I agree.
I have been using Linux at home and at work for the last 8 years and the only reason I still have Windows is because:
1) Photoshop hasn't been ported to Linux by Adobe.
2) The Linux drivers for my Epson 2100 just don't compete to produce the quality of colour prints I get under Windows.
I have tried to use again and again The Gimp as a possible replacement for Photoshop. But although the Gimp is a *good* freely available tool it just doesn't compare to Photoshop when it comes to serious photographic work.
Currently, the only software in the world I would spend money on is Photohsop.
If Adobe charges £500 for this software,it's for good reasons. Intelligent people spend this kind of money on such software for good reasons as well.
Most importantly, the Gimp needs:
1) Adjustment layers. This is essential for photographers.
2) Colour management.
3) 16 bits per color channel support.
Hopefully, the above features will soon be implemented and it will make the Gimp a serious rival to Photoshop for photographers.
You are now confusing "sensibility" and "resolution".
The "resolution" of a digital camera describes simply the number of photo-sensitive receptors per surface unit.
What you are describing as nothing to do with sensor resolution.
Even with a 32KB image size, it should be possible to produce small sharp images.
The problem is that these images are really really blurred, as if the optic quality was similar than those found on camera phone.
It's exciting to see pictures of another world, but I am also disappointed by the poor quality.
I hope that the JPEG artifacts that we see on the release pictures are not in the raw images...
Better to take small 0.3MP low-compressed pictures than 2MP over-compressed images.
How can the guys from ESA and NASA extract much information from blurred images?
>That said, if you do insist on sticking with WEP (some people prefer classic cars to modern ones as well, I guess), or even less (ie, run an open base station) at least ensure that your access point is configured to only allow your specific MAC (as well as those you trust) to peer with it. This will at least keep the bandwidth sucklers off your back.
Any programmer who knows how to use raw sockets can fake a source MAC address...
Slashdot Mirror
-
1) Photoshop hasn't been ported to Linux by Adobe.
-
2) The Linux drivers for my Epson 2100 just don't compete to produce the quality of colour prints I get under Windows.
I have tried to use again and again The Gimp as a possible replacement for Photoshop. But although the Gimp is a *good* freely available tool it just doesn't compare to Photoshop when it comes to serious photographic work.Currently, the only software in the world I would spend money on is Photohsop. If Adobe charges £500 for this software,it's for good reasons. Intelligent people spend this kind of money on such software for good reasons as well.
Most importantly, the Gimp needs:Hopefully, the above features will soon be implemented and it will make the Gimp a serious rival to Photoshop for photographers.
Will we be able to use the cell processor as a frying pan, like with the P4?
You are now confusing "sensibility" and "resolution". The "resolution" of a digital camera describes simply the number of photo-sensitive receptors per surface unit. What you are describing as nothing to do with sensor resolution.
Sorry, but where did you read this??? I'm a photographer myself and this statement is simply not true.
Will it be fast enough to play xtank online?...
With pictures of this quality, how long will it take before somebody builds a file proving that no probe ever landed on Titan?...
Even with a 32KB image size, it should be possible to produce small sharp images.
The problem is that these images are really really blurred, as if the optic quality was similar than those found on camera phone.
It's exciting to see pictures of another world, but I am also disappointed by the poor quality.
I hope that the JPEG artifacts that we see on the release pictures are not in the raw images... Better to take small 0.3MP low-compressed pictures than 2MP over-compressed images.
How can the guys from ESA and NASA extract much information from blurred images?
>That said, if you do insist on sticking with WEP (some people prefer classic cars to modern ones as well, I guess), or even less (ie, run an open base station) at least ensure that your access point is configured to only allow your specific MAC (as well as those you trust) to peer with it. This will at least keep the bandwidth sucklers off your back. Any programmer who knows how to use raw sockets can fake a source MAC address...