. See the SR-71's engine, which is pretty much the pinnacle of what can be done.
After that, its like trying to light a match in a hurricane. Oh, and the sonic shockwaves bouncing around inside your engine tend to tear it apart too.
Scramjets don't ignite till around mach 5 though, so you need some kind of boost inbetween what a jet engine can do, and scramjet ignition.
Mechnically speaking, scramjets are very simple. They have no moving parts. Just a fuel injector and essentially a tin can with which to ignite in. Its the *shape* of that tin can though that has required decades of research. Its geometry is extremely complex and touchy.
1. No kidding! Its a scramjet. Perhaps you should look up what that is and how it works.
2. Its a flying engine.
The point is to test the engine at a new, insanely fast speed to demonstrate that it can be done. It is not intended to have anything to do with passengers. Its so new, the engine has never been flown in the atmosphere at that speed.
modern SLR viewfinders aint what they used to be thanks to AF. Gone are most of the focus aids.
Its very difficult to tell if say, someones nose is out of focus, when shooting on the fly.
Most 'backfocus' issues you read about though are problems behind the camera. They focus very close, wide open and then move their heads an inch or two (or the subject does) and the nose goes out. Of course they blame the camera for this. Universally though, ive noticed most complaints come from people not using continuous AF which would notice and correct this...
you know, theres more to astronomy than simply taking pictures of very faint things. While thats interesting, yes, and it does teach us alot, so does being able to resolve things extremely well for a closer study.
Of course a ground based telescope will be limited in certain senses. infrared is almost out of the question. but the vast majority of astronomy doesnt consist of multiple day pictures of things billions of lightyears away.
many of the robotic dog soccer teams reprogram their AIBOs to speed up the walk/run. This requires several hours of machine learning and self-taught 'trial and error' due to minute variations in each robot's mechanical conditions.
Its kind of creepy to walk into a dark room and hear the machinations of a dozen little robots walking back and forth for hours as they learn to walk faster.
The point is to demonstrate advancements in balanced mobility. Its very difficult to get a robot to walk well with anything resembling 'legs'. Roller skates introduce lots of unpredictable uncertainty into walking, and to have a control system fast enough to detect and adapt to the changes is very impressive.
As most things in our world are built around our type of mobility (legs), an autonomous real world robot will interact with us and our world far better if it emulates our system of mobility.
they were aware this could happen. I saw a Rutan quote somewhere that said that many aerodynamic issues that were discovered during testing can't be easily fixed without redesigning the entire craft.
Rutan has always maintained that SS1 is a research craft, meant to discover the bugs and issues with craft of similar designs. The roll issue was blown out of proportion by the media.
You can bet the next suborbital glider won't roll quite so easily.
Slashdot Mirror
But it does dispel the myth that hybrids are necessarily slow.
The hybrids available today have acceleration times comparable to their class of vehicles they compete with. Its a nonissue...
thats for e-mail and other non-critical things.
flight computers and things the station relies on to function safely are a whole other story.
It's just one more thing to design, build, test, and draw power. A few weeks of work + a few ounces at millions of dollars per pound = really expensive and unnecessary.
Not to mention one more thing to fail.
Sometimes e-mail annoucements to friends of mine get shoved into their spam folder. I've had numerous legitimate business e-mails put into my spam folder.
The problem is that alot of people don't bother ever looking in their spam folder, because they assume the system is wisely only putting spam there. "Oh but I didnt get your e-mail" is something I hear alot, when its been falsely spam-positived.
Weirdly enough, sometimes identical e-mails from nearly identical sources will have one marked as spam sometimes, and the other not.
Getting spam is bad. Having non-spam marked as spam and dealt with accordingly is worse.
I be sure and click the "not spam" button in gmail, in the hopes that actually does something akin to training the filter... but who knows if it really does.
They also have power to run machines that stir milk because health regulations require it.
They're not anti-tech. They're against being "tethered" to the outside world or less than self sufficient. I read an interesting story that one firm was using the amish to beta test a solar powered LED emergency lamp. They rigged them onto buggies. Very high tech, but since they required no replacement parts or anything but the sun to function, the amish found them fine to use.
This is why generators are generally okay (so long as its used for essential tools like welders and such). I'm curious what they think of the fuel to power a generator as though... a necessary evil perhaps.
Phones were hotly debated for awhile, but now they're viewed as useful tools, so long as they're kept away from where they might be distracting (such as the home) and used for business alone.
Why do I care what's coming through the lens if that's not what I'll get on "film"? You guys are arguing like somehow there's a mystical value in looking through a periscope at your scene.
:) Modern flash systems now use the matrix meters and pre-flashes with the mirror down for accurate flash. This works better than off the film because different films have different reflectivity - and CCDs are not very reflective at all.
Theres no mystical value in being able to see the scene at eyeball resolution, as you said yourself. No current camera LCD can do fine-grained manual focus, and refresh rates are far too slow for real action. Go to a football game and ask the pros on the sidelines what they think of LCD preview on cameras. You'll get laughed away.
You're right though about seeing the photo at the 'end process' - but this is only feasible in the studio. My studio's digital 4x5 Sinar is tethered to a G5 and displays what it sees on the monitor. Of course this is a totally non-portable camera setup.
Sure, the SLRs have fast autofocus, but there's no technical reason for that to be restricted to SLRs.
Yes there is, as I said. The hardware autofocus sensors are positioned where the light is reflected into them by the mirror. As these are hardwired devices, they can update fast enough for continuous autofocus and subject tracking. On a P&S where all the light goes to the CCD, the camera must rely on a slow iterative algorithm ran by the CPU to focus. This will never be fast enough for real action and contributes to the significant delay in shots taken.
SLR's viewfinders have the "virtues" of (a) not previewing depth of field (unless you clamp down the aperture, whereupon everything goes dim),
This effect would be the same on an LCD, even if it had enough resolution to actually be useful in prevewing DOF.
(b) not previewing the actual framing correctly (it almost always crops the final picture)
Nonsense. A good SLR viewfinder has a FOV as good as any P&S.
(c) not previewing what will actually come out in the final photograph (in terms of whether the picture is even going to come out.)
Only if you have no idea what you're doing, or how to use a camera.
And the mirror mechanism introduces a delay in taking the photograph. (Indeed, one of the coolest features of the Olympus OM-2 was that it metered exposure using light reflected off the film AFTER the mirror had been raised, because lighting changes during this delay could occasionally ruin photographs.)
This is mainly for flash metering. Reading ambient incident light off the film is a bit harder than reading flash pulses
2) No digital preview. This seems to me a horrible and unnecessary flaw in digital SLRs. With a good non-SLR camera I can preview motion blur in my photographs and manually adjust exposure settings for time exposures while seeing the results in real time.
Theres no "digital preview" because theres a mirror in the way. This is why you can have a true optical viewfinder that shows you exactly what the lens sees.
"preview" motion blur? ha, talk about turning a deficiency into a feature. You can see motion blur because the frame rate of the LCD is so abysmal compared to an optical viewfinder that doesnt have a frame rate. Try manual focusing or stopping action with your LCD screen - you can't.
Further, the mirror redirects light into the hardware autofocus sensors. P&S cameras use an algorithm that analyzes the sensor and uses the CPU to calculate focus. This is too slow for anything resembling action, much less doing things like continuous autofocus, trap focus etc. The hardware sensors are much faster.
red eye is caused by the flash being too close to the lens, causing light to be bounced directly off the subject's retina and back into the lens. You need more oblique lighting to eliminate it.
And that means you need a flash far away from the lens, and is thus a large camera.
Short answer: They don't, technically. Epson just came out with a digital rangefinder with an APS sized sensor (like most DSLR's have).
Long answer: The reason you don't want to use an LCD screen on a DSLR for most things is for creative control. Try manually focusing... with the current displays, this is very difficult because everything looks reasonably sharp unless its VERY out of focus. Another reason is the hardware autofocus modules on DSLR's use the mirror to reflect light into them. Your P&S cameras use an algorithm that calculates focus through the camera's CPU. Dedicated hardware is much faster than that.
yeah thats a silly assertion. The eye is a foveated optical device anyway, comparing it to a camera is difficult.
So in 50 years your kids (assuming you have some) are going to pull out the ole shoebox of DVDs and take a trip down memory lane?
Yeah right. Good luck finding a working reader in a museum.
Digital storage bacomes obsolete. Your eyes dont.
The real problem with fading is how well exposed it is to air. I put my ink jet prints within a few days under air tight album pages. You can get these in the photo album aisle of office depot or whatever.
They use static electricity to seal a plastic cover to a semi-sticky covered card backing, making a tight seal around a photo.
a. Costco isn't everywhere.
b. Some of us don't trust the minimum wage button-pushers for color accuracy.
c. It's a fun hobby and a great way to learn the various aspects of color management and printing.
The photos I print myself come out orders of magnitude better looking than those I get printed at the drugstore because I manage and profile the entire process myself from photoshop -> qimage.
If you want pro-quality color repro with archival longetivity, use a service like mpix or white house custom color.
mpix is a very nice printing service. They're the consumer division for miller's (one of the best known and used pro-only printing labs).
Easy to upload files to them, and they're one of the few services that accept any size of TIFF files.
The digital black and white paper is very nice. So is the metallic.
Sinkholes are commonly caused by water seepage - say if you break a water main and wash away the sand beneath the surface, you can open up a big ass hole in the ground.
Florida is prone to sinkholes, but breaking water pipes all over the place exacerbates the problem.
Theres really no excuse for this kind of shoddy workmanship. Some contractor must've really low-balled the bid and probably hired some illegal day laborers or other unskilled workers to carry it out. (pure speculation of course)
And at least they didnt break gas lines.
It doesnt fly until its flown, yeah?
Try keeping a flame lit in a 7000 mph wind.
Its taken decades of design and testing to figure out the geometry of the scramjet so that it actually works.
Unfortunately jet engines only work up to around mach 3 and a little past. See the SR-71's engine, which is pretty much the pinnacle of what can be done.
After that, its like trying to light a match in a hurricane. Oh, and the sonic shockwaves bouncing around inside your engine tend to tear it apart too.
Scramjets don't ignite till around mach 5 though, so you need some kind of boost inbetween what a jet engine can do, and scramjet ignition.
Mechnically speaking, scramjets are very simple. They have no moving parts. Just a fuel injector and essentially a tin can with which to ignite in. Its the *shape* of that tin can though that has required decades of research. Its geometry is extremely complex and touchy.
1. No kidding! Its a scramjet. Perhaps you should look up what that is and how it works.
2. Its a flying engine.
The point is to test the engine at a new, insanely fast speed to demonstrate that it can be done. It is not intended to have anything to do with passengers. Its so new, the engine has never been flown in the atmosphere at that speed.
Anything involving passengers is many years away.
modern SLR viewfinders aint what they used to be thanks to AF. Gone are most of the focus aids.
Its very difficult to tell if say, someones nose is out of focus, when shooting on the fly.
Most 'backfocus' issues you read about though are problems behind the camera. They focus very close, wide open and then move their heads an inch or two (or the subject does) and the nose goes out. Of course they blame the camera for this. Universally though, ive noticed most complaints come from people not using continuous AF which would notice and correct this...
You'd think you'd know its the 300D. The canon E300 is a camcorder.
And the "E20" doesnt exist (well it does, but its a toner cartridge and also a battery). Perhaps you mean the 20D?
you know, theres more to astronomy than simply taking pictures of very faint things. While thats interesting, yes, and it does teach us alot, so does being able to resolve things extremely well for a closer study.
Of course a ground based telescope will be limited in certain senses. infrared is almost out of the question. but the vast majority of astronomy doesnt consist of multiple day pictures of things billions of lightyears away.
Its kind of creepy to walk into a dark room and hear the machinations of a dozen little robots walking back and forth for hours as they learn to walk faster.
The point is to demonstrate advancements in balanced mobility. Its very difficult to get a robot to walk well with anything resembling 'legs'. Roller skates introduce lots of unpredictable uncertainty into walking, and to have a control system fast enough to detect and adapt to the changes is very impressive.
As most things in our world are built around our type of mobility (legs), an autonomous real world robot will interact with us and our world far better if it emulates our system of mobility.
Thats the point.
they were aware this could happen. I saw a Rutan quote somewhere that said that many aerodynamic issues that were discovered during testing can't be easily fixed without redesigning the entire craft.
Rutan has always maintained that SS1 is a research craft, meant to discover the bugs and issues with craft of similar designs. The roll issue was blown out of proportion by the media.
You can bet the next suborbital glider won't roll quite so easily.