I've read that article and its revisions many times. It's always struck me as very reasonable,
Then I question your ability to judge "expert" knowledge, or even to have a basic understanding of the issues.
The point of the article is to educate people about film photography vs. digital photography.
But it does exactly the opposite. It misleads people about film vs. digital by comparing completely different cameras.
A 4x5 view camera that shoots film will cost less than a top-end DSLR and will capture much higher resolution.
But the article is titled and positioned as if it's a comparison of film to digital, not a 4x5 film camera to a DX-format digital.
A 4x5 camera with a digital back will also shoot much higher resolution than a DX digital camera. The point is also invalid, because realistically, a top-end DSLR actually costs less than a 4x5 camera with lenses and the cost of film and processing.
He addresses these and other tradeoffs. Be sure to read the thing from top to bottom--don't just skip to the pictures and read the captions.
I have, and it's complete bunk. He's addressing this to amateurs, and it is very misleading. An amateur isn't going to understand from that article exactly what it's like working with a 4x5 camera. He deliberately muddies the waters and cherry-picks in order to make his claim that film is superior. And WTF? Do you really think an amateur today is going to go out and buy a 4x5 camera instead of a digital SLR? It makes no sense unless you are intending to shoot very specific scenes, and have the budget to do it.
If it were an "expert" article he would do actual technical tests of resolving power.
Digital has come a long way over the years, but it still lacks the dynamic range, resolution, and color reproduction capabilities of film,
Except for the fact that it doesn't. Digital beats film in every one of those characteristics.Where are people getting this misinformation from? It's like being back in 1998, when digital still had a long way to catch up with film. Those days are long gone.
Digital cameras still don't have the gamut of film - at least not consumer level cameras. And very few digital displays can even come close to displaying the full gamut of which film is capable.
Bullshit. Digital cameras have a noticeably larger gamut than film.
Resolution, maybe, but I've still yet to see a digital camera produce colours as well and vividly as slide film
I doubt you've even seen the output of a modern digital camera. The color accuracy, saturation and dynamic range far exceeds that of film.
I worked professionally with film photography for years. It was terribly difficult to get good color, you have to use color-correcting filters or gels on lights to get accurate color. The color balance on film was very finicky. Shots would have to be perfectly exposed.
In contrast, with a digital camera shooting RAW format, you can easily modify color balance without loss. You can capture colors in spectrums (UV/IR) that were impossible without specialized film stocks.
Besides, there isn't really much point in having that many megapixels with 35 mm, the lenses aren't that sharp.
Good lenses are. That's why we pay the big bucks. And the lenses are still getting better with modern optical design.
So why is his article so retarded? Go and read the article that was cited. It lacks basic logic and scientific method. It lacks basic common sense.
He compares a photo taken with a 4x5" view camera to one shot with a DX-format digital camera. This makes no sense, unless he is trying to deliberately mislead. Whether he's an "expert" or not, that is one shoddy article.
Kodachrome had the best color saturation of slide films for a long time, especially if it was slightly underexposed. National Geographic nature photographers typically shot Kodachrome 64 at 50 ASA for instance.
That would overexpose the film, not underexpose it.
Hard disks are decent, but optical media is fiddly stuff. Lot of poor quality optical drives out there. They don't last, and they often error out halfway through a burn.
Are you posting from 1999?
Or do you just buy really shitty drives and have a poorly configured system? It's been years since I had an error burning an optical disc, or had a unit fail. I've had many more hard drive failures than optical.
When it comes to certain types of game such as the FPS, the keyboard and mouse is a superior input method. But what I don't understand is why more games on consoles don't support keyboard and mouse as inputs. After all both Xbox and PS3 can have these attached, it's just support in actual games is lacking.
This is not to say that the console gamepad controllers don't have their own advantages. They are much better for "relaxed" gaming when you are sitting back on the couch, and "social" gaming, with more than one player. Interestingly, PCs have the opposite problem in this regard - many of the PC games are not designed to work well with a gamepad.
The GPL restricts your ability to share binary-only versions of your tree. It explicitly requires you to *always* share your source code when you are making a public release.
Exactly. It limits liberalism, because it forces you to share source code.
There are no limitations at all.
You just quoted one - you MUST share source code. That's a limitation, a restriction on freedom.
And due to the GPL license that's no problem at all: you can own your own tree as soon as you want and be as zelous or as liberal as you want with it.
No, you can't. The GPL places limits on both liberalness and zealotry.
The license prohibits liberalness, because you are only allowed to share source code under strict conditions. It prohibits zealotry, because it ensures that others are free to fork a project and not bow to your vision of a project.
A good new fork will only be needed if and when Linus stops scaling.
If? You say this as though it isn't inevitable. Linus could be hit by a bus tomorrow, or (more likely) die of cancer in 10 years. He could even retire from the project! Either way, there will eventually be an end to his influence.
Seriously? Could we get something remotely interesting for a change? I've not even downloaded the game and I could tell you exactly how to do this, its really, really not even remotely difficult or complicated in any way. I will very shortly be removing slashdot from my RSS feeds.
Your post is hilarious when read out in a posh and pretentious English schoolgirl's voice.
Usually the hits are analyzed to try and prevent such fraud. I don't see how paying by the click would make this any different, as you could make a script to actually "click" on ads if you wanted to - and many people have done this before. Google "click fraud" which Google once had a big problem with.
Do you just not understand the fundamentals of online business and advertising? This is pretty basic stuff.
I was under the impression Advertising only makes money if people click on the ads,
Some online advertising works that way, such as Google AdWords. But typically not display ads of the kind that slashdot runs. Those are paid by impression, not by the click. So, every time a page loads on slashdot that doesn't have ads disabled, slashdot gets income.
"Game designer and academic Ian Bogost announces Wank Clicker, a Facebook game implementing the mechanics of the Facebook-games genre stripped to their core. You get a wank, which you can click on every six hours. You earn additional clicks if your friends in your pasture also click. You can buy premium wanks with 'mooney,' and also use your mooney to buy more clicks."
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to replace "click" with "wank" instead?
I think the next step is to apply the same overbearing verbage to those who are trying to screw over the consumers. I think "rights rapist" has a nice ring to it.
British anti-copyright group, Pirate Party UK, has predicted that Pirate ISPs will spring up across the country
Independent slashdot user, dangitman, predicts that the Pirate Party UK is incorrect in their statement and is just attempting to get publicity. A wave of "Pirate ISPs" suddenly appearing is about as likely as the British people rising up in mass revolt against the government.
And people actually play it, perhaps confirming Bogost's view that the genre of games is largely just 'brain hacks that exploit human psychology in order to make money,' which continue to work even when the users are openly told what's going on."
Meh. Slashdot's been doing this for years.
We know it's pointless, but we keep clicking that reply button. And when they deliberately make the stories misleading and poorly edited, they get even more clicks.
But 1/4th the light getting into the eye would better get a very bright screen or it will be very, very dark.
1/4 the light is only two stops (photographically speaking) difference. Given that the LED displays I've been seeing lately are so blindingly bright that you turn down the brightness to a very low setting, I don't think it will be much of an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read that article and its revisions many times. It's always struck me as very reasonable,
Then I question your ability to judge "expert" knowledge, or even to have a basic understanding of the issues.
The point of the article is to educate people about film photography vs. digital photography.
But it does exactly the opposite. It misleads people about film vs. digital by comparing completely different cameras.
A 4x5 view camera that shoots film will cost less than a top-end DSLR and will capture much higher resolution.
But the article is titled and positioned as if it's a comparison of film to digital, not a 4x5 film camera to a DX-format digital.
A 4x5 camera with a digital back will also shoot much higher resolution than a DX digital camera. The point is also invalid, because realistically, a top-end DSLR actually costs less than a 4x5 camera with lenses and the cost of film and processing.
He addresses these and other tradeoffs. Be sure to read the thing from top to bottom--don't just skip to the pictures and read the captions.
I have, and it's complete bunk. He's addressing this to amateurs, and it is very misleading. An amateur isn't going to understand from that article exactly what it's like working with a 4x5 camera. He deliberately muddies the waters and cherry-picks in order to make his claim that film is superior. And WTF? Do you really think an amateur today is going to go out and buy a 4x5 camera instead of a digital SLR? It makes no sense unless you are intending to shoot very specific scenes, and have the budget to do it.
If it were an "expert" article he would do actual technical tests of resolving power.
Digital has come a long way over the years, but it still lacks the dynamic range, resolution, and color reproduction capabilities of film,
Except for the fact that it doesn't. Digital beats film in every one of those characteristics.Where are people getting this misinformation from? It's like being back in 1998, when digital still had a long way to catch up with film. Those days are long gone.
Digital cameras still don't have the gamut of film - at least not consumer level cameras. And very few digital displays can even come close to displaying the full gamut of which film is capable.
Bullshit. Digital cameras have a noticeably larger gamut than film.
Resolution, maybe, but I've still yet to see a digital camera produce colours as well and vividly as slide film
I doubt you've even seen the output of a modern digital camera. The color accuracy, saturation and dynamic range far exceeds that of film.
I worked professionally with film photography for years. It was terribly difficult to get good color, you have to use color-correcting filters or gels on lights to get accurate color. The color balance on film was very finicky. Shots would have to be perfectly exposed.
In contrast, with a digital camera shooting RAW format, you can easily modify color balance without loss. You can capture colors in spectrums (UV/IR) that were impossible without specialized film stocks.
Besides, there isn't really much point in having that many megapixels with 35 mm, the lenses aren't that sharp.
Good lenses are. That's why we pay the big bucks. And the lenses are still getting better with modern optical design.
So why is his article so retarded? Go and read the article that was cited. It lacks basic logic and scientific method. It lacks basic common sense.
He compares a photo taken with a 4x5" view camera to one shot with a DX-format digital camera. This makes no sense, unless he is trying to deliberately mislead. Whether he's an "expert" or not, that is one shoddy article.
But overall, with film, it still is the king when it comes down to absolute quality(Both in resolution and colour representation).
No, it's not.
A top-quality 35mm film with superb emulsion can reach pretty damn good resolutions(equalling todays top-of-the line DSLR's)
The best 35mm film stocks don't come close to top-end DSLRs, in either resolution, color reproduction or dynamic range.
Kodachrome had the best color saturation of slide films for a long time, especially if it was slightly underexposed. National Geographic nature photographers typically shot Kodachrome 64 at 50 ASA for instance.
That would overexpose the film, not underexpose it.
Hard disks are decent, but optical media is fiddly stuff. Lot of poor quality optical drives out there. They don't last, and they often error out halfway through a burn.
Are you posting from 1999?
Or do you just buy really shitty drives and have a poorly configured system? It's been years since I had an error burning an optical disc, or had a unit fail. I've had many more hard drive failures than optical.
When it comes to certain types of game such as the FPS, the keyboard and mouse is a superior input method. But what I don't understand is why more games on consoles don't support keyboard and mouse as inputs. After all both Xbox and PS3 can have these attached, it's just support in actual games is lacking.
This is not to say that the console gamepad controllers don't have their own advantages. They are much better for "relaxed" gaming when you are sitting back on the couch, and "social" gaming, with more than one player. Interestingly, PCs have the opposite problem in this regard - many of the PC games are not designed to work well with a gamepad.
The GPL restricts your ability to share binary-only versions of your tree. It explicitly requires you to *always* share your source code when you are making a public release.
Exactly. It limits liberalism, because it forces you to share source code.
There are no limitations at all.
You just quoted one - you MUST share source code. That's a limitation, a restriction on freedom.
And due to the GPL license that's no problem at all: you can own your own tree as soon as you want and be as zelous or as liberal as you want with it.
No, you can't. The GPL places limits on both liberalness and zealotry.
The license prohibits liberalness, because you are only allowed to share source code under strict conditions. It prohibits zealotry, because it ensures that others are free to fork a project and not bow to your vision of a project.
A good new fork will only be needed if and when Linus stops scaling.
If? You say this as though it isn't inevitable. Linus could be hit by a bus tomorrow, or (more likely) die of cancer in 10 years. He could even retire from the project! Either way, there will eventually be an end to his influence.
Seriously? Could we get something remotely interesting for a change? I've not even downloaded the game and I could tell you exactly how to do this, its really, really not even remotely difficult or complicated in any way. I will very shortly be removing slashdot from my RSS feeds.
Your post is hilarious when read out in a posh and pretentious English schoolgirl's voice.
Usually the hits are analyzed to try and prevent such fraud. I don't see how paying by the click would make this any different, as you could make a script to actually "click" on ads if you wanted to - and many people have done this before. Google "click fraud" which Google once had a big problem with.
Do you just not understand the fundamentals of online business and advertising? This is pretty basic stuff.
(they gave a false name and false state)
Last time I checked, Pennsylvania was a real state. Or have we been pranked this whole time?
I was under the impression Advertising only makes money if people click on the ads,
Some online advertising works that way, such as Google AdWords. But typically not display ads of the kind that slashdot runs. Those are paid by impression, not by the click. So, every time a page loads on slashdot that doesn't have ads disabled, slashdot gets income.
s/cow/wank/g
Huh?
"Game designer and academic Ian Bogost announces Wank Clicker, a Facebook game implementing the mechanics of the Facebook-games genre stripped to their core. You get a wank, which you can click on every six hours. You earn additional clicks if your friends in your pasture also click. You can buy premium wanks with 'mooney,' and also use your mooney to buy more clicks."
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to replace "click" with "wank" instead?
In the game of chess, you can never let your adversary see your pieces
And if we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
They are LCD displays with an LED backlight.
No shit.
As far as I am aware, there are no LED TV's being sold in the US yet.
What about these?
So, slashdot just lets IBM and Microsoft run ads for free? Such generosity! I wonder if they'll run my ad for free, too?
... since most of "society" are sheeple...
Surely, you must be quoting one of the great philosophers with such elegant verbiage. Which one of the great thinkers are you cribbing from?
I think the next step is to apply the same overbearing verbage to those who are trying to screw over the consumers. I think "rights rapist" has a nice ring to it.
IPillager
British anti-copyright group, Pirate Party UK, has predicted that Pirate ISPs will spring up across the country
Independent slashdot user, dangitman, predicts that the Pirate Party UK is incorrect in their statement and is just attempting to get publicity. A wave of "Pirate ISPs" suddenly appearing is about as likely as the British people rising up in mass revolt against the government.
And people actually play it, perhaps confirming Bogost's view that the genre of games is largely just 'brain hacks that exploit human psychology in order to make money,' which continue to work even when the users are openly told what's going on."
Meh. Slashdot's been doing this for years.
We know it's pointless, but we keep clicking that reply button. And when they deliberately make the stories misleading and poorly edited, they get even more clicks.
But 1/4th the light getting into the eye would better get a very bright screen or it will be very, very dark.
1/4 the light is only two stops (photographically speaking) difference. Given that the LED displays I've been seeing lately are so blindingly bright that you turn down the brightness to a very low setting, I don't think it will be much of an issue.