Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zbyslaw owczarczyk who wrote (8047)	8/17/2000 9:17:57 AM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

OT: Digital Photography Thread- Since the thread seems to be slow lately(I'm guessing due to the sideways market), I thought I would throw in my $.02 on the photography topic. ZO- You may want to consider how capable digital cameras can handle light. They are far superior in handling varying levels of light than chemical film can ever do. In other words digital can capture light quality more accurately(like our eyeballs). Digital cameras understand what it sees. Film cannot. Film only sees the 'average' light flooding through the aperature. Whereas a digital camera can process light 'discretely' across the full composition of the image being captured. So in spite of it's resolution problems, that you are accurately describing, I decided not to pursue creating my own darkroom because I'm seriously thinking about switching over to a digital camera due to it's superior ability to process light. Also consider digital can shoot dark indoor photos where film cameras never dare. I have a fairly sophisticated film camera system and I'm jealous when peeking into the view finder of a tourist inside the Notre Dame capturing images with a $200 digital camera that I wouldn't be able to do on the fly. I would need a minute of exposure time, on a tripod, with my film camera. And then, after all that work, I would get hot spots whereas the digital image does not. -MikeM(From Florida)

To: zbyslaw owczarczyk who wrote (8047)	8/17/2000 1:42:54 PM
From: Jeff Hayden	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

OT - Zbyslaw, People do drive 10 year old cars. Not many people in the US use 10 year old computers - they are now considered junk - except to the collector. Let's see, where was the computer in 1990? 486 PC's or even 386? I think the best Mac was a Mac II with a 68020 and a co-processor. Both are very very slow and exasperating with today's software. Ten years from now the G4 and PIII will look primitive, but people may still enjoy driving the 10 year old BMW. Today's cheap computers are much faster than the best 10 year old models. Jeff