or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Technology Climax.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Technology Climax. - Page 4

post #46 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
I could impove on it. It could be cordless and dimmable.

It could be made of post-consumer recycled renewables!
post #47 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
I could impove on it. It could be cordless and dimmable.

I keep waiting for cordless electricity.
post #48 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
I keep waiting for cordless electricity.

I have two words for you buddy... Tesla Effect
post #49 of 199
Quote:
Take the fancy DSLRs and their numerous functions
Good, yes, true
Quote:
, of which I'm quite sure the majority is useless.
I'm quite sure you have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
Yes, I can understand that sentiment; however, it seems the highest quality of contemporary products inevitably reference something from the past, whether in appearance, function, or some other element, which I find interesting.
Because one of the most common sentiments of a maturing person is the fallacy that everything used to be made better than whatever it is we're making today. Sell the fools what they want. Give me my Nikon DSLR, which with a mediocre shot and 5 minutes in photoshop could give you an indistinguishable replica of what your vintage Rolleiflex and Leica collection can do (though I'm not sure why I'd bother, I'd rather pursue my own photographic interests).
Quote:
Most of what is marketed today are inferior quality things with schlocky designs and disproportionate price-tags.
While you seem convinced that you have an objective basis for your argument, I can assure you that for all intents and purposes, a fresh-off-the-assembly-line Scion is safer, more efficient and more reliable than any MB or Porsche from the 60s or 70s. They may not garner the same affection, but from any practical perspective, "superior" would be a more fitting word, not "inferior." As an aside: Dkzzz, you suck, BLOW UP is a great movie. You totally missed the point if all you could concentrate on is how they wore skinny ties, slim jeans and fitted jackets.
post #50 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augusto86 View Post
Quick question - is balloon angioplasty the same thing as a stent?

They are not synonymous. As the name implies, balloon angioplasty uses an inflatable device that, while deflated, is threaded into an obstructed blood vessel. The device is then inflated, dilating and (hopefully) relieving the obstruction. In the past, that was the only intervention possible during a cardiac catheterization. Then stents were developed. These are expandable tubular supports that, when collapsed, could be insterted into the obstructed blood vessel. After the balloon angioplasty, the collapsed stent could be deployed (expanded) at the site of the previous obstruction, so as to maintain patency. Current stents are "drug eluting", which means that they are impregnated with drugs that prevent reaccumulation of the atherosclerotic plaques that contributed to the original obstruction.
post #51 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
I have two words for you buddy... Tesla Effect

So why hasn't it been commercialized? I want a wireless computer and sound system.
post #52 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
I keep waiting for cordless electricity.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story....d=013001A0QMZZ
post #53 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
So why hasn't it been commercialized? I want a wireless computer and sound system.
Because everyone thought Tesla was crazy. And hippies keep trying to convince people that electrical current waves gives people brain and nut tumors.
post #54 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Because everyone thought Tesla was crazy.

Even if he was crazy, that doesn't mean he was stupid.
post #55 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
Even if he was crazy, that doesn't mean he was stupid.

Well the ultimate rule of genius is that the next smartest guy down the IQ chart has to tell everyone what a genius you are. Otherwise everyone else just thinks you are a lunatic.

Unfortunately for Tesla, the next smartest guy down the IQ chart was Thomas Edison, who basically chose to bury Tesla instead.
post #56 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian SD View Post
Because one of the most common sentiments of a maturing person is the fallacy that everything used to be made better than whatever it is we're making today. Sell the fools what they want. Give me my Nikon DSLR, which with a mediocre shot and 5 minutes in photoshop could give you an indistinguishable replica of what your vintage Rolleiflex and Leica collection can do (though I'm not sure why I'd bother, I'd rather pursue my own photographic interests). While you seem convinced that you have an objective basis for your argument, I can assure you that for all intents and purposes, a fresh-off-the-assembly-line Scion is safer, more efficient and more reliable than any MB or Porsche from the 60s or 70s. They may not garner the same affection, but from any practical perspective, "superior" would be a more fitting word, not "inferior."
Considering that the lens quality of those old Leicas and Rolleiflexes surpass the majority of what is made in production today, I'd say there is an inherent advantage as compared to the Photoshopped DSLR photos. I don't know what most of the stuff featured within a fancy DSLR camera is for, but I can bet most of it can be achieved by a few burning and dodging tricks in the darkroom and some adept usage of graded papers, or filters whichever you prefer. Limit what a person uses, and quality can be achieved. That is the exact problem with people these days; they believe they can achieve anything with a minimum of effort--and the effort is not made by the people even, but by their technology. Of course, a fresh off of the assembly line car is going to be more reliable than any 40 year old car. However, that does not mitigate its inherent lack of quality and over-dosage of superfluous features.
post #57 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergdorf Goodwill View Post

Damn, I can't wait till that puppy grows into a dog.
post #58 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing View Post
I don't know what most of the stuff featured within a fancy DSLR camera is for, but I can bet most of it can be achieved by a few burning and dodging tricks in the darkroom and some adept usage of graded papers, or filters whichever you prefer.
What the hell are you talking about, do you even know? "Most of the stuff featured within a fancy DSLR" is for taking light and making it into an image. Same as any other camera.
post #59 of 199
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
What the hell are you talking about, do you even know? "Most of the stuff featured within a fancy DSLR" is for taking light and making it into an image. Same as any other camera.
I'm saying that this "perfect Photoshop image" that he is talking about could be achieved with a few simple tricks in the darkroom such as burning and dodging and graded photographic papers; or if you don't like using graded papers, graded filters. Have you done the traditional process? If a DSLR is such a simple camera for the singular purpose of taking an image, then why are there so many functions? What about things like image stabilization? You can do that with film too. It's called masking.
post #60 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing View Post
I'm saying that this "perfect Photoshop image" that he is talking about could be achieved with a few simple tricks in the darkroom such as burning and dodging and graded photographic papers; or if you don't like using graded papers, graded filters.

I think you missed his point entirely.

Quote:
Have you done the traditional process?

Yes, and honestly I found it inferior to digital editing on one very crucial way. You can't see what your change looks like, decide you don't like it and go backwards. Everything you can do in a darkroom, you can do and undo in photoshop.

Quote:
If a DSLR is such a simple camera, then why are there so many functions? What about things like image stabilization? You can do that with film too. It's called masking.

What functions specifically are you talking about in a DSLR that you think cheapen it that aren't in film cameras? Optical Image Stabilization has been around quite a bit longer than DSLR's have. Most of the other "functions" are straight analogs of almost any other camera, aperture, ISO sensitivity, shutter speed, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Technology Climax.