Will Lightroom Become Web Only?

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 19:17:36 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


| But
| it always boils down to the same thing: You can't
| access it unless it's downloaded, so it's always local.
|
| given that definition, to hear a song on the radio, it must be stored
| in the radio. to watch a tv show, it must be stored in the tv.

They're very different things. TV and radio are
signals received over the air, or through a cable
in some cases. The device interprets the signals
in real time, converting them to audio and/or
video.

just like the internet.

The Internet doesn't work that way.

yes it most certainly does work that way.

streaming audio and/or video over the internet sends signals (packets
of data) in real time through a cable (broadband or dial-up) or over
the air (cellular or wifi), which are then converted to audio, video
and/or any other relevant formats by the computer/phone/set top
box/other the user is using.

the specific format might be different, but the concept is the same.

this is particularly true for digital tv, which sends data packets over
the air (versus old style analog modulation).

You
download binary files.

not always.

i'm watching a live stream right now, no files are being downloaded.

This is another example of your habit of ignoring the parts of a
mechanism that the user (or programmer) doesn't need to know about. In
fact there is a hell of a lot going on inside the machine including
downloading data, using the data to construct a file (even though that
file may only be going to be used as a buffer) reading the file at a
clocked rate, decoding the file and constructing an image or music
stream from the results. The file may or not be variously truncated or
deleted after the relevant segment is read, or after the video or
music reaches the end.

this is yet another example of you overanalyzing things.

If you think I am wrong, please explain how you get to smoothly view a
video or listen to music as it is down-loaded packet by packet.

click on the 'listen' or 'watch' button. done.

users don't give a flying **** about what goes on under the hood any
more than they care about tv/radio modulation.

In this context, nobody cares what users do or do not give flying
****s for. The question is what is actually happening.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 22:31:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| There is a hell of a lot going on in an FM radio, too. Mayayana might
| be clinically insane...

"TV and radio are
signals received over the air, or through a cable
in some cases. The device interprets the signals
in real time, converting them to audio and/or
video. The Internet doesn't work that way."

it does work that way.

in fact, that's exactly what laptops, desktops and smartphones do when
streaming the likes of netflix, spotify, etc.

data packets are received over the air (cellular or wifi) or through a
cable (broadband), which are then interpreted in real time, converted
to audio and/or video.

With FM radio signals are interpreted as they arrive. With cable,
cellular or wifi the steady arrival of data packets cannot be
guaranteed which is why they are loaded into a temporary file which is
used as a buffer.

Perhaps you could point out the "insane" part?

it would take too long.

Getting any sensible answer out of you takes too long.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You
download binary files.

not always.

i'm watching a live stream right now, no files are being downloaded.

This is another example of your habit of ignoring the parts of a
mechanism that the user (or programmer) doesn't need to know about. In
fact there is a hell of a lot going on inside the machine including
downloading data, using the data to construct a file (even though that
file may only be going to be used as a buffer) reading the file at a
clocked rate, decoding the file and constructing an image or music
stream from the results. The file may or not be variously truncated or
deleted after the relevant segment is read, or after the video or
music reaches the end.

this is yet another example of you overanalyzing things.

If you think I am wrong, please explain how you get to smoothly view a
video or listen to music as it is down-loaded packet by packet.

click on the 'listen' or 'watch' button. done.

users don't give a flying **** about what goes on under the hood any
more than they care about tv/radio modulation.

In this context, nobody cares what users do or do not give flying
****s for. The question is what is actually happening.

what's actually happening is that the user is listening to streaming
audio or watching streaming video over their internet connection,
whether it's wifi, cellular or broadband, enjoying the music or movie
or whatever it is.

nobody (but you) gives a flying **** about reconstructing data packets
or clock rates.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

| There is a hell of a lot going on in an FM radio, too. Mayayana might
| be clinically insane...

"TV and radio are
signals received over the air, or through a cable
in some cases. The device interprets the signals
in real time, converting them to audio and/or
video. The Internet doesn't work that way."

it does work that way.

in fact, that's exactly what laptops, desktops and smartphones do when
streaming the likes of netflix, spotify, etc.

data packets are received over the air (cellular or wifi) or through a
cable (broadband), which are then interpreted in real time, converted
to audio and/or video.

With FM radio signals are interpreted as they arrive. With cable,
cellular or wifi the steady arrival of data packets cannot be
guaranteed which is why they are loaded into a temporary file which is
used as a buffer.

in other words, it works the same way, except that over the internet,
momentary dropouts do not cause an interruption in the audio or video.

not only that, but with internet radio/tv, there is no distance
limitation as there is with terrestrial radio/tv.

technology once again continues to improve.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:42:05 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You
download binary files.

not always.

i'm watching a live stream right now, no files are being downloaded.

This is another example of your habit of ignoring the parts of a
mechanism that the user (or programmer) doesn't need to know about. In
fact there is a hell of a lot going on inside the machine including
downloading data, using the data to construct a file (even though that
file may only be going to be used as a buffer) reading the file at a
clocked rate, decoding the file and constructing an image or music
stream from the results. The file may or not be variously truncated or
deleted after the relevant segment is read, or after the video or
music reaches the end.

this is yet another example of you overanalyzing things.

If you think I am wrong, please explain how you get to smoothly view a
video or listen to music as it is down-loaded packet by packet.

click on the 'listen' or 'watch' button. done.

users don't give a flying **** about what goes on under the hood any
more than they care about tv/radio modulation.

In this context, nobody cares what users do or do not give flying
****s for. The question is what is actually happening.

what's actually happening is that the user is listening to streaming
audio or watching streaming video over their internet connection,
whether it's wifi, cellular or broadband, enjoying the music or movie
or whatever it is.

nobody (but you) gives a flying **** about reconstructing data packets
or clock rates.

You would if you didn't have any.

Also, it is still germane when you are considering downloading and
reassembling a file so that you can play it before you discard it (or
not).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:42:06 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

| There is a hell of a lot going on in an FM radio, too. Mayayana might
| be clinically insane...

"TV and radio are
signals received over the air, or through a cable
in some cases. The device interprets the signals
in real time, converting them to audio and/or
video. The Internet doesn't work that way."

it does work that way.

in fact, that's exactly what laptops, desktops and smartphones do when
streaming the likes of netflix, spotify, etc.

data packets are received over the air (cellular or wifi) or through a
cable (broadband), which are then interpreted in real time, converted
to audio and/or video.

With FM radio signals are interpreted as they arrive. With cable,
cellular or wifi the steady arrival of data packets cannot be
guaranteed which is why they are loaded into a temporary file which is
used as a buffer.

in other words, it works the same way, except that over the internet,
momentary dropouts do not cause an interruption in the audio or video.

not only that, but with internet radio/tv, there is no distance
limitation as there is with terrestrial radio/tv.

technology once again continues to improve.

And change. You don't seem to have caught up with the difference
between FM wireless and Internet broadcasts.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You
download binary files.

not always.

i'm watching a live stream right now, no files are being downloaded.

This is another example of your habit of ignoring the parts of a
mechanism that the user (or programmer) doesn't need to know about. In
fact there is a hell of a lot going on inside the machine including
downloading data, using the data to construct a file (even though that
file may only be going to be used as a buffer) reading the file at a
clocked rate, decoding the file and constructing an image or music
stream from the results. The file may or not be variously truncated or
deleted after the relevant segment is read, or after the video or
music reaches the end.

this is yet another example of you overanalyzing things.

If you think I am wrong, please explain how you get to smoothly view a
video or listen to music as it is down-loaded packet by packet.

click on the 'listen' or 'watch' button. done.

users don't give a flying **** about what goes on under the hood any
more than they care about tv/radio modulation.

In this context, nobody cares what users do or do not give flying
****s for. The question is what is actually happening.

what's actually happening is that the user is listening to streaming
audio or watching streaming video over their internet connection,
whether it's wifi, cellular or broadband, enjoying the music or movie
or whatever it is.

nobody (but you) gives a flying **** about reconstructing data packets
or clock rates.

You would if you didn't have any.

didn't have any what?

Also, it is still germane when you are considering downloading and
reassembling a file so that you can play it before you discard it (or
not).

nope.

if the user wants to download a file, they click the download link or
use a downloading app.

if they want to stream, they click the stream link or use a streaming
app.

if they want to listen to old school radio, they dig it out of the
closet and hope it still works.

why do you always overcomplicate things?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

| There is a hell of a lot going on in an FM radio, too. Mayayana might
| be clinically insane...

"TV and radio are
signals received over the air, or through a cable
in some cases. The device interprets the signals
in real time, converting them to audio and/or
video. The Internet doesn't work that way."

it does work that way.

in fact, that's exactly what laptops, desktops and smartphones do when
streaming the likes of netflix, spotify, etc.

data packets are received over the air (cellular or wifi) or through a
cable (broadband), which are then interpreted in real time, converted
to audio and/or video.

With FM radio signals are interpreted as they arrive. With cable,
cellular or wifi the steady arrival of data packets cannot be
guaranteed which is why they are loaded into a temporary file which is
used as a buffer.

in other words, it works the same way, except that over the internet,
momentary dropouts do not cause an interruption in the audio or video.

not only that, but with internet radio/tv, there is no distance
limitation as there is with terrestrial radio/tv.

technology once again continues to improve.

And change. You don't seem to have caught up with the difference
between FM wireless and Internet broadcasts.

the difference in underlying technology makes absolutely no difference
to the end user, other than internet radio is better in every way.

users can still listen to the very same radio stations they did with an
old school fm radio, along with new stations they could never have
received, ones from just about anywhere else on the planet, along with
am, sw, atc, police/fire and more.

On 10/23/2017 12:11 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

| I'm glad it works for you. Sorry, I will not become involved in a tool
| war. I spend enough time creating images.

A tool war? Did I misunderstand? You said
you were experimenting with options to possibly
replace PS. I was just listing some ideas from
my experience as a Windows user.

Not all of us ha the same uses for digital creations. There is still a
substantial base of purists, who believe everything should be created in
the camera.

such people are not purists. they are ignorant fools.

The ones I know are neither ignorant, nor fools. Stephen J9Johnson is
one of the best.
BTW he was one of the original beta testers for Photoshop, and used PS
before it was called PS. While i don't agree with his philosophy, I have
a great deal of respect for him, as does Canon and National Geographic.


what did those people do in the film days?

perfect photos every time? certainly not.


Nobody ever said that. You are misreading my statement.

some of the best and most famous photographers spent many hours in the
darkroom working on a single image. ansel adams, for example.

There is a difference between image creation and image correction. Come
back when you understand the difference.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

| I'm glad it works for you. Sorry, I will not become involved in a tool
| war. I spend enough time creating images.

A tool war? Did I misunderstand? You said
you were experimenting with options to possibly
replace PS. I was just listing some ideas from
my experience as a Windows user.

Not all of us ha the same uses for digital creations. There is still a
substantial base of purists, who believe everything should be created in
the camera.

such people are not purists. they are ignorant fools.

The ones I know are neither ignorant, nor fools. Stephen J9Johnson is
one of the best.

anyone who holds that attitude is an ignorant fool.

BTW he was one of the original beta testers for Photoshop, and used PS
before it was called PS. While i don't agree with his philosophy, I have
a great deal of respect for him, as does Canon and National Geographic.

who cares. that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and for
the record, i was also beta testing photoshop before it's initial
release. it came with a security dongle to prevent pirating.

what did those people do in the film days?

perfect photos every time? certainly not.


Nobody ever said that. You are misreading my statement.

other than you.

reread what you wrote. you said there are those who believe everything
should be created in camera. the problem with that is that was not
possible with film.

why impose a requirement on digital that can't apply to film?

some of the best and most famous photographers spent many hours in the
darkroom working on a single image. ansel adams, for example.

There is a difference between image creation and image correction. Come
back when you understand the difference.

come back when you aren't in asshole mode. or not at all.