Letters to the Editor
-
shooter242 - imbecilic, dishonest, or both?
shooter242:
I have absolutely no doubt that if the total cost of automobile safety expenditures were totaled up, it would dwarf that of homeland security et al. The difference is that auto deaths are accepted as inevitable, while things like 9/11 aren't.
No, the difference is orders of magnitude of difference in annual deaths*. From the NHTSA:
The number of people who died on the nation’s roads fell last year, leading to the lowest highway fatality rate ever recorded and the largest drop in total deaths in 15 years, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters announced today.
[...]
In 2006, 42,642 people died in traffic crashes, a drop of 868 deaths compared to 2005. This two percent decline in traffic deaths contributed to the historic low fatality rate of 1.42 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), Secretary Peters said.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.f2217bee37fb302f6d7c121046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_viewID=detail_view&itemID=b75cbab08d3f3110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD&pressReleaseYearSelect=2007
Note to stoopid242 - the "lowest highway fatality rate ever recorded" took more than ten times as many American lives as were lost in the 9/11 attacks. That's in one year.
*This has probably already been pointed out, I am late catching up, I just had to pile on.
-
William T. I wondered away...
George W. Bush screaming at the top of his lungs at Americans,
demanding that citizens be mesmerized and spread love, and be just like him.
-
@Aycharaych
Okay. And how did you say you cooled your daughter's camera? It's high end and expensive compared to the former accessibility of 35mm film cameras.
I'm actually fairly familiar with Sony cameras. In fact, the camera the Kodak VP was valiantly trying to beat at around the time he gave the presentation I mentioned was the Sony Mavica. I had two of them at the time. I know the word luddite got used, but I adopted digital photography for some things a long time ago, and have worked on digital imaging and analysis for pushing 20 years. Computer graphics for years before that, when the method for 'printing' the computer screen was to bracket photograph the screen with Kodakchrome, and then Cibachrome it to paper and mess with the cyan and magenta until it looked right. And in that case, it was in order to do side by side comparisons with laser/prism flashed 35mm technical photographs. I thought that Kodak Ektar was the best thing I had ever seen, and for some things, I still do.
Would it surprise you to know that there are people who still take large plate photographs? The medium is whatever the quality demands, and there are kinds of exposures and levels of quality that do not fit well with digital technology. Nevertheless, I will repeat: the VP at Kodak was promoting 1.2 megapixel JPEG encoded 640x480 images. Recorded to a floppy disk, remember? He didn't see any problem with 'educating the market' to adopt those and discard 35mm.
Twelve bits is indeed an improvement over eight, but it isn't the dynamic range you get in real raw, and it only rivals film, not blows it away. And won't compete with the highest end films or print processes. I have TIFF images that are 16 bit for example, and use all 16 bits. Getting Sony to open it up to even 12 bits was a chore. The gyroscopic technology you talk about was conceived of for their low end cameras first, because you literally could not take a non-blurry picture some of with them.
Next time you get an X-Ray, it will be on film. So will your next print of an MRI or CT scan. Which do you think has a better resolution, a large photographic plate (X-Ray) or a small CCD? Got money for a Prosumer 3CCD video camera? They have screen resolutions, even with the 3CCDs that are downright crummy.
What you say about the ability to take lots of pictures cheap is really the success of digital still cameras. No question about it. There are multiple million pictures uploaded to websites daily from those cameras and that is a good thing. Breaking out of the Brownie camera mold of never taking pictures except at weddings and birthday parties is also a good thing. I like the technology too.
You're missing the point. The point is that whether or not quality is possible, corporations can and do dumb down the market instead. Sony did that for quite a while, until it looked like others were going to take their camera market away from them. Sony's DSLRs were late entries to a market they had once owned, because they were too busy telling consumers what to want. They easily prove my point.
-
@ondelette
I can see how having present several harmonically related frequencies, or ones related by simple sums and differences, could enhance the detectability of high frequency tones normally not audible alone. At least somewhat.
Perhaps the weakest aspect of the original CD audio standard is the lack of dynamic range with 16 bits. Not a problem for most music, which is recored so as to eliminate almost all dynamic range, but certainly a problem for some works for orchestra. Just not enough bits when it gets quiet.
Recording at twice or four times the original rate is better since this relaxes the standards on the anti-aliasing filter. But for playback, surely only the very young need the highest rates!
-
Observed
A deaf and blind photographer trying to retrieve,
his wood cane from a wild bulldog junkyard pittbull.
-
pete b.
YKW is home at peace in N.J. He tapes his sliced golf balls with duck tape.
He's considering a new name-handle. His Salon new gold star name is...
Cauliflower Ears. He's been taking a beating lately. So~try to not pile on...
-
ondelette, et al.
This is why my family thinks I don't really like music. The truth, though, is that I just prefer live music over recordings. Especially when there are strings or other instruments that produce a lot of overtones.