In reply to this comment by Lendl:
That was amazing. From one of my favorite TED talks of all time.

http://videosift.com/video/NYTimes-Columnist-David-Pogue-on-t
he-State-of-Software

Thanks

*quality

Thank you so much for the quality.

That was amazing. From one of my favorite TED talks of all time.

http://videosift.com/video/NYTimes-Columnist-David-Pogue-on-the-State-of-Software

Thanks

*quality

Tags for this video have been changed from 'late late show, Craig Ferguson, David Pogue, Harmonica' to 'late late show, Craig Ferguson, David Pogue, Harmonica, golden one' - edited by bareboards2

I had trouble watching video with Safari back in 2006, so back then I switched to Firefox for most browser activity. At that time it was causing Safari to crash.

bf, I found this David Pogue post that puts the blame on Adobe:

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/why-do-adobe-flash-videos-slow-down/

Thanks for trying to promote it dag

In reply to this comment by dag:
*promote

He's looking a little emaciated, it makes him look a little bit like David Pogue from the Times. Strange.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'david pogue, ted, riaa, ituns, ipod, steve jobs, music, movies' to 'david pogue, ted, riaa, itunes, ipod, steve jobs, music, movies, ted talks' - edited by jonny

i saw this in the queu earlier, but passed thinking it was probably hype. It's really cute though, as is David Pogue

I was going to submit this. Anyways, description:

David Pogue, of The New York Times, ditches his old cellphone for the iPhone in this sing-a-long sequel. Original music video source: http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=f390265dcbb9e1f1da97a69637e921d39b6c99aa ...

David Pogue is interesting once in a while. Not so here.

Ok, in defense of the method used in video, resampling image:

David Pogue is showing the effect of only one variable on image quality. There are so many things which effect image quality from camera to camera. If you want to test only one variable then you must ensure that the others stay exactly the same. His method of testing ensures that only the resolution changes and nothing else.

If he were to have used three different cameras then there would have been all sorts of other things changing (image processor for CCD, sharpness of lenses etc.) which would effect the image and skew the results of the test.

You will get a better picture from a camera with great optics and a low megapixel than vice-versa. Also, when enlarging, which is where everyone says the megapixel count is important, the image sharpness is much more critical.

I'm a large format printer by trade and anything over A2 size only needs to be printed at 72 dpi max, and can easily go to 50 dpi as long as the image is sharp. If the lense is soft or the image processor poor then no amount of resolution can save your shots. We've had a lot of dissapointed/surprised customers wanting enlargements from their cheap 10 megapixel camera who moan it's all fuzzy when blown up.

I show them my camera (8 megapixel SLR) and they can't believe how stupid I was buying it: "Mine cost a third of that and it's got 10 megapixels!" They look at me in a pittiful way , how silly of him to waste that money. Then I show them prints of mine and they see why I spent the money on lenses not megapixels.

Megapixels are great if you can afford them with optics but I only have so much money and when buying a camera OPTICS COME FIRST!