I've looked at the Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID. I don't know about getting one though, it's a newer model. There's a photo shop close to me that sells used medium format cameras. When I last checked, they had some for less than $1000. That was with an SLR type eye piece and film back.
the digital backs for them are pretty pricey.
Yea, I see some for about $7,000. However I can start with film and scan it.
Unless you're suggesting that the government run all ISPs then the ISPs still have to make a profit.
You make a profit by offering something people are willing to pay for, not by sucking on the government's teat. If the broadband providers don't want to buildout broadband then they should return the government subsidies they were given to build it out.
No matter how much money gets poured into infrastructure it won't work because if there's no extra cost to more bandwidth people will just continue to use more.
Then broadband providers should not have sold unlimited plans. It's their own fault they offered it and people took up the offer.
I don't think the ISO is much usable above 1600 on this camera IIRC. 3200 is probably doable but you get lots of noise at high ISO.
On it's own the EOS 5D Mark II does an ISO of 3200 I think but there's an extension that takes it to 25,000. I've read a few reviews of it and they say it's pretty good. With the new Digic 4 processor it comes close to the EOS 1Ds Mark II, but it's not as rugged.
For what its worth, a usable 800 or 1600 gives a whole lot of options. I personally feel that night shots are better taken with long exposures, so speed starts to matter less, but for indoor shots at say some dark party or at concerts or whatnot you could probably do some cool stuff.
I haven't shot above 800 in years, if ever. Previously I preferred faster film, 50, 100, or 200. However a few months ago I got a new telescope and the mount and rings I need to mount my camera to it. I'd like to get into astrophotography and higher ISO film may be better. Unfortunately I live in a big city and I'll need to look for a good place to shoot. I can also use the telescope as a long focal length lens.
But seriously, perhaps you can ask one of them (you know so many, surely you'll be able to get in contact with one) what their reasoning is for shooting JPG because this simply doesn't make sense to me, and differs wildly from my own experience with other pro and semi pro photographers.
Shooting jpeg allows photographers to quickly submit a photo. Shooting both raw and jpeg allows them to send a preliminary photo to an editor or client then once back in the studio the raw file can be edited. Personally I'd like to be able to save in tiff as well.
Indeed, a larger sensor means a larger file (by a wide margin) when shooting RAW, and a lot of pros and semi pros are almost put off by larger sensors since these are slower to work with and of course eat more disk space (and pro and semi pro will only shoot RAW). Unlike computer enthusiasts, camera enthusiasts are not looking for an excuse to buy bigger hard drives and a faster computer; their normal hardware is expensive enough as it is.
Many pros want larger sensors, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for medium format and large format digital backs. And speed doesn't depend on sensor size so much as pixel count. Many pros also shoot both raw and jpeg, or tiff. Me, I'd like to get the 21.1 MP Canon EOS 5d Mark II and if I get one I'll save both jpeg and raw. Unfortunately it doesn't save in tiff otherwise I'd also use that format. I'd also like to get a medium format, perhaps a 645, with a film back to start with but eventually a digital back.
If an 8 megapixel camera is producing images four times as large as a 4 megapixel camera it must be using less effective compression.
That depends on colour bit depth. If the only thing that changes is the pixel count then moving from 4 MP to 8 MP doubles the file size. If however the colour depth is increased from 8 bit per channel to 12 bits per channel the file size will more than double. And some sensors increase colour depth as well as sensors.
Indeed. What I don't get is why modern cameras still make us chose between those two. Why do I have to have either lossy compression or a monster of a file that requires further processing?
Some people want a choice. Others, like me, want both raw and jpeg. Actually I want tiff as well. Recording 3 versions eats up space but allows quick edits and small prints, ie jpeg, as well as more in depth editing as well as larger prints, ie tiff and raw.
A 12 megapixel camera with good low-level-light capabilities may be more attractive to a consumer than a 21 megapixel camera with problems in that arena.
That DSRL camera with the 21 megapixel sensor can shoot at an ISO of 26,000. Film with an ISO of 800 is considered low light.
I don't think the megapixel wars are drawing to a close. People in the industry was saying that as far back as 2005, when 12 MP was "big". As you say Canon now sells the EOS 5D Mark II with 21.1 MP for $2700.
You may not like it and you are free to take your business elsewhere but it is not illegal for them to do so.
At most many people only have one choice for broadband, if they're lucky and live close enough they can get DSL and in other locations cable may be offered. Few people can choose between them. So the only choice is to put up with an aristocratic cableco or telco, or not have broadband. Now in a free market there would be more choices.
For clarification, the FCC's ruling was not that comcast could not throttle BitTorrent traffic, but the method they used (packet injection -- causing connections to drop/terminate) was unlawful.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't read the FCC's ruling, just the CNet article, which like a lot of/.'s articles, is mis-titled.
While YOU may want throttling to be illegal, it isn't.
No, I don't want throttling illegal. Or traffic shaping. What I want is the ISPs to hold up the way they billed their services. They sold unlimited access but now that they oversold the service they want to renege on it. I also want them to do what they were given taxpayer dollars to do, build out broadband. Telcos were given $200 billion to buildout broadband but all they did was use the money to pad their bottom line. I also want they to stop trying to block competition.
Lawsuit from what? Slowing down P2P traffic which is mostly illegal downloads anyways?
It does not matter how many people illegally download stuff, people also legally download massive amounts of data. Such as those who download Linux isos. When I signed the contract for my access there was no limits in it, only a part where it said they'd provide a speed of up to XXX. I don't download massive amounts of data with or without P2P but I did and I found out my ISP was throttling certain data streams, and it bothered me, I'd file a complaint with the FCC first then if it continued and had the money would at least talk to a lawyer. Though not a court case the FCC has already ruled Comcast throttling of BitTorrent was illegal.
The solution for better or for worse is for the US to implement download caps like the rest of the world. It'll be unpopular and it'll have disadvantages, but laying cable still costs money and the current all you can eat payment schemes just don't work.
No, the solution is for broadband providers to do what they've already gotten billions of taxpayer dollars to do but didn't, build out broadband. These companies are trying to double dip, first take taxpayer money then bill customers more.
Agree 100%. You're getting paid for this work. It doesn't matter how much you admire Casper the Friendly Geek, it's neither your right nor your job to contradict your boss's decisions. If your customers don't like the service, they'll find alternatives or drop his service, and then he'll either deal with the revenue loss or improve.
I disagree. If the customer's contract is for unlimited access then when it is limited a customer may slap a lawsuit on the company. The one who will be blamed is the sysadmin.
Make the business case for it. Feel free to refuse to do anything actually unethical or illegal that he asks you to do. This is neither, so suck it up.
Actually the person asking does not say whether service was sold as unlimited or not. If it was then it is a breach of contract as is illegal.
You can not maintain a reasonable oversell ratio unless you have low average usage.
The problem is that many cable ISP sold unlimited access and now their unhappy customers actually took them up on the offer. What I find really galling about it all was that the cable companies enjoy a monopoly and was given billions of taxpayer dollars to upgrade their net access but didn't.
I find it odd you didn't even mention the clean up procedure mentioned in the document you quotes.
Step 1: Evacuate the area....
Really, you can't have it both ways. CFLs can't be less of a threat than an incandescent bulb AND require an evacuation followed by airing out the room for 15 minutes followed by a scrub down and containment of the cleanup materials.
You're ignoring the mercury from a busted bulb is localized whereas the mercury in emissions is spread out all over. While mercury may be scrubbed from some coal-fired power plants mercury is already in the air and water. CFLs also mean less coal plants are needed and coal mining itself is dirty. For instance asbestos is released. Mountain top removal is leveling the Appalachians and the debris clogs streams. Coal slurry impoundment containment failure can cause a lot of damage. Just last year a dam broke releasing slurry at a TVA plant.
I won't disagree with the gist of your comment but it does make me wonder if there are companies, or other entities other than governments, that intrinsically have to be that big to do their job and yet can't be allowed to fail because of that size.
I don't support big government either, actually I oppose it. One reason businesses do get big is because government encourages bigness.
In other words, higher levels of CO2 really did cause all plants to grow more, until they started screwing with other environmental variables based on what they THINK a future atmosphere (and temperature) will be like. In other words, they screwed with the gas and baked the plants in the oven until they stopped growing so they can say, "See, GW is bad!"
So when you say, I should do the same, I already did.
That proposed alternative boils down to "the government should pay for all of the research necessary - after all, the government (here in Europe) already pays through universal health care, and look at all the great drugs".
Problem is, it neglects to realize the number of drugs invented in the US as opposed to Europe. Most of them are invented here. So unless you're suggesting that the US government not only provide universal health care, but also pay significantly higher rates than Europe does, the amount of drug research worldwide would decline. A lot.
That proposal was but one, one I don't particularly support. However even in the US the government does drug research as well as finances research. The NCI or National Cancer Institute, a US government agency, spent $183 million to develop and test Taxol for instance.
Oh please. I bet you're the sort of person who believes that we can replace all our coal plants with Wind and Hydro by 2015 if we spent enough money.
In "A Solar Grand Plan" Sciam lays out how Solar power could provide 69% of the USA's electricity by 2050, about 35 years after your 2015. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States by the Renewable Resource Data Center (RReDC) of the government's National Renewable Energy Lab details the potential wind power of various areas of the US. As T Boone Picken's Picken's Plan lays out the Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to also provide electricity to the 48 continuous states.
First you have to get the liscensing for all these power plants. For Hydro, this is mostly impossible since someone will stand up and say that the turbines chew up fish at a ridiculous rate and destroy the river. For wind, people will complain about the birds. These drawbacks were true in 1960 but they aren't anymore. You'll be tied down for at least 3 years trying to get the permits and approval to build. And that's being optomistic.
Dams do mess up rivers. However some years ago there was a story on/. about how hydro can be used to generate electricity without dams. Instead water mills like egg beaters are lowered from a boom into the river then the moving water spins the mills. I wonder what's happened with that, I haven't heard anything about it since. What's stopping wind, especially offshore wind farms in places like Cape Cod in so called "liberals", who are not liberal, backyard are NIMBYs. And I bet many of them say they're environmentalists.
Coal is mostly clean now
Coal is no where near being clean, and never will be. Sure emissions from coal-fired power plants may be cleaner than before but coal mining is not clean what so ever.
As for natural Gas, its completely clean.
Gas is not clean either. Sure, like coal, CO2 may be captured and stored. Nitrogen oxides also have to be captured. Gas, at least Liquefied Natural Gas or LNG, also needs the same sort of infrastructure as oil.
I *want* one of these plants in my backyard.
I'd rather have PVs on my roof and a wind genie in my backyard.
If you want to turn this country into Vermont, maybe you should just move to Vermont.
Ignoring nuclear power because of controversy (...)
Ignoring the only proven alternative to coal, as in one that is supplying a significant percent of electricity in several nations (over 50% in some cases), only because some dimwits don't understand physics or engineering, is extremely stupid.
Nuclear power is not proven to be green or environmentally friendly. Ignoring that is extremely stupid. Yes nuclear power does provide some countries with a significant amount of power. However even France, one of those countries, does not not have it solved. The article "Nuclear Wasteland in the IEEE's magazine "Spectrum" says "France's engineers tried harder than those in any other country to build and run breeder reactors reliably at a commercial scale, but ultimately they failed. The result is that even in France--the best real-world model of what reprocessing can accomplish--the technology remains a tantalizing but only partial solution to the problem of high-level nuclear waste."
Slashdot Mirror
I've looked at the Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID. I don't know about getting one though, it's a newer model. There's a photo shop close to me that sells used medium format cameras. When I last checked, they had some for less than $1000. That was with an SLR type eye piece and film back.
the digital backs for them are pretty pricey.
Yea, I see some for about $7,000. However I can start with film and scan it.
Falcon
Unless you're suggesting that the government run all ISPs then the ISPs still have to make a profit.
You make a profit by offering something people are willing to pay for, not by sucking on the government's teat. If the broadband providers don't want to buildout broadband then they should return the government subsidies they were given to build it out.
No matter how much money gets poured into infrastructure it won't work because if there's no extra cost to more bandwidth people will just continue to use more.
Then broadband providers should not have sold unlimited plans. It's their own fault they offered it and people took up the offer.
Falcon
You need to *read the frakking contract* just as you're supposed to RTFA. ;-)
Oh, unlike some I read every contract before I sign. And as I said before the contract I signed the only limit was where it said up to X speed.
Falcon
BTW, I also read the articles posted before reading posts about it.
I don't think the ISO is much usable above 1600 on this camera IIRC. 3200 is probably doable but you get lots of noise at high ISO.
On it's own the EOS 5D Mark II does an ISO of 3200 I think but there's an extension that takes it to 25,000. I've read a few reviews of it and they say it's pretty good. With the new Digic 4 processor it comes close to the EOS 1Ds Mark II, but it's not as rugged.
For what its worth, a usable 800 or 1600 gives a whole lot of options. I personally feel that night shots are better taken with long exposures, so speed starts to matter less, but for indoor shots at say some dark party or at concerts or whatnot you could probably do some cool stuff.
I haven't shot above 800 in years, if ever. Previously I preferred faster film, 50, 100, or 200. However a few months ago I got a new telescope and the mount and rings I need to mount my camera to it. I'd like to get into astrophotography and higher ISO film may be better. Unfortunately I live in a big city and I'll need to look for a good place to shoot. I can also use the telescope as a long focal length lens.
Falcon
But seriously, perhaps you can ask one of them (you know so many, surely you'll be able to get in contact with one) what their reasoning is for shooting JPG because this simply doesn't make sense to me, and differs wildly from my own experience with other pro and semi pro photographers.
Shooting jpeg allows photographers to quickly submit a photo. Shooting both raw and jpeg allows them to send a preliminary photo to an editor or client then once back in the studio the raw file can be edited. Personally I'd like to be able to save in tiff as well.
Falcon
Indeed, a larger sensor means a larger file (by a wide margin) when shooting RAW, and a lot of pros and semi pros are almost put off by larger sensors since these are slower to work with and of course eat more disk space (and pro and semi pro will only shoot RAW). Unlike computer enthusiasts, camera enthusiasts are not looking for an excuse to buy bigger hard drives and a faster computer; their normal hardware is expensive enough as it is.
Many pros want larger sensors, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for medium format and large format digital backs. And speed doesn't depend on sensor size so much as pixel count. Many pros also shoot both raw and jpeg, or tiff. Me, I'd like to get the 21.1 MP Canon EOS 5d Mark II and if I get one I'll save both jpeg and raw. Unfortunately it doesn't save in tiff otherwise I'd also use that format. I'd also like to get a medium format, perhaps a 645, with a film back to start with but eventually a digital back.
Falcon
If an 8 megapixel camera is producing images four times as large as a 4 megapixel camera it must be using less effective compression.
That depends on colour bit depth. If the only thing that changes is the pixel count then moving from 4 MP to 8 MP doubles the file size. If however the colour depth is increased from 8 bit per channel to 12 bits per channel the file size will more than double. And some sensors increase colour depth as well as sensors.
Falcon
Indeed. What I don't get is why modern cameras still make us chose between those two. Why do I have to have either lossy compression or a monster of a file that requires further processing?
Some people want a choice. Others, like me, want both raw and jpeg. Actually I want tiff as well. Recording 3 versions eats up space but allows quick edits and small prints, ie jpeg, as well as more in depth editing as well as larger prints, ie tiff and raw.
Falcon
A 12 megapixel camera with good low-level-light capabilities may be more attractive to a consumer than a 21 megapixel camera with problems in that arena.
That DSRL camera with the 21 megapixel sensor can shoot at an ISO of 26,000. Film with an ISO of 800 is considered low light.
Falcon
I don't think the megapixel wars are drawing to a close. People in the industry was saying that as far back as 2005, when 12 MP was "big". As you say Canon now sells the EOS 5D Mark II with 21.1 MP for $2700.
Falcon
You may not like it and you are free to take your business elsewhere but it is not illegal for them to do so.
At most many people only have one choice for broadband, if they're lucky and live close enough they can get DSL and in other locations cable may be offered. Few people can choose between them. So the only choice is to put up with an aristocratic cableco or telco, or not have broadband. Now in a free market there would be more choices.
Falcon
For clarification, the FCC's ruling was not that comcast could not throttle BitTorrent traffic, but the method they used (packet injection -- causing connections to drop/terminate) was unlawful.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't read the FCC's ruling, just the CNet article, which like a lot of /.'s articles, is mis-titled.
While YOU may want throttling to be illegal, it isn't.
No, I don't want throttling illegal. Or traffic shaping. What I want is the ISPs to hold up the way they billed their services. They sold unlimited access but now that they oversold the service they want to renege on it. I also want them to do what they were given taxpayer dollars to do, build out broadband. Telcos were given $200 billion to buildout broadband but all they did was use the money to pad their bottom line. I also want they to stop trying to block competition.
Falcon
Lawsuit from what? Slowing down P2P traffic which is mostly illegal downloads anyways?
It does not matter how many people illegally download stuff, people also legally download massive amounts of data. Such as those who download Linux isos. When I signed the contract for my access there was no limits in it, only a part where it said they'd provide a speed of up to XXX. I don't download massive amounts of data with or without P2P but I did and I found out my ISP was throttling certain data streams, and it bothered me, I'd file a complaint with the FCC first then if it continued and had the money would at least talk to a lawyer. Though not a court case the FCC has already ruled Comcast throttling of BitTorrent was illegal.
Falcon
The solution for better or for worse is for the US to implement download caps like the rest of the world. It'll be unpopular and it'll have disadvantages, but laying cable still costs money and the current all you can eat payment schemes just don't work.
No, the solution is for broadband providers to do what they've already gotten billions of taxpayer dollars to do but didn't, build out broadband. These companies are trying to double dip, first take taxpayer money then bill customers more.
Falcon
He has no choice but to honor the contract they've made with customers.
Sure he does. He does what his boss tells him to do. Then his boss and the owner deal with the ramifications, not the OP.
And who's going to get blamed if the employer is slapped with a lawsuit? Bosses pass the buck so it ends up on the employee's desk.
Falcon
Agree 100%. You're getting paid for this work. It doesn't matter how much you admire Casper the Friendly Geek, it's neither your right nor your job to contradict your boss's decisions. If your customers don't like the service, they'll find alternatives or drop his service, and then he'll either deal with the revenue loss or improve.
I disagree. If the customer's contract is for unlimited access then when it is limited a customer may slap a lawsuit on the company. The one who will be blamed is the sysadmin.
Make the business case for it. Feel free to refuse to do anything actually unethical or illegal that he asks you to do. This is neither, so suck it up.
Actually the person asking does not say whether service was sold as unlimited or not. If it was then it is a breach of contract as is illegal.
Falcon
>>>it doesn't sound at all like subby has the freedom to change the ToS or implement hard caps.
That depends. If the original contracts said "unlimited time" not unlimited gigabytes, then yes the ISP can move to a metered model.
If a contract says "unlimited" then metering would be breaking the contract.
Falcon
It is hard if the service was sold with no limit.
You can not maintain a reasonable oversell ratio unless you have low average usage.
The problem is that many cable ISP sold unlimited access and now their unhappy customers actually took them up on the offer. What I find really galling about it all was that the cable companies enjoy a monopoly and was given billions of taxpayer dollars to upgrade their net access but didn't.
Falcon
I find it odd you didn't even mention the clean up procedure mentioned in the document you quotes.
Step 1: Evacuate the area....
Really, you can't have it both ways. CFLs can't be less of a threat than an incandescent bulb AND require an evacuation followed by airing out the room for 15 minutes followed by a scrub down and containment of the cleanup materials.
You're ignoring the mercury from a busted bulb is localized whereas the mercury in emissions is spread out all over. While mercury may be scrubbed from some coal-fired power plants mercury is already in the air and water. CFLs also mean less coal plants are needed and coal mining itself is dirty. For instance asbestos is released. Mountain top removal is leveling the Appalachians and the debris clogs streams. Coal slurry impoundment containment failure can cause a lot of damage. Just last year a dam broke releasing slurry at a TVA plant.
Falcon
I won't disagree with the gist of your comment but it does make me wonder if there are companies, or other entities other than governments, that intrinsically have to be that big to do their job and yet can't be allowed to fail because of that size.
I don't support big government either, actually I oppose it. One reason businesses do get big is because government encourages bigness.
Falcon
In other words, higher levels of CO2 really did cause all plants to grow more, until they started screwing with other environmental variables based on what they THINK a future atmosphere (and temperature) will be like. In other words, they screwed with the gas and baked the plants in the oven until they stopped growing so they can say, "See, GW is bad!"
So when you say, I should do the same, I already did.
And what of this; "Thirty years of in situ tree growth under elevated CO2: a model for future forest responses? Like they controlled CO2 and heat in an unnatural setting? Sure some studies may of used potted or greenhoused plants but others studied plants in their natural environment.
Falcon
Irrelavant.
It's very relevant. This is about storing CO2 but it leaks. And kills.
Falcon
Here's a proposed "alternative to pharmaceutical patents
That proposed alternative boils down to "the government should pay for all of the research necessary - after all, the government (here in Europe) already pays through universal health care, and look at all the great drugs".
Problem is, it neglects to realize the number of drugs invented in the US as opposed to Europe. Most of them are invented here. So unless you're suggesting that the US government not only provide universal health care, but also pay significantly higher rates than Europe does, the amount of drug research worldwide would decline. A lot.
That proposal was but one, one I don't particularly support. However even in the US the government does drug research as well as finances research. The NCI or National Cancer Institute, a US government agency, spent $183 million to develop and test Taxol for instance.
Falcon
Oh please. I bet you're the sort of person who believes that we can replace all our coal plants with Wind and Hydro by 2015 if we spent enough money.
In "A Solar Grand Plan" Sciam lays out how Solar power could provide 69% of the USA's electricity by 2050, about 35 years after your 2015. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States by the Renewable Resource Data Center (RReDC) of the government's National Renewable Energy Lab details the potential wind power of various areas of the US. As T Boone Picken's Picken's Plan lays out the Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to also provide electricity to the 48 continuous states.
First you have to get the liscensing for all these power plants. For Hydro, this is mostly impossible since someone will stand up and say that the turbines chew up fish at a ridiculous rate and destroy the river. For wind, people will complain about the birds. These drawbacks were true in 1960 but they aren't anymore. You'll be tied down for at least 3 years trying to get the permits and approval to build. And that's being optomistic.
Dams do mess up rivers. However some years ago there was a story on /. about how hydro can be used to generate electricity without dams. Instead water mills like egg beaters are lowered from a boom into the river then the moving water spins the mills. I wonder what's happened with that, I haven't heard anything about it since. What's stopping wind, especially offshore wind farms in places like Cape Cod in so called "liberals", who are not liberal, backyard are NIMBYs. And I bet many of them say they're environmentalists.
Coal is mostly clean now
Coal is no where near being clean, and never will be. Sure emissions from coal-fired power plants may be cleaner than before but coal mining is not clean what so ever.
As for natural Gas, its completely clean.
Gas is not clean either. Sure, like coal, CO2 may be captured and stored. Nitrogen oxides also have to be captured. Gas, at least Liquefied Natural Gas or LNG, also needs the same sort of infrastructure as oil.
I *want* one of these plants in my backyard.
I'd rather have PVs on my roof and a wind genie in my backyard.
If you want to turn this country into Vermont, maybe you should just move to Vermont.
No, the state for the Free State Project is New Hampshire, next door.
Falcon
Ignoring nuclear power because of controversy (...)
Ignoring the only proven alternative to coal, as in one that is supplying a significant percent of electricity in several nations (over 50% in some cases), only because some dimwits don't understand physics or engineering, is extremely stupid.
Nuclear power is not proven to be green or environmentally friendly. Ignoring that is extremely stupid. Yes nuclear power does provide some countries with a significant amount of power. However even France, one of those countries, does not not have it solved. The article "Nuclear Wasteland in the IEEE's magazine "Spectrum" says "France's engineers tried harder than those in any other country to build and run breeder reactors reliably at a commercial scale, but ultimately they failed. The result is that even in France--the best real-world model of what reprocessing can accomplish--the technology remains a tantalizing but only partial solution to the problem of high-level nuclear waste."
Falcon