Find the job first, then apply. I've never seen a US company who wasn't willing to write their job definition in such a way as to make sure that the candidate they wanted wasn't the only possible acceptable candidate.
If you have any skill, and you found a job, you would have no trouble slipping by the H-1B restrictions. I'm sad about this, but quite resigned to it at this point.
As potential *cough* investors *cough* in Dell, you might want to write Dell's investor relations department. about whether or not they think it's wise to be asking any potential customer to sign legal documents unseen.
Wouldn't be too hard to make a program to turn a touchpad into a Morse key, Windows users could use the code interfaces here, but there's also (of course) board-level specs for the necessary Linux drivers, as I don't think the (third-party) Synaptics Linux driver provides such direct interfaces, I can't speak to the Mac. *shrug*
Could be, it depends on the device and the market, and I'm a few years out of date. I've worked for companies who sold products like that for very close to 2x cost-of-goods (COG at 45-55% of list retail). *shrug*
The takes are expected to cost $25 to produce, that doesn't mean they'll be sold for $25, probably more like $50. However, I agree with you that in time the price will drop, it always does.
Language revs are often referred to by the year of the completion of their standardizatioin (e.g., C++98.) The next C++ would presumably be somewhere in this decade, e.g., C++05 or so, but of course nobody is sure what year the work would be completed in, ergo C++0x.
And if the intent of Congress were actually in writing, it would read, not "70 years", but
"70 years, for a value of 70 sufficiently large enough to insure that Mickey Mouse stays in Disney's control."
Sorry, no. You can't get sued for a program
like that, the patent in question has expired.
Moreover, the expired patent does not cover just XOR, it covers a system of which XOR is a part. Such a system as a whole was probably
pretty novel in 1978. (Yes, software patents were perhaps too long given the pace of innovation at that time.)
Most highest-quality prints from film these days go from film to digital back to traditional paper using drum scanners for the first conversion and the Cymbolic Sciences LightJet technology (effectively a digital enlarger) to produce the prints. Magazine and book printing is done from high-end scans as well. So, in a very real sense, the battle for the high end has already been won in part for digital. The question then becomes, is digital capture better than scanning of slides and negatives, thus the original argument is actually more sensible than it might otherwise appear.
That will take a while. The pixels would have to be able to be smaller than the grains in the finest grained film. I don't know much about colour film...
I can speak to that. The finest grained color film around is Provia 100F, with it the 1Ds will have pixels smaller than individual grains given that it's producing 30+MB images. With 100MB drum scans of Provia (less than a factor of 2 bigger in 3 of pixels in each dimension), the shapes of the individual film grains are apparent.
Film SLR cameras are interesting in that the resolution of your photos is determined by the film you put in (which is usually toted as a bad thing(tm) with respect to film photography). So I think that film photography is a bit more flexible in this respect... just my 2cents.:)
Actually, many times the lens is the limiting factor.
I'm hoping to find a digital camera that convinces me to dump my film habit,
How expensive is your film habit? Between film, processing and drum scans of my best work, digital that was as good as 35mm would save me $2,500/year in film-related costs. Obviously, I use a lot of film, your mileage may vary.
I find it really interesting and suprising that you use digital over film
Actually, in a way I use both right now. I believe the Canon 1Ds will change that, the D-60 was close to what I needed, the 1Ds may be enough.
How does the contrast and detail of prints compare to both enlargments and contact print of standard film?
As far as color accuracy and tonality, while it's a bit of work (as I'll explain), digital actually gives me more control than a pure-film solution. As far as detail/resolution, 11MP should come in about break-even with 35mm film, the best lenses, etc. (My target is to be able to produce good prints up to about 16x24 inches.)
Prints from color film provide significant challenges. Color print film usually has to be hand-balanced to a particular color by a lab, color processing is tricky. Most professional photographers use slide film which provides a visible "reference" to what a picture looks like, but chemical printing of slides (via "type R" prints, Cibachromes, etc.) give you prints which much higher contrast than the original slide, there are techniques to mitigate this, but it's kind of a mess.
The best prints from slides made right now are made by making high-resolution drum scans of the slide, then making prints using a machine which exposes conventional photographic paper with digitally controlled laser beams, and controlled processing. With color management, I can actually send out for a print that matches what I see on my screen (although this also requires calibration of my monitor to a reference standard using a colorimeter.) This is a lot of work, and it gives prints that have better detail than darkroom prints (long explanation omitted), but it'd be better if I'd collected the digital image first rather than scanning the slide. 12MP (36MB) or so has been my "bar" for matching the resolution I can get.
Mind you, none of this makes any useful difference for prints 8x10 or smaller.
do you find using software ie photoshop is sufficient to make up for not being able to control the development/printing process?
Yes, Photoshop gives me much better control of things like this than the darkroom, and repeatability as well. (Once I've dodged/burned/color corrected a scan, I can have it printed multiple times and expect to get the same results, time and time again, which is essential. This is tricky to do in the darkroom.
What printer?...
The LightJet 5000, I don't own one (they're prohibitively expensive)--I use Calypso Imaging. This is a very cool hybrid digital/chemical machine, essentially a digital enlarger, exposing film with lasers, processing with controlled temperature and reagents, etc.
This machine (and other similar models) are very commonly used by professional photographers these days.
since you take landscapes you probably wont be able to help me here but is there a way to get really fast exposures (equivalent to 1600 iso film or greater)?
Good question. I think the "1Ds" is reputed to offer up to ISO 1250 or so, but I usually live on the other end of the ISO scale (most of my work is done on Fuji Velvia, which is ISO 50.) I'm told that the D-60 at ISO 400 gives results which in some ways have lower noise than 400 speed film,
but I can't speak to higher speeds.
And most importantly if you were given 10 prints would you be able to tell which ones are digital and which ones are from film?
For well-produced Lightjet prints it would be a little tricky. The final product of either appears on standard photographic paper, photographic images tend not to lend themselves to jaggies.
I just checked a couple of my own prints and a similarly produced print of this image by Galen Rowell and I can't find jaggies with a magnifying glass on large prints.
What I think I could cue on easily is the excessive contrast of chemical prints from slides.
So, "very probably," with the LightJet prints (assuming of course both were done very well) looking better (because they're more controllable by the photographer or printer.)
Actually, a lot of photographers are finding that digital color photography gives them the flexibility in creating B&W images, instead of having to decide when they took the picture whether or not to use a red, orange or yellow filter (to darken the sky) on a B/W image, they can shoot in color and then mix the appopriate channels into an image.
By the way,
B/W digital photographic printing has been later to market, although the Piezography inkjet retrofits are starting to win converts (from analog B/W processes.)
Finally,
most astronomical work has used digital sensors for some time.
. With the ever-higher resolutions on these cameras...
This will stop, at least on any particular body. The sensor isn't the only thing that limits resolution, the lenses do, too. Consumer lenses from Canon won't actually live up to the resolution of the D1s, the Canon "L" series lenses (generalization alert) will live up to that resolution, but double the resolution once or twice more and you'll just be wasting technology.
Since when was $4k-6k "pro-sumer" range? I'm no photography/digital camera buff by any stretch of the imagination so maybe this is just my naivete but I can't see spending that much money on one of these cameras unless you are professional when a 4-6 megapixel camera delivers damn good quality pictures and will be significantly less expensive.
Probably true, but if you shoot a lot, don't forget that film costs can add up. (Film, processing, and in my case high-end scans.) If you are the sort of person who shoots 100 rolls/year, it's not hard to imagine this camera paying for itself in 3-4 years.
Actually, first, let me say that I am a real photographer, and I will be seriously looking at the D1s as my first digital Canon body.
Canon's CMOS-based sensors, which will be used in the D1s, have proven excellent color stability and tonality when used correctly as shown by folks like Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape. Previous digital-SLRs that used those sensors (D30, D60) demonstrated excellent low-light performance and had smaller than "full-frame" sensors, the size of the individual pixels on the D1s won't be very dissimilar IIRC to those on the Canon D60.
Larger than 3-4 megapixel resolution does matter to me, but only because I want to make 24x16 prints. If you're happy with 8x10s, there's nothing wrong with 3-4 megapixels in and of itself (although not all 3MP cameras are created equal by any means.) Still, for regular prints there should be no reduced quality at all with proper data handling.
I do landscacpe photography, 8fps is overkill.
who's ever heard of a professional photographer printing a digital image in large format?
Moving images through a digital stage is already standard procedure for many fine art photographers who do image capture on film, folks like the late Galen Rowell already use this process (a workflow that was, interestingly enough, improved a lot with the work of former Mac Ghod Bill Atkinson. (Interestingly enough, these processes end up again back on silver nitrate paper, but I digress.)
Starting off with digital images would actually remove layers of "stuff" happening to the image reducing quality--so long as the orignial image is detailed enough (in spacial resolution, in contrast range, and in color resolution.) Existing sensors can achieve this, the missing link really was resolution.
The new Canon D1s (not to mention the Sigma SD9, the Kodak 14MP SLR, and the Kodak 16MP digital back for the to-be-announced-in-the-next-day Hasselblad H1) are going to take serious bites into the serious film photography market.
Slashdot Mirror
The claims are specific, if (it seems to me) overly broad and likely covered by prior art.
If you have any skill, and you found a job, you would have no trouble slipping by the H-1B restrictions. I'm sad about this, but quite resigned to it at this point.
Oh, nevermind.
(Actually, I do own some Dell stock.)
Wouldn't be too hard to make a program to turn a touchpad into a Morse key, Windows users could use the code interfaces here, but there's also (of course) board-level specs for the necessary Linux drivers, as I don't think the (third-party) Synaptics Linux driver provides such direct interfaces, I can't speak to the Mac. *shrug*
Could be, it depends on the device and the market, and I'm a few years out of date. I've worked for companies who sold products like that for very close to 2x cost-of-goods (COG at 45-55% of list retail). *shrug*
The takes are expected to cost $25 to produce, that doesn't mean they'll be sold for $25, probably more like $50. However, I agree with you that in time the price will drop, it always does.
Actually, B descended from BCPL, not A.
Language revs are often referred to by the year of the completion of their standardizatioin (e.g., C++98.) The next C++ would presumably be somewhere in this decade, e.g., C++05 or so, but of course nobody is sure what year the work would be completed in, ergo C++0x.
And if the intent of Congress were actually in writing, it would read, not "70 years", but "70 years, for a value of 70 sufficiently large enough to insure that Mickey Mouse stays in Disney's control."
Moreover, the expired patent does not cover just XOR, it covers a system of which XOR is a part. Such a system as a whole was probably pretty novel in 1978. (Yes, software patents were perhaps too long given the pace of innovation at that time.)
Most highest-quality prints from film these days go from film to digital back to traditional paper using drum scanners for the first conversion and the Cymbolic Sciences LightJet technology (effectively a digital enlarger) to produce the prints. Magazine and book printing is done from high-end scans as well. So, in a very real sense, the battle for the high end has already been won in part for digital. The question then becomes, is digital capture better than scanning of slides and negatives, thus the original argument is actually more sensible than it might otherwise appear.
I can speak to that. The finest grained color film around is Provia 100F, with it the 1Ds will have pixels smaller than individual grains given that it's producing 30+MB images. With 100MB drum scans of Provia (less than a factor of 2 bigger in 3 of pixels in each dimension), the shapes of the individual film grains are apparent.
Actually, many times the lens is the limiting factor.
How expensive is your film habit? Between film, processing and drum scans of my best work, digital that was as good as 35mm would save me $2,500/year in film-related costs. Obviously, I use a lot of film, your mileage may vary.
Foveon's process is CMOS, not CCD-based. FYI.
Actually, in a way I use both right now. I believe the Canon 1Ds will change that, the D-60 was close to what I needed, the 1Ds may be enough.
How does the contrast and detail of prints compare to both enlargments and contact print of standard film?
As far as color accuracy and tonality, while it's a bit of work (as I'll explain), digital actually gives me more control than a pure-film solution. As far as detail/resolution, 11MP should come in about break-even with 35mm film, the best lenses, etc. (My target is to be able to produce good prints up to about 16x24 inches.)
Prints from color film provide significant challenges. Color print film usually has to be hand-balanced to a particular color by a lab, color processing is tricky. Most professional photographers use slide film which provides a visible "reference" to what a picture looks like, but chemical printing of slides (via "type R" prints, Cibachromes, etc.) give you prints which much higher contrast than the original slide, there are techniques to mitigate this, but it's kind of a mess.
The best prints from slides made right now are made by making high-resolution drum scans of the slide, then making prints using a machine which exposes conventional photographic paper with digitally controlled laser beams, and controlled processing. With color management, I can actually send out for a print that matches what I see on my screen (although this also requires calibration of my monitor to a reference standard using a colorimeter.) This is a lot of work, and it gives prints that have better detail than darkroom prints (long explanation omitted), but it'd be better if I'd collected the digital image first rather than scanning the slide. 12MP (36MB) or so has been my "bar" for matching the resolution I can get.
Mind you, none of this makes any useful difference for prints 8x10 or smaller.
do you find using software ie photoshop is sufficient to make up for not being able to control the development/printing process?
Yes, Photoshop gives me much better control of things like this than the darkroom, and repeatability as well. (Once I've dodged/burned/color corrected a scan, I can have it printed multiple times and expect to get the same results, time and time again, which is essential. This is tricky to do in the darkroom.
What printer?...
The LightJet 5000, I don't own one (they're prohibitively expensive)--I use Calypso Imaging. This is a very cool hybrid digital/chemical machine, essentially a digital enlarger, exposing film with lasers, processing with controlled temperature and reagents, etc. This machine (and other similar models) are very commonly used by professional photographers these days.
since you take landscapes you probably wont be able to help me here but is there a way to get really fast exposures (equivalent to 1600 iso film or greater)?
Good question. I think the "1Ds" is reputed to offer up to ISO 1250 or so, but I usually live on the other end of the ISO scale (most of my work is done on Fuji Velvia, which is ISO 50.) I'm told that the D-60 at ISO 400 gives results which in some ways have lower noise than 400 speed film, but I can't speak to higher speeds.
And most importantly if you were given 10 prints would you be able to tell which ones are digital and which ones are from film?
For well-produced Lightjet prints it would be a little tricky. The final product of either appears on standard photographic paper, photographic images tend not to lend themselves to jaggies. I just checked a couple of my own prints and a similarly produced print of this image by Galen Rowell and I can't find jaggies with a magnifying glass on large prints.
What I think I could cue on easily is the excessive contrast of chemical prints from slides. So, "very probably," with the LightJet prints (assuming of course both were done very well) looking better (because they're more controllable by the photographer or printer.)
Yep, "1D". Pity the new model is the "1Ds", it looks like the plural of "1D".
By the way, B/W digital photographic printing has been later to market, although the Piezography inkjet retrofits are starting to win converts (from analog B/W processes.)
Finally, most astronomical work has used digital sensors for some time.
This will stop, at least on any particular body. The sensor isn't the only thing that limits resolution, the lenses do, too. Consumer lenses from Canon won't actually live up to the resolution of the D1s, the Canon "L" series lenses (generalization alert) will live up to that resolution, but double the resolution once or twice more and you'll just be wasting technology.
Life is better than this. Photographic prints don't, in general, resolve 720dpi on the final print surface.
Probably true, but if you shoot a lot, don't forget that film costs can add up. (Film, processing, and in my case high-end scans.) If you are the sort of person who shoots 100 rolls/year, it's not hard to imagine this camera paying for itself in 3-4 years.
Canon's CMOS-based sensors, which will be used in the D1s, have proven excellent color stability and tonality when used correctly as shown by folks like Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape. Previous digital-SLRs that used those sensors (D30, D60) demonstrated excellent low-light performance and had smaller than "full-frame" sensors, the size of the individual pixels on the D1s won't be very dissimilar IIRC to those on the Canon D60.
Larger than 3-4 megapixel resolution does matter to me, but only because I want to make 24x16 prints. If you're happy with 8x10s, there's nothing wrong with 3-4 megapixels in and of itself (although not all 3MP cameras are created equal by any means.) Still, for regular prints there should be no reduced quality at all with proper data handling.
I do landscacpe photography, 8fps is overkill.
who's ever heard of a professional photographer printing a digital image in large format?
Moving images through a digital stage is already standard procedure for many fine art photographers who do image capture on film, folks like the late Galen Rowell already use this process (a workflow that was, interestingly enough, improved a lot with the work of former Mac Ghod Bill Atkinson. (Interestingly enough, these processes end up again back on silver nitrate paper, but I digress.)
Starting off with digital images would actually remove layers of "stuff" happening to the image reducing quality--so long as the orignial image is detailed enough (in spacial resolution, in contrast range, and in color resolution.) Existing sensors can achieve this, the missing link really was resolution.
The new Canon D1s (not to mention the Sigma SD9, the Kodak 14MP SLR, and the Kodak 16MP digital back for the to-be-announced-in-the-next-day Hasselblad H1) are going to take serious bites into the serious film photography market.
Thank you. I met Dave only a few times, through friends, and he too was one hell of a nice guy. He will be missed.
So you can sell it into other countries?