chrono1081
Mar 19, 12:18 AM
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
I'm not saying PP isn't important, but if you take beginners that learn to get the best picture possible in the camera (focusing on composition, exposure, etc) first then worry about learning PP the images always turn out better then those who take crap in the camera and try and fix it in Photoshop.
Not to mention, as Winni said RAW workflow programs are usually all you need unless you are doing commercial or portraiture where skin smoothing or other things are needed.
Photoshop is used far to much as a crutch than an enhancement tool.
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
I'm not saying PP isn't important, but if you take beginners that learn to get the best picture possible in the camera (focusing on composition, exposure, etc) first then worry about learning PP the images always turn out better then those who take crap in the camera and try and fix it in Photoshop.
Not to mention, as Winni said RAW workflow programs are usually all you need unless you are doing commercial or portraiture where skin smoothing or other things are needed.
Photoshop is used far to much as a crutch than an enhancement tool.
robbieduncan
Sep 25, 10:57 AM
Um, no it doesn't Fuji S1, S2, S3 RAW Files are not supported. This camera is used by more wedding photographers than any other.
S2 and S3 now supported. See the right sidebar on the raw page (http://www.apple.com/aperture/raw/index.html).
S2 and S3 now supported. See the right sidebar on the raw page (http://www.apple.com/aperture/raw/index.html).
slieu92
Mar 25, 01:03 AM
How do we distinguish corporate stores from privately owned ones?
acearchie
Apr 23, 08:06 AM
The current FCS can edit 3D with the Dashwood stereo 3d toolkit plugin!
more...
usarioclave
Apr 21, 01:20 PM
Damn, if it has the same graphics engine as the ipad 2 rendering'll be a bit more than the 9x faster than the iPhone 4 (lower pixel count)
What the heck are people going to do with that sort of performance? That'll bring AR to a whole new level. 2x overall speed increase? It's already plenty fast. It's going to be a bit ridiculous - at this rate the network bottleneck is going to get even worse.
What the heck are people going to do with that sort of performance? That'll bring AR to a whole new level. 2x overall speed increase? It's already plenty fast. It's going to be a bit ridiculous - at this rate the network bottleneck is going to get even worse.
Fraaaa
Apr 21, 02:16 PM
Not enough to justify the non-inclusion of LTE/4G.
Two years from now, you'll be wishing you had faster access to streaming content (the mythical "cloud") than a bit more processing power to play a game that was designed to be playable on the iPhone 4 anyway.
I justified in my post why LTE/4G is not good for the next revision. Make an argument against that statement.
Beside, two years from now I'll be wishing nothing. 3G is good enough for browsing and I get WiFi in my house, at work and university. Two years from now, is two iPhone revisions. Most people don't even use SmartPhones, nor they care and the iPhone has the highest reselling value in hardware. So what should I be wishing for?
Two years from now, you'll be wishing you had faster access to streaming content (the mythical "cloud") than a bit more processing power to play a game that was designed to be playable on the iPhone 4 anyway.
I justified in my post why LTE/4G is not good for the next revision. Make an argument against that statement.
Beside, two years from now I'll be wishing nothing. 3G is good enough for browsing and I get WiFi in my house, at work and university. Two years from now, is two iPhone revisions. Most people don't even use SmartPhones, nor they care and the iPhone has the highest reselling value in hardware. So what should I be wishing for?
more...
geko29
Apr 14, 08:02 AM
Since the iPad data payment can't be tied to a pre-existing AT&T or Verizon cell phone plan, I just don't see much advantage to getting a Verizon iPad unless you live in an area without AT&T service. Thoughts?
Not true. I just added a fifth iPad to an AT&T Wireless Postpaid account, and I fully expect to add more (on that's on order right now, probably more to come).
SOOOOOO much easier than dealing with the prepaid nonsense, with individual usernames, passwords, and credit cards required for every two iPads.
Not true. I just added a fifth iPad to an AT&T Wireless Postpaid account, and I fully expect to add more (on that's on order right now, probably more to come).
SOOOOOO much easier than dealing with the prepaid nonsense, with individual usernames, passwords, and credit cards required for every two iPads.
Maccus Aurelius
Nov 14, 11:13 AM
And here people were hoping something would come along and topple the iPod. I had to check the Zune out for myself, it's basically dull-finished 1st Gen iPod clone. And now with iPod friendly skies, the bastardized iTurd will have very rough waters venture through. Go Apple. :D
more...
alexf
Apr 2, 01:50 PM
*caugh, caugh* It's 1.0.1. Also, It's not so much that it has bugs are anything, I think it UI is horrible.
Yes, I think the UI is aweful too.
I'm glad I'm not alone in my feelings!
Yes, I think the UI is aweful too.
I'm glad I'm not alone in my feelings!
abbstrack
Aug 19, 09:59 AM
not available in my region yet.
my 'region' is NYC.
I dont throw this term around much, but i'd say this is a launch *fail*
my 'region' is NYC.
I dont throw this term around much, but i'd say this is a launch *fail*
more...
Digital Skunk
Mar 1, 07:15 AM
From the talks I've had with people from the Apple Professional Services group Apple feels that real world use of OS X server is very limited. Most of their work is integrating Active Directory with Open Directory. They see most of their customers using OS X Server as the authentication, group policy, and file servers for the mac units in their customer's businesses.
I would have to agree with that assessment. It's pretty much the task I am trying to set up at the university I work in . . . . if they would only give me the resources to do so.
I don't think there's too much heavy lifting and heavy customization going on with OSX Server in the SoHo, SMB, and enterprise sector.
I would have to agree with that assessment. It's pretty much the task I am trying to set up at the university I work in . . . . if they would only give me the resources to do so.
I don't think there's too much heavy lifting and heavy customization going on with OSX Server in the SoHo, SMB, and enterprise sector.
freeny
Nov 11, 05:53 PM
I'm not sure why you guys think the ads are more amusing simply because they're in a foreign language :confused: Not everyone in the world speaks english.
Oh lighten up!:rolleyes:
Oh lighten up!:rolleyes:
more...
Tailpike1153
Mar 28, 08:53 AM
I can't think of any good rumors to start spreading. Lion, iOS 4+/5, new iPhones, MobileMe cloud. Hmmmm.... what to make up? The iPhone is heading to Sprint and Cricket. j/k. I'm just hoping to be able to get a new iPhone this summer. New iMac & iPad 2 will be pluses on the year.
nonameowns
Apr 12, 12:43 PM
don't care
page and keynote still rock
page and keynote still rock
more...
jakeDude
Sep 1, 07:45 PM
correction.. I think it is fair to make ADC Select peeps wait for the seed.* Also, the asterisks were not added by me.. Must file a bug..*
Icaras
Apr 19, 09:51 AM
Sometimes knowing about iOS in advance ruins the fun at WWDC....
Lovin' the white! Doesn't look cheap to me at all. After now having the white iPad 2, I want the white iPhone more than I did before :D
Lovin' the white! Doesn't look cheap to me at all. After now having the white iPad 2, I want the white iPhone more than I did before :D
more...
mi5moav
Sep 25, 10:41 AM
All Apple software and hardware can be demoed for free at any Apple store. I have brought in cameras, printers, monitors, etc... and was allowed to test them and demo them before I purchased. It's an amazing place go visit sometime.
soulreaver99
Mar 16, 11:43 PM
Sucks to be in California!!!
840quadra
Sep 27, 11:58 AM
Oh noes! The dreaded off-topic discussion on numbering schemes that pops up after each os update. ;)
indeed the trend continues!
None the less, I am excited for a new build!
indeed the trend continues!
None the less, I am excited for a new build!
JayMysterio
Jun 22, 12:50 AM
When you get a HD, demos, demos, demos, demos...
The Blur demo was a lot of fun, the Split Second demo wasn't bad, and now I am hooked on the Crackdown 2 demo.
The Blur demo was a lot of fun, the Split Second demo wasn't bad, and now I am hooked on the Crackdown 2 demo.
arkitect
Feb 19, 11:33 AM
I give up. :rolleyes:
I know the feeling. :D
I tried to put the Obama/Hu/Ballmer January meeting in perspective since this story first appeared. (Links and all…) But heh, fanboys and galls will believe what they want to believe.
:o
Anyway:
I'll try again:
Steve Ballmer was in France on the day the dinner party was held, there to receive (http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/obama_toasts_tech_heavyweights_ballmer_not_present.html) the Legion D’Honneur from President Nicolas Sarkozy. And it’s pretty hard to be in two places at once, especially when they’re a few thousand miles apart.
Admittedly Ballmer's French is dire, still he tried.
Linky (http://www.01net.com/editorial/528445/steve-ballmer-%28microsoft%29-promu-chevalier-de-la-legion-dhonneur/?r=/rss/actus.xml)… and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYKjFfkqBmo)…
Edit:
And… cue the usual "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" posts
I know the feeling. :D
I tried to put the Obama/Hu/Ballmer January meeting in perspective since this story first appeared. (Links and all…) But heh, fanboys and galls will believe what they want to believe.
:o
Anyway:
I'll try again:
Steve Ballmer was in France on the day the dinner party was held, there to receive (http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/obama_toasts_tech_heavyweights_ballmer_not_present.html) the Legion D’Honneur from President Nicolas Sarkozy. And it’s pretty hard to be in two places at once, especially when they’re a few thousand miles apart.
Admittedly Ballmer's French is dire, still he tried.
Linky (http://www.01net.com/editorial/528445/steve-ballmer-%28microsoft%29-promu-chevalier-de-la-legion-dhonneur/?r=/rss/actus.xml)… and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYKjFfkqBmo)…
Edit:
And… cue the usual "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" posts
brendanspah764
Jul 6, 05:28 PM
I would LOVE this. I have been with T-Mobile for over five years, and they are a great company. Unfortunately I cannot get out of my new contract until Nov. so having the iPhone on T-Mobile would be awesome, hoping that they can prepare with all the data that will come with it.
barkmonster
Sep 14, 09:01 AM
If your Mac is slower than a PC for any reason on the same application it is because the software hasn't been optimized for the Mac. Write the software developer before you complain about the Mac speed. Get them to develop for Altivec. It makes a world of difference.
No chance.
Most applications that can take advantage of Altivec already do, there's a lot of processes that can't benefit from Altivec at all and that's where the G4 is getting beaten senseless.
Even Altivec itself is crippled by the bus speed.
The G4 achieves 1.3Gb/s on the dual 1Ghz G4 with the 167Mhz Front Side Bus.
Remembering that there's 8 bits in a byte and memory is 64 bit the Mb/s of the FSB works out as follows :
(100 / 3) x 5 = 166.666 this is just the precise way of calculating the bus speed
64 bit / 8 = 8 bytes
8 x 166.666Mhz = 1.333 GB/s
Remembering that 1.3Gb/s is the most the system controller can transfere to either CPU, altivec is hardly getting any of the juice it needs at all with the current G4 design.
Assuming we're still talking about that dual Ghz G4, Altvec works out like this :
(128 / 8) x 1000Mhz = 15.625 Gb/s
It's only getting a measly 1.3Gb/s, hardly what it needs.
Plus both CPUs and both Altivec units have to share the same 167Mhz FSB to transfere data to and from main memory.
Even though the L2 and L3 cache have a lot to play in getting around the FSB bottleneck, that's 1.3Gb/s of bandwidth shared between cpus and SiMD units that require a total of 33.85Mb/s.
If you're working on data that's less than 256K it fits in the L2 cache and there's no bottleneck, anything bigger than that and it's either got to fit in the L3 which is half the required bandwidth or it's coming from main system memory with that tiny 1.3Mb/s of bandwidth.
No chance.
Most applications that can take advantage of Altivec already do, there's a lot of processes that can't benefit from Altivec at all and that's where the G4 is getting beaten senseless.
Even Altivec itself is crippled by the bus speed.
The G4 achieves 1.3Gb/s on the dual 1Ghz G4 with the 167Mhz Front Side Bus.
Remembering that there's 8 bits in a byte and memory is 64 bit the Mb/s of the FSB works out as follows :
(100 / 3) x 5 = 166.666 this is just the precise way of calculating the bus speed
64 bit / 8 = 8 bytes
8 x 166.666Mhz = 1.333 GB/s
Remembering that 1.3Gb/s is the most the system controller can transfere to either CPU, altivec is hardly getting any of the juice it needs at all with the current G4 design.
Assuming we're still talking about that dual Ghz G4, Altvec works out like this :
(128 / 8) x 1000Mhz = 15.625 Gb/s
It's only getting a measly 1.3Gb/s, hardly what it needs.
Plus both CPUs and both Altivec units have to share the same 167Mhz FSB to transfere data to and from main memory.
Even though the L2 and L3 cache have a lot to play in getting around the FSB bottleneck, that's 1.3Gb/s of bandwidth shared between cpus and SiMD units that require a total of 33.85Mb/s.
If you're working on data that's less than 256K it fits in the L2 cache and there's no bottleneck, anything bigger than that and it's either got to fit in the L3 which is half the required bandwidth or it's coming from main system memory with that tiny 1.3Mb/s of bandwidth.
nixd2001
Sep 14, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by onemoof
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
No comments:
Post a Comment