Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by AstroPa » Mon, 23 Apr 2001 08:28:22


it's still snowing.

bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/00-01/alta_04-21-01_001.htm

-Astro

 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by Let Mikey Ski It » Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:22:32

...

Quote:
>bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

>http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/00-01/alta_04-21-01_001.htm

I'll see you that and raise you this:

My brother skiing on closing day at Breckenridge (last Sunday):

http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/DSCN1125.JPG

Mike...

--
Mike Saemisch, Littleton, Colorado
Visit me at   http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/index1.html
Carpe powder-diem.

 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by endlessseaso » Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:33:35

Wow!!

Those are great pics! I have got to get me a better camera...........
((.
.))
((.
.))
Endlessseason: http://skistreak.com



Quote:

> ...
> >bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

> >http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/00-01/alta_04-21-01_001.htm

> I'll see you that and raise you this:

> My brother skiing on closing day at Breckenridge (last Sunday):

> http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/DSCN1125.JPG

> Mike...

> --
> Mike Saemisch, Littleton, Colorado
> Visit me at   http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/index1.html
> Carpe powder-diem.


 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by AstroPa » Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:35:01



Quote:

>...
>>bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

>>http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/00-01/alta_04-21-01_001.htm

>I'll see you that and raise you this:

>My brother skiing on closing day at Breckenridge (last Sunday):

>http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/DSCN1125.JPG

nice!  i'm impressed.  are you sure that pic wasn't taken at alta?

;>)

-Astro

 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by AstroPa » Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:39:56



Quote:
>Wow!!

>Those are great pics! I have got to get me a better camera...........

anything with 3 MegaPix's or better, a moto-drive capability of at
least 3 or 4 frames/sec, and 32 MB (or more) of storage should do you
just fine.

-Astro

 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by The Real Be » Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:08:05

Quote:



> >Wow!!

> >Those are great pics! I have got to get me a better camera...........

> anything with 3 MegaPix's or better, a moto-drive capability of at
> least 3 or 4 frames/sec, and 32 MB (or more) of storage should do you
> just fine.

If you aren't interested in printing (I hate paper, you just have to find
somewhere to store it), a 200K file will fill a 1280x1024 screen nicely,
and you only need a 1-meg camera to do that.  More is nicer of course,
substituting for zoom capability.  BTW, digital zoom is worthless, you can
do that with your editing software.

--
Cheers, Bev  
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I love to go down to the schoolyard  and watch all the
little children jump up and down and run around yelling and
screaming...They don't know I'm only using blanks."   --Emo

 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by To » Thu, 26 Apr 2001 22:39:46



Quote:
>If you aren't interested in printing (I hate paper, you just have to find
>somewhere to store it), a 200K file will fill a 1280x1024 screen nicely,
>and you only need a 1-meg camera to do that.  More is nicer of course,
>substituting for zoom capability.  BTW, digital zoom is worthless, you can
>do that with your editing software.
>Cheers, Bev  

Sorry, Bev  - you just pressed two of my "buttons", so here is a short
version of my ritual rant on each topic <G>.

A) Paper vs digital files:

Make believe that a letter you wrote ten years ago on an 8088 is a
precious family photo that you would like to show someone.  You even
still have the old machine still around...BUT... the power supply and
Hercules monitor are dead and no new monitor plugs into the machine;
You replace the power supply, but the bearings in the 5 meg HD are dry
and the HD won't spin up.  You look around and finally find a copy of
the file on a 5.25" floppy, but you can't find a drive of this size to
work with your current PC;  The file was written in the format of a
word processor that was the most popular of the day, but has since
vanished from the face of the earth; etc. etc.   While you are trying
to figure out your hardware and format problems, I can pull out a
drawer of almost unfaded B&W prints of my family dating from back in
the late 1800's, and family letters dated much earlier than that.

B) Adequate number of pixels:

One megapixel is almost worthless if you need:

(a) to have a final product larger than a 4x6 viewed at normal viewing
distances; or

(b) to do any digitial editing whatsoever on the file - I'm not just
talking about cropping, but ordinary digital tasks like unsharp
masking, etc.  

Now, FWIW, there has been endless discussion of these topics on the
rec.photo NG's, and if I may be so bold as to summarize it, the
concensus seems to be that:

A) Because of the rapid evolving PC scene, files (of any type) you
create today will fact the same sort of hardware and format problems
ten years down the road that the 8088 files of my example faced.
Bottom line: You keep pictures that you are actively working on as
digital files, but when you are done, if there is any thought that
someone might want to see them 10 or more years down the road, you
also run off either a conventional print or an archival digital print
and find a shoebox to store it (just like the old days).

B) Something around 4 megapixels or above is where most amateur
photographers would really be happy with the quality if price were not
a consideration.  (Obviously, when price is a consideration, a lot of
people get satisfied at 1 or 2 MP  <G>).

Cheers,

Tom

 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by Let Mikey Ski It » Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:18:51

Quote:

> nice!  i'm impressed.  are you sure that pic wasn't taken at alta?

> ;>)

Thanks. It was the best non-heli-non-Alta day of the year. We
Coloradoans need to take our neeners when we have the opportunity.

For one run, we grabbed one of the patrol supervisors who took us out on
what they could control in the closed access areas and it was the best
Breck run of the year ("Vertigo" on Peak 7). It kinda sucks that it
didn't suck on Breck's last day because now I want more turns which
sucks. Not really. Never mind.

Mike...       :J   <-- (I had my snorkel out for a few shots, too)

--
Mike Saemisch, Littleton, Colorado
Visit me at:  http://homepage.mac.com/saemisch/index1.html
Carpe powder-diem

 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by The Real Be » Fri, 27 Apr 2001 04:42:07

Quote:



> >If you aren't interested in printing (I hate paper, you just have to find
> >somewhere to store it), a 200K file will fill a 1280x1024 screen nicely,
> >and you only need a 1-meg camera to do that.  More is nicer of course,
> >substituting for zoom capability.  BTW, digital zoom is worthless, you can
> >do that with your editing software.
> >Cheers, Bev

> Sorry, Bev  - you just pressed two of my "buttons", so here is a short
> version of my ritual rant on each topic <G>.

> A) Paper vs digital files:

> Make believe that a letter you wrote ten years ago on an 8088 is a
> precious family photo that you would like to show someone.  You even
> still have the old machine still around...BUT... the power supply and
> Hercules monitor are dead and no new monitor plugs into the machine;
> You replace the power supply, but the bearings in the 5 meg HD are dry
> and the HD won't spin up.  You look around and finally find a copy of
> the file on a 5.25" floppy, but you can't find a drive of this size to
> work with your current PC;  

Har!  I still have a 5-1/4" drive on my linux machine, just for
emergencies!  I've been going through and tossing out old diskettes (yes, I
know I can give them to GoodWill or something, but then I'd have to erase
them and I'm just not willing to go to that much trouble) and when I'm
finished with that I'm going to transfer the stuff that I want to keep (old
email and posts) to CD.  It really hurt to throw out my original SuperCalc
disks :-(  

Quote:
> The file was written in the format of a
> word processor that was the most popular of the day, but has since
> vanished from the face of the earth; etc. etc.  

WordStar.  There's a linux WS emulation that just might be able to do it.
You must be thinking of M$ products :-)  

Quote:
> While you are trying
> to figure out your hardware and format problems, I can pull out a
> drawer of almost unfaded B&W prints of my family dating from back in
> the late 1800's, and family letters dated much earlier than that.

But what do you do if you want to share them with your family?  I scanned
some old stuff and sent it to some of my relatives, who were happy to get
it.  I would never have bothered to make real photographic copies for them
-- (1) too expensive, and (2) too much trouble.

I have thousands of slides, both 35mm and 2x2.  I have many cubic feet of
b+w prints from when we were doing our own darkroom work.  I have many
cubic feet of color prints.  These document the growth of my children, the
vacations we went on, and a certain amount of stuff that we did just
because it was pretty.  Most of it is just too damn much trouble to
actually look at, and the 8mm movies are absolutely unviewable (including
the one of my husband when he was 4 and which was in fine shape last time
we looked at it 10 years ago) because all the projectors have died.

If all this stuff were digital, it could fit on a finite number of CDs
which can be copied to the next format when CDs/jpgs become obsolete.  You
may have lots of room to store stuff, but I wandered all over the house
looking for a safe place to store the lava lamp that I was afraid would
fall off the microwave oven.  I am drowning in unwanted but valuable paper,
such that I am absolutely horrified at adding to the stack.  I cried when I
threw away the box full of my kids' kindergarten drawings.  I don't want to
have to do stuff like that again, but I know I'm going to have to.  Being a
crap-custodian sucks, and the smaller the volume of the crap, the better.

Quote:
> B) Adequate number of pixels:

> One megapixel is almost worthless if you need:

> (a) to have a final product larger than a 4x6 viewed at normal viewing
> distances; or

No prints wanted.  See above.

Quote:
> (b) to do any digitial editing whatsoever on the file - I'm not just
> talking about cropping, but ordinary digital tasks like unsharp
> masking, etc.

My son just scanned a mess of the slides, giving me jpgs ~150K each.  I
cropped out the frames, did some brightening, and was reasonably satisfied
with looking at the results on my screen.  He also gave me the original
scans, roughly 8 meg each, to which I did the same.  Not all that much
difference, I'm sorry to say.  The slides are useless in their boxes, but
now the whole family can look at them on CD.  Or at least they'll be able
to when I finish sometime in the next century.  My mom likes to print
stuff, and she's perfectly happy printing 100K-200K files.  I'm not
entering contests here, and I really don't want to do any more manipulation
than I have to.    

Quote:
> Now, FWIW, there has been endless discussion of these topics on the
> rec.photo NG's, and if I may be so bold as to summarize it, the
> concensus seems to be that:

> A) Because of the rapid evolving PC scene, files (of any type) you
> create today will fact the same sort of hardware and format problems
> ten years down the road that the 8088 files of my example faced.
> Bottom line: You keep pictures that you are actively working on as
> digital files, but when you are done, if there is any thought that
> someone might want to see them 10 or more years down the road, you
> also run off either a conventional print or an archival digital print
> and find a shoebox to store it (just like the old days).

If our house burned down, I would lose every single picture I've ever
taken.  I could, however, grab a box of CDs as I dove out the window.  I
wish digital had been invented 40 years ago.

Quote:
> B) Something around 4 megapixels or above is where most amateur
> photographers would really be happy with the quality if price were not
> a consideration.  (Obviously, when price is a consideration, a lot of
> people get satisfied at 1 or 2 MP  <G>).

This is, of course, another religious discussion, and I belong to the
Digital Denomination.  When I go to yard/estate sales I frequently see
great quantities of family photos for sale -- nobody wants to bother
keeping them, or even taking them out of the albums that might have some
value to another person;  I turned down several albums because I just
didn't want to take out some other person's family photos and throw them
away.  Feh.    

--
Cheers, Bev  
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I love to go down to the schoolyard  and watch all the
little children jump up and down and run around yelling and
screaming...They don't know I'm only using blanks."   --Emo

 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by PhysicsM » Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:11:23



Quote:



>> >If you aren't interested in printing (I hate paper, you just have to find
>> >somewhere to store it), a 200K file will fill a 1280x1024 screen nicely,
>> >and you only need a 1-meg camera to do that.  More is nicer of course,
>> >substituting for zoom capability.  BTW, digital zoom is worthless, you can
>> >do that with your editing software.
>> >Cheers, Bev

>> Sorry, Bev  - you just pressed two of my "buttons", so here is a short
>> version of my ritual rant on each topic <G>.

>> A) Paper vs digital files:

>> Make believe that a letter you wrote ten years ago on an 8088 is a
>> precious family photo that you would like to show someone.  You even
>> still have the old machine still around...BUT... the power supply and
>> Hercules monitor are dead and no new monitor plugs into the machine;
>> You replace the power supply, but the bearings in the 5 meg HD are dry
>> and the HD won't spin up.  You look around and finally find a copy of
>> the file on a 5.25" floppy, but you can't find a drive of this size to
>> work with your current PC;  

>Har!  I still have a 5-1/4" drive on my linux machine, just for
>emergencies!  I've been going through and tossing out old diskettes (yes, I
>know I can give them to GoodWill or something, but then I'd have to erase
>them and I'm just not willing to go to that much trouble) and when I'm
>finished with that I'm going to transfer the stuff that I want to keep (old
>email and posts) to CD.  It really hurt to throw out my original SuperCalc
>disks :-(  

Just to nudge the old brain cells, how 'bout VisiCalc and VP-planner
(and these programs are only 10 or 15 years old).

Quote:
>> The file was written in the format of a
>> word processor that was the most popular of the day, but has since
>> vanished from the face of the earth; etc. etc.  

>WordStar.  There's a linux WS emulation that just might be able to do it.
>You must be thinking of M$ products :-)  

XY-write?  <grin>

Quote:
>> While you are trying
>> to figure out your hardware and format problems, I can pull out a
>> drawer of almost unfaded B&W prints of my family dating from back in
>> the late 1800's, and family letters dated much earlier than that.

>But what do you do if you want to share them with your family?  I scanned
>some old stuff and sent it to some of my relatives, who were happy to get
>it.  I would never have bothered to make real photographic copies for them
>-- (1) too expensive, and (2) too much trouble.

I would call this an "active" document - and as such should clearly
also be available in digital form.

Quote:
>I have thousands of slides, both 35mm and 2x2.  I have many cubic feet of
>b+w prints from when we were doing our own darkroom work.  I have many
>cubic feet of color prints.  These document the growth of my children, the
>vacations we went on, and a certain amount of stuff that we did just
>because it was pretty.  Most of it is just too damn much trouble to
>actually look at, and the 8mm movies are absolutely unviewable (including
>the one of my husband when he was 4 and which was in fine shape last time
>we looked at it 10 years ago) because all the projectors have died.

>If all this stuff were digital, it could fit on a finite number of CDs
>which can be copied to the next format when CDs/jpgs become obsolete.  

This is not as trivial or quick a process as one might hope, unless
you are adept at programming yourself, or lots of people need to do
the same sort of mass format / storage media translation task, and so
there exists a shareware or commercial product to automate it.

Quote:
>You may have lots of room to store stuff,

*NO* I don't ... (just ask my wife)...

Quote:
>but I wandered all over the house
>looking for a safe place to store the lava lamp that I was afraid would
>fall off the microwave oven.  I am drowning in unwanted but valuable paper,
>such that I am absolutely horrified at adding to the stack.  I cried when I
>threw away the box full of my kids' kindergarten drawings.  I don't want to
>have to do stuff like that again, but I know I'm going to have to.  Being a
>crap-custodian sucks, and the smaller the volume of the crap, the better.

Yup - You sound just like me.  I still have some of my daughter's
kindergarten "Made For Dad" items.  I know exactly what you are
talking about.

FWIW, the National Archives obviously had to set up a policy on
digital archiving of documents, photos, etc.  Granted that they have a
few more documents than the average family, and they also have the
money and staff to periodically transfer (at least some of their
digital files) to new (ie, current) storage media, as well as
periodically update the file formats.  

Nevertheless, it is my understanding that their policy is now to keep
digital copies of active files (ie, akin to distributing your family
photos on CD's), keep (redundant) digital copies of important
documents (and perform all the upkeep needed), as well as keeping the
originals and photocopies thereof as needed.

Yeah, our house is also getting filled up with paper copies, but I
also maintain that there is a better chance of these surviving 100
years than there is of a digital file making it.  After all, all it
takes is for a couple of generations (ie, 50 years) of people in your
family not updating the digital files every ten years for it to be
prohibitively expensive for the files to be recovered, whereas if a
couple of generations of people are equally passive with the paper
copies, someone can still see what's on a silver print 100 years from
now without employing anything but their eyes.

Now, I obviously have made the MAJOR assumption that someone will
actually care about this stuff 100 years from now.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>> B) Adequate number of pixels:

>> One megapixel is almost worthless if you need:

>> (a) to have a final product larger than a 4x6 viewed at normal viewing
>> distances; or

>No prints wanted.  See above.

>> (b) to do any digitial editing whatsoever on the file - I'm not just
>> talking about cropping, but ordinary digital tasks like unsharp
>> masking, etc.

>My son just scanned a mess of the slides, giving me jpgs ~150K each.  I
>cropped out the frames, did some brightening, and was reasonably satisfied
>with looking at the results on my screen.  He also gave me the original
>scans, roughly 8 meg each, to which I did the same.  Not all that much
>difference, I'm sorry to say.  The slides are useless in their boxes, but
>now the whole family can look at them on CD.  Or at least they'll be able
>to when I finish sometime in the next century.  My mom likes to print
>stuff, and she's perfectly happy printing 100K-200K files.  I'm not
>entering contests here, and I really don't want to do any more manipulation
>than I have to.    

>> Now, FWIW, there has been endless discussion of these topics on the
>> rec.photo NG's, and if I may be so bold as to summarize it, the
>> concensus seems to be that:

>> A) Because of the rapid evolving PC scene, files (of any type) you
>> create today will fact the same sort of hardware and format problems
>> ten years down the road that the 8088 files of my example faced.
>> Bottom line: You keep pictures that you are actively working on as
>> digital files, but when you are done, if there is any thought that
>> someone might want to see them 10 or more years down the road, you
>> also run off either a conventional print or an archival digital print
>> and find a shoebox to store it (just like the old days).

>If our house burned down, I would lose every single picture I've ever
>taken.  I could, however, grab a box of CDs as I dove out the window.  I
>wish digital had been invented 40 years ago.

>> B) Something around 4 megapixels or above is where most amateur
>> photographers would really be happy with the quality if price were not
>> a consideration.  (Obviously, when price is a consideration, a lot of
>> people get satisfied at 1 or 2 MP  <G>).

>This is, of course, another religious discussion, and I belong to the
>Digital Denomination.  When I go to yard/estate sales I frequently see
>great quantities of family photos for sale -- nobody wants to bother
>keeping them, or even taking them out of the albums that might have some
>value to another person;  I turned down several albums because I just
>didn't want to take out some other person's family photos and throw them
>away.  Feh.    

>--
>Cheers, Bev  

It most certainly is another religious discussion <G>, but its one
where I straddle the fence.  I shoot low importance family stuff on a
Nikon 990, family stuff that is likely to be of higher importance on
35 mm,  and my arty landscape stuff on a 4x5 Sinar.  I still
occasionally shoot weddings for money and drag out my 2-1/4 rig (if
only because I don't want to be mistaken for the everpresent "Uncle
Fred" with his brand new Can-o-nik body and 20 - 300 f/4 to f/8 zoom
lens <G>).

Say ... I know a guy with a backhoe.  Maybe we could split the costs
and he could "archive" all this stuff for us <G>.

 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by Dave Stallar » Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:05:49

Quote:

> >If all this stuff were digital, it could fit on a finite number of CDs
> >which can be copied to the next format when CDs/jpgs become obsolete.

> This is not as trivial or quick a process as one might hope, unless
> you are adept at programming yourself, or lots of people need to do
> the same sort of mass format / storage media translation task, and so
> there exists a shareware or commercial product to automate it.

It's not just the software problem, either.  The information has to be
physically encoded in some medium or other, like a CD or DVD.  If that
medium falls out of favor because a "better" technology comes along, and
they stop making hardware that reads it, you're screwed.  Maybe for CDs
that point will be farther in the future, simply because there are so
many CDs around now, and the market will demand it.  After all, you can
still buy hardware that will play vinyl records, even 78 rpm ones (I
think), simply because there are still so many of them around.  But who
knows what will happen in the fullness of time.

Maybe more to the point, I've heard that CDs are, in fact, perishable
over the long term, and that in 30 years or so the coatings or whatnot
decay and pfft.  I don't know how true that is; maybe someone else
knows?

A solution could be a digital storage utility that will take all this
stuff off your hands, and promise to store all your information safely,
privately, and upgradeably.  You wouldn't have to worry about physical
media; you'd just be connected to it via a super high bandwidth network
and could access it anytime.  But that will have to await further
developments.

  Dave

 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by PhysicsM » Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:41:11



Quote:

>> This is not as trivial or quick a process as one might hope, unless
>> you are adept at programming yourself, or lots of people need to do
>> the same sort of mass format / storage media translation task, and so
>> there exists a shareware or commercial product to automate it.

>It's not just the software problem, either.  The information has to be
>physically encoded in some medium or other, like a CD or DVD.  If that
>medium falls out of favor because a "better" technology comes along, and
>they stop making hardware that reads it, you're screwed.  

Yup - we're on the same wavelength.

That's precisely what I was referring to when I tersely refered to:

Quote:
>> the same sort of mass format / storage media translation task,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Grins
 
 
 

Somewhere near Alta - Today - 04/21/01

Post by PhysicsM » Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:43:35

Quote:

>Yup - we're on the same wavelength.

>That's precisely what I was referring to when I tersely refered to:
>>> the same sort of mass format / storage media translation task,

>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nuts - the ^'s in my previous message were supposed to come out
directly under the phrase "storage media translation".  

Speaking about formatting problems - arghhhh!