Well, actually, it's around 3.5 HD, but it's the thought that counts.

This baby is awesome. I get to look at tons of displays for work and this one still takes the cake- it's made by Barco, is incredibly bright, has a built in calibration puck, comes with some decent software (ie, easily 'configured' for our purposes), and all around blows the socks off of everything on the market.

Don't mind the $16K price tag.

The diffuser used is so clean you could eat off it- none of that nasty subsurface artifacting that looks like dust on your screen (speckle). Just pure, rich, saturated colors that are accurately represented with no TFT structure to worry about.

Now, IBM had the T221 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors) which had a native resolution of 3840x2200- at 200ppi- so that your eyes could never make out the substructure of the pixels. Best of all the monitor had hardware interpolation- it could be used at 1/2x to basically present the user a clean screen with nothing to distract your eyes from. IBM did this back in 2000!

I'm pretty sure the fire marshal would want to talk to you. Your bedroom is probably limited to 15 individuals or less, you kinky bastard.

Exactly.

How you stitch together a book doesn't matter if it's for your own personal use.

Now, if you want to go commercial you've got quite a few things to figure out.

Regardless, what you're wanting to do is basically orthorectification. There is an open source package out there that does that. Figuring out how to do so would be left to you, but I'd recommend using some sort of yellow projection grid (or red from a red laser) to map the distortion and correct it by treating it as a DEM.

Poor man method- so long as you only want bw scans :)

When I was much much younger I was purchasing a violin. While at this shop the owner had a 'cheap' Stradivarius. After I had selected the instrument I wanted (this had been going on for weeks of trying them) the owner let me hold, and play, his 'cheap' Stradivarius.

The sound that effused out of that instrument can not be put into words to hear and feel... it made the one I selected sound as if it were a cheap knockoff made of plastic. The tones could not even be compared in the same room- one was transmitted through steel cups and a string, the other was singing in front of you.

To this day that is one of the more emotional feelings of music I have ever felt.

To have that sacred sound reproduced for everyone to have access to- I don't know. It is such a beautiful instrument that, currently, only the elite can have and play (most instruments are endowed to players- on 'loan'). Should everyone have access... would it be the same?

The Ultra 27 was released with 2 PCIe x16 slots .... and it wasn't until we'd bought the damn things that we found out you can't put two FX-5600s in there- the case was designed to prevent it.

What's that got to do with their SPARC roadmap? Next x86 box we buy will be intel reference design. It's cheaper.

(not to mention there are bugs with the XVR-300 and the FX series of cards where you can't turn on 3 heads- it's 2 or 4 only)

Twice in my life have I been in a situation that would have resulted in a fatality while driving. Both times (and to this day) I get the shakes while thinking about it.

The first time a woman made a left turn while I was entering the intersection. She was oblivious- never even looked. I saw her little girl in the front seat staring at me, wide eyed with fear as my grand prix got closer and closer. I locked up the brakes, yanked the wheel hard left, skidded into oncoming traffic, went between two cars (THANK GOD they were paying attention) and ended up facing the wrong way- but everyone was alive- and the **((#(# woman never even slowed down. Funny thing- cops told me later that had I hit anyone it would have been 100% my fault.

Second time a little girl ran across the street in a crosswalk while her wheelchair bound (larger than life) mother followed her. She didn't stop running. Cars on either side... don't know how that one got dodged. I personally wish the US was more like the UK in this regards, then I'd be OK stopping and not having to worry about being rear-ended.

Either way- had I been inattentive due to an electronic device there would have been a death- no doubt in my mind. And I would have deserved every inch of that penalty meted out.

But having done everything possible to avoid an accident (say in the first case) and been unable to- no, I don't think I would deserve prison time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairport_High_School (fairport five).

- wait, are you talking about Microsoft or Apple?

I put all my valuables in my suitcase. TSA agents need DVDs, laptop power cords, etc- too.

I've had 4 DVD wallets stolen- so I'm really not joking here.

Oh no doubt at all- I was more throwing my support around continued testing and trials. There aint no easy cure- and anything easy and free is probably not worth it. I've got to believe nature would have already evolved a solution if it was 'easy'...

My body also walled off all the tumors and tissue that had been affected- so I may have already been primed to attack the cells.

Who knows.

I underwent the experimental treatment in 1994 at the age of 17- I had Melanoma that had metastasized to my lymph nodes. Each doctor I spoke with basically said I'd be dead.

You'll note the year- 1994- and it is now 2009. I'm celebrating my 15 year anniversary of having my 'face lift' and 7 hours of surgery to remove all of the cancer, salivary gland, neck muscles, and lymph nodes from the right half of my head. My wrestling career is over (it never got off the ground, hahaha!) but I'm alive.

Not only that, I've lived long enough to get married and have a daughter.

Was the treatment effective? Hard to say. I certainly reacted during the treatment- a couple of irradiated cancer cells and some crab blood had a MASSIVE reaction on my body- I could barely move the day after each injection. I was told that the treatment wasn't promising and that no further trials were done.

So, having been through it- I'll tell you that I believe it worked in my case. I also gained super human resistance to colds and flus afterwards for about 5 years.... unfortunately since my wife and I have had our little 'germ factory' I know now that I'm paying for that immunity with every cold I've gotten since.

(I did have one side effect- tooth pain. Excruciating, body numbing, on the floor curled up in fetal position tooth pain. Just give me the pliers already)

Yes, yes, yes- everyone holds up that particular case as a shiny bright sword.

Unfortunately it is not the same- we know none of the technical details of what was done with the UK works- not to mention the UK work was done in- the UK.

Thus factually we do not have enough information to make a determination- and regardless I stand by my statement- the guy is a schmuck for doing what he did.

... and then bitch when I rip the paper while trying to remove it.

The images are unambiguously in the public domain? How so? The museum seems to think otherwise- and I (as a photographer and somewhat knowledgeable in copyright law for photography) tend to agree.

The moment a photographer presses the shutter button to capture an image the photographer owns the right to the image. The photographer- not the corporation who hired them. In some countries a blind photographer can tells someone else to press the shutter button and the blind photographer owns the copyright.

Now the photographer can assign rights, as per a contract, to the entity that has hired them to do the photography work- and that assignment can be irrevocable, single use, multi use, first press, etc. But no matter what when that button went down a copywritten work was created.

So what we have here is a very confusing summary of a legal letter claiming that the museum owns the copyrights and had the original, full size images taken by the photographer, available online but not directly linked. Their excuse is abhorrent, IMHO, to claim that knowing how to use a URL and download something is illegal. I don't think they have a leg there- but not knowing the particulars about the contract signed, who funded it (I'm assuming it was public dollars, but that's an assumption), the business relationship between the photographer and the museum... I think it's a very big stretch to claim their assertions are without merit.

A photographer lighting artwork may (and this comes from experience) spend hours trying to get all the nuances of the painting recorded properly. What would you say if the photographer had to take 9 consecutive images at different exposures and merge them all into a HDR-type image, then spend hours rendering it down to sRGB to view correctly on the screen. Brush strokes can reflect light- perhaps he had to cross-polarize shots carefully.

What I'm saying is that a photo of a painting is still considered a copyrightable item- you may wish it to be derivative to the 'public domain' but if that were the case any photograph in front of a public domain piece of work would automatically be public domain- and it is clearly not.

We don't know all the story, but it is very evident to me that he crossed the line. Intentions are good- I admire it- but definitely did something that was not in the spirit of wiki and may be against the law.

And no, whomever marked my other comments troll- this is not a troll. Just because I'm taking a stand against what you think "Free is right all the time" doesn't make me a troll. I'm providing thoughtfully logically laid out information for additional discussion.

I just re-read the letter- they're claiming he downloaded the images that someone else took and uploaded them to Wiki. That is a clear violation in every sense of the law- he doesn't own the images (public domain) and he is using someone elses work without attribution.

I was under the impression he had taken the photos himself and uploaded them. If that's not the case then he's an idiot and really ought to do the right thing here- remove them- and redirect them to the museum's website.

There may be some room for negotiation but I'd say he's starting from a deep hole.

Sorry for misreading it- editors could do a little better job editing story titles to reflect what is actually happening rather than just putting their spin on it.

I have a modified IR camera I use that I built to photograph artwork- it's amazing what you can sometimes see 'underneath' the paints the artist chose.

In one gallery in Germany I saw a work of art in IR that had been severely damaged and retouched- it was clearly evident in the IR photograph but not in the VIS photograph. I showed them to the curator (I spoke no German and he spoke no English) and tried to ask what had happened to it in its history (as there was no statement of that on the work).

I swear the man was going to shit a brick. He had a look of pure panic on his face when he saw the IR photograph- I think he immediately ran up there to check on it. I don't think he understood what he was seeing (not surprising) so my wife and I left ASAP.

Now to me, IR would bring value- so would UV photographs of the artwork. I know there are places that can do this much more professionally ... but hey, a hobby is a hobby.

The museum is out of line. In a 'real world' they'd lose. They'll probably respond by banning photography and forcing anyone that does want to do shots to sign a waiver.