http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/ http://www.eblah.com en http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1279879919/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1279879919/#num1
It is new, and to be hoped that we know enough now not to suffer the surprises that were suffered when new material were first used back in the 1950s.

Interesting to note too, that the aircraft was accompanied by two Spitfires on its arrival, one at each wingtip:

The Dreamliner: a revolution in high resolution - New Scientist]]> Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:11:59 Apollo http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1279742570/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1279742570/#num1 Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:02:50 kendo http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1278587170/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1278587170/#num1
The digital radio switchover may not happen as early as planned, as the government says the proposed 2015 date is a target and not a deadline. Will you be ready for the digital revolution?

Tuning out? | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

I, and I believe many others, especially those technically qualified, consider the DAB or digital radio plans in this country to be something of Pig's Ear, and nothing more than a mess that has no real plan, and is a muddle of technical bodges.

Many have also pointed out that although DAB (of whatever flavour) has many advantages, its main disadvantage is that it does not offer the marginal operation that analogue system using AM and FM enjoy, leading to holes in coverage that simply to not arise with the older technology.

The argument being that rough and scratchy reception may not always be particularly pleasant, but that it is preferable to no reception at all.

You can vote on the site I gave above, and I don't mind revealing that I voted 'No'.]]> Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:06:10 Apollo http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1278518769/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1278518769/#num1

There a short pictorial feature following, showing a number of analogue television sets over the years.

Televisions through the years | Media | guardian.co.uk

Interestingly, we had one similar to that shown in image 7/11 of this series, but ours was huge by comparison. That pictured is probably the standard 14" set of the time, while I reckon ours was at least 19".

The unique aspect of this set was the flip up flap on the top. Releasing this turned the set on, closing it turned the set off, and the panel cover all the set controls. When it was 'disposed of', we found out why it was so heavy - the glass on the front of the tube was at least one inch thick!

You can see one of our other early television sets pictured here: Oldest UK television found – a 1936 Marconiphone]]> Wed, 7 Jul 2010 17:06:09 Apollo http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1277059115/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1277059115/#num1
Apparently Flckr belongs to Getty Images and they have already offered professional and semi professional photographers the chance of having their pics incorporated into GI in which case they get a percentage of any royalties arising from publication and are going to extend this to all members.  I wonder who gets the biggest percentage?]]> Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:38:35 The Fox http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1275259827/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1275259827/#num1
BBC News - Should you store treasured data on disks?

If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny to reflect on how many warning there are about how fragile film negatives, and paper prints of photographs are, yet they have already outlasted many digital storage systems.

And if we consider the longevity of printed matter from the past centuries, and even millennia, then digital is starting to look like the poor relative of stone, parchment, and papyrus.]]> Sun, 30 May 2010 23:50:27 Apollo http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1274083632/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1274083632/#num1
Adobe let you download and run the full version of their applications for a 30-day trial period, including Photoshop, and I've taken advantage of this for a look inside the box with no problems, until CS5, where it would seem they have changed the date/time checking that looks after the 30-day trial period.

I downloaded and ran the package once last week, where the clock shows a countdown of days, and gave me my expected 30 days.

Today, I reran the package only to find my trial period was over, the software was locked out, and only the purchase of a serial number will allow it to run.

The only thing I can think of that I did to offend it was change my system clock.

I am relatively lazy, and am working on a fair number (ok, thousands) of old pics from the past which are being digitised from film. One thing I like to do is have the file dates close the date of the pic, which can help in locating such converted pics as they have no EXIF or other data embedded, unlike digital pics. So, I'm always changing the date so that the files have a useful creation date, which is obviously appended when I work with them, and can be found later.

I don't like entrusting this sort of thing to any proprietary pic managers or photo albums, as this locks you into them, and you have to keep using forever if you file your pics using them to organise them for later use. I like to stay in manual control, and ditch a product without losing my data.

I can only think that Adobe have some sort of watchdog looking into my computer, and comparing the date in some way that is separate from merely starting up the Photoshop program, as one thing I am careful about is making sure my current date is correct for normal day-to-day use (I've had too many problems from wrong dates in the past, and have learnt my lesson).

I know the date was right when I installed the Adobe software, and I know I checked before I fired up Photoshop, so I know I did something to offend it and earn a lockout. A pity, as I only had it for 7 days, and only ran it at the first install, and didn't even fire up any of the 'new' toys.

A bit of nuisance, as it takes up 1.5 GB, and more than a minute or two to download, and more than a minute or two to install, and more than a minute or two to uninstall and tidy up behind.]]> Mon, 17 May 2010 09:07:12 Apollo http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1269679746/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1269679746/#num1
They have a regular feature where viewers can pose questions etc, and this morning, one of the topics raised centred on blurring and anonymity in BBC news reports, with a number of viewers questioning the policy, and asking why scenes, faces, and number plates were blurred.

Although the announcer stated the policy on these subjects would be explained, and a producer duly appeared and explained about individual anonymity of those who might appear in a video interview and fear retribution, that in cases of police action, certain officers' faces were blurred for operational reasons, and that general footage, for example of obese people, or of schoolchildren, did not show faces as this could be construed as targeting identifiable individuals.

Two cases were missing from the reply though.

The first being the apparent general blurring of children's faces, for no reason, in cases where the children simply walked into or through the scene, unconnected with the subject - one correspondent suggested we were becoming a nation afraid to show images of children.

The second was the case of blurred numbers plates, ignored in the BBC response.

This was something of a pity, and disappointment, as it would be nice to know why, as number plates are designed and intended to provide identification, and if they were obscured in real life, as they appear in such footage, then an offence would be committed.

I'd hoped the BBC might have come up with something in this case, as I know some people who now almost religiously sit and delete any number plates that can be seen in photos they show online - which seems a bit silly.

And. is a 'virtual' offence being committed by the driver if they allow their vehicle to be seen in public footage with the registration obscured?  Given the desperate measures some forces  seem try to get motoring convictions with, I wouldn't be surprised to hear of one trying it one day.

In conclusion, one correspondent suggested that rather than blurring if a release was needed, but not obtained, then the footage simply not be used, rather than subjecting us to yet more blurring.]]> Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:49:06 Apollo http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1265930206/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1265930206/#num1
To be more exact, although I am only Elements, and not the full Photoshop offering, this one strikes a chord because I have been using Pagemaker almost since day one, although I wouldn't claim that goes way back to the actual start, which was even further back, around 1985.

When we did go for it (and I don't know exactly when), we did visit all the dealers, saw both PC and Mac versions, and despite the witterings of the Apple dealers, still reckoned that the combination of Pagemaker on a good PC still knocked spots of the Apple, despite the fiddling the dealers did do make them seem faster.

Unfortunately, Elements (as compared to the full Photoshop package) is somewhat crippled, and makes itself harder to use than it has to be because some intuitive features have to be achieved using combinations of functions that can be achieved in a single step in the full - and much more expensive pro version. I would even agree that other packages handle better in some instances, but even so, Photoshop still seems to outperform them, and I have come to the conclusion that those that like to make a career out of knocking it do so out of jealousy, and ignore flaws in what they think makes a better alternative.

There's a story about it here:

How we learned to love Photoshop | Technology | The Guardian

It also leds to:

Photoshop Disasters

Which can be great, is well worth a visit, and finds some absolutely hilarious retouching disasters, but, and it's a big BUT, I find the site suffers from many of the items being posted for "finds" that are so trivial as to be unnoticeable, and often posted without a description, leaving the viewer puzzled, or examining the suspect image with a magnifying glass, or just wondering what the person that posted it was thinking about. Some are just too subtle.]]> Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:16:46 Apollo http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1264543951/ http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/forum/forum/m-1264543951/#num1
Providing some real numbers to work with, Google is currently processing imagery from GeoEye-1, which is capable of collecting hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of imagery every, but this takes time to complete, and only a small subset has appeared so far.

To highlight some of these GeoEye-1 images before they can be fully integrated into Maps and Earth, Google has announced the new 'GeoEye Featured Imagery' layer in Google Earth. Included within this layer are 20-30 Featured Imagery placemarks, including a thumbnail of the image, a link to view the image in full-resolution, and a range of information about the scene, including resolution, collection date, and a descriptive narrative.

To view this imagery, select the 'GeoEye Featured Imagery' button located in the Google Earth 'More' folder (in the sidebar on the left):
]]> Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:12:31 Apollo