How come no technology company can manage product naming which is easily understandable? Lookkit:
Leica camera M series naming:
M3 (1954 - 1966)
MP (1956 - 1957)
M2 (1958 - 1967)
M1 (1959 - 1964)
M4 (1967 - 1975)
M5 (1971 - 1975)
CL (1973 - 1976)
M4-2 (1977 - 1980)
M4-P (1980 - 1986)
M6 (1984 - 1998)
M6J (1994)
M6 TTL (1998 - 2002)
M7 (2002 - )
M8 (2006 - )
The M2 came after the M3, then the M1, and then the M4...
And how about Apple's software? Quick, what's the sequence between OS's named Panther, Tiger, Leopard, and Jaguar? Dear Apple, wasn't one or two big cats enough?
But then that's the whole world. My local pizzaria has a zillion different prices for their pizzas. And if you want an extra topping, the price for that is different according to the size of the pizza. :)
Message to the world: Simplicity, folks. It's a good thing. Try it.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Nippon geeks
You gotta love the Nipponese. When they do something, they go all out, including their geeks. I was looking for a reference about whether "The Churchyard" mentioned in Dead Like Me was an actual sixties band, because they showed an old LP cover which was just so convincing. So I googled some dialogue and found this page. Not only has somebody typed in all of the dialogue, but they have entered the exact miliseconds each line of dialogue is placed at! Oh, and a Japanese translation of each line. And the whole site is about Dead Like Me. Totally amazing.
Yellow Car
I am so bored with blue and grey cars that I was delighted to see this wonderful golden one.
(I also like the greenish car in the background, though I suspect the owner is not as enthusiastic about it.)
This is Jade cleaning my TV. I just found it funny, the ridiculous discrepancy in size.
(I also like the greenish car in the background, though I suspect the owner is not as enthusiastic about it.)This is Jade cleaning my TV. I just found it funny, the ridiculous discrepancy in size.
Should you buy a DSLR or a Compact?
"Should you buy a DSLR or a Compact?", a guide at CameraLabs.com.
Russian Leica
I just bought this hand-customized Russian Leica copy on eBay. (For 30 Euros!)
Isn't it way cool?
Isn't it way cool?
Tension
I am realizing more and more than my arch-nemisis may be tension.
I have a strong tendency to get over-excited about all kinds of things, good and bad, particularly good. And if I forget to relax, in the end my stomach hurts, my back hurts, or my head hurts. And my sleep suffers.
Any good tips for releasing tension?
I have a strong tendency to get over-excited about all kinds of things, good and bad, particularly good. And if I forget to relax, in the end my stomach hurts, my back hurts, or my head hurts. And my sleep suffers.
Any good tips for releasing tension?
It would never work...
"You cannot go out with this Brennan guy, it would never work: you're a taurus, he's a gemini. He's lutheran, you're dead."
- Dead Like Me
That show is really great. Some of the perifiral characters are more real and nuanced than the main characters of most shows.
For example Gorgia's mother, Joy Lass ("joyless"): on the surface she's a bee-ai-tee-see-eitch, but she is much more than that. She is a loving person, but she has profound anger issues, and she is written and played wonderfully well.
And then there's everybody's favorite: Dolores (Georgia's senior in the office). On the surface she seems like an awful phony, always putting a big pretty bow on everything. Again, much more complex. Sure, she pretends, but mostly to herself, and only because she wants so badly that things are nice, not because she wants to fool anybody. And her life and her past is much different than one might imagine. And she is so wonderfully played too.
- Dead Like Me
That show is really great. Some of the perifiral characters are more real and nuanced than the main characters of most shows.
For example Gorgia's mother, Joy Lass ("joyless"): on the surface she's a bee-ai-tee-see-eitch, but she is much more than that. She is a loving person, but she has profound anger issues, and she is written and played wonderfully well.
And then there's everybody's favorite: Dolores (Georgia's senior in the office). On the surface she seems like an awful phony, always putting a big pretty bow on everything. Again, much more complex. Sure, she pretends, but mostly to herself, and only because she wants so badly that things are nice, not because she wants to fool anybody. And her life and her past is much different than one might imagine. And she is so wonderfully played too.
Rollei 35
Shame on me: Stephen Gillette made me want to have a Rollei 35, so I bought one on eBay. Lucky for me I don't care about how it works, and the meter does not work, so I got it much cheaper than it normally is.
In case you've never seen one, it's tiny, like a pack of cigarettes. But full 35mm quality, and great lens.
Isn't it beautiful?
I wonder if it is also beautiful to people who are not camera geeks?
In case you've never seen one, it's tiny, like a pack of cigarettes. But full 35mm quality, and great lens.
Isn't it beautiful?
I wonder if it is also beautiful to people who are not camera geeks?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Medicine for life
It appears that more Americans were killed by mistakes in the medical system in the past decade than where killed by wars in two hundred years.
And it is not limited to the US. According to the doctors' own statistics, in any country in the world where there's been a doctors' strike, death statistics fell during the strike! And then imagine how many errors are not registered as errors. Would you admit to killing somebody by giving him the wrong (or right) medicine?
This video has some quite astounding statistics.
Jerry said:
Why do you listen to and pass on hysterical, unattributed, "statistics" which are designed to sell products?
How is this better than the marketing used by the drug companies the video complains about?
This is built on the paranoia and fear mongering, not on reason, testing and science.
It could be. I hope so. But I think that if the statistics were not true, this guy would have been sued to oblivion a long time ago.
Pascal said:
I'm not going to feel targeted here, because I know you guys and what you truly mean. :-) [Note: Pascal is a doctor]
It's true that many doctors often forget the principle of primum non nocere, "first thing is to avoid causing harm". But it's not all one side's fault. It's not only because the pharmaceutical companies spend great effort in ADVERTIZING what should never have become consumption goods. The mentality of patients is also responsible in good part. Picture, if you will, a medic who says: "It's just a viral angina. Take a week's rest, vitamins, paracetamol, hot drinks, and it'll pass. You don't need antibiotics, they won't help anyway." Alas, he'll risk being confronted with the stereotypical: "What? I don't even get a prescription? What kind of lame doctor is that? I'm going to another one from now on."
It happens every day. :-(
Similarly, the fact that a definite diagnosis is seldom evident, something we learn very early on in Med School, is very hard to accept for many patients. To them, either the Doc is a fully confident god-like figure, or he's a loser. This creates a pressure in favor of misdiagnosis.
That's not to say that black sheep are not many, because they are. Heck, I always say, 1% rotten apples is more than enough to give any given group a bad rep. Immigrants, muslims, pious evangelists, citizens of any other country, the ethnic group of your choice... If one out of a hundred behave like rascals, it can be enough when seen on worldwide TV if you are ever so slightly inclined to prejudice.
And let's face it, pick any random group, and tell me honestly: can you guarantee that 99% of them are upstanding, or even just nice people? Not one bit likely. Extremist parties in the most civilized countries have an electoral core base of at least 5 to 7% visceral racists. Imagine 7% of Germans being potential rioting, jew-murdering neo-nazis. Imagine 7% of muslims being ready to slit an infidel's throat. Imagine 7% of doctors being exactly like Final Identity describes: greedy, unethical, incompetent, or all at once.
Now, imagine that this is probably a true figure, and you'll understand why there are still so many things wrong in even the most socially advanced country. 5 to 7% rotten apples, is one out of 14 to 20 people. It's not that much, but it's already a lot in any crowd, city or country.
And the proportion can grow far bigger in the "adequate" circumstances. For instance, with a charismatic fanatic telling you Right and Wrong, and peer pressure to approve of the "enlightened" person.
And it is not limited to the US. According to the doctors' own statistics, in any country in the world where there's been a doctors' strike, death statistics fell during the strike! And then imagine how many errors are not registered as errors. Would you admit to killing somebody by giving him the wrong (or right) medicine?
This video has some quite astounding statistics.
Jerry said:
Why do you listen to and pass on hysterical, unattributed, "statistics" which are designed to sell products?
How is this better than the marketing used by the drug companies the video complains about?
This is built on the paranoia and fear mongering, not on reason, testing and science.
It could be. I hope so. But I think that if the statistics were not true, this guy would have been sued to oblivion a long time ago.
Pascal said:
I'm not going to feel targeted here, because I know you guys and what you truly mean. :-) [Note: Pascal is a doctor]
It's true that many doctors often forget the principle of primum non nocere, "first thing is to avoid causing harm". But it's not all one side's fault. It's not only because the pharmaceutical companies spend great effort in ADVERTIZING what should never have become consumption goods. The mentality of patients is also responsible in good part. Picture, if you will, a medic who says: "It's just a viral angina. Take a week's rest, vitamins, paracetamol, hot drinks, and it'll pass. You don't need antibiotics, they won't help anyway." Alas, he'll risk being confronted with the stereotypical: "What? I don't even get a prescription? What kind of lame doctor is that? I'm going to another one from now on."
It happens every day. :-(
Similarly, the fact that a definite diagnosis is seldom evident, something we learn very early on in Med School, is very hard to accept for many patients. To them, either the Doc is a fully confident god-like figure, or he's a loser. This creates a pressure in favor of misdiagnosis.
That's not to say that black sheep are not many, because they are. Heck, I always say, 1% rotten apples is more than enough to give any given group a bad rep. Immigrants, muslims, pious evangelists, citizens of any other country, the ethnic group of your choice... If one out of a hundred behave like rascals, it can be enough when seen on worldwide TV if you are ever so slightly inclined to prejudice.
And let's face it, pick any random group, and tell me honestly: can you guarantee that 99% of them are upstanding, or even just nice people? Not one bit likely. Extremist parties in the most civilized countries have an electoral core base of at least 5 to 7% visceral racists. Imagine 7% of Germans being potential rioting, jew-murdering neo-nazis. Imagine 7% of muslims being ready to slit an infidel's throat. Imagine 7% of doctors being exactly like Final Identity describes: greedy, unethical, incompetent, or all at once.
Now, imagine that this is probably a true figure, and you'll understand why there are still so many things wrong in even the most socially advanced country. 5 to 7% rotten apples, is one out of 14 to 20 people. It's not that much, but it's already a lot in any crowd, city or country.
And the proportion can grow far bigger in the "adequate" circumstances. For instance, with a charismatic fanatic telling you Right and Wrong, and peer pressure to approve of the "enlightened" person.
Compact cameras, Stephen Gillette interview
Stephen Gillette, I think the photographs on your site are wonderful, especially the unmanipulated ones in portfolio two. They are the kind of pictures I want to make when I grow up.
I was interested and a little surprised to learn that you only use pocket cameras. These are rarely used for serious work due to their limitations. (And maybe it's a status thing too. The bulk of a Nikon D2x commands respect.)
I've always liked compact cameras myself. I've owned a Konica TC, a Pentax ME Super, an Olympus OM2, a Ricoh 35, a Minox 35, a Rollei 35, a Konica Big Mini, and several compact digicams. (Including a credit card sized one which barely makes pictures.)
So, question time:
Why use only compacts?
Stephen Gillette: Live preview. After decades of shooting film, and straining to "previsualize" results, the LCD offered me an opportunity to see the image, not a framed, cropped view of the real world. The world viewed through a dSLR viewfinder does not look like the image reviewed on the LCD a few seconds later. Plus, I have always been drawn to small cameras. I was hoisting a Canon 5D recently, with an impressively large optic mounted on it, and despite its stellar image capabilities, I could not imagine myself using it. It might as well have a bullhorn attached, screaming: "Hey, people, over here... "Look at me, I'm taking pictures!"
What do you feel are their most important limitations? Which of those are unnecessary?
Low-light shooting is the biggest problem for me. The world around us is a 24-hour visual cornucopia. Many images only reveal themselves at dusk, or during the night. I almost never use flash (there are no flash shots on my website). My style does not accommodate a tripod. So I must rely on the best small sensors, which to date have fallen far short of dSLR low-light performance.
For the majority of people who wish to see the world as it is when they photograph it, compacts offer viewfinders which are compromised, or non-existent. Not a problem for me, most of the time...
Do you make big prints?
I print images on paper sizes up to 13 x 19", which equates to an image size of 16 x 12 given the 4:3 image format. I have printed images up to 15 x 20" by printing panels on smaller sheets and mounting them together. (It sounds funny, and it is.) The point is that on matte paper (my preference), 15 x 20" image quality is not a problem with many of the images I create.
I am looking into printshops in the Los Angeles area using the Durst Lambda system. I have seen images taken with the 6 MP Nikon D50 and the kit lens printed with the Lambda up to 40 x 60" (!!!) that looked very good. Select images from a compact could present well at that size, too. Not every image, of course.
How do you deal with the less precise framing? It seems like your pictures are very precisely framed, but compacts either have lousy viewfinders, or just an LCD, which I personally like, but it's a tad small for really precise framing, no?
I once worked as a digital retoucher for a printing company. My monitor was a professional one, but a bit long in the tooth. It was a CRT, and the phosphors, etc. were tired. The color onscreen did not match the color coming off the press. Over time, I learned how to "see" the resulting press colors on the monitor. It was a mind thing.
Likewise, when I frame something exactly for a shot (which is 98% of the time), I translate the image I see (or am squinting at!) on the LCD into a close approximation in my mind of what the image will look like on my studio monitor. The current standard of 2.5" LCD's is almost as big as the groundglass on my old twin-lens film camera. Three inches is better, of course. The new Sony H9 has a honey of a swiveling 3" LCD. I played with one yesterday. Too bad the image-capture quality is not tops.
I have written before about my ideal (dream) compact digicam, and so have others, like Mike Johnston and Thom Hogan. What's yours?
My real-world ideal is always the camera I am currently shooting with. (Currently the Fuji F20.) If I summon up that fanciful demon of desire, I can dream with the rest of you. I would love an articulating LCD. Even better low-light capture. (Hopefully, in a very few years, this will be moot, and something like an equivalent to ISO 6400 with high quality will be the norm.) Sensor size is less important than image quality. Bigger sensors require bigger lenses, typically with less depth of field, which can reduce the all-over sharpness that I favor.
The current Olympus E-510 is actually as much a step toward my "next ideal camera" as the Fuji F50fd might be. The Live Preview is still a bit lacking on the E-510, but it does work. The low-light capability is not class-leading, but better than any compact, at least so far. And it is reasonably light and unassuming.
The Olympus "pro" dSLR waiting in the wings for announcement in the weeks or months ahead will have the articulating LCD, according to a rep I spoke with who has handled a pre-production working sample. The vibration-reduction system is said to be greatly enhanced, as well. Hopefully, the package won't be too big and heavy.
What were your favorite film cameras?
As a college student, I took one summer and hitched around Europe. I was an art major, so shortly after arriving in Paris I made my way to the Louvre, and found the statue of Winged Victory. Standing next to me was a chap taking a picture with the smallest camera I had ever seen. Not only small, but beautiful. The original Rollei 35. I followed him around for ten minutes, stealing glances at his camera, ignoring the centuries of incredible art on the walls around me. I traded in my Praktica SLR in Holland and nabbed the Rollei to bring home with me.
Like you, I have owned (or still own) a Pentax ME and Konica Big Mini, the latter having such timeless minimal design--quite the opposite of the watch-like Rollei with its prominent dials. I also have an Olympus XA. And the still-available Olympus Stylus Epic 35mm: this camera is so quiet and smooth in operation, and produces great pictures.
Sharpest of all my small film cameras was the Pentax PC35AF, an early auto-focus with an insanely sharp 5-element f/2.8 35mm lens, probably a sonnar-type design.
There, you've gone and done it. All this nostalgia. I'm sniffling into my hanky...
---
Thank you, Stephen.
I was interested and a little surprised to learn that you only use pocket cameras. These are rarely used for serious work due to their limitations. (And maybe it's a status thing too. The bulk of a Nikon D2x commands respect.)
I've always liked compact cameras myself. I've owned a Konica TC, a Pentax ME Super, an Olympus OM2, a Ricoh 35, a Minox 35, a Rollei 35, a Konica Big Mini, and several compact digicams. (Including a credit card sized one which barely makes pictures.)
So, question time:
Why use only compacts?
Stephen Gillette: Live preview. After decades of shooting film, and straining to "previsualize" results, the LCD offered me an opportunity to see the image, not a framed, cropped view of the real world. The world viewed through a dSLR viewfinder does not look like the image reviewed on the LCD a few seconds later. Plus, I have always been drawn to small cameras. I was hoisting a Canon 5D recently, with an impressively large optic mounted on it, and despite its stellar image capabilities, I could not imagine myself using it. It might as well have a bullhorn attached, screaming: "Hey, people, over here... "Look at me, I'm taking pictures!"
What do you feel are their most important limitations? Which of those are unnecessary?
Low-light shooting is the biggest problem for me. The world around us is a 24-hour visual cornucopia. Many images only reveal themselves at dusk, or during the night. I almost never use flash (there are no flash shots on my website). My style does not accommodate a tripod. So I must rely on the best small sensors, which to date have fallen far short of dSLR low-light performance.
For the majority of people who wish to see the world as it is when they photograph it, compacts offer viewfinders which are compromised, or non-existent. Not a problem for me, most of the time...
Do you make big prints?
I print images on paper sizes up to 13 x 19", which equates to an image size of 16 x 12 given the 4:3 image format. I have printed images up to 15 x 20" by printing panels on smaller sheets and mounting them together. (It sounds funny, and it is.) The point is that on matte paper (my preference), 15 x 20" image quality is not a problem with many of the images I create.
I am looking into printshops in the Los Angeles area using the Durst Lambda system. I have seen images taken with the 6 MP Nikon D50 and the kit lens printed with the Lambda up to 40 x 60" (!!!) that looked very good. Select images from a compact could present well at that size, too. Not every image, of course.
How do you deal with the less precise framing? It seems like your pictures are very precisely framed, but compacts either have lousy viewfinders, or just an LCD, which I personally like, but it's a tad small for really precise framing, no?
I once worked as a digital retoucher for a printing company. My monitor was a professional one, but a bit long in the tooth. It was a CRT, and the phosphors, etc. were tired. The color onscreen did not match the color coming off the press. Over time, I learned how to "see" the resulting press colors on the monitor. It was a mind thing.
Likewise, when I frame something exactly for a shot (which is 98% of the time), I translate the image I see (or am squinting at!) on the LCD into a close approximation in my mind of what the image will look like on my studio monitor. The current standard of 2.5" LCD's is almost as big as the groundglass on my old twin-lens film camera. Three inches is better, of course. The new Sony H9 has a honey of a swiveling 3" LCD. I played with one yesterday. Too bad the image-capture quality is not tops.
I have written before about my ideal (dream) compact digicam, and so have others, like Mike Johnston and Thom Hogan. What's yours?
My real-world ideal is always the camera I am currently shooting with. (Currently the Fuji F20.) If I summon up that fanciful demon of desire, I can dream with the rest of you. I would love an articulating LCD. Even better low-light capture. (Hopefully, in a very few years, this will be moot, and something like an equivalent to ISO 6400 with high quality will be the norm.) Sensor size is less important than image quality. Bigger sensors require bigger lenses, typically with less depth of field, which can reduce the all-over sharpness that I favor.
The current Olympus E-510 is actually as much a step toward my "next ideal camera" as the Fuji F50fd might be. The Live Preview is still a bit lacking on the E-510, but it does work. The low-light capability is not class-leading, but better than any compact, at least so far. And it is reasonably light and unassuming.
The Olympus "pro" dSLR waiting in the wings for announcement in the weeks or months ahead will have the articulating LCD, according to a rep I spoke with who has handled a pre-production working sample. The vibration-reduction system is said to be greatly enhanced, as well. Hopefully, the package won't be too big and heavy.
What were your favorite film cameras?
As a college student, I took one summer and hitched around Europe. I was an art major, so shortly after arriving in Paris I made my way to the Louvre, and found the statue of Winged Victory. Standing next to me was a chap taking a picture with the smallest camera I had ever seen. Not only small, but beautiful. The original Rollei 35. I followed him around for ten minutes, stealing glances at his camera, ignoring the centuries of incredible art on the walls around me. I traded in my Praktica SLR in Holland and nabbed the Rollei to bring home with me.
Like you, I have owned (or still own) a Pentax ME and Konica Big Mini, the latter having such timeless minimal design--quite the opposite of the watch-like Rollei with its prominent dials. I also have an Olympus XA. And the still-available Olympus Stylus Epic 35mm: this camera is so quiet and smooth in operation, and produces great pictures.
Sharpest of all my small film cameras was the Pentax PC35AF, an early auto-focus with an insanely sharp 5-element f/2.8 35mm lens, probably a sonnar-type design.
There, you've gone and done it. All this nostalgia. I'm sniffling into my hanky...
---
Thank you, Stephen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)