14 ms·

"I almost always shoot in small (5.5MP) or medium (11MP) on my 22.3MP Canon 5D Mark III" Kind of hard to take anything seriously after reading that. He buys a

by hnriot 13y ago

"I almost always shoot in small (5.5MP) or medium (11MP) on my 22.3MP Canon 5D Mark III" Kind of hard to take anything seriously after reading that. He buys a seriously expensive camera and shoots it in point and shoot size. That's just insane. What's so hard with a simple home NAS. I replace the drive in my laptop every year for whatever is then biggest (sweet spot) and ue a NAS for backups. RAID5

rfnslyr 13y ago
Because cloud this and cloud that! I feel like I'm the only person firmly against cloud storage. I'd constantly feel paranoid about my data randomly disappearing at the hands of a company I don't know run by people I don't know on hardware I don't trust. I want everything local.
- joevandyk 13y ago
  What happens when there's an earthquake? Or theft? Or fire?
  - rfnslyr 13y ago
    My own cloud? It's not really hard to get your own service up and running. All my shits auto backed up to my dedicated which has terabytes and terabytes of storage.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Where do you store it?
      - rfnslyr 13y ago
        Family network. We all run servers in our houses that are connected and each keep backups of eachothers backups. Backups at my parents, grandparents, cousins in colorado, family in Poland. All encrypted, all silently running in the basement of each house. All updated every week.
        icebraining 13y ago
        Who manages that hardware? I wouldn't mind getting a NAS on my grandmother's, but I can't do cross-country trips if a disk fails. Regardless, that seems a nice setup. I'm not opposed to the cloud (as long as I treat it as a dumb storage system), but it's certainly more expensive than buying your own disks.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Local data can randomly disappear too - hard drives don't always fail in a predictable fashion. Personally, I prefer to use both local and cloud storage (encrypted, bien sûr).
  - 13b9f227ecf0 13y ago
    I periodically mail a DVD of important stuff to my parents and ask them to toss it in the basement. You could do the same thing with backup tapes, or whatever. Drives/tape/flash/dvd is pretty damn cheap and easy. These S3 type solutions would have to be much cheaper to be interesting.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      A DVD holds 4.7GB. Box.net offers 5GB for free. Besides, how do you verify that those backups can be restored when you need them, if they're offline in some remote location? That seems rather untrustworthy to me. I run checks against parity files regularly to verify their integrity.
      - gohrt 13y ago
        10 DVDS hold 47GB. How much does that cost on Box? And can you download 47GB faster than your mom can mail you a DVD?
        icebraining 13y ago
        Storing 47GB would cost you 47 cents/month on Glacier. And can you download 47GB faster than your mom can mail you a DVD? Probably, though I'm not quite sure about the speed of S3. I use a cheap VPS instead (much more expensive than Glacier, but also much, much more useful), from which I can easily get 3MB/s, so that would definitively be yes.
- dublinben 13y ago
  A local backup isn't much of a backup. A single fire, flood, theft, storm, earthquake, etc. shouldn't be able to destroy every copy of your data. You must have at least one offsite copy of anything valuable. http://www.dpbestflow.org/backup/backup-overview http://www.dpbestflow.org/backup/backup-overview
joevandyk 13y ago
The point of the mark III isn't megapixels. It's image quality, less noise, higher iso, better highlights/shadows, more images per second, better autofocusing, movies, etc.
- hnriot 13y ago
  how do you think it comes by that image quality? It's a total waste of money to use a 5Dmkiii in 5MP mode. You'd never notice the difference between nouse, shadow detail, highlight clipping, autofocus if you used an entry level canon. The 5D MKiii is for pro's, not weekend amateurs. You did your part for the Economy, but you wasted your money.
  - PStamatiou 13y ago
    Go troll somewhere else. "Which is Better: a 10MP camera dialed down to 3MP, or a 3MP camera? Easy: when set to the same resolution, a higher-resolution camera set to a lower resolution always looks better than a camera with that native resolution. This is because digital cameras cheat and use Bayer Interpolation. They don't really have that many color pixels on their CCDs. CCDs are actually black-and-white and use colored stripes to see color. Bayer Interpolation spreads the data around to fill in each pixel as if it could could see color. Because of this the images of all digital cameras at their native resolutions are more blurred than they could be. If you halve the size of the image, the pixel-to-pixel sharpness will increase because there is now enough data for each and every pixel. See my Bayer Interpolation page for examples. Therefore it's always better to use a higher resolution camera set down to a lower resolution than a camera with only that much resolution."
    - hnriot 13y ago
      except the sensor isn't a CCD, and your argument is complete nonsense. Of course a 5D mkIII is a better camera, of course it will produce better results, but my point was that if you're going to down sample, why not save yourself a boat load of cash and just use a Rebel. I guarantee you'd never see or know the difference. It's not until you make a large print that the difference would be apparent, and since you've stupidly downsampled you've lost that advantage. You might want to read this, it will help you understand how sensors work. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.ht...
beat 13y ago
Offsite backup, man. What if you're running a business? Do you want every scrap of data your business runs on in the same building? What if it burns down? It's all about the importance you place on the data, and your level of technical skill.

by hnriot 13y ago

rfnslyr 13y ago

Because cloud this and cloud that! I feel like I'm the only person firmly against cloud storage. I'd constantly feel paranoid about my data randomly disappearing at the hands of a company I don't know run by people I don't know on hardware I don't trust. I want everything local.

joevandyk 13y ago
What happens when there's an earthquake? Or theft? Or fire?
- rfnslyr 13y ago
  My own cloud? It's not really hard to get your own service up and running. All my shits auto backed up to my dedicated which has terabytes and terabytes of storage.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Where do you store it?
    - rfnslyr 13y ago
      Family network. We all run servers in our houses that are connected and each keep backups of eachothers backups. Backups at my parents, grandparents, cousins in colorado, family in Poland. All encrypted, all silently running in the basement of each house. All updated every week.
      - icebraining 13y ago
        Who manages that hardware? I wouldn't mind getting a NAS on my grandmother's, but I can't do cross-country trips if a disk fails. Regardless, that seems a nice setup. I'm not opposed to the cloud (as long as I treat it as a dumb storage system), but it's certainly more expensive than buying your own disks.
icebraining 13y ago
Local data can randomly disappear too - hard drives don't always fail in a predictable fashion. Personally, I prefer to use both local and cloud storage (encrypted, bien sûr).
- 13b9f227ecf0 13y ago
  I periodically mail a DVD of important stuff to my parents and ask them to toss it in the basement. You could do the same thing with backup tapes, or whatever. Drives/tape/flash/dvd is pretty damn cheap and easy. These S3 type solutions would have to be much cheaper to be interesting.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    A DVD holds 4.7GB. Box.net offers 5GB for free. Besides, how do you verify that those backups can be restored when you need them, if they're offline in some remote location? That seems rather untrustworthy to me. I run checks against parity files regularly to verify their integrity.
    - gohrt 13y ago
      10 DVDS hold 47GB. How much does that cost on Box? And can you download 47GB faster than your mom can mail you a DVD?
      - icebraining 13y ago
        Storing 47GB would cost you 47 cents/month on Glacier. And can you download 47GB faster than your mom can mail you a DVD? Probably, though I'm not quite sure about the speed of S3. I use a cheap VPS instead (much more expensive than Glacier, but also much, much more useful), from which I can easily get 3MB/s, so that would definitively be yes.
dublinben 13y ago
A local backup isn't much of a backup. A single fire, flood, theft, storm, earthquake, etc. shouldn't be able to destroy every copy of your data. You must have at least one offsite copy of anything valuable. http://www.dpbestflow.org/backup/backup-overview http://www.dpbestflow.org/backup/backup-overview

joevandyk 13y ago

The point of the mark III isn't megapixels. It's image quality, less noise, higher iso, better highlights/shadows, more images per second, better autofocusing, movies, etc.

hnriot 13y ago
how do you think it comes by that image quality? It's a total waste of money to use a 5Dmkiii in 5MP mode. You'd never notice the difference between nouse, shadow detail, highlight clipping, autofocus if you used an entry level canon. The 5D MKiii is for pro's, not weekend amateurs. You did your part for the Economy, but you wasted your money.
- PStamatiou 13y ago
  Go troll somewhere else. "Which is Better: a 10MP camera dialed down to 3MP, or a 3MP camera? Easy: when set to the same resolution, a higher-resolution camera set to a lower resolution always looks better than a camera with that native resolution. This is because digital cameras cheat and use Bayer Interpolation. They don't really have that many color pixels on their CCDs. CCDs are actually black-and-white and use colored stripes to see color. Bayer Interpolation spreads the data around to fill in each pixel as if it could could see color. Because of this the images of all digital cameras at their native resolutions are more blurred than they could be. If you halve the size of the image, the pixel-to-pixel sharpness will increase because there is now enough data for each and every pixel. See my Bayer Interpolation page for examples. Therefore it's always better to use a higher resolution camera set down to a lower resolution than a camera with only that much resolution."
  - hnriot 13y ago
    except the sensor isn't a CCD, and your argument is complete nonsense. Of course a 5D mkIII is a better camera, of course it will produce better results, but my point was that if you're going to down sample, why not save yourself a boat load of cash and just use a Rebel. I guarantee you'd never see or know the difference. It's not until you make a large print that the difference would be apparent, and since you've stupidly downsampled you've lost that advantage. You might want to read this, it will help you understand how sensors work. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.ht...

beat 13y ago

Offsite backup, man. What if you're running a business? Do you want every scrap of data your business runs on in the same building? What if it burns down? It's all about the importance you place on the data, and your level of technical skill.