or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by DESuserIGN

 Why would you? Why do you think that would be good? And on a different note, I make the friendly suggestion that you lay off the crack. Apple could never "go private" as you fantasize. They aren't exactly a tiny "Dell" fallen on hard times that can be snapped up for a pittance.
Wow. An appeal to financial expediency.What an uncharacteristically and pitifully, lame argument.I'm disappointed in you tallest.
 I careI salivated over the new iMacs, but when it came time to plunk down my coin, I backed away. Instead I picked up an Apple refurb of a mid 2011 3.4 GHz Intel Core i7 27" iMac. The slightly thicker iMac had essentially the same processor as was in the new iMacs (available at the time.) I got essentially the same performance for way less money, plus it has a DVD SuperDrive, and I can [with some effort] crack it open to upgrade the hard drive or replace failed parts....
  For some reason, when the article begins "A unaddressed . . ." it seems unsurprising that what follows is overblown and inconsequential. 
  It's true, I didn't sell and it was a great long term investment for me, as an individual.   But software and CE companies aren't in business to invest in other software and CE companies (Berkshire Hathaway they aren't.) What kind of confidence should stockholders have in Apple if they started buying up Google or Amazon stock as an investment? Much like the Monday morning quarterbacking that's the basis of this silly article, it makes no sense for a company to hold...
"AAPL had no where [sic] to go BUT up."   I'm guessing you had no skin in the game at the time. Those of us who did didn't all feel that way. Although I felt pretty good in my investment in AAPL, it was seen as an incredible risk. Had I felt fully confident, I would have invested all my free cash back when it was  at $13 and would be several times a millionaire today (as you undoubtedly are.) But the fact is, it was a scary time to put money in AAPL and I didn't add to my...
  I loved mine and wish I could get another. People who dislike the 17" MBPs just don't understand that it's not really a laptop. It's a portable full featured desktop with a big display. If you needed to get serious work done and also needed the ability to relocate at will, it was a great solution. The 15" MBPs will always feel a bit confining to me.
  I get it. My vote is for larger sensor cells. I prefer this approach philosophically (the nikon D-2x was just an example for illustration.)   Why? 1. large sensor cells -> more of the sensor surface can be light sensitive area 2. large sensor cells -> less noise 3. large sensor cells -> less vignetting 4. large sensor cells -> higher quality/$
  My vote is for big pixels (sensors.) Less noise and vignetting. I would still take a 2.7 MP Nikon D-1 (OK, a 12 MP D-2x  ;-)  ) over many newer bigger pixel DSLRs.  (but that wasn't the question, I suppose.)   Both strategies have their advantages though. Either strategy may be superior for a particular hardware combinations. Comparison of actual results is probably the only way to decide. Philosophically though, I tend to favor a strategy that pursues results with...
Oh sure. If you go to a 16 bit tiff there is no qualitative difference.    I was assuming you meant processing it into an 8 bit TIFF. (In downsampling info would be lost.)   But once you have made all of your decisions on settings for exposure, color temp, setting the curves, retouching etc., there's no real reason to remain  at 16 bits for final output. Those extra bits are really only important if you still plan to make adjustments to the image.   Do digital labs accept...
New Posts  All Forums: