Rogzilla
Jun 16, 03:42 PM
Apple CEO: I have this great new product...
Verizon CEO: This will never go anywhere. i-what. That's a stupid
Free X-Men Wallpaper
Free halloween screensavers
Free Screensavers,
more...
Free Sparkler Heart Wallpaper
free screensavers and
more...
Free Holiday Screensavers
matrix movie screensavers
more...
Free Screensavers - High
Free Game Downloads Sites
more...
Download Free Screensavers
free screensavers for your
more...
Free Screensavers / Powerpoint
free screensavers and
more...
Download Free Screensavers
Verizon CEO: This will never go anywhere. i-what. That's a stupid
MacRumors
Mar 13, 09:43 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/13/some-iphones-with-daylight-savings-glitch/)
Mashable reported (http://mashable.com/2011/03/13/verizon-iphone-tim/) that some iPhones were seeing a problem causing it to improperly adjust to daylight savings time in the U.S. Daylight saving time hits tonight/tomorrow morning, which means we all lose an hour of sleep � unless you have a Verizon iPhone, in which case you�ll wake up utterly confused, as phones are currently falling back an hour.They originally pinpoint the problem to Verizon iPhones, but also report that some AT&T iPhones may be affected too.
We've seen reports (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1115831) (another (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1115711)) from our readers that have seen the problem which also seems to affect alarms going off in the morning.
Article Link: Some iPhones with Daylight Savings Glitch? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/13/some-iphones-with-daylight-savings-glitch/)
Mashable reported (http://mashable.com/2011/03/13/verizon-iphone-tim/) that some iPhones were seeing a problem causing it to improperly adjust to daylight savings time in the U.S. Daylight saving time hits tonight/tomorrow morning, which means we all lose an hour of sleep � unless you have a Verizon iPhone, in which case you�ll wake up utterly confused, as phones are currently falling back an hour.They originally pinpoint the problem to Verizon iPhones, but also report that some AT&T iPhones may be affected too.
We've seen reports (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1115831) (another (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1115711)) from our readers that have seen the problem which also seems to affect alarms going off in the morning.
Article Link: Some iPhones with Daylight Savings Glitch? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/13/some-iphones-with-daylight-savings-glitch/)
OreoCookie
Mar 29, 08:31 AM
You have to have a standard frame of reference which is a 35mm sensor size.
That's correct, but you're not using this standard of reference properly: no manufacturer uses effective focal lengths to refer to lenses for dslrs (e. g. it's a 17-55 mm f/2.8 lens and not a 27-88 mm f/2.8 (equiv.) lens), be it a lens tailored for crop lenses or otherwise, but always the physical focal length. I think this is where your misunderstanding lies. This means a full frame lens and a crop lens with the same focal length with produce the same field of view on the same body. A 17-55 mm lens set to 50 mm will produce the same field of view than a nifty fifty on a crop camera (say, a 7D or a 40D).
Note that very often, this is handled differently on compact cameras where you will often find effective focal lengths rather than actual focal lengths, the reason being that sensor sizes can vary quite widely between models.
That's correct, but you're not using this standard of reference properly: no manufacturer uses effective focal lengths to refer to lenses for dslrs (e. g. it's a 17-55 mm f/2.8 lens and not a 27-88 mm f/2.8 (equiv.) lens), be it a lens tailored for crop lenses or otherwise, but always the physical focal length. I think this is where your misunderstanding lies. This means a full frame lens and a crop lens with the same focal length with produce the same field of view on the same body. A 17-55 mm lens set to 50 mm will produce the same field of view than a nifty fifty on a crop camera (say, a 7D or a 40D).
Note that very often, this is handled differently on compact cameras where you will often find effective focal lengths rather than actual focal lengths, the reason being that sensor sizes can vary quite widely between models.
mlblacy
Mar 18, 07:05 AM
The one in bold is what I see the most. I've done photography for years and see new people get into the game and worry about the wrong things. Photoshop being one of them. Photoshop shouldn't even come to someones mind.
Learn the camera, learn composition, learn lighting, learn photographic techniques to get what you want such as second curtain sync, hyperfocal distancing, etc. Once you can get it done right in camera then you can take it to the next level in photoshop (skin smoothing, removing hair wisps, correcting lens distortion, etc.).
Too many people want to be a pro right out of the gate, they buy photoshop, get a NAPP membership, a fancy computer (that is 99% of the time overkill), raid storage when they've only shot 500 pictures, etc but never bother to learn the fundamentals.
I'm all for learning on Digital, I think it helps someone learn better, but focus on learning the most important and fundamental things first, then learn about the post processing. A picture can still look fantastic without running it through photoshop.
These days much of the craftsmanship that used to take place in the darkroom coaxing a master print from a negative now takes place digitally. A technically well exposed frame can still produce a crappy print at the end of a less skilled artist. Conversely, technical perfection (second curtain sync, hyperfocal distancing gobbledygook) has very little to do with art, or even creativity. Great "art" these days is even being shot on a cellphone.
Both camps (the technical-crats & the ones who are blissfully unaware of the minutiae) can produce "great" work.
Many beginners suffer from the same bad pshop skills (hey, look... I can make grass grow on his head, no make that two heads) and mistakes that beginning designers can (hey look, I can make EACH letter a different color, and a different font).
All that being said, if I was teaching beginning photographers I would remove almost everything to start (camera, lens, etc.) and go primitive and start with building pinhole cameras. Then I would progress to the end point which would be post-processing. Post-processing is huge though...
cheers,
michael
Learn the camera, learn composition, learn lighting, learn photographic techniques to get what you want such as second curtain sync, hyperfocal distancing, etc. Once you can get it done right in camera then you can take it to the next level in photoshop (skin smoothing, removing hair wisps, correcting lens distortion, etc.).
Too many people want to be a pro right out of the gate, they buy photoshop, get a NAPP membership, a fancy computer (that is 99% of the time overkill), raid storage when they've only shot 500 pictures, etc but never bother to learn the fundamentals.
I'm all for learning on Digital, I think it helps someone learn better, but focus on learning the most important and fundamental things first, then learn about the post processing. A picture can still look fantastic without running it through photoshop.
These days much of the craftsmanship that used to take place in the darkroom coaxing a master print from a negative now takes place digitally. A technically well exposed frame can still produce a crappy print at the end of a less skilled artist. Conversely, technical perfection (second curtain sync, hyperfocal distancing gobbledygook) has very little to do with art, or even creativity. Great "art" these days is even being shot on a cellphone.
Both camps (the technical-crats & the ones who are blissfully unaware of the minutiae) can produce "great" work.
Many beginners suffer from the same bad pshop skills (hey, look... I can make grass grow on his head, no make that two heads) and mistakes that beginning designers can (hey look, I can make EACH letter a different color, and a different font).
All that being said, if I was teaching beginning photographers I would remove almost everything to start (camera, lens, etc.) and go primitive and start with building pinhole cameras. Then I would progress to the end point which would be post-processing. Post-processing is huge though...
cheers,
michael
more...
MacFanJeff
Apr 1, 09:20 AM
Not surpising at all. It's all about control of content and money.
All studios, rather music or movie have always hated the idea of selling content even though it makes them a ton of money. If they could do away with all of it, including DVD sells, they would. What they truly want is for you to pay a fee every time you want to view or listen to content and you never "own" anything period. Nothing physical at all to buy, just pay for it every time you view or listen.
All studios, rather music or movie have always hated the idea of selling content even though it makes them a ton of money. If they could do away with all of it, including DVD sells, they would. What they truly want is for you to pay a fee every time you want to view or listen to content and you never "own" anything period. Nothing physical at all to buy, just pay for it every time you view or listen.
JDDavis
Mar 4, 03:11 PM
I went out to make use of the first bit of sunshine I've seen for ages:
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/7522/contrasth.jpg
I like the idea a lot. Great interpretation. I agree with Dale that an older style watch might make it an even stronger shot. Something a bit more classic with mechanical movement...though I do appreciate the contrast between the sundail and digital. I also wonder how a rectangular crop would look that brought us in closer to the sundail and the watch.
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/7522/contrasth.jpg
I like the idea a lot. Great interpretation. I agree with Dale that an older style watch might make it an even stronger shot. Something a bit more classic with mechanical movement...though I do appreciate the contrast between the sundail and digital. I also wonder how a rectangular crop would look that brought us in closer to the sundail and the watch.
more...
Pants
Sep 15, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by MisterMe
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I have a recent ibook running jaguar - it has had a clean install (twice) and, quite frankly, its annoyingly slow. This is a current mac, running its current os, and its hardly acceptable - running illustrator? expect the beach ball, the same with large word documents. And I still see the beachball with annoying frequency in the finder. I don't care that this isnt the top of the range 3,000 quid machine - it is stupid to only expect acceptable performance in Word on the top of the line machine. No, don't take my word for it, go have a look at a fully loaded i-book
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
these machines are 64-bit, with floating point performance that widdles all over apples current offerings. The reason they are used is for this feature alone - and yepI would rather run my simulations on a sparc box than a pc, although the cost of a cheap linux box is pushing us down that route. At some point there is a balance between cost and performance. Yes it is odd that I need the fastest box around to run ut2k3 acceptably, and i agree there is something wrong with the way the market is being driven, but I suppose if thats what customers want (and are prepared to pay for), this is what they'll get....
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
never intentionally 'crippled' a machine? what about teh video card on teh ibook?
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I have a recent ibook running jaguar - it has had a clean install (twice) and, quite frankly, its annoyingly slow. This is a current mac, running its current os, and its hardly acceptable - running illustrator? expect the beach ball, the same with large word documents. And I still see the beachball with annoying frequency in the finder. I don't care that this isnt the top of the range 3,000 quid machine - it is stupid to only expect acceptable performance in Word on the top of the line machine. No, don't take my word for it, go have a look at a fully loaded i-book
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
these machines are 64-bit, with floating point performance that widdles all over apples current offerings. The reason they are used is for this feature alone - and yepI would rather run my simulations on a sparc box than a pc, although the cost of a cheap linux box is pushing us down that route. At some point there is a balance between cost and performance. Yes it is odd that I need the fastest box around to run ut2k3 acceptably, and i agree there is something wrong with the way the market is being driven, but I suppose if thats what customers want (and are prepared to pay for), this is what they'll get....
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
never intentionally 'crippled' a machine? what about teh video card on teh ibook?
weldon
Apr 2, 07:15 PM
Word is far...because Pages just isn't a word processor... Publisher was a horrible app and Pages is merely an Apple (much better) version albeit still kind of redundant.
The first week Pages was out a lot of people were crowing about a new "Word-killer" and I really felt that was offbase because the better comparison really is to Microsoft Publisher. It reminds me of a light version of Pagemaker from 10 years ago.
Still, I think that Publisher is an important program. It's a lot easier to create a newsletter with photos, columns, fancy headers, etc. in Publisher than it is in Word. I think Apple should not try and compete with Word on the Mac, but should try to create an equivalent to Publisher, only better.
When I need to create a flyer or a newsletter thing, I fire up Publisher on my Windows box because it works. I'm a teacher and sometimes that free-form page layout is the perfect thing. For handouts with pictures, I just use Word, but I'm always annoyed that I have to format the picture so that text will flow around it and I can place it anywhere on the page by drag and drop. I'd rather do stuff like that in a page layout app, but I don't need to spend the $$$$$ for Pagemaker.
Word, is a great app. I know people complain about it being bloated, but I can get everything I need done pretty quickly. I don't find that Word is slow or that it gets in my way. Of course, I've been using Word since it first came out on the Mac and Windows. I'm used to its quirks and can do things pretty easily. Today, I created a short document that has three columns of terms in the middle. I know that I have to insert a section break (continuous) and then format:columns to switch to three column, and then insert another section break (continuous) to go back to one column. Not intuitive, but easy for me.
The one thing I would like to see in Word is a reference database and auto-format for citations so I can switch to APA or MLA style as needed. My grad school professors each have their own ideas about proper style.
Again, Pages shouldn't grow into a competitor for Word. It should be Pagemaker for the rest of us.
The first week Pages was out a lot of people were crowing about a new "Word-killer" and I really felt that was offbase because the better comparison really is to Microsoft Publisher. It reminds me of a light version of Pagemaker from 10 years ago.
Still, I think that Publisher is an important program. It's a lot easier to create a newsletter with photos, columns, fancy headers, etc. in Publisher than it is in Word. I think Apple should not try and compete with Word on the Mac, but should try to create an equivalent to Publisher, only better.
When I need to create a flyer or a newsletter thing, I fire up Publisher on my Windows box because it works. I'm a teacher and sometimes that free-form page layout is the perfect thing. For handouts with pictures, I just use Word, but I'm always annoyed that I have to format the picture so that text will flow around it and I can place it anywhere on the page by drag and drop. I'd rather do stuff like that in a page layout app, but I don't need to spend the $$$$$ for Pagemaker.
Word, is a great app. I know people complain about it being bloated, but I can get everything I need done pretty quickly. I don't find that Word is slow or that it gets in my way. Of course, I've been using Word since it first came out on the Mac and Windows. I'm used to its quirks and can do things pretty easily. Today, I created a short document that has three columns of terms in the middle. I know that I have to insert a section break (continuous) and then format:columns to switch to three column, and then insert another section break (continuous) to go back to one column. Not intuitive, but easy for me.
The one thing I would like to see in Word is a reference database and auto-format for citations so I can switch to APA or MLA style as needed. My grad school professors each have their own ideas about proper style.
Again, Pages shouldn't grow into a competitor for Word. It should be Pagemaker for the rest of us.
more...
zombierunner
Mar 28, 08:48 AM
Apple should start naming their iOS releases the same way they do for Mac OS X ... for OS X they went with wild cats .. leopard, snow leopard, lion etc .. so may be for iOS .. they could go with umm say primates? iOS 5 - Macaque? anyone?
junkie365
Oct 6, 12:42 PM
Why would Apple do what has failed all other manufactures during the time Apple's one model mantra have eaten sales from other manufactures?
Because now Android with a range of sizes is eating iPhone sales.
Go into a Best Buy and look at all the Androids with larger screens, and some with smaller screens and lower prices. Apple needs to compete with that...
Because now Android with a range of sizes is eating iPhone sales.
Go into a Best Buy and look at all the Androids with larger screens, and some with smaller screens and lower prices. Apple needs to compete with that...
more...
ltldrummerboy
Jun 14, 11:28 PM
With the new ESPN deal announced and this new hardware I might be selling my Mac mini to get one of these. If Hulu comes to Xbox it'll be a sure thing.
Does anyone know if MLB games are included in the ESPN deal?
Does anyone know if MLB games are included in the ESPN deal?
Liquorpuki
Apr 10, 12:42 AM
Margaret Sanger had "interesting" views of minorities
Sanger was a racist. She also died half a century ago. Maybe if she was still alive today, she'd be pissed that PP currently employs minorities. Maybe because both me and my girlfriend are minorities and have used PP for STD testing, contraception, etc, she'd be pissed that resources were spent on us.
Who cares though because this is all beside the point. All the racial talk is just proof by obfuscation.
I love how in 2009 Planned Parenthood did 332,278 abortion and 977 adoption referrals, that's like 340 to 1
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf
Don't forget the approx 10 million cases of treatment, consulting, testing, and cancer screening that are also on that document. Since we're all about numbers right now, those are pretty important too.
Sanger was a racist. She also died half a century ago. Maybe if she was still alive today, she'd be pissed that PP currently employs minorities. Maybe because both me and my girlfriend are minorities and have used PP for STD testing, contraception, etc, she'd be pissed that resources were spent on us.
Who cares though because this is all beside the point. All the racial talk is just proof by obfuscation.
I love how in 2009 Planned Parenthood did 332,278 abortion and 977 adoption referrals, that's like 340 to 1
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf
Don't forget the approx 10 million cases of treatment, consulting, testing, and cancer screening that are also on that document. Since we're all about numbers right now, those are pretty important too.
more...
macfan881
Oct 12, 05:20 PM
I spent many an our as a kid standing around this cabinet as a player and a watcher.
I hope it turns out better than Turtles in Time. and I'm sure it will be $15. Maybe The Simpsons will be next!!
i would think it would the simspons iPhone game is a pretty good seller i belive its in the top 50 for games.
I hope it turns out better than Turtles in Time. and I'm sure it will be $15. Maybe The Simpsons will be next!!
i would think it would the simspons iPhone game is a pretty good seller i belive its in the top 50 for games.
DeusInvictus7
Apr 21, 09:11 AM
As soon as Sandybridge based MBA's arrive, I'm buying.
Don't want an outdated C2D and Nv's video chipset, I've seen the HD3000 in action and it's very good. Does everything I want and much more.
From what I read, the Intel HD 3000 is actually better-performing on OS X than the Nvidia 320m. People are paranoying this Intel 3000 issue like it's the plague, while in reality they are basically the same in terms of performance.
I don't have the money, but if I was to buy a MBA, I'd surely buy it once the Sandy Bridge version came out.
You guys are forgetting that the LV and ULV version of the HD3000 is underclocked compared to the normal voltage version. So while the normal ones are the same as the 320M, the underclocked LV and ULV ones are definitely not going to match up to the 320M.
Don't want an outdated C2D and Nv's video chipset, I've seen the HD3000 in action and it's very good. Does everything I want and much more.
From what I read, the Intel HD 3000 is actually better-performing on OS X than the Nvidia 320m. People are paranoying this Intel 3000 issue like it's the plague, while in reality they are basically the same in terms of performance.
I don't have the money, but if I was to buy a MBA, I'd surely buy it once the Sandy Bridge version came out.
You guys are forgetting that the LV and ULV version of the HD3000 is underclocked compared to the normal voltage version. So while the normal ones are the same as the 320M, the underclocked LV and ULV ones are definitely not going to match up to the 320M.
more...
guifa
Apr 25, 10:07 AM
As for your Android is "OPEN" comment, I don't think you know what "open" actually means.
2. Closed review process. All code reviewers work for Google, meaning that Google is the only authority that can accept or reject a code submission from the community.
That may, but at least code submissions are possible. When was the last time you heard of Apple accepting community-submitted iPhone OS code? Oh, right. Not possible. Someone still needs to oversee core code submissions, and that's how ALL software works. In this case, Google is the lead developer so they oversee those submissions.
3. Speed of evolution. Google innovates the Android platform at a speed that�s unprecedented for the mobile industry, releasing 4 major updates (1.6 to 2.1) in 18 months. OEMs wanting to build on Android have no choice but to stay close to Google so as not to lose on new features/bug fixes released.
Valid point. They have updated it pretty quickly, but it seems to be a bit slower now.
4. Incomplete software. The public SDK is by no means sufficient to build a handset. Key building blocks missing are radio integration, international language packs, operator packs � and of course Google�s closed source apps like Market, Gmail and GTalk.
There are language packs available, and as a user, you can translate core apps if you need to and submit them to be added.
5. Gated developer community. Android Market is the exclusive distribution and discovery channel for the 40,000+ apps created by developers; and is available to phone manufacturers on separate agreement.
Wrong.. Unlike the iPhone, on Android you can install any application you want from any source you want. Does the Market make things easier? Yes. Is it required for app installation and distribution? No.
Screensavers, free
more...
Free Holiday Screensavers
wallpaper free animated
Free Animated Wallpapers And
2. Closed review process. All code reviewers work for Google, meaning that Google is the only authority that can accept or reject a code submission from the community.
That may, but at least code submissions are possible. When was the last time you heard of Apple accepting community-submitted iPhone OS code? Oh, right. Not possible. Someone still needs to oversee core code submissions, and that's how ALL software works. In this case, Google is the lead developer so they oversee those submissions.
3. Speed of evolution. Google innovates the Android platform at a speed that�s unprecedented for the mobile industry, releasing 4 major updates (1.6 to 2.1) in 18 months. OEMs wanting to build on Android have no choice but to stay close to Google so as not to lose on new features/bug fixes released.
Valid point. They have updated it pretty quickly, but it seems to be a bit slower now.
4. Incomplete software. The public SDK is by no means sufficient to build a handset. Key building blocks missing are radio integration, international language packs, operator packs � and of course Google�s closed source apps like Market, Gmail and GTalk.
There are language packs available, and as a user, you can translate core apps if you need to and submit them to be added.
5. Gated developer community. Android Market is the exclusive distribution and discovery channel for the 40,000+ apps created by developers; and is available to phone manufacturers on separate agreement.
Wrong.. Unlike the iPhone, on Android you can install any application you want from any source you want. Does the Market make things easier? Yes. Is it required for app installation and distribution? No.
Rendergroup
Apr 14, 11:54 AM
No plugin for Hotmail in Outlook available... common MS guys...
more...
BlizzardBomb
Jun 1, 10:03 AM
I've edited the original post. I've changed "Mac Software" to just "Software". Making it more of a hybrid of the previous options.
yorkshire
Dec 16, 03:53 PM
This is absolutely pointless and I'm sick of hearing about it. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Sony who started the campaign. Think about it. If you didn't like the X Factor song, you wouldn't buy it. But now there is this silly campaign to buy the RATM song for all the people who hate the X Factor song. Sony wins in either case.
And the reason the X Factor song is usually number one is because, well, the X Factor is popular.
These campaigns are stupid and pointless.
[/thread]
It's not about making Sony lose out. Most of the people buying the single realise that either way, Sony benefits. Yes, Cowell will benefit slightly as he has shares in Sony, but he won't benefit nearly as much as he would if X Factor was number 1. I think it's just that people are fed up of X Factor dominating the charts year after year, and they want to see something new. Myself, I don't mind the RATM song, yes if it was my choice I'd have picked another, but anything is better than the cheesy manufactured pop that comes from Reality TV singing competitions.
And the reason the X Factor song is usually number one is because, well, the X Factor is popular.
These campaigns are stupid and pointless.
[/thread]
It's not about making Sony lose out. Most of the people buying the single realise that either way, Sony benefits. Yes, Cowell will benefit slightly as he has shares in Sony, but he won't benefit nearly as much as he would if X Factor was number 1. I think it's just that people are fed up of X Factor dominating the charts year after year, and they want to see something new. Myself, I don't mind the RATM song, yes if it was my choice I'd have picked another, but anything is better than the cheesy manufactured pop that comes from Reality TV singing competitions.
thatisme
Mar 28, 05:38 PM
I think you both just said exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why Full of Win is arguing?
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Allthough...This statement from thatisme 'So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
Thanks for the correction, and good catch.
So, for the OP, the difference between EF-sand EF lenses is that EF-S are lighter and cheaper and are tied to 1.6 sensor cameras. EF is more versatile since they work on all EF mount cameras (including EF-S). They can be very cheap or very expensive(and good) when you get into L series lenses.
There is really no good reason to compare focal length or field of view between the two since construction wise, they are like apples and oranges.
Where it becomes relevant, is when you have an EF lens, and you own different format cameras ( like I do). my 400mm 2.8 L IS lens is a true 400mm on my 5D mark II, and 520mm on my 1D mark IIn (1.3) and 640mm on my old 20D. I don't really care about the EF-S mount since it only applies to one of the 3 camera bodies.
Is not true: a 50mm EF lens and a 50mm EF-s lens will have the same focal length and field of view on a crop camera.
This is not correct.
A EF-s 50 mm lens is 50 mm on a 1.6 camera. A 50mm EF lens on that same camera is similar in image to a 80mm EF-S lens. The reason for the difference comes into play by the amount of the lens the camera is using to record the image and the proximity of the rear element to the camera sensor.
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Allthough...This statement from thatisme 'So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
Thanks for the correction, and good catch.
So, for the OP, the difference between EF-sand EF lenses is that EF-S are lighter and cheaper and are tied to 1.6 sensor cameras. EF is more versatile since they work on all EF mount cameras (including EF-S). They can be very cheap or very expensive(and good) when you get into L series lenses.
There is really no good reason to compare focal length or field of view between the two since construction wise, they are like apples and oranges.
Where it becomes relevant, is when you have an EF lens, and you own different format cameras ( like I do). my 400mm 2.8 L IS lens is a true 400mm on my 5D mark II, and 520mm on my 1D mark IIn (1.3) and 640mm on my old 20D. I don't really care about the EF-S mount since it only applies to one of the 3 camera bodies.
Is not true: a 50mm EF lens and a 50mm EF-s lens will have the same focal length and field of view on a crop camera.
This is not correct.
A EF-s 50 mm lens is 50 mm on a 1.6 camera. A 50mm EF lens on that same camera is similar in image to a 80mm EF-S lens. The reason for the difference comes into play by the amount of the lens the camera is using to record the image and the proximity of the rear element to the camera sensor.
Silverfist
Mar 24, 04:09 PM
Holding out until inevitable $0.99 sale...
;)
.
;)
.
sbarton
Apr 30, 02:58 PM
so is this a cider port or native?
HBOC
Mar 19, 04:25 PM
I do still suck.
My problem is leaving my camera on Auto. I just don't know which setting to use. The more I read and the more opinions I see, the more confused I get. Plus when I see a good subject I don't want to mess it up with my ill informed selections...
I did just buy the Bryan Peterson Understanding Exposure book, so hopefully that will help set me off in the right direction!
Auto is a good place to start, but DON'T BE AFRAID to use full manual 'M'. I have never shoot anything other full manual, except when I was using my camera to take snap shots of stuff I was selling on eBay, FM, CL, etc.
With digital nowadays, it doesn't cost anything to learn! I am not that old, but I learned with film. My first film body was an EOS 650 and then I quickly snatched up two more (an Elan 7NE and an EOS-3), due to it being film. You were "stuck" at whatever the film was, and so I had three bodies out of convenience, if you will. So one body had Velvia RVP 50, one had Neopan and the other had like Reala. Those were the days (like 2002 or something). .
I say this all the time, but I still have " A Film state of mind". In that, I mean I shoot like I still use film. I pre-vision what I want to convey onto "film", thus it slows up my shooting. I guess all the $$$$ I spent on developing and such (buying a CoolScan IV ED scanner, etc to get it onto the computer) sticks with me.
Point is just go out and shoot. I really up until a year or so ago shot landscapes primarily. I used a Rokinon (Vivitar/Samyang,Bower/etc) 85mm 1.4 and it opened up my eyes to different styles, and thus I am venturing into different subjects. Nothing makes up for experience and trial and errors. Understanding how one setting is in relation to the other will greatly help you!
My problem is leaving my camera on Auto. I just don't know which setting to use. The more I read and the more opinions I see, the more confused I get. Plus when I see a good subject I don't want to mess it up with my ill informed selections...
I did just buy the Bryan Peterson Understanding Exposure book, so hopefully that will help set me off in the right direction!
Auto is a good place to start, but DON'T BE AFRAID to use full manual 'M'. I have never shoot anything other full manual, except when I was using my camera to take snap shots of stuff I was selling on eBay, FM, CL, etc.
With digital nowadays, it doesn't cost anything to learn! I am not that old, but I learned with film. My first film body was an EOS 650 and then I quickly snatched up two more (an Elan 7NE and an EOS-3), due to it being film. You were "stuck" at whatever the film was, and so I had three bodies out of convenience, if you will. So one body had Velvia RVP 50, one had Neopan and the other had like Reala. Those were the days (like 2002 or something). .
I say this all the time, but I still have " A Film state of mind". In that, I mean I shoot like I still use film. I pre-vision what I want to convey onto "film", thus it slows up my shooting. I guess all the $$$$ I spent on developing and such (buying a CoolScan IV ED scanner, etc to get it onto the computer) sticks with me.
Point is just go out and shoot. I really up until a year or so ago shot landscapes primarily. I used a Rokinon (Vivitar/Samyang,Bower/etc) 85mm 1.4 and it opened up my eyes to different styles, and thus I am venturing into different subjects. Nothing makes up for experience and trial and errors. Understanding how one setting is in relation to the other will greatly help you!
DPinTX
Mar 11, 08:00 AM
The line at Stonebrier is setup all the way down to build a. Bear wih stantions. 11 people in line. Sign in Apple states 3:00 pm close to get ready for Ipad2 launch at 5.
DP
DP
GFLPraxis
Aug 2, 07:50 PM
Wow.
I wonder if you could hack a 3G microcell to do this entirely in software.
I wonder if you could hack a 3G microcell to do this entirely in software.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Suport
0 comments:
Post a Comment