Nikon's commercial app, Nikon Capture, IS great software. Much better than Adobe Camera RAW, in fact. It sucks that it's an extra $100, and I'm not defending Nikon here, but it IS a good app and is what pros typically use in their processing workflow.
> If Nikon starts to kick up dust, I'm just going to > take my business to Canon.
Well YOU can, but the huge pool of pros and serious amateur photographers won't, because they're already too heavily invested in Nikon gear. The D2X and its brethren aren't point-and-shoot cameras that can simply be swapped for Canon gear: people often have thousands of dollars worth of lenses that would also have to be replaced. I'm not a pro, but even my Nikon optics+camera are worth more than my car.
You're right, there is some competition, including Capture One, Bibble, Photoshop, etc. Nikon Capture is generally regarded as being the preferred tool right now, so I guess my comment speaks to the 'evolutionary driver' provided by having additional innovators in the field.
I'm not sure if they use a proprietary format or not. I do know that Adobe has propsed "DNG" ("digital negative" RAW format), which I believe is an open standard. Eventually, everyone will switch to DNG, I suspect, even Nikon.
But I doubt Canon sales will skyrocket, because the general public doesn't care about stuff like this. And serious shooters are already more or less locked in - I won't ever go to Canon or anyone else because I have way too much money invested in Nikon optics that won't work on another system.
Most Nikon DSLRs will save as NEF or JPG, but the quality of the image one can produce using NEF-aware software is superior to even an uncompressed TIF because the NEF contains extensive additional data about shooting conditions (think EXIF, but better) in addition to the raw data from the CCD.
Most serious Nikon shooters I've talked with shoot using NEF (i.e., RAW), archive those, and work with their images as TIFFs after using a good NEF-aware converter like Nikon's Nikon Capture for post-processing, printing, etc.
This has been / is being discussed quite a lot on various Nikon-related boards. Unfortunately, Nikon is one of the least consumer-responsive companies I've ever come acrosss, to the point where even "Nikon Pros" - pros who exclusively use Nikon gear and evangelize for the company for free - are often not heard by the company leadership.
Unfortunately, this would seem to suggest that Nikon will be even less willing to listen to open source developers...unless they're loud enough to raise a stink in the mainstream media to some extent. Nikon's announcement about this issue is proof that bad publicity gets their attention...let's hope that there's enough volume to the (well reasoned, intelligent) complaints from the open source community.
I know I'd rather have some options when it comes to software. I use Nikon's commercial software, Nikon Capture, and it's very, very good...but competition is always a good thing.
It is indeed amazing that we can detect levels as low as that. Spectroscopy is an amazing and powerful tool precisely because it allows us to not only look for, but identify, quantify, & characterize tiny little needles in very big haystacks.
A Mars researcher currently working with data from the Opportunity rover told me a couple weeks ago that he and some colleagues calculated what it would take to produce the levels of methane observed on Mars.
Their results? Three cows. Seriously.
I have no idea how accurate those calculations were, but he's a smart guy with more degrees than I have.
> You've obviously not used it extensivley enough to > comment on it
Why be snarky?
Really, you think I've not used it? I'm a web developer, and I use it for testing regularly. And because I use it, I feel qualified to comment on it, and the need to download a series of buggy plugins to get it to do what I want it to, rather than Opera, which just works.
> 'm looking at 5 buttons right now (Back, Foward, > Reload, Stop, Home) and that's all I should ever > have to look at.
Fine. You can make Opera do that (and just about anything else you could ask for in a UI) in seconds. Moreover, when you DO decide you want some other functionality, it's yours with a few clicks (right click on some UI element, select 'customize...') instead of a nightmare of plugin downloading & crashing & testing.
Re:Not being trollish, but...
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
> Besides, I know of very few people who use Opera, > while almost everyone I know uses Firefox
Hmm. I know of very few people who use X while almost everyone I know uses Y...if this is logically valid, shouldn't we all still be using IE?
> what does Firefox really lack that makes a browser > worth paying cash for?
Tabbed browsing that works the way I expect/need. Features that aren't buggy as hell, a la Firefox. Multiline, expandable links toolbar that can also hold drop-down folders. Better ability to customize the interface than Firefox. Ultrafast rendering. Loads of features built in to the tiny download that have to be downloaded separately from unknown, untrusted sources for Firefox, and which may or may not work properly once acquired.
I'm glad that Firefox exists, and I'm glad it's taking share away from M$. But Opera meets the same needs in a different - and, for me, better - way.
I was eager to give them my money.
Re:The question every firefox user is asking
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: -1
mod parent as troll.
vaguely, lamely funny, yes...but also a bad troll attempt.
The problem with your argument that science (and scientists) ought not be concerned with religion at allis that religion, and people who are religious, have very real, measurable impacts on the world and society.
Many (if not most or all, depending on how you measure) of those impacts are negative - and it makes perfect sense for science (and scientists) to analyze, and comment on, religion.
I am an atheist recisely because I am a scientist. If I were to, say, go into my lab and decide to believe that the electron had a positive charge, without any evidence whatsoever, and certainly no evidence that was verifiable & repeatable, I would be ignorant and stupid. Worse, if I got other people to believe this 'fact' that had no evidence to support it, I would be guilty of something worse: intentionally misleading people.
I apply the same standards to everything, because a world (and human society) in which what is is more important than what we might wish is better than one in which we tell ourselves stories and them call them truth.
> Makes thematic sense. Water represents aggression > and the subconscious in the symbolic framework Lucas > is constructing.
This assumes that Lucas is "constructing" something, rather than corraling nifty special effects-driven scenes into something vaguely resembling a story.
> What tool Linus will move to is still being > determined."
Who bloody cares?
Yes, this will be modded down as a troll, but seriously: who cares? I use what I use because it suits ME. What Linus uses isn't even remotely interesting to me, or important.
I find this amusing. I use XP on four machines, and haven't had an application crash, much less an actual BSOD in a VERY long time.
I also use OSX10.3 on a powerbook, and have had three application failures (one Apple & two third party apps) in the last MONTH. Moreover, OSX gets in my way all the time, making simple things harder than they ought to be.
I have a problem seeing this as the "first robotic spacecraft". Sure, it's cool and all. But it's more of an example of progress in robotic spacecraft than it is a "first".
Depending on how one defines "robotic", one can make the argument that ALL spacecraft are robotic, or that all non-manned spacecraft are robotic. After all, most/many spacecraft other than, say, Sputnik and similar "beepers" have had some degree of autonomastion and decision-making ability, however primitive.
Slashdot Mirror
Nikon's commercial app, Nikon Capture, IS great software. Much better than Adobe Camera RAW, in fact. It sucks that it's an extra $100, and I'm not defending Nikon here, but it IS a good app and is what pros typically use in their processing workflow.
> If Nikon starts to kick up dust, I'm just going to
> take my business to Canon.
Well YOU can, but the huge pool of pros and serious amateur photographers won't, because they're already too heavily invested in Nikon gear. The D2X and its brethren aren't point-and-shoot cameras that can simply be swapped for Canon gear: people often have thousands of dollars worth of lenses that would also have to be replaced. I'm not a pro, but even my Nikon optics+camera are worth more than my car.
Nikon knows this.
grow.
up.
now.
You're right, there is some competition, including Capture One, Bibble, Photoshop, etc. Nikon Capture is generally regarded as being the preferred tool right now, so I guess my comment speaks to the 'evolutionary driver' provided by having additional innovators in the field.
I'm not sure if they use a proprietary format or not. I do know that Adobe has propsed "DNG" ("digital negative" RAW format), which I believe is an open standard. Eventually, everyone will switch to DNG, I suspect, even Nikon.
But I doubt Canon sales will skyrocket, because the general public doesn't care about stuff like this. And serious shooters are already more or less locked in - I won't ever go to Canon or anyone else because I have way too much money invested in Nikon optics that won't work on another system.
Sucks, but them's the breaks.
> They shouldn't receive the support of the open
> source community
There's the rub. They don't WANT the support of the open source community. They want people to buy their own (admittedly very, very good) software.
Most Nikon DSLRs will save as NEF or JPG, but the quality of the image one can produce using NEF-aware software is superior to even an uncompressed TIF because the NEF contains extensive additional data about shooting conditions (think EXIF, but better) in addition to the raw data from the CCD.
Most serious Nikon shooters I've talked with shoot using NEF (i.e., RAW), archive those, and work with their images as TIFFs after using a good NEF-aware converter like Nikon's Nikon Capture for post-processing, printing, etc.
This has been / is being discussed quite a lot on various Nikon-related boards. Unfortunately, Nikon is one of the least consumer-responsive companies I've ever come acrosss, to the point where even "Nikon Pros" - pros who exclusively use Nikon gear and evangelize for the company for free - are often not heard by the company leadership.
Unfortunately, this would seem to suggest that Nikon will be even less willing to listen to open source developers...unless they're loud enough to raise a stink in the mainstream media to some extent. Nikon's announcement about this issue is proof that bad publicity gets their attention...let's hope that there's enough volume to the (well reasoned, intelligent) complaints from the open source community.
I know I'd rather have some options when it comes to software. I use Nikon's commercial software, Nikon Capture, and it's very, very good...but competition is always a good thing.
But the Unabomber's in jail. And the guy I know isn't! In fact, he lives in a little shack up the hills.
oh, wait...
It is indeed amazing that we can detect levels as low as that. Spectroscopy is an amazing and powerful tool precisely because it allows us to not only look for, but identify, quantify, & characterize tiny little needles in very big haystacks.
A Mars researcher currently working with data from the Opportunity rover told me a couple weeks ago that he and some colleagues calculated what it would take to produce the levels of methane observed on Mars.
Their results? Three cows. Seriously.
I have no idea how accurate those calculations were, but he's a smart guy with more degrees than I have.
> You've obviously not used it extensivley enough to
> comment on it
Why be snarky?
Really, you think I've not used it? I'm a web developer, and I use it for testing regularly. And because I use it, I feel qualified to comment on it, and the need to download a series of buggy plugins to get it to do what I want it to, rather than Opera, which just works.
Cheers.
> 'm looking at 5 buttons right now (Back, Foward,
> Reload, Stop, Home) and that's all I should ever
> have to look at.
Fine. You can make Opera do that (and just about anything else you could ask for in a UI) in seconds. Moreover, when you DO decide you want some other functionality, it's yours with a few clicks (right click on some UI element, select 'customize...') instead of a nightmare of plugin downloading & crashing & testing.
> Besides, I know of very few people who use Opera,
> while almost everyone I know uses Firefox
Hmm. I know of very few people who use X while almost everyone I know uses Y...if this is logically valid, shouldn't we all still be using IE?
> more than ten full-time active developers who work
> on various parts of Firefox (several of whom work at
> other companies such as Red Hat)
If they also work at RedHat, then they're not "full time".
I'm just sayin'.
> what does Firefox really lack that makes a browser
> worth paying cash for?
Tabbed browsing that works the way I expect/need. Features that aren't buggy as hell, a la Firefox. Multiline, expandable links toolbar that can also hold drop-down folders. Better ability to customize the interface than Firefox. Ultrafast rendering. Loads of features built in to the tiny download that have to be downloaded separately from unknown, untrusted sources for Firefox, and which may or may not work properly once acquired.
I'm glad that Firefox exists, and I'm glad it's taking share away from M$. But Opera meets the same needs in a different - and, for me, better - way.
I was eager to give them my money.
mod parent as troll.
vaguely, lamely funny, yes...but also a bad troll attempt.
Heh.
I was hoping someone would point this out. This is the kindof things that gives physics geeks the hee-hees.
hallelujah!
Seriously, this is right on the money. Nice to see someone thinking around here.
The problem with your argument that science (and scientists) ought not be concerned with religion at allis that religion, and people who are religious, have very real, measurable impacts on the world and society.
Many (if not most or all, depending on how you measure) of those impacts are negative - and it makes perfect sense for science (and scientists) to analyze, and comment on, religion.
I am an atheist recisely because I am a scientist. If I were to, say, go into my lab and decide to believe that the electron had a positive charge, without any evidence whatsoever, and certainly no evidence that was verifiable & repeatable, I would be ignorant and stupid. Worse, if I got other people to believe this 'fact' that had no evidence to support it, I would be guilty of something worse: intentionally misleading people.
I apply the same standards to everything, because a world (and human society) in which what is is more important than what we might wish is better than one in which we tell ourselves stories and them call them truth.
> Makes thematic sense. Water represents aggression
> and the subconscious in the symbolic framework Lucas
> is constructing.
This assumes that Lucas is "constructing" something, rather than corraling nifty special effects-driven scenes into something vaguely resembling a story.
Bring on the intergalactic overpass. Now, please.
Ok, fair enough...but I'm still not sure I understand why.
How does what he uses impact their own work? They're able to work using their own choice of software, regardless of what he uses, right?
> What tool Linus will move to is still being
> determined."
Who bloody cares?
Yes, this will be modded down as a troll, but seriously: who cares? I use what I use because it suits ME. What Linus uses isn't even remotely interesting to me, or important.
Enough with the hero worship.
I find this amusing. I use XP on four machines, and haven't had an application crash, much less an actual BSOD in a VERY long time.
I also use OSX10.3 on a powerbook, and have had three application failures (one Apple & two third party apps) in the last MONTH. Moreover, OSX gets in my way all the time, making simple things harder than they ought to be.
> ...first robotic spacecraft...
I have a problem seeing this as the "first robotic spacecraft". Sure, it's cool and all. But it's more of an example of progress in robotic spacecraft than it is a "first".
Depending on how one defines "robotic", one can make the argument that ALL spacecraft are robotic, or that all non-manned spacecraft are robotic. After all, most/many spacecraft other than, say, Sputnik and similar "beepers" have had some degree of autonomastion and decision-making ability, however primitive.
Still, this is a pretty nifty development.