I read the article, and I must say that was good decision. Every 6 months they ship a set of ISO images that are both up to date, and usually just work. I mean really, trying to accuse canonical having nefarious plans with upstart?
Yeah, it was clear that policy and enforcement thinks he is a cheater. Otherwise they wouldn't have labeled him a cheater. That tweet adds no new details.
Yeah, that what we need, everyone with a viral infection taking antibiotics. Yeah there are way to many drugs that unnecessarily require a prescription in this country, but antibiotics shouldn't just be dispensed to anyone who asks for them. Otherwise we end up with way too many antibiotic resistant germs.
A new feature here means a major change, one that has a high likelyhood of introducing new bugs. I know that videos on Dailymotion stopped playing in Beta 5, and I wouldn't be surprised if other sites have problems. A beta is when bugs are supposed to be fixed, not created.
No there is no formal definition to any of these terms. But these terms have commonly understood meanings, and people expect a beta to be feature complete, and the difference between 1.9.3 and 1.9.4 to be of a trivial nature.
Well if your looking for something small, responsive, and feels solid, I doubt you'd find what you're looking for in a digital camera. However most 35mm film doesn't enlarge well past 8x10 prints, and you might be surprised at the quality you can get from a compact digital camera. However you'll be dealing with something that's mostly made out of plastic and will be as slow as a snail. If you have a 35mm camera that you like and a workflow that you like than just stick with it.
I used to shoot a bit of Pan F+. No color, but I used to like the silky smooth prints that I could get from even 35mm. I also doubt the film has enough dynamic range for a bright sunny day on the top a snow capped mountain. You actually had to use a tripod. Kids these days and their ISO6400 sensors and image stabilized lenses.
I recently did a project where about half was shot on 6x9 rolls of Kodak Portra 160VC, and the other half shot on a Canon 350D. Printed all of the images on 13x19 inch paper. While the film definitely had better resolution than the digital shots, the extra effort of scanning the film seemed to be hardly worth it. 35mm film has no place in the digital world as cameras that are about the same size can easily capture more resolution. Plus film that isn't stored properly will accumulate a ton a dust very quickly.
You can cut color reversal film into strips of 5 frames (or 2-3 frames for 120) and then scan it. Having the film mounted as slides means that part of it gets cropped.
I expect them to work with a reasonable level or reliability, but so far I've been sorely disappointed. Currently I have a Sony W518 that will just randomly become unresponsive for 30-60 seconds. Before that I had a Nokia 6555 that would randomly claim that there was no SIM card in the phone, requiring a reboot. The thought that my life could depend on these devices is a very scary thought indeed.
It might save you time on a fast processor, but the time saved in downloading anything is pretty much made up up reconstructing the packages on an Atom N270.
I have no doubt that your scanner can create a 29MP file. However, 4000dpi equals about 160ln/mm, which is fine grained slide film under ideal conditions. Last week I was scanning a few frames off a 6x9 roll of Kodak Portra 160VC, and scanning it at 4000dpi on my school's Imacon Flextight meant a huge file, but there certainly there wasn't 70MP worth of information in the file. In other words, you're simply wasting your disk space by making such high resolution scans.
Overall I think the resolution from a medium format scan compares quite favorably against a 35mm digital camera. I really like making a silver prints from film, but scanning film just seems like a waste of time. Little dust spots can find their way onto a digital sensor but they're nothing like the dust that can accumulate on film. Nothing says fun like spending half the day using the spot healing brush and finding all of the dust spots in your file.
Sure a scanner can generate a huge file, but most film just doesn't have that type of resolution. Overall, I think you'll be able to make a bigger print from the digital back.
Slashdot Mirror
If there was no law, then they would expect the court to dismiss the case within a few minutes.
I read the article, and I must say that was good decision. Every 6 months they ship a set of ISO images that are both up to date, and usually just work. I mean really, trying to accuse canonical having nefarious plans with upstart?
Slashdot effect in 3...2...1...
Oh wait, I'm fairly certain it has already started.
Yeah, it was clear that policy and enforcement thinks he is a cheater. Otherwise they wouldn't have labeled him a cheater. That tweet adds no new details.
So we're just supposed to believe the person who banned him without any details. Is twitter now a reliable source?
Yeah, that what we need, everyone with a viral infection taking antibiotics. Yeah there are way to many drugs that unnecessarily require a prescription in this country, but antibiotics shouldn't just be dispensed to anyone who asks for them. Otherwise we end up with way too many antibiotic resistant germs.
Wouldn't the term "windows" have sufficed? Windows didn't get very far on either alpha or ia64.
A new feature here means a major change, one that has a high likelyhood of introducing new bugs. I know that videos on Dailymotion stopped playing in Beta 5, and I wouldn't be surprised if other sites have problems. A beta is when bugs are supposed to be fixed, not created.
No there is no formal definition to any of these terms. But these terms have commonly understood meanings, and people expect a beta to be feature complete, and the difference between 1.9.3 and 1.9.4 to be of a trivial nature.
My understanding of the term Beta is that all features are complete. Has something changed?
This is true, but perspective can very easily be fixed in photoshop.
sudo chattr -R +i .adobe .macromedia
sudo chattr -R +i
Well if your looking for something small, responsive, and feels solid, I doubt you'd find what you're looking for in a digital camera. However most 35mm film doesn't enlarge well past 8x10 prints, and you might be surprised at the quality you can get from a compact digital camera. However you'll be dealing with something that's mostly made out of plastic and will be as slow as a snail. If you have a 35mm camera that you like and a workflow that you like than just stick with it.
I used to shoot a bit of Pan F+. No color, but I used to like the silky smooth prints that I could get from even 35mm. I also doubt the film has enough dynamic range for a bright sunny day on the top a snow capped mountain. You actually had to use a tripod. Kids these days and their ISO6400 sensors and image stabilized lenses.
I recently did a project where about half was shot on 6x9 rolls of Kodak Portra 160VC, and the other half shot on a Canon 350D. Printed all of the images on 13x19 inch paper. While the film definitely had better resolution than the digital shots, the extra effort of scanning the film seemed to be hardly worth it. 35mm film has no place in the digital world as cameras that are about the same size can easily capture more resolution. Plus film that isn't stored properly will accumulate a ton a dust very quickly.
You can cut color reversal film into strips of 5 frames (or 2-3 frames for 120) and then scan it. Having the film mounted as slides means that part of it gets cropped.
I expect them to work with a reasonable level or reliability, but so far I've been sorely disappointed. Currently I have a Sony W518 that will just randomly become unresponsive for 30-60 seconds. Before that I had a Nokia 6555 that would randomly claim that there was no SIM card in the phone, requiring a reboot. The thought that my life could depend on these devices is a very scary thought indeed.
HDMI is simply DVI-D with sound and a different connector. Why does it need to be axed?
You've obviously never used it on an Athlon 64 lacking the lahf_lm instruction.
It might save you time on a fast processor, but the time saved in downloading anything is pretty much made up up reconstructing the packages on an Atom N270.
I was playing with one a few months ago at the Nokia store in Chicago.
I have no doubt that your scanner can create a 29MP file. However, 4000dpi equals about 160ln/mm, which is fine grained slide film under ideal conditions. Last week I was scanning a few frames off a 6x9 roll of Kodak Portra 160VC, and scanning it at 4000dpi on my school's Imacon Flextight meant a huge file, but there certainly there wasn't 70MP worth of information in the file. In other words, you're simply wasting your disk space by making such high resolution scans.
Overall I think the resolution from a medium format scan compares quite favorably against a 35mm digital camera. I really like making a silver prints from film, but scanning film just seems like a waste of time. Little dust spots can find their way onto a digital sensor but they're nothing like the dust that can accumulate on film. Nothing says fun like spending half the day using the spot healing brush and finding all of the dust spots in your file.
And that is a bad thing? When I read "setting orbital safety standards" in the summary, I was thinking that was the end of private spaceflight.
Until photoshop existed those large format cameras where the only way to correct for perspective.
Sure a scanner can generate a huge file, but most film just doesn't have that type of resolution. Overall, I think you'll be able to make a bigger print from the digital back.