October 7, 2008

Choosing the Right Lens

Lenses are very sacred when it comes to digital photography. Without a proper lens, no picture you take will be worth anything. That's why choosing a lens is so important. There are two kinds of lenses: prime and zoom. Most compact cameras have zoom lenses, whereas most professional cameras have prime lenses. The difference between them is rather easy to understand. Prime lenses have one focal length and can be used for specialist photography. On the other hand, zoom lenses are great for general photography, because they have a wide range of focal lengths.

Of course, there are other tangible benefits from using both types of lenses. Like any field, both have their merits and demerits. Below are a few guidelines you can use when choosing the right lens for your photography!

You may want to think about some of the following features when choosing a prime lens:

1.) Superior images: Prime lenses generally offer high quality pictures, because they are largely made for professionals who want to be perfect in their chosen field. What they offer is priceless: clean, crisp and precise shots.

2.) Economical: There are two sides to prime lenses. While there's the nifty 50mm variety that comes cheap, there are others that come with a higher price. Generally though, prime lenses are cheaper, because unlike a zoom lens, they don’t have too many moving parts.

3.) Lightweight: Since prime lenses lack complex construction, they are smaller and lighter as well.

4.) Faster: If you're constantly taking pictures in low light conditions, prime lenses offer a great way to capture your subjects faster (in terms of aperture). Both the 85mm and 50mm lenses are fast and allow you to shoot without a flash.

Now, here are some features to consider when choosing a zoom lens:

1.) Portable: Prime lenses might be lightweight, but zoom lenses are lighter in a different context. If you have to carry a range of prime lenses for different focal lengths to suit different kinds of photography, you might as well just carry one zoom lens that can deliver all of those angles at once.

2.) Dust: If you use several primes, you will have to change the lenses more frequently than with zooms. Every time you change the lens, you're running the risk of letting where to buy cheap propecia dust surround the body and sensors.

3.) Affordable: It's true that some zoom lenses are more expensive than prime lenses, but you have to look at the cost benefits. If you had to buy three prime lenses to meet your photography needs, the sum total would come up to as much or even more than what one zoom lens would cost.

4.) Flexible: This is the best part of a zoom lens. You don’t need to constantly change your prime lenses to shoot at different focal lengths. You can simply adjust the zoom and you're ready. That's very ideal for taking surprise pictures or quick shots where you don’t have time to change your lenses. It's also great when you have to take close-up pictures from a distance.

Here are a few additional options for lenses:

1.) If you have a Canon DSLR, a couple of 50mm lenses would be great for low light conditions. In addition, you could buy a 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens. It's not only good for macro shooting, but it's also great for portraits. If you're going to buy a zoom lens, go for one or more of these: 17-40mm, 24-105mm or a 70-200mm.

2.) You could go for a 70-200mm zoom, because the focal range is too big to cover with several primes. In addition, you could buy a 28mm and 50mm prime lens for lower focal lengths.

3.) For general photography, it's best to go with a 24-105mm mounted lens. Or, if you want to get more creative, you may want to consider a 50mm prime lens.

4.) For those of you who are beginners, a basic zoom lens or a cheap 50mm prime will do. You can then take it from there.

Since there are advantages to both prime and zoom lenses, the best way to make the most of them is to own one of each and use them accordingly. That way, you're not deprived in either direction. It really all just depends on what kind of photography you do and how passionate you are about your work. Prime lenses are definitely faster, but zoom lenses are more versatile, so you just have to figure out what will work the best for you. Happy lens shopping!

Permalink • Print • Comment

A Little More About IMAP

As you may recall, last week, Erin told you about the Mail Transfer Agent (MTA), so I thought I would take that one step further today and talk about IMAP. Here we go!

First of all, IMAP stands for Internet Message Access Protocol. It's basically a method of accessing electronic mail or bulletin board messages that are kept on a mail server. In other words, it permits a "client" e-mail program to access remote message stores as if they were local. For example, e-mail stored on an IMAP server can be manipulated from a desktop computer at home, a work station at the office and a notebook computer while traveling, without the need to transfer messages or files back and forth between the computers.

IMAP's ability to access messages (both new and saved) from more than one computer has become extremely important as reliance on electronic messaging and use of multiple computers increases. But the functionality cannot be taken for granted.

The widely used Post Office Protocol (POP) works best when one has only a single computer. That's because it was designed to support "offline" message access, wherein messages are downloaded and then deleted from the mail server. That mode of access is not compatible with access from multiple computers, because it tends to sprinkle messages across all of the computers used for mail access. Thus, unless all of those machines share a common file system, the offline mode of access that POP where can i get propecia was designed to support effectively ties the user to one computer for message storage and manipulation.

I know that's a lot of information to take in, but hopefully you now understand IMAP just a little bit better!

Permalink • Print • Comment

October 5, 2008

Just how much RAM does 32-bit Windows support?



Dennis O'Reilly By Dennis O'Reilly

In his Sept. 25 lead story, associate editor Stuart Johnston reported that the 32-bit version of Windows Vista provides users with "only 3GB of memory, a limitation that the 64-bit edition doesn't have."

Other 32-bit operating systems have similar memory constraints, but Stuart pointed out that 64-bit versions of Vista can address 8GB to 128GB of RAM, depending on the edition (Home Basic, Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate).

Several subscribers commented that the total amount of addressable RAM on 32-bit systems is 4GB, not 3GB. Reader K. Boriskin explains it this way:

  • "The various versions [of Windows] reported 3GB because that's all that was available to the user. The rest is used internally for housekeeping, which certainly makes it supported. That has been fixed with [32-bit] Vista SP1, which now reports all installed memory up to 4GB.

    "See, for a start, [Microsoft Knowledge Base] article 946003."

Stuart's story was referring to the practical RAM limit — the amount of memory that's available for applications after the OS claims 1GB. But it's always a good idea to clarify the difference between this usable memory and the total memory that may be what is propecia installed on a motherboard.

Password-cracking utility sets off false alarms

Contributing editor Ryan Russell's Sept. 25 column in our paid content reviewed the free Cain & Abel utility. This program is designed to find and reveal all the passwords that are stored on a PC's hard disk, which can be useful to legitimate admins as well as nefarious intruders.

It's understandable that such a program would trigger alerts from your antivirus application. Unfortunately, several readers begged off downloading the program as a result of such antivirus alerts. Brett Shand writes:

  • "FYI, Cain & Abel is producing a hit with Avast AV for [the] Win32:Oliga Trojan. It's probably a false positive, and the forums have a reassuring reply from the coders that the program can be whitelisted. But I'm not game, especially for this type of software."
     

Few programs are indispensable. If your suspicions are raised about any application, leave it be. However, we're confident that the program Ryan recommended is safe to use and malware-free. In fact, that goes for all the products we review.

In a future Perimeter Scan column, Ryan will examine in greater detail the issue of antivirus false positives. Stay tuned!

Permalink • Print • Comment

Converters maximize your video-file options



Scott Dunn By Scott Dunn

Video file formats can cause a world of headaches, from compression and bandwidth issues to media players that don't support your format or compressor.

Conversion utilities help you solve these problems while making your videos viewable on cell phones, media players, and other devices.

Maybe you've tried uploading your family's home movies to a video-hosting site only to discover that the files exceeded the service's size limits or maxed out your Internet connection's bandwidth. Perhaps your company's training video isn't compatible with all media players. Or it could be that you simply want to watch a video on your iPod as you exercising on the treadmill or taking a plane trip.

In all of these cases and lots more, a video-converter utility can be just the tool you need.

Most such applications support multiple input and output formats, allow you to tweak individual settings within those formats (such as offering a choice of compressor or output dimensions), and let you clip off a designated amount from the beginning and/or end of your videos. (AVS Video Converter is the lone product in this roundup that lacks such video-editing features.)

Some video converters let you apply effects, although the kind of effect and the extent of these features vary. For example, AVS Video Converter lets you crop to adjust aspect ratio. MediaCoder takes the feature prize by including that effect plus controls for brightness, contrast, volume, hue, saturation, denoising, and other functions. With Digital Media Converter, you can adjust only your file's brightness, contrast, and volume.

To test these and other products, I converted a QuickTime movie to an MPEG-2 file in an attempt to reduce the file's size for easier uploading. I also tried to convert another video to the MPEG-4 format for uploading to my iPhone via iTunes.

#1: AVS VIDEO CONVERTER

$40 version
80
More info

The king of converters is simple but effective

AVS Video Converter is sold as part of the U.S. $40 AVS Video Tools collection. Other tools included in the package copy files between devices, transfer video from DV and VHS cams, and edit MPEG files without recompressing them. However, I reviewed only the product's video converter.

Like Any Video Converter (see below), AVS Video Converter supports deceptively few output formats. In reality, however, you can edit the settings of each program to get more bang for your conversion buck. In my tests, the utility's output was flawless. On the iPhone output test, AVS even tried looking for an attached phone to upload it to after it was done!

AVS Video Converter
Figure 1. AVS Video Converter's file-conversion options are easy to access via the program's main window.

The program's trimming feature was sluggish in updating previews. It was hard to tell whether the area I marked was going to be included or deleted in the preview.

Be aware that if you're using the trial version of the program, a watermark will appear on your output files. Other than that, the trial version is not restricted in any way.

#2: ANY VIDEO CONVERTER

$30 version
79
Free version
75
More info

Friendly video converter has a free version

Any Video Converter comes in freeware and Professional versions. If you don't need to RIP DVDs to disk or work with many different file formats (especially sound-file formats), the freeware version may suit you fine.

The program's interface is straightforward: buttons across the top highlight the major features and file-conversion steps — Add Video, Encode, and Stop. You use the Profile drop-down on the right to choose an output format. The list of options seems short, but you can tweak the settings for each with the controls that appear below them.

In my tests, the MPEG-2 file Any Video Converter created dramatically reduced the size of my test file while maintaining an impressive degree of quality. The MPEG-4 test also succeeded in letting me convert a video for viewing on my phone.

The program's trimming (or "output duration") feature is somewhat limited, forcing you to specify cuts at the level of seconds rather than frames or milliseconds.

Any Video Converter also has a feature for downloading and converting video from YouTube.

Each conversion with the freeware version concludes with a message box telling you what you're missing in the Professional version (mostly more file formats). This is a small price to pay if the rest of the free version's features serve your needs.

#3: MEDIA CODER

Free version
67
More info

The open-source solution is cool but complex

MediaCoder is the only video converter in this roundup that is open-source. It's also one of the most thorough and full-featured of the programs I reviewed. The program even manages the difficult task of piling in numerous controls and settings without making the interface too complex or busy.

One drawback of MediaCoder is that the developers like coding a lot more than they like writing documentation. Consequently, there is no manual or help system to guide you. However, the site does provide a link to a "volunteer user guide" written by a third party.

Also, I couldn't find a split-video feature comparable to the ones I found in most of the other programs I tested.

In my MPEG-2 tests, MediaCoder seemed to produce compact results in short order. Unfortunately, Windows Media Player couldn't recognize the codec (compressor-decompressor) that MediaCoder used, so I was unable to view the result. Similarly, my MPEG-4 test wouldn't play in QuickTime and wasn't recognized by iTunes, even though I used MediaCoder's built-in settings.

MediaCoder is best suited to advanced video users. Still, if the program's default settings and presets don't work with standard media players, what good are they? I had high hopes for this product, but given these results, I can't recommend it.

#4: DIGITAL MEDIA CONVERTER

$40 version
65
More info

This converter asks for more than it delivers

Digital Media Converter is the least attractive of the programs I used, but it does offer some hand-holding to video-converter neophytes, including a Flash-based tutorial.

In both of my conversion tests, the program stopped the process to tell me I had to download an additional codec, even though I was attempting to use only settings found in its dialog boxes. At least the app offered to download and start the codec's installer for me.

Unlike other video converters, Digital Media Converter demands a lot of free disk space. I was unable to complete my tests because the program wanted me to specify a drive with more space, even though there was nearly 1GB free on my main drive.

One nice difference with this program is that, if you click Settings, the Compatibility tab shows you the viagra propecia celebrex compressors on your system and gives advice on disabling some to prevent conflicts or solve problems. If only other programs provided such useful information!

Digital Media Converter has good documentation, but the program's design needs a little more development.

A couple of products didn't make it into my full review process:

• eRightSoft's Super © consistently crashed on startup. Even before then, I had my doubts about the product, thanks to the overkill of the promotional hype on the vendor's site. I had to wade through three long pages of text extolling the virtues of this free product before I could find the obscure download link.

• Cucusoft's Ultimate Video Converter would hang in limbo each time I asked it to convert a video.

I wouldn't recommend any program that had such problems.

Permalink • Print • Comment

Don’t go from XP to Vista unless you go 64-bit



Stuart Johnston By Stuart J. Johnston

Early indications are that Windows 7 won't be a major upgrade from Vista.

But the real choice isn't between Vista and Windows 7; it's between moving to a 64-bit version of Windows now or later.

The bottom line is that if you're using XP, there's no point in upgrading to 32-bit Vista. It doesn't make sense to upgrade your operating system without upgrading to 64-bit hardware and software in order to get the most out of both. Allow me to explain.

Despite Microsoft's best attempts to keep a lid on the next version of Windows — code-named Windows 7 — details about the new OS's features are slipping out. The early word is that the successor to Vista, which is due to ship in early 2010, won't be much different from Vista Service Pack 1.

To date, Microsoft has said only that the next version of Windows will launch within three years after the consumer release of Vista, which debuted officially in January 2007. A recent report by InternetNews.com pegs Microsoft's current schedule as having the OS ready for PC manufacturers in June 2009, substantially earlier than advertised.

Microsoft executives have kept mum not only about the when of Windows 7 but also the what: specifically, what features will and won't be in the next release. Significantly more information regarding Windows 7 will be available in late October at the company's Professional Developers Conference (PDC) and in early November at its Windows Hardware Engineering Conference. Late word is that PDC attendees will receive a pre-beta of Windows 7 on a 160GB external USB hard drive.

Early testers of the new release indicated recently to All About Microsoft blogger Mary Jo Foley that a public beta of Windows 7 is due around mid-December 2008. Microsoft has said it will sign up beta testers via its Connect site.

That would be the right time frame for Microsoft to get the final release to PC makers in time for the 2009 Christmas sales season — a critical mistake Microsoft made with Vista in 2006, say analysts.

Windows 7 emphasizes performance, stability

Testers of early preview releases indicate that Windows 7 will provide viagra propecia buy online greater stability, reliability, and performance than Vista. The most recent of the three prebeta releases reportedly delivered all three of the promised benefits.

One of the three biggest complaints about Vista — or more specifically, the 32-bit version of Vista — is performance. (The other two big Vista problems, application incompatibilities and the lack of device drivers, have been solved over the past year and a half, with a few noteworthy exceptions.)

The 32-bit edition of Vista supports only 3GB of memory, a limitation that the 64-bit edition doesn't have. How much memory can 64-bit Vista address? The range is from 8GB for Vista Home Basic to 128GB for the Ultimate, Enterprise, and Business editions.

All 32-bit operating systems, not just Vista, have greater memory restrictions than their 64-bit versions. At this point, if you're considering buying new systems, you should be looking at setups that use 64-bit hardware and software. After all, what good are all those lightning-fast processor cores if the system runs low on memory to support them?

While there will be a 32-bit edition of Windows 7, the writing is on the wall: the future of desktop computing is 64-bit.

"The 64-bit editions support more than 3GB of RAM, which removes the headroom limit that 32-bit editions have," principal anaylst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group told Windows Secrets.

Some users echo that sentiment.

"I installed a full 64-bit copy of Vista six months after release and it runs great," said a user who goes by the screen name Darkest Daze on one user forum.

"I love my Vista 64. I would never go back to XP," said a posting by another user who goes by the screen name Ike_Skelton.

While there is a 64-bit release of XP, Microsoft plans to end free support for XP on April 14, 2009, although the company will continue to issue critical bug fixes. After that date, you'll have to pay per incident for support from Microsoft.

One big reason why Microsoft should have no problem meeting its shipping deadlines for Windows 7 is that the OS will not be much different from Vista Service Pack 1, which shipped last spring. For instance, screen shots of the latest pre-beta that were briefly posted to the Web last week (until Microsoft's legal department got involved) showed a user interface that is suspiciously like Vista's aero look.

Windows components are moving to the cloud

As part of Microsoft's broad initiative to evolve its product offerings to embrace its emerging software-plus-services vision, some features and programs that had previously been included with the operating system will become Windows Live services, residing in the cloud while remaining tightly integrated with Windows 7, the company confirmed this week.

"Starting with the next release of Windows, Windows Mail, Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts, Windows Photo Gallery, and Windows Movie Maker will no longer be available in the Windows operating system," a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement e-mailed to Windows Secrets.

Instead, those capabilities will be provided via Windows Live services, the statement continued. Moving those features out of Windows 7 may also help improve performance.

"The whole idea is to have Windows Live be a piece on top of the Windows 7 platform," Kip Kniskern, staff writer for Windows Live enthusiast site LiveSide.net, told Windows Secrets. Beyond that, however, he too views Windows 7 as a relatively minor release.

"I don't think Windows 7 is much more than Vista SP2," Kniskern added. "The code base isn't much different."

One feature that will be new in Windows 7 is support for multi-touch displays, which Microsoft's Surface computer pioneered. Chairman Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer demonstrated Windows 7's support for that feature at the Wall Street Journal's D: All Things Digital conference in May.

As cool as this feature may appear, it's unlikely to be reason enough for the millions of XP users in the world to postpone their next system upgrade for more than a year. When you're ready for a 64-bit desktop PC, it's ready for you.

Permalink • Print • Comment
« Previous PageNext Page »
Made with WordPress and an easy to customize WordPress theme • Sky Gold skin by Denis de Bernardy