Re: Camera JPEG engines

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rob, Nov 19, 2012.

  1. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 20/11/2012 20:45, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    []
    > No image is ever completely right in the camera. Not to
    > exhibition-print level. The negative / slide / RAW file is the score,
    > the print is the performance (Ansel Adams, adapted to include more
    > capture media).


    Perhaps not, but if I don't "do" exhibitions or "prints" are not the end
    result, then different criteria can apply.

    The in-camera image may then be quite good enough (exposure wise) and
    might only need cropping (or rotation) if the taking aspect ratio wasn't
    suited to the image, or just a portion of the image is needed.

    [Enjoy the music, not study the score or critique the performance.]
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Nov 21, 2012
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Rob <> wrote:

    >On 21/11/2012 10:05 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2012-11-20 14:32:10 -0800, Rob <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 21/11/2012 8:17 AM, Frank S wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Rob" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:k8fs8h$qmm$...
    >>>>> On 20/11/2012 7:15 PM, David Taylor wrote:
    >>>>>> On 20/11/2012 07:02, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>>>>>> In article <k8f3p2$3ml$>, Rob says...
    >>>>>>>> No but I don't get to go places all the time so I take quite a
    >>>>>>>> few
    >>>>>>>> images when I travel - 7000 images last time
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It must take forever to process all these images.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> So you try and get them right in the camera, rather than relying on
    >>>>>> having to post-process!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes - getting them right in the first place to eliminates post
    >>>>> processing. Taking heaps of happy snaps and scabbing a shot is far
    >>>>> from ideal.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Having an understanding of what you are doing. Evaluating the scene
    >>>>> and thinking what will happen. Difficult situations like wind, extreme
    >>>>> contrast, sports etc - you should know how to maximise to get the shot.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Understand your camera.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes - I would like to understand "scabbing" in this context.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Take lots of shots and fluke a keeper.

    >>
    >> Aah! The search for the magnificent miracle.
    >>
    >> No wonder you fill up those cards with JPEGs.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >It was not me to whom I was referring.



    But you're the guy who shoots RAW+JPEG, admits to doing very little in
    the way of deleting images and regularly needs to buy additional
    terabytes of hard disk space to store them all.

    How many thousands of "decisive moments" are there?
     
    Anthony Polson, Nov 21, 2012
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. David Taylor <> wrote:

    >On 20/11/2012 20:43, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> nospam <> writes:

    >[]
    >>> many laptops are under 3 pounds and can slip into a
    >>> jacket pocket.

    >>
    >> Netbooks, maybe, but those aren't useful for photo work.

    >[]
    >> I can't imagine going on a photo trip without a laptop myself. I also
    >> carry an external drive to back up the photos two (leaving me just two
    >> copies, one on the laptop and one on the external; which always go in
    >> different bags).

    >
    >Netbooks are fine both for a quick review and for storage, but I agree
    >that they are less suited to CPU-intensive processes.



    It isn't just the CPU. The displays tend to be small and not
    especially bright and tend to have a limited range of angles at which
    they can be viewed. They are all but useless for editing.
     
    Anthony Polson, Nov 21, 2012
    #43
  4. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/21/2012 12:20 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <50ac5cff$0$10761$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> BTW I didn't realize that the old serial ports were just as fast as
    >>>> firewire, USB2 and USB3. Thanks for clearing that up.
    >>>
    >>> what in the world does that have to do with anything? and what hard
    >>> drives have serial ports? do you just make this shit up?
    >>>
    >>> any other stupid comments?

    >>
    >> I was simply responding to your asinine statement, that old hard drives
    >> are as fast as the newer ones.

    >
    > i never said any such thing. are you trying to outdo tony in twisting
    > and fabricating things, or is it that you can't read very well?



    Here is your comment, in full and in context:

    "In article <k8fmbk$q4k$>, Rob
    <> wrote:

    > I'm going to sit down and have a good think about what direction to
    > take. Have a portable HDD but 60GB HDD which I used about 10 years ago
    > too slow to download stuff. Took a laptop once. bulky, battery went
    > flat, bloody airport security problems, now down to an iPad for
    > communications.


    you're just making excuses. your 60g hd is no slower now than it was
    when it was new. many laptops are under 3 pounds and can slip into a
    jacket pocket. battery life on laptops is anywhere from 5-10 hours,
    depending on the laptop and there's always plugging it into the wall or
    car. there is also no problem whatsoever with airport security with
    laptops."





    >
    >> You are free to go back and read it.

    >
    > why don't you do that before you say more stupid things.
    >


    See above.

    BTW what does the "S" in "USB" stand for.

    --
    Peter
    I prefer being referred to as making "stupid" comments, than making
    patently false statement deliberately.
     
    PeterN, Nov 21, 2012
    #44
  5. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/21/2012 4:50 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:18:07 -0800, nospam <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Eric Stevens
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>>>> there is also no problem whatsoever with airport security with
    >>>>>>>> laptops.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It's an extra step each time, but no big deal.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> you mean taking it out of the bag? that's not always required, but when
    >>>>>> it is, it's not a big deal.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A laptop is a PITA.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If I could I would leave it in my main bag where it would go straight
    >>>>> through without any further involvement on my part. As it is, I have
    >>>>> to carry it on for a security check and, at the best, it is a further
    >>>>> complication to my hand baggage.
    >>>>
    >>>> some places let you leave a laptop in the bag, including the usa for
    >>>> precheck. otherwise, it takes 10-15 seconds to remove it and put in a
    >>>> bin.
    >>>
    >>> By that time I've checked in my main baggage. I only have carry-on
    >>> luggage.

    >>
    >> are you saying you want to put a laptop in checked bags? that's *not*
    >> wise. laptops go in carry-on, as does anything else of value.

    >
    > It may or may not be wise, but it's what I want to do. If I could do
    > that it would be a case of out of sight - out of mind until I got to
    > my destination. The lasat thing I want to do is carry a festoon of
    > miscellanea around my neck for hours on end.
    >>
    >> checked bags can get lost, or worse, stuff can be stolen from them.
    >> they are also tossed around and a laptop really isn't suited to that
    >> type of treatment. the airlines say not to put anything valuable in
    >> there and don't cover much if you do.

    >
    > So what. That's just their lawyers cop-out
    >


    It is also common sense.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 21, 2012
    #45
  6. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> By that time I've checked in my main baggage. I only have carry-on
    > >> luggage.

    > >
    > >are you saying you want to put a laptop in checked bags? that's *not*
    > >wise. laptops go in carry-on, as does anything else of value.

    >
    > It may or may not be wise, but it's what I want to do.


    not only is it not wise, it's downright stupid.

    <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09road.html?_r=0>
    But on a recent flight from Albuquerque through Phoenix to Seattle,
    Ms. Kemper casually slipped her Apple iPod into a zip pocket in a
    suitcase she was checking. When she got to Seattle, the iPod was
    gone. Inside her suitcase was one of those notes from the
    Transportation Security Administration, saying that a T.S.A.
    inspector had opened the bag.

    <http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/04/13/3882741/tsa-inspector-accused-o
    f-stealing.html>
    A Transportation Security Administration baggage inspector at
    Dallas/Fort Worth Airport has been indicted in the theft of Apple
    iPads from luggage over eight months.

    <http://www.securoseal.com/main.php?pg=news&news_id=359&s=324>
    They both say there are organized rings of thieves, who identify
    valuables in your checked luggage by looking at the TSA x-ray
    screens, then communicate with baggage handlers by text or cell
    phone, telling them exactly what to look for.

    > If I could do
    > that it would be a case of out of sight - out of mind until I got to
    > my destination. The lasat thing I want to do is carry a festoon of
    > miscellanea around my neck for hours on end.


    nobody said you had to carry a festoon of miscellanea around your neck
    and who carries a laptop around their neck anyway?

    > >checked bags can get lost, or worse, stuff can be stolen from them.
    > >they are also tossed around and a laptop really isn't suited to that
    > >type of treatment. the airlines say not to put anything valuable in
    > >there and don't cover much if you do.

    >
    > So what. That's just their lawyers cop-out


    it's reality.

    if your laptop or other valuables are stolen from checked luggage, you
    won't get much compensation. the airline will say 'you shouldn't have
    done that' and give you small compensation, likely based on weight of
    the bag, not the value of the contents.
     
    nospam, Nov 21, 2012
    #46
  7. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <50acff2d$0$10809$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> BTW I didn't realize that the old serial ports were just as fast as
    > >>>> firewire, USB2 and USB3. Thanks for clearing that up.
    > >>>
    > >>> what in the world does that have to do with anything? and what hard
    > >>> drives have serial ports? do you just make this shit up?
    > >>>
    > >>> any other stupid comments?
    > >>
    > >> I was simply responding to your asinine statement, that old hard drives
    > >> are as fast as the newer ones.

    > >
    > > i never said any such thing. are you trying to outdo tony in twisting
    > > and fabricating things, or is it that you can't read very well?

    >
    > Here is your comment, in full and in context:
    >
    > "In article <k8fmbk$q4k$>, Rob
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > I'm going to sit down and have a good think about what direction to
    > > take. Have a portable HDD but 60GB HDD which I used about 10 years ago
    > > too slow to download stuff. Took a laptop once. bulky, battery went
    > > flat, bloody airport security problems, now down to an iPad for
    > > communications.

    >
    > you're just making excuses. your 60g hd is no slower now than it was
    > when it was new. many laptops are under 3 pounds and can slip into a
    > jacket pocket. battery life on laptops is anywhere from 5-10 hours,
    > depending on the laptop and there's always plugging it into the wall or
    > car. there is also no problem whatsoever with airport security with
    > laptops."
    >


    reading is not your strong suit, is it?

    where does that say that old hard drives are as fast as newer ones? oh
    yea, it doesn't!

    it says that his old 60 gig drive is the same speed then as it is now,
    which it is.

    > >> You are free to go back and read it.

    > >
    > > why don't you do that before you say more stupid things.

    >
    > See above.
    >
    > BTW what does the "S" in "USB" stand for.


    another stupid comment.

    just because something is based on a serial protocol does not make it
    an 'old serial port' (your words).

    if you can't tell the difference between rs-232, rs-422, usb, firewire,
    sata, thunderbolt and ethernet (all serial protocols), then you have
    far bigger problems.
     
    nospam, Nov 21, 2012
    #47
  8. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 21/11/2012 11:28, Anthony Polson wrote:
    > David Taylor <> wrote:

    []
    >> Netbooks are fine both for a quick review and for storage, but I agree
    >> that they are less suited to CPU-intensive processes.

    >
    >
    > It isn't just the CPU. The displays tend to be small and not
    > especially bright and tend to have a limited range of angles at which
    > they can be viewed. They are all but useless for editing.


    Which is part of the reason why I said "quick review", nothing about
    editing.

    In any case, better to edit back at home on your really big, colour
    calibrated display, in the appropriate lighting environment and
    comfortable surroundings.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Nov 21, 2012
    #48
  9. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > Besides I don't trust flash memory for backup.


    it's more reliable than a hard drive, and you trust it in the camera to
    take the photo in the first place.
     
    nospam, Nov 21, 2012
    #49
  10. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/21/2012 12:08 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <50acff2d$0$10809$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>> BTW I didn't realize that the old serial ports were just as fast as
    >>>>>> firewire, USB2 and USB3. Thanks for clearing that up.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> what in the world does that have to do with anything? and what hard
    >>>>> drives have serial ports? do you just make this shit up?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> any other stupid comments?
    >>>>
    >>>> I was simply responding to your asinine statement, that old hard drives
    >>>> are as fast as the newer ones.
    >>>
    >>> i never said any such thing. are you trying to outdo tony in twisting
    >>> and fabricating things, or is it that you can't read very well?

    >>
    >> Here is your comment, in full and in context:
    >>
    >> "In article <k8fmbk$q4k$>, Rob
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > I'm going to sit down and have a good think about what direction to
    >> > take. Have a portable HDD but 60GB HDD which I used about 10 years ago
    >> > too slow to download stuff. Took a laptop once. bulky, battery went
    >> > flat, bloody airport security problems, now down to an iPad for
    >> > communications.

    >>
    >> you're just making excuses. your 60g hd is no slower now than it was
    >> when it was new. many laptops are under 3 pounds and can slip into a
    >> jacket pocket. battery life on laptops is anywhere from 5-10 hours,
    >> depending on the laptop and there's always plugging it into the wall or
    >> car. there is also no problem whatsoever with airport security with
    >> laptops."
    >>

    >
    > reading is not your strong suit, is it?
    >
    > where does that say that old hard drives are as fast as newer ones? oh
    > yea, it doesn't!
    >
    > it says that his old 60 gig drive is the same speed then as it is now,
    > which it is.
    >
    >>>> You are free to go back and read it.
    >>>
    >>> why don't you do that before you say more stupid things.

    >>
    >> See above.
    >>
    >> BTW what does the "S" in "USB" stand for.

    >
    > another stupid comment.
    >
    > just because something is based on a serial protocol does not make it
    > an 'old serial port' (your words).
    >
    > if you can't tell the difference between rs-232, rs-422, usb, firewire,
    > sata, thunderbolt and ethernet (all serial protocols), then you have
    > far bigger problems.
    >


    Logic isn't something you understand. Go Wallow in your ignorance.

    Bye. EOD from me. Take your last shot , if you will.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 21, 2012
    #50
  11. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 21/11/2012 18:11, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <k8i0cj$89o$>, David Taylor says...
    >> Actually, with its 2048
    >> x 1536 3 Mpix display, the iPad makes a rather good review device as
    >> well as providing storage.

    >
    > Well, on a typical trip I end up with 70-100GB of images, too much for
    > any tablet.


    Too much today, but perhaps not tomorrow. I think my maximum must have
    been about 30 GB.

    > Besides I don't trust flash memory for backup.


    ... and yet you trust it in your memory cards. What I mean by backup on
    a trip is normally just for emergencies, I take enough cards that I
    don't need to re-use them. I'm not talking "indefinite archive", just
    "keep a copy for a week or two". If the memory in the iPad were not
    trustworthy, there would be a large body of customer complaints, I
    imagine. I've not heard that outcry.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Nov 21, 2012
    #51
  12. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <50ad213a$0$10753$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>>> BTW I didn't realize that the old serial ports were just as fast as
    > >>>>>> firewire, USB2 and USB3. Thanks for clearing that up.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> what in the world does that have to do with anything? and what hard
    > >>>>> drives have serial ports? do you just make this shit up?
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> any other stupid comments?
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I was simply responding to your asinine statement, that old hard drives
    > >>>> are as fast as the newer ones.
    > >>>
    > >>> i never said any such thing. are you trying to outdo tony in twisting
    > >>> and fabricating things, or is it that you can't read very well?
    > >>
    > >> Here is your comment, in full and in context:
    > >>
    > >> "In article <k8fmbk$q4k$>, Rob
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > I'm going to sit down and have a good think about what direction to
    > >> > take. Have a portable HDD but 60GB HDD which I used about 10 years ago
    > >> > too slow to download stuff. Took a laptop once. bulky, battery went
    > >> > flat, bloody airport security problems, now down to an iPad for
    > >> > communications.
    > >>
    > >> you're just making excuses. your 60g hd is no slower now than it was
    > >> when it was new. many laptops are under 3 pounds and can slip into a
    > >> jacket pocket. battery life on laptops is anywhere from 5-10 hours,
    > >> depending on the laptop and there's always plugging it into the wall or
    > >> car. there is also no problem whatsoever with airport security with
    > >> laptops."
    > >>

    > >
    > > reading is not your strong suit, is it?
    > >
    > > where does that say that old hard drives are as fast as newer ones? oh
    > > yea, it doesn't!
    > >
    > > it says that his old 60 gig drive is the same speed then as it is now,
    > > which it is.
    > >
    > >>>> You are free to go back and read it.
    > >>>
    > >>> why don't you do that before you say more stupid things.
    > >>
    > >> See above.
    > >>
    > >> BTW what does the "S" in "USB" stand for.

    > >
    > > another stupid comment.
    > >
    > > just because something is based on a serial protocol does not make it
    > > an 'old serial port' (your words).
    > >
    > > if you can't tell the difference between rs-232, rs-422, usb, firewire,
    > > sata, thunderbolt and ethernet (all serial protocols), then you have
    > > far bigger problems.
    > >

    >
    > Logic isn't something you understand. Go Wallow in your ignorance.


    english isn't something you understand. either you're stupid or you're
    trolling. maybe a mix of both.
     
    nospam, Nov 21, 2012
    #52
  13. David Taylor <> wrote:

    >On 21/11/2012 11:28, Anthony Polson wrote:
    >> David Taylor <> wrote:

    >[]
    >>> Netbooks are fine both for a quick review and for storage, but I agree
    >>> that they are less suited to CPU-intensive processes.

    >>
    >>
    >> It isn't just the CPU. The displays tend to be small and not
    >> especially bright and tend to have a limited range of angles at which
    >> they can be viewed. They are all but useless for editing.

    >
    >Which is part of the reason why I said "quick review", nothing about
    >editing.
    >
    >In any case, better to edit back at home on your really big, colour
    >calibrated display, in the appropriate lighting environment and
    >comfortable surroundings.



    I wasn't arguing with you, David. I merely added my problem with
    "display" to your problem with "CPU-intensive processes".

    I was interested in your comments about the iPad with the Retina
    display.

    I usually carry my MacBook Pro with the 15.6" Retina display but when
    I want to travel light and I don't need to edit images a Windows
    netbook is sufficient. I'm considering changing to the MacBook Pro
    13.3" Retina because the 15.6" version is too bulky. What I would
    really like is an 11" version but I don't expect Apple will ever make
    one. There is a MacBook Air 11" but as discussed here previously
    there are reasons to avoid the Air and I need the Retina display.

    A way around this might be to use an iPad v3 or v4 with the Retina
    display. I wonder what flavour of Photoshop could be installed on it?
     
    Anthony Polson, Nov 21, 2012
    #53
  14. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > > Besides I don't trust flash memory for backup.

    > >
    > > .. and yet you trust it in your memory cards.

    >
    > ... for a day or two at most.


    which is more than enough time to get back to the hotel room or even
    back home to copy it to a hard drive.

    > No idea how long data is safe on flash
    > memory cards. Possibly years, but who knows. I see it as very short term
    > storage.


    it's years, and nobody suggested leaving it on the flash memory
    anywhere near that long anyway.
     
    nospam, Nov 21, 2012
    #54
  15. David Taylor <> writes:

    > On 20/11/2012 20:45, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > []
    >> No image is ever completely right in the camera. Not to
    >> exhibition-print level. The negative / slide / RAW file is the score,
    >> the print is the performance (Ansel Adams, adapted to include more
    >> capture media).

    >
    > Perhaps not, but if I don't "do" exhibitions or "prints" are not the
    > end result, then different criteria can apply.


    Yes. There are plenty of cases where an in-camera JPEG is good enough.
    But I don't want people to lose track of the fact that that is not true
    for ALL uses.

    > The in-camera image may then be quite good enough (exposure wise) and
    > might only need cropping (or rotation) if the taking aspect ratio
    > wasn't suited to the image, or just a portion of the image is needed.
    >
    > [Enjoy the music, not study the score or critique the performance.]


    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 22, 2012
    #55
  16. nospam <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> >> >> I'm going to sit down and have a good think about what direction to
    >> >> >> take. Have a portable HDD but 60GB HDD which I used about 10 years ago
    >> >> >> too slow to download stuff. Took a laptop once. bulky, battery went
    >> >> >> flat, bloody airport security problems, now down to an iPad for
    >> >> >> communications.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > you're just making excuses. your 60g hd is no slower now than it was
    >> >> > when it was new.
    >> >>
    >> >> But the quantity to be transferred today is larger, so the speed matters
    >> >> more.
    >> >
    >> > it's going to take longer to transfer a larger file than a smaller file
    >> > no matter how fast the medium is.

    >>
    >> A medium that was fast enough for the smaller files of the past will be
    >> too slow for the larger files of today.

    >
    > it's the same speed it's always been. it doesn't get any slower over
    > time.


    It takes longer for a device of fixed speed to transfer larger files.

    > the real limit is its capacity, not its speed. some cameras now have 50
    > meg raws, compared to 5 meg raws when 60 gig was considered 'a big hard
    > drive'. 60 gig fills up faster than it used to.


    Yes, that can be an issue. So far my 64GB external hasn't come close to
    being too small, but it easily could -- I carry 62GB of CF cards as it
    is, it's just that I rarely actually fill them all (the 32GB was a
    winning sale that I couldn't resist, not something I really needed;
    though it's amusing to see my D700 say "1.5k" exposures available).

    >> >> > many laptops are under 3 pounds and can slip into a
    >> >> > jacket pocket.
    >> >>
    >> >> Netbooks, maybe, but those aren't useful for photo work.
    >> >
    >> > ultrabooks, which are very useful for photo work.

    >>
    >> Isn't that a brand name? I don't know of it as a category.

    >
    > it's both, but i was referring to the category.
    >
    > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrabook>
    > Ultrabooks are designed to feature reduced bulk without compromising
    > performance and battery life. They use low-power Intel Core
    > processors, solid-state drives, and unibody chassis to help meet
    > these criteria.
    >
    > <http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/sponsors-of-tomorrow/ultrabook.h
    > tml>


    Okay. Haven't run into it as a category that people actually talk about
    yet.

    >> >> > battery life on laptops is anywhere from 5-10 hours,
    >> >> > depending on the laptop and there's always plugging it into the wall or
    >> >> > car.
    >> >>
    >> >> I've never achieved that level of battery life in any laptop I've bought
    >> >> or even looked at on paper. I think you're confusing "netbooks" with
    >> >> laptops, again.
    >> >
    >> > nope. the macbook air gets 5-7 hours, depending on if it's the 11" or
    >> > 13". macbook pros can do 7-10 hours, depending on which one, but the
    >> > 15" and certainly the 17" wont fit in a jacket quite as easily as an
    >> > air.
    >> >
    >> > <http://www.apple.com/macbookair/specs.html>
    >> > <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/04/apple-macbook-pro.html>

    >>
    >> 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.

    > 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.

    > it's almost guaranteed that the user will never replace the battery in
    > the product's lifetime. the battery is rated for 5 years and by then,
    > the user will probably want a new laptop (not just a new battery), if
    > they haven't already upgraded it to something better before then
    > (typical ownership is around 3 years). in other words, the battery will
    > outlast the computer.


    Hmm, I've replaced batteries in about half my laptops I think, and I
    know people who routinely carry two.

    > worst case, the battery is replaced once, which is generally a
    > while-you-wait at an apple store, and for those handy with a
    > screwdriver, it's not all that hard to do it on their own.


    And you're presumably past warranty by then.

    >> >> > there is also no problem whatsoever with airport security with
    >> >> > laptops.
    >> >>
    >> >> It's an extra step each time, but no big deal.
    >> >
    >> > you mean taking it out of the bag? that's not always required, but when
    >> > it is, it's not a big deal.

    >>
    >> It's been required whenever I've travelled in the last few years,
    >> anyway.

    >
    > it depends where. some countries don't have the silly charades
    > regarding laptops, and as i said in another post, putting a laptop in a
    > bin is not required with precheck (nor are shoes or liquids).


    Living in the USA, every trip I make includes US "security".

    > also, ultrabooks are small enough that they aren't considered dangerous
    > by some abstract and secret metric, so they can be left in the bag, as
    > can ipads and other tablets.
    >
    > for larger laptops, it takes 10 seconds, maybe 15 on a slow day, to
    > take it out of a bag and put it in a bin, so even when it's required,
    > it's still not a big deal.


    People get to decide for themselves what constitutes a big deal for
    them, though.

    >> >> I can't imagine going on a photo trip without a laptop myself. I also
    >> >> carry an external drive to back up the photos two (leaving me just two
    >> >> copies, one on the laptop and one on the external; which always go in
    >> >> different bags).
    >> >
    >> > depends on the length of the trip. for a day or two, i don't bother
    >> > with a laptop.

    >>
    >> It's crucial to seeing how things are doing, and also to making backups
    >> of the images.

    >
    > for a 1-2 day trip, i bring an ipad, which works fine for copying
    > images. a laptop for that short of a trip is overkill. a portable
    > storage device (hd enclosure & cardslot) works well in place of a
    > laptop too.


    But would be an extra expense for me.

    > 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.)
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 22, 2012
    #56
  17. nospam <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> >> >some places let you leave a laptop in the bag, including the usa for
    >> >> >precheck. otherwise, it takes 10-15 seconds to remove it and put in a
    >> >> >bin.
    >> >>
    >> >> By that time I've checked in my main baggage. I only have carry-on
    >> >> luggage.
    >> >
    >> > are you saying you want to put a laptop in checked bags? that's *not*
    >> > wise. laptops go in carry-on, as does anything else of value.
    >> >
    >> > checked bags can get lost, or worse, stuff can be stolen from them.
    >> > they are also tossed around and a laptop really isn't suited to that
    >> > type of treatment. the airlines say not to put anything valuable in
    >> > there and don't cover much if you do.

    >>
    >> 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.

    > 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.

    > 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.
    --
    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 22, 2012
    #57
  18. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> 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/RbMGEvNXO8I/AAAAAAAAABU/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 carrierĀ¹s
    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.

    > > 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.

    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.

    > > 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?

    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>

    southwest uses row44 which is satellite based that works over water,
    making it an odd choice given the routes wn flies.
    <http://www.southwest.com/wifi/>
    <http://row44.com/products-services/broadband/>
     
    nospam, Nov 22, 2012
    #58
  19. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> 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.

    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/dell-adamo-battery-not-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).

    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.

    more fuss about nothing.

    > > it's almost guaranteed that the user will never replace the battery in
    > > the product's lifetime. the battery is rated for 5 years and by then,
    > > the user will probably want a new laptop (not just a new battery), if
    > > they haven't already upgraded it to something better before then
    > > (typical ownership is around 3 years). in other words, the battery will
    > > outlast the computer.

    >
    > Hmm, I've replaced batteries in about half my laptops I think, and I
    > know people who routinely carry two.


    only because they don't get very long battery life to start with.

    if someone has a laptop that gets an hour or two battery life, then
    they *need* extra batteries.

    if someone has a laptop that gets 8 or more hours of run time on a
    single charge, then they don't need to carry anything extra, and they
    probably won't even use all 8+ hours in a day anyway (or rarely). for a
    short trip they won't even need to carry the power adapter!

    as for replacing batteries, 95% of laptop users don't (npd) so why
    bother catering to them? it makes a lot more sense to make the laptop
    thinner, lighter, more reliable with a longer run time, something 100%
    of users will notice.

    > > worst case, the battery is replaced once, which is generally a
    > > while-you-wait at an apple store, and for those handy with a
    > > screwdriver, it's not all that hard to do it on their own.

    >
    > And you're presumably past warranty by then.


    so what? it would be past warranty no matter what type of battery it
    had.

    you just said you know people who carry two extra batteries. those
    aren't included under warranty. those cost extra and were not cheap.

    > >> >> > there is also no problem whatsoever with airport security with
    > >> >> > laptops.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> It's an extra step each time, but no big deal.
    > >> >
    > >> > you mean taking it out of the bag? that's not always required, but when
    > >> > it is, it's not a big deal.
    > >>
    > >> It's been required whenever I've travelled in the last few years,
    > >> anyway.

    > >
    > > it depends where. some countries don't have the silly charades
    > > regarding laptops, and as i said in another post, putting a laptop in a
    > > bin is not required with precheck (nor are shoes or liquids).

    >
    > Living in the USA, every trip I make includes US "security".


    read it again. there's no need to put a laptop, shoes or liquids in a
    bin with precheck in the usa. it's a return to normalcy.

    > > also, ultrabooks are small enough that they aren't considered dangerous
    > > by some abstract and secret metric, so they can be left in the bag, as
    > > can ipads and other tablets.
    > >
    > > for larger laptops, it takes 10 seconds, maybe 15 on a slow day, to
    > > take it out of a bag and put it in a bin, so even when it's required,
    > > it's still not a big deal.

    >
    > People get to decide for themselves what constitutes a big deal for
    > them, though.


    most people don't find the 10-15 seconds to remove a laptop is a big
    deal, especially compared to the other nonsense the tsa does. many
    times the tdc takes at least that long to analyze the boarding pass and
    id and then scribble on it, which nobody ever sees, other than the gate
    agent who doesn't care about the scribbles as long as it's valid and
    scans.

    > >> >> I can't imagine going on a photo trip without a laptop myself. I also
    > >> >> carry an external drive to back up the photos two (leaving me just two
    > >> >> copies, one on the laptop and one on the external; which always go in
    > >> >> different bags).
    > >> >
    > >> > depends on the length of the trip. for a day or two, i don't bother
    > >> > with a laptop.
    > >>
    > >> It's crucial to seeing how things are doing, and also to making backups
    > >> of the images.

    > >
    > > for a 1-2 day trip, i bring an ipad, which works fine for copying
    > > images. a laptop for that short of a trip is overkill. a portable
    > > storage device (hd enclosure & cardslot) works well in place of a
    > > laptop too.

    >
    > But would be an extra expense for me.


    everything is an extra expense. the two extra batteries you mentioned
    were an extra expense. the laptop was an extra expense.

    > > 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.
     
    nospam, Nov 22, 2012
    #59
  20. Rob

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:39:18 -0800, nospam <>
    wrote:

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


    The problem here is that I've never flown Allegiant.

    >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.
    >

    Yeah, but didn't you have a router in those booster pockets?

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 22, 2012
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jude Barnes
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    925
    David Harrison
    Aug 20, 2004
  2. ray

    Re: Camera JPEG engines

    ray, Nov 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    220
    Gordon Freeman
    Nov 19, 2012
  3. tony cooper

    Re: Camera JPEG engines

    tony cooper, Nov 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    311
    Chris Malcolm
    Dec 9, 2012
  4. David Taylor

    Re: Camera JPEG engines

    David Taylor, Nov 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    216
    David Taylor
    Nov 19, 2012
  5. Martin Brown

    Re: Camera JPEG engines

    Martin Brown, Nov 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    238
    Chris Malcolm
    Nov 29, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page