rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Running OS X on my PC!!! - 9 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
* Amazon Fish - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6eaf9f6af5aa7afd?hl=en
* simple question...maybe - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/25aaf8517adc4c7e?hl=en
* Anything for the Perfect Shot - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
* APS Advantix Scanner Advice Needed - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/003124f6f660709a?hl=en
* Reason for so many focus errors we see today? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1415c1c3e6a92134?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Running OS X on my PC!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 8:13 pm
From: ribbit
Annika1980 wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:14 pm, ribbit <rib...@news.group> wrote:
>> If you pulled Photoshop from a torrent, it's pirate software. You have
>> to go looking all over again if you want an OSX version of it. Ask Bret,
>> he know all about stolen images and pirated Photoshop.
>
> That is a bald-faced lie! I have never in my life downloaded a
> pirated copy of Photoshop for the Mac.
>
Good one Bret.
What about that crack you got to make your demo copy run as a bought
one. Does that not count?
--
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 8:22 pm
From: ribbit
Larry Thong wrote:
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>
>> Then why are you using a Mac? The header on your posting gives you
>> away.
>
> Huh? I think you have me confused with someone else?
Yes he sure has. He thought he was takling to Rita!
NNTP-POSTING-DATE: Tues, 23 Jun 2009 20:37:06 -500
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel MAC OS X)
I'd guess if you don't have a MAC running OS X then you have a botched
up PC with the software on it.
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 8:24 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-23 18:36:27 -0700, "Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> said:
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>
>> Then why are you using a Mac? The header on your posting gives you
>> away.
>
> Huh? I think you have me confused with someone else?
...umm Rita,
I think you will find he is refering to the X-Newsreader header in these:
Path: s02-b47!num01.iad!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!bigfeed3.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue,
23 Jun 2009 20:37:06 -0500
From: "Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel Mac OS X)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
References: <dfSdnQu3rOgxod3XnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@supernews.com>
<srhi-FD1DA7.07260623062009@ppp-vpdn-94.136.209.74.yarnet.ru>
Subject: Re: Running OS X on my PC!!!
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:36:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;format=flowed;charset="iso-8859-1";reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2
(Intel Mac OS X)
Message-ID: <Ye6dnd2WRoTfHtzXnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@supernews.com>
Lines: 11
X-Trace: sv3-uSVG1PgcHxQatQOzBuDzgnIbc8PpVZBf4VWTK5DPqyrhO2CWM5WBGSUTNYAd9Va8s1k1+QDgWYFoCVp!EKYRSW7Ao6aKvvQcHc4P0D1a/mmfiwMQY3Rp+X0ZyBPPIr6rqNwiXhVxTEDTDcgoYh6ws8zT4i1X!3WcX9/n0
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please
be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
Bytes: 1766
Xref: Hurricane-Charley rec.photo.digital:635276
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems:169891 rec.photo.equipment.35mm:199745
X-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:37:16 UTC (s02-b47)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 8:26 pm
From: "Mr. Strat"
In article <h1raga01ur@news7.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
> Then your machine is busted. Most likely candidate is defective RAM, next
> most inadequate cooling.
Or an AMD processor...
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 8:27 pm
From: "Mr. Strat"
In article <vu52459g6t1ub75lid7oqbland564eln4v@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Then you have something wrong. On decent hardware XP will run reliably
> for months at a crack, restarted only for updates.
You know as much about computers as you do photography.
How's that eight-year old operating system workin' for ya?
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 8:29 pm
From: "Mr. Strat"
In article <975245tognhtlq8f0r9ih9qrb77pbeous1@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Windows 7 is better than either (IMHO).
If you like Vista Version II.
> Choosing the OS first is bassackwards, like choosing the brand of
> battery before selecting a digital camera. First choose the application
> software, then the hardware and OS needed to run it well.
What is this...1987?
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 8:59 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-23 18:36:38 -0700, "Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>
>> In that case he would be glad to know I am typing this response on the
>> keyboard of the all metal case of a MacBook Pro 17.
>> Though it makes you wonder if his plastic keyboard is going to be able
>> to sustain the abuse he puts it through.
>
> You gotta admit that machining that thing from a solid block of aluminum is
> a cool idea.
Much better than the old PowerBook 17 where the case flexed and
compressed, especially over the front load slot CD/DVD drive. That
caused compression of the slot and inhibited disc ejection.
That resulted in one complete case replacement under a 3 year Apple
Care contract 6 weeks before it expired!
Their customer service isn't that bad, you know.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 11:42 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article <vu52459g6t1ub75lid7oqbland564eln4v@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Then you have something wrong. On decent hardware XP will run
>> reliably for months at a crack, restarted only for updates.
>
> You know as much about computers as you do photography.
>
> How's that eight-year old operating system workin' for ya?
What John reports is exactly my own experience. Windows 2000, XP and
Vista have run for months without a reboot, and Windows 7 shows all the
signs of being just as reliable.
David
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 12:11 am
From: "Bill Graham"
"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:230620092026341866%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <h1raga01ur@news7.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
> <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Then your machine is busted. Most likely candidate is defective RAM,
>> next
>> most inadequate cooling.
>
> Or an AMD processor...
No. My HP machine with an AMD tri-core processor would only run for about 10
minutes between crashes, not two hours. Had it lasted two hours, I would
probably still be living with it.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Amazon Fish
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6eaf9f6af5aa7afd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 9:10 pm
From: "Miguel"
Hello:
A time ago I was practicing taking photos to a Guppy (Poecilia reticulata):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3245465519
Now I have did some changes in the shots, and It is the last photo that I
did:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3246296758
It would be interesting your comments about photography to follow doing
improvements.
--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: simple question...maybe
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/25aaf8517adc4c7e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 9:43 pm
From: Paul Furman
John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:16:32 -0500, Nicko <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote
> in <h1s29m$emq$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> Frank ess wrote:
>
>>> My Web page hit counter shows what they could determine about screen
>>> resolution used by all visitors to sites measured by that service over
>>> 425 days ending 31 March 2009:
>>>
>>> Fri Feb 1 00:01:02 2008 - Tue Mar 31 23:58:00 2009 425.0 Days
>>>
>>> 1024x768 27 290 629 (44%)
>>> 1280x1024 19 687 161 (31%)
>>> Unknown 7 979 641 (12%)
>>> 800x600 4 375 444 (7%)
>>> 1152x864 2 026 010 (3%)
>>> 1600x1200 398 074 (0%)
>>> 640x480 108 717 (0%)
>>>
>>> Subject to all statistic-gathering shortcomings,
>
> Especially in this case -- I have no idea where you're getting that
> data, but it's wildly inconsistent with the data I've seen, which shows
> that smaller images dominate. Try a Google Image search.
Screen size, not image size.
Here's a javascript web page that resizes your browser window to various
sizes:
http://edgehill.net/1/Misc/html-coding/screen-scale/index.htm
Firefox blocked it, I used IE. It doesn't account for scroll bars or
anything, so should be shrunk manually for that.
>> That was almost exactly the information I was seeking. Thank you, so
>> much, Frank, and everyone else.
>
> As President Reagan famously said, "Trust, but verify!"
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anything for the Perfect Shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 11:34 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:qf3245pb94idcktun7gv08pnk5e103gs5o@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:33:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
> wrote in <zuWdnRFQMZfY6t3XnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>>
>>"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:220620091657280123%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>>> In article <615045lmc8iml1ncoq5pomk4ldlfb3so9d@4ax.com>, John Navas
>>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You don't go outside in urban areas? ;)
>>>
>>> frequently. what does that have to do with anything?
>>>
>>>> >however, i wasn't referring to ads.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you define away the misleading stuff. ;)
>>>
>>> i was referring to buying a product and it being what it says it is on
>>> the label. in fact, there are laws regulating that. i expect that the
>>> food i buy is healthy and not rancid. if i go into a restaurant, i
>>> expect that it's safe to eat there and that i won't be visiting the
>>> hospital for food poisoning or that a cockroach will crawl out from
>>> under my sandwich.
>>>
>>> as for ads, they imply quite a bit but they cannot lie.
>>
>>You must be kidding, right? - Ads imply but don't lie!!? - Give me a
>>break......Whatever government agency is supposed to be protecting us from
>>false advertising is certainly a huge waste of taxpayers money......If I
>>were in charge, I would fire them all as soon as I took the oath of
>>office....They cost us a bundle, but do absolutely nothing. (Like most
>>government agencies)
>
> It's not their fault -- President Reagan eviscerated regulations against
> false advertising, part of the Conservative pro-business deregulation
> agenda.
I wonder why he let them remain in business.....All they are is a drain on
the taxpayers pocketbook.
I can understand disenfranchising them, but why not get rid of them
altogether, so the employees can go out and get "day jobs".
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 11:39 pm
From: "Bill Graham"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:H9GX5UBNTPQKFAxv@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <2YGdnffSeOgiX93XnZ2dnUVZ_vZi4p2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> writes
>>Chris H wrote:
>>> In message <cvKdner-DM_u4N3XnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews.com>, Bill Graham
>>> <weg9@comcast.net> writes
>>>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:nsydnQ6bPujQb6LXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 22-06-09 10:09, John Navas wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:22:22 -0400, Alan Browne
>>>>>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in
>>>>>> <4-6dnX3_7Y6zzaPXnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>>> Viruses have been been successfully attacking PC's since the 80's -
>>>>> unless AV s/w is installed.
>>> Before that there were viruses on UNIX machines... and OSX is a
>>>Unix.
>>>
>>>>> Since Jobs took Apple into Open BSD (foundation for Max OS X) there
>>>>> has been no damage to Mac OS X systems from viruses in even slightly
>>>>> significant numbers.
>>> True.
>>>
>>>>> Hate to say so, but since I bought a Mac 18 months ago, I've turned
>>>>> into one 'them'.
>>>> The only reason there are so few Mac viruses is because there are so
>>>> few Macs, that the hackers and virus developers don't bother with
>>>> them.....This will change if they ever start to sell in significant
>>>> numbers......
>>> This is the real point. Viruses were originally on Unix (ie OSX) and
>>> them moved to windows when it became popular. However Unix has a very
>>> long history and most (but not all) of the gaps have been plugged.
>>>
>>>> I won't buy one because I can't read the writing on the Apple
>>>> sites....It's too small and has no contrast.....(Dark grey on light
>>>> grey just doesn't cut it with my weak vision) I have an iPod sitting
>>>> right here on my computer desk that I can't use.....$150 blown to
>>>> hell......It's the first and last thing I will ever buy from Apple.
>>> I don't use PC's for the same reason, the fonts are too small....
>>>:-)
>>>
>>Chris,
>> HUH? Your fonts can be as large, or as small as you want them to be.
>>One letter per screen is feasible, if you are vision impaired. Frankly,
>>if you are avoiding a PC for this reason, then it is plain you don't
>>know anything about USING one.
>
> Get an adult to explain the ":-)" at the end of the line....
>
> For your information in my office I run several XP PC's, OSX on G5 and
> G4 Mac's and Solaris on a Sun ULTRA 60 and we do embedded systems on any
> number of platforms.....
>
Sure, I can cut and paste anything into my Word program, and set the font
size to anything I want. but have you ever tried doing this with an iTunes
site, and then try to use it to buy songs for your iPod? - Give me a break!
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 12:00 am
From: Bob Larter
Elliott Roper wrote:
> In article <MrSdndfTO6rjpNzXnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Mac OS X file system and interfaces are UNIX compliant. That does not
>> make Mac OS X "UNIX" despite its genes from BSD.
>
> OS X 10.5 on Intel is officially certified by the Open Group as Unix
> since Oct 2007.
>
> (you pass some tests and pay a lot of money for the certification, so
> maybe it is not such a big deal.)
>
> Other certified Unixes are Slowaris, HPus, and AIX (I can't think of a
> denigratory mis-spelling for AIX -- Aches??).
Yeah, 'Aches' is the standard. You also missed 'PHux'. ;^)
> Linux isn't, and nobody
> cares.
>
> I think that makes OS X the biggest selling "Unix" since the hardware
> for the other ones is frighteningly expensive, even by Apple standards.
I dunno, there are a hell of a lot of Sun boxes out there.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 24 2009 12:04 am
From: Bob Larter
Alan Browne wrote:
> On 23-06-09 17:41, John Navas wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:38:00 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in
>> <9ImdnVvSv7al1tzXnZ2dnUVZ_gyvnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> On 23-06-09 17:23, John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>> You mean like from 2001 to 2005? LOL
>>> Read above. I meant one that works.
>>
>> And only Apple "works" in your opinion. Roger that. ;)
>
> V. the indexed search in WinXp, absolutely. It was trash on its best
> day and thrash every other moment.
Indeed.
I cheat, & run grep under WinXP + Cygwin
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
TOPIC: APS Advantix Scanner Advice Needed
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/003124f6f660709a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 11:44 pm
From: SMS
Fred McKenzie wrote:
> In article
> <bc119ca1-d041-4aa6-a485-d3e4eed35419@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> cacheandleave <cacheandleave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have plenty of APS cartridges I need scanned, as well as lots of
>> other older film, 110, etc...
>>
>> What would you purchase to work on my IMAC?
>>
>> I have a Kodak FD 300, but no power cord or software. Since I can't
>> get one, I need to do something else.
>
> Cacheand-
>
> I have an older Minolta "Dimage Scan Dual" that uses a SCSI connection.
> As I recall, the APS Advantix film holder did not come with it, but was
> available separately. With any luck, you may find everything you need
> on E-Bay.
>
> I had to get a SCSI-to-FireWire adapter to work with the recent Macs. I
> don't think there is Minolta software available to use it with OS X, but
> VueScan works quite well with it.
>
> If you are interested, VueScan works with every scanner I've tried. You
> can download a trial version at <http://www.hamrick.com>. It may even
> work with the FD 300 if you can find a power cord.
The Canon FS-4000 Scanner included APS capability as standard. Might be
easier to find than stuff for the FD 300.
I.e. "http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/pho/1235914807.html"
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reason for so many focus errors we see today?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1415c1c3e6a92134?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 11:58 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
John Navas wrote:
[]
> It's the dark side (secret) of phase detection. Fast focusing
> inevitably involves some focus error, since it's predictive, and
> affected by lens errors. To fix that requires fine tuning, which can
> slow down focusing considerably. The reason more people don't notice
> is that it's lens sensitive, so focusing with a good lens, as in the
> case of most reviews, may still be fast. The issue doesn't exist for
> contrast detection, which is now fast enough for speed not to be an
> issue.
But, contrast detection relies on detecting a maximum, with no information
about what direction the focus system should be driven. With phase
detection you are seeking a zero, and the sensor output tell you which way
to drive the focus, making a very fast, one-shot, open-loop movement
possible. Iterate further /i/f there is any need. On the other hand,
detecting a maximum can be quite a lot slower as you need to seek on
either side of the maximum and make a best guess as to the peak. Swings
and roundabouts for both systems.
David
==============================================================================
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