Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:


>> Business people often buy Linux for their servers.


> Because Linux is a lot like UNIX, which is a very good OS for servers that are
> on TCP/IP networks. They choose Linux because it gets a lot more hype than
> actual UNIX, even though it doesn't really have any advantages over UNIX, and
> because it's cheap, whereas good commercial versions of UNIX cost money


Lower TCO is an advantage in business. Price plays into
that. Especially if you have hundreds or thousands of the
things.

Open source says: You can always pay someone to continue
support (or can do it yourself). Try that with Windows.

> (although some free versions of UNIX descendants are also free and arguably
> more stable than Linux).


Of course: if you choose the circumstances just right.

>> Most interesting. Tell me, to how many "Linux apps" have you
>> been exposed?


> Linux itself is the problem, not the apps. It exists in multiple versions,


Yes, there are several stable versions of Linux itself.
Unlike Windows, where there are how many different versions
of just Windows 7 and ignoring Vista and XP?

> and
> the stability, security, reliability, and perennity of the OS are all
> uncertain.


FUD.

But you are right, with Windows that are well known
parameters: unstable, insecure by default, unreliable, will
only exist as long as Microsoft wants it to.

> This is often a problem with freeware or nearly-freeware,
> especially when multiple competing versions of the freeware exist.


With freeware, you don't get the source code.
DPP is freeware to Canon camera owners.

>> Would you perhaps say that SAP on Windows is letz futzzy than SAP on Linux?


> Anyone running SAP already has problems enough, irrespective of the underlying
> platform.


So you agree the platform isn't the problem.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> George Kerby writes:


>> For a long time, that was the case. It isn't today: A Intel-based Mac is
>> perfectly capable of doing anything that a Pee-Cee box can do, usually
>> faster. This is due to virtualization software like Parallels or VM Fusion.


> Virtual machines are never as fast as real machines,


G.K writes: "Car engines have much *horse* power."
M. answers "But *horses* need food, so you need grass and
grain for your car."

Dear Mxsmanic: virtualization isn't virtual machines.

> and if you want to run
> Windows applications, it makes absolutely no sense to run them in virtualized
> environments under a different OS when you can simply run them as native apps
> under Windows.

[...]
> It makes no logical sense to run Windows apps on a Mac,
> so running Windows apps on Windows is the default.


If you run Windows. But you surely would shut down Windows
frequently to boot to OS X to run some Mac applications you need
or want, then shut down and restart Windows again.

And yes, for enough people there are such Mac apps. And the fact
that they feel uncomfortable under Windows.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> nospam writes:


[virtualization]

>> it's a negligible speed hit. except in a few edge cases (3d gaming), it
>> won't even be noticeable.


> That is true only if you have a lot of unused horsepower.


You're still thinking "emulated CPU, emulated hardware, like
DOSbox".


>> actually it makes a lot of sense. i can run windows, mac and unix apps
>> side by side, at the same time, sharing files or copy/pasting between
>> apps.


> You must have quite an eclectic assortment of applications to run if you need
> a Mac, Windows, and UNIX all at once.


Why? He loves the Mac experience, needs a few Windows applications
and Unix? Mac's a unix inside, so why not use the good programs
available there?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2011
On 5/20/2011 5:53 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2011 10:49 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/2011 7:01 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

>
>>>>> Linux is getting more important every year, runs on systems
>>>>> (especially including older ones) Windows wouldn't even crawl
>>>>> on, etc.

>
>>>> Business people buy computers and software as an aid to running their
>>>> business.

>
>>> Business people often buy Linux for their servers. Which is what
>>> is critical. If a couple desktops fail for a hour or two, no
>>> big deal. If the website, the DB, the business logic, etc. fail
>>> for an hour or two, that can stop the whole company.

>
>> What happened to the part where I talked about Apache servers?

>
> That was deleted before I answered.
>
>> When a deadline must be met, downtime and futz factors on the desktop is
>> indeed a big deal.

>
> I respectfully submit that that would speak against Windows.
>
>> Even for less time critical apps, when a temp worker
>> is needed they must be able to step in with a minimal learning curve.

>
> I doubt the learning curve is mostly influenced by the
> desktop. I guess things like procedures or special programs
> to be used cause a much bigger concern.
>
>>>> Linux apps have too big a futz factor.

>
>>> Most interesting. Tell me, to how many "Linux apps" have you
>>> been exposed? Would you perhaps say that SAP on Windows is letz
>>> futzzy than SAP on Linux? How about Oracle? How about Apache
>>> or Tomcat? How about the other 10,000 applications here and
>>> 10,000 applications there and 10,000 applications over there?
>>> What about all the others?

>
>> I have been using Linux since 1993 and am quite familiar with its uses
>> and limitations.

>
> I've been using Unix and Linux for about as long.
>
> I find Windows futzy. I haven't yet found a way to click into
> a window (e.g. to mark something to copy and paste) without
> that window coming to the front. I haven't yet found a way to
> middle-click on a window title bar to push that window to the
> bottom. Virtual desktops are available, but only by installing
> software (which isn't always possible at work). I hear Outlook
> *finally* got threading --- but I have to use an older version.
> Outlook doesn't allow me to specify "received less than 3 days
> ago" in a search, as far as I can tell. I miss the ability to
> simply mark text and have it in the cut buffer. Windows can do a
> 'focus follows mouse', but this doesn't play well with certain
> date-selection windows in Outlook. I could go on ... and yes,
> that cuts into productivity.
>
>>>> My Droid runs fine on
>>>> the Android OS and has reasonable speech recognition built in.

>
>>> But the apps all have too big a futz factor, according to you.

>
>> There is a difference between my personal use as a toy and a business.
>> You do understand that, or do you?

>
> Do you understand "sweeping generalisation"? You made one.
> "Linux apps have too big a futz factor." I was calling you
> out on this.
>


for scientific use I normally would use an X based system. However for
general office use, like it or not, Windows is the standard. No SMB is
going to install anything but a Windows based system, unless there is a
compelling need. I have even seen Windows based systems in factories
where C&C data are transmitted over the Internet.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
>
> > Lower TCO is an advantage in business. Price plays into
> > that. Especially if you have hundreds or thousands of the
> > things.

>
> Yes, and on the desktop, Windows has the lowest TCO by far.


wrong. study after study shows mac to have a much lower tco.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
>
> > You're still thinking "emulated CPU, emulated hardware, like
> > DOSbox".

>
> No, I'm not. There's no such thing as a free lunch.


not totally free, but the price is pennies.

virtualization has a negligible overhead, whereas emulation has a high
overhead.

> > Why? He loves the Mac experience, needs a few Windows applications
> > and Unix? Mac's a unix inside, so why not use the good programs
> > available there?

>
> So can he cut and paste between the Mac and Windows?


absolutely, or drag/drop.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > If you run Windows. But you surely would shut down Windows
> > frequently to boot to OS X to run some Mac applications you need
> > or want, then shut down and restart Windows again.

>
> For every Mac application, there are generally ten nearly equivalent Windows
> applications. So by running Windows, you greatly increase your chances of
> being able to run a single platform, whereas by running a Mac OS, you greatly
> reduce them.


quality versus quantity.

plus, people only need one app for a given task, and for nearly
everything, there is plenty of choice on either platform.

there are apps on windows that don't exist on mac, just as there are
apps on mac that don't exist on windows. pick the best tool for the
job.

> I've seen many people switch from Macs to PCs for precisely this reason.


bullshit. people might want windows for some niche apps but the trend
is for windows users to switch to macs, as evidenced by apple's sales
and market share gains. half of the people buying macs are buying their
first mac.

> This
> includes people who actually prefer Macs, but find them impractical in a world
> where just about every application they want to use is Windows-only.


wrong again. there's more than enough native mac software so they don't
need to use windows at all, but they can run windows apps if needed.

> Of course, Mac fanatics will go to any extremes necessary to avoid using
> Windows, but the vast majority of people (including the majority of happy Mac
> users) are not afflicted in that way.


windows fanatics will go to any extreme to rationalize using windows,
refusing to accept that there may be alternatives.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > wrong. study after study shows mac to have a much lower tco.

>
> Companies don't prepare annual financial reports based on "studies," they
> prepare them based on what they actually spent.


they normally look at studies before deciding how to spend, or even
commission studies if there are none, but regardless, the studies and
people who actually own macs prove you're wrong.

> I look at the actual costs, not the studies.


then you'd see that the costs are lower.

> Following the path of least resistance is often also
> following the path of lowest cost overall.


sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. you're talking out your ass, as
usual.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > virtualization has a negligible overhead, whereas emulation has a high
> > overhead.

>
> They both have significant overhead.


wrong. so very wrong.

> For someone who runs only Windows
> applications--which includes the very vast majority of computer users--there
> is no reason at all to use virtualization.


actually there is. microsoft bought a company *just* for their
virtualization technology so that windows can run virtualized on
windows systems.

> It's bad enough that Intel already supports "secret" virtualization on its
> more recent platforms. Fortunately, I don't think anyone is using that, yet.


wrong.

> > absolutely, or drag/drop.

>
> How?


what do you mean how? click the mouse to select something, drag it,
then release and drop it in a different app. alternately, cut/paste.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > quality versus quantity.

>
> Sometimes quantity wins.


depends on many things.

> For example, I've been doing some film editing using Sony Vegas. It seems to
> work very well. I can't use Final Cut because it runs only on a Mac, but
> however good Final Cut might be, Sony Vegas is good enough, and Final Cut sure
> doesn't justify a change in hardware, nor even virtualization. And if I ever
> want to go further than Sony Vegas, I can spring for Avid, which also runs on
> Windows.


if final cut improves someone's productivity, it may be worthwhile to
buy a mac just to run it, which is what many, many people who edit
video do, because it is much better than other options.

> Yes, FCP would be nice to have, but not at the expense of buying a complete
> Mac configuration. Nobody who sees the results is going to know whether it was
> FCP or Vegas that produced them.


the advantage is in productivity, or just finding the app more pleasant
to use. for someone who edits movies once in a while then it doesn't
matter that much what the app is, but for those who edit a lot, then
having a better tool absolutely will make a difference and it can pay
for itself very quickly. also, final cut is pro software, not consumer,
and pros don't have time to **** around.

> > plus, people only need one app for a given task, and for nearly
> > everything, there is plenty of choice on either platform.

>
> If they do only a few things with the computer, this is certainly true. I have
> more than 100 apps on my machine, most of which have no Mac versions and no
> Mac equivalents, so I have to stay with Windows.


i'm certain you've never looked, and some of the equivalents might even
be better.

> > there are apps on windows that don't exist on mac, just as there are
> > apps on mac that don't exist on windows. pick the best tool for the
> > job.

>
> Yes, but if you have a limited budget, you may have to sacrifice some apps in
> favor of other apps.


that goes for anything.

> > bullshit. people might want windows for some niche apps but the trend
> > is for windows users to switch to macs, as evidenced by apple's sales
> > and market share gains. half of the people buying macs are buying their
> > first mac.

>
> Many of them will switch back. Wait and see.


you're absolutely delusional.

if they *really* hate the mac, they can just install windows on the mac
they just bought and forget all about os x.

the reality is that people *are* switching and sticking with it. you
can keep trying to deny it but you just look sillier each time.

> > windows fanatics will go to any extreme to rationalize using windows,
> > refusing to accept that there may be alternatives.

>
> Maybe, but I don't see any Windows fanatics here.


look in a mirror.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? bob Digital Photography 66 07-03-2011 10:02 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 24 06-08-2011 09:58 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 31 05-26-2011 11:20 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 3 05-20-2011 11:59 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 3 05-20-2011 11:54 PM



Advertisments