Will you show me a deal.
Shining shimmering splendid
Tell me Paul Ma since when did you last
let your money decide.
You can open my eyes.
Take me discount by discount.
Price match, rebates and coupons
on a great fatwallet ride.
A whole new deal.....Another sale we should pursue.
but now from over here
it's crystal clear...
that now I'm in a whole new deal with you
(Now I'm in a whole new deal with you)
Unbelievable prices
Indescribable savings
Always dropping, freefalling,
To fuel our endless shopping vice
A whole new deal
(don't you dare close your eyes)
Another price match to pursue
(Hold your breath for the manager)
I'll buy from anywhere,
there's cash to spare.
Let me share this whole new deal with you....
A whole new deal... (A whole new deal)
That's where we'll be (that's where we'll be)
A thrilling chase
A wonderous place
For you and me......
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Lack of inspiration!
Oh woe is me! What do I write about? I have no inspiration! I have no muse!
What I do have are bits of professional grade photography equipment that I've been putting to very frequent use. I suppose my "creative" energies are directed towards that for the time being. So instead of writing crud here I've been shooting crap elsewhere. Might as well write about that some more:
I find that part of the draw of photography for me is its distance from the subject. I used to not like taking pictures of people very much but have recently turned that around. But even as I take portraits, I realize that I don't like to interact much with the subject. If the subject poses for the camera of his/her own accord, then I'm glad to take a snapshot. Otherwise, the greatest photographic accessory I could ask for is invisbility. Candid expressions and unepxected moments appeal to me much more because of what I perceive to be a more authentic representation of the subject. At the moment, I can't imagine directing people to sit a certain way, try to smile a certain way, etc. for portrait photography because that would involve "contamination" from the photographer. I'd much stand back and capture naturally occuring phenomena, letting my choice of perspective, color, and focus express my own view of things.
Of course, with this attitude, I'll never get to shoot hot girls in bikinis. Damn!
What I do have are bits of professional grade photography equipment that I've been putting to very frequent use. I suppose my "creative" energies are directed towards that for the time being. So instead of writing crud here I've been shooting crap elsewhere. Might as well write about that some more:
I find that part of the draw of photography for me is its distance from the subject. I used to not like taking pictures of people very much but have recently turned that around. But even as I take portraits, I realize that I don't like to interact much with the subject. If the subject poses for the camera of his/her own accord, then I'm glad to take a snapshot. Otherwise, the greatest photographic accessory I could ask for is invisbility. Candid expressions and unepxected moments appeal to me much more because of what I perceive to be a more authentic representation of the subject. At the moment, I can't imagine directing people to sit a certain way, try to smile a certain way, etc. for portrait photography because that would involve "contamination" from the photographer. I'd much stand back and capture naturally occuring phenomena, letting my choice of perspective, color, and focus express my own view of things.
Of course, with this attitude, I'll never get to shoot hot girls in bikinis. Damn!
Monday, February 06, 2006
Technology is useful
...but only if you make a point to use it. Like most tools, tech gadgets' usefulness is not inherent. And also like most tools, there's no one way one "should" use a tool.
Do any of you carry around a digicam everywhere you go? Or have a decent quality camera on your phone? That device is, for many, a great note taker. I'm using a Casio Exilim Z750 now and it even has a "blackboard" and "business card" mode that will automatically correct perspective distortion. Other uses for a small digital camera besides "just taking pictures":
Paperweight
Camcorder (perhaps)
Recording evidence at the scene of the crime
Bludgeoning people
Swinging it around
Load games onto its firmware (requires 1337 h4x0r 5k1llz)
Blackmail
Do any of you carry around a digicam everywhere you go? Or have a decent quality camera on your phone? That device is, for many, a great note taker. I'm using a Casio Exilim Z750 now and it even has a "blackboard" and "business card" mode that will automatically correct perspective distortion. Other uses for a small digital camera besides "just taking pictures":
Paperweight
Camcorder (perhaps)
Recording evidence at the scene of the crime
Bludgeoning people
Swinging it around
Load games onto its firmware (requires 1337 h4x0r 5k1llz)
Blackmail
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Oh pleeaaaase
Warning: This post is not suitable for children under 18, puritanical crazies, or you.
If you are one of the above, you may instead go look at the pretty butterflies.
US congressmen have condemned major IT firms including Microsoft and Google for helping China censor the internet. Yes, China is not a shining bastion of democracy. That's America's job, right?
Oh wait. OOPS.
What's the difference? China's more blatant about infringing upon its citizen's civil rights (since it often doesn't consider them as such anyway, those backwards hicks) while America's more subtle about it. America's wonderful and all but some of its leaders have to stop being so craaaaaazy puritanical and hypocritical as well. Or, to use the vernacular, so RETARDED.
Besides, "[the government] wants data from search engines to prove how easy it is to stumble over porn on the net." What kind of a transparent excuse is that? First of all, the internet is for porn. Second, how easy is it to stumble over porn? Very difficult. Let's say you search for "hard ass tits sex vagina". The result you get back is titled "Asian fuck finger fuck, hardcore fuck fuck machines."
"I wonder what that's about?" you say?
According to the description, "Asian fuck finger fuck, hardcore fuck fuck machines" is about "College fuck shit pics hardcore fuck free adult videos, gay ass fuck anime music video."
At this point, it is very hard to stumble over this site as a prime location to find "fuck shit pics" or "gay ass fuck"s. But suppose you're just really blind and you think "Alright! Anime Music Video!" Then you have ADD. But assuming you do, fine, then you could possibly stumble over the porn part but otherwise, c'mon man, it's pretty much staring you in the face. To not see it and stumble over it is just silly.
If you are one of the above, you may instead go look at the pretty butterflies.
US congressmen have condemned major IT firms including Microsoft and Google for helping China censor the internet. Yes, China is not a shining bastion of democracy. That's America's job, right?
Oh wait. OOPS.
What's the difference? China's more blatant about infringing upon its citizen's civil rights (since it often doesn't consider them as such anyway, those backwards hicks) while America's more subtle about it. America's wonderful and all but some of its leaders have to stop being so craaaaaazy puritanical and hypocritical as well. Or, to use the vernacular, so RETARDED.
Besides, "[the government] wants data from search engines to prove how easy it is to stumble over porn on the net." What kind of a transparent excuse is that? First of all, the internet is for porn. Second, how easy is it to stumble over porn? Very difficult. Let's say you search for "hard ass tits sex vagina". The result you get back is titled "Asian fuck finger fuck, hardcore fuck fuck machines."
"I wonder what that's about?" you say?
According to the description, "Asian fuck finger fuck, hardcore fuck fuck machines" is about "College fuck shit pics hardcore fuck free adult videos, gay ass fuck anime music video."
At this point, it is very hard to stumble over this site as a prime location to find "fuck shit pics" or "gay ass fuck"s. But suppose you're just really blind and you think "Alright! Anime Music Video!" Then you have ADD. But assuming you do, fine, then you could possibly stumble over the porn part but otherwise, c'mon man, it's pretty much staring you in the face. To not see it and stumble over it is just silly.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Gustatory Nostalgia
Some tastes just brings back memories...
Chicken Nuggets and Ketchup: When faced with the abominable lunch courtesy of the school district, as I often was during elementary school and junior high, I'd often run away screaming for my dear life. That's not fair. That compares my lunch to the abominable snowman when he is in fact a much nicer entity. Chicken Nuggets and Ketchup was the only eatable concoction to spew forth from Hell's Kitchen, situated beside the school gym. Everybody would want seconds and nobody would get them. Still, chicken must be an infernal beast because as much as it would be processed, it still tasted passable. And with Ketchup too! What luxury!
Chicken Nuggets and Ketchup: When faced with the abominable lunch courtesy of the school district, as I often was during elementary school and junior high, I'd often run away screaming for my dear life. That's not fair. That compares my lunch to the abominable snowman when he is in fact a much nicer entity. Chicken Nuggets and Ketchup was the only eatable concoction to spew forth from Hell's Kitchen, situated beside the school gym. Everybody would want seconds and nobody would get them. Still, chicken must be an infernal beast because as much as it would be processed, it still tasted passable. And with Ketchup too! What luxury!
Friday, January 13, 2006
Zoom Zoom Zoom
I'm not talking about Mazda, sorry.
I've been lusting after a DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) camera lately to replace my Sony DSC F717. The 717 has served me very very well and I'm rather fond of it as a general media-capturin' machine but the amateur photography nerd in me has become unsatisfied with its speed and response. It has a decently fast lens but somewhat slower focusing and shot-taking speed. It's also not (of ocurse) on an interchangeable lens system so I'm stuck with the one lens.
So a DSLR it is. The problem with most entry level DSLRs (the only ones I can afford at the moment) is that there is a "crop factor." Imagine a piece of 35mm film, the standard against which most other things are relevant. A 1.5 crop factor DSLR camera contains a piece of digital film that is 2/3 the size of a 35mm piece of film. Said in reverse, we have to multiply the area of a digital piece of film by 1.5 to reach the normal size of 35mm film. But what is a "digital piece of film"? It is a rectangular sensor which converts light to electronic signals which are then sent off to be processed into a digital picture. The two main technologies right now are CCD and CMOS and while each has its own advantages and disadvantages, they are both sensors which convert light into electronic signals.
If you take a look at camera prices and specifications, you'll notice that a Canon EOS 5D is priced around $3k while the new (and in many respects much better) Nikon D200 is priced at around $1700. What's the deal and is the Nikon that much of a better camera? Well yes and no. The D200 certainly has a faster burst speed (5 frames per second), for example, but the 5D is a full frame DSLR while the D200 is still at a 1.5x crop factor. This means that for any given lens at any focal length, the D200 will only see the middle 2/3 of what a 5D will see.
This is a disadvantage for the D200 in some ways. Let's say we couple the 5D with a 12-24mm lens. In 35mm terms, a 50mm lens is about what the standard human eye sees, a 12mm lens is very very wide and a 200mm takes the human field of vision and "zooms in" roughly 4 times. On a 5D, the 12-24 is a very wide angle zoom lens. The lens can send the same information to the D200 but the since since all lens measurements are based on the 35mm standard, it is really sending a 12-24 field of vision to a 35mm piece of film. Remember now that the D200 can only see about 2/3 of this "film". The center 2/3 of a 35mm piece of film seeing things through a 12mm lens is about 18mm, hence the 1.5x factor. This is true for any focal length so all of a sudden the 12-24 lens becomes an 18-36 lens. Still wide angle, but not as wide. This is a big disadvantage in buying lenses because really nice, fast, wide angle lenses cost a lot of money. If you just dropped $2k on some kind of wide angle 10mm, you don't want the crop factor to all of a sudden bump it up to 15mm.
The reverse is almost true for telephoto shots. On a 5D, a 70-300mm lens will get you 300mm at full telephoto. On a D200, because of the 1.5x crop factor, you'll get a 105-450mm (!!!) range, effectively. It is not entirely true though because it is like saying you can get the same range on a 5D just by ignoring the outer 1/3 of the frame. However, since, area wise, the D200 has a higher pixel density than the 5D, you'll probably get a bit more resolution with a D200 at "450mm" than a 5D at "450mm".
Most people would probably much rather better wide-angle capabilities than super telephoto capabilities. Why? The more you zoom, the slower a lens gets and the less light it can gather. So at really high levels of zoom, you can only shoot brightly lit objects. A fast super telephoto zoom (such as ones used for sports photography or wildlife photography) is ridiculously expensive too. So in other words, the higher end of zooms aren't useful for most people, even amateur photographers, unless you specialize in sports or wildlife. A wide angle, on the other hand, allows people to get a lot into a shot and then crop as needed. It also solves the problem of not having enough space to "foot zoom" when one is indoors. In short, there tend to be more subjects for the very wide angle lens than a super telephoto lens.
I've been lusting after a DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) camera lately to replace my Sony DSC F717. The 717 has served me very very well and I'm rather fond of it as a general media-capturin' machine but the amateur photography nerd in me has become unsatisfied with its speed and response. It has a decently fast lens but somewhat slower focusing and shot-taking speed. It's also not (of ocurse) on an interchangeable lens system so I'm stuck with the one lens.
So a DSLR it is. The problem with most entry level DSLRs (the only ones I can afford at the moment) is that there is a "crop factor." Imagine a piece of 35mm film, the standard against which most other things are relevant. A 1.5 crop factor DSLR camera contains a piece of digital film that is 2/3 the size of a 35mm piece of film. Said in reverse, we have to multiply the area of a digital piece of film by 1.5 to reach the normal size of 35mm film. But what is a "digital piece of film"? It is a rectangular sensor which converts light to electronic signals which are then sent off to be processed into a digital picture. The two main technologies right now are CCD and CMOS and while each has its own advantages and disadvantages, they are both sensors which convert light into electronic signals.
If you take a look at camera prices and specifications, you'll notice that a Canon EOS 5D is priced around $3k while the new (and in many respects much better) Nikon D200 is priced at around $1700. What's the deal and is the Nikon that much of a better camera? Well yes and no. The D200 certainly has a faster burst speed (5 frames per second), for example, but the 5D is a full frame DSLR while the D200 is still at a 1.5x crop factor. This means that for any given lens at any focal length, the D200 will only see the middle 2/3 of what a 5D will see.
This is a disadvantage for the D200 in some ways. Let's say we couple the 5D with a 12-24mm lens. In 35mm terms, a 50mm lens is about what the standard human eye sees, a 12mm lens is very very wide and a 200mm takes the human field of vision and "zooms in" roughly 4 times. On a 5D, the 12-24 is a very wide angle zoom lens. The lens can send the same information to the D200 but the since since all lens measurements are based on the 35mm standard, it is really sending a 12-24 field of vision to a 35mm piece of film. Remember now that the D200 can only see about 2/3 of this "film". The center 2/3 of a 35mm piece of film seeing things through a 12mm lens is about 18mm, hence the 1.5x factor. This is true for any focal length so all of a sudden the 12-24 lens becomes an 18-36 lens. Still wide angle, but not as wide. This is a big disadvantage in buying lenses because really nice, fast, wide angle lenses cost a lot of money. If you just dropped $2k on some kind of wide angle 10mm, you don't want the crop factor to all of a sudden bump it up to 15mm.
The reverse is almost true for telephoto shots. On a 5D, a 70-300mm lens will get you 300mm at full telephoto. On a D200, because of the 1.5x crop factor, you'll get a 105-450mm (!!!) range, effectively. It is not entirely true though because it is like saying you can get the same range on a 5D just by ignoring the outer 1/3 of the frame. However, since, area wise, the D200 has a higher pixel density than the 5D, you'll probably get a bit more resolution with a D200 at "450mm" than a 5D at "450mm".
Most people would probably much rather better wide-angle capabilities than super telephoto capabilities. Why? The more you zoom, the slower a lens gets and the less light it can gather. So at really high levels of zoom, you can only shoot brightly lit objects. A fast super telephoto zoom (such as ones used for sports photography or wildlife photography) is ridiculously expensive too. So in other words, the higher end of zooms aren't useful for most people, even amateur photographers, unless you specialize in sports or wildlife. A wide angle, on the other hand, allows people to get a lot into a shot and then crop as needed. It also solves the problem of not having enough space to "foot zoom" when one is indoors. In short, there tend to be more subjects for the very wide angle lens than a super telephoto lens.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Infestation
This post is Not Safe For Buddha.
I must have left some kind of viable source of biological energy out in my flat when I was in China because I've been noticing a bit of a fruitfly infestation these last few days. There's probably at least 10-15 of the little buggers flying around. They're not malicious or anything but I do notice them here and there and it's annoying. I've yet to find a reliable method of eradication though. If I see them in the sink, then down they go with a stream of water. Or I squoosh them if I have a napkin or a paper towel in hand and they happen to be on a flat surface. As phlegmatic as they seem when they're just crawling around on a picture frame or the cabinet door, they're quick little beasts when approached with a squooshing implement.
Interestingly, they also seem to be rather narcissistic creatures as they gather on my big mirror a lot and I've taken to using them as target practice with a whipping-towel. They leave a nasty trail when I'm on target but the mirror needs to be wiped anyway. I'm being a bit heartless towards the little flying nuisances but I don't have any greater plans for them (like for example establishing some basic rules of genetics through toying with them and their offspring) and so they're pretty much useless and just get in the way. In my opionion, drosophila should be like quantum fluctuations: if they spontaneously appear pretty much anywhere, then they should also spontaneously disappear within a few moments, annhilating with their anti-drosophilal selves.
I must have left some kind of viable source of biological energy out in my flat when I was in China because I've been noticing a bit of a fruitfly infestation these last few days. There's probably at least 10-15 of the little buggers flying around. They're not malicious or anything but I do notice them here and there and it's annoying. I've yet to find a reliable method of eradication though. If I see them in the sink, then down they go with a stream of water. Or I squoosh them if I have a napkin or a paper towel in hand and they happen to be on a flat surface. As phlegmatic as they seem when they're just crawling around on a picture frame or the cabinet door, they're quick little beasts when approached with a squooshing implement.
Interestingly, they also seem to be rather narcissistic creatures as they gather on my big mirror a lot and I've taken to using them as target practice with a whipping-towel. They leave a nasty trail when I'm on target but the mirror needs to be wiped anyway. I'm being a bit heartless towards the little flying nuisances but I don't have any greater plans for them (like for example establishing some basic rules of genetics through toying with them and their offspring) and so they're pretty much useless and just get in the way. In my opionion, drosophila should be like quantum fluctuations: if they spontaneously appear pretty much anywhere, then they should also spontaneously disappear within a few moments, annhilating with their anti-drosophilal selves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)