My last straw at Best Buy went something like that. I was buying a birthday present for my sister (A digital camera) and the salesweasel was giving me the hard sell. "Well, you realise, if this breaks, you can't bring it back here." "Oh YES I CAN!" "Well, not if it breaks after blah blah blah" "well, are you saying that these cameras are pieces of crap and break a lot?" (Silence) "Since you're so unconfident in this cameras worksmanship, I don't think I want it anymore." (blubbering)
I then went across the street to circuit city, and bought the same camera with no hassle.
But I'll post my two cents worth. Last month, I bought my first Apple computer since the mid 1980's. (A ][e back then)
I got a powerbook, and it's AWESOME. I LOVE it. But yes, I still have a desktop at home that runs windows. Why? cuz PC hardware is CHEAP. My desktop is a Pentium III 600 and I got it in trade for a pair of 36gb scsi disks. Those disks I got for $150 for a project I was going to do, but decided to drop.
The Powerbook I got cost over $3000. Thats more than i've EVER spent on a computer in the past, by ten times.
I admit it, i'm a cheap bastard. So I guess that's MY answer. I've stayed with windows because it's CHEAP! And it does work. Not very well, but it does work.
This CD would cost $100. It retails for $9.98 on amazon.com, and less in record stores.
My point in replying is this:
One "set charge per track" will break in a lot of ways. As nice and easy as it might be, it still won't work in the long run. Something else needs to be done, and no, I don't know what.
If I knew, i'd be doing it, licensing it, and making an assload of money at it.
In case you were wondering, the Sigma SD9 uses the Foveon CCD you mentioned. I havn't seen any samples from this camera yet, so I dont know how much of a difference it makes.
... that film still, and will always have its advantages. For one, all charge coupled devices (CCD and CMOS) with the exception of one camera (The Sigma SD9) use a pattern of red, green, and blue sensors, tiled. This causes artifacts in the image which must be fixed in software, causing "blurriness" which must be sharpened in post production.
Besides, being a photographer, I still prefer real film, to digital.
Now, A lot of people would argue that digital is good for a lot of low end consumers. I still won't buy that argument either. A lot of digital cameras still suffer from rather severe Chromatic Aberrations, and ccd noise.
And finally, yeah, digital might be getting up to film quality. So what?
The Nikon D100, a "prosumer" digital SLR camera is over $2000, and that's just for a body, no lens. I can get a Nikon F100, the professional Nikon film camera, for half that.
I can also get a Nikon N90, for around $500. Thats a SLR film camera on par with the D100.
As a california driver, I take issue with this for 2 reasons:
First, I moved here from Phoenix, AZ. There, they have pressure sensors in the road. Those record the speed of EVERYONE passing over them, in an anonymous way. In fact, check this out. You can view (near) realtime stats on the web, for phoenix area traffic.
Second of all, and my first point touched on this, how valid will this data be? I mean, what percentage of drivers have transponders? And is that an even distribution along all traffic routes? I mean, i can almost guarentee that people that travel from Tracy to Pleasanton, for instance (Highway 580, no toll bridges) will have a much less number of transponders than people that travel over bridges to get to work.
I smell bullshit, and if I step in some, i'll just give my transponder back.
Slashdot does this, too.
I submitted a rumor to the story page, and it was printed. Of course, it turned out to be false. Slashdot changed the headline afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
My last straw at Best Buy went something like that. I was buying a birthday present for my sister (A digital camera) and the salesweasel was giving me the hard sell. "Well, you realise, if this breaks, you can't bring it back here."
"Oh YES I CAN!"
"Well, not if it breaks after blah blah blah"
"well, are you saying that these cameras are pieces of crap and break a lot?"
(Silence)
"Since you're so unconfident in this cameras worksmanship, I don't think I want it anymore."
(blubbering)
I then went across the street to circuit city, and bought the same camera with no hassle.
I got a powerbook, and it's AWESOME. I LOVE it. But yes, I still have a desktop at home that runs windows. Why? cuz PC hardware is CHEAP. My desktop is a Pentium III 600 and I got it in trade for a pair of 36gb scsi disks. Those disks I got for $150 for a project I was going to do, but decided to drop.
The Powerbook I got cost over $3000. Thats more than i've EVER spent on a computer in the past, by ten times.
I admit it, i'm a cheap bastard. So I guess that's MY answer. I've stayed with windows because it's CHEAP! And it does work. Not very well, but it does work.
My point in replying is this:
One "set charge per track" will break in a lot of ways. As nice and easy as it might be, it still won't work in the long run. Something else needs to be done, and no, I don't know what.
If I knew, i'd be doing it, licensing it, and making an assload of money at it.
In case you were wondering, the Sigma SD9 uses the Foveon CCD you mentioned. I havn't seen any samples from this camera yet, so I dont know how much of a difference it makes.
I would, if my pictures to the park had severe purple fringing and crap that looked like TV fuzz at high exposure rates.
... that film still, and will always have its advantages. For one, all charge coupled devices (CCD and CMOS) with the exception of one camera (The Sigma SD9) use a pattern of red, green, and blue sensors, tiled. This causes artifacts in the image which must be fixed in software, causing "blurriness" which must be sharpened in post production.
Besides, being a photographer, I still prefer real film, to digital.
Now, A lot of people would argue that digital is good for a lot of low end consumers. I still won't buy that argument either. A lot of digital cameras still suffer from rather severe Chromatic Aberrations, and ccd noise.
And finally, yeah, digital might be getting up to film quality. So what?
The Nikon D100, a "prosumer" digital SLR camera is over $2000, and that's just for a body, no lens. I can get a Nikon F100, the professional Nikon film camera, for half that.
I can also get a Nikon N90, for around $500. Thats a SLR film camera on par with the D100.
See why i'm not excited about digital yet?
Not if you're a competent sysadmin, and PATCH YOUR BOXES like you should...
First, I moved here from Phoenix, AZ. There, they have pressure sensors in the road. Those record the speed of EVERYONE passing over them, in an anonymous way. In fact, check this out. You can view (near) realtime stats on the web, for phoenix area traffic.
Second of all, and my first point touched on this, how valid will this data be? I mean, what percentage of drivers have transponders? And is that an even distribution along all traffic routes? I mean, i can almost guarentee that people that travel from Tracy to Pleasanton, for instance (Highway 580, no toll bridges) will have a much less number of transponders than people that travel over bridges to get to work.
I smell bullshit, and if I step in some, i'll just give my transponder back.
Slashdot does this, too. I submitted a rumor to the story page, and it was printed. Of course, it turned out to be false. Slashdot changed the headline afterwards.
It sounds like a big piece of junk, but yet, it still gets slashdot time...