If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy (again)
nospam writes:
In article , David Dyer-Bennet wrote: So what I end up doing is, holding the phone with one hand, while trying to shield the display enough to see something with another, _and_ trying to use another hand to shade the lens to avoid the worst glare effects in the image. As you can see, that's three hands... :] Since I don't have three hands, what I actually end up doing usually involves quite a bit of contortion, trying to use one hand for both, or stand in the shade of a pole or something or ...... anyway, it's a big pain. For an actual camera, you could buy a screen hood, but I don't think that's available for the cell phone size screens (and there's no place to mount it, anyway). there are cases that can be used as hoods, including for tablets. i saw one that had 3 side coverage for the ipad (top, left & right). I guess I'm not really surprised, though I haven't seen them yet. Anyway, I'm sure they have a good solid niche, but they certainly aren't perfect, or some sort of universal replacement for all other devices. The "faddishness" is people who suddenly think they _are_ the latter. For lots of people they're a better fit than a laptop. Not for me, though. it's not an either or. they serve different, but overlapping needs. some people own both. Sure, many people embrace the power of 'and' :-) . On the other hand, the P&S market is mostly *NOT* interested in anything beyond snapshots. That's being decimated by phones already. very decimated. Yeah, maybe 20% or even 30%. unlike an slr with lenses, a tablet fits in a jacket pocket. That's a bit of a stretch .... :] And who wears dress jackets these days anyway? who said anything about a dress jacket? i'm talking an ordinary jacket to keep you warm when it's chilly outside. most people have more than one, depending on how cold it is outside. My light jackets definitely do not have tablet-size pockets. My serious winter jackets sometimes do, and the dress jackets do. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy (again)
Martin Brown writes:
On 27/04/2012 16:06, aruzinsky wrote: On Apr 26, 1:34 am, Martin wrote: True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them. Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro, 6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at 1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back. - Show quoted text - I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe, Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such possibilities in the instructions? I don't. I think you were just out of luck. I had a look inside one of mine and whilst it doesn't say don't stick a label on it does have pictograms for handle by the edges, don't bend, store 40C, out of direct sunlight, don't get wet, write on or use solvent cleaners. They still read OK 15 years later - I had cause to use one last week which is why it is still hanging around on my desk. Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file formats. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy (again)
On 2012-04-27 10:30:52 -0700, Savageduck said:
On 2012-04-27 09:13:45 -0700, nospam said: In article , Miles Bader wrote: My cellphone has a great camera (truly amazing considering the size it fits into), but using an external lcd instead of a viewfinder is complete misery in many situations... who said anything about an external lcd? I mean what every cellphone / pad / ... has: an LCD on the outside of the unit (as opposed to a viewfinder which you put up to your eye). to me, that's a built-in lcd. and external lcd is one which is tethered to the camera and usually much bigger than what the camera has. The iPad as a camera accessory tethered remote (wireless or usb) has great potential. For the photographer who wants to carry a digital portfolio without lugging a laptop around, the iPad is very useful. http://jesserosten.com/2010/wireless-tethering-to-ipad Then the ability to move both JPEGS and/or RAW files from camera to iPhone or iPad via Eye-Fi "Mobile X2" or "Pro X2" SDHC cards when used with their free iOS or Android App. http://www.eye.fi/products/prox2 OnOne Software has a free version of its "DSLR Camera Remote" available via the Apple App Store along with its full featured "DSLR Camera Remote HD" for the iPhone @ $19.99 or iPad @49.99 http://www.ononesoftware.com/product...camera-remote/ ....and there is this; http://fstoppers.com/how-to-tether-y...t-jailbreaking -- Regards, Savageduck |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy (again)
On 27/04/2012 18:58, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Martin writes: On 27/04/2012 16:06, aruzinsky wrote: On Apr 26, 1:34 am, Martin wrote: True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them. Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro, 6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at 1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back. - Show quoted text - I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe, Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such possibilities in the instructions? I don't. I think you were just out of luck. I had a look inside one of mine and whilst it doesn't say don't stick a label on it does have pictograms for handle by the edges, don't bend, store40C, out of direct sunlight, don't get wet, write on or use solvent cleaners. They still read OK 15 years later - I had cause to use one last week which is why it is still hanging around on my desk. Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file formats. Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read almost anything. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy (again)
"Martin Brown" wrote in message ... On 27/04/2012 18:58, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Martin writes: On 27/04/2012 16:06, aruzinsky wrote: On Apr 26, 1:34 am, Martin wrote: True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them. Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro, 6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at 1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back. - Show quoted text - I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe, Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such possibilities in the instructions? I don't. I think you were just out of luck. I had a look inside one of mine and whilst it doesn't say don't stick a label on it does have pictograms for handle by the edges, don't bend, store40C, out of direct sunlight, don't get wet, write on or use solvent cleaners. They still read OK 15 years later - I had cause to use one last week which is why it is still hanging around on my desk. Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file formats. Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read almost anything. -- Regards, Martin Brown I wonder if Gimp does. Its a freeware image editor similar in function to Photoshop. -- -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles WB6KBL |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy (again)
I have the GIMRichard Knoppow wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message ... On 27/04/2012 18:58, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Martin writes: On 27/04/2012 16:06, aruzinsky wrote: On Apr 26, 1:34 am, Martin wrote: True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them. Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro, 6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at 1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back. - Show quoted text - I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe, Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such possibilities in the instructions? I don't. I think you were just out of luck. I had a look inside one of mine and whilst it doesn't say don't stick a label on it does have pictograms for handle by the edges, don't bend, store40C, out of direct sunlight, don't get wet, write on or use solvent cleaners. They still read OK 15 years later - I had cause to use one last week which is why it is still hanging around on my desk. Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file formats. Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read almost anything. -- Regards, Martin Brown I wonder if Gimp does. Its a freeware image editor similar in function to Photoshop. I have the GIMP on my machine. It is not practical to print out the file types it accepts. What format is it? If I knew, I could look it up in the list. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 13:35:01 up 26 days, 7:12, 3 users, load average: 4.69, 4.87, 4.75 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy (again)
On 2012-05-16 10:41:28 -0700, Jean-David Beyer said:
I have the GIMRichard Knoppow wrote: "Martin Brown" wrote in message ... On 27/04/2012 18:58, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Martin writes: On 27/04/2012 16:06, aruzinsky wrote: On Apr 26, 1:34 am, Martin wrote: True PhotoCD was a good professional scanning service but then they muddied the waters by introducing PictureCD and failing to explain to their sales channels the *enormous* difference in quality between them. Kodak PhotoCD was proprietory high quality encoding (upto 25Mpixels pro, 6Mpixels std) whereas PictureCD was low grade JPEG encoding at 1.5Mpixel. This confusion did wonders for the sale of Nikon slide scanners. You only got caught out by this trap once and never went back. - Show quoted text - I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe, Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such possibilities in the instructions? I don't. I think you were just out of luck. I had a look inside one of mine and whilst it doesn't say don't stick a label on it does have pictograms for handle by the edges, don't bend, store40C, out of direct sunlight, don't get wet, write on or use solvent cleaners. They still read OK 15 years later - I had cause to use one last week which is why it is still hanging around on my desk. Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file formats. Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read almost anything. -- Regards, Martin Brown I wonder if Gimp does. Its a freeware image editor similar in function to Photoshop. I have the GIMP on my machine. It is not practical to print out the file types it accepts. What format is it? If I knew, I could look it up in the list. For Macs, Lemkesoft's "GraphicConverter" has always been a reliable image file editor capable of importing 200+ file types. http://www.lemkesoft.com/content/143...t-formats.html http://www.lemkesoft.com/ -- Regards, Savageduck |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak bankruptcy (again)
On 16/05/2012 18:41, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
I have the GIMRichard Knoppow wrote: "Martin wrote in message ... On 27/04/2012 18:58, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Martin writes: On 27/04/2012 16:06, aruzinsky wrote: On Apr 26, 1:34 am, Martin wrote: I had a bad experience with PhotoCD. The PhotoCDs had gold plating on the back that could easily be peeled off. I put a gummy label on the back of a PhotoCD and when I tried to remove it, the gold plating came off. That was $30 of my money down the drain. Maybe, my bad, maybe, Kodak's bad. Do you remember seeing a warning about such possibilities in the instructions? I don't. I think you were just out of luck. I had a look inside one of mine and whilst it doesn't say don't stick a label on it does have pictograms for handle by the edges, don't bend, store40C, out of direct sunlight, don't get wet, write on or use solvent cleaners. They still read OK 15 years later - I had cause to use one last week which is why it is still hanging around on my desk. Unfortunately, Photoshop no longer supports the file formats. Older versions do and at a pinch IrfanView will read almost anything. -- Regards, Martin Brown I wonder if Gimp does. Its a freeware image editor similar in function to Photoshop. I have the GIMP on my machine. It is not practical to print out the file types it accepts. What format is it? If I knew, I could look it up in the list. ..PCD Hence Kodak's infallible foot shooting exercise of creating a vastly inferior new "PictureCD" product that screwed its customers over one time too many. Most got their own Nikon scanners and never returned. If they had called the second product ImageCD the problem would never have arisen in the first place, but having two products with abbreviation PCD was a recipe for disaster. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak bankruptcy | Dale[_2_] | In The Darkroom | 3 | March 26th 12 01:39 AM |
Kodak close to declaring bankruptcy | Walter Banks | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | January 29th 12 12:44 PM |
BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY | measekite | Digital Photography | 0 | June 12th 08 04:03 AM |
Google Bankruptcy eminent Sergie and Brin shine my shoes please | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 19th 07 03:31 AM |