There are a lot of cameras that offer voice and text tagging for images. My P&S Fuji S5200 does voice.
What we (as in professional photographers) really need is a way to categorize images without having to do anything. I would love to take a picture of a duck eating a cracker and, a year later, ask my PC for pictures of ducks eating crackers and have it returned. Without having to explicitly record any metadata about ducks or crackers to attach to the file.
Obviously this is a stretch for current AI, but not impossible.
They do indeed lag, but not just on the device side. Digital 35mm format cameras have only recently offered full frame sensors, which is kind of nice to have for the purposes of actually taking photos. They still lag behind their film counterparts in terms of speed and metering and AF and various other areas.
Professional photographers are a cantankerous group. You actually see less in the way of new features on pro level cameras, the high level consumer stuff is usually the first to debut them.
I am not sure that scan back digital cameras will ever be very useful for much more than studio work, as illustrated by the awful ergonomics of this particular one.
Molding finger grooves into anything is a silly idea. Molding them into a camera that couldn't possibly be handheld has to rank up there in the sillydom world.
I think it is a testament to the effectiveness of the machine that, even though reduced to arguing about which tremendous detestable evil is most temendous and evil, people are still passionate and full of righteousness.
I'm convinced. Sign me up, I'm ready to fight for everyone's right to have some guy in a democrat mask rifle through their pockets instead of the same guy in a republican mask.
EXIF is just a type of metadata associated with digital images. You can add or subtract any piece of info you wish in most decent photo editing applications.
Without knowing which camera you are using it is difficult to determine how your name was added, but it probably came from the PC side software for the camera. I shoot with Canon DSLRs, which are packaged with Canon software that can be used to download the 'owner' info to the camera. Some point & shoots come with software that adds the name you register it under to the camera itself without you explicity directing it to do so.
Also, most apps that remove EXIF metadata miss a lot of tags.
. In general people are lazy, complacent sheep who hear what they want to hear and don't take the trouble of getting involved until a problem
I don't think I would label people lazy and complacent, they are just overwhelmed. If you look at just the front page of Slashdot today you have this story, violence in video games, net neutrality, DRM, voting machine security...these are all issues that could have an impact on the typical person's life. Posted in a single 24 hour period on a web site aimed more or less squarely at geeks and geeks only.
No one can educate themselves well enough to make a truly informed decision on each of these issues, let alone the thousand others that pop up in more mainstream sources. Unless it is something that directly interests you the best you can hope for is to read a little here and there and form an opinion.
I shoot a lot and take pictures, so I like to know who funds anti-second amendment work. I also keep up with which building's security guards will accost me if I walk past with a camera (little do they know I have a handgun shoved down my pants!). After that and work and a commute and the constant ringing of my cell phone, I don't really have time to vet the full history of the sources of the news articles served up to me.
Which is why this stuff is so much more insidious than just tobbacco companies funding anti-glopbal warming propaganda.
To perpetuate a general doubt of scientific studies in the minds of the public.
I would have just replied with "RTFA" or something similar, but it is a fairly lengthy article that mentions Phillip Morris only briefly. To me, the bigger story here is that the public has been getting planted bullshit "opinion articles in key markets" for our entire lifetimes and only reently have we found hard evidence of it.
Then, of course, having been trained to doubt anything that isn't presented to me by an approved media outlet, I doubt the validity of the evidence and await a counter by some group of concerned citizens.
I guess I just don't see how it fits into the conversation.
The prospect of having people who pass by me on the road making decisions about what I need and don't need is kind of disturbing. You never know to what extreme a person might like to take that, there are a lot of people out there, many of whom have powerful aspirations, who would not stop at Starbucks. Technically, you don't need both of your kidneys.
'When we designed HDTV 40 years ago our target was to make people feel like they were watching the real object. Our target now is to make people feel that they are in the scene.'
Best TV related comment I have read in a great while.
Don't actually go outside and inteact with other people, sit at home and your TV will make you think you are interacting with other people.
Someone need to make this guy listen to She Watch Channel Zero.
Sure, but the Japanese whack themselves out at a higher rate. The French have some serious unemployment issues to deal with. Venezuelans have the same problem, coupled with polluting every natural resource they have as a byproduct of their relentless drive to cut down every tree in the country.
And it goes one and on.
There are balances to be stuck everywhere, and the US does as well as anyone else, better in most cases. And although arguing over who is best is obviously pointless, nationalism is just part of the human condition. Is is natural for humans to want their particular group to be the best, whether the group is a nation or a skin color or a religion or a sports team.
You of course realize that that was general commentary on how humanity tends to settle differences of opinion. The 'founding fathers' part just fit the 'true blue' of the original I replied to.
For the thick: Change a few of the nouns around and you'll describe nearly every nation on earth, matters of scale aside.
I fly a lot, mostly inside the US but often internationally.
Despite flying a lot I am not at all afraid. Not in flight and not on the ground. Not of terrorism anyway, what I'm actually most afraid of is that I'll slip up when packing, which I sometimes have to do in a hurry, and a screener will find a prohibited item in my bag. My face would be plastered all over the news alongside stories of my other transgressions and depravities. I read hacker websites under an assumed named that mentions hijacking. I eat at asian restaurants a lot. An interview of some guy who once met me at a party will reveal that I offered him an illegal cigar imported from a communist dictatorship.
Or even worse, a fellow passenger will get the idea that I'm going to do something bad and I'll end up with a fat guy sitting on me for the duration of our F16 escorted rerouting. I'll be fired the next day because my company doesn't support terrorism and wants to issue a swift response. A few weeks later it will be revealed that I was just trying to stifle a yawn rather than upchuck a previously ingested explosive device, which was proposed as one possible way terrorists would try to kill us. But they don't hold press conferences for yawn stifling.
You'd have to buy an island that no one wants. And I think SeaLand burned half to the ground and isn't going to be able to resurrect itself without help, which means some government or corporation somewhere is going to earn themselves some leverage by providing it.
The important thing to remember is that things aren't the way there are simply because humanity willed it so. Our true blue, slave owning, whore fucking founding fathers didn't just get to draw up a consitution and the country birthed out of that and everybody went around respecting everyone. They ordered thousands and thousands of common people to march face first into the outstretched bayonets of our enemies. When all the boides were finally piled up and counted, more of their guys were killed than our guys, so we could call this place our own and go back to being eaten alive by bears and half starving to death until we recuperated enough strength to go on a murderous genocidal rampage against the people who were here when we arrived.
So no, buying an island won't do. You'll need a massive economy to produce airplanes and rifles and metal hats to ward off all your bloodthirsty neighbors. You'll then need to develop a culture that resists encroachment, otherwise you'll wake up one day and there will be shops on every corner selling shitty hamburgers and piping your money back across your borders, so that the hamburger vendor's homeland can pay for more machine guns to open up more markets to peddle hamburgers in so they can pay for more machine guns.
And if you discover gold or copper or oil or anything else of any conceivable value on your island, even sand, shoot yourself in the face in preemptive capitulation because someone will have already developed a cleverly named campaign, "Operation Friendly Help" or the like, that involves a boat the size of Rhode Island parking 15 miles off your shore and hurling bombs at you continuously for months on end.
Thing are looking pretty bleak for sovereignity in general.
How does the First Amendment protect you from being labelled or monitored? I also think you mash together the 4th, 5th, and 6th.
While I agree with you that some of our most basic rights are being eroded, being hysterical and pointing it all directions at once doesn't help anything. I also hope that you people who are complaining now have the same vigor when the Democrats are voted in and begin their assault on the 2nd, and their own particular angle on the 1st, and the 5th and 10th. I know you won't though, because you didn't last time.
If only you could get them to actually understand it, and stop with linking to obscure blog entries and posting out of context excerpts of laws that have never been tested in court, as if they carried some kind of legal weight, then we'd have some progress.
We have a lawyer who has defended cases against the RIAA who writes that the law is largely unsettled. In the opposite corner we have a guy who consulted a Wikipedia entry and is under some impressions about things he can't be bothered to Google to get cites for.
Slashdot Mirror
What we (as in professional photographers) really need is a way to categorize images without having to do anything. I would love to take a picture of a duck eating a cracker and, a year later, ask my PC for pictures of ducks eating crackers and have it returned. Without having to explicitly record any metadata about ducks or crackers to attach to the file.
Obviously this is a stretch for current AI, but not impossible.
They do indeed lag, but not just on the device side. Digital 35mm format cameras have only recently offered full frame sensors, which is kind of nice to have for the purposes of actually taking photos. They still lag behind their film counterparts in terms of speed and metering and AF and various other areas. Professional photographers are a cantankerous group. You actually see less in the way of new features on pro level cameras, the high level consumer stuff is usually the first to debut them.
It offers 48 bit TIFFs. Kind of like in camera HDR.
I am not sure that scan back digital cameras will ever be very useful for much more than studio work, as illustrated by the awful ergonomics of this particular one.
Molding finger grooves into anything is a silly idea. Molding them into a camera that couldn't possibly be handheld has to rank up there in the sillydom world.
That is actually true whether a person is high on drugs or not.
Yes yes, correct, free flow and equal access for all and such. Just like with....
Well, not at all like anything else they are involved in really, but like some new equal free flow that we haven't yet seen out of government.
I think it is a testament to the effectiveness of the machine that, even though reduced to arguing about which tremendous detestable evil is most temendous and evil, people are still passionate and full of righteousness.
I'm convinced. Sign me up, I'm ready to fight for everyone's right to have some guy in a democrat mask rifle through their pockets instead of the same guy in a republican mask.
Or, if they build the dam out of wood, a giant army of beavers.
The irony of you taking the trouble to provide examples to support your first sentence is delicious.
In a Slashdot post no less!
EXIF is just a type of metadata associated with digital images. You can add or subtract any piece of info you wish in most decent photo editing applications.
Without knowing which camera you are using it is difficult to determine how your name was added, but it probably came from the PC side software for the camera. I shoot with Canon DSLRs, which are packaged with Canon software that can be used to download the 'owner' info to the camera. Some point & shoots come with software that adds the name you register it under to the camera itself without you explicity directing it to do so.
Also, most apps that remove EXIF metadata miss a lot of tags.
I don't think I would label people lazy and complacent, they are just overwhelmed. If you look at just the front page of Slashdot today you have this story, violence in video games, net neutrality, DRM, voting machine security...these are all issues that could have an impact on the typical person's life. Posted in a single 24 hour period on a web site aimed more or less squarely at geeks and geeks only.
No one can educate themselves well enough to make a truly informed decision on each of these issues, let alone the thousand others that pop up in more mainstream sources. Unless it is something that directly interests you the best you can hope for is to read a little here and there and form an opinion.
I shoot a lot and take pictures, so I like to know who funds anti-second amendment work. I also keep up with which building's security guards will accost me if I walk past with a camera (little do they know I have a handgun shoved down my pants!). After that and work and a commute and the constant ringing of my cell phone, I don't really have time to vet the full history of the sources of the news articles served up to me.
Which is why this stuff is so much more insidious than just tobbacco companies funding anti-glopbal warming propaganda.
I would have just replied with "RTFA" or something similar, but it is a fairly lengthy article that mentions Phillip Morris only briefly. To me, the bigger story here is that the public has been getting planted bullshit "opinion articles in key markets" for our entire lifetimes and only reently have we found hard evidence of it.
Then, of course, having been trained to doubt anything that isn't presented to me by an approved media outlet, I doubt the validity of the evidence and await a counter by some group of concerned citizens.
Are those really poll results? How can you not have to pay for a government issued ID card?
It is funny to me that you portray Microsoft as a bunch of imbeciles, then note that their formats have become the formats of choice.
There you go with the word need again.
There is not a single person on this earth who needs a vehicle to get around. Not even Stephen Hawking.
I guess I just don't see how it fits into the conversation. The prospect of having people who pass by me on the road making decisions about what I need and don't need is kind of disturbing. You never know to what extreme a person might like to take that, there are a lot of people out there, many of whom have powerful aspirations, who would not stop at Starbucks. Technically, you don't need both of your kidneys.
What does need have to do with it?
Best TV related comment I have read in a great while.
Don't actually go outside and inteact with other people, sit at home and your TV will make you think you are interacting with other people.
Someone need to make this guy listen to She Watch Channel Zero.
And it goes one and on.
There are balances to be stuck everywhere, and the US does as well as anyone else, better in most cases. And although arguing over who is best is obviously pointless, nationalism is just part of the human condition. Is is natural for humans to want their particular group to be the best, whether the group is a nation or a skin color or a religion or a sports team.
Mostly by virtue of their having existed longer.
You of course realize that that was general commentary on how humanity tends to settle differences of opinion. The 'founding fathers' part just fit the 'true blue' of the original I replied to.
For the thick: Change a few of the nouns around and you'll describe nearly every nation on earth, matters of scale aside.
I fly a lot, mostly inside the US but often internationally.
Despite flying a lot I am not at all afraid. Not in flight and not on the ground. Not of terrorism anyway, what I'm actually most afraid of is that I'll slip up when packing, which I sometimes have to do in a hurry, and a screener will find a prohibited item in my bag. My face would be plastered all over the news alongside stories of my other transgressions and depravities. I read hacker websites under an assumed named that mentions hijacking. I eat at asian restaurants a lot. An interview of some guy who once met me at a party will reveal that I offered him an illegal cigar imported from a communist dictatorship.
Or even worse, a fellow passenger will get the idea that I'm going to do something bad and I'll end up with a fat guy sitting on me for the duration of our F16 escorted rerouting. I'll be fired the next day because my company doesn't support terrorism and wants to issue a swift response. A few weeks later it will be revealed that I was just trying to stifle a yawn rather than upchuck a previously ingested explosive device, which was proposed as one possible way terrorists would try to kill us. But they don't hold press conferences for yawn stifling.
You'd have to buy an island that no one wants. And I think SeaLand burned half to the ground and isn't going to be able to resurrect itself without help, which means some government or corporation somewhere is going to earn themselves some leverage by providing it.
The important thing to remember is that things aren't the way there are simply because humanity willed it so. Our true blue, slave owning, whore fucking founding fathers didn't just get to draw up a consitution and the country birthed out of that and everybody went around respecting everyone. They ordered thousands and thousands of common people to march face first into the outstretched bayonets of our enemies. When all the boides were finally piled up and counted, more of their guys were killed than our guys, so we could call this place our own and go back to being eaten alive by bears and half starving to death until we recuperated enough strength to go on a murderous genocidal rampage against the people who were here when we arrived.
So no, buying an island won't do. You'll need a massive economy to produce airplanes and rifles and metal hats to ward off all your bloodthirsty neighbors. You'll then need to develop a culture that resists encroachment, otherwise you'll wake up one day and there will be shops on every corner selling shitty hamburgers and piping your money back across your borders, so that the hamburger vendor's homeland can pay for more machine guns to open up more markets to peddle hamburgers in so they can pay for more machine guns.
And if you discover gold or copper or oil or anything else of any conceivable value on your island, even sand, shoot yourself in the face in preemptive capitulation because someone will have already developed a cleverly named campaign, "Operation Friendly Help" or the like, that involves a boat the size of Rhode Island parking 15 miles off your shore and hurling bombs at you continuously for months on end.
Thing are looking pretty bleak for sovereignity in general.
How does the First Amendment protect you from being labelled or monitored? I also think you mash together the 4th, 5th, and 6th.
While I agree with you that some of our most basic rights are being eroded, being hysterical and pointing it all directions at once doesn't help anything. I also hope that you people who are complaining now have the same vigor when the Democrats are voted in and begin their assault on the 2nd, and their own particular angle on the 1st, and the 5th and 10th. I know you won't though, because you didn't last time.
They know it now.
If only you could get them to actually understand it, and stop with linking to obscure blog entries and posting out of context excerpts of laws that have never been tested in court, as if they carried some kind of legal weight, then we'd have some progress.
Well, you know. that is just great.
We have a lawyer who has defended cases against the RIAA who writes that the law is largely unsettled. In the opposite corner we have a guy who consulted a Wikipedia entry and is under some impressions about things he can't be bothered to Google to get cites for.
I just don't know who to trust in this one.