A technology rant

[crfriend]

Warning: Rant follows.

I just took a really good look at a picture of me from work the other day, and I am positively stunned by the wholly crappy quality of the thing. The composition is OK, but that's because I re-cropped it; however, the entire thing is badly out of focus, the exposure was for cr@p, and it was inverted when I first opened it in a photo-editor. What gives?

The shot was taken on an iPhone, and the 2+megs of the file indicate that the sensor is plenty big enough to capture decent quality, so all I can think of is that the optics are flaming pieces of [unprintable]. Is this what popular photography is coming to? For crying out loud the Kodak Instamatic did a better job. Perhaps it's time for me to buy a high-end digital SLR before those start to get dumbed down; I wonder if I can find one with a proper cameraman's user-interface (rings, knobs, levers, and (for the zoom) a slide). And I want aperture-priority, dammit, not point-and-shoot; I don't even want it as a "feature". Point-and-shoot is fine for firearms -- not for photography!

Technology is supposed to make things better, not degrade them. But then we see things like the abandonment of classical telephony -- on which we worked for a hundred years to perfect to the point where we had 5-nines reliability of on-time and in-order delivery of speech; now we have neither! Is that an improvement? I think not! (BBC: Are you listening? Ban the use of VOIP connections with your correspondents. They sound like garbage and detract from the stories. Or, at the very least, don't try them live -- "It seems we've lost the connection" make you sound like school-children not a world-class broadcaster.) The recordings of the audio communications to and from the moon 40 years ago sounds better than what I got the other day -- on two tries -- to call my wife only a few miles distant.

We see positively massive increases in computer horsepower and yet response time for the user continues to get worse. Even the speeds of single-thread machines are now dropping in real numbers where they'd been growing over the years -- in a world where most tasks are linear in nature with one step dependent on the results of the previous. More cores don't help that.

Forty years ago we put men on the moon and returned them safely to the Earth with slipsticks and simple computers -- and we cannot do that now, even with all the fancy (but decaying) gear we have.

So much for technology improving our lot in life. Where's my flying car and electricity too cheap to meter?

[Gregg1100]

Carl,
I have always reckoned that newer is nearly always junk when it comes to software and their like.
I used to use Easy CD Creator 5 Platinum for my music - on Win ME. Easy to use, worked perfectly. XP came along and turned it's nose up at it.
Windows Media player 8 and 9--all there in front of you-- you didn't have to go searching for tools. Can't find nothing in WMP 11. Crap.
A MS wireless keyboard and mouse which worked really well with XP, was given the cold shoulder by Win 7 Ultimate. An old Logitech keyboard and Asda mouse shut it up. Never had Vista--most said I was lucky, lol. Got dozens of good programs here that are now useless because MS operating systems that have very little backwards ability.
If you look at European cars now--nigh on all the same shape and looks--totally boring and bland. Most go well and are frugal with the go-go juice, but you can't beat a 50's or 60's car for style and presence. Something like;- I have to get a closer look at that car.
Halcyon Days.
Whinge over.
Greg
PS. Recently been diagnosed with the old prostate cancer- middle level---start radiography next month. Never mind- worse than me out there.
Probably on wrong page, but just answering Carl on values.

[crfriend]

I have always reckoned that newer is nearly always junk when it comes to software and their like.

I was ranting about deeper and more fundamental matters than software. I was fulminating about how we are very deliberately tossing aside techniques and processes that work splendidly well (e.g. conventional telephony) in favour of stuff that does not perform anywhere nearly as well. What happens when you make a 911 (or 999) call for assistance and a critical syllable gets dropped or arrives out of sequence? Or when the power quits and you cannot make a land-line call for help because copper has been replaced by glass and the batteries in your UPS are flat?

If you look at European cars now--nigh on all the same shape and looks--totally boring and bland.

Worse than that is the "user interface". It used to be that virtually every car on the road had similar controls for the basic operation of the vehicle -- you know, things like pedals, switches, and whatnot. Nowadays, every car one gets into has things in a different location. Need to turn the windscreen-wipers on in a flash? Where did this company's designers put it? Compounding that is the move towards the "glass cockpit" where the controls are sensitive portions of a touch-screen -- try finding that by touch as you're looking at the road. Don't even get me going about designed-in blind-spots that require TV-camera and RADAR technology to get around. Idiocy!

Recently been diagnosed with the old prostate cancer- middle level---start radiography next month.

Blast, Gregg, sorry to hear about that. Best of luck with the radiotherapy!

[Milfmog]

Carl,

I think you've been bugging the office; I had precisely that conversation with a colleague the other day. iPhone pics only look reasonable on an iPhone display. Digital cameras are sold on pixel count, not on image quality and it seems designers have forgotten about old fashioned measured like lines per inch to measure image quality. I have a camera in my phone. I've used it twice and never bothered since, 3.2Mpixels and the photos are garbage compared with my ancient 1MP digital camera. The bit that really amazes me is that the kids can't see the difference.

Sometimes I think I'm turning into Victor Meldrew; the rest of the time I know I did that years ago

As for cars, I recently drove a Ford Sierra for the first time in over 20 years. I can not believe people used to put up with cars that bad! The ride, noise levels, performance, handling and brakes were dreadful by comparison with my current car and any of the many hire cars I've had in recent weeks. I remember the first time I drove a Sierra; my own car then was a top of the range Ford Cortina MkV estate (a 2.3 Ghia X with full S-pack) and I was amazed by what a huge leap forward from that the Sierra was. There may have been something more individual about those old cars, but there can be no question that the driving experience has improved beyond all recognition in modern cars, apart from the levels of road congestion.

Gregg, sorry to hear your news. I know it won't help, but I'll keep my fingers crossed that the radio therapy does what it should and all is restored to order.

Have fun,


Ian.

[crfriend]

I think you've been bugging the office; I had precisely that conversation with a colleague the other day. iPhone pics only look reasonable on an iPhone display. Digital cameras are sold on pixel count, not on image quality and it seems designers have forgotten about old fashioned measured like lines per inch to measure image quality.

It's sweet of you to think that I might be bugging your office, and even though I wasn't do rest assured that somebody is. In any event, to paraphrase a political slogan from a few years ago, "It's the optics, stupid." If you've got cr@p for optics I don't give a hoot how many mega-pixels you have -- the image will still look like cr@p! (The "weakest link" and whatnot.)

The bit that really amazes me is that the kids can't see the difference.

That's the same generation who are used to VOIP instead of proper SONET and TDM. They don't understand that cr@p is a matter of choice as they've never had that choice.

As for cars, I recently drove a Ford Sierra for the first time in over 20 years. I can not believe people used to put up with cars that bad! The ride, noise levels, performance, handling and brakes were dreadful by comparison with my current car and any of the many hire cars I've had in recent weeks.

Yes, I will concur that the "modern experience" is vastly better than that of years gone by, but what happens to that ride when some of the electronics, fancy pneumatics, and even fancier hydraulics go wonky? Likely, the car simply stops and calls for "roadside assistance" ("roadkill assistance"?). Do aeroplanes do the same thing? The notion of "graceful degradation" is gone from the modern lexicon -- if modern kit goes south even slightly the whole shebang tends to stop working; done properly, if one little bit quits you should still be able to make it home, even if home is a thousand miles away. It's worth noting that I do not pine for the days of mechanical distributors and carburetors -- quite the opposite, really; what I dislike is the massive amount of added complexity of all the ride-stabilisation bits and whatnot that when it goes wrong it goes wrong spectacularly. In the days of yore, predictability was important: "I can push the vehicle to precisely here, and if I push it any more the arse'll step out." Nowadays, one never knows where that point will happen.

Gregg, sorry to hear your news. I know it won't help, but I'll keep my fingers crossed that the radio therapy does what it should and all is restored to order.

Seconded, but that really goes without saying.

Have fun,

But what will I do when I'm forced to drive an iPod?

[Big and Bashful]

Greg, sorry to see your body is rebelling, the good thing is that it has been discovered and is going to get treated.
Meanwhile; cars, recently my 8 year old high mileage Shogun has shown me that modern technology isn't always the weak spot in a modern vehicle. I have had problems with the brakes. However the problem was no worse than ABS warning lights in the dash and having to rely on my own skill to stop the car without locking up, just like in the good old days. It resulted in a large garage bill but at no stage did the car let me down, it just told me it wasn't happy. I have had a few problems with the Shogun, but most of the problems have been mechanical and due to 145000 miles on the clock. It has never let me down (Yet!)

[Kirbstone]

Gregg, That's a real pain that the ol' prostate is acting up. The oncologists have become really very clever at treating this condition nowadays, usually leaving it in there, but bombarding it with radiation and chemo. It won't go away of course, but they can hold it at bay almost indefinitely nowadays.

I have two close friends with the problem for years, the only real inconvenience for them is having to go through with the treatments which in the main aren't all that pleasant, alas. There is also the problem of supression of the immune system, which they will no doubt advise you all about.

Cars! Who'd be without 'em. Fact of life. For me, flashy no more, just cheapest possible and practical. My long-term personal holdall only needs money spent on it to pass the MOT, usually not much, biggest expense is Road Tax and of course, petrol. That model Merc. was built bullet proof and is still widely used as taxis. My petrol example has more than 247,000 miles up and still uses practically no oil and does what it says on the tin. Mind you, I'm nice to her and mind her, because she's worth a lot to me.

Tom K.

[Gregg1100]

Thanks for the support all. Taking hormones in readiness for radiography, which starts in June

With respect for newer cars, ok, they are more efficient than the older one's, but at a big cost. On older cars,there were no black boxes anywhere near them, ( at megabucks each ) two, you could fix them yourself on the side of the road, you need a blackbox reader to do anything now. My Citroen Xantia needs a Lexia to check on heater system fans and flaps. Crazy. A Wolseley 6/110 for instance oozes character, the Ford range looks identical-Escort, Fiesta and Focus. To me-yuk.
Never mind, when the oil runs out, or some middle eastern country hasn't nuked us all, we will be back on the old reliable, the horse. Just imagine bidding on Ebay for a 57 plate 17 hand high horse.. Would twin haybags make it run any faster, lol, ? Rubber tips on horseshoes for increased grip in the wet weather, and I am not going anywhere near the exhaust.
Greg

[sapphire]

Gregg, sorry about the diagnosis. Best wishes for getting through.

Regarding pictures, my cousin posted some incredible pictures on Facebook, very surreal. When I asked him if he had photshopped them, he replied that he hadn't and that his camera phone was malfunctioning and he didn't know why.

[straightfairy]

The shot was taken on an iPhone,

There's your problem.

For all the benefits and features of an iPhone, they are also known for not having good cameras.
I have a Nokia N8, which is technically not as good a phone, but has a much better camera and lens.

[Kirbstone]

I carry (sometimes) two items: A simple mobile phone which just takes & recieves calls & messages, the other is a Compact Canon, which just takes photos and has a limited editing facility, but it has a 10:1 optical zoom, 15mil pixels and macro facility, also rapid shoot, cine and delayed action....& it's Tiny. Show me any phone that comes anywhere near that!

T.

[straightfairy]

My N8 isnt far off.
12 Mp, zoom (but not 10x), macro, self timer, video and adjustable settings for colour, white balance, exposure, light sensitivity, contrast, flash and sharpness. (not that I use them..)

[Milfmog]

I spent half the day yesterday listening to a colleague wittering on about the Samsung Galaxy S III. He'd been to a local launch (that in itself tells me everything I need to know about him) and was desperate to tell everyone all about the great features. An 8Mp camera (yawn) it will auto ring someone if you're sending a text to them then you put the phone to your ear (why?), it has a great screen saver that can tell when you're looking at it and only goes off when you're not (huh? Bet that will work well once there are a few dirty finger prints on the front camera).

Before I lost my rag and told him I did not care, one of my other colleagues pointed out that having 8 million pixcels was a bit like taking an old instamatic and saying that you could put Kodacrome in it; the optics would still be dreadful compared with almost any pocket camera, let alone one costing even half the price of the phone. (Someone else wondered how good the pics would be when the phone was stuffed into an orifice that was not designed for swallowing (he also asked whether all the corners were nicely rounded to save pain), but good manners preclude me reporting that here ).

Of course, all that technology will not help a Billy-no-mates talk to people...

Have fun,


Ian.

[Elizabeth]

Carl, try the Nikon D-90. It's a wonderful SLR, and does a lot of stuff with knobs, dials, etc. You can see exactly what your exposure will be by looking at the top of the camera. Yes, it also does point-and-shoot. But get over that and just turn it off if you don't like it.

Info tech has done more than just make things higher quality, on the mass market it's all about convenience. As you point out, it some cases quality has gone backwards. Most people don't care about audio or photo quality. A boom box was more convenient than an audophile stereo system, and today MP3 is more convenient than FLAC. iPhone might be even worse than the old instamatics --- but back then, you had to actually CARRY AROUND your instamatic, and you couldn't upload your c**p photo to your website with a few swipes of your fingers. iPhone has wiped out the low-end camera market: anyone willing to actually carry around a camera wants better photos than that.

I personally don't care to fill my life with digital artifacts of questionable technical quality.

[crfriend]

Carl, try the Nikon D-90. It's a wonderful SLR, and does a lot of stuff with knobs, dials, etc. You can see exactly what your exposure will be by looking at the top of the camera. Yes, it also does point-and-shoot. But get over that and just turn it off if you don't like it.

Thanks for the tip, and I'll be asking around at work of some of the other blokes who have decent camera kit.

I read some of the specs and reviews of the D-90, but really want something closer to my F3 or my late grand-dad's Nikkormat -- a good through-the-lens viewfinder, a simple light-meter, a split-prisim focus point, and a depth-of-field preview. I really need, or particularly want, little else. Call me a troglodyte if you wish, but I like to be close to my technology. Given my druthers, and time, I'd be using home-made emulsion on glass plates in large-format kit. Unfortunately, neither of those are available in any meaningful quantity any longer. (Not to mention that trying to use a large-format piece of kit on a rolling sailboat is a bit of a non-starter.)

Info tech has done more than just make things higher quality, on the mass market it's all about convenience. As you point out, it some cases quality has gone backwards. Most people don't care about audio or photo quality. A boom box was more convenient than an audophile stereo system, and today MP3 is more convenient than FLAC.

It's gone backwards in so many ways that it's hard to comprehend. I like the MP3 format, but regard it as roughly equivalent to a competent FM broadcast, and even at my age my ears are more than up to detecting not only the difference between raw digital and MP3 but can also pick out the differences between MP3 encoders given good reproduction equipment. So, yes, I use MP3 -- and was an early adopter of CDs and Hi-Fi video gear -- but keep the really good stuff in raw format.

I personally don't care to fill my life with digital artifacts of questionable technical quality.

Indeed. For high-end needs, for years I relied on chemical photography, enlargement, and then scanning for web-work (most of my on-line "computer museum" was so done); nowadays I use a digi-cam that Sapphire bought many years ago -- an Olympus 3.3 mega-pixel C-3000 -- that I routinely use and can knock the socks off kiddies with more "advanced" kit.

I still want a digital back for my F3. (Dream on!)