Yes, Adobe used the DMCA to prosecute someone. How does this make them a hypocrite for complaing that thay can't get the white balance info from Nikons images because it might violate the DMCA?
They would be hypocrites if they went ahead and cracked it anyway, then claimed that they should have the right to, but they haven't.
You could, however, say that they have shot themselves in the foot. But that's not the same as hypocrisy.
My site is a good example (the link at the top, not the one in my sig).
The background shows through the description boxes. If it wasn't for PNGs, I'd have to create a GIF or JPG for each of the boxes, and I'd have to create another seperate image if I added another description, and would have to redo them all if I wanted to change the padding, height, font-height etc.
PNGs make things much easier when designing a site where you want to add a bit of flair, but still want changability. Unlike many graphics-heavy sites that are just a table with a cluster of cut-up images.
This type of weight-watching mentality is what makes people think that being on the Atkins diet for the rest of their life is a great idea, simply because they lost some weight from it.
At the moment, there is no way around a normal, well-balance diet if you want to be healthy.
RAW does not mean custom and expensive. In case you hadn't noticed, RAW is being supported better now, and Adobe have even released a standard RAW format. Hence the uproar about Nikon trying to keep things in the dark ages.
The rest of your comment leads me to believe that you are obviously not a photographer. Even if you're shooting in a studio, you'll still probably want to tweak the image a bit.
Not quite. RAW can offer higher quality, or at least much more control. This is because the conversion to a normal RGB image can be done on a computer, so better coversions tools can be used.
A 16 bit RAW will be much smaller than a 16 bit per channel (48 bit RGB) TIFF. And will produce an image of the exact same quality, if not better.
You do realise that RAW images are generally only one channel, effectivly?
"Where does Photoshop come in? As graphic arts software, it's great for removing a telephone pole, or adding a drop shadow, or affixing a caption to your photo. But if you're using it to crop or straighten an image, or adjust contrast, brightness, saturation and curves, or to apply filters, you simply don't need it."
No. The real question is: If I already use Photoshop, why would I want Nikon Capture? After all, it only does half of what Photoshop CS can do, and won't be compatable with my clients.
Pros aren't going to be dumping Photoshop any time soon. And while there're not, there's not much of a reason to use something else. Unless, of course, the company who made your camera is trying to lock you in, in which case you might consider another brand.
Why is Nikon so hot and bothered about image editing all of a suddern anyway?
Yes, but the problem is that the movie becomes too dialog based. Good dialog is good, but not nessesarily if much of the movie is just good dialog. I susspect much of the good dialog was dumped in favor of things that also worked well outside of the dialog.
I'm not saying if this movie is good or bad, but I really don't think this review is fair; this guy has spend way too much time in DA's world to allow him to accept any changes to the story.
Perhaps too many jokes have been removed in this case, and it's a complete botch-up. But my point still stands.
It's an example. Ever heard of a rhetorical question? Perhaps that specific joke works well. But it doesn't change the fact that much of the humor might not make for a good 2 hour movie.
Maybe people would rather see a mind-numbingly slow paced film than gratuitous and vacuous eye candy?
You seem to be confusing "visual medium" with "eye candy". Put it this way, watch all those movies you just listed without the video, just the sound. Tell me how great they are now. What makes you think that going from text/sound straight to video and sound is going to work better than going the other way?
Perhaps because that joke sucks when used in a movie? Perhaps much of the humor in the books doesn't work well in a movie?
If anyone did ever do a 100% "faithful" translation to a movie, fans would probably end up complaining that the movie sucked because the director didn't know how to use the material.
Or more likely, this new disorder is irrevlivant to you, because all it's traits can be better explained with your current disorders.
Disorders should always be a minimum set. Because they are simply classifictions, groups of traits.
Whether a new disorder is "legit" or a load of BS is pretty much relative to how many people have it, and if it already appears in other disorders.
If it turns out, that this disorder affects quite a lot of people who don't previously have any disorders, then it makes sence to have this one. Otherwise, it could quite easy be redundant.
I just switched from a Sony 19" G420 CRT to a Samsung 17" 173P LCD. I find the contrast and colour to be about the same. Better if anything. The clarity, is of course, incredibly better.
Many people who care about colour are now using LCDs. Perhaps people in a big printing house or photo lab will still be using CRTs for a while, but your average designer will be fine with an LCD.
Clarity is the main reason I switched to an LCD, and not even the most expensive, high-end CRT is going to match the crispness of even the most budget LCD.
The thing about a professional development team, is that they are managed by someone. So in a case like Adobe developing Photoshop, the people running the Photoshop project can tell the developers what features are required. In a project like GIMP, it's the developers that are calling the shots in terms of deciding features and prorities.
Developers oftern have different ideas about what is important, and may quite oftern lack a clear vision of the product when in comes to software who's workflow/goals are not something the developer is familar with, as is probably the case with something like Photoshop (as opposed to Apache, for example).
I know while many OS projects may seem like many chefs. I'm sure in most projects, there are a small group of core programmers that write most of the major parts.
Slashdot Mirror
They would be hypocrites if they went ahead and cracked it anyway, then claimed that they should have the right to, but they haven't.
You could, however, say that they have shot themselves in the foot. But that's not the same as hypocrisy.
How? Adobe aren't being sued for reverse egineering, are they?
The background shows through the description boxes. If it wasn't for PNGs, I'd have to create a GIF or JPG for each of the boxes, and I'd have to create another seperate image if I added another description, and would have to redo them all if I wanted to change the padding, height, font-height etc.
PNGs make things much easier when designing a site where you want to add a bit of flair, but still want changability. Unlike many graphics-heavy sites that are just a table with a cluster of cut-up images.
This type of weight-watching mentality is what makes people think that being on the Atkins diet for the rest of their life is a great idea, simply because they lost some weight from it.
At the moment, there is no way around a normal, well-balance diet if you want to be healthy.
Eat lots of food?
The rest of your comment leads me to believe that you are obviously not a photographer. Even if you're shooting in a studio, you'll still probably want to tweak the image a bit.
By your logic, a PSD must be better than a PNG, too. Because it does more stuff.
I've saved photos in both PNG and TIFF, PNG is always smaller, and is a much better format... depending on what you are doing with it, of cource.
A 16 bit RAW will be much smaller than a 16 bit per channel (48 bit RGB) TIFF. And will produce an image of the exact same quality, if not better.
You do realise that RAW images are generally only one channel, effectivly?
No. The real question is: If I already use Photoshop, why would I want Nikon Capture? After all, it only does half of what Photoshop CS can do, and won't be compatable with my clients.
Pros aren't going to be dumping Photoshop any time soon. And while there're not, there's not much of a reason to use something else. Unless, of course, the company who made your camera is trying to lock you in, in which case you might consider another brand.
Why is Nikon so hot and bothered about image editing all of a suddern anyway?
You're basing this all on one program? And Premiere of all things?
BS. I've been using Photoshop 6 for web design for ages, and I've never needed to use ImageReady to save a transparent GIF.
The other thing: It's not hard to make many DHTML sites backwards compatable.
I'm not saying if this movie is good or bad, but I really don't think this review is fair; this guy has spend way too much time in DA's world to allow him to accept any changes to the story.
Perhaps too many jokes have been removed in this case, and it's a complete botch-up. But my point still stands.
It's an example. Ever heard of a rhetorical question? Perhaps that specific joke works well. But it doesn't change the fact that much of the humor might not make for a good 2 hour movie.
Radio is more similar to a book than a movie.
For God's sake, we should just call it both simply to stop these stupid "Apple is a hardware|software company" arguments.
Expecting nostalgia from a book-to-movie is even sillier than expecting it to be faithful. People's imaginations are simply far to differnt.
You seem to be confusing "visual medium" with "eye candy". Put it this way, watch all those movies you just listed without the video, just the sound. Tell me how great they are now. What makes you think that going from text/sound straight to video and sound is going to work better than going the other way?
If anyone did ever do a 100% "faithful" translation to a movie, fans would probably end up complaining that the movie sucked because the director didn't know how to use the material.
You're not, of course, simply confusing ADD with a possible overuse of ritalin amoungest kids, are you?
Disorders should always be a minimum set. Because they are simply classifictions, groups of traits.
Whether a new disorder is "legit" or a load of BS is pretty much relative to how many people have it, and if it already appears in other disorders.
If it turns out, that this disorder affects quite a lot of people who don't previously have any disorders, then it makes sence to have this one. Otherwise, it could quite easy be redundant.
Many people who care about colour are now using LCDs. Perhaps people in a big printing house or photo lab will still be using CRTs for a while, but your average designer will be fine with an LCD.
Clarity is the main reason I switched to an LCD, and not even the most expensive, high-end CRT is going to match the crispness of even the most budget LCD.
Developers oftern have different ideas about what is important, and may quite oftern lack a clear vision of the product when in comes to software who's workflow/goals are not something the developer is familar with, as is probably the case with something like Photoshop (as opposed to Apache, for example).
I know while many OS projects may seem like many chefs. I'm sure in most projects, there are a small group of core programmers that write most of the major parts.