Re: Camera JPEG engines

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

  1. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

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

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


    ok, your wife flew them. i guess you and she travel separately.

    > >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?


    what's a booster pocket?

    anyway, i more than likely did have my battery powered wifi router in
    one of the jacket pockets. it's small and takes up very little space
    and will fit in pants pockets. i don't always take it when i travel,
    however.
    nospam, Nov 22, 2012
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Rob

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:40:45 -0800, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >seriously? do you fly the same crappy airlines that tony flies?

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

    >
    >ok, your wife flew them. i guess you and she travel separately.
    >
    >> >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?

    >
    >what's a booster pocket?
    >


    http://www.safetycops.com/shoplifting.htm

    Second item under "Methods used by shoplifters".


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Nov 22, 2012
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

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

    > >
    > >what's a booster pocket?

    >
    > http://www.safetycops.com/shoplifting.htm
    >
    > Second item under "Methods used by shoplifters".


    you're rather familiar with shoplifting techniques. is that what you do
    in retirement, now that you aren't working anymore?

    my jacket does not have booster pockets, nor does it have baggy pockets
    sewn inside, nor is it baggy when full of stuff.

    yet again, you're talking out your ass.
    nospam, Nov 22, 2012
    #63
  4. Rob

    Rob Guest

    On 21/11/2012 10:25 PM, Anthony Polson wrote:
    > 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?
    >


    If that was me?

    I don't shoot jpg and raw - only in exceptional circumstances. But now
    can shoot HDR at once.

    My camera makes ~18mb JPG images. With this in mind, I have to re
    appraise my work flow/storage to a manageable level.

    I did buy extra SD cards to act as storage on longer trips. this was
    cheaper than buying a new portable computer or HDD device. I take about
    256Gb of cards with me on trips whereas before had 2x 32Gb cards which
    never were filled.

    Still needing more storage on my PC have bought a 3TB HDD because my
    JPG file size is now 4x bigger. CD's DVD's have become useless as
    storage. So far I have taken 8000 images (some deleted) which translates
    into 230Gb of HDD space in just 4 months. I just can't keep going like
    this or there will be a room full of HDD's.

    I don't like evaluating and deleting images off the camera screen or a
    laptop computer whilst travelling. It still takes me months to actually
    look at all my images from one trip.
    Rob, Nov 22, 2012
    #64
  5. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 21/11/2012 21:10, Anthony Polson wrote:
    []
    > I wasn't arguing with you, David. I merely added my problem with
    > "display" to your problem with "CPU-intensive processes".


    Yes, I appreciate that.

    > 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?


    Yes, there are some photo editing programs, but it's not something I've
    used in the field, or even installed. There is a large convenience
    factor in an A4 size display you can carry around, and you can read SD
    cards straight in. Having it do maps (with or without Internet access)
    and the other Internet things you might want while on the move (mail,
    Twitter, Facebook, BBC news, podcast, sky-maps etc. etc.) as well is an
    added bonus. Certainly the most fun computing item I've bought for ages!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Nov 22, 2012
    #65
  6. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 21/11/2012 20:37, Savageduck wrote:
    []
    > Not wanting to harp on a point, the ColorSpace UDMA provides just such a
    > field backup device with plenty of room.
    > The iPad, and I have a 64GB iPad2, is limited in storage space. It can
    > be useful in a pinch, but it is not ideal. I would consider using the
    > iPad as a JPEG review platform, but not for temporary archive of RAW
    > files. Since there is no simple way to transfer files from a CF card to
    > an iPad, with the dual slots on my D300S I would shoot RAW+JPEG with RAW
    > going to the CF card and the JPEGs to the SDHC. The SDHC, JPEGS are then
    > easily moved to the iPad with the Apple Camera Connection Kit.
    >
    > I would also consider using my iPad as a portal to move RAW files to
    > some sort of cloud storage as another type of backup, say DropBox or
    > PogoPlug. I have a 1TB drive on my PogoPlug device, that would give me
    > another backup which was not physically vulnerable on the road. That way
    > the RAW files would be deleted from the iPad once that transfer was
    > complete.
    >
    > My main photographic use of my iPad is to have a handy portfolio of
    > albums of images I have already put through post processing so they can
    > be used for show and sharing.


    As I don't do RAW, a 64 GB iPad would be more than adequate. I take SD
    and not CF which also adds to the convenience. I don't want to have to
    take yet another device (and its connection cables, and charger, and
    having to remember to charge it, and find a mains socket for it).

    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?

    Thanks.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Nov 22, 2012
    #66
  7. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 22/11/2012 06:58, Savageduck wrote:
    []
    > No! No! No! Not Twitter or FaceBook!
    > A curse on both their houses! ...and that FaceBook adoptee, Instagram. ;-)


    I don't use Facebook myself - I don't quite see the point of it.
    Twitter, on the other hand, I do find very useful as a lot of people in
    motor racing are regular posters, including journalists and the drivers
    themselves. There may be photographic users as well but I've never
    looked for them.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Nov 22, 2012
    #67
  8. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 22/11/2012 07:16, Savageduck wrote:
    []
    > Their high capacity units are unrealistically over priced.
    > I originally bought a 250GB UDMA for $300 almost 4 years ago. I upgraded
    > it myself to 1TB for $95. Its power needs are very modest. I last fully
    > charge it 3 months ago and have used it for several local trips
    > performing full and incremental backups. The battery is currently
    > showing an 80% charge. No charger is needed as it will charge via USB
    > cable if needed.


    Are these rotating disks or solid-state storage? Must be rotating if
    you did an upgrade yourself.

    So it might charge from my cellphone charger - that's good. We did used
    to have a similar unit, the Epson 3000 (IIRC), but with the iPad the
    need has gone away.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Nov 22, 2012
    #68
  9. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 22/11/2012 07:36, Savageduck wrote:
    []
    > Aah! Motor racing. Is that as a participant or a photographer?
    >
    > Here is a historic F1 car from the 60's which I had the pleasure of
    > shooting. I idolized this car(or progressive series of cars) and its
    > original driver. I am sure you will recognize it and be well aware of
    > who was at the wheel.
    > < http://db.tt/0KmqbCEO >


    As a spectator, and occasional photographer from the public grandstands
    when we attend an F1 race (once every two or three years). Great race
    you had in Austin this year, although the timing might have been a week
    different! I am also keen on the technical aspects (as you might
    imagine). Exciting finale this weekend in Brazil, too!

    I didn't take a more serious interest until the 1980s, so the James
    Hunt/Nigel Mansell sort of era. Your photo has beaten me!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Nov 22, 2012
    #69
  10. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    On 22/11/2012 07:53, Savageduck wrote:
    []
    > I have a Hitachi TravelStar 1TB SATA HDD in the UDMA. I could just as
    > easily installed an SSD, but the best current prices are 30GB-$47.99;
    > 60GB-$74.99; 120GB-$119.99; 250GB-$229.99; 480GB-$485.00; and the
    > largest available 960GB-$1,119.99.
    >
    > Installation is simple. Remove two screws, lift the cover. Unplug the
    > old drive, and plug the new one in, be it HDD or SSD. Replace the cover
    > turn the UDMA on go to disk management via the menu and format.
    > The same two screws are removed to replace the battery when needed. So
    > far that hasn't been necessary.

    []
    > The UDMA will also charge from my standard Apple iPad charger, as will
    > my iPhone. One charger, two cables, three devices.


    So the best way would be to buy the smallest unit, and upgrade it
    yourself. The Epson we had put some of the software on the disk itself,
    so swapping HDs was a little more involved. Today there's more space in
    the ROM for the firmware, making such swaps easy.

    Thank goodness for charger standardisation - I think it was the EU here
    which forced all mobile phones to have micro-USB power. If only camera
    batteries could be more standardised into a range (and I don't mean AA
    cells!).
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Nov 22, 2012
    #70
  11. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    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
    PeterN, Nov 22, 2012
    #71
  12. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> 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.
    nospam, Nov 22, 2012
    #72
  13. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    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/lx56l61b7bbj1se/ZsHsiTueoW/Shared Images/Automotive/Laguna Seca Extras


    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
    David Taylor, Nov 23, 2012
    #73
  14. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    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/lx56l61b7bbj1se/ZsHsiTueoW/Shared Images/Automotive/Laguna Seca Extras
    >>

    >
    > 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
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2012
    #74
  15. Rob

    David Taylor Guest

    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
    David Taylor, Nov 23, 2012
    #75
  16. nospam <> writes:

    > 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.


    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/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).


    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
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 23, 2012
    #76
  17. nospam <> writes:

    > 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 carrier¹s
    > 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
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 23, 2012
    #77
  18. 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.

    >
    > 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/apple-s-2009-macbook-pro-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 shouldn¹t 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.
    nospam, Nov 23, 2012
    #78
  19. Rob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> 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).
    nospam, Nov 23, 2012
    #79
  20. Rob

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/23/2012 4:15 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > nospam <> writes:
    >
    >> 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 carrier¹s
    >> 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
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2012
    #80
    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:
    894
    David Harrison
    Aug 20, 2004
  2. ray

    Re: Camera JPEG engines

    ray, Nov 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    207
    Gordon Freeman
    Nov 19, 2012
  3. tony cooper

    Re: Camera JPEG engines

    tony cooper, Nov 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    300
    Chris Malcolm
    Dec 9, 2012
  4. David Taylor

    Re: Camera JPEG engines

    David Taylor, Nov 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    207
    David Taylor
    Nov 19, 2012
  5. Martin Brown

    Re: Camera JPEG engines

    Martin Brown, Nov 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    227
    Chris Malcolm
    Nov 29, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page