)
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I disagree because there are DVD hardware
and software licensing issues and these
region codings issues are part of those
licensing AGREEMENTS.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mark Roberts
Tom C wrote
region free disks are not the issue. any content
provider can choose to issue their DISKS without
region restrictions as well as without copyright
protection if they choose to.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
the reason why the HD disc players dont put
out an analog HD signal is there is no
copy protection and the signal is of such high
quality it could easily be used by pirates
for DVDs and even HD bootlegs. the HDMI
outputs used have non image degrading copy protection schemes on it.
jco
equipthatcanplayPALsystemDVD's
I can put one together in my garage and sell it to my fucking neighbor -
what violation of the law am I committing and what agreements am I
breaking? Norm (Hell is the impossibility of reason...)
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
NOPE, I am pretty sure if you want to commercially sell
DVD
not a monopoly
or anti-trust situation.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
drew
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:47 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT - for those of you who haveDVD equipthat can playPAL
systemDVD's
J. C
Are the K100D K110D the same size/weight as the istDS?
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Paul
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:54 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Need help deciding between k100d or k10d
I have a K10D and
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:16 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT - for those of you whohaveDVD equipthat can playPAL
systemDVD's
This started John, with your following statement with reference to
region
code free DVD players :
J. C
Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT - for those of you who have DVDequipthatcan playPAL
systemDVD's
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:01:35 +1000
On 20/04/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I am sheltered, but I have never seen
by buying,
owning, using, or hacking to make become, region-free DVD players. My
misunderstanding.
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT - for those of you whohaveDVD equipthat can
to artificially
create a market and rip-off the public. I can see no justification for
our DVDs being more than twice the price of yours other than pure greed.
Drew.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I am surprised a photographer would make
such an arguement. ITS THEIR PROPERTY (work).
They have the right
Of
Bob W
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:55 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: OT - for those of you whohaveDVD equipthat can playPAL
systemDVD's
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell
I didnt state it as a matter
Sir, the typical Blu-Ray/HDDVD buyer is not
going to still use an older HD set that
doesnt have HDMI interface anyway,
As good as they were, none of the
older HD sets that dont have HDMI input
are as good as the best HD sets being
made at the time of BLURAY HDDVD
introductions and later. The
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom C
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:05 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT - for those of you whohaveDVD equipthat can playPAL
systemDVD's
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss
playPAL
systemDVD's
You see, all us honest citizens wanted was a simple apology for being
maligned as having broken the law. :-)
I take your statement NO, it may be legal to own them here, below as
such.
See further below.
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss
you guys are not really with it, there are hundreds of networks
showing 1000's of programs a month, so there still are tons
of good shows, movies, and events available. NO, its
not all good, probably mostly not good, but with that much programming,
I have
no problem finding more than enough to
SCREW HIM, then he needs to show evidence (prove) that
it is NOT a legal issue regarding the sale
of region free DVD players in the USA. I
dont have to prove any of my contentions
any more or to a higher level of proof
than he has to back up his contentions. DUH.
jco
-Original Message-
NO, the major problem is most people think its still
too expensive ( when they dont even know the price )
or havent actually watched anything in HD like
a good movie from beginning to end. HDTV is
a no brainer home entertainment major improvement
for all of mankind, just like silent movies, radio,
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Digital Image Studio
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:46 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT - for those of you who have DVDequipthatcan playPAL
systemDVD's
On 20/04/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When you watch a crappy old analog
On 20/04/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HOW MANY TIMES do I have to post this, illegal
doenst mean the same thing as unlawful.
What are you on about John?
http://www.answers.com/topic/unlawful
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL
what is wrong with making money on a product? Its their freaking movies!
You dont have to buy them if you dont want them! you act like you have
some God given right to take away their ability to make as much
money as possible on thier products. That's their stuff, not yours.
you really dont have
You're full of doo doo. I have stated this before
and will state it again, people dont buy expensive gear
because they THINK its really good just because its expensive,
they buy expensive gear because they KNOW its really good and
want it bad enough they are willing to pay expensive price to get
regionhmmm.
Norm
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
cant you read english? I qualified it with commercially
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Norm Baugher
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 5:43 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re
Guys, here's the key, get as many channels as you can
and get a DVR/TIVO and learn how to use it. you will
then go from the old way, having to watch the garbage that happens to
be on at the moment to the Best of ALL TV being shown on all channels
and be able to watch the BEST OF whenever you feel
Of the three 85mm M42 lenses that Pentax made
with automatic aperture functions, the value
increases from 85mm F1.9 Super-Takumar, to 85mm
F1.9 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar ( which is exactly
the same as the ST version but with SMC
coatings - there is on aperture cam like most
SMCT lenses), and
WATCH OUT - some third party lenses marked
KAR, which means Konica Auto Reflex, not ( pentax )
KA/Ricoh. Konica auto reflex lenses do not
even fit, let alone work on pentax K bodies.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Simon Molnár
Sent:
My original post on the topic was that with
digital photography you cant get as good
a results as you can with film with minimum
effort like you can with film. With digital
you have to do one of two things that are both
hard, either shoot and process RAW manually
or shoot jpeg VERY CAREFULY.
anyone?)
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
My original post on the topic was that with
digital photography you cant get as good
a results as you can with film with minimum
effort like you can with film.
That's probably true if my eventual target is a printed photo. If my
target is a digital presentation
average condition fully WORKING spotmatics are plentiful on ebay and
for cheap, if the meter aint working, it's about $25 item. Only
true stone mint fully working ones are hard to find and even those arent
that expensive,
maybe $100 at most unless black. The 50/1.4ST lens is a $25-$75 item
IS THIS A 100% CROP AND WHAT PART OF THE
FRAME WAS IT TAKEN FROM? CENTER/EDGE/CORNER?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brendan MacRae
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:53 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Full frame lenses
center of the
image.
-Brendan
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IS THIS A 100% CROP AND WHAT PART OF THE
FRAME WAS IT TAKEN FROM? CENTER/EDGE/CORNER?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brendan MacRae
Sent: Saturday
Tom's comments only apply to **35MM** film vs current DSLRS, if you go
bigger,
film still rules because you can eliminate the problems
of **35mm film** while still maintaining its advantages
like greater dynamic range and resolution.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Digital Image Studio
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 9:02 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Full frame lenses and the K10D, CA anyone?
On 14/04/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
then its definately NOT CA.
CA presents itself as a difference
.
And meanwhile, digital technology marches on.
-Tom
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Tom's comments only apply to **35MM** film vs current DSLRS, if you go
bigger, film still rules because you can eliminate the problems
of **35mm film** while still maintaining its advantages
like greater dynamic range
yes, I mounted lens on the camera to check,
these mamiya SX lenses ( excellent optically )
have big outer aperture rings near the flange
and this ring is in the spot where the
pin hole would need to drilled so it wont
work because it wouldnt lock or the aperture
ring wouldnt be able to be turned
peeping and looking for defects (was Re:
Fullframelensesand the K10D, CA anyone?)
Personally I always liked the darkroom aspect of photography. And the
digital equivalent is no different.
Cheers,
Dave
On 4/14/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Digital SLRS/photography is also a pain
.
Paul
On Apr 14, 2007, at 10:42 AM, David Savage wrote:
Personally I always liked the darkroom aspect of photography. And the
digital equivalent is no different.
Cheers,
Dave
On 4/14/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Digital SLRS/photography is also a pain in the ass in
some
process them quickly. My
photographic world is about the same as it was with film.
Paul
On Apr 14, 2007, at 10:55 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I don't completely agree. Sure it's fun to tweek an occasional really
favorite image to perfection, but when you have to do dozens,
hundreds, thousands
and looking for defects (was Re:
Fullframelensesandthe K10D, CA anyone?)
On 4/14/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't completely agree. Sure it's fun to tweek an occasional really
favorite image to perfection, but when you have to do dozens,
hundreds, thousands of them it just gets old
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 11:42 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for defects (wasRe:
Fullframelensesandthe K10D, CA anyone?)
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I dont agree that batch RAW processing works as
well as individual processing. I have just
tried several
FRINGING is not causeed by CA, so getting
an APO lens to eliminate CA is not going
to help the FRINGING problem.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brendan MacRae
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:19 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Image Studio
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:46 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Full frame lenses and the K10D, CA anyone?
On 15/04/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FRINGING is not causeed by CA, so getting
an APO lens to eliminate CA is not going
to help the FRINGING
than 5 minutes.
Cheers,
Dave
On 4/14/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes of course, you can and should do that when you can,
but its not often possible due to factors like changing lenses,
changing lighting, different ISOs shot, different macro magnification
exposure factors
back and do manually.
Cheers,
Dave
On 4/15/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UNSHARP MASK alone, which needs the image to be viewed
at 100% to set properly, cant be done with thumbnails
so there is no way to group them easily like you suggest unless you
open every file at full size
;-).
I'd probably fully process about 10-20% of the shots I take. And FYI my
image sharpening process for those shots that make the grade is even
slower than using plain old USM at 100% view.
Cheers,
Dave
On 4/15/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Im not talking about just a reduced size
and looking
fordefects(wasRe:FullframelensesandtheK10D, CA anyone?)
On 4/15/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh, now your'e arguing MY point, and that is that
digital photography requires a lot of processing
that film photography doesnt.
Yes and no. I initially stated that I enjoyed
(wasRe:FullframelensesandtheK10D, CA anyone?)
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thumbnails are
useless for critical evaluation of which shots to
use
and which shots to delete
Untrue. In Aperture, I can zip through my thumbs,
easily resize them, and even use the loupe tool to
inspect them
browser. EditPreferences...File Browser Custom Thumbnail Size.
Dave
On 4/15/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse me, but if you resize them , they AINT thumbs anymore!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Brendan MacRae
Sent
with
their point and shoots getting good jpeg results. Can't be too hard.
Paul Paul On Apr 14, 2007, at 11:28 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
nope, as I just posted, if you shoot jpeg
you have to be REAL careful with the exposure
or you wont get as good a results as with
film and this is even more work than RAW
On Apr 14, 2007, at 1:54 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Im not talking about just a reduced size web image with regards to
USM,
Im talking
about creating full size, fully processed, archive type (ready to
print)
images from RAW. And to do that you need to see
the image at full size to set the USM
About a month ago, we had a thread
on the SMCK45-125/4 lens. Here a
couple sample shots I took around that
time that I meant to post but forgot
about (stumbled on them today) :
http://jchriso.com/temp/bocagull.jpg
http://jchriso.com/temp/bocapelican.jpg
Both were shot at extremely close range.
for web photos.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mat Maessen
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:01 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: A couple of K45-125 images
On 4/14/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http
Stenquist
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:12 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: A couple of K45-125 images
Excellent detail. I like the composition and DOF of the first shot as
well. Good lens, well used here.
Paul
On Apr 14, 2007, at 5:49 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
About a month ago, we
Oh yeah, my comments below were referring to
the gull shot. I dont see any nasties at
all on the pelican shot at all, even at 125% or 150%
browser settings.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
J. C. O'Connell
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007
?)
Then you've not seen Aaron Reynolds' baseball photos. Quite
exceptionally well done, actually. He only shoots JPEG at the ball
park.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell
Oh come on, you know as well as I that to get
the same results exposure wise with jpeg as doing RAW capture/RAW
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
drew
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 8:14 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Manual focus solution for istD series, Split image RF
screen
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
FYI,
Just got this split image RF screen
for my istDS ( should work in any
of the istD
I guess it's possible, just not nearly as
easy in the DL,DL2 as it is in the D,DS,DS2,K10D to do it yourself.
Generally, when something is claimed as user changable
in a camera system, they mean easily user changable.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
screen
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I didnt do any controlled testing if this screen has
any measurable change effect on metering, but so
far with program mode using A lenses, screw lenses
in AV mode, and PK/M lenses using stop down GB
method I am not noticing any differences
CA is not usually correctable by stopping down.
You're probably experiencing some other kind
of problem if simple stopping down totally fixes it...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brendan MacRae
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 10:43 PM
Could somebody refresh my memory? I
want to permanently adapt a M42
lens to PK mount such that the mount adapter
K stays on the lens all the time and
the lens mounts and dismounts from
PK bodies just like a K lens.
Is this possible and how do I do it?
I am sure I could figure it out
if
?
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CA is not usually correctable by stopping down.
You're probably experiencing some other kind
of problem if simple stopping down totally fixes
it...
jco
What it did was minimize it to the point where viewed
full size it's no longer really
: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:24 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Full frame lenses and the K10D, CA anyone?
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
like I said before, thats probably not
CA, it's something else.
jco
Rob says it's sensor blooming. All I know is that some
. Otherwise you'll have to find a way to keep the stop down pin
in place, (a dab of super glue would work).
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Could somebody refresh my memory? I
want to permanently adapt a M42
lens to PK mount such that the mount adapter
K stays on the lens all the time and
the lens mounts
FYI,
Just got this split image RF screen
for my istDS ( should work in any
of the istD series cameras ) :
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yu25dy
works fine, nice clear split image
and a large microprism surround.
I dont think you can get this from
Pentax (yet?). Works easily to F4
on any lens I
image RF
screen
John, what about metering, notably center weighted and spot?
Thanks.
On 4/12/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI,
Just got this split image RF screen
for my istDS ( should work in any
of the istD series cameras ) :
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yu25dy
works
had very bad experiences with KEH repair: basically, they
wouldn't fix the problem, argue forever the obvious, and so long, so
forth. I wouldn't use them again.
best,
mishka
On 4/8/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
KEH.COM, they fix all pentax K lenses,
and even most screw lenses too
I have never used filters for protection in
over 30 years and have never had an incident
where a filter would have made a protective
difference..Just lucky I guess, I do use caps
cases at all times except shooting though...
jco
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
for upgrading from CS.
Cheers,
Dave
On 4/9/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anybody got some recommendations on how
to convert a whole bunch of pentax istdDS RAW
files to sRGB jpegs with some control
like compression rate, sharpenng, image size, etc.
( actually as much control
If this is true, it's crazy. The camera puts
out a specific RAW data pattern, this
pattern is recorded the same in both pef
and dng formats. If the RAW conversion
is different for them, something is wrong.
It shouldn't be that way...RAW is RAW.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
,
Dave
On 4/9/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is true, it's crazy. The camera puts
out a specific RAW data pattern, this
pattern is recorded the same in both pef
and dng formats. If the RAW conversion
is different for them, something is wrong.
It shouldn't be that way
, that a certain amount of in camera
processing takes place to the RAW data. So it's possibly not true RAW
data.
Dave
On 4/9/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, RAW data is RAW data. those other formats/pkgs are just holding
the SAME raw data. DNG is not like a jpeg at all.
jco
-Original
At least they are better than those damn
everything's been stolen dreams
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 1:05 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Every K-Mount Ever Made, NIB
I
Anybody got some recommendations on how
to convert a whole bunch of pentax istdDS RAW
files to sRGB jpegs with some control
like compression rate, sharpenng, image size, etc.
( actually as much control as possible,
but still a massive automatic batch conversion)??
If it matters I am using PS CS
KEH.COM, they fix all pentax K lenses,
and even most screw lenses too! Prices
are reasonable (if you call under $100
reasonable) ...I have used them several
times for various problem lenses of both
types...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Which one? they made several different
90mm macro lenses.
I have a MF 90mm f2.5 in adaptall2 mount
(55mm filter version ) that has outstanding
image quality and works well in every mount
I have tried including KA.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
DFA? Is this a new FF digital lens series?
If so, might that mean there is a FF DSLR
body series in Pentax's future?
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Minelli Flavio
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:46 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
J. C. O'Connell
Sent: 4. april 2007 23:27
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
If I dont
take aggressive countermeasures when attacked
agressively, this stuff would never end..
Hopefully these attackers will think twice
before
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:03 PM
To: pdml
Subject: Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
Let me ask again:
Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add any
value at all to the PDML?
--Mark
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
ALL CAPS MEANS I AM PISSED OFF.
If you actually
NO, I dont agree my images are not suitable for
web viewing, they are not suitable for LOW SPEC PC
displays. They display just fine on my sub $200 PC display.
I have already posted this about three
timea already. I AM NOT GOING TO RUIN THE PHOTOS
JUST SO LOW SPEC DISPLAYS CAN VIEW THEM EASILY.
, or I
stole 'em off the back of a truck.
You have the intelligence of a carrot. Back into the kill file for you
... and you were doing so well there for a while.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell
NOPE, Your argument is futile because
the PC display is JUST a cheap accessory
EXCUSE ME? this all started by a bunch of people
telling me what I should do, namely reduce the
quality of the images in that web gallery so
they would be easier to view with low spec displays.
So dont tell me I have a freaking attitude for telling
them what to do in reply ( which is upgrade their
PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me ask again:
Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add
any value at all to the PDML?
--Mark
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
ALL CAPS MEANS I AM PISSED OFF.
If you actually read what is being said
in the posts I am replying to
you would understand
Have you actully WORKED on a 1600x1200
pc and didnt you find going back to
1280x960 very claustrophobic? I do
whenever I have to..
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:15 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss
if your saying your 1280x800 lcd screen
looks better than any CRT running at
1600x1200 fine ( have you seen them all?) , but there is no way
it can display nearly as much information
like text etc. you need the pixels to do
that...and you dont have nearly as many to work with..
jco
-Original
/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED?
Yes.
I like ICE CREAM!!
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH
MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER
DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE
PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME
or better, or a
flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's)
Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the
great HDTV thread).
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
EXCUSE ME? this all started by a bunch of people
telling me what I should do, namely reduce the
quality
selling.
How can anyone like you - a serious lens collector - not be able to
afford five or six K-mount lenses. I just don't believe you.
SCHMUCK!
Shel
[Original Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nope, I guess you dont understand the
difference between choosing to not
buy
:
RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
At 02:59 PM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
THANK YOU- YOU FINALLY GET IT.
YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING
SCREW YOU - UPGRADE YOUR HARDWARE
Why? Because its ridiculous to be
telling me to reduce my images
size AND QUALITY any further
hasn't changed much (1-2
panels at any one time from each major brand) but the pricing has.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
HUH? I never recommedend any specific display
technology or told anyone to buy a CRT, I recommended higher
resolution displays and TODAY there are a whole bunch of LCDS that DO
the font can get onscreen (you can get more text on a
higher res display but you risk eyestrain. As someone who gets payed to
look at a display for 8+ hours a day, I can't risk that).
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
if your saying your 1280x800 lcd screen
looks better than any CRT running
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re:
WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Or cheaper still, present your photos at a slightly smaller resolution.
Then it doesn't cost anyone anything.
D.
On 4/4/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DUH, then simply get
: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:37 PM
To: pdml
Subject: Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
JC,
You still haven't answered my original question:
Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive messages add any
value at all to the PDML?
--Mark
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I think your more
sense to use ALL CAPS STUFF occasionally for emphasis. I'm
more
interested in why you think that the aggressive messages add any value
at
all to the PDML.
--Mark
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
yes I do. the CAPS are for emphisis, and I dont
use them all the time, only when needed. I dont
take
I think what hasnt been said but needs
to be said regarding this thread is
that the optimum size photo to use
for general interest as well as photo
interest web galleries/sites IS A MOVING
TARGET.
I remember when 600 pixels wide was recommended
(mostly for bandwidth reasons but also limited
most browsers? The browsers have nothing to
due with it, it all about your screen resolution/workspace.
These images fit nicely on my 1600x1200 display and you
are DEAD WRONG about them not showing any more detail
than the 800 or 1024 versions, they DO show signifigantly
more detail than the
-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's)
Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the
great HDTV thread).
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
EXCUSE ME? this all started by a bunch of people
telling me what I should do, namely reduce the
quality of the images
the PDML as an information sharing resource for
Pentax-related photography rather than as a medium for first strike
personal attacks and aggressive countermeasures.
Have a nice day,
--Mark
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
If I dont
take aggressive countermeasures when attacked
agressively
yeah right, you read the whole thread in it entirety,
perfectly noted and interpreted every single comment made in
exact sequence, and like you really
know what an insulting/derogatory comment is.
I dont get upset or start insulting people
for no reason. When I suggested that these people
should
Right, it's just his analysis ,full of biased opinion,
not factual or truthful however,,,Remember, he's the
one who claimed I buggered up the web gallery by
NOT degrading the photos enough for his limited display
when in fact its his limited display that is doing the
buggering up of that gallery.
-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Then your not trying hard enough.
On 4/5/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ARE YOU DEAF, IT COST EVERYONE, namely much lower
image quality! If I could send them smaller and
maintain quality, of course I would, but I cant!
jco
-Original
Well at least you arent arguing that
poor and sick are better for reading text...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mishka
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:54 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: POLL - Computer Screen Size
301 - 400 of 4017 matches
Mail list logo
