...and if GIF always came with the mandatory disclaimer "can't support true color images" then I might feel different.
People don't view image formats as offering "a variety of features". Monochrome, pseudocolor, and 16, 24, or 48 bit true color are not just different features of image formats. Saying that GIF is lossless but just "doesn't have the feature you need" is damage control. If you convert and image to GIF and back and in all cases the result is identical to the original, then it would be lossless. This is clearly not the case and it has nothing to do with "missing features". It has to do with the limited color coding space that GIF requires. Most of GIF's compactness comes from its lossy color compression after all. That's how they get away with lossless compression on what's left.
I don't know about multithreading (not that it's criical). It certainly was multitasking.
Point is that the OS was not in any way part of the Mac platform. It ran on mac hardware on that time but was not relevant to mac users or applications.
Prior to that OS, IBM had a port of UNIX that ran on the original PC and used it interally pretty extensively. SCO later offered XENIX for the original PC AT. You wouldn't count these OS'es as offering multitasking for the PC, either, since they were pretty fringe. Still they predated the Mac Unix port by a big margin. It's all irrelevant. We are talking about MacOS and Windows. I included OS/2 in that because OS/2 at the time was the "new Windows".
...but if the format is not the native format that your data uses then it is important. Since GIF is an image format it gets compared to JPG, TIFF, PNG, etc. In that context, many images are true color and GIF cannot preserve their detail. Unlike your example, this application is what GIF is for.
An 8 bit integer is a lossless image format, too. You just have to strip out any information that doesn't fit into 0-255. Seems like the same argument to me.
People once argued that DVD's couldn't possibly be as good as laserdisc because laserdisc was lossless. Of course, laserdisc was a lossless version of composite video, the worst video format in existence, while DVD was a lossy format of component video with potentially much higher overall bandwidth. You won't find many laserdisc lovers making those claims now since it's so clearly absurd. Laserdisc is a lossy format just as GIF is. If all we ever had was composite video, or 8 bit indexed color, laserdisc and GIF would be fine.
And yes, I would say PNG is lossy in that context. It's just a silly context. When someone does the operation you describe, they split the streams to preserve the audio so the overall operation isn't lossy.
That's because all the "losing" has already taken place. Degradation over cycles is not a requirement for a format to be lossy. If you take an image and convert it to GIF, then convert it back, if the result is not identical then the process is lossy. For some images this will be lossless but for true-color images it almost never is. Images are never acquired in 8 bit indexed format, so GIF is most definitely lossy.
So after you discard the bulk of the color detail, what little remains can be compressed losslessly. Good thinking. Everyone knows that color images only come in 8 bit indexed format after all.
I would call it a UNIX port of utterly no interest to traditional Mac users and supporting no Mac applications. It had nothing to do with the Mac platform, it just ran on Mac hardware much as some Linux ports do.
Yes, Canon and Nikon must think of digital bodies differently than film bodies. Nikon probably realizes that. Canon most surely does.
I think that CMOS is absolutely competitive with CCD from an image quality standpoint but not better. Of the APS sensors, I think (as a D100 owner) that the S2 is the class of the field. All three of the major players are very good, though. CMOS has big manufacturing and cost benefits and Nikon apparently agrees. Canon's got CMOS down and that's the huge advantage they have right now.
Being an underwater shooter, I use Nikon because of the broader industry support. That, and the fantastic 70-180 zoom micro which Canon chooses not to match. Canon has achieved significant success underwater with digital though, even though they had little presence with film.
I agree, Apple aggressively sells DP into the desktop/consumer space whereas PC makers have not. They needed to with the G4, as you said, and now with the G5 it's an interesting differentiator. Shame that it takes dual core processors to make the technology common but better late than never.
Back in the late 80's I worked briefly on a multiprocessor 286 proposal because MS believed that multiprocessor machines were what was needed to make future OS'es really shine. Problem was the the next generation processor was always better than two of what you already had. That trend continued up until the P4. Glad to see the problem finally fixed.
No, but trying to find a way to apply increasing transistor counts to making a processor faster may point in the direction of multiple cores rather than massively deep pipelines and enormous clock speeds.
What people seem to lose sight of is that the goal for processor manufacturers is to produce the fastest processor they can at a given die size. Apparently, Intel has concluded that the current P4 approach will not be as good as a multicore approach using a more efficient core in the future. Personally, I think this is great news. I'd much rather have a dual core PM that the newest piece of crap P4 that we just got. Finally the P4 will get the mercy killing it so richly deserves.
Yes, but it would probably mean nothing to pricing. You can bet that software will be licensed to run on hardware being targeted at desktop solutions. Dual CPU systems are already supported by XP/2K without requiring a server version.
Can you substantiate the claim that "Apple and other Mac developers have spent more time working on dual CPU optimised apps"? Apple didn't offer a true multitasking, multithreading platform until OS X. PC's have had them since OS/2 1.0, over 15 years ago. True multiprocessor support came shortly thereafter with NT 3.1. Macs are relative newcomers at this and the Apple/Mac developer base is relatively small compared to Windows. The NT kernel, basis for current Windows platforms, has always worked well with multi-CPU systems and was designed for it from the start. BSD, in contrast, has added multiprocessor support rather recently.
It's hard to believe that a platform with 20 times the marketshare and over a decade head start can't compete with Apple when it comes to dual CPU support, so I think you're imagining things. Dual CPU Wintel machines are not uncommon if you look in the right places. They just aren't typical of desktops.
I don't think I missed the point at all. In fact, your point was not different from mine. A mac is different from a PC but it's not due to the bulk of the hardware components which are essentially the same. Of course I can't run OS X on a Windows box. Did I suggest otherwise? If Macs are about the OS and the applications (and PC aren't?) then why do mac lovers insist their virtually identical hardware is superior? Couldn't be because of the processor which, until the ^5, has never been competitive.
It's entirely possible to build a PC notebook with a 17" screen and a form factor like the powerbook. I would suggest that PC users want more functionality than that in such a large machine since that seems to be the case in what's offered. I edit video on a notebook and prefer the option of two internal hard drives, a real processor, and a much higher resolution screen. The 17" powerbook has absolutely no appeal to me with its puny hard drive space, low res screen and outdated processor. Like many mac products, it's pretty but not particularly powerful. Depends on whether you buy a machine for image or function.
Pinnacle has a long history of quality problems. I have no stability problems with Premiere or Vegas Video and haven't for a long time. As for MovieMaker vs. iMovie I could care less. I doubt there's much market for expensive transitions addons for cheap (or free) editing packages targeted at novice home users. Eventually people realize they don't want to use those things anyway (SpiceMaster being the exception).
Actually, the article claimed that most people identified R2D2 as male even though there was nothing about it that suggested that. I never personally figured it to be male myself. Too bitchy.
I completely agree. A mac is a PC with an alternate processor supplied by a 3rd party. Not distiguished in any way, it's simply gratuitously different. The combination of the non-standard hardware and proprietary software creates a product that isn't easily compared with others in the market. Make Apple strictly a hardware company OR strictly a software company and it would fail. Thankfully now with the G5, it's at least competitive.
Now, there's nothing wrong with not making your own hardware. It's just that you sholdn't pretend that you do when you don't. Mac fans need to get over believing that their macs are anything other than 98% PC's. They benefit greatly from commodity PC parts like memory, IDE drives, ATAPI CD's and DVD, PCI busses and leadership video hardware. Apple contributes to none of these things yet they would be nowhere without them.
The biggest different between macs and PC's is the attitude.
Yes, I agree he wasn't trolling. I was drawing an anology between the quote he used and a good troll. It was put together in that manner but he wasn't trolling with it.
No, the lens with the larger image circle will gather more light. The amount of light delivered to the sensor varies with the sensor area.
If you start out with the assumption that the imager size is always the same, then you would be right to assume that the larger image circle is wasted. The whole point of the article would be wasted as well.
DSLR makers started out with the lens so the image circle was fixed. Their challenge was to produce the best digital camera they could within the constraints of the technology available and this is what they came up with. The wasted image circle area is really quite irrelevant when you realize this. Yes, Nikon is now offering DX lenses optimized for the smaller sensors but this amounts to far more than image cicle size. It turns out that the image circle isn't fixed anyway and DX lenses deliver full frame images through most of their zoom range anyway (not the primes, of course).
Nikon was near bankruptcy and couldn't afford it. In fact, digital saved them. Now, Nikon is playing catch-up by developing their own permutation of CMOS imaging tech.
Nikon considers themselves a lens company. Subtle distinction, but they offer bodies so that people will buy their lenses. I don't know for sure, but Canon may ultimately feel the same way. It all really depends on where the bulk of the profit lies.
Don't agree at all. The original post was plenty inciteful and I was working for a living 10 years ago.
10 years ago PC makers had to wrry about support for multiple OS platforms: DOS, Windows, OS/2, Novell, Unix. Banyan, etc. There was a secret wish for that to be simplified and, unfortunately, that wish was fulfilled. Now, only MS jerks them around and the job's not any easier.
Yes, and even though no mouse will be used any longer, Steve will still have the menu bar on top since everyone knows edges and corners are the fastest to get too (even on multimegapixel displays). Duh!
Pros use things besides mac/FCP and Avid systems. Many would laugh at the suggestion.
Memory is not the resource most in demand for video editing, either. You can't ever get enough CPU but I get by fine with 1GB of memory. Used to not bother with that much.
Pixar's needs are irrelevent to home video editors and 8GB is, too. The G5 systems still have integer performance inferior to current PC's and stability is not an issue. I doubt you've ever used a PC for video editing.
No, video editing is not a strong argument for buying a Powermac system, just as iPhoto and iTunes are not. PC's do all these things, too, and you get far greater choice of software without the obligatory vendor lockin.
Just how will Steve meet the requirements he's so attuned to? Put whatever IBM gives him in the next box? You don't really believe Apple designs the processors and chipsets in these things, do you? Processor by IBM, hyperlink by AMD, PCI/AGP by Intel, video by ATI. Please!
Adobe Premiere, the market leader in units shipped, is no longer even offered for the Mac. Video editors use plenty of platforms other than mac. Avid is a windows application now.
With video editing, the mass migration away from the mac platform started with Windows NT. Even FCP started out as a windows app until Apple bought it out.
No one seriously uses Linux as a video editing platform either. You are referring to rendering farms (a far different application).
And, yes, you can never have enough CPU for video editing but there aren't that many people editing video in reality. Most get by fine on what we have now and by the time HD becomes common the machines will be ready for it.
Slashdot Mirror
...and if GIF always came with the mandatory disclaimer "can't support true color images" then I might feel different.
People don't view image formats as offering "a variety of features". Monochrome, pseudocolor, and 16, 24, or 48 bit true color are not just different features of image formats. Saying that GIF is lossless but just "doesn't have the feature you need" is damage control. If you convert and image to GIF and back and in all cases the result is identical to the original, then it would be lossless. This is clearly not the case and it has nothing to do with "missing features". It has to do with the limited color coding space that GIF requires. Most of GIF's compactness comes from its lossy color compression after all. That's how they get away with lossless compression on what's left.
I don't know about multithreading (not that it's criical). It certainly was multitasking.
Point is that the OS was not in any way part of the Mac platform. It ran on mac hardware on that time but was not relevant to mac users or applications.
Prior to that OS, IBM had a port of UNIX that ran on the original PC and used it interally pretty extensively. SCO later offered XENIX for the original PC AT. You wouldn't count these OS'es as offering multitasking for the PC, either, since they were pretty fringe. Still they predated the Mac Unix port by a big margin. It's all irrelevant. We are talking about MacOS and Windows. I included OS/2 in that because OS/2 at the time was the "new Windows".
...but if the format is not the native format that your data uses then it is important. Since GIF is an image format it gets compared to JPG, TIFF, PNG, etc. In that context, many images are true color and GIF cannot preserve their detail. Unlike your example, this application is what GIF is for.
An 8 bit integer is a lossless image format, too. You just have to strip out any information that doesn't fit into 0-255. Seems like the same argument to me.
People once argued that DVD's couldn't possibly be as good as laserdisc because laserdisc was lossless. Of course, laserdisc was a lossless version of composite video, the worst video format in existence, while DVD was a lossy format of component video with potentially much higher overall bandwidth. You won't find many laserdisc lovers making those claims now since it's so clearly absurd. Laserdisc is a lossy format just as GIF is. If all we ever had was composite video, or 8 bit indexed color, laserdisc and GIF would be fine.
And yes, I would say PNG is lossy in that context. It's just a silly context. When someone does the operation you describe, they split the streams to preserve the audio so the overall operation isn't lossy.
That's because all the "losing" has already taken place. Degradation over cycles is not a requirement for a format to be lossy. If you take an image and convert it to GIF, then convert it back, if the result is not identical then the process is lossy. For some images this will be lossless but for true-color images it almost never is. Images are never acquired in 8 bit indexed format, so GIF is most definitely lossy.
So after you discard the bulk of the color detail, what little remains can be compressed losslessly. Good thinking. Everyone knows that color images only come in 8 bit indexed format after all.
I would call it a UNIX port of utterly no interest to traditional Mac users and supporting no Mac applications. It had nothing to do with the Mac platform, it just ran on Mac hardware much as some Linux ports do.
Yes, Canon and Nikon must think of digital bodies differently than film bodies. Nikon probably realizes that. Canon most surely does.
I think that CMOS is absolutely competitive with CCD from an image quality standpoint but not better. Of the APS sensors, I think (as a D100 owner) that the S2 is the class of the field. All three of the major players are very good, though. CMOS has big manufacturing and cost benefits and Nikon apparently agrees. Canon's got CMOS down and that's the huge advantage they have right now.
Being an underwater shooter, I use Nikon because of the broader industry support. That, and the fantastic 70-180 zoom micro which Canon chooses not to match. Canon has achieved significant success underwater with digital though, even though they had little presence with film.
I agree, Apple aggressively sells DP into the desktop/consumer space whereas PC makers have not. They needed to with the G4, as you said, and now with the G5 it's an interesting differentiator. Shame that it takes dual core processors to make the technology common but better late than never.
Back in the late 80's I worked briefly on a multiprocessor 286 proposal because MS believed that multiprocessor machines were what was needed to make future OS'es really shine. Problem was the the next generation processor was always better than two of what you already had. That trend continued up until the P4. Glad to see the problem finally fixed.
No, but trying to find a way to apply increasing transistor counts to making a processor faster may point in the direction of multiple cores rather than massively deep pipelines and enormous clock speeds.
What people seem to lose sight of is that the goal for processor manufacturers is to produce the fastest processor they can at a given die size. Apparently, Intel has concluded that the current P4 approach will not be as good as a multicore approach using a more efficient core in the future. Personally, I think this is great news. I'd much rather have a dual core PM that the newest piece of crap P4 that we just got. Finally the P4 will get the mercy killing it so richly deserves.
Yes, but it would probably mean nothing to pricing. You can bet that software will be licensed to run on hardware being targeted at desktop solutions. Dual CPU systems are already supported by XP/2K without requiring a server version.
Can you substantiate the claim that "Apple and other Mac developers have spent more time working on dual CPU optimised apps"? Apple didn't offer a true multitasking, multithreading platform until OS X. PC's have had them since OS/2 1.0, over 15 years ago. True multiprocessor support came shortly thereafter with NT 3.1. Macs are relative newcomers at this and the Apple/Mac developer base is relatively small compared to Windows. The NT kernel, basis for current Windows platforms, has always worked well with multi-CPU systems and was designed for it from the start. BSD, in contrast, has added multiprocessor support rather recently.
It's hard to believe that a platform with 20 times the marketshare and over a decade head start can't compete with Apple when it comes to dual CPU support, so I think you're imagining things. Dual CPU Wintel machines are not uncommon if you look in the right places. They just aren't typical of desktops.
I don't think I missed the point at all. In fact, your point was not different from mine. A mac is different from a PC but it's not due to the bulk of the hardware components which are essentially the same. Of course I can't run OS X on a Windows box. Did I suggest otherwise? If Macs are about the OS and the applications (and PC aren't?) then why do mac lovers insist their virtually identical hardware is superior? Couldn't be because of the processor which, until the ^5, has never been competitive.
It's entirely possible to build a PC notebook with a 17" screen and a form factor like the powerbook. I would suggest that PC users want more functionality than that in such a large machine since that seems to be the case in what's offered. I edit video on a notebook and prefer the option of two internal hard drives, a real processor, and a much higher resolution screen. The 17" powerbook has absolutely no appeal to me with its puny hard drive space, low res screen and outdated processor. Like many mac products, it's pretty but not particularly powerful. Depends on whether you buy a machine for image or function.
Pinnacle has a long history of quality problems. I have no stability problems with Premiere or Vegas Video and haven't for a long time. As for MovieMaker vs. iMovie I could care less. I doubt there's much market for expensive transitions addons for cheap (or free) editing packages targeted at novice home users. Eventually people realize they don't want to use those things anyway (SpiceMaster being the exception).
Certainly we would want to codify our assumptions to ensure they are forever true. Females are "supposed" to be more intuitive? Since when?
Actually, the article claimed that most people identified R2D2 as male even though there was nothing about it that suggested that. I never personally figured it to be male myself. Too bitchy.
I completely agree. A mac is a PC with an alternate processor supplied by a 3rd party. Not distiguished in any way, it's simply gratuitously different. The combination of the non-standard hardware and proprietary software creates a product that isn't easily compared with others in the market. Make Apple strictly a hardware company OR strictly a software company and it would fail. Thankfully now with the G5, it's at least competitive.
Now, there's nothing wrong with not making your own hardware. It's just that you sholdn't pretend that you do when you don't. Mac fans need to get over believing that their macs are anything other than 98% PC's. They benefit greatly from commodity PC parts like memory, IDE drives, ATAPI CD's and DVD, PCI busses and leadership video hardware. Apple contributes to none of these things yet they would be nowhere without them.
The biggest different between macs and PC's is the attitude.
Yes, I agree he wasn't trolling. I was drawing an anology between the quote he used and a good troll. It was put together in that manner but he wasn't trolling with it.
No, the lens with the larger image circle will gather more light. The amount of light delivered to the sensor varies with the sensor area.
If you start out with the assumption that the imager size is always the same, then you would be right to assume that the larger image circle is wasted. The whole point of the article would be wasted as well.
DSLR makers started out with the lens so the image circle was fixed. Their challenge was to produce the best digital camera they could within the constraints of the technology available and this is what they came up with. The wasted image circle area is really quite irrelevant when you realize this. Yes, Nikon is now offering DX lenses optimized for the smaller sensors but this amounts to far more than image cicle size. It turns out that the image circle isn't fixed anyway and DX lenses deliver full frame images through most of their zoom range anyway (not the primes, of course).
Nikon was near bankruptcy and couldn't afford it. In fact, digital saved them. Now, Nikon is playing catch-up by developing their own permutation of CMOS imaging tech.
Nikon considers themselves a lens company. Subtle distinction, but they offer bodies so that people will buy their lenses. I don't know for sure, but Canon may ultimately feel the same way. It all really depends on where the bulk of the profit lies.
Don't agree at all. The original post was plenty inciteful and I was working for a living 10 years ago.
10 years ago PC makers had to wrry about support for multiple OS platforms: DOS, Windows, OS/2, Novell, Unix. Banyan, etc. There was a secret wish for that to be simplified and, unfortunately, that wish was fulfilled. Now, only MS jerks them around and the job's not any easier.
Yes, and even though no mouse will be used any longer, Steve will still have the menu bar on top since everyone knows edges and corners are the fastest to get too (even on multimegapixel displays). Duh!
but not OS XI...
Bullshit. What hosts Avid?
Pros use things besides mac/FCP and Avid systems. Many would laugh at the suggestion.
Memory is not the resource most in demand for video editing, either. You can't ever get enough CPU but I get by fine with 1GB of memory. Used to not bother with that much.
I don't believe you.
Pixar's needs are irrelevent to home video editors and 8GB is, too. The G5 systems still have integer performance inferior to current PC's and stability is not an issue. I doubt you've ever used a PC for video editing.
No, video editing is not a strong argument for buying a Powermac system, just as iPhoto and iTunes are not. PC's do all these things, too, and you get far greater choice of software without the obligatory vendor lockin.
Just how will Steve meet the requirements he's so attuned to? Put whatever IBM gives him in the next box? You don't really believe Apple designs the processors and chipsets in these things, do you? Processor by IBM, hyperlink by AMD, PCI/AGP by Intel, video by ATI. Please!
Adobe Premiere, the market leader in units shipped, is no longer even offered for the Mac. Video editors use plenty of platforms other than mac. Avid is a windows application now.
With video editing, the mass migration away from the mac platform started with Windows NT. Even FCP started out as a windows app until Apple bought it out.
No one seriously uses Linux as a video editing platform either. You are referring to rendering farms (a far different application).
And, yes, you can never have enough CPU for video editing but there aren't that many people editing video in reality. Most get by fine on what we have now and by the time HD becomes common the machines will be ready for it.