Re: [CGUYS] tags
On Mon, 26 May 2008, Tom Piwowar wrote: Huh? It's true Gmail calls it's filters 'labels' (not 'tags'), but how does that mean *I'm* doing anything wrong? I was the one making the point that this is where we commonly see tags today - on the web, not in file systems like you brought up. And you don't think that what Google is providing is a file system? Actually, with the right software, it can be exactly that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GmailFS (Note: I haven't tried it myself, but it looks neat...) -- Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
On May 26, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote: At any rate, the CD can be viewed on virtually any computer without problems, and if a recipient has a DVD player that they want to view the images on, I can only hope it works 100% for them. You should include a ReadMe file about what you have learned. That may tip off people who have a problematical player. A good idea, and I had thought of that, but thanks anyway. I already have a README as a jpeg and as a plain text file that list the contents of the CD in terms that describe what is in the various folders. I will add a little "disclaimer" that will hopefully forewarn folks that some files may not display on certain DVD players. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
Depends on how the noise is removed. "Loss of detail" is probably due to using an older method that uses smoothing instead of methods that take into account recent discoveries about the nature of digital photos. >Agreed. However, there is apt to be a noticeable loss of detail >when effective noise removal is applied to images, especially when >the noise level is high to begin with. Digital noise is not as >evenly dispersed as is the grain in high speed film. Digital noise >can be "blotchy" in appearance, more noticeable in some areas of an >image than in others, and can also affect color in strange ways. If >one has to leave the digital noise in order to retain detail, I'd >prefer the film-type grain to digital noise. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
On May 26, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote: What respects are those? Are you saying, that given equal lenses, a charge coupled detector of fixed bandwidth is an equal recording instrument compared to film? More pics at essentially zero cost. I can agree with this for the most part. A good digital camera will have better resolution than 35mm film. Depends upon what "good" means. Film has grain, digital doesn't. Digital does have noise, which in many ways is the digital version of grain. A reasonably-priced digital camera can have optical image stabilization. I have never seen this on a camera that uses film. Various film cameras employ image stabilization, albeit in the lens not in the camera body. Some "reasonably" priced film cameras can take advantage of image stabilization, but the cost for that is in the price of the IS lens. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
On May 26, 2008, at 7:03 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote: Film has grain, digital doesn't. Digital does have noise, which in many ways is the digital version of grain. Digital camera noise is highly consistent from pic to pic. Software can profile it and remove it. Not so for film grain. Agreed. However, there is apt to be a noticeable loss of detail when effective noise removal is applied to images, especially when the noise level is high to begin with. Digital noise is not as evenly dispersed as is the grain in high speed film. Digital noise can be "blotchy" in appearance, more noticeable in some areas of an image than in others, and can also affect color in strange ways. If one has to leave the digital noise in order to retain detail, I'd prefer the film-type grain to digital noise. That being said, I still use my digital almost 100% of the time, including low light situations. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] tags
>Huh? It's true Gmail calls it's filters 'labels' (not 'tags'), but how >does that mean *I'm* doing anything wrong? I was the one making the >point that this is where we commonly see tags today - on the web, not >in file systems like you brought up. And you don't think that what Google is providing is a file system? TONY, YOU ARE DOING I ALL WRONG >I won't argue that tags may be the future. My other point though had >to do with the hassle of having to *manually* tag items. Some people think that putting files into folders is a terrible pain and just drop all their files on the desktop. Do you do that? >I don't see why your spending time adding tags to your emails is going >to help you recall a post or thread from history. What can I say? TONY, YOU ARE DOING I ALL WRONG >Why can't Gmail et all _automatically_ add tags depending on the content >of the post/email? It kind of does already. You can Google search your emails. Manually applied tags just give you some additional control. Right around the corner will be control by brain waves. As you read and think about the email the computer will identify the proper labels to use. Kids will pick up this new skill quickly. Almost nobody over 50 will be able to do it at all. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
>At any rate, the CD can be viewed on virtually any computer >without problems, and if a recipient has a DVD player that they want >to view the images on, I can only hope it works 100% for them. You should include a ReadMe file about what you have learned. That may tip off people who have a problematical player. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
On May 26, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote: Steve, do let us know how you ultimately solve the problem. It would be a good thing to know. Apparently the only 'problem' I had was with one person who replied to my initial query, and my DVD player. My DVD player seems to only want to display the first 400 images on an ISO 9660 Joliet CD. There may be other DVD players out there with similar or different limitations, but I have discovered that there are also others out there without such limitations. Some thought had been given to writing the image files to a UDF DVD, but older computers often do not have DVD drives. I considered the Joliet CD format, even with its limitations, to be the best solution for a hopefully all encompassing CD. At any rate, the CD can be viewed on virtually any computer without problems, and if a recipient has a DVD player that they want to view the images on, I can only hope it works 100% for them. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
>> Film has grain, digital doesn't. > > Digital does have noise, which in many ways is the digital version >of grain. Digital camera noise is highly consistent from pic to pic. Software can profile it and remove it. Not so for film grain. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] PC, Mac or Modification
>More importantly, the computer screen is more likely to offer larger print >and be positioned above the dividing line for bi (or tri) focal lenses. Good point. For this purpose a large CRT run at a relatively low resolution can be very useful. You can't do this as efffectively with an LCD. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] tags
>But *today*, the term 'tags' and 'tagging' refers to posts and >pictures on the web. And this is sent by Tony from a GMail account? TONY, YOU ARE DOING I ALL WRONG One of the best examples of tagging is GMail. You can easily define rules to process incoming mail with some rough tags and then apply specific tags manually based on the content. - Everything from CGuys gets auto tagged "CGuys" and "DiscussionList" - I tag Mac stuff "Mac" and Windows stuff "Other." - I tag stuff about photography "Photo" Etc. Etc. I can then more easily track down something I read in some discussion list on photography and Macs. Without tags I would be hunting through every folder where I stored discussion list posts. Tags are the future. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
>What respects are those? Are you saying, that given equal >lenses, a charge coupled detector of fixed bandwidth is an >equal recording instrument compared to film? More pics at essentially zero cost. A good digital camera will have better resolution than 35mm film. Film has grain, digital doesn't. A reasonably-priced digital camera can have optical image stabilization. I have never seen this on a camera that uses film. This makes a big difference in low-light situations. I commonly take pictures with my digital camera that would be very tough with a film camera (e.g. stage photography). A digital camera can document the shot and store the information in the image file. Some can even add sound annotations. Very easy to distribute photos (e.g. Picassa and Flickr). * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] PC, Mac or Modification
>If not wanting to buy a new version of Word is all that's stopping >you, check out Open Office. It's free and will let you read Word and >save your creations in Word format. MS sells an inexpensive (but complete) version of Office for home use called "Student and Teacher's Edition." It is widely available: Amazon, WalMart, etc. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
On May 25, 2008, at 11:08 PM, Tony B wrote: Point taken. But really, when one has to prepare an answer based on virtually NO information, it's tough to be real 'polite'. The re-phrasing you wrote is only with benefit of the list having dragged _some few_ details out of the OP. Others here have said that my query was sufficiently to the point, and they had no problems understanding what I was asking. In fact, at this point we all know he's probably going about it the wrong way, but everyone's being too polite to actually tell him that. Or maybe just turned off by his attitude. He asked for it. I was going about it entirely correctly. The format for the media was dictated by some of the devices that would be required to read the media. The number of images was as dictated by those who are to be the recipients of the CDs. I was just doing my job. What attitude? No one here but yourself stated that I was going about the project the wrong way, but that was not out of politeness, even though most here are polite. They obviously understood that since DVD players require the format I was using in order to display jpeg images, a point that I initially made, they realized that I was stuck with what I had to deal with. Tom specifically said that he had run into similar situations himself and had to find ways to work around the limitations imposed by the format. Anyway, I have no need to defend myself, so I'm out. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] PC, Mac, or modification
Well taken, Betty, But I don't know if the Wii would help or frustrate. His Parkinsons is starting to gallop along. Dan >>> b_s-wilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/26/08 12:44 PM >>> My dad is using a computer that over 10 years old for Internet, email, WP, database. It's old, slow, so is he. He's retired, not in a hurry for anything. As long as your dad's computer is running OK with XP, a little extra memory and WiFi is probably all he needs, except maybe a printer. An inexpensive laser is cheaper in the long run and easier to maintain than inkjet. Your dad's not a gamer? RAM + WiFi is all he needs. Get him a Wii for fun. Betty * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] tags
Huh? It's true Gmail calls it's filters 'labels' (not 'tags'), but how does that mean *I'm* doing anything wrong? I was the one making the point that this is where we commonly see tags today - on the web, not in file systems like you brought up. I won't argue that tags may be the future. My other point though had to do with the hassle of having to *manually* tag items. I really don't see why your spending time adding tags to your emails is going to help you recall a post or thread from history. Why can't Gmail et all _automatically_ add tags depending on the content of the post/email? But then, it wouldn't be 'tags' it would be 'keywords'? On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>But *today*, the term 'tags' and 'tagging' refers to posts and >>pictures on the web. > > And this is sent by Tony from a GMail account? > > TONY, YOU ARE DOING I ALL WRONG > > One of the best examples of tagging is GMail. You can easily define rules > to process incoming mail with some rough tags and then apply specific > tags manually based on the content. > - Everything from CGuys gets auto tagged "CGuys" and "DiscussionList" > - I tag Mac stuff "Mac" and Windows stuff "Other." > - I tag stuff about photography "Photo" >Etc. Etc. > > I can then more easily track down something I read in some discussion > list on photography and Macs. Without tags I would be hunting through > every folder where I stored discussion list posts. > > Tags are the future. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] ISO 9660 Joliet
On May 25, 2008, at 10:40 PM, John DeCarlo wrote: On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Steve Rigby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am trying to write an ISO 9660 Joliet CD with a bunch of jpeg files as its content. It appears as though any files beyond a certain quantity refuse to be displayed on the DVD player that I use with my home entertainment system. That DVD player requires Joliet CDs for jpeg display purposes. I recall moving some files to folders instead of having them all in the root of the CD, to get around this problem. The inability of my DVD player to be able to display any images beyond the 400th file as indexed by the player is inherent in my player. I tried the CD on a friend's player and it was able to display them all. I noticed that while my player counted all the files in all the folders and indexed them as a sum total, my friend's DVD player numbered the files on a per-folder basis. There still may be some limit as to the number of files that can be contained within any ISO 9660 Joliet formatted media, but I just have not been able to locate any documentation to that effect. There does appear to be a limit of 2 gigs, but my CD was nowhere near that, and one would have to go to DVD to achieve that anyway. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
>Anyway, I have no need to defend myself, so I'm out. Steve, do let us know how you ultimately solve the problem. It would be a good thing to know. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
Tony, if you admittedly don't know anything about the subject, why bother to reply, especially in a condescending and somewhat hostile manner. You may have only 25 out of 375 photos that are worth looking at, but others may have 400+ photos that are 80-100% of interest to target viewers. I also use UDF in Toast, and make folders containing different topics/events, or in the case of travel, different locations. The discs--CD or DVD--can be read and viewed on all 3 of our DVD players, and on our Macs and PCs. We can use the remote controls to navigate through the collections. Betty On May 25, 2008, at 3:55 PM, Tony B wrote: Sorry, but I'm seeing this all the time these days. People are no longer constrained by expensive film, so they're shooting 10X the pictures they need. Nothing wrong with that. But modern audiences bore quickly. If you can't tell your story with a 5 minute presentation, you're going to lose them. Much more important to work on the 25 pics you're left with than the 375 you archived. IMHO, of course. Your opinion is your opinion. However, it served no useful purpose for you to have been as presumptive as you were in this instance. The fact of the matter is that the CD I am creating will contain photos by a number of photographers. Any given photography project may contain but a few selective items or it may contain many, dependent upon the intent of the project. For this project, many persons viewing the images will do so on computers, while others, probably mostly older folks who may not use computers can employ their DVD players to view the images. Thus the need for ISO 9660 Joliet format for the CDs. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] PC, Mac or Modification
On May 25, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Steve Yaffe wrote: He might be ready to switch to a Mac - my 82-year old mother is happy with hers. I'm thinking of doing the same - except I need to exchange Word & Excel files with the Dell at work either thru e- mails or flash drive. If not wanting to buy a new version of Word is all that's stopping you, check out Open Office. It's free and will let you read Word and save your creations in Word format. It definitely works for me. Mar * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Sending .avi files to the UK
.avi files are uncompressed and LARGE (and optimal quality...). Not sure that digital still camera's can record in mpeg etc. Converting the .avi files to mpeg, .wmv etc. would probably be the way to go. db Tony B wrote: A five minute SD mpeg 2 video should only be maybe 180mb. You're doing something wrong. What app are you using to encode the file? What bitrate are you encoding to? If they're meant to watch this on a computer, you could also encode to an mpeg 4 format and get much better compression. On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have one .avi which is 4-5 minutes in length but it's 725 Meg, - too big for one CD. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] over shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Av6gCq_awQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKK9-HEDa8I&NR=1 Using the same lens will you be able to produce a recorded image of equal or better quality using a digital camera instead of film? With equal a full frame digital (36mm) and 35 mm film frame, I'd say a film has an edge. But what about a 120 medium format film versus a 36mm digital? Or a medium format digital back versus a 35 mm film? How about a 4x5 or 8x10 film view camera? As a recording technology a digital image will get the job done for 85 to 90 percent of the needs of most people. A trained professional could point out the difference where digital can't cut it, but most of the bell curve wouldn't see where digital falls short. However, as a system digital a a few advantages: 1) You can see the results in less than hour. You know if you have an image that will be satisfactory and will accomplish the job. There is no lag where you have to wait to know if you need to schedule a reshoot. 2) You don't need to pause to reload after 36 images. 3) The time and cost associated with developing the negative or slide film. Everyone's needs will not be the same. The person with a $3 million print ad campaign will have different requirements for the person making banner ads at 72 dots per inch for web sites. Digital makes creating superior images affordable. It is a wonderful tool for teaching because people learning to make better images can see the difference a change makes right away. They can create more images, but that does not equal better images. However, it helps when learning to make better images. It puts you on the path of turning out better images in a (relatively) short amount of time... You adjust a setting. Take a shot. adjust again. take another shot. Which is better A? B? A? B again? It reminds me of an eye exam. Digital creates a whole problem of preserving and archiving the images (hence the topic of the original post) If you have a system in place where your images are turning out better, it costs you nothing to produce them, and they can actually benefit you if you can access them, how do you keep them safe after they have left you compact flash card? How do you catalog and keep them so that you can find what you need when you need it? Color fidelity, saturation, grain, low light, depth... all might exceed digital when you are using film and when you need a superior image, for now film will be there. For convenience, cost, at an acceptable quality, digital is busting down doors. You can have it "Good, Fast, or Cheap... pick two" Pick three is in the not so distant future. Rocky Date:Sun, 25 May 2008 23:06:12 -0400 From:"Eric S. Sande" Subject: Re: over shooting >Actually exceeds 35mm in some respects. What respects are those? Are you saying, that given equal lenses, a charge coupled detector of fixed bandwidth is an equal recording instrument compared to film? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
