 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2005It's so cute!
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg What's with all the scuff marks on the camera body? > > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg > > What's with all the scuff marks on the camera body? I don't know if it's scuffs from dirty fingernails or what. In any case, it's a pre-production model so who knows. It's still cute. >> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg > >What's with all the scuff marks on the camera body? If it's the same kind of finish as the 10D I can tell you those scuff marks are from fingernails scraping across there. My 10D could have doubled as a fingernail file with that finish! After a while it wears a bit smoother and you aren't cleaning that stuff off all the time. Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..." > >> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Drifter > "I've been here, I've been there..." You're right. I keep my fingernails trimmed fairly short, so I really haven't noticed any such marks on my 10D until I ran the backs of my fingernails across that area. Sure enough, my fingernails wore off a little on the finish. Of course, the marks wipe right off. WOW! Imagine that. Brian and Darrell finally found a good use for a 10D - as a fingernail file! <bg> Walt <ducking and running> >> >> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > fingernails across that area. Sure enough, my fingernails wore off a > little on the finish. Of course, the marks wipe right off. > WOW! Imagine that. Brian and Darrell finally found a good use for a 10D - > as a fingernail file! <bg> > > Walt <ducking and running> I would think at that price they would have a more durable finish. > I would think at that price they would have a more durable finish A diamond fingernail file? >http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg Why the subliminal advertisement for Fuji in the picture?  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg > > Why the subliminal advertisement for Fuji in the picture? SATAN! >http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg $1000/lb. Makes the prices only 10x that of pure silver. -Rich >>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg > >$1000/lb. Makes the prices only 10x that of pure silver. >-Rich Yeah but it's damn hard to take a good picture with a block of pure silver <grin>. Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..." >>>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yeah but it's damn hard to take a good picture with a block of pure >silver <grin>. I've heard that if you break it down into small enough chunks, add a few other chemicals, and spread it over a thin sheet of plastic, you can somehow use this as a "use-once" sensor. Weird. >>Yeah but it's damn hard to take a good picture with a block of pure >>silver <grin>. > > I've heard that if you break it down into small enough chunks, add > a few other chemicals, and spread it over a thin sheet of plastic, > you can somehow use this as a "use-once" sensor. Weird. And properly done it will hold the image in memory without power or maintenance for 100 and more years. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > >>Yeah but it's damn hard to take a good picture with a block of pure > >>silver <grin>. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And properly done it will hold the image in memory without power or maintenance > for 100 and more years. But the *really* weird thing is that color-blind chimps are often employed to make prints from these single-use sensors. Go figure. > And properly done it will hold the image in memory without power or maintenance > for 100 and more years. I bet you still have LPs. >>And properly done it will hold the image in memory without power or > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I bet you still have LPs. Yes. But I haven't played them in recent years except to make CD's from them. A rather long process to do well. Unlike the analog crowd, I'm not convinced at all that analog recording/playback is as good as digital. In any case, the music I listen to will only be good for me while I'm alive. There is no means of preserving a digital image for over 100 years except the "gold" CD's (and that's reasonable). The CD's most people burn will give a shelf life of 5 - 10 years in reasonable storage condtions. Without maintenance, these images will be lost (unless archived on 'gold' CD's). There are no "gold" DVD's out that I know of. (Commercial audio CD's use a very different process and good storage conditions should be good for 50 - 100 years, I would expect). Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > There is no means of preserving a digital image for over 100 years > except the "gold" CD's (and that's reasonable). The CD's most people > burn will give a shelf life of 5 - 10 years in reasonable storage > condtions. Without maintenance, these images will be lost (unless > archived on 'gold' CD's). There are no "gold" DVD's out that I know > of. Oh, fiddlesticks! I even have 3.5" diskettes that are still good 15 years later. CDs haven't been around long enough to know when they'll fail if kept in proper storage. >> There is no means of preserving a digital image for over 100 years >> except the "gold" CD's (and that's reasonable). The CD's most people [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > years later. CDs haven't been around long enough to know when they'll > fail if kept in proper storage. I have 3.5" diskettes that do, and some that don't read. Period ranges from well over 10 years to 5. I have zip disks with bad sectors and they are less than 5 years old. Stories abound of people having CD-ROM's failing: ..stored in a closet, 6 years later. Many damaged files. ..Music disks (commercial manuf, eg, 'pressed' not burned) degrading and useless in less than 10 years. The media is imperfect for even benign conditions. The "gold" disks will last a long time, but most people archive on organic dye CD's. They simply will not last 100 years. You will be lucky if they last 25. A few might make it to 50. As to "proper storage", very few people have "proper storage" for the long term. Including me. So I rewrite the files every 5 years. Which is okay as the storage technology moves ahead. What fit on 40 zip disks now goes onto 1 DVD. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. : Oh, fiddlesticks! I even have 3.5" diskettes that are still good 15 : years later. Man, let me have some of what you're smoking! 15-year-old floppies that are still good? Difficult to imagine. -Charles SignatureCharles Robinson Minneapolis, MN charlesr@visi.com http://charles.robinsontwins.org >: Oh, fiddlesticks! I even have 3.5" diskettes that are still good 15 >: years later. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Difficult to imagine. Not difficult at all. I just grabbed a disk, literally at random, from the box in the shelf in the office. I was able to read a 578KB file from it, created (on one of my machines, not a commercially-mastered disk) on June 18th, 1991. Not quite 15 years, perhaps. But pretty darn close. There's probably an older disk in there, if I search. (And thats a 720KB disk, being read on a 1.4MB drive) > Not difficult at all. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > (And thats a 720KB disk, being read on a 1.4MB drive) One swallow does not a summer make ... Try a hundred and tally the results. Try to note how many tries the drive takes to read any given disk. Colin >> Not difficult at all. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Try a hundred and tally the results. Try to note how many tries the >drive takes to read any given disk. You apparently fail to grasp the point. I'm not suggesting that 15-year old floppies are always readable (although this appeared to only retry one sector); it was merely a data point to set against the claim that it was difficult to believe that a floppy that old could be read. To correct that misapprehension one swallow is all that is needed. > >> Not difficult at all. > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > To correct that misapprehension one swallow is all that is needed. The original point was the longevity of storage media holding digital images. Being able to read one at random is certainly no proof that all can be read, and any that can't means the loss of all images on that disk. The key requirement is reliability, and randomly reading one floppy and calling that proof of longevity is ridiculous. Colin. >> >> Not difficult at all. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >disk. The key requirement is reliability, and randomly reading one >floppy and calling that proof of longevity is ridiculous. The original point is totally irrelevant. This is usenet, where thread drift is inevitable. I didn't respond to the original post, or to points raised in the original post; I replied to a post (now some four posts back in the thread) which rubbished the concept of *any* floppy being readable after fifteen years. That post had also snipped away all earlier material, and restricted itself solely to postulating that no floppy could possibly preserve data that long. Nowhere (except, apparently, in your mind) is my anectdotal evidence that *some* floppies can be read long after their creation date any indication that all can. In fact I made that point quite explicity in my last post, as shown in your quoting of it above. > > And properly done it will hold the image in memory without power or > maintenance > > for 100 and more years. > > I bet you still have LPs. I still own, listen to, and even buy LPs. Greg >I still own, listen to, and even buy LPs. From 1978 to 1988 I bought about 1000 LPs. From 1988 and on, I bought about 5, only because CDs were not available. I re-purchased about 300 CDs that I had LPs of. The only thing I don't like about CDs is that they alias cymbals and hi-hats a bit. A 96KHz standard would have been much better. What's a lot of fun is recording a vinyl LP into 24-bit, 96KHz digital, and playing it for a vinyl lover while pretending to be playing vinyl: "You'll never hear sound like this from digital". Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >I still own, listen to, and even buy LPs. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > "You'll never hear sound like this from digital". Yeah, I'm not an vinylphile, I prefer modern digital recordings. There's just a lot of stuff I like that still isn't on CD, plus I'm a small time collector, too. I sell more of my vinyl than I buy, but I still do buy, mostly 7"ers because they're easier to store. Greg >>>>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma2005/Canon/IMG_3978.jpg >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >a few other chemicals, and spread it over a thin sheet of plastic, >you can somehow use this as a "use-once" sensor. Weird. Wow, somebody should follow up on this new discovery, we'll make millions! <grin>. Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..." |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.