I see a lot of comments to the effect of "The education itself is valueless; the degree is all that matters", and I'm somewhat taken aback. Surely employment is an important goal, and surely education can serve that goal, but is there no curiosity in your soul? Do you have no desire to learn just to find out why? Am I the only one who just wants to *know*, even if it doesn't directly increase my momentary monetary market value? I still maintain that a thinking human being is more than a paycheck or a dollar sign. Learning feeds the mind the way food feeds the body and love feeds the soul. I say to all of the above mentioned "free-learning" endeavors: "Awesome stuff! Keep up the good work!"
And in the end, even my incidentally and casually acquired knowledge improves my long-term viability in the job marketplace, and improves my image with my co-workers and bosses. It's hard not to like someone who is *truly* fascinated with whatever it is that gets you going.
... since "Constitutional Lawyer" is probably not in your future.:D
Let's see, by your measure, a person who is physically mute doesn't have first amendment rights to express him/herself? Sounds like a flawed interpretation to me.
I would also point out that the Supreme Court disagrees with your constitutional analysis. They have upheld quite a few activities not specifically defined in the first amendment as protected under its auspices - things like flag burning, performance art, hand gestures, and other 'non-speech' expressions.
The problem with your protest is that the US is not - and has never been - a democracy. The vast majority of decisions are made for us by our duly elected representatives. I agree with you - completely - about democracy. However, the system in place is not responsible for the failure of our government, but the people who have abused it and abused the people of the United States.
The electoral system, I think, *is*, in large part, responsble for our predicament. The cost of campaigning is so prohibitive - and it's money that's simply gone, even if you win the election - that even if a politician starts out with the grandest of intentions and the most pristine ideals, in order to become elected, he or she has to find sponsors. And that money is not free.
The current situation makes a politician's first priority simply getting re-elected. And to get the money for that compaign, he or she must participate in quid pro quo. I don't think all politicians *start out* being lying, cheating, scheming, influence-peddling, traitorious bastards; but those qualities are insitutionalized by the system. Witness the abramofity of Washington.
At work we bought a Buffalo Teraserver. I'm not impressed. OOB it won't support files > 2gb, and >4gb (It actually specifies both of those restrictions in the documentation). It was also fairly slow regardless of the access method. The thing couldn't saturate our 100Mbit switched link, making the gbit enet redundant to say the least. The afp interface places unconscionable limitations on the filenames usable.
So we hacked the box a la instructions found on the net, installed ssh, and began exploring. As nearly as I can tell, the onboard processor is not fast enough to support high speed writes in raid 5 ( pegs the processor quickly ). It might have been faster in RAID1 or RAID0 (misnamed, that is - there's no redundant in RAID0, so it should be AID0.:) ) but we didn't want to give up the space.
Solution? We popped the front of the teraserver off, got a couple of fairly long IDE cables, put an inexpensive IDE RAID controller in an old 833mhz DELL PIII. Ran the ide cables out the slot next to the controller, up through the faceplate, and viola, the Teraserver becomes a nice external IDE enclosure that happened to come with four nice 250GB drives. It is very quiet, however
Result? It can now source or sink 11.5-12 MB/sec (just shy of the theoretical limit of 100mbit enet, 12.5mBYTEs/sec) all day long, quiet, and the little fans in there keep the drives cool. But save some money and buy your own external enclosure, is my advice.
"I haven't? I also own a Rollei 6008 inetgral MF camera as well as 35s and I do know the difference. I never said that MF are not better for large prints (of course they are, all things being equal), just that your limit of 5x7 for 35mm as being the max acceptable enlargement from 35mm was absurd, and it is."
Comments are dialogs - as the one we're having now is. Problem is, you've jumped into the middle of a conversation without knowing what transpired in the rest of it. Forgive me, i assumed you actuallly *read* the threads you comment on. Another poster questioned my rationale ( without accusations of 'absurdity' in matters of opinion ), and I made it quite clear in this reply:
"Sure, I know what you're saying, but if you're hanging a show, and you put that 11x14 next to a 8x8" or 12x12" image from 6x6cm film, you're asking for trouble. They look *so* different that it's jarring. If I didn't have anything but 35mm images in the show, though, I still consider 8x10 to be the acceptable limit of most 35mm color films; grain is not attractive in color images!:D"
and:
"In the end, it's in what you like, right? If a person should, for instance, *like* the appearance of grain in color (as many a b&w photog does), then it changes the whole picture ( pardon the pun ), right? Then a 20x30 isn't out of the question from 35mm film. If we're talking aesthetics rather than technique, the sky's the limit, and all that matters is the single question: "Do you *like* what you have there?"
Then you go on: "I haven't? I also own a Rollei 6008 inetgral MF camera as well as 35s and I do know the difference. I never said that MF are not better for large prints (of course they are, all things being equal), just that your limit of 5x7 for 35mm as being the max acceptable enlargement from 35mm was absurd, and it is"
Which was my point; that MF enlargements are qualitatively better, all things being equal. "Better" is an aesthetic judgement. After working with MF cameras and film, I became farm more critical of the image quality I produced. The fact that you are not more critical does not render *my* view of *my* works 'absurd'; it merely means you're willing to accept lower quality 11x14s than I am - by your own admission above.
"And excuse me, but MF does not have a larger tonal scale than 35mm since the film is the same. "
Correct, based on a very technical reading of your statement, which, of course, violates the general sense of the discussion. If you photgraph an image, process it, and make a contact print using the same type of film, from 35mm, 120, 4x5, and 8x10, and expose and process them identically, you're right, the tonal range will be identical. However, the discussion was about enlargements and comparison of said enlargement, and the fact is that if I enlarge all of those images to the same 8x10 print, each successively larger negative will produce a qualitatively longer tonal scale, with the 35mm image having the worst, and the 8x10 having the best.
"The best 35mm lenses have better contrast, are faster, and have better resolving power than the best MF lenses (and are generaly an order of magnitude cheaper,too). The lower resolving power of the MF lenses is more than made up for by the larger negatives, but the loss of contrast is not."
More or less true, and irrelevant for the same reasons stated above. The only thing I would take exception to is that your phrasing is misleading. "The *best* 35mm lenses have better (etcetera)" are not 'orders of magnitude cheaper. Zeiss and Leitz lenses are not 'orders of magnitude cheaper" than MF lenses; less, yes, but 'orders of magnitude' is a ridiculous exaggeration.
"By the way if you want really good glass forget Zeiss and use Schneider-Kreuznach."
I have a wonderful Rolleiflex TLR with Scheider glass, and it's wonderful, I'll admit. However, to suggest that the quality of the lenses made by Schneider in any way makes it reasonable to "Forget about Zeiss lenses" is another ridicu
And you, my friend, have obviously never compared your 35mm images (yes, I'm aware of all of the neccessities of sharp images, but sharpness is only one facet of overall image quality) to images produced with the same care from medium or large format cameras. Regardless of the care taken and the film used (generally), the medium format images captured with Zeiss lenses will have a longer, deeper tonal range and a longer contrast scale, and it doesn't matter how big your tripod is, or how long your shutter release.
I suggest that you obtain a clue before accusing others of lacking them. I made it clear in my post that aesthetics are personal, and that image quality has a large aesthetic component. Second, I also made it clear that the 5x7 limit is imposed on 35mm images when hung next to similar sized medium format images. And if you're now going to suggest that your 35mm images are 'just as good' as the medium format images captured via the same necessary and very basic techniques you describe, you will only clearly illustrate your lack of cluefulness.
"What film are you using? I wouldn't hesitate to take a 35mm negative on Kodak Portra up to 8x10. I have Provia slides that I think would zoom to 11x14 and still be display quality."
Sure, I know what you're saying, but if you're hanging a show, and you put that 11x14 next to a 8x8" or 12x12" image from 6x6cm film, you're asking for trouble. They look *so* different that it's jarring. If I didn't have anything but 35mm images in the show, though, I still consider 8x10 to be the acceptable limit of most 35mm color films; grain is not attractive in color images!:D
Somewhat offtopic, but I have taken 35mm Ilford Delta 100 up to 11x14 many times and been pleased with the results. But B&W film is a somewhat different beast.
Yeah, yeah, I agree. Love black and white, and I've gone to 11x14 on many occasions, as well; but again, I would never hang an 11x14 from 35mm Delta 100 within visual distance of a 12x12 from 6x6 Delta 100; breaks the continuity of feel, if you see what I mean.
In the end, it's in what you like, right? If a person should, for instance, *like* the appearance of grain in color (as many a b&w photog does), then it changes the whole picture ( pardon the pun ), right? Then a 20x30 isn't out of the question from 35mm film. If we're talking aesthetics rather than technique, the sky's the limit, and all that matters is the single question: "Do you *like* what you have there?"
"I'd have been happier with your answers --and assumed a pro was answering-- had you caught this one."
Well, we'd certainly like for you to be happier!:D I'm well aware of the nature of his error; I own Hasselblad equipment and one of those "Rolleiflex TLRs" he was referring to, and have several A12 and A24 backs for the Hassie. I only responded that way because the previous poster was so assertive. Makes the chip on my shoulder itch.:D
"Nope, it's the resolution."
You didn't pay attention to what I was saying. By "with detail representation below your liminal threshold", I meant the point at which the recorded detail in the image extends to well below your ability to discern them; at this point, you are incapable of distinguishing the difference in resolution. As shmlco points out in the GGC post, the degree of enlargement is lower for the 4x5 - I actually had in mind a direct contact from the 4x5 - so the grain density is higher, and the tonal range longer as a result, giving us that creamy tonal range that is so characteristic of large format images. You used to be able to use Tech Pan and Technidol at ISO 25 to get that kind of tonal range up to about 4x5 from a 35mm negative. I've been out of the game for eight years or so, so I'm sure that area has changed significantly.
"Sigh. So you've never used a 1D MII either? 8.5 fps max 40 JPEG or 20 RAW." -
No, more's the pity. Sounds expensive, and since I don't do it for a living anymore, I can't justify the kind of money it would take to replicate my silver-based system ( the culmination of about a twelve year career in commercial photography ) in digital, or even the capabilities.
Mamiya, huh? I used to have an RB67, but ditched it once I shot film with my Hassie. Mamiya lenses are nice, but those Zeiss T*... holy crap!
There are, and have been, many professional photographers who use/used 35mm cameras and film. Photojournalists come to mind - in droves. You used to be able to go through Photographer's Market and find gazillions of clients that would accept 35mm film "professionally". Go back an dlook at a few of the "Swimsuit edition" videos and tell me what kind of cameras they are using...
Second, it's 6cm, or 60mm film, not 120mm film (Hasselblads shoot 6x6cm, and lots of the Japanese medium format manufacturers do "645", or 6x4.5cm, which enlarges to 8x10 without cropping. These cameras are popular with portrait photographers and many advertising photographers who work with people.
Large format cameras are the purview of art photographers (who claim and use everything from old throwaway polaroid cameras to 11x14 Linhofs) and commercial photographers. The biggest commercial application of the large formats used to be images that would be re-touched ( a big enough primary image to work with - think playboy centerfolds ) and ads for high-gloss magazines where the tonal range would be at least partially represented. There isn't much work for a commercial photog that requires resolution higher than 6cm film will provide, but there is a little. A 4x5 image will, certainly, make your 35mm look like crap, but mostly because of tonal range, not resolution; if you display them at the same perceptual size, with detail representation below your liminal threshold, the 4x5 image will look subjectively 'better', because it has a longer tonal range and better contrast without washout.
In the end, the camera to use is the one that fits your purposes. An 8 mpixel camera will make a happy 5x7 image - better than most ISO 400 images, probably simliar to ISO100 films, and not quite as nice as, say, an ISO 32 or 25 film. For snapshots, they'll work fine all the way out to 11x14. For display, I would never take a 35mm image higher than 5x7; for snapshots, they'll go to 11x14. I would print 6x6 images at 6"x6" on 8x10 paper for gallery display. After working with a couple of 8 mp cameras, I would say that they will fulfill the purposes of some 90% of 35mm photographers, particularly the ones that offer full manual override. The single place that I've not seen a digital come close to my T90 or F1 canons is in FPS.. I can crank 4.5 frames a second through either of those machines, while an 8MP camera is still downloading third image it recorded.
The end is in sight. I've seen 32mpixel images, and you're wrong; you can blow those things up till hell freezes over.
The Rolleiflex TLRs were beautiful machines, and had wonderful lenses, but in the hands of an incompetent photographer, they would produce shit. By the same token, the Diana was a POS camera, but in the hands of the right artist, would create images that would stop you in your tracks. I suggest that the quality of the photography is in the photographer, not the gear. The gear is enabling, not creative.
Perhaps I misunderstood, and am projecting onto you what I heard from around me. All of the Country Music types around here ( in the midwest ) are all very opposed to the idea of free speech ( if it disagrees with them ) and are all about hating the Dixie Chicks for "Treason" ( by which they mean criticizing the President 'while on foreign soil' ). I've actually heard several, unrelated persons propose that we *execute* the Dixie Chicks. If you can imagine that. The same people felt I should be airdropped into Afghanistan because I feel that this administration hijacked the Republican party and our republic.
If you're not one of those, then I'm sorry if I misunderstood.:D
I'm reasonably certain the parent meant "Without legal ramifications", which is exactly how the Supreme Court interprets it - or rather, has, in the past.
"Good example of someone who knows what free speech is about and stands up for his beliefs: Bono. Good example of when someone doesn't actually understand the concept of freedom of speech and cries because they may have suffered consequences: Dixie Chicks."
You're kidding, right? The Dixie Chicks stated their opinions. Then, all the Nascar/PBR Good 'Ol Boys decided that they wouldn't buy their music anymore because they excercised their constitutional right to free speech. Like I've said, those same people that lambast the Dixie Chicks for not liking this administration are the same ones who say "Those boys in Iraq are dying for *your freedoms*, so dammit, get behind 'em and don't USE your freedoms! That's unpatriotic and un-American. We're fighting Terror so you have the right to say the same damned thing everyone else does!".
I would say that your diatribe is a fairly clear indication that *you* don't understand the principles of free speech and liberty.
Actaully there are quite a few products available that do that very thing - battery backed IDE-interface drives that allow drop-in DIMMs that are identical to one type of system ram or another. With lithium backup batteries, they're good for a long time of power-off-storage, and they can-and will- max out the bus capabilities of your interface, whereas a drive will only do that until the cache is exhausted. Thus, I didn't find it all all obvious that the parent was referring to flash; I would note that a couple of other posters said "I'm assuming you're speaking of flash".
Your question about DRAM is more complex, If you were referring to DRAM and not flash. In essense, modern systems *do* multiplex memory, but since memory access patterns are difficult to predict, it's hard to build a chip structure that will allow one to significantly improve access time across the memory usage spectrum. If you figure out how to do that, I'm sure Intel and AMD would LOVE to speak to you!:D Instead, they fight over fractions of a percent improvement in branch chain prediction so that the prefetch queue can be properly populated.
"I have installed XP on literally thousands of machines and I cannot understand at all you having these problems and then to say LINUX is easier to install? No Possible Way."
So what you're saying is that you are fairly adept at installing Windows, but have not attempted to install linux recently, and are declaring that since you *are* adept at installing Windows, you are also an expert on the linux installation process you've never seen?
Here's the other apps that keep me from running Linux exclusively:
Ableton Live Tracktion 2 (sundry VST plugins - yes, I know you can run them on linux *sort of*) - While linux has come a long way in music, it's still not there.
Maya Lightwave (blender is no replacement, sorry)
But, since OSX gives me these applications *and* my *Nix command line, I'm all happy now.:D
Some Components of OSX are not open source. The BULK of the underlying OS (Darwin) *is*, in fact, open source. The UI - Aqua - is not. I would assume that's why the parent post listed it as running 'open-source'.
Now, just to clarify. It's not difficult at all to get most of the programs you're used to running to run on OSX. There are several X based apps that I use regularly on my powerbook and my G5. There are many (many!) console-based apps that I use every day on my powerbook and my G5 (I still use mc a lot, and epic, and a couple of other programs - not to mention the fact that I'm a UNIX systems engineer by trade and I *live* at the CLI). Opendarwin and Fink are two means of getting your very own GNU/Darwin subsystem. Tiger ships with X11 (you have to install it, but it's on your distro DVDs) - I use it for ethereal, lyx, and several other old standbys from my linux desktop days. The entire Tex subsystem is installed and working, along with nearly everything else.
I used to have a linux box for most things, and a Windows box for music, video, and animation. OSX allowed me to consolidate those into one platform.
"Well, no, Linux requires at least a 32bit CPU to run. "
Ok, I was stretching the truth by using the term 'distributions', but ELKS linux is targeting 8086 and 80286 processors; the kernel 'works', but there's no ready-to-run distro. I would say your comment is correct if you modify it to say "Linux Distros".
"Most solid state memory is pretty darn slow"? May I respectfully ask, What are you smoking? What do you think is in your system (main RAM) and on your processor (cache)? There is no comparison between the worst case access time on a 10ns CAS2 DDR memory bus and an 8 ms seek time hard drive. The memory is *orders of magnitude* faster than the hdd. That's why modern operating systems do read and write cacheing of disk information.
from TFA: "There was this pervasive belief that Linux could run on older PCs and that Windows could not, he said, adding that Microsoft thus decided to test this premise by installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Pro 9.2, Mandrake 10, Linspire 4.5, Xandros Desktop 3.0, Fedora Core 3, Slackware 10.1, Knoppix 3.7; Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 out-of-the-box on older hardware to see what happened."
I see you were right, Slackware 10.1 is listed. Seventh. Perhaps the concept was difficult, but I was merely pointing out that they were using current distributions optimized for current processors, not systems intended for recycling old hardware ( of which type several exist ). All better now?
When I read the blurb, I figured out what I would find in TFA. They're comparing XP to, say, SUSE 9.0 or RH 4.0 EL. Both optimized for current systems. Here's the difference; there are many distributions of linux targeted at older, slower machines, going all the way back to 286's. I would like to see performance comparisons between Windows and a linux distro targeted at smaller machines. See distrowatch; they list a couple that are *meant* for this application, so you don't have to be a kernel hacker or techincal expert to modify your linux distro for your hardware.
Perhaps you can restrict xfer by license, by format, by genre, otherwise you'd end up with a lot of crap you don't want or stuff that would be illegal; which no-one wants, right?
But imagine what a cool marketing tool it would be for a group to be able flag a song for distribution - that would allow free and unlimited distribution of a song - an mp3 that includes, say, a URL to buy the album, etc. Just think how fast something like that would get around. And of course, that would certainly disturb the RIAA, since I (as a music producer) don't need the current music industry for distribution or marketing at all...
"Einstein laboured under handicaps of primitive technology, facilities, etc."
LOL. From half a century downstream, the technology that the current physicists are working with will seem like a handicap in tech, facilities, &cetera. That, my friend, is relative.
We all know that this is a Soviet^H^H^H^H^H^H Al Qaeda Plot to destroy America's Most Valuable Assets! This little chick is a deep-cover MOLE! Can't you see the WRITING on the *wall*!?!?! If we accept this outrage, what's next? Dogs and Cats living together?
Slashdot Mirror
I see a lot of comments to the effect of "The education itself is valueless; the degree is all that matters", and I'm somewhat taken aback. Surely employment is an important goal, and surely education can serve that goal, but is there no curiosity in your soul? Do you have no desire to learn just to find out why? Am I the only one who just wants to *know*, even if it doesn't directly increase my momentary monetary market value? I still maintain that a thinking human being is more than a paycheck or a dollar sign. Learning feeds the mind the way food feeds the body and love feeds the soul. I say to all of the above mentioned "free-learning" endeavors: "Awesome stuff! Keep up the good work!"
And in the end, even my incidentally and casually acquired knowledge improves my long-term viability in the job marketplace, and improves my image with my co-workers and bosses. It's hard not to like someone who is *truly* fascinated with whatever it is that gets you going.
... since "Constitutional Lawyer" is probably not in your future. :D
Let's see, by your measure, a person who is physically mute doesn't have first amendment rights to express him/herself? Sounds like a flawed interpretation to me.
I would also point out that the Supreme Court disagrees with your constitutional analysis. They have upheld quite a few activities not specifically defined in the first amendment as protected under its auspices - things like flag burning, performance art, hand gestures, and other 'non-speech' expressions.
"It's a decent and light hearted analogy but I think there's a bit more to it than just cash flow."
What the?
If it's not about money, what *is* it about?
The problem with your protest is that the US is not - and has never been - a democracy. The vast majority of decisions are made for us by our duly elected representatives. I agree with you - completely - about democracy. However, the system in place is not responsible for the failure of our government, but the people who have abused it and abused the people of the United States.
The electoral system, I think, *is*, in large part, responsble for our predicament. The cost of campaigning is so prohibitive - and it's money that's simply gone, even if you win the election - that even if a politician starts out with the grandest of intentions and the most pristine ideals, in order to become elected, he or she has to find sponsors. And that money is not free.
The current situation makes a politician's first priority simply getting re-elected. And to get the money for that compaign, he or she must participate in quid pro quo. I don't think all politicians *start out* being lying, cheating, scheming, influence-peddling, traitorious bastards; but those qualities are insitutionalized by the system. Witness the abramofity of Washington.
At work we bought a Buffalo Teraserver. I'm not impressed. OOB it won't support files > 2gb, and >4gb (It actually specifies both of those restrictions in the documentation). It was also fairly slow regardless of the access method. The thing couldn't saturate our 100Mbit switched link, making the gbit enet redundant to say the least. The afp interface places unconscionable limitations on the filenames usable.
:) ) but we didn't want to give up the space.
So we hacked the box a la instructions found on the net, installed ssh, and began exploring. As nearly as I can tell, the onboard processor is not fast enough to support high speed writes in raid 5 ( pegs the processor quickly ). It might have been faster in RAID1 or RAID0 (misnamed, that is - there's no redundant in RAID0, so it should be AID0.
Solution? We popped the front of the teraserver off, got a couple of fairly long IDE cables, put an inexpensive IDE RAID controller in an old 833mhz DELL PIII. Ran the ide cables out the slot next to the controller, up through the faceplate, and viola, the Teraserver becomes a nice external IDE enclosure that happened to come with four nice 250GB drives. It is very quiet, however
Result? It can now source or sink 11.5-12 MB/sec (just shy of the theoretical limit of 100mbit enet, 12.5mBYTEs/sec) all day long, quiet, and the little fans in there keep the drives cool. But save some money and buy your own external enclosure, is my advice.
"I haven't? I also own a Rollei 6008 inetgral MF camera as well as 35s and I do know the difference. I never said that MF are not better for large prints (of course they are, all things being equal), just that your limit of 5x7 for 35mm as being the max acceptable enlargement from 35mm was absurd, and it is."
:D"
Comments are dialogs - as the one we're having now is. Problem is, you've jumped into the middle of a conversation without knowing what transpired in the rest of it. Forgive me, i assumed you actuallly *read* the threads you comment on. Another poster questioned my rationale ( without accusations of 'absurdity' in matters of opinion ), and I made it quite clear in this reply:
"Sure, I know what you're saying, but if you're hanging a show, and you put that 11x14 next to a 8x8" or 12x12" image from 6x6cm film, you're asking for trouble. They look *so* different that it's jarring. If I didn't have anything but 35mm images in the show, though, I still consider 8x10 to be the acceptable limit of most 35mm color films; grain is not attractive in color images!
and:
"In the end, it's in what you like, right? If a person should, for instance, *like* the appearance of grain in color (as many a b&w photog does), then it changes the whole picture ( pardon the pun ), right? Then a 20x30 isn't out of the question from 35mm film. If we're talking aesthetics rather than technique, the sky's the limit, and all that matters is the single question: "Do you *like* what you have there?"
Then you go on:
"I haven't? I also own a Rollei 6008 inetgral MF camera as well as 35s and I do know the difference. I never said that MF are not better for large prints (of course they are, all things being equal), just that your limit of 5x7 for 35mm as being the max acceptable enlargement from 35mm was absurd, and it is"
Which was my point; that MF enlargements are qualitatively better, all things being equal. "Better" is an aesthetic judgement. After working with MF cameras and film, I became farm more critical of the image quality I produced. The fact that you are not more critical does not render *my* view of *my* works 'absurd'; it merely means you're willing to accept lower quality 11x14s than I am - by your own admission above.
"And excuse me, but MF does not have a larger tonal scale than 35mm since the film is the same. "
Correct, based on a very technical reading of your statement, which, of course, violates the general sense of the discussion. If you photgraph an image, process it, and make a contact print using the same type of film, from 35mm, 120, 4x5, and 8x10, and expose and process them identically, you're right, the tonal range will be identical. However, the discussion was about enlargements and comparison of said enlargement, and the fact is that if I enlarge all of those images to the same 8x10 print, each successively larger negative will produce a qualitatively longer tonal scale, with the 35mm image having the worst, and the 8x10 having the best.
"The best 35mm lenses have better contrast, are faster, and have better resolving power than the best MF lenses (and are generaly an order of magnitude cheaper,too). The lower resolving power of the MF lenses is more than made up for by the larger negatives, but the loss of contrast is not."
More or less true, and irrelevant for the same reasons stated above. The only thing I would take exception to is that your phrasing is misleading. "The *best* 35mm lenses have better (etcetera)" are not 'orders of magnitude cheaper. Zeiss and Leitz lenses are not 'orders of magnitude cheaper" than MF lenses; less, yes, but 'orders of magnitude' is a ridiculous exaggeration.
"By the way if you want really good glass forget Zeiss and use Schneider-Kreuznach."
I have a wonderful Rolleiflex TLR with Scheider glass, and it's wonderful, I'll admit. However, to suggest that the quality of the lenses made by Schneider in any way makes it reasonable to "Forget about Zeiss lenses" is another ridicu
And you, my friend, have obviously never compared your 35mm images (yes, I'm aware of all of the neccessities of sharp images, but sharpness is only one facet of overall image quality) to images produced with the same care from medium or large format cameras. Regardless of the care taken and the film used (generally), the medium format images captured with Zeiss lenses will have a longer, deeper tonal range and a longer contrast scale, and it doesn't matter how big your tripod is, or how long your shutter release.
I suggest that you obtain a clue before accusing others of lacking them. I made it clear in my post that aesthetics are personal, and that image quality has a large aesthetic component. Second, I also made it clear that the 5x7 limit is imposed on 35mm images when hung next to similar sized medium format images. And if you're now going to suggest that your 35mm images are 'just as good' as the medium format images captured via the same necessary and very basic techniques you describe, you will only clearly illustrate your lack of cluefulness.
"What film are you using? I wouldn't hesitate to take a 35mm negative on Kodak Portra up to 8x10. I have Provia slides that I think would zoom to 11x14 and still be display quality."
:D
Sure, I know what you're saying, but if you're hanging a show, and you put that 11x14 next to a 8x8" or 12x12" image from 6x6cm film, you're asking for trouble. They look *so* different that it's jarring. If I didn't have anything but 35mm images in the show, though, I still consider 8x10 to be the acceptable limit of most 35mm color films; grain is not attractive in color images!
Somewhat offtopic, but I have taken 35mm Ilford Delta 100 up to 11x14 many times and been pleased with the results. But B&W film is a somewhat different beast.
Yeah, yeah, I agree. Love black and white, and I've gone to 11x14 on many occasions, as well; but again, I would never hang an 11x14 from 35mm Delta 100 within visual distance of a 12x12 from 6x6 Delta 100; breaks the continuity of feel, if you see what I mean.
In the end, it's in what you like, right? If a person should, for instance, *like* the appearance of grain in color (as many a b&w photog does), then it changes the whole picture ( pardon the pun ), right? Then a 20x30 isn't out of the question from 35mm film. If we're talking aesthetics rather than technique, the sky's the limit, and all that matters is the single question: "Do you *like* what you have there?"
"I'd have been happier with your answers --and assumed a pro was answering-- had you caught this one."
:D I'm well aware of the nature of his error; I own Hasselblad equipment and one of those "Rolleiflex TLRs" he was referring to, and have several A12 and A24 backs for the Hassie. I only responded that way because the previous poster was so assertive. Makes the chip on my shoulder itch. :D
Well, we'd certainly like for you to be happier!
"Nope, it's the resolution."
You didn't pay attention to what I was saying. By "with detail representation below your liminal threshold", I meant the point at which the recorded detail in the image extends to well below your ability to discern them; at this point, you are incapable of distinguishing the difference in resolution. As shmlco points out in the GGC post, the degree of enlargement is lower for the 4x5 - I actually had in mind a direct contact from the 4x5 - so the grain density is higher, and the tonal range longer as a result, giving us that creamy tonal range that is so characteristic of large format images. You used to be able to use Tech Pan and Technidol at ISO 25 to get that kind of tonal range up to about 4x5 from a 35mm negative. I've been out of the game for eight years or so, so I'm sure that area has changed significantly.
"Sigh. So you've never used a 1D MII either? 8.5 fps max 40 JPEG or 20 RAW." -
No, more's the pity. Sounds expensive, and since I don't do it for a living anymore, I can't justify the kind of money it would take to replicate my silver-based system ( the culmination of about a twelve year career in commercial photography ) in digital, or even the capabilities.
Mamiya, huh? I used to have an RB67, but ditched it once I shot film with my Hassie. Mamiya lenses are nice, but those Zeiss T*... holy crap!
There are a few factual errors here.
There are, and have been, many professional photographers who use/used 35mm cameras and film. Photojournalists come to mind - in droves. You used to be able to go through Photographer's Market and find gazillions of clients that would accept 35mm film "professionally". Go back an dlook at a few of the "Swimsuit edition" videos and tell me what kind of cameras they are using...
Second, it's 6cm, or 60mm film, not 120mm film (Hasselblads shoot 6x6cm, and lots of the Japanese medium format manufacturers do "645", or 6x4.5cm, which enlarges to 8x10 without cropping. These cameras are popular with portrait photographers and many advertising photographers who work with people.
Large format cameras are the purview of art photographers (who claim and use everything from old throwaway polaroid cameras to 11x14 Linhofs) and commercial photographers. The biggest commercial application of the large formats used to be images that would be re-touched ( a big enough primary image to work with - think playboy centerfolds ) and ads for high-gloss magazines where the tonal range would be at least partially represented. There isn't much work for a commercial photog that requires resolution higher than 6cm film will provide, but there is a little. A 4x5 image will, certainly, make your 35mm look like crap, but mostly because of tonal range, not resolution; if you display them at the same perceptual size, with detail representation below your liminal threshold, the 4x5 image will look subjectively 'better', because it has a longer tonal range and better contrast without washout.
In the end, the camera to use is the one that fits your purposes. An 8 mpixel camera will make a happy 5x7 image - better than most ISO 400 images, probably simliar to ISO100 films, and not quite as nice as, say, an ISO 32 or 25 film. For snapshots, they'll work fine all the way out to 11x14. For display, I would never take a 35mm image higher than 5x7; for snapshots, they'll go to 11x14. I would print 6x6 images at 6"x6" on 8x10 paper for gallery display. After working with a couple of 8 mp cameras, I would say that they will fulfill the purposes of some 90% of 35mm photographers, particularly the ones that offer full manual override. The single place that I've not seen a digital come close to my T90 or F1 canons is in FPS.. I can crank 4.5 frames a second through either of those machines, while an 8MP camera is still downloading third image it recorded.
The end is in sight. I've seen 32mpixel images, and you're wrong; you can blow those things up till hell freezes over.
The Rolleiflex TLRs were beautiful machines, and had wonderful lenses, but in the hands of an incompetent photographer, they would produce shit. By the same token, the Diana was a POS camera, but in the hands of the right artist, would create images that would stop you in your tracks. I suggest that the quality of the photography is in the photographer, not the gear. The gear is enabling, not creative.
Perhaps I misunderstood, and am projecting onto you what I heard from around me. All of the Country Music types around here ( in the midwest ) are all very opposed to the idea of free speech ( if it disagrees with them ) and are all about hating the Dixie Chicks for "Treason" ( by which they mean criticizing the President 'while on foreign soil' ). I've actually heard several, unrelated persons propose that we *execute* the Dixie Chicks. If you can imagine that. The same people felt I should be airdropped into Afghanistan because I feel that this administration hijacked the Republican party and our republic.
:D
If you're not one of those, then I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
I'm reasonably certain the parent meant "Without legal ramifications", which is exactly how the Supreme Court interprets it - or rather, has, in the past.
"Good example of someone who knows what free speech is about and stands up for his beliefs: Bono. Good example of when someone doesn't actually understand the concept of freedom of speech and cries because they may have suffered consequences: Dixie Chicks."
You're kidding, right? The Dixie Chicks stated their opinions. Then, all the Nascar/PBR Good 'Ol Boys decided that they wouldn't buy their music anymore because they excercised their constitutional right to free speech. Like I've said, those same people that lambast the Dixie Chicks for not liking this administration are the same ones who say "Those boys in Iraq are dying for *your freedoms*, so dammit, get behind 'em and don't USE your freedoms! That's unpatriotic and un-American. We're fighting Terror so you have the right to say the same damned thing everyone else does!".
I would say that your diatribe is a fairly clear indication that *you* don't understand the principles of free speech and liberty.
Actaully there are quite a few products available that do that very thing - battery backed IDE-interface drives that allow drop-in DIMMs that are identical to one type of system ram or another. With lithium backup batteries, they're good for a long time of power-off-storage, and they can-and will- max out the bus capabilities of your interface, whereas a drive will only do that until the cache is exhausted. Thus, I didn't find it all all obvious that the parent was referring to flash; I would note that a couple of other posters said "I'm assuming you're speaking of flash".
:D Instead, they fight over fractions of a percent improvement in branch chain prediction so that the prefetch queue can be properly populated.
Your question about DRAM is more complex, If you were referring to DRAM and not flash. In essense, modern systems *do* multiplex memory, but since memory access patterns are difficult to predict, it's hard to build a chip structure that will allow one to significantly improve access time across the memory usage spectrum. If you figure out how to do that, I'm sure Intel and AMD would LOVE to speak to you!
"Um, sorry, but AFAIK system RAM and cache memory does NOT qualify as "solid state memory".
That's because you apparently don't understand the term "solid state".
It's ok, I'll wait whilst you go look it up... There, make sense now?
I'm kinda curious what the .Ass method does, exactly? Does instantiate a new local copy of the object "Ass"? Must be some kind of newfangled ruby code.
"I have installed XP on literally thousands of machines and I cannot understand at all you having these problems and then to say LINUX is easier to install? No Possible Way."
So what you're saying is that you are fairly adept at installing Windows, but have not attempted to install linux recently, and are declaring that since you *are* adept at installing Windows, you are also an expert on the linux installation process you've never seen?
Cool!
Here's the other apps that keep me from running Linux exclusively:
:D
Ableton Live
Tracktion 2
(sundry VST plugins - yes, I know you can run them on linux *sort of*) - While linux has come a long way in music, it's still not there.
Maya
Lightwave
(blender is no replacement, sorry)
But, since OSX gives me these applications *and* my *Nix command line, I'm all happy now.
Some Components of OSX are not open source. The BULK of the underlying OS (Darwin) *is*, in fact, open source. The UI - Aqua - is not. I would assume that's why the parent post listed it as running 'open-source'.
Now, just to clarify. It's not difficult at all to get most of the programs you're used to running to run on OSX. There are several X based apps that I use regularly on my powerbook and my G5. There are many (many!) console-based apps that I use every day on my powerbook and my G5 (I still use mc a lot, and epic, and a couple of other programs - not to mention the fact that I'm a UNIX systems engineer by trade and I *live* at the CLI). Opendarwin and Fink are two means of getting your very own GNU/Darwin subsystem. Tiger ships with X11 (you have to install it, but it's on your distro DVDs) - I use it for ethereal, lyx, and several other old standbys from my linux desktop days. The entire Tex subsystem is installed and working, along with nearly everything else.
I used to have a linux box for most things, and a Windows box for music, video, and animation. OSX allowed me to consolidate those into one platform.
"Well, no, Linux requires at least a 32bit CPU to run. "
Ok, I was stretching the truth by using the term 'distributions', but ELKS linux is targeting 8086 and 80286 processors; the kernel 'works', but there's no ready-to-run distro. I would say your comment is correct if you modify it to say "Linux Distros".
"Most solid state memory is pretty darn slow"? May I respectfully ask, What are you smoking? What do you think is in your system (main RAM) and on your processor (cache)? There is no comparison between the worst case access time on a 10ns CAS2 DDR memory bus and an 8 ms seek time hard drive. The memory is *orders of magnitude* faster than the hdd. That's why modern operating systems do read and write cacheing of disk information.
from TFA:
"There was this pervasive belief that Linux could run on older PCs and that Windows could not, he said, adding that Microsoft thus decided to test this premise by installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Pro 9.2, Mandrake 10, Linspire 4.5, Xandros Desktop 3.0, Fedora Core 3, Slackware 10.1, Knoppix 3.7; Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 out-of-the-box on older hardware to see what happened."
I see you were right, Slackware 10.1 is listed. Seventh. Perhaps the concept was difficult, but I was merely pointing out that they were using current distributions optimized for current processors, not systems intended for recycling old hardware ( of which type several exist ). All better now?
When I read the blurb, I figured out what I would find in TFA. They're comparing XP to, say, SUSE 9.0 or RH 4.0 EL. Both optimized for current systems. Here's the difference; there are many distributions of linux targeted at older, slower machines, going all the way back to 286's. I would like to see performance comparisons between Windows and a linux distro targeted at smaller machines. See distrowatch; they list a couple that are *meant* for this application, so you don't have to be a kernel hacker or techincal expert to modify your linux distro for your hardware.
*yawn*. Same old MS crap.
Perhaps you can restrict xfer by license, by format, by genre, otherwise you'd end up with a lot of crap you don't want or stuff that would be illegal; which no-one wants, right?
But imagine what a cool marketing tool it would be for a group to be able flag a song for distribution - that would allow free and unlimited distribution of a song - an mp3 that includes, say, a URL to buy the album, etc. Just think how fast something like that would get around. And of course, that would certainly disturb the RIAA, since I (as a music producer) don't need the current music industry for distribution or marketing at all...
Isnt' that the RIAA's worst nightmare?
Staggering indeed. Like:
"Einstein laboured under handicaps of primitive technology, facilities, etc."
LOL. From half a century downstream, the technology that the current physicists are working with will seem like a handicap in tech, facilities, &cetera. That, my friend, is relative.
Wait... Have you ever read any Strauss?
We all know that this is a Soviet^H^H^H^H^H^H Al Qaeda Plot to destroy America's Most Valuable Assets! This little chick is a deep-cover MOLE! Can't you see the WRITING on the *wall*!?!?! If we accept this outrage, what's next? Dogs and Cats living together?