The one video I really remember was a drone with a GoPro I think in Bangkok and it was going straight down the sides of skyscrapers and going over the top of the city.
It was an amazing video and I can't seem to find it anymore.
Is it really that bad? Web designers have been taking pictures of their screens for years. You still have the original 'negative' if you need the extra image quality.
Edit: There should really be a couple sample images on the project page.
Yes it's really that bad. Us print people have been holding our noses with web screen shots for years. They really look bad when printed at 300dpi on paper. I would have to see the results with the even finer chemical grain of photo paper, but I would expect it to look even worse.
The K1000... the workhorse entry level SLR. Popular in High School photojournalism classes everywhere at that time. Also my first "real" camera. Entirely manual but also brilliantly simple... to set the aperture you simply center the needle in the viewfinder, feedback on over/underexposure was instant and intuitive.
I also had a K1000 and it was a blast from the past to see it in the corner of the catalog.
They made them unchanged from the mid 70s to the turn of the century, a good quarter century run.
The prices in wikipedia are ridiculous. 40% off, yeah whatever. My K1000 body was barely over $100 new in the very early 90s. I bought lenses on sale and they generally set me back $50 or so each, roughly a high school kids weekly part time job paycheck.
The differences between my K1000 and my father's old spotmatic were the spotmatic used a threaded lens and the K1000 used a bayonet mount (like a BNC connector, kinda) Also the spotmatic required a now unobtainium mercury based battery. Not mercury added to lower internal resistance like modern alkalines, but mercury itself was an electrode.
I agree the UI on the K1000 kicked butt. Trivial to adjust while shooting, fast, simple. No modern camera app comes close because of hardware limitations. Also image quality was vastly superior especially with lower ASA films and even a cheap high school student lens.
Pentax also had the best lens coating of the time, so even the cheaper 50mm students could afford had great color transmission. It's still sought after for it's unique color rendering, and pristine lenses sell for a premium.
Couldn't they have made a simple password protected download page? The licence holders this whole thing was intended for already have registered an 'adobe id' (have access to the backend of the adobe website).
Learning to work with a big software package makes it harder to switch to another editing suite. Free cs2 does make sense.
But there is a licence required to legally use the software. They have (contact) information. To avoid confusion, Adobe could've used some kind of login to hide access to this download to people that don't have the required cs2 licence. Instead of this, Adobe gave you the option to register for a new Adobe ID. This process didn't check if you had any business on this download page. If this is truly an accident, as in, if they don't want you to use the unlicensed suite, why is this page still up? They know there's a lot of traffic coming from the blogs.
From the forums:
"
Dov Isaacs wrote:
What is true is that Adobe is terminating the activation servers for CS2 and that for existing licensed users of CS2 who need to reinstall their software, copies of CS2 that don't require activation but do require valid serial numbers are available."
On that same page users mentioned that this "looked like a legitimate product form the official web-site."
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. You think it is not an accident? (They changed the URL, by the way. The one all the blogs were linking to is 404.)
Earlier HN threads called this whole thing 'marketing', I'm not going to say this wasn't an accident. I'm saying that: a thing like this, where people get excited over nothing could have been avoided with just a little notice on the download page. That would've been enough to stop this as it was going on. Giving people access to software you don't want them to use is silly.
