Prev: Is there a compact camera that will take a series of shotsquickly?
Next: How to use remote to control video with Canon SX1 IS?
From: isw on 10 Dec 2009 13:06
In article <hfm5bl$gq3$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>,
"nsbm" <fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

-- snippage of stuff --

> If you are a na�ve photographer who has swallowed the Apple Kool aid and
> realize that you cannot calibrate ANY Apple monitor correctly without
> additional, very expensive obscure third party purchases then you may have
> already shot yourself and are dead and cannot read this.
> However if you think you are calibrating your Apple monitor in situ
> correctly then you are the na�ve soul you are, bless your heart.

You appear to be quite knowlegable on the subject, so I would appreciate
it if you would elaborate on this, and tell me *precisely* what is wrong
with Apple's built-in calibration software, why it is no good, which
calibrations it cannot accomplish, and how far off the monitor can wind
up if it is used.

I can't afford any "additional, very expensive obscure third party
purchases", but I do some image editing, and I want to get the best out
of what I have.

Isaac
From: R. Mark Clayton on 12 Dec 2009 11:13

"Shawn Hirn" <srhi(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-6BD2BC.07013207122009(a)news.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <de1b8d61-7a2e-4c41-8c85-bec7e58abc72(a)j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>> that to some appears attractive, but from a functional aspect, sucks.
>> Think about pro cameras then think about newer small cameras and what
>> is the small camera's main problem? Lack of up front functionality,
>> lack of buttons. Everything is buried in menus or simply lacking.
>> This is why despite the constant griping by some there ARE no small,
>> pro-level DSLRs.
>> Apple doesn't use buttons. Everything is in multi-layed menus
>> onscreen. If the could commit the keyboard to a screen, likely they
>> would. This is not the kind of hamstrung functionality people who
>> know better want in a camera. They want the functions available to
>> them with a one-button push, ideally.
>> Which is why pro cameras will stay large.
>
> Apple did make a digital camera. Apple's QuickTake was one of the first
> consumer-level digital cameras on the market. Apple has never aspired to
> replace the PC. Steve Jobs has said that in public several times. You
> need to update yourself on history before you spout off with clearly
> uninformed information.

Recently starred second in "Bad Apples - Their 10 worst inventions" in
Computer Weekly see: -

http://www.computerweekly.com/galleries/238046-2/Apple-QuickTake-No-zoom-focus-or-memory.htm

Typically if it were Apple the lenses would be incompatible with everyone
else, the filter size would be 49.5mm with an anti-clockwise thread, the
aspect ratio would be 17:10, the flash connection would not be hot shoe, the
media connection would be GPIB, the tripod thread would not be 1/4"
Whitworth and it would take Apple's own 30mm film...


From: Ray Fischer on 12 Dec 2009 11:46
R. Mark Clayton <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Shawn Hirn" <srhi(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:srhi-6BD2BC.07013207122009(a)news.newsguy.com...
>> In article
>> <de1b8d61-7a2e-4c41-8c85-bec7e58abc72(a)j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>>> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>>> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>> that to some appears attractive, but from a functional aspect, sucks.
>>> Think about pro cameras then think about newer small cameras and what
>>> is the small camera's main problem? Lack of up front functionality,
>>> lack of buttons. Everything is buried in menus or simply lacking.
>>> This is why despite the constant griping by some there ARE no small,
>>> pro-level DSLRs.
>>> Apple doesn't use buttons. Everything is in multi-layed menus
>>> onscreen. If the could commit the keyboard to a screen, likely they
>>> would. This is not the kind of hamstrung functionality people who
>>> know better want in a camera. They want the functions available to
>>> them with a one-button push, ideally.
>>> Which is why pro cameras will stay large.
>>
>> Apple did make a digital camera. Apple's QuickTake was one of the first
>> consumer-level digital cameras on the market. Apple has never aspired to
>> replace the PC. Steve Jobs has said that in public several times. You
>> need to update yourself on history before you spout off with clearly
>> uninformed information.
>
>Recently starred second in "Bad Apples - Their 10 worst inventions" in
>Computer Weekly see: -
>
>http://www.computerweekly.com/galleries/238046-2/Apple-QuickTake-No-zoom-focus-or-memory.htm
>
>Typically if it were Apple the lenses would be incompatible with everyone
>else, the filter size would be 49.5mm with an anti-clockwise thread, the

That's just childish. That was probably the first digital cameras
targeted for average consumers, and adding all the the extras would
have doubled the price.

When you're first in a market you don't always guess right.

But if you're never first in a market you don't do as well.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: nospam on 12 Dec 2009 15:15
In article <jICdnZxnxpOQXL7WnZ2dnUVZ8oOdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
<nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote:

> Typically if it were Apple the lenses would be incompatible with everyone
> else,

canon lenses won't fit non-canon cameras. nikon lenses won't fit
non-nikon cameras, except for fuji because fuji bought nikon bodies on
which to base their cameras.

> the filter size would be 49.5mm with an anti-clockwise thread,

a lot of p&s cameras need adapter tubes to take a filter, and sometimes
they are a non-standard size, such as the 28mm filters on a nikon
990/995. try finding those in a store. some p&s cameras can't even take
a filter at all.

> the aspect ratio would be 17:10,

olympus 4/3rds uses a 4:3 aspect ratio rather than the common 3:2 ratio
for slrs.

> the flash connection would not be hot shoe,

minolta used their own hot shoe instead of the standard hot shoe.

even if they didn't do that, each camera has its own flash protocol, so
if you buy a flash and change brands, you need to change flashes too.

> the media connection would be GPIB,

gpib is an official standard that's been around for a very long time.

however, if you attach the camera to a computer, a lot of them don't
show up as usb mass storage devices, which means you need to use
software to access the photos rather than just a simple file copy.
fortunately, a card reader solves that problem.

> the tripod thread would not be 1/4"
> Whitworth and it would take Apple's own 30mm film...

olympus brand memory cards enabled panoramas, and if you used a
different brand, you didn't get that feature. sony uses their own
memory stick.

in reality, apple is very standards compliant.

microsoft, on the other hand, likes to come up with their own
standards, such as windows media, c#, .net, wins, iis, etc.
From: -hh on 12 Dec 2009 15:24
On Dec 9, 11:15 am, Martin Trautmann <t-use...(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:36:52 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
> >  There's been two major complaints about iMac screens.  The first is
> >  glossy instead of matte; Apple now has an option on the 27" for that
> >  IIRC, plus there's aftermarket films.
>
> Are you talking 15 and 17" MacBook Pro?

I'm pretty sure that I wrote "iMac" above.

> AFAIK the iMacs have real glass surfaces - and although there's e.g. some
> anti newton treatment for picture frames with glass, I'm not aware of
> any such Mac treatment.

I'd have to go Google it to find the reference.

> >  The second is some less-than-
> >  perfect uniformity of illumination.  I've looked at the screenshots
> >  and have been able to see what they're talking about, but who knows
> >  how much contrast they post-process added in Photoshop?  I've not seen
> >  it in person to offer a meaningful comment.
>
> AFAIK the iMacs do use IPS display technology which should be superior
> to simple and cheap TN displays.

Might also include better bit-depth (vs dithering) IIRC. In any
case, for those readers who are in the market and if this is of
interest to them, I'm sure that further online independent research
will reveal greater technical details.


> >  OTOH, one might want to take a look at their 24" stand-alone display
> >  and IIRC their newest iMacs, as I believe that both have gotten rave
> >  reviews for better...something or other.  I'm not in the market right
> >  now, so I don't recall the detailed technical specifics.
>
> I don't know about flaws of earlier LED background illu - but I feel
> that your major source are neither current reviews nor personal
> impression, but former gossips?

You're correct: you do not know my sources.

And for your uninformed speculation of my sources...gosh, how is that
not precisely the behavior of a gossip?


-hh
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: Is there a compact camera that will take a series of shotsquickly?
Next: How to use remote to control video with Canon SX1 IS?