From what I can tell, the spider bite just got him into the hospital, and in contact with the right kind of doctor and rehab that got him walking again.
TFA says he was in therapy, er a rehabilitation hospital, for 5 months. If it was a rehabilitation hospital I'm imagine they'd know what type of therapy he needed.
I've tried to use that for certain obnoxious websites (doubleclick, esomniture, etc.), but I'm running a webserver, which just causes weird behavior and long page-load times. How do I use a hosts file in this case?
I've never setup a webserver and don't know what's going on. I'd think hosts files would only affect the computer it's on.
I went that way, basically have a collection of primes. 30mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm(macro), 200mm(L). Don't have the 135mm(L), but that's next on my list. All but the 30mm are EF; the 30mm would have to be replaced if I go FF.
All of these are low light capable; the least among them (100mm, 200mm) are f/2.8, the rest either f/1.4 or f/1.8. That 135mm(L) I want is f/2.
The only fast or low light lens I have, for now I hope, is my telescope. Unfortunately I'll probably have to drive a couple of hundred miles to get where I can use it for astrophotography. I can use it though as a spotting scope.
The two downsides to all this are the heavy camera bag and the need to swap
This is why I'd rather get a fullframe Canon camera body, so I can use the same lenses with both bodies and get similar exposures.
As for the economy... not a good time to be starting most businesses... I think its much, much worse than the media or the politicos are admitting.
I don't expect the economy to hit the bottom before the fall, 2009. However if I do start a photography business I have one advantage other's don't have. I'm on disability and don't work, so I have tyme and an income.
Um, if 1.6% or more of all CS people are unemployed, I think it's weird to say that's "beyond full employment." How is it that you can even be beyond full employment? Weird! LOL
In economics full employment is defined as an unemployment rate of between 2 and 7%.
First, large format sensors are quite a bit more expensive....Second, I have a lot of hardware invested in smaller sensor sizes. I have a few full-frame lenses, but most of my lenses were bought for then-standard small format sensors.
Yea, fullframe sensors are more expensive. But if you're like me and only have lenses for 35mm film SLRs you get similar exposures using film and fullframe digital SLRs.
For me, the switch to full-frame would require investment in a more expensive body, as well as replacing a number of my favorite lenses, some of which have no equivalent in the full-frame world.
You don't have fisheye or other wide angle lenses do you? The smaller sensors on most DSLRs turn those wide angle lenses to normal lenses. If you still want wide angle you have to spend more for digital equivalents. Owning a number of lenses, it would be cheaper to get a fullframe sensor camera than replacing all your lenses, with prime lenses it would be even more expensive. If I had a fullframe Canon EOS 5D Mark II I could use the same lenses I'd use with my film based EOS with the 5D and get similar exposures.
when I bought most of my lenses, I did so with the belief that I'd have them for the rest of my life.
Same here but if I got a DSLR that wasn't fullframe I'd have to replace my lenses. And when I went out into the field I'd have to carry twice as much equipment. Yes, twice as much. I'll still shoot film even when I get a DSLR. I'll shoot it as long as film, chemicals, and the equipment is available at a reasonable price. Now the equipment lasts for years and so doesn't need to be replace often. And for developing film and making prints there are alternative processes. For instance orange juice can be used as a developer. There's a book I wish I had on alternative processing by a University of Chicago professor.
it's not fair for aggressive porn advertisers to splash sex in her face without her permission. My question is: What Linux-based Internet filtering solution do Slashdot dads favor
Instead of using a filter maybe a hosts file would work better for you. Google has a number of results where you can download one. Basically what they are are files with URLs and IP addresses that are directed to the local host. If you try to go to pornadvertizing.com it will look for it on your computer. It's easy to add and remove websites from the file, to add a website just add "127.0.0.1 pornadvertizing.com" to the file on a new line. If I recall right, to use one on Linux just put the hosts file in the etc directory. I know that's where I put it in OS X.
There's one thing I don't get, and it's why does there have to be the SLR part? I pretty much started with digital and prefer the LCD to the viewfinder.
I want to capture what I see otherwise I'd use a Twin-lens reflex camera. I care about it because I don't know how to deal with parallax.
I don't think I even understand the point of a DSLR. I understand the point for a film camera, but for a digital one it seems unnecessarily complex.
I don't have, and haven't used, a DSLR but they shouldn't be any more complicated than a film SLR. Of course exposing is a bit different. Otherwise the points for DSLRs are the same for film SLRs.
The "megapixel wars" have ceased a long, long time ago in most of photography-related forums.
Ask someone who has a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, with a 21.1 MP sensor, if they feel the same. One photographer on Photo.net says "The 5D2 is truly a remarkable camera...." Personally I don't particularly care about it's HD video capabilities. Others like the Sony Alpha A900 with a 24MP sensor.
Except for professionals, 10MP and more is something like audiophily. And definitely an overkill for a pocket camera, where you are much more likely to hit the resolution boundary of the optical system itself
First, as someone already pointed out, the executive quoted is Akira Watanabe, head of Olympus' SLR planning department and SLRs are not pocket cameras. He could be saying that the Megapixel war is over because Olympus doesn't want to compeat with Canon, Nikon, and Sony. Now as for glass of the optics, you're right the glass can be toe limiting factor. If you have poor glass it does not matter how many MPs you have.
Yes, I agree. In fact, the real point of diminishing returns is 6 MP.
See what you can do with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II or a 40MP digital back for a medium format camera and see if your opinion won't change. A 60 MP digital back can do much more than a 6 MP point and shoot, and less.
I frequently set my 12 MP camera at 6 for snapshots.
I don't have a digital camera but I'd like to get the Canon above, which has a 21.1 MP sensor. Shooting it I'd save files as both raw and jpeg. For now though I'm stuck shooting film then scanning it.
If not for the fact that I want to be able to use the same lenses for my Canon film camera and a DSLR when I get one I might get a Nikon. That brings up something a lot of people don't know, even here on/. I've only seen a few people mention that good quality glass costs more than the camera body. That's why I get zoom instead of prime lenses. Now if and when I start making money from photography, I want to start a photography business but I don't think it's a good idea in the current economy, I may build a collection of prime lenses.
Come on Pentax, Mamaiya, Rollie or somebody, please release an affordable digital medium format camera!
Get a medium format camera with a film back then scan your film. Then if you want one later you can get a digital back That's what I'm planning, if I get a medium format camera. Though I'll thought it would be nice to get a Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID when I do get a medium format it will probably be a used camera.
While a professional can carry a big zoom lens and typically can spend some time thinking about a shot, a non-pro will just point, shoot, and move on.
It depends on the photographer and subject matter. Some pro photographers will not use zoom lenses, they'll only use primes because of their better optical quality. All I use are zooms, however if I could afford it I'd use primes as well. Now I'd like to get a medium format camera and if so I expect to get prime lenses for it.
I haven't done any astrophotography for over a decade.
Though I don't shoot much any more, and astrophotography never, I do like shooting low light and would like to try astrophotography. When I saw the telescope in a camera shop at half price I jumped on it. I guess I'll get more use of it as a spotting scope than as a telescope though.
The issues are not so big with that - because you can make long exposures - you don't have to capture action (provided you have a tracking system, or want the stars to become lines).
I want to do some of both, track stars and planets for sharp closeups and have the camera fixed for star trails. The telescope came with tracking software and computer controller.
Usually you would use a slow film for astrophotography, to capture the detail.
What I'd probably do is start with an ISO of 400 then go to 200 and 800 to evaluate how it comes out. I'll want to make large prints, maybe poster sized.
they are focusing on things like dynamic range, noise reduction and color accuracy to produce results that will have a noticeable impact on the end result.
If they are more concerned about colour accuracy then I think they need to switch from CCD sensors to CMOS sensors like Foveon's X3 and capture red, green, and blue at each photosite instead of interpolating what the colour's supposed to be. I'd love for Canon to use a fullframe sensor like it, preferably with at least 16 bit colour.
Sensor density will increase; but it'll probably be at the high end pro level where you see increased density simply because off their needs and willingness to pay a premium for the sensor quality needed to give the desired results.
I'd like to get into that market and make larger posters and fine art prints. As it is now though all I have is a film SLR, what I can do is scan the film and use up ressoftware, like Genuine Fractals or Extensis.
Honestly, having some acquaintance with Sony optics, half of their current lenses can't begin to resolve that kind of detail.
Zoom or prime lenses? At any given focal length prime lenses resolve more details than zooms. Of course all of my lenses except one are zooms. The one lens that isn't is a telescope.
In order to get more pixels from this point onwards, I think we're going to see folks using full frame cameras, or even medium format.
So far I don't have a DSLR, just a film SLR. But I'd like to get Canon's EOS 5D Mark II as well as a 645 medium format camera. I've looked at what Mamiya has, but I think I'll get a used camera.
Even the high-end SLR lenses from Canon and Nikon don't have the autofocus accuracy or resolving power to get per-pixel sharpness on dense sensors.
Then use manual focus. I rarely use my camera's autofocus.
Slight camera shake (even with stabilization) translates to slight blur.
Then use a tripod and shutter release cable or remote release switch. That's what those who do light painting do. Hopefully in a couple of months or so I'll find out how it works for me, a few months ago I bought a new telescope and the T-ring and mount I need to mount my camera on it. I just need to find a place where I can shoot the stars, away from the light pollution.
Bottom line - if you shoot a lot in low light, you want digital. Film is a nightmare to work with in such situations.
Have you shot much in low light? I have though not lately. And I recently got a new telescope and the mount and T-ring for my film camera, I want to try astrophotography. The problem I have is that I live in a big city and I may have to drive a couple of hundred miles or more to find a place I can shoot.
I'm not sure if I'd buy to go past 15 mp... I've got some good lenses, and 15 mp is really quite a challenge to use well.
I'd like to get, though I doubt I will, the Canon EOS 5D Mark II with a full frame 21.1 MP sensor. Eventually I's also like to get a medium format camera, say a Mamiya 645.
Slashdot Mirror
That story is the BS. Writer rambles on without providing scientific/medical evidence it couldn't have happened.
Notice I didn't say the spider did cure him only that the writer of the retort says reporters told a stupid story but he provides no evidence.
Falcon
What you posted even said there were a handful of specimens collected in CA. If none were there none would be collected there.
Falcon
It was a man who was driving and hit me leaving me with a disability.
Falcon
From what I can tell, the spider bite just got him into the hospital, and in contact with the right kind of doctor and rehab that got him walking again.
TFA says he was in therapy, er a rehabilitation hospital, for 5 months. If it was a rehabilitation hospital I'm imagine they'd know what type of therapy he needed.
Falcon
I've tried to use that for certain obnoxious websites (doubleclick, esomniture, etc.), but I'm running a webserver, which just causes weird behavior and long page-load times. How do I use a hosts file in this case?
I've never setup a webserver and don't know what's going on. I'd think hosts files would only affect the computer it's on.
Falcon
I went that way, basically have a collection of primes. 30mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm(macro), 200mm(L). Don't have the 135mm(L), but that's next on my list. All but the 30mm are EF; the 30mm would have to be replaced if I go FF.
All of these are low light capable; the least among them (100mm, 200mm) are f/2.8, the rest either f/1.4 or f/1.8. That 135mm(L) I want is f/2.
The only fast or low light lens I have, for now I hope, is my telescope. Unfortunately I'll probably have to drive a couple of hundred miles to get where I can use it for astrophotography. I can use it though as a spotting scope.
The two downsides to all this are the heavy camera bag and the need to swap
This is why I'd rather get a fullframe Canon camera body, so I can use the same lenses with both bodies and get similar exposures.
As for the economy... not a good time to be starting most businesses... I think its much, much worse than the media or the politicos are admitting.
I don't expect the economy to hit the bottom before the fall, 2009. However if I do start a photography business I have one advantage other's don't have. I'm on disability and don't work, so I have tyme and an income.
Falcon
Um, if 1.6% or more of all CS people are unemployed, I think it's weird to say that's "beyond full employment." How is it that you can even be beyond full employment? Weird! LOL
In economics full employment is defined as an unemployment rate of between 2 and 7%.
Falcon
First, large format sensors are quite a bit more expensive....Second, I have a lot of hardware invested in smaller sensor sizes. I have a few full-frame lenses, but most of my lenses were bought for then-standard small format sensors.
Yea, fullframe sensors are more expensive. But if you're like me and only have lenses for 35mm film SLRs you get similar exposures using film and fullframe digital SLRs.
For me, the switch to full-frame would require investment in a more expensive body, as well as replacing a number of my favorite lenses, some of which have no equivalent in the full-frame world.
You don't have fisheye or other wide angle lenses do you? The smaller sensors on most DSLRs turn those wide angle lenses to normal lenses. If you still want wide angle you have to spend more for digital equivalents. Owning a number of lenses, it would be cheaper to get a fullframe sensor camera than replacing all your lenses, with prime lenses it would be even more expensive. If I had a fullframe Canon EOS 5D Mark II I could use the same lenses I'd use with my film based EOS with the 5D and get similar exposures.
when I bought most of my lenses, I did so with the belief that I'd have them for the rest of my life.
Same here but if I got a DSLR that wasn't fullframe I'd have to replace my lenses. And when I went out into the field I'd have to carry twice as much equipment. Yes, twice as much. I'll still shoot film even when I get a DSLR. I'll shoot it as long as film, chemicals, and the equipment is available at a reasonable price. Now the equipment lasts for years and so doesn't need to be replace often. And for developing film and making prints there are alternative processes. For instance orange juice can be used as a developer. There's a book I wish I had on alternative processing by a University of Chicago professor.
Falcon
it's not fair for aggressive porn advertisers to splash sex in her face without her permission. My question is: What Linux-based Internet filtering solution do Slashdot dads favor
Instead of using a filter maybe a hosts file would work better for you. Google has a number of results where you can download one. Basically what they are are files with URLs and IP addresses that are directed to the local host. If you try to go to pornadvertizing.com it will look for it on your computer. It's easy to add and remove websites from the file, to add a website just add "127.0.0.1 pornadvertizing.com" to the file on a new line. If I recall right, to use one on Linux just put the hosts file in the etc directory. I know that's where I put it in OS X.
Falcon
There's one thing I don't get, and it's why does there have to be the SLR part? I pretty much started with digital and prefer the LCD to the viewfinder.
I want to capture what I see otherwise I'd use a Twin-lens reflex camera. I care about it because I don't know how to deal with parallax.
I don't think I even understand the point of a DSLR. I understand the point for a film camera, but for a digital one it seems unnecessarily complex.
I don't have, and haven't used, a DSLR but they shouldn't be any more complicated than a film SLR. Of course exposing is a bit different. Otherwise the points for DSLRs are the same for film SLRs.
Falcon
The "megapixel wars" have ceased a long, long time ago in most of photography-related forums.
Ask someone who has a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, with a 21.1 MP sensor, if they feel the same. One photographer on Photo.net says "The 5D2 is truly a remarkable camera...." Personally I don't particularly care about it's HD video capabilities. Others like the Sony Alpha A900 with a 24MP sensor.
Except for professionals, 10MP and more is something like audiophily. And definitely an overkill for a pocket camera, where you are much more likely to hit the resolution boundary of the optical system itself
First, as someone already pointed out, the executive quoted is Akira Watanabe, head of Olympus' SLR planning department and SLRs are not pocket cameras. He could be saying that the Megapixel war is over because Olympus doesn't want to compeat with Canon, Nikon, and Sony. Now as for glass of the optics, you're right the glass can be toe limiting factor. If you have poor glass it does not matter how many MPs you have.
Falcon
Very true... but bigger sensors also carry a heavy price premium. 50D street is about $1000; 5DmkII street is about $2700.
At $2700 the 5D Mark II does cost a bit, but it's only 1/3 the price of the 1Ds Mark II and III and way cheaper than a medium format digital back.
Falcon
Yes, I agree. In fact, the real point of diminishing returns is 6 MP.
See what you can do with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II or a 40MP digital back for a medium format camera and see if your opinion won't change. A 60 MP digital back can do much more than a 6 MP point and shoot, and less.
I frequently set my 12 MP camera at 6 for snapshots.
I don't have a digital camera but I'd like to get the Canon above, which has a 21.1 MP sensor. Shooting it I'd save files as both raw and jpeg. For now though I'm stuck shooting film then scanning it.
Falcon
If not for the fact that I want to be able to use the same lenses for my Canon film camera and a DSLR when I get one I might get a Nikon. That brings up something a lot of people don't know, even here on /. I've only seen a few people mention that good quality glass costs more than the camera body. That's why I get zoom instead of prime lenses. Now if and when I start making money from photography, I want to start a photography business but I don't think it's a good idea in the current economy, I may build a collection of prime lenses.
Falcon
Come on Pentax, Mamaiya, Rollie or somebody, please release an affordable digital medium format camera!
Get a medium format camera with a film back then scan your film. Then if you want one later you can get a digital back That's what I'm planning, if I get a medium format camera. Though I'll thought it would be nice to get a Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID when I do get a medium format it will probably be a used camera.
Falcon
While a professional can carry a big zoom lens and typically can spend some time thinking about a shot, a non-pro will just point, shoot, and move on.
It depends on the photographer and subject matter. Some pro photographers will not use zoom lenses, they'll only use primes because of their better optical quality. All I use are zooms, however if I could afford it I'd use primes as well. Now I'd like to get a medium format camera and if so I expect to get prime lenses for it.
Falcon
I haven't done any astrophotography for over a decade.
Though I don't shoot much any more, and astrophotography never, I do like shooting low light and would like to try astrophotography. When I saw the telescope in a camera shop at half price I jumped on it. I guess I'll get more use of it as a spotting scope than as a telescope though.
The issues are not so big with that - because you can make long exposures - you don't have to capture action (provided you have a tracking system, or want the stars to become lines).
I want to do some of both, track stars and planets for sharp closeups and have the camera fixed for star trails. The telescope came with tracking software and computer controller.
Usually you would use a slow film for astrophotography, to capture the detail.
What I'd probably do is start with an ISO of 400 then go to 200 and 800 to evaluate how it comes out. I'll want to make large prints, maybe poster sized.
Falcon
they are focusing on things like dynamic range, noise reduction and color accuracy to produce results that will have a noticeable impact on the end result.
If they are more concerned about colour accuracy then I think they need to switch from CCD sensors to CMOS sensors like Foveon's X3 and capture red, green, and blue at each photosite instead of interpolating what the colour's supposed to be. I'd love for Canon to use a fullframe sensor like it, preferably with at least 16 bit colour.
Sensor density will increase; but it'll probably be at the high end pro level where you see increased density simply because off their needs and willingness to pay a premium for the sensor quality needed to give the desired results.
I'd like to get into that market and make larger posters and fine art prints. As it is now though all I have is a film SLR, what I can do is scan the film and use up ressoftware, like Genuine Fractals or Extensis.
Falcon
Honestly, having some acquaintance with Sony optics, half of their current lenses can't begin to resolve that kind of detail.
Zoom or prime lenses? At any given focal length prime lenses resolve more details than zooms. Of course all of my lenses except one are zooms. The one lens that isn't is a telescope.
In order to get more pixels from this point onwards, I think we're going to see folks using full frame cameras, or even medium format.
So far I don't have a DSLR, just a film SLR. But I'd like to get Canon's EOS 5D Mark II as well as a 645 medium format camera. I've looked at what Mamiya has, but I think I'll get a used camera.
Falcon
Even the high-end SLR lenses from Canon and Nikon don't have the autofocus accuracy or resolving power to get per-pixel sharpness on dense sensors.
Then use manual focus. I rarely use my camera's autofocus.
Slight camera shake (even with stabilization) translates to slight blur.
Then use a tripod and shutter release cable or remote release switch. That's what those who do light painting do. Hopefully in a couple of months or so I'll find out how it works for me, a few months ago I bought a new telescope and the T-ring and mount I need to mount my camera on it. I just need to find a place where I can shoot the stars, away from the light pollution.
Falcon
To prove my point and provide another reference, the Mars rover captured images with a "gigantic" 1 megapixel sensor.
According to TFA the sensor is "a palm-sized 9-ounce marvel". Up to a point, I don't know what it is, larger photosites make for better photos.
Falcon
Bottom line - if you shoot a lot in low light, you want digital. Film is a nightmare to work with in such situations.
Have you shot much in low light? I have though not lately. And I recently got a new telescope and the mount and T-ring for my film camera, I want to try astrophotography. The problem I have is that I live in a big city and I may have to drive a couple of hundred miles or more to find a place I can shoot.
Falcon
Longing for the good old days of film is plain silliness.
You don't like the smell of a wet darkroom? It's been a long tyme since I have but I loved working in darkrooms. I'd like to set one up where I live.
Falcon
The flip side is that higher resolution means smaller sensels with lower sensitivity and higher noise.
Not if you also get a bigger sensor. Bigger sensors allow the photosites to be bigger which reduces noise.
Falcon
I'm not sure if I'd buy to go past 15 mp... I've got some good lenses, and 15 mp is really quite a challenge to use well.
I'd like to get, though I doubt I will, the Canon EOS 5D Mark II with a full frame 21.1 MP sensor. Eventually I's also like to get a medium format camera, say a Mamiya 645.
Falcon