Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Friday, March 11. 2011

Friday morning links

All Hail ... Analog? When it comes to the quality of photos and music, the digital revolution may be failing us


Our ancestors are the Bushmen


So much for my family geneology


Americans Line Up for the Jobs They Allegedly Won't Do


Honor killing in Leviticus


The therapeutic mindset:



...where Hanson says that the opposite of the therapeutic mindset is the tragic worldview, I would say that if therapy sees us living within a utopian world where price doesn’t matter and where consequences don’t count, then the alternative would be a world where thrift rules and where you earn what your work is worth.


Voegli: Thoughts on Wisconsin 


Neoneo: Peter King McCarthy


Teacher tenure is poisonous: Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, says it's time to put performance first


Editorial: Is America Becoming A Welfare Nation?


Yes. Entitlement is a cultural and spiritual cancer.



Stigmatizing fat people

Are fat people just as evil and greedy as rich people, taking more than their fair share of the pie from the skinny and the poor?
Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:49 | Comments (28) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

The chief digital photography failing is the regular spacing of pixels, which produces a huge highly visible moire pattern if you take a picture containing a chain link fence or aluminum siding.

To prevent this, the image is deliberately blurred by an anti-aliasing filter, which spreads the light over more than one pixel.

That leaves you with a blurred image. To fix that, they post-process the blurred image to restore guessed-at sharp edges. (Your camera probably has a sharpness option for this.)

The result is the familiar one-pixel halo around extraordinarly contrasty edges that would never happen with analog film, that marks a pic as digital.
#1 rhhardin (Link) on 2011-03-11 09:05 (Reply)
RHH:

Sheesh. Is there anything you don't know?
#1.1 Bird Dog on 2011-03-11 09:10 (Reply)
I don't understand relative currency values. I would, if they worked the way you'd think they'd work, but they don't.
#1.1.1 rhhardin (Link) on 2011-03-11 10:33 (Reply)
Who does? :>)

I would add that I don't understand String Theory even though I hold advanced degrees in mathematics.

Go figure. :>)
#1.1.1.1 Tom Francis on 2011-03-11 17:36 (Reply)
Perhaps that's because string theory is nonsensical mathematical masturbation for the overly educated.
#1.1.1.1.1 phil g on 2011-03-12 08:18 (Reply)
Well, yes and no. Sharpening (or the typical over sharpening) halos are result of the compression algorithm and is almost always associated with the .jpeg compression scheme- in short a manufactured artifact. Shooting in RAW (a one-to-one format) eliminates this issue at least as far as the camera is concerned. You also have image size to consider when getting in-camera sharpening "halos" - the lower the resolution, the less the effect. Post processing is a completely different story.

For those who don't know, anti-aliasing filters are placed before the signal sampler (the CCD) to restrict the signal (image's) bandwidth (signal strength reduction). If you look on your DSLR menu, you can find a thing called Passband or Low Pass filtering - that's anti-aliasing. You can also find this type of filter in post-processing software.

With respect to film vs digital, the normal human eye can only discriminate visual differences up to 8 megapixels - that is an absolute proven physiological fact. The only way you can tell the difference between a film image and a digital image (shot in RAW) in print is if you use a jeweler's loop magnifying glass and even then its difficult. I don't care what the "experts" say - they can't tell the difference given the same scene and same post-processing.

PS: The reason Olympus refrained from the "megapixel" wars was exactly for the above reason - it made no sense to go much over 10 megapixels, preferring to improve the filtering and in-camera signal processing. In my opinion, the 4/3rds system is the best imager on the market.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
#1.2 Tom Francis on 2011-03-11 17:29 (Reply)
haha, you said "taking more than their fair share of the pie from the skinny "
#2 DrTorch on 2011-03-11 09:42 (Reply)
And lets not get started on the joke that is "HD" Television with all its lossy artifacts that turns faces into frozen plastic. .....
#3 JoeC on 2011-03-11 09:53 (Reply)
--analog music IS 'warmer' --between the scratches, and if you have been able to find a phonograph needle.

===

--re Bushmen, they get a fine treatment from the Ozzies responsible for one of the funniest, sweetest adventure comedy drama travelog movies ever made, The Gods Must Be Crazy (plus Part II).

((a few clips:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=youtube+gods+must+be+crazy&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox
#4 buddy larsen on 2011-03-11 10:26 (Reply)
I'm more of a Reagan-man. The Bushmen didn't do it for me.

And regarding digital music, I'm painfully aware of the data loss especially with mp3s etc. I just wish I was rich enough to be an audiophile!
#5 Big___Al on 2011-03-11 10:42 (Reply)
--naw, not those Bushmen, the other Bushmen.

--the click-talk, not the twannnnnng

;-)
#5.1 buddy larsen on 2011-03-11 11:03 (Reply)
Francis Fukuyama, pretentious hobbyist.

Leave it to a public intellectual to take well known shortcomings of digital media and elevate them to some sort of tragic loss to the culture. Not to mention that while the image quality of an 8x10 film camera is a matter of fact, the quality of an audio recording is more a matter of personal opinion.

There's no doubt that at current levels of digital technology the color saturation, pixel density etc. of film is far superior. But all hale advances in digital photography. Photography has been around for 150 years. What will be the quality of digital photography in 100 years? Will it even exist as we know it?

Cameras have been sliding down the cost curve since Eastman. Serious photographers have used exotics like Hasselblads for years (NASA sent them to the moon) and everyone learned that Japanese cameras (and German lenses) provided the best quality at a reasonable cost. But then most people are not professionals. They want a reliable and inexpensive method to take pictures. I once spent $350 on a 35mm SLR. My six year old Mustang cost me about the same!

What really set my teeth on edge was his paen to records. When I was younger, my group had a common refrain about "audiophiles". "So good only a dog can hear the difference." I agree that records and digitized recordings sound different. But the idea that you can't fully appreciate it unless you have a $10K system is just crazy. In process improvement we have a handy rule of thumb. I can increase X by 80% for $5,000. Or I can increase X by 95% for $50,000. You pick.

Of course that's in a measured quantifiable process not dependent on someone's opinion. So maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way.

I can sum up his column this way: Want better, Bring Money. I'm glad we cleared that up because nobody ever thought about that before.

OK, now I feel better.
#6 Steve C. on 2011-03-11 11:07 (Reply)
Steve,

I heartily disagree with you and largely agree with Fukuyama (for probably the first time!) People process sensitory inputs differently. Some people can't listen to ANY music; others are fine with compressed, lossy MP3s, while some of us find regular Redbook CDs grating and can only listen with ease and comfort to good vinyl and SACDs.

Some people are happy with MD20/20 or Valu-Rite vodka. Others would rather wait for a good BV Cab or a Bombay martini.

As a a guy who used to shoot with an 11x14 studio Deardorff, I gave up photography waiting for digital to catch up to the image quality and image control capabilities of film. Is there a digital view camera with complete manual controls and movements available? I've yet to see a digital print as breathtakingly beautiful as a well-made platinum contact print.
#6.1 Whitehall on 2011-03-11 11:57 (Reply)
Well put, Steve, and I couldn't agree with you more.

The deal is, I can get (read: steal) "X" for nothing, and play it on my crappy computer speakers... and well, you get what you pay for, right?

What really takes me over the brink is all the kids and college students these days, thinking their great technology is the bees knees, walking around continually plugged in to glorified Sony Walkmans listening to "music" comprised of 10% of what the artist intended to be on the recording.

There, I feel better too!
#6.2 Big___Al on 2011-03-11 12:03 (Reply)
Early CD's sounded awful for several reasons:
When record companies started dumping their back catalogs on to CD, in many cases the tapes that were "mastered" to compensate for the inherent problems in LP records were just dubbed directly onto PCM1610 tape. The reason that CD sounds harsh is because the LP inherently sounds dull, so someone cranked up the treble going onto the record.
The PCM1610 had rather poor anti-aliasing filters.
The PCM 1610 did not at first include intentional dither to linearize the response of signals at the
#7 Douglas2 on 2011-03-11 13:26 (Reply)
Early CD's sounded awful for several reasons:
When record companies started dumping their back catalogs on to CD, in many cases the tapes that were "mastered" to compensate for the inherent problems in LP records were just dubbed directly onto PCM1610 tape. The reason that CD sounds harsh is because the LP inherently sounds dull, so someone cranked up the treble going onto the record.
The PCM1610 had rather poor anti-aliasing filters.
The PCM 1610 did not at first include intentional dither to linearize the response of signals at the
#8 Douglas2 on 2011-03-11 13:28 (Reply)
Everyone knows that skinny is better, therefore it is obvious that skinny people are victimizing fat people, Obesity is a zero sum game. Obese people are fat because skinny people stole all the low calorie food.
#9 Ray on 2011-03-11 13:58 (Reply)
good info, aptly-named Douglas2.

:-)
#10 buddy larsen on 2011-03-11 14:32 (Reply)
Love my vinyl!
#11 Sam on 2011-03-11 15:17 (Reply)
I loved my old 35mm analog/film camera. When it finally quit functioning I almost opted out rather then go to the new digital technology. I now love my digital SLR and my smaller digital that I carry on my belt every waking hour. I cannot imagine going back to analog. I have many really old black and white negatives that are still sharp and crisp but most of my old color film has faded. Whatever the faults might be with digital they do not fade over time and that is a plus. I can remember taking once in a lifetime trips with my old 35mm camera and deciding every time if a picture was necessary or worth it. With my digital I take about 1200-1600 pictures on a trip. Most/many are not keepers but I never have to ask myself is it worth taking this picture.
#12 GoneWithTheWind on 2011-03-11 15:36 (Reply)
Yeah, I agree. I have a couple of thousand in my Pentax 35mm setup purchase over the years (70's to 80's). Now so much steel and glass collecting dust in the camera bag. I guess I will donate it to some charity for the write-off. I went digital with an Epson 2 mega-pixel (and 320mb IBM micro-drive) back in the 90's and have not looked back since. I bought a Canon D20 back in 2000? which is now long over due for replacement (8 mega-pixel is so 10 years ago!) That is the true drawback of the technology treadmill. The new generation follows Moore's law and requires replacement every 5 years or less. I tend to run mine way longer than that just because I can't afford to replace it with the latest and greatest, and mostly it still takes great pictures. And, oh, by the way, most websites when uploaded still only allow, even in high-def, a picture of less than 2mb, for which my old Epson would have been fine.
#12.1 JoeC on 2011-03-11 17:17 (Reply)
Cain't imagine why Pipes would want to help Radical Muslims on Tripolis' shores or else whre.

Leave the toady Muhammadans to killin' each other.

They can do that all to themselves.

US shouldn't support any side in Libya but assist in quarantine.
#13 Leag on 2011-03-11 15:42 (Reply)
Agree...if we commit troops anywhere it should be to secure the oil fields and terminal ports.
#13.1 phil g on 2011-03-12 10:35 (Reply)
Early humans article is more junk science.

Who drove Bushmen where?
#14 Leag on 2011-03-11 15:46 (Reply)
Poor fat people are a social problem but as a new come hillblly related yestermorn' as we contemplated great issues early and wiated to get to workin' and stayin' skinny, he keeps his wife plumped up after addin 120 lbs to her once svelte 200 lb 5'6" frame.

Why?

So's the aliens have sumtin' to eat when they land.
#15 Leag on 2011-03-11 15:56 (Reply)
For my last comment today, I would like to address analog vs digital music. I have no idea who Francis Fukuyama is, but he clearly has a bias and isn't ready to admit the he's technologically behind the times.

First of all, even with $10,000 turntables with carbon fiber arms/high strength steel torsion springs/sealed titanium bearings with carbon lubrication, $1,000 composite material needles and $5,000 cartridges, teflon voice coils, etc., there is a certain amount of wear - something machinists call "tool wear". From the vinyl the music is on to the equipment used to get the sound from the record to the preamp, there is wear and tear. You never ever hear the exact same music the same way twice. Is this change discernible over the short term of two playings? No. Over the long term three or more - definitely yes.

The early CDs suffered from poor sampling bit rates and techniques - a lot were remastered for digital and you heard a lot of extraneous noise. As CDs began to gain acceptance, the technology improved with higher sampling rates, digital signal processing and improved laser reproduction technology. Now the CD is every bit the equal to analog turntables and associated equipment - better actually because you don't have any tool wear - it's all laser light - hard to wear out.

I cannot argue with replicating the sound using analog methods. It is absolutely true that analog (tube) preamps and amplifiers powered by heavy transformers provides a sound that is simply wonderful, warm and enthralling. I am the proud owner of a McIntosh C-20 preamp, four McIntosh 50 watt amplifiers bi-amped to a pair of Bozak Concert Grand speakers and even elitist snob audiophiles like our family attorney have to admit that my system is heavenly.

Yes, I said heavenly. :>)
#16 Tom Francis on 2011-03-11 18:37 (Reply)
Fukuyama is a typical intellectual snob. He lost me at the $20,000 turntable makes better music, as my daughters would say....DUHHHH!

Everything in life is about trade-offs. Since I live a busy and active life I don't have the time to sit in a perfect acoustical position listening to music over a $50,000 system in a sound tuned room. But I've found that dragging that system and the vinyl records to the beach, boat, car, parties, around the house very impractical. Given that the majority of my life is spent somewhere besides a listening room I'm very grateful for digital music that has allowed me to amass a 20K+ song and growing library of classical, jazz and rock music with a reasonably modest investment and some time spent ripping and trading with friends.

As some have pointed out, you can make some reasonable investments in digital storage and digital/analog converter and decent system and have excellent music.

I love music and require reasonably good reproduction but the audiophile snobs just make me laugh. If that's how you want to spend your money go for it.

The other stupid thing Fukuyama claimed in the article was the future storage compatibility issue for digital photography without acknowledging the growing issues of getting that old film processed and degradation of film and negatives over time.

I for one am ecstatic that Kodachrome is dead as I still have emotional scars from the hours lost as a kid forced to watch some friend or family's lousy slide show of their wonderful trip to XYZ and the thousands of crappy photographs of ugly people and crappy landscapes I had endure. But hey, the color saturation was great.
#17 phil g on 2011-03-12 08:44 (Reply)
Digital imaging has taken over commercial imaging. Even if an image originates on film it's moved into a digital work flow for printing. Also, I would guess fewer than 2% of people could distinguish high-end digital output from analog. The issue of digital imaging vs. an analog process is moot, but for a tiny percentage of artists and tech geeks.
#18 Jephnol (Link) on 2011-03-12 10:26 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.