studiomusic
Nov 21, 04:56 PM
Hey, they're just down the road from me... I might just have to go see what they're up to...;)
ThunderSkunk
Apr 5, 08:03 PM
There it is!
And you guys thought I was nuts for suggesting it.
And you guys thought I was nuts for suggesting it.
thatisme
Mar 28, 05:38 PM
I think you both just said exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why Full of Win is arguing?
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Allthough...This statement from thatisme 'So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
Thanks for the correction, and good catch.
So, for the OP, the difference between EF-sand EF lenses is that EF-S are lighter and cheaper and are tied to 1.6 sensor cameras. EF is more versatile since they work on all EF mount cameras (including EF-S). They can be very cheap or very expensive(and good) when you get into L series lenses.
There is really no good reason to compare focal length or field of view between the two since construction wise, they are like apples and oranges.
Where it becomes relevant, is when you have an EF lens, and you own different format cameras ( like I do). my 400mm 2.8 L IS lens is a true 400mm on my 5D mark II, and 520mm on my 1D mark IIn (1.3) and 640mm on my old 20D. I don't really care about the EF-S mount since it only applies to one of the 3 camera bodies.
Is not true: a 50mm EF lens and a 50mm EF-s lens will have the same focal length and field of view on a crop camera.
This is not correct.
A EF-s 50 mm lens is 50 mm on a 1.6 camera. A 50mm EF lens on that same camera is similar in image to a 80mm EF-S lens. The reason for the difference comes into play by the amount of the lens the camera is using to record the image and the proximity of the rear element to the camera sensor.
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Allthough...This statement from thatisme 'So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
Thanks for the correction, and good catch.
So, for the OP, the difference between EF-sand EF lenses is that EF-S are lighter and cheaper and are tied to 1.6 sensor cameras. EF is more versatile since they work on all EF mount cameras (including EF-S). They can be very cheap or very expensive(and good) when you get into L series lenses.
There is really no good reason to compare focal length or field of view between the two since construction wise, they are like apples and oranges.
Where it becomes relevant, is when you have an EF lens, and you own different format cameras ( like I do). my 400mm 2.8 L IS lens is a true 400mm on my 5D mark II, and 520mm on my 1D mark IIn (1.3) and 640mm on my old 20D. I don't really care about the EF-S mount since it only applies to one of the 3 camera bodies.
Is not true: a 50mm EF lens and a 50mm EF-s lens will have the same focal length and field of view on a crop camera.
This is not correct.
A EF-s 50 mm lens is 50 mm on a 1.6 camera. A 50mm EF lens on that same camera is similar in image to a 80mm EF-S lens. The reason for the difference comes into play by the amount of the lens the camera is using to record the image and the proximity of the rear element to the camera sensor.
weldon
Apr 2, 07:56 PM
It's a great Word alternative for those who don't need Excel and don't want to shell out several hundred bucks (MS Office) just to get something better than TextEdit.
At $80 for iWork and $150 for the student/teacher edition of Office, it's a bit harder to justify. Of course, if you get an academic discount, $50 for iWork is low enough that you might just pick up both. I'm waiting for Pages to become a more capable page layout app. I'm still a little worried that Apple won't stick with it.
At $80 for iWork and $150 for the student/teacher edition of Office, it's a bit harder to justify. Of course, if you get an academic discount, $50 for iWork is low enough that you might just pick up both. I'm waiting for Pages to become a more capable page layout app. I'm still a little worried that Apple won't stick with it.
more...
e12a
Nov 21, 06:23 PM
Wow! what a great concept.
Pretty much like some hybrid cars getting power from when they brake.
The fact that it generates its own electricity, yes, but the same principle no. For light to normal braking the electric motor can act as a power generator, harnessing the kinetic energy of the moving wheels. Brake pads are not involved. Its called progressive braking. Brake pads come into play when you brake hard.
too bad that's not really anything that laptops can do..unless we can attach a generator to the hard drive and use it to charge the battery when it spins down.
it's an interesting concept to use heat..i wonder how they will do it. No steam engine here.
Pretty much like some hybrid cars getting power from when they brake.
The fact that it generates its own electricity, yes, but the same principle no. For light to normal braking the electric motor can act as a power generator, harnessing the kinetic energy of the moving wheels. Brake pads are not involved. Its called progressive braking. Brake pads come into play when you brake hard.
too bad that's not really anything that laptops can do..unless we can attach a generator to the hard drive and use it to charge the battery when it spins down.
it's an interesting concept to use heat..i wonder how they will do it. No steam engine here.
MattWylde
Mar 23, 04:31 PM
Are you people seriously applauding this? What a waste of our tax dollars!! I do contracts with the Navy every single day and I know that the technology that they have will not be benefited by the use of iPad/iPod/iPhone. The military does not offer wi-fi to their staff on base. Everything is hard wired and the conduit is sealed with a tamper proof silicon. The Government is very very particular about their SIPRnet (as they call it). Without wi-fi, what use is the iPad for the military other than to give them a little treat and waste our tax dollars? They already have mobile equipment in the vehicles that is far superior to Apple's products.
more...
wizard
Oct 6, 02:19 PM
I mean really people do you think iPhone and by extension Apple is permantly tied to just one screen size? Do you realize how stupid that would be from the standpoint of running a competitive business? Beyound that should Apple give up potential sales, to people with different needs, just to keep a bunch of thin skinned people happy with respect to their iPhone purchase?
In anyevent please stop the whinning about developers, if they followed Apples guide lines their apps would work fine on the new model. In fact many people in these forums really should just shut up until they read the developer documentation.
Second; I personally find the idea of a slightly larger iPhone to bevery attractive. Considering the comments in the thread many other people do too. Why is pretty straight forward, more info on screen or real estate. This doesn't even have to lead to a massively bigger device either. Length might be impacted only modestly and maybe an 1/8 to a 1/4" wider. Adding one or two rows of text while editing and cutting down on scrolling would be huge. In the end the aspect ratio would be wider and allow for better video play back.
The important thing is enhanced usability which i think many here are underestimating in importance. For many the current iPhone screen represents a compromise in size (most cell phone screens are) but as technology moves forward supporting bigger screens becomes far easier. The GPUs in the ARM SoC are now to the point where they can drive just about any sized screen (pixel count). So technology has removed many of the barriers to larger screens. It then becomes an issue of salability of the device. Comments in this thread indicate strong demand for a slightly larger model so I don't see a problem.
Conversely the ability to produce a smaller cell phone is like wise driven by technology. The demands and requirements are different here though. I suspect many would be willing to give up some of iPhones smart phone features but yet retaing some of the advantages. One big one is the very clean syncing that a small iPhone would have to support. Honestly the device doesn't even needs to support the same GUI as the market is different. Here customers are more interested in ultra portable small devices. Apple can be as successful here as they are with smart phones simply by paying atention to details. The should be as the market for these devices is huge, far larger than smart phones.
Dave
In anyevent please stop the whinning about developers, if they followed Apples guide lines their apps would work fine on the new model. In fact many people in these forums really should just shut up until they read the developer documentation.
Second; I personally find the idea of a slightly larger iPhone to bevery attractive. Considering the comments in the thread many other people do too. Why is pretty straight forward, more info on screen or real estate. This doesn't even have to lead to a massively bigger device either. Length might be impacted only modestly and maybe an 1/8 to a 1/4" wider. Adding one or two rows of text while editing and cutting down on scrolling would be huge. In the end the aspect ratio would be wider and allow for better video play back.
The important thing is enhanced usability which i think many here are underestimating in importance. For many the current iPhone screen represents a compromise in size (most cell phone screens are) but as technology moves forward supporting bigger screens becomes far easier. The GPUs in the ARM SoC are now to the point where they can drive just about any sized screen (pixel count). So technology has removed many of the barriers to larger screens. It then becomes an issue of salability of the device. Comments in this thread indicate strong demand for a slightly larger model so I don't see a problem.
Conversely the ability to produce a smaller cell phone is like wise driven by technology. The demands and requirements are different here though. I suspect many would be willing to give up some of iPhones smart phone features but yet retaing some of the advantages. One big one is the very clean syncing that a small iPhone would have to support. Honestly the device doesn't even needs to support the same GUI as the market is different. Here customers are more interested in ultra portable small devices. Apple can be as successful here as they are with smart phones simply by paying atention to details. The should be as the market for these devices is huge, far larger than smart phones.
Dave
domness
Aug 25, 04:41 AM
I think this new feature is genius! Whats better than scrolling through status updates just to see that your friend may be just down the road at the local pub?
- People who are worried about security and privacy.. well just don't use the 'Places' feature.. You're not being forced to!
- This is a great take on Foursquare, despite Foursquare being the better of the two, as Facebook obviously has a lot more users! I'll definitely be using Places as soon as it's rolled out to the UK.
- People who are worried about security and privacy.. well just don't use the 'Places' feature.. You're not being forced to!
- This is a great take on Foursquare, despite Foursquare being the better of the two, as Facebook obviously has a lot more users! I'll definitely be using Places as soon as it's rolled out to the UK.
more...
bniu
Apr 16, 03:31 PM
I still prefer the nation's fastest network (AT&T) over the most reliable (VZW) any day. Not to mention my GSM 32GB iPad 1 can be used internationally as well. Besides, in my neck of the woods, AT&T service has been very reliable for data consumption. No complaints here.
as an ATT iPhone 4 user, I figured why not get the verizon iPad and get the best of both worlds? If I want the nation's fastest network in the places that it actually has reception, it's easy to tether the iPhone to the iPad via personal hotspot. If there's no ATT coverage (in my school), then verizon iPad saves the day with access to the most reliable network.
as an ATT iPhone 4 user, I figured why not get the verizon iPad and get the best of both worlds? If I want the nation's fastest network in the places that it actually has reception, it's easy to tether the iPhone to the iPad via personal hotspot. If there's no ATT coverage (in my school), then verizon iPad saves the day with access to the most reliable network.
black743
Mar 13, 06:41 PM
A few minutes before 2am, my Verizon iPhone jumped from 1:57 to 12:57. That lasted for a couple minutes, then it jumped to 3am.
more...
InfoSecmgr
Apr 6, 03:37 PM
Because you do contracts for the Department of the Navy does not mean you know everything. Also there is more tax dollars going to waste every DAY with the current administration.
Trust me I served for 21 years and saw waste fraud and abuse, and there aint a dam thing your going to do, as soon as you blow the whistle your career is down the toilet and that is active duty personnel and the civilian workers also.
This about sums it up to the OP you are replying to here. I've been in for 6 years (a bit less than you obviously) but I do concur.
Trust me I served for 21 years and saw waste fraud and abuse, and there aint a dam thing your going to do, as soon as you blow the whistle your career is down the toilet and that is active duty personnel and the civilian workers also.
This about sums it up to the OP you are replying to here. I've been in for 6 years (a bit less than you obviously) but I do concur.
Eraserhead
Apr 13, 01:01 PM
So if there are no objections is there any chance we could implement this?
more...
quigleybc
Oct 10, 01:24 PM
I just hope they update the Black Macbook to a reasonable price like the white one...
and 12" has to be an option soon.
Oh, and fixing all the bugs I read about, so when I get mine...I don't have to deal with them.
REV B!
and 12" has to be an option soon.
Oh, and fixing all the bugs I read about, so when I get mine...I don't have to deal with them.
REV B!
toddybody
Apr 14, 01:21 PM
Sleeping with the enemy...
more...
2IS
Apr 21, 07:53 PM
4S moniker should be reserved for Porsche
bella92108
Apr 1, 01:40 PM
What they do in other countries has nothing to do with how they would do it in the USA. Do you seriously think the cable companies would introduce a choice where they stand to lose money? There's no way, unless the FCC forced them, that this would happen.
Also, $1/channel is way too low. Just because you can get 10 channels for $60, doesn't mean each channel would be priced at 60 cents. IIRC, a popular channel like ESPN costs the cable provider $4/subscriber ... and that's with Disney forcing the whole ABC/ESPN/Disney package of channels onto the cable co.
If ALC does happen, I would guess that most people would pay the same or more than they currently do. A small percentage may pay less, but it really depends on what channels they pick (and whether those channels survive).
It's a con when channels that focus on specific programming are forced to close up or offer the same old crap that everyone else does. For instance, a channel like BET may not survive to provide focused programming to the African American community because they would likely lose over half their subscriber base.
This isn't the goal of diverse television programming. Take a look at Obama's position on ALC. This is what I'm referring to.
As for letting the less popular networks whither, I do see this as a con. Networks will need to appeal to a broader audience in order to compete. Get ready for 15 channels showing the same formuliac sitcom. 20 channels of reality TV shows. 10 channels of daytime/social talk shows. 15 channels of sports. And 13 channels of news. No room for channels like History Channel or Discovery Health ... as they'll morph into a TNT or SpikeTV.
So I pay $60 a month and get all of the channels you mentioned above:
SpikeTV - Unsubscribe Please
TNT - Unsubscribe Please
History Channel - Unsubscribe Please
Discovery Health - Unsubscribe Please
BET - Unsubscribe Please
ESPN - Unsubscribe Please
ABC Family - Unsubscribe Please
Disney - Unsubscribe Please
I'll take:
Discovery
TBS
Comedy Central
A&E
CNN
HGTV
I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.
Also, $1/channel is way too low. Just because you can get 10 channels for $60, doesn't mean each channel would be priced at 60 cents. IIRC, a popular channel like ESPN costs the cable provider $4/subscriber ... and that's with Disney forcing the whole ABC/ESPN/Disney package of channels onto the cable co.
If ALC does happen, I would guess that most people would pay the same or more than they currently do. A small percentage may pay less, but it really depends on what channels they pick (and whether those channels survive).
It's a con when channels that focus on specific programming are forced to close up or offer the same old crap that everyone else does. For instance, a channel like BET may not survive to provide focused programming to the African American community because they would likely lose over half their subscriber base.
This isn't the goal of diverse television programming. Take a look at Obama's position on ALC. This is what I'm referring to.
As for letting the less popular networks whither, I do see this as a con. Networks will need to appeal to a broader audience in order to compete. Get ready for 15 channels showing the same formuliac sitcom. 20 channels of reality TV shows. 10 channels of daytime/social talk shows. 15 channels of sports. And 13 channels of news. No room for channels like History Channel or Discovery Health ... as they'll morph into a TNT or SpikeTV.
So I pay $60 a month and get all of the channels you mentioned above:
SpikeTV - Unsubscribe Please
TNT - Unsubscribe Please
History Channel - Unsubscribe Please
Discovery Health - Unsubscribe Please
BET - Unsubscribe Please
ESPN - Unsubscribe Please
ABC Family - Unsubscribe Please
Disney - Unsubscribe Please
I'll take:
Discovery
TBS
Comedy Central
A&E
CNN
HGTV
I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.
more...
Dracula77
Apr 14, 02:14 PM
Why is this considered NEWS? Let only a juicy RUMOR.
KnightWRX
Apr 14, 02:24 PM
I have never heard of this guy. But having Geocities, Yahoo, and Microsoft on a resume doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence.
As a datacenter manager ? Quite the contrary, those are 3 big data center experiences right there.
As a product manager ? I'd agree with you.
As a datacenter manager ? Quite the contrary, those are 3 big data center experiences right there.
As a product manager ? I'd agree with you.
DeSnousa
May 3, 06:11 PM
Welcome MacInside_Octo1 to the team.
Your stats: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=512266
Your stats: http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=512266
80s Fan
Jan 9, 03:31 PM
I am now getting no notifications from the FB app. No badges, no sounds, no nothing. I even deleted the app and re-downloaded it but still am not getting any type of pn. Has this happened to anyone else?
AppleScruff1
Mar 25, 11:02 AM
Remember back in the 90's when Apple was a dying company?
hans-martijn
Mar 18, 07:39 AM
Whats this feature for? I don't know if it was in SL Server but its part of the mail settings and don't know if its for certification or for using apple's mobile me mail service for pushing mail to iOS devices.
This looks like Push notifications for email will finally work :-)
-Hans-Martijn
This looks like Push notifications for email will finally work :-)
-Hans-Martijn
mozumder
Mar 28, 08:48 AM
wishlist:
iOS 5.0: totally new look, no more icon based.
This is really needed.
The app-centric model is really confusing. Who wants to go through 250,000 apps to figure out how to perform a task? Apple really need to move to a data-centric model.
The Windows phone 7 Metro UI is much better looking than iOS, cleaner, more fashionable. iOS is downright ugly compared to it.
iOS 5.0: totally new look, no more icon based.
This is really needed.
The app-centric model is really confusing. Who wants to go through 250,000 apps to figure out how to perform a task? Apple really need to move to a data-centric model.
The Windows phone 7 Metro UI is much better looking than iOS, cleaner, more fashionable. iOS is downright ugly compared to it.
SlamJam12
Oct 13, 10:42 PM
I like the iPhone 4 form factor. I am tempted to get one. But with early controversy about the antenna problems and the prone problems of delicate glass, I would not mind a new form factor that could help improve future iPhones.
