• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 9 of 9

My comments

• The baby & crocodile was a media beat-up
  As a typical Australian, I did not find the persona of Steve Irwin
  very entertaining, as he was kinda typical and consequently not
  very interesting.
  
  As a photographer, I was very annoyed at the "Baby Bob &
  Crocodile" incident. There were at least two people who were
  filming at that time, and the other footage (I have seen it on TV)
  showed that he was quite some distance from the animal.
  
  The way it has been shown is from behind the animal with a
  telephoto lens, seeming as if the baby was being flicked between
  the croc's teeth. As seen from the side, there was about two
  animal lengths between the parties.
  
  While it is not the sort of thing that I would do, I would have to
  allow that this guy knew a bit more about the reaction time of
  this particular well fed animal than anyone else. The alternate
  footage also shows quite clearly that he had a clear escape path
  and was two steps from the fence.
  
  it is nothing like the crazy dangerous things that people do with
  their kids, like not wearing seat belts in cars.

  September 5, 2006

  1 reply

• Mostly correct, actually
  The comments by the previous posters are pretty well correct, in
  that the article generalises and lumps all digital SLRs as
  cropping the view capabilites of any given lens. And that also
  assumes that the lens was originally designed for film-based
  use.
  
  However, the reality is that a sensor smaller than 24 x 36 mm
  will show a cropped area as compared to a film based camera. A
  lens with 35 mm focal length on most high-end digital cameras
  is the same as about 50 mm lens on a film camera.
  
  While the top-end DSLRs have 24 x 36 mm sensors - and it is
  because of the legacy optics that they have full frame sensors -
  they are not yet priced to be generally affordable systems.
  
  The experience of bulk photo scanning at oscans.com shows
  that this is the most common reason that many people are
  staying with film. If you shoot telephoto, then digital is the way
  to go. However, it is not compelling to go all-digital until wide
  angle can be shot effectively, such as an 18 mm or wider lens.
  
  Do not misunderstand me, I think Digital is great for lots of
  reasons. But for now, I will shoot on film first so that I can use
  my old lenses, and digitise later. I can shoot a lot of film for less
  cost than buying new gear.

  June 6, 2006

  0 replies

• Mostly correct, actually
  The comments by the previous posters are pretty well correct, in
  that the article tended to generalise and lump all digital SLRs as
  cropping the view capabilites of any given lens. And that also
  assumes that the lens was originally designed for film-based
  use.
  
  However, the reality is that a sensor smaller than 24 x 36 mm
  will show a cropped area as compared to a film based camera. A
  lens with 35 mm focal length on most high-end digital cameras
  is the same as about 50 mm lens on a film camera.
  
  While the top-end DSLRs have 24 x 36 mm sensors - and it is
  because of the legacy optics that they have full frame sensors -
  they are not yet priced to be generally affordable systems.
  
  I run a bulk photo and bulk slide scanning business at
  oscans.com in Sydney, Australia, and this is the most common
  reason that many of my clients are staying with film.
  
  If you shoot telephoto, then digital is the way to go. However, I
  am not yet compelled to go all digital until I can shoot wide
  angle effectively. As I am not currently working as a pro, I cannot
  justify top-end gear to replace my Olympus OM 4 (with a much-
  loved 18 mm lens) and an ancient Hasselblad, both of which
  deliver more megapixels than any digital camera.
  
  Do not misunderstand me, I think Digital is great for lots of
  reasons. That's actually why I am in business, as people prefer to
  manage their photos digitally. But for now, I will shoot on film
  first so that I can use my old lenses, and digitise later. I can
  shoot a lot of film for less cost than buying new gear.

  June 5, 2006

  0 replies

• Must be universal, standard and free for archiving
  I run a business at oscans.com in Australia where we bulk scan
  and digitise large collections of photographs.
  
  The major reason is to create long term archives.
  
  "Archive" does not mean anything if the files are in a proprietary
  format
  
  While TIFF is the best but voluminous, JPEG is smaller, but both
  are universal and are accepted industry standards. No one will
  trust Microsoft to supply an industry standard within to store
  their priceless photographs. And I would never scan to such
  standard for that reason.
  
  The issue of storage for important images is of decreasing
  importance, as storage cost plummet. A wedding shot on 30
  rolls of 120 film converts to about 5-10GB as uncompressed
  TIFF, which is now about the same cost of hard drive storage as
  one roll of film.

  May 25, 2006

  0 replies

• Will Walt Disney do a Steve Jobs?
  I mean, If Steve Jobs can come back from the dead and rise to
  even higher glories, then why can't Walt Disney?
  
  All they have to do is thaw him.

  January 24, 2006

  0 replies

• Networks, files, Macs and Jobs
  My bulk slide scanning business in Sydney depends on moving
  lots of very large files between my high volume scanner running
  on a PC to my G4 Powerbook. My Mac also hangs on occasion,
  even though there is a special Ethernet cable direct connected
  between the two computers. I do not know why the copying
  makes it hang up, but it is worst when I try multiple copy
  sessions, especially so if moving files in both directions. I am
  talking about gigabytes at a time.
  
  No, I have no intention of giving up either platform. It is the only
  time my Mac crashes, requiring a forced shutdown by holding
  down the power button. Really not sure where the problem is.
  
  And thanks to Steve Jobs getting it right the first time, using
  Windows is like using chopsticks while wearing boxing gloves.
  
  Messianic? He came back to save us, didn't he? ;-)

  December 22, 2005

  0 replies

• Benefits are many
  I am old enough to remember people asking the same thing
  about landing on the moon. The cynics pointed out that it was a
  p*ssing contest (as someone else has said), part of the arms
  race. At least we (Western Hemisphere, I am not American),
  spent some money on other things apart from explosives to win
  the propaganda war.
  
  As a consequence people became inspired to do great things.
  "Space Age" was the definition of the ultimate quality and
  technology, and was often invoked in the course of medical or
  even agricultural breakthroughs.
  
  America at that time reached its pinnacle of international
  inspiration.
  
  "If we can put a Man on the Moon, then why can't we . . . " was a
  common expression. And we realised that indeed we could do
  anything!
  
  And the spin-offs were substantial, though not immediately
  apparent. If it were not for the bold new attitudes of that era, we
  would not be having this discussion now! Personal Computers
  and the Internet were not even science-fiction fantasy then, now
  they provide a platform for social and science discourse, ideas
  are enlightened and cancers are being cured every day. All
  people are being informed and educated to a depth that could
  not have been imagined by fantasists a generation ago.
  
  One of the realisations has been to understand the global
  environment, observing and measuring environmental issues.
  The damage to the Ozone layer could not have been understood
  without the space race, and it is now being reversed based on
  that source of evidence.
  
  We need to care for every dying child. We also need to live our
  lives without depression or avoiding responsibility, without joy
  and pride there will be nothing. If there is anything more
  uplifting than reaching for the stars, I would like to hear of it.

  December 6, 2005

  0 replies

• USA Spelling
  Can't help but be a pedant, sorry.
  The unit originated from the French who defined it as a unit of
  measure and spelt it "metRE". The British saw no reason to
  change the spelling, and use metER for measuring devices. In
  fact, outside of the USA, just about the the whole world spells it
  this way, with the exception of those that have adopted
  Microsoft as their spelling standard. Please remember that the
  Internet is international and USA spelling may not get the correct
  results from search engines. In reply to: "Lost island 'Atlantis' may be found"

  August 17, 2005

  0 replies

• USA Spelling
  Can't help but be a pedant, sorry.
  The unit originated from the French who defined it as a unit of
  measure and spelt it "metRE". The British saw no reason to
  change the spelling, and use metER for measuring devices. In
  fact, outside of the USA, just about the the whole world spells it
  this way, with the exception of those that have adopted
  Microsoft as their spelling standard. Please remember that the
  Internet is international and USA spelling may not get the correct
  results from search engines. In reply to: "Lost island 'Atlantis' may be found"

  August 17, 2005

  0 replies