Intel iBooks, Video iPod, Digital Entertainment in April?

[craigatkinson]

dude, you're obviously NOT a photographer. neither am i, but i am a designer & the more i learn about RAW, the more i know that anyone that calls themselves a photographer will shoot RAW.

Actually I am a photographer and thats how I know that it's a waste of time to shoot in RAW. If your going to blow something up the size of say a large poster, or maybe a billboard, then yes it would be better to shoot in RAW. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. Obviously there will be people who disagree with me, but there are a large majority of people that would also agree.

 

[jrhone]

Actually I am a photographer and thats how I know that it's a waste of time to shoot in RAW. If your going to blow something up the size of say a large poster, or maybe a billboard, then yes it would be better to shoot in RAW. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. Obviously there will be people who disagree with me, but there are a large majority of people that would also agree.

NONSENSE....how do you adjust your white balance perfectly? How about all your in camera settings? What if you get that awesome shot, but the white balance is a little off, or damn wish I would have had more contrast...The benefit of shooting in RAW is that you can fine tune the image afterwards WITHOUT degrading the image. It has NOTHING to do with image size...you can get the EXACT same image size from jpg and RAW, the difference is in the color, 8 bit jpg vs. 16 bit that you can see in any size, from a computer monitor to a 20"x30" print. You also can fine tune your white balance giving you the best skin tones for people pics and the most accurate colors. Its almost impossible to set it accurately before with a jpg, but with a RAW file EVERYTHING can be accurately set. Oh and you are stuck with the JPG conversion capabilities of the camera, with RAW you can use the best algorhythms and better capabilities of your computer. There are MANY MANY reasons to use RAW as a professional, which is why it is the format used by most professionals.

 

[MacQuest]

NONSENSE....

Easy there, "killer."

If you read through this thread you'll see that craigatkinson has been spanked on this issue by a multitude of photographers more than a $2 S&M whore on 2 for 1 night.

[It's not worth it jrhone]

Lossy JPEG ROCKS Craig!!!

 

[JonnyMac]

I think most people are failing to realize the potential for the touchscreen iPod, if it is even called an iPod.

One thing that has limited the iPod is the lack of data input. With a touchscreen this is no longer a problem. I forsee more PDA functions and obviously a totally new GUI that closely resembles OS X. I believe it will be the step between the iPod and the Apple tablet.

How much would this touchscreen go for? I'm thinking $500

I agree. I don't think this will replace the 5G iPods. It would be exactly what the iPod photo was like when it was released. At the time all iPods were not color-screens and the iPod Photo was $599 for the top of the line. I think that if they have the on-screen virtual click wheel, it will only be for the video iPod and all the "regular" iPods will maintain their current form. I think $499 for a 60GB version and $599 for a 80GB version with dock, cables, etc. included. Then they'll "lower" the price in like 3 months to $499 and take away the dock and cables and case. lol

 

[jrhone]

Easy there, "killer."

If you read through this thread you'll see that craigatkinson has been spanked on this issue by a multitude of photographers more than a $2 S&M whore on 2 for 1 night.

[It's not worth it jrhone]

Lossy JPEG ROCKS Craig!!!

lol...thanks...actually on a less confrontational note, craig, maybe you should try to use RAW if your camera supports it....you will need a good RAW converter....which is usually an extra expese, but almost all of the good ones offer a free trial...Use the RAW+JPG option on your camera if you have one, or shoot the same scene RAW and JPG. You will see that if EVERYTHING is set perfectly in your camera, the JPG will look pretty good...The RAW will look exactly the same (as most RAW converters use your JPG in camera settings as a starting point), but you will the see histograms where you can adjust your levels, do saturation adjustments, adjust white balance, black white and grey point, sharpness, unsharp mask, etc....then output that to jpg....compare that with the jpg out of the camera...what you will see is a better image from the RAW image in every way. Clarity, detail, color, depth, and richness...all better from the RAW image....This is why anyone serious about pictures wants to use RAW. And if you are a professional getting paid o deliver, you want to deliver the best possible quality to your client. You can do all the same adjustments to a JPG, BUT you will degrade the image at every adjustment (it will become increasingly noisy especially in the dark areas of the image), and you will lose lots of information because those are destructive edits to a jpg file, not so on a RAW file because all edits are non-destructive. So if you sharpened it too much, no sweat go back reduce the sharpening...

 

[sintaxi]

Actually I am a photographer and thats how I know that it's a waste of time to shoot in RAW. If your going to blow something up the size of say a large poster, or maybe a billboard, then yes it would be better to shoot in RAW. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. Obviously there will be people who disagree with me, but there are a large majority of people that would also agree.

RAW is the best thing to happen to digital photography. It is the biggest advantage that digital has over traditional photography as far as image quality goes (time and cost is obvously the biggest).

 

[ziwi]

I would love to see the mini media center as I am still Tivo-less

The video iPod would be interesting - but I think it would be another branch in their line - the thing that gets me is the actual media - it is made for small screen replay - playing on a large TV or monitor leaves much to be desired - I would think it needs to have a quality boost so one could port to the larger size via the iPod device or media center,

 

[craigatkinson]

Instead of responding to each of the floggings I've recieved on this forum, I'll refer you all to a website that essentially agrees with me.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

 

[yoak]

What if they put the click wheel on the backside of the iPod and you saw a virtual image of it on the screen?
You would get around the problem of smudging the screen and keep the ease of use.
One would use the "mid" finger instead of the thumb, but I think it could work

 

[jrhone]

Instead of responding to each of the floggings I've recieved on this forum, I'll refer you all to a website that essentially agrees with me.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

First off Ken Rockwell is not the most respected guy in the business in fact most photogs thinks he is full of it....he also says that a D70 is better than a D2X....yeah, Nikons $800 camera is better than its $5000 camera...Sorry I have both and there is nothing the D70 does better than a D2X...Also that data he is quoting and using to support his theories are 2-4 years old!!!! Thats like making a case against macs because of things it did wrong in OS9 or with the original iMac....

These are sites that disagree with you:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/raw_vs_jpg.shtml

http://www.inq7.net/inf/2004/apr/20/inf_37-1.htm

http://www.californiafox.com/notebook/2005/01/photography_raw.php

http://www.dailything.com/archives/008309.php

 

[aegisdesign]

Oh, and you did "leave one out." Relevance. My response was to someone stating that because Apple didn't celebrate a 20th anniversary, that they may not celebrate a 30th. I was simply pointing out, as I said, the HUGE difference between Apple circa 1996 and Apple as it stands today IN 2006. I in no way made any claim that Apple was perfect or flawlesss.

Now please, by all means "Peace", get bent.

1996 was the 20th anniversary of Apple, not the Mac. That's when we got the 20th Anniversary Mac.

2004 was the 20th for the Mac. Nothing special happened.

Will we get a 30th Anniversary Mac?

 

[MacQuest]

Oh, and you did "leave one out." Relevance. My response was to someone stating that because Apple didn't celebrate a 20th anniversary, that they may not celebrate a 30th. I was simply pointing out, as I said, the HUGE difference between Apple circa 1996 and Apple as it stands today IN 2006. I in no way made any claim that Apple was perfect or flawlesss.

1996 was the 20th anniversary of Apple, not the Mac. That's when we got the 20th Anniversary Mac.

2004 was the 20th for the Mac. Nothing special happened.

Will we get a 30th Anniversary Mac?

I understand the distinction that you are making, but because the way your response was written, it kind of makes it sound like you were indicating that I am confusing the founding of Apple in '76 with the introduction of the Macintosh in '84.

I've never said anything about the anniversary of the Mac. I've always said Apple's 30th anniversary. Particularly because I believe that we will see, possibly alongside a Mac OS using device [MacPad?], another groundbreaking device [vPod] that will not be Mac OS oriented.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Wonder how much I can get for my 1.5GHz SuperDrive Mac Mini?

Sure hope this thing has Core Duo 1.66 and not a Core Solo. Core Solo will make me just want to stay with my old Mini (just purchased in Jan).

So basically you are hoping that a machine you bought last month is obsolete next month? I wish I had the kind of money to buy a new computer that often!

 

[MattG]

This is just beyond frustrating...this long to come out with a version of Tivo Desktop that works 100% with Tiger, and now it's broken on the Intel Macs. Wonder how long this will take to fix. I hope Apple does come out with a TiVo killer; I'd welcome it.