If you pay for the service, the bandwidth, and have the equipment, it's annoying when you have to settle for the bare minimum. Not necessarily HULK SMASH lebel of annoying, but it's still there..
I happen to like aesthetically pleasing films. Sometimes, if the aesthetics are constrained by network issues, the film really isn't "worth" watching-- I'll read a book, or do a little programming instead.
You need a desktop.
what about bluetooth mice?
There's always the option of NAS.
Huh? Netflix says it needs 25 Mbs I'm not sure where you're getting 1.5 Mb/s-- unless you like 360p.
What if he wants to contact his representative or Senator? What if he wants to petition his government for redress of grievances?
The iMac "Retina" has a AMD R9 M290X (Pitcairn?) by default. It can be ordered with an AMD R9 M295X (Tonga XT?). Both are "mobile" chipsets,
Ghostery seems good at blocking the comments at Gawker media sites. Now, I know that the vast majority of Kinja comments aren't up to the standards of
standard deviation would be a useful addition to benchmarking.
A 194 inch screen will technically still fit under a 8 foot ceiling.
Diablo III @ 5120x2880: 31 fps. That's with the R295X (mobile) card, and presumably also with the i7. I'm not sure if that's average, or minimum. Some games may be playable at those sorts of framerates, but they might not be enjoyable.
Text and photos on the iMac look as high resolution as those in a glossy magazine-- that's the main benefit.
Other possible benefits include editing 4K video with room for palettes and the like.
That app is, indeed, for Canon EOS DSLRs-- the EOS M is pointedly non compatible. But it's the Live view that's displayed, not the viewfinder.
I use my iPad to stream Amazon Prime video to my AppleTV-- technically I could use my Macs to watch the same streams, but they wouldn't be HD. This proved a welcome surprise, as many of the other services like Macs-- but demand additional payment for streaming to the iPad.
The shutter was a mirror. At the time did they have a shutter behind the mirror, or use the mirror as the shutter?
Wikipedia's article on the history of SLR camera
states:
Early 35 mm SLR cameras had similar functionality to larger models, with a waist-level ground-glass viewfinder and a mirror which remained in the taking position—blacking out the viewfinder—after an exposure, returning when the film was wound on. Innovations which transformed the SLR were the pentaprism eye-level viewfinder and the instant-return mirror—the mirror flipped briefly up during exposure, immediately returning to the viewfinding position.
Now, when the viewfinder blacks out, that means that the mirror has been raised to take a picture. If the mirror did not return instantly, or even worse, did not return until the film was rewound, this would mean that the shutter would be the only thing keeping the film from being overexposed. To solve this problem You could add a film door, and use a leaf shutter, but this complicates matters.
Mirrors are heavy. Shutters are light enough to be moved in small fractions of a second.
In a twin lens reflex camera, the mirror reflects the light entering the viewfinder lens, to the viewfinder screen at the top of the camera. The mirror doesn't need to move. because there's another lens below for the film.
In 1959 Nikkon called their fast versions of 3.5 cm, 5 cm, and 10.5 cm lenses the three sacred treasures. Tastes have changed.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
