paeza
Apr 5, 08:26 PM
I wanna be a normal person!!!
Laird Knox
Mar 5, 04:11 PM
I know I must be overtired ... I actually reached out and touched my screen to see if this was really 3-dimensional!
That made me chuckle, I've done that before myself. :)
Love it! My only qualm is how dark it is. If it had some more "pop" and was brightened up a bit I would be even more in love! Did you have lights inside that place?
Thanks! I find monitor gama really makes or breaks this one. Small changes in the can really darken it up quickly. I have printed it out at 20x30 and it really worked well in my opinion. I'm just finishing up some web site programing before I can get back into my photography. Once I do I plan on revisiting this one. I want to try printing it on both regular paper and metallic.
As for the lighthing I'm lucky I didn't break my neck that night. It was extreamly dark - no Moon and the cottages are wedged between some steep hills. I set the camera up on a tripod and took a couple of test shots for the framing. I just looked at the original images and there are only a couple of blurry images and one only lit from inside before this shot. I was using an old manual lens and must not have focused for the first couple but they were so dark it was hard to see on the LCD. (Still better than waiting for the film to develop.)
Once I had the angle I thought I wanted -- it was still hard to tell on the preview -- I set the camera for remote trigger with a three second delay. I triggered the cammera and when the shutter opened up I held a deep blue Rosco gel over a five watt LED flashlight and swept it across the front of the building a few times.
I then turned off the flashlight and dashed over the uneven ground into the room on the left. There I switched to a red gel and waved the light around the room for a couple of seconds. Then in the dark I ran around to the door and the room on the right. Here I again waved the flashlight around trying to give it an uneven wash. Then I stuck my head out the door and triggered the camera. The whole exposure was about 67 seconds.
In this shot you can see how uneven the ground was. ;)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP5bwD5aV0pMHTc09rwvaQ70bz5lwTcVHwn38EOBoVBegd5ItjQuvCrrWUYeNRAmYHvVrgYsY62ZOmtlWvgYwWtkr7oDbzgGt6Utdd3Z-gl3Y56-g7JjSu7FpCnfQJeU7eHpY_YqHE_DE/s500/paint2.jpg
In this and another shot from that night I used way too much light. I like the uneven texture of the red and blue image. The other two are just too flat. I do like the texture of the bricks in this one but overall I ruined the shot in my opinion. In the one above you can also see that I didn't have the flashlight fully covered. There is a bit of white light spilling in the foreground.
If I were to do it again I would try putting a strobe in each room. I would need to find something to breakup the flash to get the uneven wash -- maybe some bottle partially filled with water. Then I could use the flashlight for the front lighting and maybe another strobe or two set very low for some side fill.
Overall it was a fun exercise. I had wanted to do some light painting for a long time and I got really lucky for a first try at it.
That made me chuckle, I've done that before myself. :)
Love it! My only qualm is how dark it is. If it had some more "pop" and was brightened up a bit I would be even more in love! Did you have lights inside that place?
Thanks! I find monitor gama really makes or breaks this one. Small changes in the can really darken it up quickly. I have printed it out at 20x30 and it really worked well in my opinion. I'm just finishing up some web site programing before I can get back into my photography. Once I do I plan on revisiting this one. I want to try printing it on both regular paper and metallic.
As for the lighthing I'm lucky I didn't break my neck that night. It was extreamly dark - no Moon and the cottages are wedged between some steep hills. I set the camera up on a tripod and took a couple of test shots for the framing. I just looked at the original images and there are only a couple of blurry images and one only lit from inside before this shot. I was using an old manual lens and must not have focused for the first couple but they were so dark it was hard to see on the LCD. (Still better than waiting for the film to develop.)
Once I had the angle I thought I wanted -- it was still hard to tell on the preview -- I set the camera for remote trigger with a three second delay. I triggered the cammera and when the shutter opened up I held a deep blue Rosco gel over a five watt LED flashlight and swept it across the front of the building a few times.
I then turned off the flashlight and dashed over the uneven ground into the room on the left. There I switched to a red gel and waved the light around the room for a couple of seconds. Then in the dark I ran around to the door and the room on the right. Here I again waved the flashlight around trying to give it an uneven wash. Then I stuck my head out the door and triggered the camera. The whole exposure was about 67 seconds.
In this shot you can see how uneven the ground was. ;)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP5bwD5aV0pMHTc09rwvaQ70bz5lwTcVHwn38EOBoVBegd5ItjQuvCrrWUYeNRAmYHvVrgYsY62ZOmtlWvgYwWtkr7oDbzgGt6Utdd3Z-gl3Y56-g7JjSu7FpCnfQJeU7eHpY_YqHE_DE/s500/paint2.jpg
In this and another shot from that night I used way too much light. I like the uneven texture of the red and blue image. The other two are just too flat. I do like the texture of the bricks in this one but overall I ruined the shot in my opinion. In the one above you can also see that I didn't have the flashlight fully covered. There is a bit of white light spilling in the foreground.
If I were to do it again I would try putting a strobe in each room. I would need to find something to breakup the flash to get the uneven wash -- maybe some bottle partially filled with water. Then I could use the flashlight for the front lighting and maybe another strobe or two set very low for some side fill.
Overall it was a fun exercise. I had wanted to do some light painting for a long time and I got really lucky for a first try at it.
NSeven
Apr 18, 05:31 AM
This could be a sneeky attack from microsoft.. no one will take down Apple's POWER !!
barrett14
Mar 14, 09:52 AM
any report of a place that has them in stock?
KnightWRX
Apr 30, 04:49 PM
Hmm, so if I choose a OS that is more intuitive to use, more easier to use, I am not tech savvy anymore?
No, you made his point because you went all defensive and fearful over Android.
It's not any "harder" to use or figure than iOS. Heck, the iPhone has a 274 page user manual... So much for "intuitive".
No, you made his point because you went all defensive and fearful over Android.
It's not any "harder" to use or figure than iOS. Heck, the iPhone has a 274 page user manual... So much for "intuitive".
kvizzel
Apr 12, 04:11 PM
I wonder why everywhere I go ATT is sold out...
I was lucky enough to buy 16GB ATT this morning. :D
I was lucky enough to buy 16GB ATT this morning. :D
britboy
Jan 8, 09:51 AM
It's nice to see that the banner from the Apple website is being replicated at the MW venue (assuming it isn't a fake), but it shouldn't been seen as an indication that 2007 is going to bring amazing products. Remember that apple has a track record of over-hyping itself.
Alex The Nifty
Nov 3, 01:10 PM
You could also either link to or copy the information from www.apple-history.com. It has the specs for (as far as I know) all old Apple products, but is seldom updated, so if we put everything here, then we would have a more up-to-date, all-in-one database.
Eraserhead
Jun 1, 09:54 AM
I've just had another thought, there might need to be a "Gaming" subcategory in "Software" which links to the "Gaming" category (if you understand what I mean). Thoughts?
Good idea.
EDIT: Maybe a Software category with iPhone Software, Mac Software and Gaming as subcategories would be better...
Good idea.
EDIT: Maybe a Software category with iPhone Software, Mac Software and Gaming as subcategories would be better...
gloss
Nov 11, 07:04 AM
I think it varies from Japanese guy to Japanese guy.
Wow, just like in America!
What a small world.
Wow, just like in America!
What a small world.
Dreadnought
Jun 20, 03:46 PM
Redeye, you have to enjoy the warm weather a bit. Stop developing that widget and get out into the sun! What am I saying.... Get back to work and work on it all day tomorrow, it's gonna rain anyhow! :D
iJohnHenry
Apr 28, 07:20 PM
I guess it never ends...
Not in our life-time.
Revenue shortfalls represent terror to bureaucrats defending budgets for next year.
Not in our life-time.
Revenue shortfalls represent terror to bureaucrats defending budgets for next year.
volk
Oct 26, 04:30 PM
I use Audition for the same purpose. I preferred the application when it was Cool Edit, I feel Adobe have bloated it out ever so slightly. But beggars can't be choosers - It's an important tool for me.
I've had a go with "SoundBooth", its literally the most basic editing pulled from the original Cool Edit code with a few effects pallets. Defiantly not enough for me. It runs well though, nice-ish interface, not sluggish. I personally wouldn't pay more than £30 - £40 for it, its just too basic.
Audition has definitely suffered from the "Adobe Bloat" syndrome and I would happily move on from it, but every audio app out there is either focused on recording musicians in multitrack or simple single track editing. Soundtrack has a lovely user interface and excellent integration for video work, but can't handle the simple things radio users need.
FWIW, I discovered today that HairerSoft is working on a pro version of Amadeus. It is only available as a beta at this point, but I have downloaded it for experimentation. Apparently, they have added multitrack support. You can learn more here: http://www.hairersoft.com/AmadeusPro/AmadeusPro.html
I haven't had a chance to install it yet, but I am hoping it works...
I've had a go with "SoundBooth", its literally the most basic editing pulled from the original Cool Edit code with a few effects pallets. Defiantly not enough for me. It runs well though, nice-ish interface, not sluggish. I personally wouldn't pay more than £30 - £40 for it, its just too basic.
Audition has definitely suffered from the "Adobe Bloat" syndrome and I would happily move on from it, but every audio app out there is either focused on recording musicians in multitrack or simple single track editing. Soundtrack has a lovely user interface and excellent integration for video work, but can't handle the simple things radio users need.
FWIW, I discovered today that HairerSoft is working on a pro version of Amadeus. It is only available as a beta at this point, but I have downloaded it for experimentation. Apparently, they have added multitrack support. You can learn more here: http://www.hairersoft.com/AmadeusPro/AmadeusPro.html
I haven't had a chance to install it yet, but I am hoping it works...
NoSmokingBandit
Jul 14, 07:28 AM
4gb onboard sounds cool, but with usb support (finally!) it seems a little superfluous. It would really only be used for saves i assume, and most saves are under 1mb, so you could have ~250 saves on the old model 360 without worrying about space.
Knowimagination
Mar 11, 03:03 PM
Apple store Knox St. Has over 100 now I'm around 23 or so.
Icculus
Mar 9, 01:31 PM
I live a minute away from Stonebriar but I seriously dislike that mall. I'll be at Willow Bend around 4:30!
I really dislike ALL malls, but Friday I will have to suck it up. It will be a game time decision between WB and SB.
I really dislike ALL malls, but Friday I will have to suck it up. It will be a game time decision between WB and SB.
dernhelm
Apr 5, 11:34 AM
I'm sorry you didn't understand me. I really am and didn't mean to insult you.
But I didn't put a smiley because it wasn't really all that sarcastic. It was a pretty straighforward comment about how Macrumors posters are temperamental and sometimes hypocritical.
Including yourself?
:D
But I didn't put a smiley because it wasn't really all that sarcastic. It was a pretty straighforward comment about how Macrumors posters are temperamental and sometimes hypocritical.
Including yourself?
:D
miniroll32
May 2, 12:50 PM
OK - supposing the White iPhone was slightly thicker.... So *********g what?
RacerX
Apr 3, 03:00 AM
I think that Apple was probably aiming to make Pages into a desktop publishing program but then found halfway through that most of the features added in were pretty similar to what word has. Maybe that's why Jobs decided to put it head to head with Word?
Pages is a resurrected application from more than 10 years ago. It's feature set and implementation are pretty much the same, just as the reaction of both the media and users.
Pages was never designed to be a page layout replacement. It is designed to be a step above the standard word processor layout aimed squarely at people who know nothing about page layout. This has been (in it's original form) and currently is a template driven application.
What is so amazing is that people are reacting the same way now as they did before. Always thinking that it'll become more than it currently is. This application has had more than 10 years to be rethought out and improved. If it was aiming for page layout, there was plenty of time to move it in that direction.
Pages is to page layout what painting by numbers is to art. Anyone expecting the freedom that a page layout program offers has missed what this is about. It isn't about freedom, it is about empowering people with little or no experience to produce quality documents.
The only reason Pages has been resurrected is that it was an application that Steve Jobs really liked and thought had a place even if it didn't fit into any defined category.
Steve Jobs, 1993: Pages is a stunning product, and I believe it will become a major mainstream product on NEXTSTEP.
Pages could be a good product... as soon as people start taking it for what it is rather than projecting what they want it to be onto it.
Lets look at a 1992 description of Pages from NeXTWorld:The flip side of PasteUp's carte-blanche approach to page design is a layout program from Pages Software, which after several years in the making is close to release under the name Pages by Pages. It guides users to produce well-designed business documents by limiting their choices to a preset range provided in a companion "design model."
Pages by Pages will ship with seven design models, most aimed at corporate design (other models will be available separately from Pages and third parties). A separate program, the Pages Designer Edition, is used to create models.
Each model contains rules for typeface control, column layout, headline styling, and other elements that make up a page design. The idea is that an organization will use the product to standardize on a common look for all its documents. The constrained approach also allows users to create attractive designs easily, with a fairly flat learning curve.
The Pages user interface groups 26 page elements under six basic palettes. All elements are dragged and dropped on the page, and they interact appropriately. For example, a subhead will know that it lives in a column, so it scales to the column width.
Once users are comfortable with a design model, they have several ways to expand or change it. Every element has an inspector with controls to adjust the behavior of the element. Users may also alter a design model by overriding one or more rules, and then saving it as a style sheet. They can also create a design model from scratch with the Designer Edition.
Pages believes it has hit on a fundamentally new ap-proach to page design. It is aimed squarely at business publishing, leaving the graphic-design market to other products.
Does any of this sound familiar?
The first week Pages was out a lot of people were crowing about a new "Word-killer" and I really felt that was offbase because the better comparison really is to Microsoft Publisher. It reminds me of a light version of Pagemaker from 10 years ago.
Pages was compared with PageMaker during it's original run also.
PageMaker was a very powerful application 10 years ago, I should know, I have PageMaker 1.0-6.5 (and still use Aldus PageMaker 5.0a on my PowerBook 2300c today).
Trying to compare Pages to PageMaker does both a disservice. Pages wasn't attempting to be like PageMaker and PageMaker was never as limiting as Pages.
As for the comparison to Publisher... that I don't know about.
I, personally, don't have a need for Pages. TextEdit (with the help of services from other apps) does most of what I need and when I need more than that I have Create. But even though it is not a product I would want, I know people whom this product would be great for.
The best thing to do is to stop comparing it and give it a fair chance based on what it does. If it fills a need for you, great. If it doesn't, then move to what does.
Pages is a resurrected application from more than 10 years ago. It's feature set and implementation are pretty much the same, just as the reaction of both the media and users.
Pages was never designed to be a page layout replacement. It is designed to be a step above the standard word processor layout aimed squarely at people who know nothing about page layout. This has been (in it's original form) and currently is a template driven application.
What is so amazing is that people are reacting the same way now as they did before. Always thinking that it'll become more than it currently is. This application has had more than 10 years to be rethought out and improved. If it was aiming for page layout, there was plenty of time to move it in that direction.
Pages is to page layout what painting by numbers is to art. Anyone expecting the freedom that a page layout program offers has missed what this is about. It isn't about freedom, it is about empowering people with little or no experience to produce quality documents.
The only reason Pages has been resurrected is that it was an application that Steve Jobs really liked and thought had a place even if it didn't fit into any defined category.
Steve Jobs, 1993: Pages is a stunning product, and I believe it will become a major mainstream product on NEXTSTEP.
Pages could be a good product... as soon as people start taking it for what it is rather than projecting what they want it to be onto it.
Lets look at a 1992 description of Pages from NeXTWorld:The flip side of PasteUp's carte-blanche approach to page design is a layout program from Pages Software, which after several years in the making is close to release under the name Pages by Pages. It guides users to produce well-designed business documents by limiting their choices to a preset range provided in a companion "design model."
Pages by Pages will ship with seven design models, most aimed at corporate design (other models will be available separately from Pages and third parties). A separate program, the Pages Designer Edition, is used to create models.
Each model contains rules for typeface control, column layout, headline styling, and other elements that make up a page design. The idea is that an organization will use the product to standardize on a common look for all its documents. The constrained approach also allows users to create attractive designs easily, with a fairly flat learning curve.
The Pages user interface groups 26 page elements under six basic palettes. All elements are dragged and dropped on the page, and they interact appropriately. For example, a subhead will know that it lives in a column, so it scales to the column width.
Once users are comfortable with a design model, they have several ways to expand or change it. Every element has an inspector with controls to adjust the behavior of the element. Users may also alter a design model by overriding one or more rules, and then saving it as a style sheet. They can also create a design model from scratch with the Designer Edition.
Pages believes it has hit on a fundamentally new ap-proach to page design. It is aimed squarely at business publishing, leaving the graphic-design market to other products.
Does any of this sound familiar?
The first week Pages was out a lot of people were crowing about a new "Word-killer" and I really felt that was offbase because the better comparison really is to Microsoft Publisher. It reminds me of a light version of Pagemaker from 10 years ago.
Pages was compared with PageMaker during it's original run also.
PageMaker was a very powerful application 10 years ago, I should know, I have PageMaker 1.0-6.5 (and still use Aldus PageMaker 5.0a on my PowerBook 2300c today).
Trying to compare Pages to PageMaker does both a disservice. Pages wasn't attempting to be like PageMaker and PageMaker was never as limiting as Pages.
As for the comparison to Publisher... that I don't know about.
I, personally, don't have a need for Pages. TextEdit (with the help of services from other apps) does most of what I need and when I need more than that I have Create. But even though it is not a product I would want, I know people whom this product would be great for.
The best thing to do is to stop comparing it and give it a fair chance based on what it does. If it fills a need for you, great. If it doesn't, then move to what does.
jackirish
Oct 6, 12:23 PM
No way in hell. They've already asked their developers to change app resolutions once. 3 screen sizes will never fly with developers.
99.999% likelihood of this being total nonsense.
Okay... but look at the Android operating system... they ask developers to adjust their apps to every new Android phone that comes out, because the OS is slightly different depending on the phone. Asking them to change the resolution of their apps is not too big of a deal in comparison.
99.999% likelihood of this being total nonsense.
Okay... but look at the Android operating system... they ask developers to adjust their apps to every new Android phone that comes out, because the OS is slightly different depending on the phone. Asking them to change the resolution of their apps is not too big of a deal in comparison.
twilson
Sep 26, 07:15 AM
Hm?
The word "Podcast" is derived from iPod, of course, but the CONCEPT of podcast is not inherently ipod-related. Because of that, it inherently dilutes the iPod trademark.
You can't trademark a CONCEPT, the thing you would be looking for there is a PATENT (God forbid).
The word "Podcast" is derived from iPod, of course, but the CONCEPT of podcast is not inherently ipod-related. Because of that, it inherently dilutes the iPod trademark.
You can't trademark a CONCEPT, the thing you would be looking for there is a PATENT (God forbid).
aristotle
Mar 23, 09:20 PM
Are you people seriously applauding this? What a waste of our tax dollars!! I do contracts with the Navy every single day and I know that the technology that they have will not be benefited by the use of iPad/iPod/iPhone. The military does not offer wi-fi to their staff on base. Everything is hard wired and the conduit is sealed with a tamper proof silicon. The Government is very very particular about their SIPRnet (as they call it). Without wi-fi, what use is the iPad for the military other than to give them a little treat and waste our tax dollars? They already have mobile equipment in the vehicles that is far superior to Apple's products.
Yeah, I'm going to have to call you on this. If you really worked with the navy, you would have been aware of this Terra Soft and Lockheed put xserves in US Subs (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/83783/Terra_Soft_Lockheed_to_put_Xserves_in_US_Navy_subs) and that the military and intelligence community has a long history with macs and NextStep computers.
Previous versions of OS X had lockdown instructions written by the NSA for high security clearance environments and the iPhone has been in testing by the Army for some time now. Non-jailbroken iPhones are really hard to crack with the latest firmware through remote exploits.
Yeah, I'm going to have to call you on this. If you really worked with the navy, you would have been aware of this Terra Soft and Lockheed put xserves in US Subs (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/83783/Terra_Soft_Lockheed_to_put_Xserves_in_US_Navy_subs) and that the military and intelligence community has a long history with macs and NextStep computers.
Previous versions of OS X had lockdown instructions written by the NSA for high security clearance environments and the iPhone has been in testing by the Army for some time now. Non-jailbroken iPhones are really hard to crack with the latest firmware through remote exploits.
InfoSecmgr
Apr 6, 03:40 PM
We wouldn't use them for killing. Quite the contrary. As an Intelligence Analyst I can say that I would love to have a Mac based system for all of our mapping/communication/networking needs. We wouldn't even need a "tough book" like computer, since most of my work is done out of a tent or a building. A rubber casing or strip could easily seal the ports. I have been wanting to incorporate my MBP into my work more and more.
+1 for mapping. When I worked at a Joint Reserve Intelligence Center (JRIC) the intel guys that deal with imagery (sorry I don't know the term) used Macs with 30 inch ACD's.
+1 for mapping. When I worked at a Joint Reserve Intelligence Center (JRIC) the intel guys that deal with imagery (sorry I don't know the term) used Macs with 30 inch ACD's.
SilianRail
Apr 5, 06:29 PM
don't ask me! ask the EU about it. i don't make the regulations. but i can tell you this, they want a standard port for charging purposes and data transfer, so that you have to deal with fewer cables. it's not a bad idea, if you think about it.It's a bad idea for Apple when they can't charge you $99 for a 50 cent piece of plastic and copper.
