Prejudice against non-photo camera brands

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Francis wrote:

>>It may also, rather than specific sharpening, be artifacts of interpolating
>>seperate R,G,B sensors into RGB pixels that makes sharpening-like artifacts in
>>the RAW image.
>
>
> I think you may have a misunderstanding of just what a RAW image is.
> It is a direct measure of the sensor values, prior to any conversion
> to RGB pixels. Interpolation artifacts, etc., would be introduced
> during processing stages that take place later on in the chain, and
> so are not present in the RAW capture.

In any case, at some point the RAW image may converted to a "lossless" digital
format such as TIFF. In that conversion, regardless of where it takes place,
some artifacts of conversion are introduced. They hardly have a choice but to
be produced as interpolation (of whatever variety) to fill an RGB pixel from
spatially separated pixels must be imperfect.

>
> In general the only camera settings that affect the content of a RAW
> image are the effective ISO (maybe including exposure compensation),
> white balance (sometimes), and possibly the contrast. Other settings
> such as sharpening will be generally be recorded along with the data,
> and may very well affect the way the manufacturer-supplied conversion
> software behaves, but don't change the recorded pixel values directly.

Please be specific: does sharpening occur in the camera on RAW images?
(automatically or optionally)?


>
> You can also see when and where artifacts are introduced by trying
> different conversion software. If you don't have access to a full
> version of PhotoShop, PhotoShop Elements 3.0 includes Adobe Camera Raw
> (which can read DNG as well as the RAW format of many cameras).

I'll just use the OEM -> TIFF converter then continue in PS E 2.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <cq4u1b$j1p$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>John Francis wrote:
>
>>>It may also, rather than specific sharpening, be artifacts of interpolating
>>>seperate R,G,B sensors into RGB pixels that makes sharpening-like artifacts in
>>>the RAW image.
>>
>> I think you may have a misunderstanding of just what a RAW image is.
>> It is a direct measure of the sensor values, prior to any conversion
>> to RGB pixels. Interpolation artifacts, etc., would be introduced
>> during processing stages that take place later on in the chain, and
>> so are not present in the RAW capture.
>
>In any case, at some point the RAW image may converted to a "lossless" digital
>format such as TIFF. In that conversion, regardless of where it takes place,
>some artifacts of conversion are introduced. They hardly have a choice but to
>be produced as interpolation (of whatever variety) to fill an RGB pixel from
>spatially separated pixels must be imperfect.

True. But that's going to be the case no matter who does the conversion.
But it's a fair bet that software running on a 3GHz Pentium 4 with 1GB of
RAM, and no real time constraints, can probably do a better job than any
in-camera conversion running on a processor whose main design goal is low
power consumption. Plus, of course, if you delay the conversion to a later
stage you always have the option of trying a different algorithm if you
don't like the effects on any given image.

>> In general the only camera settings that affect the content of a RAW
>> image are the effective ISO (maybe including exposure compensation),
>> white balance (sometimes), and possibly the contrast. Other settings
>> such as sharpening will be generally be recorded along with the data,
>> and may very well affect the way the manufacturer-supplied conversion
>> software behaves, but don't change the recorded pixel values directly.
>
>Please be specific: does sharpening occur in the camera on RAW images?
>(automatically or optionally)?

No. It does not. Neither automatically nor optionally.
Sharpening occurs during the conversion from RAW to TIFF/JPG/PSD/...

>> You can also see when and where artifacts are introduced by trying
>> different conversion software. If you don't have access to a full
>> version of PhotoShop, PhotoShop Elements 3.0 includes Adobe Camera Raw
>> (which can read DNG as well as the RAW format of many cameras).
>
>I'll just use the OEM -> TIFF converter then continue in PS E 2.

OK. But that locks you into the Bayer interpolation algorithms chosen
by your OEM, complete with any artifacts introduced during that process.
Some sharpening will be done at this stage of the processing (just how
much may, or may not, depend on the value of the sharpening control set
on the camera at the time of image capture).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Francis wrote:

> True. But that's going to be the case no matter who does the conversion.
> But it's a fair bet that software running on a 3GHz Pentium 4 with 1GB of
> RAM, and no real time constraints, can probably do a better job than any
> in-camera conversion running on a processor whose main design goal is low
> power consumption. Plus, of course, if you delay the conversion to a later

Bah! Such simple conversion/interpolation can be done on the fly while storing
to flash with a handful of machine instructions.

> stage you always have the option of trying a different algorithm if you
> don't like the effects on any given image.

Camera firmware can be upgraded on most DSLR's.

> No. It does not. Neither automatically nor optionally.
> Sharpening occurs during the conversion from RAW to TIFF/JPG/PSD/...

It doesn't have to happen. There is no need to sharpen an image until the
photog has seen and decides what the USM parameters should be.

>>>You can also see when and where artifacts are introduced by trying
>>>different conversion software. If you don't have access to a full
>>>version of PhotoShop, PhotoShop Elements 3.0 includes Adobe Camera Raw
>>>(which can read DNG as well as the RAW format of many cameras).
>>
>>I'll just use the OEM -> TIFF converter then continue in PS E 2.
>
>
> OK. But that locks you into the Bayer interpolation algorithms chosen
> by your OEM, complete with any artifacts introduced during that process.
> Some sharpening will be done at this stage of the processing (just how
> much may, or may not, depend on the value of the sharpening control set
> on the camera at the time of image capture).

You're confusing me. If no sharpening occurs in camera, then no on the camera
values should be considered.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <scidnecmIYq6M17cRVn-3A@comcast.com>, charleschuler@comcast.net
says...
> HP sells a wide range of products and makes none of them. They have spun
> off their high-end/high-quality/USA-manufactured products into a subsidiary
> called Agilent.

This is not true. The Proliant Server line (formerly Compaq, and the Houston
employees still think of it as Compaq, not HP -- watch closely as a current
HP Proliant server boots up, it flashes Compaq for a half second before it is
overwritten with HP text, hehe) is still designed, tested and supported out
of Texas.

Dell makes practically everything in Taiwan or China (does not even do the
board design themselves anymore).

Get used to it, the electronics business is elsewhere. The US will have
to find something else to keep itself busy. Electronics is a commodity
like toaster ovens today.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <cq51rg$544$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>John Francis wrote:
>
>> True. But that's going to be the case no matter who does the conversion.
>> But it's a fair bet that software running on a 3GHz Pentium 4 with 1GB of
>> RAM, and no real time constraints, can probably do a better job than any
>> in-camera conversion running on a processor whose main design goal is low
>> power consumption. Plus, of course, if you delay the conversion to a later
>
>Bah! Such simple conversion/interpolation can be done on the fly while storing
>to flash with a handful of machine instructions.

I really suggest you do a little research into this subject before
dismissing it in quite such a cavalier fashion. If all you want is
some of the most simplistic interpolation, then all it takes is a
few processor cycles. But that also ends up with some of the worst
algorithms. There has been quite a bit of research, and more than a
few thesis papers, done in this field. A good place to start would
be some of the work referenced in the description accompanying dcraw,
but that's only one part in a very complex field. The algorithm
that dcraw uses is more than a plain context-free interpolation, but
it is still a fairly simple algorithm, with limited requirements for
processor resources. There are algorithms with much heavier demands.

>> stage you always have the option of trying a different algorithm if you
>> don't like the effects on any given image.
>
>Camera firmware can be upgraded on most DSLR's.

Which just ends up locking you into a different fixed algorithm.
There's no "best" answer that is appropriate in every case

>> No. It does not. Neither automatically nor optionally.
>> Sharpening occurs during the conversion from RAW to TIFF/JPG/PSD/...
>
>It doesn't have to happen. There is no need to sharpen an image until the
>photog has seen and decides what the USM parameters should be.
>
>>>>You can also see when and where artifacts are introduced by trying
>>>>different conversion software. If you don't have access to a full
>>>>version of PhotoShop, PhotoShop Elements 3.0 includes Adobe Camera Raw
>>>>(which can read DNG as well as the RAW format of many cameras).
>>>
>>>I'll just use the OEM -> TIFF converter then continue in PS E 2.
>>
>>
>> OK. But that locks you into the Bayer interpolation algorithms chosen
>> by your OEM, complete with any artifacts introduced during that process.
>> Some sharpening will be done at this stage of the processing (just how
>> much may, or may not, depend on the value of the sharpening control set
>> on the camera at the time of image capture).
>
>You're confusing me. If no sharpening occurs in camera, then no on the camera
>values should be considered.

What's so difficult to understand? You can set a sharpening parameter
on the camera, and the value you set is stored along with the image data.
The later software processing *may* decide to take the value you set as
a starting point to control how much sharpening to apply. Or it may not,
and only sharpen based on values set interactively at that time. Just
which approach is taken depends on how that later stage software is written.

Don't assume all conversion is done interactively, with the photographer
reviewing each image. Sometimes a converter will be run as a batch process
to convert a large number of images. In that case it is sometimes worth
using values selected on-camera (for sharpening, white balance, etc.)
But in no case is any of the sharpening actually performed in-camera.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Francis wrote:

> In article <cq51rg$544$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>John Francis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>True. But that's going to be the case no matter who does the conversion.
>>>But it's a fair bet that software running on a 3GHz Pentium 4 with 1GB of
>>>RAM, and no real time constraints, can probably do a better job than any
>>>in-camera conversion running on a processor whose main design goal is low
>>>power consumption. Plus, of course, if you delay the conversion to a later
>>
>>Bah! Such simple conversion/interpolation can be done on the fly while storing
>>to flash with a handful of machine instructions.
>
>
> I really suggest you do a little research into this subject before
> dismissing it in quite such a cavalier fashion. If all you want is
> some of the most simplistic interpolation, then all it takes is a
> few processor cycles. But that also ends up with some of the worst
> algorithms. There has been quite a bit of research, and more than a
> few thesis papers, done in this field. A good place to start would
> be some of the work referenced in the description accompanying dcraw,
> but that's only one part in a very complex field. The algorithm
> that dcraw uses is more than a plain context-free interpolation, but
> it is still a fairly simple algorithm, with limited requirements for
> processor resources. There are algorithms with much heavier demands.

There are always ways to take complex functions and tune for maximum BW in a
constrained case. Been there.

>>>stage you always have the option of trying a different algorithm if you
>>>don't like the effects on any given image.
>>
>>Camera firmware can be upgraded on most DSLR's.
>
>
> Which just ends up locking you into a different fixed algorithm.
> There's no "best" answer that is appropriate in every case

Or a menu of algorithms. But frankly, beyond a well conceived interpolation of
the R,G,B into RGB, I want to have full control over further sharpenning. (This
attitude, BTW, is the result of having scannned thousands of slides and
negatives. Every image needs USM according to the level of fime detail in the
image.

>>You're confusing me. If no sharpening occurs in camera, then no on the camera
>>values should be considered.
>
>
> What's so difficult to understand? You can set a sharpening parameter
> on the camera, and the value you set is stored along with the image data.

Okay, although that sounds a bit silly. Just give me the least processed image
and let me work it over with USM.

> The later software processing *may* decide to take the value you set as
> a starting point to control how much sharpening to apply. Or it may not,
> and only sharpen based on values set interactively at that time. Just
> which approach is taken depends on how that later stage software is written.
>
> Don't assume all conversion is done interactively, with the photographer
> reviewing each image. Sometimes a converter will be run as a batch process
> to convert a large number of images. In that case it is sometimes worth
> using values selected on-camera (for sharpening, white balance, etc.)
> But in no case is any of the sharpening actually performed in-camera.

Don't assume that I find that acceptable. I'm as lazy as the next guy, but for
detailed images that I want to print large, sharpenning is no less important
than any other aspect of the workflow. I don't want the camera (or the RAW
converter) doing anything to the image that is not reversible. Unless I have
the sharpening algorithm used I can't undo it.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <cq71a8$2s9$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>John Francis wrote:
>
>There are always ways to take complex functions and tune for maximum BW in a
>constrained case. Been there.

As have I. I've done FFT algorithms on bit-slice processors,
pixel-based algorithms on everything from 68000s to vector
machines, etc. You can, with well-crafted code, get close to
100% utilisation of the hardware. But you can't do better
than that, and some of the reconstruction algorithms simply
need more computational power than is available in-camera.

>Or a menu of algorithms. But frankly, beyond a well conceived interpolation of
>the R,G,B into RGB, I want to have full control over further sharpenning. (This
>attitude, BTW, is the result of having scannned thousands of slides and
>negatives. Every image needs USM according to the level of fime detail in the
>image.

Bayer reconstruction isn't sharpening; it's rather more complex.
USM is a very simple algorithm, with very little computational load.
It's fairly easy to get control over the sharpening; just tell the
conversion software how much (or how little) sharpening to do. What
you can't do is tell the software which reconstruction algorithm to use.
(That first sentence of yours, containing the phrase "a well-conceived
interpolation of the R,G,B into RGB", is where all the difficulty lies)

>Don't assume that I find that acceptable. I'm as lazy as the next guy, but for
>detailed images that I want to print large, sharpenning is no less important
>than any other aspect of the workflow. I don't want the camera (or the RAW
>converter) doing anything to the image that is not reversible. Unless I have
>the sharpening algorithm used I can't undo it.

Sharpening isn't reversible, even when you know the algorithm. Nor is
gaussian blur, or almost any of the standard image processing filters.

But I suspect, once we get past the rhetoric, you and I agree on far
more points than we disagree on. We both want the camera to do as
little as possible to the image, and will work by hand to achieve the
best results possible. Just bear in mind that one of the tools we use
along the way, the camera, is designed also to be used by people who
will create prints, if at all, by simply plugging the memory card into
their printer, or a mall photo kiosk. You don't have to use it that
way, and you don't have to use features designed to facilitate that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c2fb9d92cf832bc989d3c@news.verizon.net...
> In article <scidnecmIYq6M17cRVn-3A@comcast.com>, charleschuler@comcast.net
> says...
>> HP sells a wide range of products and makes none of them. They have spun
>> off their high-end/high-quality/USA-manufactured products into a
>> subsidiary
>> called Agilent.
>
> This is not true. The Proliant Server line (formerly Compaq, and the
> Houston
> employees still think of it as Compaq, not HP -- watch closely as a
> current
> HP Proliant server boots up, it flashes Compaq for a half second before it
> is
> overwritten with HP text, hehe) is still designed, tested and supported
> out
> of Texas.

And how long do you think that will last? I'd be job hunting if I was
employed there.

> Dell makes practically everything in Taiwan or China (does not even do the
> board design themselves anymore).

True.

> Get used to it, the electronics business is elsewhere. The US will have
> to find something else to keep itself busy. Electronics is a commodity
> like toaster ovens today.

You are correct but I'll never "get used to it." As we become less and less
self-sufficient, our world position becomes more and more tenuous
(especially so, given our current politcal posture).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Or a menu of algorithms. But frankly, beyond a well conceived interpolation
> of the R,G,B into RGB, I want to have full control over further sharpenning.

I can't help but wonder, what camera and workflow are you using that doesn't
give you this?

>> What's so difficult to understand? You can set a sharpening parameter
>> on the camera, and the value you set is stored along with the image data.
>
> Okay, although that sounds a bit silly. Just give me the least processed
> image and let me work it over with USM.

That's, like, exactly what you get. The sharpening setting you choose on
the camera just stores a little setting in the file that tells post-process
software what setting you chose; it doesn't touch the image. The setting
is utterly and completely meaningless, when shooting RAW, in other words.

With Nikon, at least, Adobe Camera Raw can't even extract that setting, so
it might as well not even be there. *None* of the image processing settings
on the camera have any effect whatsoever on the resulting RAW image. You
expose the image and that's it.

> I don't want the camera (or the RAW converter) doing anything to the image
> that is not reversible.

It doesn't.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Francis wrote:

> In article <cq71a8$2s9$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>John Francis wrote:
>>
>>There are always ways to take complex functions and tune for maximum BW in a
>>constrained case. Been there.
>
>
> As have I. I've done FFT algorithms on bit-slice processors,
> pixel-based algorithms on everything from 68000s to vector
> machines, etc. You can, with well-crafted code, get close to
> 100% utilisation of the hardware. But you can't do better
> than that, and some of the reconstruction algorithms simply
> need more computational power than is available in-camera.

I never said different. But running a two or three row deep interpolation while
writing to a flash card is not going to tax any system too much. TMS320C25 is
where I stomped just short of 100% machine ute... and that's a lot of crunching
(just short as it was real time complex sig synth. Massive tables did help to
eliminate certain functions (1/4 sine, 1/2 gauss, noise, etc.) Never did
complete the true gaussian FM noise portion... boss considered it overkill for
the system).

>>Or a menu of algorithms. But frankly, beyond a well conceived interpolation of
>>the R,G,B into RGB, I want to have full control over further sharpenning. (This
>>attitude, BTW, is the result of having scannned thousands of slides and
>>negatives. Every image needs USM according to the level of fime detail in the
>>image.
>
>
> Bayer reconstruction isn't sharpening; it's rather more complex.

I didn'r mean to suggest that. More interpolation. But the artifacts thus
created are similar (IMO) to abusive sharpening (USM or other).

> USM is a very simple algorithm, with very little computational load.
> It's fairly easy to get control over the sharpening; just tell the
> conversion software how much (or how little) sharpening to do. What
> you can't do is tell the software which reconstruction algorithm to use.
> (That first sentence of yours, containing the phrase "a well-conceived
> interpolation of the R,G,B into RGB", is where all the difficulty lies)

Yep.

>>Don't assume that I find that acceptable. I'm as lazy as the next guy, but for
>>detailed images that I want to print large, sharpenning is no less important
>>than any other aspect of the workflow. I don't want the camera (or the RAW
>>converter) doing anything to the image that is not reversible. Unless I have
>>the sharpening algorithm used I can't undo it.
>
>
> Sharpening isn't reversible, even when you know the algorithm. Nor is
> gaussian blur, or almost any of the standard image processing filters.

That's not my impression, but I'm not the expert in this. I assumed that if a
sharpening mask matrix was used I * M = I', then I' * inv-M = I. (forgive the
notation). But I'm not accounting for the useage of the same M as a window over
all of I in increments of 1 pixel.

>
> But I suspect, once we get past the rhetoric, you and I agree on far
> more points than we disagree on. We both want the camera to do as
> little as possible to the image, and will work by hand to achieve the

Yep.

> best results possible. Just bear in mind that one of the tools we use
> along the way, the camera, is designed also to be used by people who
> will create prints, if at all, by simply plugging the memory card into
> their printer, or a mall photo kiosk. You don't have to use it that
> way, and you don't have to use features designed to facilitate that.

Agree, but there should be no obstacle to letting a camera work at its most
basic level (no different than my cameras which have full manual exposure,
exp/flash compensation, AF, etc. but also work completely manually. That's what
I want from the RAW image... as little interference from the OEM as possible.
It's what I suspect most photographers want (those who have really figured out
USM properly, anyway).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Or a menu of algorithms. But frankly, beyond a well conceived interpolation
>>of the R,G,B into RGB, I want to have full control over further sharpenning.

>
>
> I can't help but wonder, what camera and workflow are you using that doesn't
> give you this?

None. But from what I gather, even RAW, there is a degree of sharpenning that
occurs (in camera or in the RAW->TIFF/JPG s/w) in most cameras and/or associated
RAW converters.
>
>
>>>What's so difficult to understand? You can set a sharpening parameter
>>>on the camera, and the value you set is stored along with the image data.
>>
>>Okay, although that sounds a bit silly. Just give me the least processed
>>image and let me work it over with USM.
>
>
> That's, like, exactly what you get. The sharpening setting you choose on
> the camera just stores a little setting in the file that tells post-process
> software what setting you chose; it doesn't touch the image. The setting
> is utterly and completely meaningless, when shooting RAW, in other words.
>
> With Nikon, at least, Adobe Camera Raw can't even extract that setting, so
> it might as well not even be there. *None* of the image processing settings
> on the camera have any effect whatsoever on the resulting RAW image. You
> expose the image and that's it.

I hope that is exactly what it is (vice my comment above). And moreso when (if)
I get the Maxxum 7D.

>
>
>>I don't want the camera (or the RAW converter) doing anything to the image
>>that is not reversible.
>
>
> It doesn't.

For each and every camera? How could one know...?

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <ZMydnX5vH40p3lrcRVn-rQ@comcast.com>, charleschuler@comcast.net
says...
> > This is not true. The Proliant Server line (formerly Compaq, and the
> > Houston
> > employees still think of it as Compaq, not HP -- watch closely as a
> > current
> > HP Proliant server boots up, it flashes Compaq for a half second before it
> > is
> > overwritten with HP text, hehe) is still designed, tested and supported
> > out
> > of Texas.
>
> And how long do you think that will last? I'd be job hunting if I was
> employed there.

I suspect many are. They are laying off (and dropping headcount via
attrition, much as all of the others nowadays).

> > Get used to it, the electronics business is elsewhere. The US will have
> > to find something else to keep itself busy. Electronics is a commodity
> > like toaster ovens today.
>
> You are correct but I'll never "get used to it." As we become less and less
> self-sufficient, our world position becomes more and more tenuous
> (especially so, given our current politcal posture).

Why is this industry any more special than any other? Practically everything
of import for the last century was prototyped and put into early production
in the US, then if it achieved mass market stature, it was sent overseas to
some country once all the technical quirks where overcome (or the patent
rights expired). Same thing happened with steel, automobiles, airplanes,
televisions, telephones, radios, and even toaster ovens.

It is only natural that the same thing is happening with computers. Microsoft
has taught the entire planet that it is "acceptable" (or at least accepted) to
have to reboot your computer periodically whenever something stops working
rather than demanding a refund or a fix.

As such, nobody cares much about the quality of the hardware either, as it
doesn't matter much for a motherboard to be any good when the software can't
stay up longer than a few hours or days anyway. The "Walmart" effect of
course makes it worse, as people are willing to take whatever is cheapest,
rather than that which is the best. There is no incentive whatsoever to
pay US employees six-figure salaries to design computer systems (or DVD
players, or cell phones, or digital cameras) when they will sell in huge
volumes for low margins and at a price 1/4 of what the same item sold for
5 years ago.

The US economic future depends upon continuing to do what it has in the
past, invent new innovative products and technologies, and milk the
bleeding edge (pre-chasm if you are a Moore-o-phile) market for all its
worth, then watching it go commodity overseas. As long as the pipeline
stays full, the US will be ok. Otherwise, we better all get used to
a major adjustment in income levels.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"For some reason most people seem to be born without the part
of the brain that understands pointers." -- Joel Spolsky

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

and every camera? How could one know...?
>
>
> Well, if that's not the case, then it's not really a RAW mode. It would be
> within the realm of possibility for a camera manufacturer to *call* something
> a RAW mode but not really treat it as such, but I can't imagine such a thing
> not being noted in reviews.

RAW is a camera specific format, there is no standard. Adobe would like their
"digital negative" (whatever its called) to be an indusrty standard but I don't
know if it's gaining OEM attention. (This standard was mentioned by you or
someone in this thread... it's been around since Photokina or PMA prior to that).

> If someone were applying processing to the RAW image, I suspect you would
> hear about it. Especially since the RAW image hasn't even been interpolated
> yet, so it's not an "image" in the traditional sense -- applying sharpening
> to such a thing, for example, would be a whole different algorithm than
> doing it to a bitmapped image, and that would probably generate some
> discussion as well.

Yep.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Agilent is HP subsidary for producing semiconductor devices and
measuring instruments. Field from HP once upon of time started.
AFAIK nothing to do with computers or cameras (except maybe
some chips in them)

Toomas




"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message news:scidnecmIYq6M17cRVn-3A@comcast.com...
>
> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> news:csKwd.118$_62.106@trnddc01...
>>I should state a SWEAR BY HP printers (with or w/o HP JetDirect
>>print-servers). As a IT
>> professional all my laser and inkjet printers are HP (except a Xerox
>> Document Center 432ST
>> copier and printer).
>>
>> However I bought 6 HP Vectras They were junk. I would never get HP
>> computers again.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> HP sells a wide range of products and makes none of them. They have spun
> off their high-end/high-quality/USA-manufactured products into a subsidiary
> called Agilent. HP is now like RCA (well, perhaps not quite that bad). Yet
> another once-great American trade name being used to sell. IBM personal
> computers have also joined this ignominious group. Sigh!
>
>