It is called, in less civilized circles, brainwashing. It has worked in all wars at least since WWII. By only* seeing american content, and specifically, the american attitude toward politics, sheeple will come to see the american system as "normal" and will not understand how our system is different. This will influence Canadian politicians to adopt US type policies (DCMA, SOPA etc). Canadians do have a very strong national pride and personality, unfortunately, it is very hard to put into words other than "not American"
I had a friend years ago that said our national borders should run north-south instead of east-west. In other words, BC has more in common with California than with New Brunswick, and, in turn, New Brunswick has more in common with Maine.
I agree with you up to a point. Kodak had a strong foothold in high end sensors. They produces sensors for medium format pro cameras (a step or two up from DSLRs and an order of magnitude more expensive) They produced sensors for medical and scientific imaging, but their brain dead management sold off their one division with potential... I agree that putting their name on crappy consumer cameras was never a good idea. It killed their name.
I think most people here are missing the point of these new mirrorless cameras. They will not replace DSLR's, They will replace point and shoots. ALL cameras will improve in image quality and capabilities over time. Cell phones will improve to the point where they will be good enough, and they will always win the most-portable category. A photographer will move a step up to get better image quality, but more important is more versatility; changeable lenses, more modes, more control, more accessories, etc. This could be filled by the new mirrorless cameras*. Currently this level is split between P&S cameras and the new mirrorless cameras. P&S cameras will become redundant. A move up from there to a DSLR gives the same versatility (assuming mirrorless gets the versatility DSLR's have now*) plus a bigger sensor** and better image quality.
*I am ignoring the difference between viewing through an optical viewfinder and viewing an LCD viewfinder. I am assuming a huge improvement in LCD images, and yes I have looked at most modern cameras. LCD's are not the same as reality. Have a look at a high contrast scene, or a fast moving subject and get back to me... I am also assuming a huge investment in mirrorless accessories, including lenses, but also flash, battery packs, etc.
**Yes I know some mirrorless cameras have a similar sized sensor to some entry level DSLR's, but again, I see that as a temporary issue. The entry level DSLR's are trying to be mirrorless cameras. The mirrorless cameras are not trying to, and will never be a replacement for a full pro DSLR.
To answer your question, artists don't produce anything necessary for continued survival. Art is not only subjective, it's luxury.
WRONG. If art was a luxury, why do even the most impoverished primitive cultures[1] have music, dance, and possibly other art forms? We have been creating art since we lived in caves. It is an innate need as much as food and shelter. In modern times, however, this need has been monetized to the point of ridiculous, and hence the perception that mass consumer art (TV, movies, multi-million dollar paintings, etc) is available only to the (relatively) wealthy
[1] For extra credit, look up the definition and origin of the word culture
I seriously hope that is sarcasm. Sometimes the only thing keeping an entrepreneur going is optimism....
As an entrepreneur, I hope that I missed the WHOOSH
I think the problem is that designers think everyone uses a computer the same way. There are features of Gnome(x), KDE, Windows and OSX that I like, and things that drive me nuts. For my daily personal desktop, I have a gnome 2 system tweaked to the way I like it. Every once and a while I try something else, and even start customizing it, and there it is. Sometimes a desktop is just not customizable enough for me to live with. Why can't designers leave us options, even if they are hidden?
For example, the Ubuntu Unity bar HAS to be on the left hand side of the monitor. Why can't I move it to the right? Even in win7 I can move the taskbar to the top or right as I see fit...
While some ads are obnoxious and annoying, advertising is an important part of competition and capitalism. The old adage of build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door is completely false. flamebate The dominant operating system is not necessarily dominant because it is the best on the market/flamebate
Having said that, the cost per click model is completely outdated. It is only to the advantage of the advertising companies. It makes much more sense to have a flat fee. Radio and television ad costs are based on the size of the projected market (determined through various means) not directly on who is listening/watching any particular ad at any one time. In other words, a business pays for a TV ad regardless of whether you hop in your car and drive immediately down to the QuickieMart to pick up a soft drink...
I think one step in getting less annoying Internet ads is to dispense with the concept that they are only worth something if you can coerce/convince someone to click on the ad. Rather, ads are used to build your reputation and increase familiarity.
I am a photographer who (occasionally) sells a framed print. I think I should make an unstated, unsigned agreement with any purchaser that they will pay me a fee every time they move the photograph to a different wall.
Do you think that would work?
I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world..
I have done a fair bit of art reproduction photography. It is a lot of work, and I charge a pretty penny to get a good reproduction. However never am I so presumptuous to say I now own copyright on the images. I think this is just greed over pimping public property.
A digital file is like a tree leaf. They cost nothing. To pay for one is madness, to try to use them as a medium of exchange (trade for other goods) is even greater madness. The only sane use of digital sales is sale of the physical medium the file is stored on - like a CD or DVD. umm... no you have it backwards. The physical media is cheap enough to be considered free, the data is what is valuable.
I have done some consulting where the resultant "digital files" are worth very large amounts of money. If they were all stored on one cd, that cd becomes very valuable. If I store the same data on two (or more) cd's, each cd is worth very little.
The issue is that a copy of that data is not worth the same as the original data. This is not restricted to digital. An original oil painting can be worth millions, a copy such as a poster is worth so much less as to be inconsequential. I understand that there is a physical difference in an art poster compared to the original, and this discrepancy doesn't exist with digital, but imagine if say there was only one copy of the Linux kernel. To install it you had to bring your blank hardware to the Temple of Torvalds to be installed. How much would that one digital file be worth?
Of course this is idiotic and the whole point of digital is to copy data in an efficient form, but to say a digital file is worthless is almost feeding the BS put out by *IAA types.
I think people can easily tell the difference between high quality video and low quality video but struggle to hear the difference between high and low quality audio. I disagree. How many people view video on their ipod/cellphone?
Average Joe will use whatever is good enough... and cheap enough...
I would argue that what made DVD's kill VHS was not the quality. Other conveniences, like durability of the media, true pausing, better fast forward/rewind, better durability of the players, etc were the death knell for tapes.
the old "kiosk" type printing stations used dye sub printers, most often one of the Kodak 8500 series printers. Now Labs use one of the Hybrid systems as stated. these range from about 50,000 CAD to 350,000 CAD
go to http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/search.asp?query =commercial+printing&page=1&forum=all for more info than you will ever want on printers and printing.
Oh, and I would recomend NOT getting your prints printed at wallmart, costco, sam's club, or any of the other discount places if you care at all about your photos. Use a more pro shop, or spend a couple of years to learn how to print your own...
I know a fair bit about photography, but close to diddly squat about apache.....
Slashdot Mirror
It is called, in less civilized circles, brainwashing. It has worked in all wars at least since WWII. By only* seeing american content, and specifically, the american attitude toward politics, sheeple will come to see the american system as "normal" and will not understand how our system is different. This will influence Canadian politicians to adopt US type policies (DCMA, SOPA etc).
Canadians do have a very strong national pride and personality, unfortunately, it is very hard to put into words other than "not American"
*in a nerdy black-and-white only type world
I had a friend years ago that said our national borders should run north-south instead of east-west. In other words, BC has more in common with California than with New Brunswick, and, in turn, New Brunswick has more in common with Maine.
I agree with you up to a point. Kodak had a strong foothold in high end sensors. They produces sensors for medium format pro cameras (a step or two up from DSLRs and an order of magnitude more expensive) They produced sensors for medical and scientific imaging, but their brain dead management sold off their one division with potential...
I agree that putting their name on crappy consumer cameras was never a good idea. It killed their name.
I think most people here are missing the point of these new mirrorless cameras. They will not replace DSLR's, They will replace point and shoots.
ALL cameras will improve in image quality and capabilities over time. Cell phones will improve to the point where they will be good enough, and they will always win the most-portable category. A photographer will move a step up to get better image quality, but more important is more versatility; changeable lenses, more modes, more control, more accessories, etc. This could be filled by the new mirrorless cameras*. Currently this level is split between P&S cameras and the new mirrorless cameras. P&S cameras will become redundant. A move up from there to a DSLR gives the same versatility (assuming mirrorless gets the versatility DSLR's have now*) plus a bigger sensor** and better image quality.
*I am ignoring the difference between viewing through an optical viewfinder and viewing an LCD viewfinder. I am assuming a huge improvement in LCD images, and yes I have looked at most modern cameras. LCD's are not the same as reality. Have a look at a high contrast scene, or a fast moving subject and get back to me...
I am also assuming a huge investment in mirrorless accessories, including lenses, but also flash, battery packs, etc.
**Yes I know some mirrorless cameras have a similar sized sensor to some entry level DSLR's, but again, I see that as a temporary issue. The entry level DSLR's are trying to be mirrorless cameras. The mirrorless cameras are not trying to, and will never be a replacement for a full pro DSLR.
To answer your question, artists don't produce anything necessary for continued survival. Art is not only subjective, it's luxury.
WRONG. If art was a luxury, why do even the most impoverished primitive cultures[1] have music, dance, and possibly other art forms? We have been creating art since we lived in caves. It is an innate need as much as food and shelter. In modern times, however, this need has been monetized to the point of ridiculous, and hence the perception that mass consumer art (TV, movies, multi-million dollar paintings, etc) is available only to the (relatively) wealthy
[1] For extra credit, look up the definition and origin of the word culture
I seriously hope that is sarcasm. Sometimes the only thing keeping an entrepreneur going is optimism.... As an entrepreneur, I hope that I missed the WHOOSH
I think the problem is that designers think everyone uses a computer the same way. There are features of Gnome(x), KDE, Windows and OSX that I like, and things that drive me nuts. For my daily personal desktop, I have a gnome 2 system tweaked to the way I like it. Every once and a while I try something else, and even start customizing it, and there it is. Sometimes a desktop is just not customizable enough for me to live with. Why can't designers leave us options, even if they are hidden? For example, the Ubuntu Unity bar HAS to be on the left hand side of the monitor. Why can't I move it to the right? Even in win7 I can move the taskbar to the top or right as I see fit...
There's this outdated technology called checks.
Most businesses will not take a cheque, especially a personal cheque for any large purchases.
and this is why i read slashdot
While some ads are obnoxious and annoying, advertising is an important part of competition and capitalism. The old adage of build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door is completely false. flamebate The dominant operating system is not necessarily dominant because it is the best on the market /flamebate
Having said that, the cost per click model is completely outdated. It is only to the advantage of the advertising companies. It makes much more sense to have a flat fee. Radio and television ad costs are based on the size of the projected market (determined through various means) not directly on who is listening/watching any particular ad at any one time. In other words, a business pays for a TV ad regardless of whether you hop in your car and drive immediately down to the QuickieMart to pick up a soft drink...
I think one step in getting less annoying Internet ads is to dispense with the concept that they are only worth something if you can coerce/convince someone to click on the ad. Rather, ads are used to build your reputation and increase familiarity.
I am a photographer who (occasionally) sells a framed print. I think I should make an unstated, unsigned agreement with any purchaser that they will pay me a fee every time they move the photograph to a different wall. Do you think that would work?
I'm not opposed to religion, but I strongly feel that its teachings should only be used in a philosophical context, and not -- for example -- for informing our actions w.r.t. the physical/natural world..
amen
I have done a fair bit of art reproduction photography. It is a lot of work, and I charge a pretty penny to get a good reproduction. However never am I so presumptuous to say I now own copyright on the images. I think this is just greed over pimping public property.
but will it run in linux?
so the data is worth nothing? then why would the media be worth anything... thanks for proving my point...
the old "kiosk" type printing stations used dye sub printers, most often one of the Kodak 8500 series printers. Now Labs use one of the Hybrid systems as stated. these range from about 50,000 CAD to 350,000 CAD
go to http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/search.asp?query =commercial+printing&page=1&forum=all for more info than you will ever want on printers and printing.
Oh, and I would recomend NOT getting your prints printed at wallmart, costco, sam's club, or any of the other discount places if you care at all about your photos. Use a more pro shop, or spend a couple of years to learn how to print your own...
I know a fair bit about photography, but close to diddly squat about apache.....