rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll - 12 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
* Diff Nikon and Canon Lens System - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5f02839e1bcce9a3?hl=en
* I hate environmentalists - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
* Testing Forum - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1271e50f62d744e9?hl=en
* Spring Pictures - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15229fadc7315e84?hl=en
* life after Windows....April 23 new version of Ubuntu Linux, version 9.04,
also known as "Jaunty Jackalope," - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
* Focus! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d4b654a4398ea89d?hl=en
* "Black silicon" skeptics abound... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/906dd55a28649215?hl=en
* Being Forced Back To A Safe Distance With The 500/4!! - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/969efbf8ec7f8dc6?hl=en
* Close-Up is available for viewing - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/21a334c20daf593b?hl=en
* New Mandate: Punography - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:35 am
From: "David J Taylor"
Chris H wrote:
[]
> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR
> is "full frame" in its own system.
I prefer the DX size of DSLR as it provides me with lighter weight, more
compact and easier to carry lenses.
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so
> why?
In almost all compact cameras there is no relationship, and a lot of the
population are quite happy taking and enjoying their photos with such
cameras.
Cheers,
David
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:43 am
From: nospam
In article <gYyOwpJz7I7JFAS9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
<chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
> "full frame" in its own system.
you use olympus, right?
the term 'full frame' has meant a 35mm film sized frame, or 24 x 36mm
for a long time, well before digital. the term originated 50 years ago
when olympus came out with camera that had a frame size of 18mm x 24mm,
one half the size of a 35mm negative. olympus called it half frame and
referred to the standard 35mm camera as full frame. ironically, it's
usually the olympus 4/3rds users who argue the most that their system
should also be called full frame.
<http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/camera/pen.cfm>
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
zillions of existing lenses cover full frame and a larger sensor will
have better image quality than a smaller sensor so why not take
advantage of it?
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:57 am
From: Robert Spanjaard
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:04:19 +0100, Chris H wrote:
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
There are a couple of advantages to the 36x24mm format, and to larger
sensors in particular:
- All lenses developed for analog cameras will still work at their full
potential.
- You get a shallower depth of field to play with.
- Larger sensors capture more light, which increases resolution and/or
decreases noise.
Ofcourse, the main disadvantages are cost, size and weight of the system.
It's not a marketing gimmick, bot it's not necessarily better either. The
choice depends on your needs/wishes.
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:54 am
From: Chris H
In message <2D0Hl.16610$OO7.14114@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
writes
>Chris H wrote:
>[]
>> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
>> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR
>> is "full frame" in its own system.
>
>I prefer the DX size of DSLR as it provides me with lighter weight,
>more compact and easier to carry lenses.
>
>> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so
>> why?
>
>In almost all compact cameras there is no relationship, and a lot of
>the population are quite happy taking and enjoying their photos with
>such cameras.
That was what I thought for 98% of the P&S users. I was just thinking
about why the fuss at the DSLR end of the market as the two technologies
(DSLR and 35mm film) are completely dissimilar.
What with Dxo (RAW processor) and Photoshop it seems irrelevant with
most of the pro-sumer and better DSLRs that the DX frame size is not the
same as the 35mm frame size.
The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
pedants arguing. In reality the DSLR "frame" or sensor sizes are
completely separate to the 35mm film cameras other than the fact you
can usually use the 23mm lenses on the DSLR's
As far as I am concerned the DX format sensor in my DSLR is Full Frame
for that type of camera. Is there really any sensible reason why not?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:00 am
From: Chris H
In message <200420090843000310%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <gYyOwpJz7I7JFAS9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
><chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
>> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
>> "full frame" in its own system.
>
>you use olympus, right?
Wrong.
>the term 'full frame' has meant a 35mm film sized frame, or 24 x 36mm
>for a long time, well before digital.
For 35mm film. What about other larger or smaller formats?
> the term originated 50 years ago
>when olympus came out with camera that had a frame size of 18mm x 24mm,
>one half the size of a 35mm negative. olympus called it half frame and
>referred to the standard 35mm camera as full frame.
That was a film camera. Not a digital camera.
>ironically, it's
>usually the olympus 4/3rds users who argue the most that their system
>should also be called full frame.
>
><http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/camera/pen.cfm>
Not seen that. Not had an Olympus camera either.
>> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
>
>zillions of existing lenses cover full frame and a larger sensor will
>have better image quality than a smaller sensor so why not take
>advantage of it?
Fair enough but it does not answer my question. The "full frame"
referred to 35mm FILM cameras. Digital is completely different other
than the similarity in size and external appearance to 35mm cameras and
the fact that most can sue the lenses originally for 35mm film cameras
SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
connected to the 35mm film size.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:08 am
From: nospam
In article <CZdWAOLPwJ7JFAn8@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
<chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Fair enough but it does not answer my question. The "full frame"
> referred to 35mm FILM cameras.
so what? 24x36mm is full frame. it doesn't matter if it's kodachrome,
velvia or cmos.
> Digital is completely different other
> than the similarity in size and external appearance to 35mm cameras and
> the fact that most can sue the lenses originally for 35mm film cameras
and that's fairly substantial.
> SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
> connected to the 35mm film size.
many digital cameras have very different sensor sizes than film,
including most p&s and certainly cellphone cameras.
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:10 am
From: Jürgen Exner
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
>What is "full frame"?
>Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
>cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
>film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
All correct. But by general convention and consensus the 24 × 36mm is
considered 'the' full frame format because it is by far the most
commonly film format.
>So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
>particular film size?
Because then you can make best use of existing equipment like existing
lenses.
>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
"digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
Technically: no!
Practically: yes.
jue
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:17 am
From: Derge
On Apr 20, 10:04 am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
Hahaha. Good luck.
>
> What is "full frame"?
> Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
> cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
> film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc.
I know this is rhetorical, but I'm going to answer it anyway: It's a
photosensitive substrate measuring 36mm by 24mm.
>
> There are also several formats of digital sensor size.
>
> All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
> their own design parameters.
Yes, it's a misnomer, but that's irrelevant. In contemporary parlance,
everyone knows what "full frame" means, and it doesn't mean that.
>
> So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
> particular film size? Especially when all the lenses for the film
> cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
Because the format was popular and some of that inertia has carried
over into the digital age. Let's be clear about one thing from the get-
go: Settling upon any frame size is a tangle of interrelated
compromises. Large format photography will probably always be a niche
market, because for most people, most of the time, the increase in DOF
control and absolute IQ is just not worth what they give up in
flexibility. By the same token, the failure of APS film probably can't
be accounted for by lousy marketing alone. For some reason, people
really liked the 35mm format. It goes without saying that legacy 35mm
lenses outnumber DX or EF-S or "digital" or what-have-you lenses, even
today.
> However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
> grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
> format market to use a larger sensor. But does it need to be the same
> as the old 35mm film size? On that score the Medium format cameras do
> have digital backs.
>
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
>
Any argument you could make in defense of "full frame" sensors on
technical grounds would apply equally to any sensor size: The
relationships between noise and DOF work in both directions. There
isn't any reason they need to operate in discrete steps, except that
camera manufacturers need to choose *some* size for their sensors,
obviously, or else they wouldn't be able to fabricate them. What
exactly are you objecting to here? What do you propose as an
alternative?
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:29 am
From: "David J Taylor"
Chris H wrote:
[]
> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of
> the pedants arguing. In reality the DSLR "frame" or sensor sizes are
> completely separate to the 35mm film cameras other than the fact you
> can usually use the 23mm lenses on the DSLR's
I wouldn't have said "egos" or even "pedants". There are some advantages
and some disadvantages to the bigger sensor, so it's useful to have a
quick way of distinguishing them.
> As far as I am concerned the DX format sensor in my DSLR is Full Frame
> for that type of camera. Is there really any sensible reason why not?
I suspect that history and current usage dictates that 36x24mm = "Full
Frame", but for your camera, and mine, "full frame" just means not
cropping. Note the initial capitals!
Indeed, there are some DSLRs and some Compact cameras which do offer
"reduced frame" as a way of cropping (for using DX lenses or gaining
apparent focal length). Some Nikon DSLRs and some Panasonic compacts do
this.
Cheers,
David
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:33 am
From: "David J. Littleboy"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
> What with Dxo (RAW processor) and Photoshop it seems irrelevant with
> most of the pro-sumer and better DSLRs that the DX frame size is not the
> same as the 35mm frame size.
It is quite relevant if you care about producing medium format quality
prints.
There is a difference in image quality that is significant for the people
who need it or want it. For 12x18" and larger prints, 21MP in FF is real
nice. If you don't need the print size, you can use a smaller format.
> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
> pedants arguing.
No, it's the image quality, stupid.
And, sorry, but here _you_ are the one making a pedantic argument. The
linguistic term "full frame" has a well defined meaning (the size of a full
24x36mm 35mm frame), and you are trying to break it up and insist it be used
by your definition to mean any format. That's silly, simply because the term
wouldn't mean anything then.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 10:16 am
From: "Deep Reset"
"Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lv6pu4herl4apfgjc4f1fvr3mht2a1jdo9@4ax.com...
> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>>
>>What is "full frame"?
>>Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
>>cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
>>film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
>
> All correct. But by general convention and consensus the 24 × 36mm is
> considered 'the' full frame format because it is by far the most
> commonly film format.
>
>>So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
>>particular film size?
>
> Because then you can make best use of existing equipment like existing
> lenses.
>
>>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>
> Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
> "digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
> the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
> manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
> special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
> illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
> using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?
Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
Not pretty.
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 10:23 am
From: nospam
In article <bd-dnfwAAfObM3HUnZ2dnUVZ8sCdnZ2d@bt.com>, Deep Reset
<DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
> > "digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
> > the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
> > manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
> > special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
> > illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
> > using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>
> Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?
he wasn't referring specifically to dx lenses.
> Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
>
> Not pretty.
depending on the lens, it may cover the full frame at some focal
lengths.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Diff Nikon and Canon Lens System
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5f02839e1bcce9a3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 8:46 am
From: nospam
In article <TB0Hl.12488$jZ1.7034@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, measekite
<inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
> >> To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
> >> me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.
> >
> > <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20>
> >
> > sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
> > they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
> > (and that particular lens isn't cheap either).
>
> What exactly do you mean by lens failure.
the failures are listed in the link: zoom mechanism, calibration,
autofocus and stabilization for sigma.
> Is it just poor image quality
> or is the build quality so bad it just falls apart?
actually, some very old sigma lenses did fall apart.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I hate environmentalists
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:49 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49ec7ca8$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> Dudley Hanks added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>> Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote
>>> connection to recreational photography here...
>>>
>> Good idea, you mean like your attacks on me, oh ye drug addict mit der
>> fried brain and unrecovered alcoholic? Don't bother replying as I no
>> longer read your demented rants.
>
> Well seeing as you reply to them, you obviously read them.
>
> PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
> who's watching this from Google Alerts!
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Shhhh, as long as he keeps his eyes shut, he thinks nobody will notice...
Take Care,
Dudley
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:57 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7530ntF162us4U1@mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Dudley Hanks <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:74ti5rF15228oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:44:30 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>>"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>news:qssiu454158m2nu31r560vl4d7nil294rk@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:45:53 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:1ckfu49hsv0m64smb1d55u6e9kv63sdimq@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>>>You need to distinguish between Divine Inspiration and it's
>>>>>>>inevitable
>>>>>>>implications, as opposed to the more mundane mortal version...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Inspiration is inspiration.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not when you are dealing with the Almighty...
>>>
>>>> So he's not so powerful he can create a word that retains its meaning
>>>> in his presence?
>>>
>>> Of course He could. But He wouldn't. Seems your theological education
>>> omitted the central fundamental topic of free will.
>
>> That's one of the problems with trying to say that the Bible is "the Word
>> of
>> God," or the "Words of God," or any other way you want to create a
>> connection between a man-made organization (the Church) or written
>> document
>> and the infallibility of an all-powerful authority...
>
>> But, hey, that hasn't stopped the zealots from trying for as long as
>> history's been recorded.
>
>> But, as I've noted in other posts, this is getting way to off topic. So,
>> if
>> you'd like to discuss it further, either e-mail me, or go to:
>
>> http://www.discussion.dudley-hanks.com/opinion
>
>> Or, find another, more appropriate group and point me towards it.
>
>> Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote
>> connection
>> to recreational photography here...
>
> I do try, but I think my mental AF is easily distracted. All it takes
> is a few twigs to move in front of the subject and the entire
> concentration focusses down on the twiggery and won't let go :-)
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm
>
>
>
Hey, I thought I was the only one with that cerebral firmware bug...
Take Care,
Dudley
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Testing Forum
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1271e50f62d744e9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 9:52 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49ec7b93$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> I'm trying to set up a board where you won't have to register in order to
>> post messages and use polls. I've set up a couple of catagories, and
>> added a poll.
>>
>> For those who are looking for something to do, logging on and giving it a
>> quick test would be greatfully appreciated.
>>
>> The forum is located at:
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad
>>
>> And, a direct link to the poll is:
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad/index.php?PHPSESSID=c4686f23383ac7d69de3a88957b2dc3c&topic=2.msg2#new
>
> The results of the poll aren't a big surprise! ;^)
>
> PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
> who's watching this from Google Alerts!
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I know. I was in a hurry when I put it together, so I didn't get all
that creative. Just wanted something people could (hopefully) click on in
order to see if it works.
For some reason, I can't seem to get it to work for guests. But,
internally, it works quite well for members.
Take Care,
Dudley
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Spring Pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/15229fadc7315e84?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 10:06 am
From: me@mine.net
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:20:42 -0700, in rec.photo.digital John
McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>Sharon wrote:
>> "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote in message
>> news:74se0tF150vreU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
>>>
>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking.
>
>> Very nice shots. Where were these taken?
>>
>Somewhere cold! I am betting Colorado or Utah....
>And, agreed, nice stuff.
Another reason not to go directly into the slideshow. From the gallery
page:
Apr 16, 2009
Spanish Fork, UT
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:32 pm
From: Robert Coe
On 17 Apr 2009 22:26:37 GMT, "Russell D." <rmd@sfcn.org> wrote:
: Here are a few pictures I took yesterday. I'm interested in any critiques.
:
: http://tinyurl.com/dhwv88
:
: or
:
: http://picasaweb.google.com/rdurtschi/SpringSnow?authkey=Gv1sRgCP6RupTyod6aFQ&feat=email#slideshow
:
: Thanks for looking.
:
:
: Russell
When I try to view those images with IE7, they appear *extremely* OOF.
Shrinking them way down helps a little, but most of them still look pretty bad
and none look really good. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
Bob
==============================================================================
TOPIC: life after Windows....April 23 new version of Ubuntu Linux, version 9.
04, also known as "Jaunty Jackalope,"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 10:51 am
From: Kris Tonastik
On Apr 2, 8:54 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:t3t9t4pie45qgmtpdfbds3nkrlu75p71jh@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > William Black writes:
>
> >> Servers for most organisations tend to be specified in a project study
> >> written by the senior engineer or am engineering consultant hired in for
> >> the task, usually a Chartered Engineer in the appropriate
> >> specialisation.
>
> > A chartered engineer (or even a Chartered Engineer)? This must be Europe
> > you're talking about, where credentialism rules.
>
> >> The idea that they haven't heard of UNIX is laughable.
>
> > Unfortunately, there are a lot of people working in IT who haven't heard
> > of
> > UNIX. I regularly meet people in IT who think that there are no
> > mainframes,
> > even tough 75% of business data processing in the world is carried out by
> > mainframes.
>
> Most of the people senior enough to specify such systems were in
> the business long beforeWindowswas an option and probably
> leaned their trade on mainframes and minicomputers. I know I did.
>
> I rather miss Primos , it was rather a nice OS with better security
> and scheduling than any Unix system.
>
> Keith
......6502 assembler......
Canonical Looks To Clouds With Next Ubuntu Server
By Kevin McLaughlin, ChannelWeb
6:25 PM EDT Mon. Apr. 06, 2009
Canonical on April 23 will release the next version of Ubuntu Server,
version 9.04, also known as "Jaunty Jackalope," which includes
expanded virtualization and cloud computing capabilities.
Ubuntu Server 9.04 features a new version of KVM (Kernel-based Virtual
Machine) that facilitates live migration of virtual machines, as well
as broader cluster support for file serving and deeper integration
with Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT) systems, said Steve George, director of
support and services at Canonical.
Ubuntu Server 9.04 lets developers build applications for the Amazon
(NSDQ:AMZN) Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) and use Ubuntu as the
operating system and delivery platform, according to George. "The APIs
and delivery mechanism are compatible with EC2. Developers can build
an application and deploy it through Amazon, and select Ubuntu to be
the operating system layer," he said.
Ubuntu Server also includes clustering software for building private
computing clouds, a feature that's likely to appeal to large
organizations that have security policies that preclude the use of
public cloud infrastructure, George said. "You can take Ubuntu Server,
install it on number of servers in your data center and then set up
these servers to form a cloud. It's basically a cluster of systems
with a cloud controller on top," he said.
"This lets you set up your own computing cloud with whatever machines
you have handy in your own network," said Thor Mirchandani, president
of Presens Technologies, a Winston-Salem, N.C.-based solution
provider.
"Previously, you had to test in production and you had to set up a
server on Amazon and run it there. The clock would be ticking and you
would be charged," Mirchandani said. "But now, you can develop
applications in-house on private infrastructure and then deploy them
when they're ready."
Canonical already has a substantial number of users in the beta, and
plans are to beef up this functionality even further with the Ubtunu
Server 9.10 release that's slated for October, George said.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Focus!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d4b654a4398ea89d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 11:52 am
From: Bruce
Clayton Ramsey <cramsey@wherewithall.org> wrote:
>
>Don't worry about it Focus. What is happening is that the usual pack of
>full-time resident pretend-photographer role-playing newsgroup trolls have
>decided to use you for their "fun" this time.
Funny how that is an unusually accurate description of
both Focus/Sosumi and yourself.
Have a nice day, troll.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Black silicon" skeptics abound...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/906dd55a28649215?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 1:43 pm
From: Get lost
On Apr 20, 10:02 am, zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
> In article <7e166a02-4f14-4fb1-a907-041ab3b59...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >See Photonics-Spectra magazine letters section for Apr. Seems that
> >the Harvard team is "reluctant" to publish any solid figures on the
> >product's sensitivity and that the articles about it have all be "puff
> >pieces," perhaps fit for business magazines hawking stocks but not
> >scientific journals.
>
> SiOnyx had some inspiring offering. I hope it works out.
> Hee is what he told me.
>
> Our measured performance today (with very crude prototypes) routinely performs like what we describe on our webpage. There is
> tremendous skepticism about our technology and that is OK. What I can tell you is that we have validated our performance via
> independent measurements in NIST traceable Government and commercial labs.
>
> greg
They've got some kind of patent protection (though whether or not what
they are doing is new is also debatable) so why not publish actual
figures? Afraid their IPO might not be so rosy if the stuff doesn't
match the hype?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Being Forced Back To A Safe Distance With The 500/4!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/969efbf8ec7f8dc6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 2:36 pm
From: "Larry Thong"
Bob Larter wrote:
>> When a cat puts its whiskers in the sand you better step back to get
>> it in focus.
>>
>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Cat_Whisker.jpg>
>
> Well, that fish is about as dead as it gets.
Wrong! He's only been out of the water about a minute. He did swim away
after being put back in the water. Had to send him home to get bigger.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 2:34 pm
From: "Larry Thong"
whisky-dave wrote:
>> When a cat puts its whiskers in the sand you better step back to get
>> it in focus.
>>
>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Cat_Whisker.jpg>
>
> I cod do that too.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/698953895/
That'll work!!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Close-Up is available for viewing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/21a334c20daf593b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:09 pm
From: Draco
On Apr 12, 8:31 pm, Helen <helensilverb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 8:18 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:35:31 -0400, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote:
> > >After a week delay due to a trip to geek hell, the fine submissions sent for
> > >the Close Up mandate are on display here:
> > Unknown Submitter - Bless the Child - The idea was good, but the gun
> > should have been pointed directly at the camera for the idea to work.
> > Yes, it might have been less recognizable as a gun without the top of
> > the barrel showing, but I think we would have known.
>
> A mistake was made and my name was not added.
>
> I tried it with the gun pointed directly at the camera but it didn't
> work for me. I liked seeing that part of the gun. The way it's
> pointed is still very threatening.
>
> I saw this 10 year old child playing with a toy gun in the school
> yard. I thought it a telling story of todays society.
> Helen
When I saw this, it scared the heck out of me. several years ago a kid
pulled a real 9mm
on me and demanded my cash. Of course I gave it up or I wouldn't be
here.
The short DOF and the sharpness of the end of the barrel is what makes
this image so
powerful. If you ever had to stare down a gun before, this is how it
looks. The contrast
between the dark gun barrel and the background really helps create a
feeling
of a huge gun in your face. Well done but, scary as well.
Others I had the quick chance to look at were all very, well done. DOF
use
was made to give the images a sense of scale. The short DOF of the
circut
board gave an impression of great distance. The sharpness of the
insects and
flowers so that the photographers all, know their craft.
Good work by all. Keep it up.
One day I might be able to post some and write more.
Everyone have a great year,
Draco.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Punography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 20 2009 3:10 pm
From: Robert Coe
On 19 Apr 2009 09:51:02 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
: In rec.photo.digital Leon@here.com wrote:
:
: > BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
: > pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...
:
: A photographic reference to a verbal pun. A truly photographic pun
: would be language-independent.
The concept of a language-independent pun is a challenge to the imagination.
Smartly moving even further afield ...
The unchallenged masters of puns should be the Chinese. Their language is so
full of homonyms that puns must pop up on a regular basis. Indeed, I read
somewhere that a popular Chinese word game is to see who can construct the
longest sentence that is absolutely ambiguous until the last syllable falls
into place.
Someone in this group must be fluent in Chinese. Is it really as pun-filled as
I imagine?
Bob (who wonders why this thread has to be so widely cross-posted, but is
reluctant to change it now, because he has no idea who's reading it where)
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment