Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Camera JPEG engines

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Camera JPEG engines

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2012
On 11/22/2012 2:00 AM, David Taylor wrote:


<snip>

> Yes, DropBox is convenient, and I appreciate your needs are different,
> so I'm sure that the ColourSpace information will be useful to others.
> Just looked at their Web page - a bit expensive, aren't they?
>


If you have a need for storage in the field, it's worth the price. When
I travel I download the images every day to a portable HD, using my laptop.
Cost. Portable HD (500 gig) about $125. If I knew I would not get back
to power for a few days, then I would look into one. But, if you would
not use it, I wouldn't pay even $1. for it.



--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alfred
Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Forgive my ignorance, but how to you transfer the pics from the SD card
> to the ipad, given that the ipad has no USB?


why does this myth persist? the ipad has usb and even comes with a usb
cable in the box! it charges and syncs over usb (unless syncing to the
cloud).

if you want to copy photos, you get the camera connection kit and
either directly plug in an sd card or you can plug in a card reader or
camera. there is limited power, so not all card readers work.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
On 22/11/2012 16:35, Savageduck wrote:
[]
> Here are some shots taken at Laguna Seca (my local circuit) at the
> Monterey Rolex Motorsport Reunion (Formerly the Monterey Historics).
>
> Depending on my position around the track I will use a variety of
> techniques. However I have found that with current Nikon DSLRs, shooting
> this type of event with constant focus (CF) and with "3D-Focus Point
> Tracking" on life is much easier than in days of yore, and the
> percentage of keepers is much higher.
> ...and I am using a D300S with the 18-200mm VRII & 70-300mm VR.
>
> <
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...0Seca%20Extras


Some excellent images there and a lovely day - thanks for sharing. I'll
have to play more with the tracking focus. BTW: one problem I have
found is that we often get allocates seats behind the wire mesh
protection fence, and as it's a similar distance to the track and the
fence the focus can get confused. It doesn't affect the eye or the
enjoyment of the race, but it can really interfere with photography!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
On 11/23/2012 4:41 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 22/11/2012 16:35, Savageduck wrote:
> []
>> Here are some shots taken at Laguna Seca (my local circuit) at the
>> Monterey Rolex Motorsport Reunion (Formerly the Monterey Historics).
>>
>> Depending on my position around the track I will use a variety of
>> techniques. However I have found that with current Nikon DSLRs, shooting
>> this type of event with constant focus (CF) and with "3D-Focus Point
>> Tracking" on life is much easier than in days of yore, and the
>> percentage of keepers is much higher.
>> ...and I am using a D300S with the 18-200mm VRII & 70-300mm VR.
>>
>> <
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...0Seca%20Extras
>>

>
> Some excellent images there and a lovely day - thanks for sharing. I'll
> have to play more with the tracking focus. BTW: one problem I have
> found is that we often get allocates seats behind the wire mesh
> protection fence, and as it's a similar distance to the track and the
> fence the focus can get confused. It doesn't affect the eye or the
> enjoyment of the race, but it can really interfere with photography!


That's whee manual focus works best.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
On 23/11/2012 14:00, PeterN wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 4:41 AM, David Taylor wrote:

[]
>> Some excellent images there and a lovely day - thanks for sharing. I'll
>> have to play more with the tracking focus. BTW: one problem I have
>> found is that we often get allocates seats behind the wire mesh
>> protection fence, and as it's a similar distance to the track and the
>> fence the focus can get confused. It doesn't affect the eye or the
>> enjoyment of the race, but it can really interfere with photography!

>
> That's whee manual focus works best.


Yes, that's what I ended up using, and I almost felt the need for a
locking screw to keep the focus fixed.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> >> But the batteries aren't replaceable by the user yes.
>> >
>> > so what? it's not just apple. most ultrabooks are like that.

>>
>> Ah; I know people who have abandoned Apple over that, since the new
>> extended batteries don't approach what they got with two batteries
>> before.

>
> bullshit.
>
> the macbooks prior to the versions with internal batteries got about
> 4-5 hours of runtime, compared with 7-10 on the newer models.


That may be what the specs say, but I know what my friends say.

> and as i said, it's not just apple who has internal batteries. the dell
> adamo from 3 years ago had it:
>
> <http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/23/d...-user-replacea
> ble-says-bearer-of-harsh-tr/>
> Adamo's battery is not able to be replaced by the user. No fun, you
> say? Well, it is, of course, replaceable, should the need arise, it
> just has to be sent into Dell for the procedure, though we don't yet
> know how much the company is going to charge for all that.
>
> users want thinner, lighter and longer running batteries, something
> they notice every day. they don't care about the ability to swap a
> battery once at some unknown point in the future, if they do at all. in
> fact, most won't ever do that.
>
>> > the result is longer battery run time and a thinner, lighter and more
>> > reliable laptop. that is something that benefits users every day.

>>
>> Until their battery goes dead, either from use or age.

>
> which will likely be after the laptop is no longer particularly useful.
> as i said, the battery will outlast the laptop (or other device).


Never been my experience, and many friends have also talked about
needing to replace laptop batteries mid-life.

> however, for those who insist on using older computers well past their
> useful life and despite the fact that older computers won't be able to
> run whatever software will then be current or have security updates
> which puts the user at risk, they can still replace the battery and
> keep using it anyway, or have the battery replaced if they can't handle
> a screwdriver (or know someone who does). or they can just use the
> laptop plugged in.


The Thinkpad T60 I bought used and which my wife is still using is on
its second battery, but it still gets OS upgrades from Microsoft, and
could run at least two generations newer OS if there were any reason we
wanted to (dunno about 8, but it could definitely run Windows 7).

Maybe if you've got money drooling constantly out some bodily orifice
beyond your control you would replace your laptop every couple of years,
but I'd rather drink more good wine or something.
>
>> > plus, flash cards are very reliable and i'm not particularly worried
>> > about data loss if i didn't have anywhere to copy it. sometimes i take
>> > just the camera and a bunch of cards and copy them when i get home.

>>
>> Yes, not THAT bad a risk. Certainly less risky than unexposed film --
>> the difference being that I had *no choice* about the film not being
>> backed up. (And in fact wedding photographers went to huge amounts of
>> trouble to get shots on multiple rolls and to send those rolls to the
>> lab on different days so they couldn't all be lost in one equipment
>> failure.)

>
> when i shot film, the lab i used offered $100 if they botched a roll of
> film. that won't replace lost photos, but it's a *lot* better than
> giving someone a free roll of film which is what most places offered.
> it is also a vote of confidence that they won't screw up, and they
> didn't.


Notice I said "wedding photographers". A wedding photographer can
potentially get hit with a suit requiring them to rent the venue again,
decorate, it, get the flowers, bring all the family and guests back
paying transport, hotel, and food, and reshoot the whole thing. $100 a
roll doesn't go very far at all towards that kind of cost.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> >> Yeah, and then make carry-on limits that sometimes make it impossible
>> >> for me to follow both sets of rules (the camera gear and computer gear
>> >> I'm taking with me exceeds carry-on limits).
>> >
>> > camera gear is exempt from the 2 bag rule, however, camera gear tends
>> > to run up against weight limits, which fortunately, are not imposed on
>> > domestic flights.

>>
>> I haven't found that on any of their web pages. There are statements
>> about credentialed press photographers getting such an exception, but
>> that ain't me.

>
> the link i had to the tsa site is now dead, but i did find a screen
> shot:
>
> <http://bp2.blogger.com/_EhZDCVJeeOU/...BU/HZgxXhw9IhI
> /s1600-h/TSA_Photo_Guide.jpg>
> You may carry on one (1) bag of photographic equipment in addition to
> one (1) carry-on and one (1) personal item through the screening
> checkpoint. The additional bag must conform to your air carrier┬╣s
> carry-on restriction for size and weight.
>
> here's the same info for mci airport in wichita:
> <http://www.flywichita.org/film-screening.php>
>
> however, some airlines might impose their own restrictions, both in
> number of carryons and weight, notably international flights.


What you can bring through the checkpoint has no bearing on what the
airlines will allow on the plane. (On the other hand, if TSA won't let
it through, then the airline rules become irrelevant ).

>> > that's why clothing with large pockets is fantastic. load it up with
>> > the heavy and often bulky stuff like lenses, tablets, etc, and leave
>> > the lightweight stuff in the bag. the weight limit applies to the bag,
>> > not jackets or pants.

>>
>> They should just give up on the weight limits. Except that, airplanes
>> being airplanes, they can't really afford to be *completely* crazy about
>> that.

>
> they can't give up on weight limits because every additional pound adds
> to fuel burn.


Very very slightly, yes.

> that's why airlines have removed magazines and even blankets and
> pillows (other than in f/j cabins). bob crandall of american airlines
> famously eliminated a single olive from salads, which saved $40k a
> year. that may not seem like a lot but it all adds up.


Too much aggregation. $40k sounds like a lot -- bit it's not to a
billion-dollar airline.

>> > plus, taking a laptop onboard means you can use it on the plane during
>> > the flight, which is very likely to have wifi.

>>
>> I've never been on a flight with WIFI on it. Wait maybe one, I think it
>> was mentioned on one of the planes in a trip to Nashville last year.
>> Maybe.

>
> seriously? do you fly the same crappy airlines that tony flies?


Maybe. I fly the airlines that go where I need to go at a tolerable
price. This is most often Delta, since Minneapolis is a big hub
(acquired as part of the Northwest deal), but can be Frontier or
something.

> i can't remember a flight in the past year or two that *didn't* have
> wifi. before that it was most of the time, but that was when they were
> installing the hardware.
>
> there are over 1500 planes that currently have wifi, including on air
> canada, airtran, alaska airlines, american airlines, delta, frontier,
> united, us airways and virgin america.
>
> <http://www.gogoair.com/gogo/cms/airlines.do>


Oh, I see them advertising it; I just don't see it on the actual planes
I fly.

I didn't see it back 2005-2008 flying out to California every month,
either, but maybe that was too early. (I have a theory it might happen
more on longer flights.)
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> >> But the batteries aren't replaceable by the user yes.
> >> >
> >> > so what? it's not just apple. most ultrabooks are like that.
> >>
> >> Ah; I know people who have abandoned Apple over that, since the new
> >> extended batteries don't approach what they got with two batteries
> >> before.

> >
> > bullshit.
> >
> > the macbooks prior to the versions with internal batteries got about
> > 4-5 hours of runtime, compared with 7-10 on the newer models.

>
> That may be what the specs say, but I know what my friends say.


then they either have a defective battery (it happens) or they're lying.

the new macbooks get substantially longer battery life than the older
ones. this is easily measured, and has been in many, many reviews.

furthermore, apple is very conservative on battery ratings. anandtech
got over 8 hours on a macbook that was rated at 7 hours. the ipad is
rated at 10 hours and many reviewers got 11 hours or more. that's a
*really* long time on a single charge.

<http://www.anandtech.com/show/2783/a...ro-battery-lif
e-to-die-for/4>
Eight, freakin, hours. I couldn't believe it. In my lightest test,
the new 15-inch MacBook Pro lasted eight hours and eight minutes.
That's with the screen at half brightness (completely usable) and no
funny optimizations. The notebook is just playing music and surfing
through a lot of my old reviews. There's no way this could be right.
Maybe my test was too light?

he then tested it with flash, which drains the battery faster, and
found the new model was almost *twice* as long as the old one:

Six and a half hours, out of a 5.5 lbs notebook. For comparison, the
older MacBook Pro could only manage 3 hours and 17 minutes in the
same test. The new notebook lasted almost twice as long.
Mathematically, this doesn't make sense. There's only a 46% increase
in battery capacity, there shouldn╣t be a ~100% increase in battery
life...ever.
....
The battery tests are repeatable however. I saw anywhere from a 50 -
100% improvement in battery life over the old MacBook Pro. Given the
increase in battery capacity alone, you should see no less than a 46%
increase in battery life. Exactly what is accounting for the expanded
life above and beyond that, I'm not sure.

Either way, Apple's 7 hour claim is well within reason. For light
workloads, even on WiFi, you can easily expect 6.5 - 8 hours out of
the new 15-inch MBP. As I write this article on that very system I'm
told that I have nearly 8.5 hours left on my charge. If you do a lot
of writing on your notebook, the new MBP is exactly what you'll want;
it will easily last you on a cross-country flight if you need to get
work done
....
A quick search shows that even Dell's Studio 15 only offers a battery
rating of up to 5.5 hours. It looks like, once again, other notebook
makers will have to play catch up to Apple in this department.

> >> > the result is longer battery run time and a thinner, lighter and more
> >> > reliable laptop. that is something that benefits users every day.
> >>
> >> Until their battery goes dead, either from use or age.

> >
> > which will likely be after the laptop is no longer particularly useful.
> > as i said, the battery will outlast the laptop (or other device).

>
> Never been my experience, and many friends have also talked about
> needing to replace laptop batteries mid-life.


what is 'mid-life' ? 1-2 years? if so, it's likely under warranty and
replacement is free.

and as i said, if you want to replace the battery, you either grab a
screwdriver or take it to the store and they do it while you wait, for
no additional cost. it's not a big deal.

meanwhile, every day you use the laptop, you don't have to lug extra
batteries and the laptop is lighter and thinner and more reliable, all
things that make using it that much more pleasant, versus being able to
pop a battery out *once* in a few years.

> > however, for those who insist on using older computers well past their
> > useful life and despite the fact that older computers won't be able to
> > run whatever software will then be current or have security updates
> > which puts the user at risk, they can still replace the battery and
> > keep using it anyway, or have the battery replaced if they can't handle
> > a screwdriver (or know someone who does). or they can just use the
> > laptop plugged in.

>
> The Thinkpad T60 I bought used and which my wife is still using is on
> its second battery, but it still gets OS upgrades from Microsoft, and
> could run at least two generations newer OS if there were any reason we
> wanted to (dunno about 8, but it could definitely run Windows 7).


are you talking about xp?

> Maybe if you've got money drooling constantly out some bodily orifice
> beyond your control you would replace your laptop every couple of years,
> but I'd rather drink more good wine or something.


who said every couple of years?

the battery in macbooks are rated at *five* years. most people will
replace their computer well before that.

look back at laptops from 2007 or so. many of those won't run vista or
win7 (or *really* poorly, if they can at all), so anyone wanting to run
modern software that requires vista or 7 will be buying a new laptop.

and you are not surprisingly ignoring that apple isn't the only one who
is doing this. most ultrabooks have internal batteries and many
smartphones (not just the iphone) have internal batteries, as do many
other consumer products, such as bluetooth headsets. like it or not,
that's what users want. most users (95 % as per npd) do *not* buy spare
batteries. it's silly to cater to the remaining 5%.

> >> > plus, flash cards are very reliable and i'm not particularly worried
> >> > about data loss if i didn't have anywhere to copy it. sometimes i take
> >> > just the camera and a bunch of cards and copy them when i get home.
> >>
> >> Yes, not THAT bad a risk. Certainly less risky than unexposed film --
> >> the difference being that I had *no choice* about the film not being
> >> backed up. (And in fact wedding photographers went to huge amounts of
> >> trouble to get shots on multiple rolls and to send those rolls to the
> >> lab on different days so they couldn't all be lost in one equipment
> >> failure.)

> >
> > when i shot film, the lab i used offered $100 if they botched a roll of
> > film. that won't replace lost photos, but it's a *lot* better than
> > giving someone a free roll of film which is what most places offered.
> > it is also a vote of confidence that they won't screw up, and they
> > didn't.

>
> Notice I said "wedding photographers". A wedding photographer can
> potentially get hit with a suit requiring them to rent the venue again,
> decorate, it, get the flowers, bring all the family and guests back
> paying transport, hotel, and food, and reshoot the whole thing. $100 a
> roll doesn't go very far at all towards that kind of cost.


it won't, but it goes farther than a $10 roll of film does that most
labs would give you (which costs them even less). in other words,
you're trusting your precious photos to a $5 guarantee.

as i said, it's a vote of confidence. the lab wouldn't offer $100 if
they were careless, which is a *lot* more than most labs did.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > here's the same info for mci airport in wichita:
> > <http://www.flywichita.org/film-screening.php>
> >
> > however, some airlines might impose their own restrictions, both in
> > number of carryons and weight, notably international flights.

>
> What you can bring through the checkpoint has no bearing on what the
> airlines will allow on the plane. (On the other hand, if TSA won't let
> it through, then the airline rules become irrelevant ).


true. you do need to check with the airline. some allow an extra bag
and some don't. some only do so for premium cabins.

the opposite is also true. the tsa often bans stuff that is perfectly
legitimate. they called a bomb squad on a belt buckle a few years back,
and also disarmed a gi joe toy soldier. apparently the little tiny gun
the little tiny toy soldier was holding was a danger.

> >> > that's why clothing with large pockets is fantastic. load it up with
> >> > the heavy and often bulky stuff like lenses, tablets, etc, and leave
> >> > the lightweight stuff in the bag. the weight limit applies to the bag,
> >> > not jackets or pants.
> >>
> >> They should just give up on the weight limits. Except that, airplanes
> >> being airplanes, they can't really afford to be *completely* crazy about
> >> that.

> >
> > they can't give up on weight limits because every additional pound adds
> > to fuel burn.

>
> Very very slightly, yes.


it adds up. multiply a couple of pounds per pax by the number of pax
(150-200 on most flights, more on the widebodies, especially something
like an a380) and you get a large increase in weight.

> > that's why airlines have removed magazines and even blankets and
> > pillows (other than in f/j cabins). bob crandall of american airlines
> > famously eliminated a single olive from salads, which saved $40k a
> > year. that may not seem like a lot but it all adds up.

>
> Too much aggregation. $40k sounds like a lot -- bit it's not to a
> billion-dollar airline.


one that's in bankruptcy right now.

> >> > plus, taking a laptop onboard means you can use it on the plane during
> >> > the flight, which is very likely to have wifi.
> >>
> >> I've never been on a flight with WIFI on it. Wait maybe one, I think it
> >> was mentioned on one of the planes in a trip to Nashville last year.
> >> Maybe.

> >
> > seriously? do you fly the same crappy airlines that tony flies?

>
> Maybe. I fly the airlines that go where I need to go at a tolerable
> price. This is most often Delta, since Minneapolis is a big hub
> (acquired as part of the Northwest deal), but can be Frontier or
> something.


delta's entire fleet has wifi. i'm not sure about the old nwa planes
though (some of those are really old and due for retirement if they
haven't already been) or how much of frontier has it.

> > i can't remember a flight in the past year or two that *didn't* have
> > wifi. before that it was most of the time, but that was when they were
> > installing the hardware.
> >
> > there are over 1500 planes that currently have wifi, including on air
> > canada, airtran, alaska airlines, american airlines, delta, frontier,
> > united, us airways and virgin america.
> >
> > <http://www.gogoair.com/gogo/cms/airlines.do>

>
> Oh, I see them advertising it; I just don't see it on the actual planes
> I fly.
>
> I didn't see it back 2005-2008 flying out to California every month,
> either, but maybe that was too early. (I have a theory it might happen
> more on longer flights.)


that was too early.

deployment began in 2007 or so if i recall, on premium flights such as
aa flagship, and was installed more widely beginning in 2008-9.

now it's pretty much a given that a plane will have wifi, unless it's a
puddle jumper that is barely in the air long enough for one beverage
service or one that flies over water where there is no gogo service
(yet).
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2012
On 11/23/2012 4:15 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yeah, and then make carry-on limits that sometimes make it impossible
>>>>> for me to follow both sets of rules (the camera gear and computer gear
>>>>> I'm taking with me exceeds carry-on limits).
>>>>
>>>> camera gear is exempt from the 2 bag rule, however, camera gear tends
>>>> to run up against weight limits, which fortunately, are not imposed on
>>>> domestic flights.
>>>
>>> I haven't found that on any of their web pages. There are statements
>>> about credentialed press photographers getting such an exception, but
>>> that ain't me.

>>
>> the link i had to the tsa site is now dead, but i did find a screen
>> shot:
>>
>> <http://bp2.blogger.com/_EhZDCVJeeOU/...BU/HZgxXhw9IhI
>> /s1600-h/TSA_Photo_Guide.jpg>
>> You may carry on one (1) bag of photographic equipment in addition to
>> one (1) carry-on and one (1) personal item through the screening
>> checkpoint. The additional bag must conform to your air carrier┬╣s
>> carry-on restriction for size and weight.
>>
>> here's the same info for mci airport in wichita:
>> <http://www.flywichita.org/film-screening.php>
>>
>> however, some airlines might impose their own restrictions, both in
>> number of carryons and weight, notably international flights.

>
> What you can bring through the checkpoint has no bearing on what the
> airlines will allow on the plane. (On the other hand, if TSA won't let
> it through, then the airline rules become irrelevant ).
>
>>>> that's why clothing with large pockets is fantastic. load it up with
>>>> the heavy and often bulky stuff like lenses, tablets, etc, and leave
>>>> the lightweight stuff in the bag. the weight limit applies to the bag,
>>>> not jackets or pants.
>>>
>>> They should just give up on the weight limits. Except that, airplanes
>>> being airplanes, they can't really afford to be *completely* crazy about
>>> that.

>>
>> they can't give up on weight limits because every additional pound adds
>> to fuel burn.

>
> Very very slightly, yes.
>
>> that's why airlines have removed magazines and even blankets and
>> pillows (other than in f/j cabins). bob crandall of american airlines
>> famously eliminated a single olive from salads, which saved $40k a
>> year. that may not seem like a lot but it all adds up.

>
> Too much aggregation. $40k sounds like a lot -- bit it's not to a
> billion-dollar airline.
>
>>>> plus, taking a laptop onboard means you can use it on the plane during
>>>> the flight, which is very likely to have wifi.
>>>
>>> I've never been on a flight with WIFI on it. Wait maybe one, I think it
>>> was mentioned on one of the planes in a trip to Nashville last year.
>>> Maybe.

>>
>> seriously? do you fly the same crappy airlines that tony flies?

>
> Maybe. I fly the airlines that go where I need to go at a tolerable
> price. This is most often Delta, since Minneapolis is a big hub
> (acquired as part of the Northwest deal), but can be Frontier or
> something.
>
>> i can't remember a flight in the past year or two that *didn't* have
>> wifi. before that it was most of the time, but that was when they were
>> installing the hardware.
>>
>> there are over 1500 planes that currently have wifi, including on air
>> canada, airtran, alaska airlines, american airlines, delta, frontier,
>> united, us airways and virgin america.
>>
>> <http://www.gogoair.com/gogo/cms/airlines.do>

>
> Oh, I see them advertising it; I just don't see it on the actual planes
> I fly.
>
> I didn't see it back 2005-2008 flying out to California every month,
> either, but maybe that was too early. (I have a theory it might happen
> more on longer flights.)
>


Another accurate statement from nospam. with over 3,00 planes flying in
the US during the day, the chances of getting one with WiFi is less than
50%. I wonder if that percentage is "very likely."
And of course, the service is free, courtesy of the airline. Perhaps
nospam, our frequent flyer, can tell use the cost. i'm confident that
information is right at his fingertips.

--
Peter
 
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
Re: Camera JPEG engines tony cooper Digital Photography 7 12-09-2012 06:17 PM
Re: Camera JPEG engines Martin Brown Digital Photography 2 11-29-2012 06:08 PM
Re: Camera JPEG engines nick c Digital Photography 0 11-19-2012 04:22 PM
Re: Camera JPEG engines David Taylor Digital Photography 0 11-19-2012 07:22 AM
Re: Camera JPEG engines ray Digital Photography 1 11-19-2012 03:07 AM



Advertisments