Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotationefficiently?

i use preview sometimes too.

it should be the same if they're both displayed at the same size.

that's the thinking behind auto-quit. it relaunches so fast and saved
state, you don't realize it wasn't running.

what if the os quits it for you?

 

Not at all. Finder/Quicklook usually does a good job of putting up a
view at a less than full size. But some JPG's it fails at it.

defaults write -g NSDisableAutomaticTermination -bool yes

solved that for me so long ago I'd forgotten about it (I had to look it
up just now to see what you were on about). My apps do not quit unless
I quit them or they crash.

 

There still cameras around which haven't a clue which way up they are
being held and hence don't any orientation data in the EXIF. No
application can tell the correct orientation of their photographs from
the EXIF.

 

it's the same code underneath.

yes, that will fix that stupid feature.

however, their thinking is that you're not supposed to notice.

 

Yet I have done that more than once with NX2. The slowest part is
clicking through the various overlapping open windows.

 

not many, and those cameras are broken.

 

It can be done, most commonly in batch RAW processing. However, PS
still makes a rather tedious "viewer" when there are others which do a
better job.
The two very good "viewers" to use in combination with PS are Bridge or
Lightroom.

 

Hardly 'broken' if they have been made that way.

 

broken design. they're not writing necessary information that every
other camera has written for over a decade.

 

Nikon View and DXO are up there too, if we disregard that they can't see
PSD files.

 

I'm not sure about this how does a camera know which way up a photo is meant to be viewed, all it can do at most is record which way up it was when the shot was taken. A friend took a photo of someone cutting a cake to me in email it looked the wrong way up because he took it at an akward angle to get the shot but they picture is meant to be viewed with the persons feet atthe bottom and their head at the top and not with their head on the right and their feet on the left which is how the picture was taken, but it's notmeant to be viewed the same way.
No wonder artifical inteligence is olde hat and we're researching into cognative robotics.

 

Dream on. They've been nearing no-impact since forever.

Unfortunately, load times are small compared to setup times.

-Wolfgang

 

| On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], `Pray,
| Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
| answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
| confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. --Charles Babbage

I'm also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion
of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that
there's no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1]
and free (libre) software[2]. I can only assume a lack of
basic knowledge or serious illness like dementia.

About any job they pay you for and where using Windows is not
a choice you can make, but is a given. You never held a job
in the last 15 where part of the work was using a computer,
I take it?

You soldered the DSPs in yourself? And it plugs directly
into the phone line or TV cable or glass fibre you get your
internet over?

Let me rephrase that, since maybe I'm not as versed in the
variant of the language you speak as you are and since you
are not very flexible in that area --- the technology that is
used by the telephone company to connect your pnone to another
phone when you dial is still fully mechanical apparently.

Another way is
http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~ece533/project/f06/sanchez.pdf

This is btw. yet another good reason for "a dedicated
image-rotation application that has no other function".

Says the guy who doesn't want to understand what I write.

Writing comprehensibly, on the other hand, does not seem to
be your strong suit.

| There's no need for a dedicated image-rotation application
| that has no other function.
was stated by a certain "J. Clarke <>".

Sure, you'll claim that that's something *completely*
different. But if it was so, then why does it matter to you
if there is such an application?

So you don't even have the slightest idea if a dedicated
image-rotation application would make sense for them or not
--- yet you claim with utter conviction that there is no need
for one.

Can you connect the dots?

Nice that you agree.


-Wolfgang

[1] Stuff you don't need to pay for if you fall into a narrow
class of users or kind of usage, all other rights,
including copyright, being withheld by the author. In
other words, not even freedom 0 from [2] applies, never
mind the rest.

[2] A program is free software if the program's users have the
four essential freedoms:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it
so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access
to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified
versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can
give the whole community a chance to benefit from your
changes. Access to the source code is a precondition
for this.
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

 

Wolfgang, you remind me of the kid in my junior high school who was
convinced that steel was harder than diamonds because nobody would
present him with a diamond that he could hit with a hammer.

In other words, and I mean this in the kindest possible way, you're a
loon of the sort that gives Linux users and by extesion Linux a bad
name. Nobody likes a proselyte except another proselyte of the same
faith.

I'm not wasting any more time on this discussion since it is not a
discussion, it is you launching harangues that have little relation to
objective reality.

 

| I'm also not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion
| of ideas that could provoke a statement like yours, that
| there's no kind of meaningful distinction between Freeware[1]
| and free (libre) software[2].

There's no consistent distinction. Both are free to use.
One is produced cooperatively and the source code is available.
Beyond that? There's lots of free software that is arguably the
best in its class. (IrfanView. Sysinternals utilities, which were
originally written independently by one person before Microsoft
bought him out and hired him. HxD hex editor.)
On the other hand, there's lots of OSS that will never be ready
for prime time, being little more than a social hobby for one or
more geeks.

Fanatics like Richard Stallman see a very big difference,
but that's because he's a programmer. For him OSS is
important because he can alter and recompile it. The code
is free. But for the vast majority of people that's not a
relevant distinction, so quality and usability issues do not
necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

 

Then there's also no consistent distinction between eating at
a soup kitchen and being in jail: you don't need to pay for
your food.

Sometimes, but not necessarily. I point you to Argyllcms.
One-man show *and* restrictions as to what patches he'll take
(outside the usual 'good code', 'correctly formatted', 'makes
sense to have', etc.) since the creator wants to be able to
license the code commercially, too.

You make it sound as if being in jail wasn't a big deal:
you never wanted to go out of your cell anyways.

The same is true for commercial closed source software.
Unfortunately, that doesn't stop them from being sold!

Next time you buy a car, consider if a welded down engine
hood would be acceptabe. You'd have to drive to your car
maker's garages for any work. Even for checking oil outside an
"oil alert" lamp. Now, I am not a car mechanic. I probably
never will change spark plugs. I don't mind going to garages
cooperating with my car maker. But I can, and have, checked
oil, refilled oil, giving stater help through tapping my car's
battery contacts.

I've been on the receiving end of roadside assistance which
would not have been possible with a welded down engine hood.


Another example: You might know that (some) games have a vibrant
modding community, fixing oversights and adding features and
in the case of sims, correcting stats to historically correct
values. Some games are only still alife and going strong in
their respective circles because there are modders that still
work on them --- the publisher has abandoned them. While the
source code to the engine is not available (and it's a pity,
as this makes it much harder or impossible to fix some bugs ---
sometimes an exceptional modder manages to decode small parts
of the binary and add a few important features through trial
and error). Now, you don't need to be a programmer to enjoy
the works of these modders and you don't need to be a
programmer to grasp what could have been if there had been
sourcecode (and the necessary rights to change and pass on)
available.


Yet another example: Google for "Magic Lantern". Imagine
Nikon opened their firmware sources a bit --- just offering
an API, just offering hooks for such a mod to hook into the
right places ... now what could happen if there was full
access to the hardware via the firmware.

.... because noone except programmers use programs altered
by programmers. Nobody uses Magic Lantern, for example. Or
Firefox. Or the Apache webserver, for example.


As to 'not a relevant distinction':
For the vast majority of people whether a camera can do RAW
is not a relevant distinction. So basically we all should
shoot JPEGs, all the time.
For the vast majority of people whether a camera can have a
lens changed is not a relevant distinction. So basically we
all should use compact cameras.
For the vast majority of people whether the higher the megapixel
count and the larger the mm-number in the tele end, the better
the camera --- that's therefore a relevant distinction.

Lemmings always run in circles, so so quality and usability
issues do not necessarily differ by free vs OSS.

That's just as correct a logic and claim.

-Wolfgang

 

[a personal attack on me]

Well, if that's the only argument you are willing to present ...

-Wolfgang

 

That is the only consistent *similarity*. The
distinctions are huge.

That may or may not be true. It is not a distinction,
and is also insignificant.

Lets not throw rocks at someone with the genius that
Stallman has. He might not be the nicest socialite in
the world, but his contributions to society have been
huge.

That is a broken view, because it misses the most
significant point: *somebody* certainly can alter and
recompile it, and that benefits everyone who is not a
programmer.

I certainly am not qualified to add to the Linux kernel,
to the GNU C Compiler, to GNUEMACS, or many many other
really fantastic programs; but I don't have to mostly
because people like Richard Stallman can, and do. Not
just a few of them either, but hundreds of them do.

You simply cannot tell what is in a Freeware program,
because we are not all allowed to muck with the code.
But FOSS programs are guaranteed to have been reviewed
by at least someone with priorities other than those of
the original author.