Don't hate the tool for being easy to use. Digital photography has a great deal of promise, and there are plenty of gifted photographers using such cameras... Give them a gigapixel camera and I'm sure they'll astound us.
I agree, unfortunately, I have also seen a decline in the quality of photography from people we have worked with before in film. I give these peole more benefit of the doubt as, I know they can produce better work, I am just assuming that they are new to the digital medium. Still frustrating though.
Meanwhile, I just want a CCD with enough real eastate that I can not only really piss off, but actually cause a purist to break down in tears by saving to JPEG;-)
well, JPEG doesn't scare me. As long as it is only used once. After much testing, you can't see the difference in print of a high resolution eps file and a high resolution jpg (med. high and up quality). The problem comes from people that open their jpeg, work the file, then save it as a jpeg again. Changes how the file is compressed, and looks like poo poo(technical term).
I'm a little confused by some of the aritmetic. It looks like you multipled 19 square inches by a linear 2400 dpi.
He was referring to two seperate things. The area is only relevant in that it gives you an indication of what the file size will be. dpi or ppi (same thing dots or pixels, dot's is a carry over from screen printing) is the indicator of how much information is in a particular amount of space, and his 19 square inches is an attempt to give an idea of area, so the total number of pixels is 2400 (dpi hz) x 2400 (dpi vrt) = 5760000 pixels per square inch. Which is a useless number, because you now need to multiply that number by 19, and now you have the somewhat useless fact that there is 109440000 pixels in a 4x5 transparency, whoops, forgot to multiply that number by 3 (Red Green Blue channels), 328320000.
Anyways, all of that is rediculously cumbersome, so, we have the tendancy to report the size, ppi, and color depth (RGB, CMYK, LaB) which let's you know after some time in the industry, aproximately how big a file will be in megabytes.
Aside from that, I think people spend too much time worrying about resolution and not enough about bit depth.
Mostly that is because most people who are dealing with this stuff are outputting to print. Followed by movies. Followed by (a ditant third) photographers (think art not commercial). And they are mostly concerned with reproducing the color spaces that they deal with.
Here is a color space chart that shows the box within a box within a box that is human created color in relation to visible light.
Personally, I'd much rather look at projected slides than print.
Me too, but it is a pain in the ass to distrubute the slide projectors to all those house wives with their copies of Vanity Faire.
The primary reason, though, would simply be that photographers are using digital cameras in many places where they work quite well, and they would like them to eventually be the primary workhorse for most photographic needs.
I spend all day retouching photo's from these photographers. At this point I am of two minds over this. On one hand I like the fact that digital photos end up needing more work done to them than from a transparency. (People really miss film grain, and the colors are always not what the photographer expects). Every 6-8 months we start getting larger files, but not any better quality wise.
On the other hand, since digital photography has gotten so wide spread I am seeing much more "bad" photography. The lighting sucks and you can tell the ad agency went with some cut rate photgrapher who doesn't understand the concept of an F stop. While this also means more work for me, it is really frustrating to fix the same damn thing again and again because the photographer doesn't understand the concept of his chosen profession. But hey, he can take 500 shots to get that one image his client actually likes.
I believe in privacy, personally, and I don't think the public has a "right" to know everything.'
I would agree with this on the surface...at least for things like National Security Issues, Trade Secrets and other things that do not belong in the public domain. But two things come to mind.
One: This is now a public issue, it has been brought into the courts. There is nothing going on here that should not be in the light of day if someone wants to wade through all the court docs.
Two: At what point does the line get drawn between public disclosure? Some things are obvious. How to make a hydrogen bomb, nope, shouldn't come out even if it is part of court documents. But where does the line end?
Is SCO using the thinking (right or wrong) that this is their proprietary information, therefore the public has no right to it? Wouldn't it be no less proprietary if we could all see it? If they win (blech) then it doesn't matter, we still can't "use" it. If they lose, then well, we can and it doesn't matter either.
Or, are they just using court procedure to hide from the public(media) that their case is weak/strong?
Probably the simplest artifact in common use is the knife. Yet given our resources and technology, it's appalling what passes for a knife in most people's kitchens.
More oftne than not though, this is not out of the knife making industry's fault as a whole, it is the knife owners inability to justify spending the money for a "good" knife. The same could be said for a hammer, I had an ex-gf who routinely used a high heel shoe to hammer in nails for picture frames. When asked why she did not just buy a hammer, the response was, "this works why should I spend the money?". I had no response to that, I mean, ti's not like she was building something structural, her only use was hanging up pictures, so she did not need a real hammer (her logic not mine)
If the simplest artifacts still have such problems after thousands of years of refinement, what can we reasonably expect from the newest and most complex artifacts ever created?
I would say that the "simplest artifacts" are about as refined as they are going to get. Hammer, lever (crowbar), wheel, pulley, ramp, etc. What changes in these is usually just materials science. A hammer made out of pig iron will hammer a nail as well, if not better in some ways than some exotic blended iron. However it will not be as light or easy to use as the new one. The task at hand though, placing a nail into wood, is accomplished the same.
Computers on the other hand are so new as to be laughable from a "devlopment" standpoint. Many people are still trying to figure out WHAT to do with computers, let alone HOW to do it. So, simplicity becomes more important. Which leads back around to good UI. Computers allow you to "do" jusst about anything, as long as that anything is digitaly controlled. ie: I can design a hammer on my computer, but I will need more equipment to get my computer to use the hammer it has designed. For instance, my mom uses her computer for e-mail, the web, writing physical letters, and storing her digital photos. That's it. I set her up with a powerbook, and that is STILL overwhelming to her. I however, do lot's of graphics work, and am constenly looking for ways to automate and tweak the interface to my tastes. Yet we are both using the exact same tool (in this case a mac).
It is extremely daunting for someone as un-experienced as my mother is to wade through menus and preferences and what-not's just to deal with writing a letter. I don't see a time far off when the same software will come with multiple interfaces. Easy and Experienced. Because if something as simple as iTunes is intimidating to her, then nothing yet has been simple enough for the super newbie to really get.
I recently read the book (recently, like two weeks ago) and I was unimpressed.
That's fine, I feel that this is about the same as people who never saw Star Wars "when it came out". Same general Idea. It was New and ground breaking, and it paved the way for many other things, most worse, but many better. But coming at it years later with no relationship to the times it was released, it comes across as flat, and "unimpressive". Re-reading watchmen recently I felt, that compared to many other graphic novels I have read recently it was a little slow and stale, but still enjoyed it. However, I have defintely read more relevant stories since then.
PS My favorite "if super heros were real" series would be Marvels
I understand that Windows has some form of guidelines for a look and feel, however, from my experience with many apps, they are exactly that, guidelines. Last time I used my dad's PC and fired up Easy CD Creator, I got some mish mash of a UI that looked nothing like any other windows app. In fact my first thought was it looked like some sort of web site.
Now if apple had found a way to create a menu bar at the top of the screen that was only there for iTunes, that would be definitely breaking the Windows UI standards, and if iTunes didn't quit when you closed it's main window, that too would be breaking the UI. Instead, people feel they should be criticised for not using that Windows skin? I am not sure about the windows version of iTunes but ResExcellence has a whole section on iTunes skinning (not supported in the least by apple). So, my response to any Windows user who doesn't like the Aqua/Brushed Metal look, would be to figure out how to change it.
I have ripping & burning software (EAC & Nero) which both do a better job than iTunes. I already have organisation software (JRMC)
If you wanted one basic app do do all of the above list you would want iTunes. You != Everyone, in particular Everyone != tech savvy.
The import process is a pain in the behind
You put in a CD and push the button on the top right hand side that says import. Or, if you are particularly lazy, you set the preference that says "import songs on CD insertion". How is this a pain in the behind?
It's a bit of a resource hog
Does it hog more resources than EAC, Nero, and JRMC all running at once? Genuinely curious.
and the interface is nicely non-standard
Or if you wanted too look at it differently, Windows interface is non-standard. As many other comments have pointed out, this is an Apple product ported to Windows made to function as closely as possible to OSX, so, the interface is actually pretty close to "standard" to OSX.
If you apply yourself a little bit, you could be the next AOL.
1.Start by sending Linux CD's to friends and family.
2.Branch out to your whole town
3.Now county level, then state, etc
4.????
5. pro^H^H^H declarw bankruptcy
Okay, so maybe a few bugs to work out, but still, Rock On! great Idea
Oh, and I would use Red Hat, so maybe you could get sued for some free publicity.
Or you could be over here on the OSX side, where we actually have many usefull features that Windows does not come with (stock) and still be called a toy.
There seems to be a certain class of Windows users who feel the need to belittle the other choices.
Oh wait, Mac and Linux users have those folks as well. Oh well, I guess partisian-ship isn't just for politics.
... every new dollar you spend costs you 1.20 a year... Next year, some new insanely cool item will come out. Just renember that an ipod deferred will buy you 2 ipods next year.
Just waving my hands here, but wouldn't you only be able to buy 1.2 iPod's next year? Or, I guess, if you saved up and bought the top o the line (tm) you could then buy 100 songs from the apple store. And still have 39.5gb free to do with what you will.
...even the ones already sold, via a software update.
For what my anecdotal evidence is worth. My Replay TV still skips commercials, and that's the only reason I keep it. Compared to TiVo, the interface bites, and it comes across as stupid. My biggest complaint, it can't seem to follow a TV show consistently if it changes broadcast time.
The second thing is Stewart's hypocrisy. I agree he is a hypocrite - if he would stop shirking HIS responsibility with the excuse that he's a comedian, he could do a lot of good in this area that he was just speaking out against.
Unfortunately, I think soon as Jon Stewart starts presenting himself as too serious, then he will not be able to get the guests he does, nor be able to act the way he does on show from too much outside pressure. He is walking a fine line between popularity with the rest of us for pointing out abusrdities in what he sees, and still getting the access he does to people like John Kerry, Rudy Gulliani, etc.
He can only be so hard hitting, before all of a sudden he is a Gary Treudeau, and respected by people who read him, as well as critically, but, will have no access to the people he is discussing.
As a Libertarian I don't think I can agree with this. Lately the Republican party does not speak to the issues I care about, mostly being smaller government, and more self determination.
I think, unfortunately, who the republicans are listening to these days is the "Moral Majority" or the "Religious Right", depending on who is describing them.
There is all too much of both parties telling me what is right for My Own Good as opposed to just governing our society.
2) How long before there are tools that can inject the proper (expected) statistical characteristics into a faked image?
There is one, it is called photoshop.
From all of this I have read, here are the steps to fool this process.
1-Manipulate image, smooth any areas with disparaging noise
2-New layer, set layer to overlay fill with 50% grey.
3-Filter ->add noise (pixel ratio based on image resoltuion)
3-Filter->Gaussian Blur (usually.2-.7 pixels)
4-Curves endpoints in 10% top and bottom
5-Filter->noise half what you did before
6-Filter G. Blur again
This should give you a realistic looking film grain (settings vary based on image resolution) with practice you can match a film grain from a supplied image. By creating it on a layer, you can then brush it in on your comped image to family the various bits together, and as it adds some irregularities that appear random, it would probably fool the software
What no one seems to have mentioned though, is most fakes are spotted immediately do to light and shadow error.
The short answer is dot structure. All printers, (excepting Dye Sub) use some form of sparying of ink, or layering of screened images(halftone dots) Fancier does not necessarily mean smaller dots, it usually means more calibrateable and more consistent color. What you need is a film recorder, which will transfer your image to a negative or a slide, and currently, there are no digital cameras that will record an image at a high enough resolution for this to be flawless (about 40-100 pixels per millimeter), so you must start with a film camera and scan the image in at a high enough resolution. The typical rule of thumb for this kind of work would be one size up from what your end result would be. So if I wanted to create a faked 35mm slide, I would start by taking pictures with a 4x5" film camera scan and use that.
But yes, your point is sound. Technology will not fill the analog hole. Even in "digital" photography.
Different digital cameras capture RGB information differently, so, even though on your screen you could be looking at something that appears visually similar, the balance of the Red Green and Blue Channels would actually be different, especially noticeable in the dark areas.
Another is film grain, not as prevalent in digital cameras, however, with film cameras, grain is varied based on film speed, manufacturer, light level, and other situation. When you comp together images from a variety of sources, one of the first things you do is equalize the grain, so that you do not get this dispariging result across the image.
I already said this in a previous response, but, from the article, this appears something to catch the talented amateurs, and not someone who really knows what they are doing.
I take high resolution TIFF images and "muck with them" every day. Every ad you have ever seen has been digitally manipulated, every video image you have seen. If I am supplied with two good source images, I can create an image that would pass just about any inspection. There are many tricks to get the "irregularities" into (and most times out of) an image. If I wanted to create a fake image, I would do multiple techniques, then "print" the image out to a transparency (slide), or a negative, and have a print made, then scan the print. How would that go through this guy's algorithim?
To me this strikes me as the same sort of "solution" as DRM is, sure it stops Joe Six-Pack from putting Britney Spears' head onto a porn stars body, but it will not stop anyone who knows what they are doing when it comes to digital image manipulation.
This is what the company I work for charges for my work, in that same amount of time, I only earn about 20% of that, the rest of it goes towards the building, the utilities (infrastructure in general), to the IT guy who does no billable work, company taxes, company insurance, my (and co-workers) health insurance, office supplies, and lunch twice a week.
Although, technicly, I probably earn 30-40% of that, as I will only end up actually working 4-6 hours out of the 8 hour day I get paid for. It is a business of intense deadline driven work, then sit around on the internet waiting for the next deadline.
Who knows what it will be like 10 years down the road, but I think the main reason is that it used to be the only reasonable choice. Back when I got into the "creative professional" business in the early ninety's, you had two choices, Mac, or a proprietary system from Scitex, SGI, etc. As the Mac improved the proprietary stuff faded away. I used to retouch on a $150,000 Scitex workstation, the computer was the desk. Now I do it on a $3,500 G5. I have used PC's at various freelance positions, and they work fine. However, I am more comfortable on the Mac from sheer time put in. Furthermore, this is self perpetuating. When we hire new people here, they learn how to do the work on a Mac, and keep doing the work on a Mac, even the "PC people". They are also used in the majority of advertising agency's, as well as taught in most of the commercial arts schools. So, while I do agree there is very little difference in the end result. I keep working on a Mac because there is no advantage for me to work on a PC. Especially since the cost difference at the level of machines we use is less than $500 (goes back and forth as to which is cheaper). $500 is 2 hours of billable work.
My apologies, my initial message was not meant as a troll
No worries, didn't take it that way. I refuse to start assuming that because some one does not know something they are a troll, just figured I would answer your complaints.
do want to use it with other software, primarily Linux software.
Not sure about that, but I would give a shot to the manual manage function, if you have not already.
I had been trying to right-click on the playlist area to add a new playlist and was annoyed that it did not work.
That would make sense though wouldn't it? On a side note, under the file menu is "Make new playlist from selection" (Ctrl-Shift-N) which is a really nice handy feature, which also seems to be lacking from the song contextual menu.
Are you really saying that iTunes continues to be responsive for you during this time? I just checked that I really am using iTunes 4.6 and not some early beta version.
I just tried it, and it worked fine, but, I did not have a large amount of data to sync. But, my experience is irrelevant, how it is working for you is what matters, try apples support docs, they have some answers to some pretty esoteric questions and situations in them.
For example, if I receive e-mail that contains at least one e-mail address containing mycompany.com, then I want the mailer, upon selecting Reply, to auto-set the From header to my work e-mail address rather than my home e-mail address.
I use PowerMail on OSX, and it allows a filter to be set up with the following rules.
FROM contains XYZCOMPANY.COM then SET ACCOUNT to XYZCOMPANY.COM
As the program automatically responds using the designated accounts e-mail address, that should work.
Oh, and it has to be able to support IMAP over SSL and SMTP AUTH too.
iTunes doesn't use the right mouse button, a serious problem for a Windows app.
What iTunes are you using? If I right click on a song I get a list of options relating to that song, if I right click on a playlist I get a list of options for that play list.
iTunes requires you use the menu to perform simple tasks like adding a new playlist (or at least, I could find no way around that).
Um, hit Ctrl-N or use your mouse to hit the little plus button at the lower left hand corner.
It also wouldn't work with my iPod until I allowed it to delete every song on my iPod, a horrible design decision that I believe was made for political reasons.
Yeah, but no. Your iPod is attached to one music library for automatic updates and syncing. However, if you want to use your iPod on multiple computers, you must do a manual update. See this Apple support doc. titled Using iPod with two different computers.
As for your unresponsiveness, I dunno, I am running iTunes on an old 1.5ghz dell something or other, that runs it just fine, with a Library of about 15,000 songs and thirty or so playlists. I even had no troubles importing my library and playlists from my mac. (Import Ctr-Shift-O)
2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following "(b)(1)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution. The transfer of possession of a lawfully made copy of a computer program by a nonprofit educational institution to another nonprofit educational institution or to faculty, staff, and students does not constitute rental, lease, or lending for direct or indirect commercial purposes under this subsection.
I can go rent a computer, I can go rent a car, apparently I can't rent software (or a musical work for that matter). As I and others have mentioned, some companies will allow you trial versions, in most cases, the most important bits of these are missing. So, yes, I steal the software. I also pay for a lot of software. I am afraid to add up how much money I have given to Adobe over the years, but, on the other hand, Adobe allows me to make a living.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, unfortunately, I have also seen a decline in the quality of photography from people we have worked with before in film. I give these peole more benefit of the doubt as, I know they can produce better work, I am just assuming that they are new to the digital medium. Still frustrating though.
Meanwhile, I just want a CCD with enough real eastate that I can not only really piss off, but actually cause a purist to break down in tears by saving to JPEG ;-)
well, JPEG doesn't scare me. As long as it is only used once. After much testing, you can't see the difference in print of a high resolution eps file and a high resolution jpg (med. high and up quality). The problem comes from people that open their jpeg, work the file, then save it as a jpeg again. Changes how the file is compressed, and looks like poo poo(technical term).
He was referring to two seperate things. The area is only relevant in that it gives you an indication of what the file size will be. dpi or ppi (same thing dots or pixels, dot's is a carry over from screen printing) is the indicator of how much information is in a particular amount of space, and his 19 square inches is an attempt to give an idea of area, so the total number of pixels is 2400 (dpi hz) x 2400 (dpi vrt) = 5760000 pixels per square inch. Which is a useless number, because you now need to multiply that number by 19, and now you have the somewhat useless fact that there is 109440000 pixels in a 4x5 transparency, whoops, forgot to multiply that number by 3 (Red Green Blue channels), 328320000.
Anyways, all of that is rediculously cumbersome, so, we have the tendancy to report the size, ppi, and color depth (RGB, CMYK, LaB) which let's you know after some time in the industry, aproximately how big a file will be in megabytes.
Aside from that, I think people spend too much time worrying about resolution and not enough about bit depth.
Mostly that is because most people who are dealing with this stuff are outputting to print. Followed by movies. Followed by (a ditant third) photographers (think art not commercial). And they are mostly concerned with reproducing the color spaces that they deal with.
Here is a color space chart that shows the box within a box within a box that is human created color in relation to visible light.
Personally, I'd much rather look at projected slides than print.
Me too, but it is a pain in the ass to distrubute the slide projectors to all those house wives with their copies of Vanity Faire.
I spend all day retouching photo's from these photographers. At this point I am of two minds over this. On one hand I like the fact that digital photos end up needing more work done to them than from a transparency. (People really miss film grain, and the colors are always not what the photographer expects). Every 6-8 months we start getting larger files, but not any better quality wise.
On the other hand, since digital photography has gotten so wide spread I am seeing much more "bad" photography. The lighting sucks and you can tell the ad agency went with some cut rate photgrapher who doesn't understand the concept of an F stop. While this also means more work for me, it is really frustrating to fix the same damn thing again and again because the photographer doesn't understand the concept of his chosen profession. But hey, he can take 500 shots to get that one image his client actually likes.
bah
At least be fair to both companies. Both AAC and WMA can be created without DRM. It is only when you purchase songs that they have the DRM wrappers.
Not sure about the WMA, but I know that you can't actually add Fairplay DRM to your own rips of AAC
I would agree with this on the surface...at least for things like National Security Issues, Trade Secrets and other things that do not belong in the public domain. But two things come to mind.
One: This is now a public issue, it has been brought into the courts. There is nothing going on here that should not be in the light of day if someone wants to wade through all the court docs.
Two: At what point does the line get drawn between public disclosure? Some things are obvious. How to make a hydrogen bomb, nope, shouldn't come out even if it is part of court documents. But where does the line end?
Is SCO using the thinking (right or wrong) that this is their proprietary information, therefore the public has no right to it? Wouldn't it be no less proprietary if we could all see it? If they win (blech) then it doesn't matter, we still can't "use" it. If they lose, then well, we can and it doesn't matter either.
Or, are they just using court procedure to hide from the public(media) that their case is weak/strong?
More oftne than not though, this is not out of the knife making industry's fault as a whole, it is the knife owners inability to justify spending the money for a "good" knife. The same could be said for a hammer, I had an ex-gf who routinely used a high heel shoe to hammer in nails for picture frames. When asked why she did not just buy a hammer, the response was, "this works why should I spend the money?". I had no response to that, I mean, ti's not like she was building something structural, her only use was hanging up pictures, so she did not need a real hammer (her logic not mine) If the simplest artifacts still have such problems after thousands of years of refinement, what can we reasonably expect from the newest and most complex artifacts ever created?
I would say that the "simplest artifacts" are about as refined as they are going to get. Hammer, lever (crowbar), wheel, pulley, ramp, etc. What changes in these is usually just materials science. A hammer made out of pig iron will hammer a nail as well, if not better in some ways than some exotic blended iron. However it will not be as light or easy to use as the new one. The task at hand though, placing a nail into wood, is accomplished the same.
Computers on the other hand are so new as to be laughable from a "devlopment" standpoint. Many people are still trying to figure out WHAT to do with computers, let alone HOW to do it. So, simplicity becomes more important. Which leads back around to good UI. Computers allow you to "do" jusst about anything, as long as that anything is digitaly controlled. ie: I can design a hammer on my computer, but I will need more equipment to get my computer to use the hammer it has designed. For instance, my mom uses her computer for e-mail, the web, writing physical letters, and storing her digital photos. That's it. I set her up with a powerbook, and that is STILL overwhelming to her. I however, do lot's of graphics work, and am constenly looking for ways to automate and tweak the interface to my tastes. Yet we are both using the exact same tool (in this case a mac).
It is extremely daunting for someone as un-experienced as my mother is to wade through menus and preferences and what-not's just to deal with writing a letter. I don't see a time far off when the same software will come with multiple interfaces. Easy and Experienced. Because if something as simple as iTunes is intimidating to her, then nothing yet has been simple enough for the super newbie to really get.
That's fine, I feel that this is about the same as people who never saw Star Wars "when it came out". Same general Idea. It was New and ground breaking, and it paved the way for many other things, most worse, but many better. But coming at it years later with no relationship to the times it was released, it comes across as flat, and "unimpressive". Re-reading watchmen recently I felt, that compared to many other graphic novels I have read recently it was a little slow and stale, but still enjoyed it. However, I have defintely read more relevant stories since then.
PS My favorite "if super heros were real" series would be Marvels
Now if apple had found a way to create a menu bar at the top of the screen that was only there for iTunes, that would be definitely breaking the Windows UI standards, and if iTunes didn't quit when you closed it's main window, that too would be breaking the UI. Instead, people feel they should be criticised for not using that Windows skin? I am not sure about the windows version of iTunes but ResExcellence has a whole section on iTunes skinning (not supported in the least by apple). So, my response to any Windows user who doesn't like the Aqua/Brushed Metal look, would be to figure out how to change it.
If you wanted one basic app do do all of the above list you would want iTunes. You != Everyone, in particular Everyone != tech savvy.
The import process is a pain in the behind
You put in a CD and push the button on the top right hand side that says import. Or, if you are particularly lazy, you set the preference that says "import songs on CD insertion". How is this a pain in the behind?
It's a bit of a resource hog
Does it hog more resources than EAC, Nero, and JRMC all running at once? Genuinely curious.
and the interface is nicely non-standard
Or if you wanted too look at it differently, Windows interface is non-standard. As many other comments have pointed out, this is an Apple product ported to Windows made to function as closely as possible to OSX, so, the interface is actually pretty close to "standard" to OSX.
1.Start by sending Linux CD's to friends and family.
2.Branch out to your whole town
3.Now county level, then state, etc
4.????
5. pro^H^H^H declarw bankruptcy
Okay, so maybe a few bugs to work out, but still, Rock On! great Idea
Oh, and I would use Red Hat, so maybe you could get sued for some free publicity.
There seems to be a certain class of Windows users who feel the need to belittle the other choices.
Oh wait, Mac and Linux users have those folks as well. Oh well, I guess partisian-ship isn't just for politics.
Next year, some new insanely cool item will come out. Just renember that an ipod deferred will buy you 2 ipods next year.
Just waving my hands here, but wouldn't you only be able to buy 1.2 iPod's next year? Or, I guess, if you saved up and bought the top o the line (tm) you could then buy 100 songs from the apple store. And still have 39.5gb free to do with what you will.
For what my anecdotal evidence is worth. My Replay TV still skips commercials, and that's the only reason I keep it. Compared to TiVo, the interface bites, and it comes across as stupid. My biggest complaint, it can't seem to follow a TV show consistently if it changes broadcast time.
Unfortunately, I think soon as Jon Stewart starts presenting himself as too serious, then he will not be able to get the guests he does, nor be able to act the way he does on show from too much outside pressure. He is walking a fine line between popularity with the rest of us for pointing out abusrdities in what he sees, and still getting the access he does to people like John Kerry, Rudy Gulliani, etc.
He can only be so hard hitting, before all of a sudden he is a Gary Treudeau, and respected by people who read him, as well as critically, but, will have no access to the people he is discussing.
As a Libertarian I don't think I can agree with this. Lately the Republican party does not speak to the issues I care about, mostly being smaller government, and more self determination.
I think, unfortunately, who the republicans are listening to these days is the "Moral Majority" or the "Religious Right", depending on who is describing them.
There is all too much of both parties telling me what is right for My Own Good as opposed to just governing our society.
There is one, it is called photoshop.
From all of this I have read, here are the steps to fool this process.
1-Manipulate image, smooth any areas with disparaging noise 2-New layer, set layer to overlay fill with 50% grey. .2-.7 pixels)
3-Filter ->add noise (pixel ratio based on image resoltuion)
3-Filter->Gaussian Blur (usually
4-Curves endpoints in 10% top and bottom
5-Filter->noise half what you did before
6-Filter G. Blur again
This should give you a realistic looking film grain (settings vary based on image resolution) with practice you can match a film grain from a supplied image. By creating it on a layer, you can then brush it in on your comped image to family the various bits together, and as it adds some irregularities that appear random, it would probably fool the software
What no one seems to have mentioned though, is most fakes are spotted immediately do to light and shadow error.
The short answer is dot structure. All printers, (excepting Dye Sub) use some form of sparying of ink, or layering of screened images(halftone dots) Fancier does not necessarily mean smaller dots, it usually means more calibrateable and more consistent color. What you need is a film recorder, which will transfer your image to a negative or a slide, and currently, there are no digital cameras that will record an image at a high enough resolution for this to be flawless (about 40-100 pixels per millimeter), so you must start with a film camera and scan the image in at a high enough resolution. The typical rule of thumb for this kind of work would be one size up from what your end result would be. So if I wanted to create a faked 35mm slide, I would start by taking pictures with a 4x5" film camera scan and use that.
But yes, your point is sound. Technology will not fill the analog hole. Even in "digital" photography.
Another is film grain, not as prevalent in digital cameras, however, with film cameras, grain is varied based on film speed, manufacturer, light level, and other situation. When you comp together images from a variety of sources, one of the first things you do is equalize the grain, so that you do not get this dispariging result across the image.
I already said this in a previous response, but, from the article, this appears something to catch the talented amateurs, and not someone who really knows what they are doing.
To me this strikes me as the same sort of "solution" as DRM is, sure it stops Joe Six-Pack from putting Britney Spears' head onto a porn stars body, but it will not stop anyone who knows what they are doing when it comes to digital image manipulation.
This is what the company I work for charges for my work, in that same amount of time, I only earn about 20% of that, the rest of it goes towards the building, the utilities (infrastructure in general), to the IT guy who does no billable work, company taxes, company insurance, my (and co-workers) health insurance, office supplies, and lunch twice a week.
Although, technicly, I probably earn 30-40% of that, as I will only end up actually working 4-6 hours out of the 8 hour day I get paid for. It is a business of intense deadline driven work, then sit around on the internet waiting for the next deadline.
Who knows what it will be like 10 years down the road, but I think the main reason is that it used to be the only reasonable choice. Back when I got into the "creative professional" business in the early ninety's, you had two choices, Mac, or a proprietary system from Scitex, SGI, etc. As the Mac improved the proprietary stuff faded away. I used to retouch on a $150,000 Scitex workstation, the computer was the desk. Now I do it on a $3,500 G5. I have used PC's at various freelance positions, and they work fine. However, I am more comfortable on the Mac from sheer time put in. Furthermore, this is self perpetuating. When we hire new people here, they learn how to do the work on a Mac, and keep doing the work on a Mac, even the "PC people". They are also used in the majority of advertising agency's, as well as taught in most of the commercial arts schools. So, while I do agree there is very little difference in the end result. I keep working on a Mac because there is no advantage for me to work on a PC. Especially since the cost difference at the level of machines we use is less than $500 (goes back and forth as to which is cheaper). $500 is 2 hours of billable work.
No worries, didn't take it that way. I refuse to start assuming that because some one does not know something they are a troll, just figured I would answer your complaints.
do want to use it with other software, primarily Linux software.
Not sure about that, but I would give a shot to the manual manage function, if you have not already.
I had been trying to right-click on the playlist area to add a new playlist and was annoyed that it did not work.
That would make sense though wouldn't it? On a side note, under the file menu is "Make new playlist from selection" (Ctrl-Shift-N) which is a really nice handy feature, which also seems to be lacking from the song contextual menu.
Are you really saying that iTunes continues to be responsive for you during this time? I just checked that I really am using iTunes 4.6 and not some early beta version.
I just tried it, and it worked fine, but, I did not have a large amount of data to sync. But, my experience is irrelevant, how it is working for you is what matters, try apples support docs, they have some answers to some pretty esoteric questions and situations in them.
I use PowerMail on OSX, and it allows a filter to be set up with the following rules.
FROM contains XYZCOMPANY.COM then SET ACCOUNT to XYZCOMPANY.COM
As the program automatically responds using the designated accounts e-mail address, that should work.
Oh, and it has to be able to support IMAP over SSL and SMTP AUTH too.
Yes, it does.
What iTunes are you using? If I right click on a song I get a list of options relating to that song, if I right click on a playlist I get a list of options for that play list.
iTunes requires you use the menu to perform simple tasks like adding a new playlist (or at least, I could find no way around that).
Um, hit Ctrl-N or use your mouse to hit the little plus button at the lower left hand corner.
It also wouldn't work with my iPod until I allowed it to delete every song on my iPod, a horrible design decision that I believe was made for political reasons.
Yeah, but no. Your iPod is attached to one music library for automatic updates and syncing. However, if you want to use your iPod on multiple computers, you must do a manual update. See this Apple support doc. titled Using iPod with two different computers.
As for your unresponsiveness, I dunno, I am running iTunes on an old 1.5ghz dell something or other, that runs it just fine, with a Library of about 15,000 songs and thirty or so playlists. I even had no troubles importing my library and playlists from my mac. (Import Ctr-Shift-O)
Yes, yes I do. If I want to "try out" a physical object I can rent one. Point me towards some where I can rent some software. Ooops, wait, not legal.
Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 (can't find anything newer on this)
I can go rent a computer, I can go rent a car, apparently I can't rent software (or a musical work for that matter). As I and others have mentioned, some companies will allow you trial versions, in most cases, the most important bits of these are missing. So, yes, I steal the software. I also pay for a lot of software. I am afraid to add up how much money I have given to Adobe over the years, but, on the other hand, Adobe allows me to make a living.