text:
Seems to be about 1/2 - 1 stop better than the last generation of the Canon cameras, and not quite as good as the last iteration of the Nikon (D3s).
Can't wait to see this alongside the 5DMIII and 1Dx.
Will be interesting.
|Previous news story Next news story
We've just published images of our standard test scene taken with Nikon's latest professional DSLR, the 16MP D4. These have been shot using a production-standard D4 and, as usual, include both Raw and JPEG images with all original files available for download. Added them to our comparison tool means they can be called-upon from other reviews or the standalone comparison tool. For this test we used the recently-announced Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 and we'll be publishing 'real world' galleries from both the D4 and 85mm in the coming days.
Click here to see our studio comparison samples shot with the Nikon D4 and AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8
Mar 19, 2014
Feb 14, 2014
Dec 17, 2013
Jul 10, 2013
Nikon D4 16.2 MP CMOS FX Digital SLR
with Full 1080p HD Video (Body Only)
Nikon D4 16.2 MP CMOS FX Digital SLR
with Full 1080p HD Video (Body Only)
Nikon D4S 16.2 MP CMOS FX Digital SLR
with Full 1080p HD Video (Body Only)
Nikon D800 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
Nikon D3X 24.5MP FX CMOS Digital SLR
with 3.0-Inch LCD (Body Only)
Nikon D3S 12.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera
with 3.0-Inch LCD and 24fps 720p HD Video Capability (Body Only)
Nikon Df 16.2 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera
with AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Special Edition Lens (Black)
|Too low to display
Nikon D5100 16.2MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera
with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens
Nikon D7000 16.2MP DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR
with 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED Nikkor Lens
Nikon D610 24.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)
Nikon Df 16.2 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera Body (Silver)
Seems to be about 1/2 - 1 stop better than the last generation of the Canon cameras, and not quite as good as the last iteration of the Nikon (D3s).
Can't wait to see this alongside the 5DMIII and 1Dx.
Will be interesting.
I have a question.
Why were the tests made with the Nikon 85 f/1.8? They should be made with the Nikon 85 f/1.4.
If you are testing a Nikon high-end camera that costs $6000, should you not be testing it with the best Nikon lens which costs $2200? Why was it tested with a midrange lens which costs $500?
Cameras should be tested with the best lenses.
The 85 f/1.8 is sharper than the 85 f/1.4, according to Nikon MTF charts.
The Nikon 85 f1.8 is renowned for its sharpness at all apertures. With the Nikon 85 f1.4 you are paying all that extra money for its faster speed (and possible better build). In terms of optical quality there really is no difference between the lenses. dpreview could have tested the D4 with the 50mm f1.8 which costs £100, another fine quality lens renowned for is optics. Price of the lenses isn't the issue here.
IMO, given the ISO capabilities of today's cameras, especially the D4, there is really no reason to shell out $1700 more for the 85 1.4 unless you shoot in conditions where the nano coating would be helpful. And since the 50 1.4 doesn't even have the nano coating there is no reason at all to buy it over the 50 1.8 The only exception is if you want/need the slightly shallower DOF for some reason.
+1 above. It is not only the price, lens making is a compromise of many factors. If you have a 1.4 glass, more likely, it is designed for apertures near that which has a very limited depth of field. On the D4, they used f11 for more DOF which, IMO, is better with the 1.8.There is a 85mm macro lens but only for the DX.
it's not only about how expensive, how wide the aperture or HOW MANY MP...
agree re "test with best lenses"
On the 1.4 vs 1.8 -- not clear yet it makes a differences (look at early testers eg kenrockwell) -- difference may be bookeh wide open, but at f7 ...may not be very different.
@ Bookie -- I think they tested this with the new lense that came out about 1-2 weeks ago, not the old 1.8. So the new one is not yet "known for its sharpness" although its hard to see why the new one would be worse than the old one...
BTW I have that new lense, and tested it against the 70-200mm F2.8 at 85mm. I did not find any discernible differences in IQ so far (obviously 1.8 gives a bit different possibilities, but you can get even better bookeeh at 2.8 if you zoom to 200mm i.m. humble opinion). The main benefit vs. the 70-200 is weight/size
You're right, but the Nikon MTF chart for each lens is based on the value at the maximum aperture of the lens.
At f/11 Nikon 85/1.8 G lens has nearly 3200 resolution value,
Nikon 85/1.4 G lens has nearly 3450 resolution value.
I would prefer 85/1.4 G (less vignett. and chr. aberr.).
Why would anyone get the 1.4? Maybe because its bokeh is better at all apertures (not just wide open)? In these samples posted, the point-source lights don't appear round. Maybe they'd be round with the 1.4? http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=40778958
The D3s is clearly better than this pre production D4. There is no question about that.
It's amazing. Really amazing: only 4 extra MP and 2 years later and (according to this samples) Nikon haven't figured out how to improve over the D3s.
Processed from raw, downsized to 12MP, D4 is identical to D3s (if not ever so slightly *smoother*). I think it's remarkable they managed to keep it that close with 1/3 more resolution.
The D4 is also showing more detail and acutance at the higher ISOs. Perhaps Nikon sacrificed a bit of noise to achieve more resolving power.
I think we are seeing Exspeed processor differences and software in the JPEGS, giving a lot more detail and slightly more noise in the D4. The JPEG workups in camera RAW give huge differences that will matter to a bird photographer. That said, until Adobe updates camera RAW, I cannot evaluate the RAW images.
ha ha, that is so funny!!!
You guys sound EXACTLY like the canon forum ! Nobody is satisfied :) !
What Im I doing here as a canon user? just checking out the new beast! Nice camera!!!
Interesting point about the trialware version of Nikon's Capture NX 2--yes fully updated:
The trialware version of Capture NX 2 does NOT open D4 raw files. Don't think that I want to pay Nikon for a capacity my copy of Photoshop CS5 will have in a few weeks, I hope.
Also makes me wonder about those claiming to have looked at these raw files with Capture NX2.
Hope someone from Nikon USA is reading this string of comments.
The latest version of Capture NX2 (2.3.1) absolutely *does* open and edit D4 files. I have it and used it to look at these NEFs.
Wonder why there's such a controversy about this? I've read several snide comments about whether or not people could actually view the raw files. The answer is, "yes" :/
Thank you, as I specified, I was commenting on the trialware version of Capture NX2 (Windows 7 64 bit and checked for updates).
Good to be assured that at least the version one purchases and then successfully updates will open D4 NEF files.
Are you using Windows or Mac?
I guess I could go out and buy the disc tomorrow, install the software and update it, but that seems silly since I own Photoshop CS and it will get updated, soon I'd bet. So I don't really need Capture NX v2 for my purposes.
Though I wish that Nikon USA would add 2.3.1 as the trialware option. I checked and the trialware is version 2.3.0.
The 2.31 update has been available on the site for more than a week now, once you have the 2.3.0 trial version installed, you just install the update in addition to that. http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/61
As for all these people who think the D3s is better, if you either just shoot Jpeg, or can't figure out how to get the most out of RAW, by all means keep thinking it's better and don't buy the D4, it will cut down on the waiting list. It's pretty damn clear that you can get more out of the D4 files in NX2.
i have full version and updated to latest Codecs. that did the trick. Oddly, my prior version which was also 2.3 did not open D4 Raw files but after update it does.
That's an idea, thank you for the link. I check it out. I tried update from within version 2.3.0 and got the message that there were no updates.
Dr GP:
Also thanks for the link.
For those that still think D3s is better, check the shadows behavior at base ISO (CNX2):
Looking at the mini views it's immediately apparent that the D4 produces more of an improvement over the D3s than I expected. DPReview, are all the in-camera settings the same? I'm looking only at the raw files.
To those that are seeing the D3s better, check these larger crops side-by-side, including colors and detail:
ISO800-1600 isn't really the area you can see any major difference between these cameras (D3, D3s, D4, 1D Mk IV), etc). Where you really want to have better output is at higher sensitivity, particularly at ISO 6400. Do the comparison there and you'll see how good the D3s is.
It's there, 800-25K, check the subposts. The D3s is having problems already at ISO800 in the reds, check the fluffy balls, things get worse as ISO goes up.
Yes, reds will become problematic always at higher ISO. Partly the reason that I can see for it in your comparison is the fact that all D3s shots are much more saturated than D4 shots (you can see it clearly if you look at them side by side.
But what I was pointing out, was not blown up highlights, but noise in general. If you, again, compare your D3s and D4 screenshots side by side at ISO 6400 and ISO12800, you will easily see how much cleaner (less noisy) the D3s shots are.
Are you looking at full res (16x12MP) or normalized (12x12MP)? That's why I posted both. Un-normalized you'd expect to see better noise from D3s, but at same print sizes the D4 is better. It's not saturation at play, the D3s shows provlems in reds details. Re colors, see also base ISO shadows behavior:
Yes, D4 is virtually identical to D3s in the normalized versions, but with better color accuracy and detail retention. Nice little upgrade - not counting all the new features, which makes it a *big* upgrade ;)
At base ISO these cameras are (and have to be) very similar, but more interesting is to see the range of ISO3200-6400. For example, at ISO6400/RAW, when you move the zoom point to different areas, you'll see that D3s is still the king. D4 has a bit more noise, then comes 1d Mark IV and 5D Mark II (in this sequence). Canons have quite a bit more chroma noise at ISO6400.
Interesting. The Nikon D4 is the obvious winner at high, yet down to earth, ISO sensitivities (up to 3200). At least with JPEG. It's the one that preserves sharpness, contrast and resolution the best. The Canon Mark II has the steepest noise filter of all cameras, and while it does a good job at suppressing noise, it is achieved at the expense of sharpness. But then again, it is an unfair comparison as it ranks one step below all three other cameras.
At low ISO, I see no night-to-day differences between D4, D3 and 1D. The choice will come down to brand loyalty.
well when i look on iso 100-200-400 i see more sharpness in the 5D MK2 images-.. just look at the text on the globe.
you can hardly read "seychelles" on the D4 pictures.....
I think the legibility is a result of the size of the image. The MkII image is a closer crop than the D4, with Seychelles appearing larger.
It seems obvious that a longer focal length has been chosen for the MkII.
any more excuses?
it´s and 1:1 image and the MK2 image is bigger because it has more megapixel.
why do you look at the test when you don´t know how they do it?
Actually they're all taken at a focal length of 85mm except the 1D MKIV.
It looks to me that the D4 is sharper. Henry M. Hertz Check out the numbers on the greyscale chart above the globe. Any improvement in clarity could be attributed to the extra detail/resolution in the Mk2. Not the same as sharpness though.
I'm still not convinced about the focal length issue, Damo83 (maybe because I'm too ignorant, as Mr Hertz implies), but you're right about the D4 being sharper. Check the queen of hearts at ISO 6400. The D4 preserves colour accuracy and sharpness when all the others get smeared.
It is clear, that Nikon has improved the JPG modus: the JPGs of the D4 are showing more detail and a bit less noise. BUT: The raw files of the D3s show less noise (even if you resize the D4 files to 12 MP).
For both cams 12800 ISO seems to be the limit if you want a clear detailed picture processed from raw. So for me this D4 would be only interesting if it would have come with 18 MP or more. 12 MP or 16 Mp? ...who cares...and the D3s has the better battery ;-)
Do you try it??
2.000mAh vs. 2.500mAh...what are you expecting? ;-)
And: EN-EL4a (D3) ca. 100 Euro
EN-EL18 (D4) ca. 160 Euro
D4's battery is better optimised and Nikon says it would last more than D3s' one.
No, see: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40792170
D3s is so goooood... would love to see the 5Dm3 comparison, all the JPGs seen from 5Dm3 looked like a properly cooked and sharpened 4mpx images blown up to 22mpx... poor JPG processing as usually, looks like plastic with powersot like shaprening...
imho D800 will be the best player under 4.000$, if I take a look at the D800 factory samples... WOW! and high iso samples are promising too...
5Dm3 will be a good allrounder, nice AF finaly!
the few high iso samples from the D800 i have seen look shitty....
will see (from what I see is at least as good as D700 or better, that cannot be "shitty"), btw high iso samples from 5Dm3 are looking very very good (too much NR maybe), probably better on screen than D800. waiting for proper comparison.
Wait for the reviews, but if you expect the D800 to have the same high ISO performance as the D700, with pixels which are 1/3 of the size, you're in for a major disappointment.
Well maybe that could happen for JPEG, the D800 being newer will have better noise reduction.
But which pro uses jpegs?
In RAW data, the D800 will be at least a couple stops worse in terms of high iso noise.
count the 3 years of develpment in and the power downsampling images... even the 1,5 yo D7000 (with smaller pixel size than D800) is only 1-1,5 stop behind D700 only above 800 iso.
i am shooting with D700, based on early samples from D800 i would trade my camera in a second ;)
Looking forward to adding the D800 to this comparison ...
i rarely shoot above iso 3200.
and i must say that my old 5D MK2 holds up very well to the D4 on lower iso.
it seems that sensor improvement is only possible on higher then 3200 iso these days.
i mean..... from a new sensor i would expect more, compared to a 3 year old sensor.
Uh-Oh! The fanboys are going to be very unhappy! At least in the current conversion of the RAWs by the Beta ACR, the D4 doesn't really outshine the D3s, even at 1600 ~ 12800!
Maybe the D3s Sensor was Magic! I'm quite sad that it is going away!
I don't think it can based on sensor design. Getting the same performance with more megapixels along with the other upgrades is what defines this as the current flagship camera. But the D3s was the breakthrough. An owner of the D3s hold be very happy.
People have unrealistic expectations.
They think that everything which is made of silicon will have to double performance every two years, like PCs do.
But silicon technology for photo-sites has already reached a level of maturity, and SNR is now largely dominated by photon noise.
Unless a technological break-through happens, sensors will have to get larger to increase resolution and SNR and high ISO performance.
Oh wait that already exists and its called medium format.. :)
To be honest, the ISO performance of the D4 is not that awesome. Unfortunately the D700 could not be chosen for comparison. Would have been interesting ...
D700 output is exactly the same as D3 which can be selected from the drop down menus!
I think this ISO comparison tool is outstanding.
I also think that I may pick up another D3S before they go away.
Yes and yes. The 3Ds has an amazing high iso performance. I never would have thought that. I knew they were good but not that good.
Superb quality at ISO 6400 (the detail reproduction is much better than on the D3s). This is much better than I expected.
Indeed, I think at above 6400 details much better hold up. In my case I seldom photograph above 6400. I personally find the image quality differences till on 3200 in comparison with a D3S marginal. Ill keep the D3S.
I am with you folks. Detail for me - bird feathers - is everything. ISO 6400 and sometimes 12,800 will be frequently used. Do that we get n increase in photo size and better detail retention is awesome. Based on all the comments I read, I suspect that the true ability to deliver native improved ISO handling is no different from the D3s but that the Expeed 3 processor can utilize more sophisticated algorithms on the fly.
D4 images look a bit darker then D3s ones, it's penalizing for D4 especially when they are so close in noise performance,
PS maybe D4 is cheating a bit on ISO values
According to the gallery compare the D5100 DX 16MP with the D4 FX and it is difficult to call! There is no indication of the lenses used; DX or FX and the focal length. The Focal length appears to change in these comparisons. If we are to test the sensors then a studio camera with adapters for each SLR could be used, one Schneider lens so that this is the constant for all manufacturers cameras.
Or are we looking at the fixed 50mm lens of each manufacturer for FX and DX respectively?
For APS-C (DX) they are using 55 mm or something like that while for FF 85 mm so you get for the same focal range
for lens and shooting settings information, hover mouse over the small gear cog at the bottom right of the crops! All details are there.
Also, they use 85mm for full frames, and 50mm for crops. Slightly different effective lengths, but then maybe they move the tripod to achieve the same framing.
Thanks, will check the cog information. Knew it would have been given somewhere.
At mid-high ISO-s D3s still beats all the bunch, including D4. But D4 certainly beats both older Canons. I think this is a very nice performance.
BUT... The dream is over about the D800 36Mpx mid-high ISO miracle. I still do not doubt its ISO 100-400 extreme resolution (good for studio photographers), but for real life wedding photography... You'll get an APS-C high ISO quality (a'la D7000, which is still fine, but nothing close to wonderful on FF...)
I remember Canon did the same with the 14Mpx G11. Up to ISO 100 it was a resolution king among compacts, but even at ISO 400... So G12 went down to 10 Mpx, making Canon G fans happy.
I can't wait for EOS 5D Mark III RAW samples. I reckon, we'll have the new wedding photography dream camera.
Select ISO 3200 and RAW on the top for D4 and compare with D3S,D4 appears miles worse than D3S. WTF Nikon is doing. ISO 3200 is the most useful high ISO.
Until iso 1600 the D4 is superior but after that i prefer D3. Canon its to noise over 800 asa. BUT PLEASE FUJI GIVE US YOUR SPECIAL SENSOR OF S3 IN FUUL FRAME NIKON BODY..
@Henry: Do you approach complete strangers and give them comments like that irl too, or is it just on the internet? And yes, I saw the smiley, but you still come across as a bully.
Oh Henry you 're so kind... so yes, buy for me a D4 & 14-24, 24-70, 700-200.
A broke Greek who's not hating anyone.
p.s. close your TV...
No Henry i don't buy expensive gear even i am a professional photographer, that's why i have my Fuji s3 until now and until they died, only i tell my opinion because i like the DR and colour from fuji sensor and maybe some day i buy as a second hand if they exist. As for here in Greece you have right.. but the same happen in all the rich country's as they take the natural resources from poor ones.. (the word war tell you something?) Many people in this website its amateur but spent a lot money to buy a new ''toy'', you think this is right when the same time people died for starvation?..
at iso100 the 5D MK2 looks better.. more details.... what a let down for a new camera.
The D4's high ISO capabilities are passé at best... Heck, the D3s files look far superior to the D4 at every setting... I can't put my finger on exactly what Nikon have done wrong here... but it seems to be a combination of excessive noise reduction... causing smudging... along with disproportionate amounts of sharpenning... The D3s represented the perfect combination of detail retention & NR ... this D4 seems to have botched up big time... From ISO 6400 onwards... the brush looks horribly over sharpened... the thread rolls & furry balls look pasty and lack any real detail... and the colour chart seems to distort the levels of saturation...
D3s is clearly better - even if you resize the D4 file to 12MP... It's easy to see at ISO 6400.
I'm perplexed as to why the details on the woman's and man's face are so good on the Lumix GH2, G3 and GX1 compared to these FF cameras.
What ISO are you using for viewing?
Well, you haven't seen the one from Canon G1 X. Anyways, it's the strong AA filter, my friend.
It seems that the D3s has better high ISO performance then D4.....
Considering more MP, it looks the same.
Debankur Mukherjee:
Did you look at the 25600ASA pictures, raws?
Fuji X-Pro1 vs D3S, D4 will be an interesting high iso comparison.
Not very relevant to someone who actually needs an action camera though, the Fuji targets a totally different kind of photography.
Relevant to anyone who shoots high iso.
Dpr tests should be an indicator.
I wish DPR could manage to do a comparison in which all the variables are eliminated. The D4 ISO 25600 shot is at f/11, while the D3s one is at 7.1. Never the less, thanks for the RAW files. If anyone is doubting the D4's improvement over the D3s, open up both ISO 25600 NEF files in NX2, use the default noise reduction on "Better Quality", and compare them side by side, the grain is smaller and less blotchy on the D4 even when both are viewed at 100%, and some areas show significantly more detail.
For my own shooting, what I can get out of the RAW files is all I care about, and they definitely deliver.
Very good NR at high ISO.
Look forward to having the comparison with the new Canon 5D Mark 3 to see which one is better.
D3s is king so no D4 for me
You have a D4 and raw extraction software for testing?
HowaboutRAW, there are RAW samples...
Yeah, the D4 definitely shows an advantage in RAW, the D3s certainly isn't far behind, but it's not ahead.
The question was about extraction software (Capture NX 2 appears to have been updated, have not confirmed).
You also missed the part of the question where I asked if arrif has used a D4.
I did not ask about downloading these DPReview raw files.
D4 fares poorly for fine details as it hits ISO 1600 and beyond:
D4 vs PowerShot G1X vs Sony NEX-7 vs 645D
in exchange, as D3/D3s, before it, because of less details to worry that NR will smooth out (gets it mushy), it can afford to do very nice NR until way up in the higher ISO ranges
it would be expected for any system where coarse details left intact are more important than fine details intact; so the lo-res clean hi-ISO for minimal noise at the expense of such fine details is a well understood tradeoff
it all depends on your objective when capturing a subject
going up to higher ISO 6400, is where Nikon has fared much better for clean NR with least noise, albeit at even less fine details retained
at ISO 6400, the 645D sample wasn't available from DPR, so i replaced it with the D3s, which did well before
D4 vs PowerShot G1X vs Sony NEX-7 vs D3s
higher Mp offers more details and more noise even if NR used
You have D4 raws and the extraction software?
Here are 3 top FF dSLRs along with the PowerShot G1X just as a reference to show how far one can go for what some like to refer to as a mere 'P&S':
I really wished DPR had D3x test shots available, as far as I've seen elsewhere, it always fared better than at least the Sony A900, and could barely keep up with the 5DMkII (image-resources examples show this)
D4 vs PowerShot G1X vs Sony A900 vs 5DMkII
if Nikon or Sony could not do so well with their even higher 24Mp FF dSLRs, than the older 5DMkII, and who knows, about the just released 5DMkIII, which should fare better than the outgoing 5DMkII (and new PowerShot G1X!!!), will Nikon's D800/800E be able to do as well at ISO 6400 as it is expected to with surely more Mp fine details? I would hope so, but I am wary of that even being possible without massive NR distortion, that Sony already exhibits with its recently new NEX-7. If not, opting to stay closer to ISO 1600 like Pentax 645D makes more sense
Right now, everyone is interested in Nikon's JPEG in-camera engine capabilities
Opting for RAW is essentially choosing your own interpretation for JPEG output, in effect, the net effect is that you produce a 'Your-Own-Custom-JPEG', not a Nikon-JPEG per se. Even if you use Nikon's off-line JPEG generator from its RAW NEF files, you in effect bypass Nikon's own proprietary JPEG in-camera engine
A lot of RAW shooters still don't 'get' this. That once you bypass the camera mfr's in-camera JPEG engine, they are opting to do JPEGs 'their own way only'. The JPEG you produce 'your way' from ANY RAW, with RAW-JPEG conversion software becomes proprietary to 'JUST YOU', and no one else
This is why there can be any numerous offline software to help you handle any RAW NEFs or CRWs 'Your-Custom-JPEG-Way', assuming you can navigate doing so to produce optimally clean images with no details nullified by NR that YOU applied to the RAW file. The same applies for all third-party NR software as well
Scrutinizing the limits of a camera mfr's in-camera JPEG has great significance to users who want to know what is the best the mfr can do with their proprietary JPEG engine in-camera IN THE FIELD, so it can meet desired publishing criteria or not. This is done for maximum speed for some professionals and enthusiasts that want results sooner, like NOW, rather than later
If any delay matters, then, the better the in-camera JPEG image is, the more likely one is going to find it publishing worthy in the LEAST time, usually NOW, is better than later or too late
If any delay is inconsequential, than of course not
For many others, interest in photography extends out to satisfaction of doing 'their way', hopefully better, even if it takes more time. But that's a time such RAW shooters have as a luxury hobby for off-line post-shot custom JPEG processing
Older in-camera JPEG engines had their limits where the extra RAW processing can eek out a better JPEG
Such limits today are much lower
No, many who shoot RAW output to Tiff. So your whole premise is incorrect. And yes there is a big difference printing from Tiff instead of JPEG, you should learn about these things.
NR, resolution, distortion.... That's just a matter of taste. I am not really concern about that. I think the content of the photo is more important. If the photo has no spirit, even though you use a Linhof or a Hasselblad, it still generates garbage results.
I had the same initial impression about the D4 being softer, but then realized the test is flawed.
The images LOOK soft because the focus is different between the D3s and the D4. Look at the items that are closer in the frame (like the paperclips, for instance): tack sharp in the D4 images, soft in the D3s images.
I don't care at all about in-camera JPEG, and I suspect most photographers owning the D3s/D4 are the same — they're shooting RAW for full control.
Canon watch DOG!
err, sdyue, look at the fine detail on the hairs.. in the bottom right..
i think youll find that the D4 is sharper than the A900, Nex7 (looks abismal by comparison) and the GX1 (fail by comparison)..
what are you talking about? youve bothered to whinge heaps before even looking at the results extensively.
you're totally wrong about being soft imho and its so easy to see its sharper across the majority of the frame than all of the cameras you listed..
what a waste of time i feel bad for you
time better spent
OMG, I'm losing respect for you sdyue. If you want to be an internet expert here in DPR, you should be advised that there is something called the Anti-Aliasing Filter in digital cameras. The D4 might have a very strong AA filter, IMHO, to please the pros who will be printing and selling images coming from this type of camera. I doubt they have the time to remove moire. The G1 X which I highly regard has a very light AA filter which is why you see the blue specks on very detailed parts of the studio shot.
To start with, the G1 X is producing detail more than any camera that has a strong AA filter and it is not the high ISO or noise which weakens the D4. IMHO,based on DPR's test, the D4 is the best performer here on HIGH ISOs.
Sdyue is only here to talk up Canon product. Any regular visitor can see this. Her history shows she does two things:
1. Comment positively about any Canon product.
2. Post negatively about any non-Canon product.
Just sayin like. It is not an opinion, but a fact. Just look at her history. Either a cray Canon brand fangirl or a paid shill. But she has been found out ...
sdyue is on Canon's payroll. I fell for her BS once, but the pattern in her (? probably some old bold fat dude) posts is way too obvious.
Question: Where are all of the people claiming to have downloaded and opened the D4 RAWs getting the software to extract these D4 RAWs?
Has Nikon updated its raw extraction software? Adobe hasn't.
(Yes, I know that some are commenting based on looking at the detail box of DPReview's posted image; this question is not addressed those taking that approach.)
Yes, Nikon released updated versions of its software a while back.
Good to know.
cant imagine how poor D800 compared to D4/3s even D700?
That D3s is soo good. Overall, the D4 is, on RAW, a little better or the same as the D3s, while having 4 more MP.
The thing is, the 5Dmk2 is about 1 stop behind the D4 and D3s, and the newly announced 5Dmk3 seems to be at least 1 stop better than the 5Dmk2, from the video the guys from DigitalRevTV just released, this means that the mighty D4 wil probablyl be superseded by a 3500$ canon, luckily it has better video. My guess is that thins round goes to canon as far as noise levels go, though better DR, colors, patch free images/no noise in the shaddows at lowISO will probably still go to Nikon.
On the 5D mk2 the black square with the white cross (in the center of the photo) is not even black even on the ISO 100 (in both raw and jpeg)
the canon 5D MK2 has clearly the better image quality on low iso.. much more details... only a blind or nikon fanboy would deny that.
Wow - the D4 looks good here. Noise appears about the same as the D3s which is a real achievement. Looking forward to other tests!
To me the D4 is the king now by 1 step of ISO and still sharper. I am interested in wildlife. Shooting at high ISO and then performing noise reduction is essential. WIth the ISO 6400 & 12,800 D3S photos vs. the D4 12,800 photo, with the same noise reduction routine and sharpening, I can read the "Eastman Kodak Company. 1997" text clearly only on the D4. For feather detail on birds this is stupendous. A huge step forward.
I agree the D4 has a touch more detail, but I disagree it beats out the D3S by a stop. Switch to ISO 6400 RAW setting and take a look at the watch face, it's a lot smoother to me on the D3S. Also look at the dark areas such as the edge of the box with the thread in it, the grain on the D3S is smoother and more uniform than the D4.
Don't get me wrong, the D4 looks really good, but I don't see it as a huge leap over the D3S sensor, the D4 resolves more detail but does so at the expense of more and chunkier noise, which could come down to a preference of what you shoot and what bothers you more. If I were buying a new camera in this line, I'd take the D4 (especially with a minimal price difference), but I don't think I'd trade in a D3S for it.
Just be careful when looking too far from the center of frame. Especially at that "Eastman Kodak Company. 1997" text. I think you might be comparing lenses more then cameras there: Different lenses at different f stops at the edge of frame....
I didn't think of that. But I just checked the EXIF data and I am indeed comparing the D4 to the D3S with the same lens and camera parameters (f stop, etc.).
HiRe, yes that is basically my situation:
1. ore detail with a little noise is preferred. Bird feathers look terrible if smeared.
2. I am getting my first full frame camera with integrated grip largely for the huge buffer at 10 fps.
Different apertures, indeed. Read DPR's Barney Britton post at the bottom, they might update the D3s test using the same aperture as the D4.
Hahaha, poor Nikon folks, they must force themselves to "see" the D4 images any better than D3s at Jpeg and equal at raw.
The D3s is still the low light king honey. We'll see how 5D3 and 1Dx jump in.
And now they will shout: downsize the D4 to 12mp you will have lower noise than the D3s,. but wtf, you can do so with a cheap 5d2 too. LOL.
Aside from better sharpness, detail, increased resolution, it's not like the D4 didn't make a ton of other improvements from ISO 50 to ISO 204,800 to broadcast quality video features.
The 5Dmk2 gets eaten alive by the D3S, even when downsized to 12MP. Especially when looking at the shadows.
And I'll reply, Canon cameras have very good dynamic range, 2 stops lower than Nikon!
It depends on how you look at it. If you look at noise itself, the D3s is as good as the D4. But if you look at contrast, then the D4 wins. Higher ISO changes two things: noise but also contrast. So I see this as a good result for the D4.
Honestly I dont care much about noise cause I hardly shoot at over 3200 ISO. Its just that Nikon hasnt improve in noise since the D3s 2 years ago and Canon is catching up fast (check out the G1X, it have almost equal noise to 5d2)
But I have to agree that Sony sensors offer better DR than current Canon ones. Hope the 5d3 have better DR, its noise patter is already very pleasing.
It's funny how people pretend they can actually tell anything from these "tests".
The JPEG files are disappointing. They are very soft and do a poor job of capturing high-frequency data. Granted, that's hyper-critical pixel peeping.
Overall, I'm whelmed. The noise performance on a pixel level is slightly higher than the D3s, but the image-level noise is probably identical. Both of them are in a different league compared to the poor Mark II.
Hmmm, if low noise is what you want then that is all the Nikon D4 offers. Detail is not sharp when viewed in RAW. The camera must have a very strong AA filter. Even the Panasonic GH2 is much sharper and captures more detail.
Very strong AA filter indeed which I think pros can't live without.
I think this camera looks great. Funny how people are whining about the 5D MIII being only 22mp when this one is just 16mp. Im actually pleased with the new 5DIII personally also.
Although I am pleased with the D4's performance, I am also somewhat disappointed. It's performance is merely equal to that of an essentially 2 1/2 yr old flagship model, the D3s.
And to think that some people were hoping that the successor to the D700 would have had the D3s sensor in smaller form factor.
impressive. As good as the D3s for the most part but higher resolution and more detail.I think the D3s looks smoother, but it's really very close.
Yeah, I'm shocked by how thoroughly the D3s trounces the others. The D4 did much better than last gen Canons, but the D3s still beats it in noise.
wow the 3ds is still king
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the D3s goes toe to toe and in some cases beats the D4.
I would like to see how the canon 5DIII compares to this big boy....both look like pretty awsome cameras
Wonder how the 5D2 and 1DX will fair against the D4/D3S.
Yep, we certainly have a new high ISO king. I want to see what the DR is like!
|Maybe I rushed to judgement, just ordered another a6000
|I have a passion for photography but I'm lost and stuck in a rut
|FE 28-70 kit lens DxOMarked
|Do we have dynamic range?
|RAW Unusable in Lightroom 5.4
|The difference between a serious prime lens and an average prime lens.
|What do you own with your MFT camera? What are the uses? Are you happy with them?
|Is Leica totally missing the point... Again?
|Sony Where are the Sharp Telelphoto Lenses for Sony A7!!!!
|The SEL1018 love thread...
|a6000 compared to NEX-6
|Owning an a65, but opportunity to buy a77?
|Consumer Reports rates Panasonic GX7 top mirrorless camera
|Shooting at f1.4 in bright sunlight
|Can great lenses salvage cheap DSLRs?
|Why are the A7's lenses so big?
|New To Nikon;)
|Is a macro lens better than extension tubes
|Leica T is out, but for who?
|best laptop for a hobby photographer?
Connect with dpreview


text:
1970 Buick Riviera Gran Sport - $15,000 negotiable. Body in excellent condition with chrome bumpers. 455-V8 newly overhauled, new brakes and master cylinder. Vinyl... More
Thank you for viewing our presentation and please enjoy reading our ad. Frenched, Shaved, Candied and Chromed... Your Custom Ride Awaits! This 1970 Buick Riviera is... More
1970 Buick Riveria for sale in the Detroit showroom. This 1970 Buick Riveria comes with 455 V8 370 bhp @ 4600 rpm 510 lb-ft... More

subset: commoncrawl


text:
See smaller
Related Stories for Golden Globe Red Carpet
Comments on this photo » 1
- January 14, 2013
- 9:50 p.m.
- Suggest removal
- Reply to this post
nap3null writes:
Oh, these people look like they are glorifying themselves.
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.


text:
After a batch of preview pics landed last fall, another tease has been dropped with Mikkelsen looking like he's totally owning the role of everyone's favorite cannibal. The twist of the series is that it takes place before Hannibal becomes a convicted criminal, tracking his time at the FBI with Hugh Dancy as his partner, Laurence Fishburne as his boss, and Scott Thompson also part of the team. David Slade helmed the pilot, and now it's just a question of when this is going to air.
And there's still no answer to that one, but the thirteen-episode first season is expected to bow sometime this year. [Cinema Teaser]


text:
By Automobile Magazine
Dodge started selling the American Value Package model last year. This year, it has decided to reduce the AVP's price to just under $21,000. A dual-screen Blu-ray DVD system is available on Crew and R/T models...more
Other manufacturers have quit the minivan segment altogether, but the Grand Caravan is sticking around. According to Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, the Grand Caravan's sibling, the Chrysler Town & Country, will eventually be replaced by a crossover, leaving the Grand Caravan to carry the company's minivan mantle. Freshened in 2011 with a standard 3.6-liter 283-hp V-6, the Grand Caravan became the most powerful minivan on the market. It's the most affordable, too, with the AVP (American Value Package) model starting at less than $21,000. The Grand Caravan comes with power windows, locks, and mirrors; A/C; seven air bags; second-row Stow 'n Go seating; and much more. The SXT includes dual power-sliding doors, a power liftgate, and power-adjustable pedals. The Crew adds features like seventeen-inch wheels, chrome exterior accents, a 6.5-inch touchscreen, a backup camera, an eight-way power driver's seat, a leather-wrapped steering wheel and shifter, and satellite radio. The Grand Caravan is a family machine, not an enthusiast's dream, but there is a sportier R/T model available. It has a black leather interior with red accent stitching, nine speakers with an amplifier and subwoofer, and a suspension with retuned shocks and higher spring rates. The Grand Caravan is determined to take a back seat to no other people mover.
Front, knee, side, and side curtain air bags; stability and traction control; and a tire-pressure monitoring system are standard. Rear park assist, a rear backup camera, blind-spot monitoring, and a rear cross-path detection system are available.
We have sent a confirmation email to {* emailAddressData *}. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account.
Please confirm the information below before signing in. Already have an account? Sign In.
We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.
Password has been successfully updated.
We didn't recognize that password reset code. Enter your email address to get a new one.


text:
Things you can do
Stuff you may read
What is so unique about reviews in Admanya?
Reviews in Admanya are generally unbiased as they are from the consumers themselves. It is the user feedback that lends credibility on which you can rely on to make a better purchase decision.
How do I write a review in Admanya?
Review writing in Admanya is simple. Click on the red tab on the top right hand corner. Select a category, then select a product/service and post your review. No mandatory registration or signup is required. All you need is a valid email address. However a registered member can enjoy many other benefits.
Why should I choose Admanya to write my reviews?
Admanya offers you a wide range of products and services to review on, your reviews are read and commented upon by other members which leads to a lively social networking. Your reviews act as a guide to shoppers and help you earn Admanya cash.
Is Admanya beneficial only to consumers?
No, Admanya's Brand Manager feature also helps the companies to address the grievances of the consumers and express their own points of view.
Beware of Agarwal Packers
Packers & Movers
Review on Agarwal Packers
Posted on 30/04/12, by arun , bangalore
Review Text
Survey Question(s)
Would you like to recommend this product/service to others?*
Ans: No
Final verdict
Stay away from Agarwal packers
comments powered by Disqus
Recent reviews on Agarwal Packers
Highest Rated
Lowest Rated
Do not move through Aggarwal Packers and Movers - Grievances


text:
- Product Details
- Click Here to View All Kansas City Royals Bedroom and Bathroom
Kansas City Royals Blanket - Home Field Advantage 48"x 60" Tapestry Throw - Whether you're keeping warm at the game, or accenting your room, our baseball tapestries will definitely impress. Attractively woven representing your team and their hometown mystique, no true fan should be without one! These heirloom quality throws are a tribute to American craftsmanship. Throughout history, tapestries have commemorated special events. The artisans at our cutting edge facility in North Carolina continue this tradition with a modern twist. Now you can own a tapestry with your favorite team's graphics. Tapestries are amazingly detailed and colorful. Use it as a room accent, bed covering, throw blanket or wall-hanging . Tapestries are approx. 48"x60" with fringes on all sides. 55% Polyester/45% Acrylic
Additional Information
|This Item Usually Leaves The Warehouse In
|3 to 5 Business Days
|Estimated Delivery Time Map - Based on Your Shipping Zones
|Click to View Map of Estimated Delivery Times to Your Location


text:
By Donald Nuss, MB, ChB
Pectus excavatum, also known as sunken chest, is a congenital chest wall deformity in which several ribs and the sternum grow abnormally, appearing concave or caved-in.
It is known that pectus excavatum was recognized in antiquity and that and as early as the 16th century Johan Schenck (1531-1590) collected literature on the subject1. A classic paper by Bauhinus in 1594, described the clinical features of pectus excavatum in a patient who suffered from pulmonary compression with dyspnea (shortness of breath) and paroxysmal cough as a result of a severe pectus excavatum2.
The genetic predisposition of the deformity was first noted by Coulson3 in 1820, who cited a family of three brothers with pectus excavatum, and later by Williams4 in 1872, who described a 17-year-old patient born with a pectus excavatum whose father and brother also suffered from the condition.
Numerous other case reports appeared in the 19th century including a five case report by W. Ebstein in 18825, which covered the clinical spectrum of the condition. Treatment at that time was limited to "fresh air, breathing exercises, aerobic activities and lateral pressure."6,7 Surgeons had yet to learn how to prevent the lungs from collapsing when the chest was opened.
Thoracic surgery remained forbidden territory until the early years of the 20th century. It is not surprising that the first attempt at surgical correction of pectus excavatum was a tentative approach by Meyer in 1911.8 Meyer removed the 2nd and 3rd costal cartilage on the right side of the patient with no improvement of the deformity.
In 1913, Sauerbruch7, a pioneer of thoracic surgery who developed a negative pressure chamber for chest surgery, used a more aggressive approach and achieved some measure of success. Sauerbruch excised a section of the anterior chest wall, which included the left 5th to 9th costal cartilages as well as a segment of the adjacent sternum. Before the procedure, the patient had been incapacitated by severe dyspnea and palpitations (even at rest) and was unable to work in his father's watch factory. After the surgery, though the heart was seen to pulsate under the muscle flap, the patient was able to work without dyspnea and even married three years later.
In the 1920's, Sauerbruch performed the first pectus repair using the bilateral costal cartilage resection and sternal osteotomy technique9 later popularized by Ravitch. Sauerbruch advocated external traction to hold the sternum in its corrected position for six weeks postoperatively to prevent recurrence. This technique was soon used by others surgeons in Europe and rapidly gained popularity in the United States as well.
In 1939, Ochsner and DeBakey10 published their experience with the procedure and reviewed the entire surgical literature on the subject.
Also in 1939, Lincoln Brown11 published his experience with the procedure in two patients and reviewed the literature with particular reference to the etiology. He was impressed with the theory that short diaphragmatic ligaments and the pull of the diaphragm were the causative factors.
Ravitch12, having read Brown's article, believed this theory and as a result advocated even more radical mobilization of the sternum, with transection of all sternal attachments, including the intercostal bundles, rectus muscles, diaphragmatic attachments, and excision of the xiphisternum. He published his experience in 1947 with eight patients using this radically extended modification of Sauerbruch's technique of bilateral cartilage resection and sternal osteotomy. Since the sternum was cut loose from all its attachments, Ravitch believed the sternum would no longer sink back into the chest and eliminated the use of external traction.
The modified procedure, without external traction, had an increased recurrence rate. As a result, in 1956 Wallgren and Sulamaa13,14 introduced the concept of internal support by use of a slightly curved stainless steel bar. This steel bar was pushed through the caudal end of the sternum from side to side, bridging the newly created gap between the sternum and ribs.
In 1961, Adkins and Blades15 took this concept of internal bracing one step further by passing a straigh, stainless steel bar behind the sternum rather than through the sternum. This form of pectus repair became the established technique for patients of all ages for the next 40 years.
As early as 1958, Welch16 already advocated a less radical approach than Ravitch. He produced excellent results in 75 cases without cutting through all the intercostal bundles and did not cut through the rectus muscle attachments. However, he still advocated doing the procedure in young patients.
Pena17 on the other hand, was very disturbed by the idea of resecting the rib cartilages of very young patients and attributed the development of asphyxiating chondrodystrophy in young patients to this early surgery. He was able to demonstrate experimentally that baby rabbits developed the condition after cartilage resection during their growth phase. He stated, "It appears necessary to develop alternative techniques that avoid the removal of costal cartilage and, to re-evaluate the optimal age for repair of these malformations."
Another surgeon, Haller18 also drew attention to the risk of "Acquired Asphyxiating Chondrodystrophy" in his paper entitled "Chest Wall Constriction After Too Extensive and Too Early Operations for Pectus Excavatum." As a result of these two papers, most surgeons stopped performing open pectus repair in young children, preferring to wait until after puberty. They also decreased the amount of cartilage resected and spoke about a "modified Ravitch procedure." Pediatricians became loath to refer patients for surgical corrections.
In 1986, while operating on a patient with pectus excavatum, I was struck by the flexibility of the rib cartilages and thought "If these cartilages are so flexible and malleable why am I removing them?"
The real question, however, was "What can one do differently?"
The next time I operated on a patient with pectus excavatum and made the standard skin incision across the chest, I chose NOT to remove the skin and muscles off the chest - a necessary requirement in order to gain access to the rib cartilages and sternum - nor did I attempt to remove the rib cartilages and sternum. Instead, a small hole was created between the ribs, in line with the deepest point of the depression. A long, curved clamp was then inserted into the chest and a tunnel under the sternum was slowly created. The tip of the clamp was then advanced out of the chest on the other side of the sternum. Surgical tape was attached to the clamp, and pulled through the substernal tunnel. The tape was then used to guide a convex titanium bar through the tunnel with the convexity facing posteriorly. Once the bar was in position, it was turned over 180 degrees. Much to my delight, the pectus excavatum was corrected completely with no rib resection, no sternal wedge resection and essentially no blood loss.
Unfortunately the titanium bar, used in the old procedure, proved too soft for the new procedure. The initial excellent result lessened after six months. The bar, therefore, was the first instrument modified.
The second modification was to change the long anterior chest incision to two small incisions on each side of the chest. New instruments were developed to make the procedure easier and safer. Most importantly, thoracoscopy was added to allow one to see inside the chest, greatly decreasing the risk of the procedure.
Protocols were developed for selecting patients who were severe enough to warrant surgery. Other protocols were developed for non-operative treatment, pain management and postoperative management.
The procedure has gained rapid acceptance by the surgical community worldwide. To many, this less invasive procedure is analogous to applying braces to the teeth to straighten them out, rather than removing them.
In 1997, Nuss, Croitoru & Kelly et al 19,20 published their 10-year experience with the Nuss procedure. The minimally invasive technique requires no cartilage incision, no resection and no sternal osteotomy. It relies instead on internal bracing made possible by the flexibility and malleability of the costal cartilages.
The rationale for the technique was based on the three factors:
The popularity of the Nuss procedure is evidenced by the number of papers presented at national and international meetings and the over 100 surgeons who have sought out Dr. Nuss to see and learn the operative technique. As a result, Dr. Nuss and his colleagues have developed an annual international workshop at Children's Hospital of The King's Daughters in Norfolk, Virginia to teach even more surgeons.
Contact Us | Terms & Conditions | Web Privacy Policy
©2014 Children's Hospital of The King's Daughters • 601 Children's Lane • Norfolk, VA 23507 • (757) 668-7000


text:
Life is beginning to return to normal in northern Plumas County. All Plumas County roadways and highways are open, but continue to watch for loose or falling rocks. Laboratory testing has cleared the Lake Almanor Mutual Water District system, so the 'Boil Water Advisory' has now been lifted. To help residents with disposal of broken or damaged televisions, computer screens, or other electronics, special E-Waste Events have been scheduled for the Chester Transfer Station and the Greenville Transfer Station this Saturday, June 1, 2013 from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Electronic devices will be accepted at no charge at both locations.
Unfortunately, some seasonal home owners are returning to surprising and often hard-to-see structural damage due to the earthquake. Plumas County OES is urging property owners to do a thorough assessment of their property, inspecting for cracked foundations, broken or leaking water and sewer lines, or other damage that may have been caused by the earthquake. If any structural damage is found, owners are encouraged to report it by downloading the online survey at www.countyofplumas.com under 'County News' and emailing it to firstname.lastname@example.com. You may also obtain or file a copy of the survey at your local Fire Department.
Plumas County will remain under an emergency proclamation until seasonal residents have a chance to discover and assess potential damage to their homes. So far, 40 homes have been reported damaged. Broken or toppled chimneys are the most common report, but broken water lines have caused flooding and water damage, and at least one structure has shifted off the foundation. The total damage caused by this quake is estimated to be over $870,000.
If you have any questions, please e mail: firstname.lastname@example.com or call me at 530-283-6367
- Ski hill to open winter 2015
- Sheriff still pushing plan for new facility with CHP
- Family of man killed by deputy seeking damages
- Quincy cools off with some ice cream
- Many forest campgrounds to open for start of fishing season
- Kennedy bows out of District 5 race
- Dine Out for Digging In event supports garden education
- Earth Days Activities in Plumas County
- East Quincy Community Services District considers hiring new general manager
- The future of clean energy is here
Sports Headlines
FRC rodeo to open arena for anyone brave enough
This cowboy holds on for dear life during last year's saddle bronc riding portion of the rodeo clinic at Feather River College. For the third year, FRC's rodeo...Read More...
New class plans paddle fest
Quincy locals try out some human-powered boats at last year's Plumas Paddle Fest, presented by the Outdoor Recreation Leadership program of Feather River College....Read More...
Fishing Report for the week of 4/18/2014
Robert Paulson, of Meadow Valley, holds up the 23-pound Mackinaw he caught at Bucks Lake on April 6. Photo submitted
Michael Condon
Staff Writer


text:
Who Are the Friends?
The Friends of Ithaca College are local businesspeople, community members, and Ithaca College faculty, staff, and alumni who work together to strengthen the ties between the college and the local community. For more than 50 years, the Friends have supported scholarships for students from our region as well as other college priorities. Through their membership fees, the Friends have helped more than 350 students from central New York receive an IC education.
On this site you can learn about the benefits of being a Friend and how to become a Friend, view a list of Friends members, and read testimonials from Friends scholarship recipients.
What the Friends Do
- Partner with a leading educational institution
- Support area students with scholarships
- Work to strengthen the local community
- Network with area leaders and businesses
- Enjoy cultural, social, and educational events at the college
Upcoming Friends Events
"March Mania"
Sunday, April 27, 2014
6:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Emerson Suites, Phillips Hall
You're invited to "March Mania," this year's Friends of Ithaca College pops concert. The Ithaca College Symphonic Band and Concert Band will have your toes tapping as they perform a mix of marches from composers around the globe and across the ages. Marches will range from those from foreign lands to college rousers to those by John Philip Sousa, among many other themes.
$25 per person includes the performance and a wine and beer reception. Dessert will be served during intermission. RSVP by calling Chris Bailey at (607) 274-3545. If you have questions or special needs, please call Chris or email her at email@example.com.
Recent Friends Events
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Kitchen Theatre Company
Members of the Friends gathered at the Kitchen Theatre Company (a Friends business member) for an innovative performance that explored a couple's private world as they faced life's transitions and decisions.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Emerson Suites, Phillips Hall
Over 140 Friends and guests helped ring in the holidays and celebrate the partnership between the Friends and Ithaca College. During the festive dinner, President Tom Rochon spoke about the importance of the Friends' support and briefed the Friends on some of the latest accomplishments at the college.
Friends president Art Ostrander acknowledged next year's incoming Friends president, Laurie Linn, as well as Tammarrion Lam, the incoming member of the Executive Committee. Friends scholar Shasta Savage '14 shared her experience at IC and what the Friends scholarship has meant to her. And the new dean of the School of Music, Karl Paulnack, spoke about his inspirational vision for the school's future.
The musical portion of the evening included performances by the Ithaca College Trombone Troupe, Madrigal Singers, and Jazz Ensemble. When the IC Jazz Ensemble started playing at the end of the program, we all headed onto the dance floor, concluding our evening with dancing and much holiday merriment.
Click here to view a gallery of photos from the evening.
Into the Woods
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Members of the Friends, along with their guests and local IC alumni, spent a delightful evening at the Ithaca College Theatre production of Into the Woods, Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine's Tony Award-winning musical. The event began with a behind-the-scenes look at the production, followed by a wine reception. Then it was on to the show! Into the Woods weaves together the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm to examine life's challenges, joys, and lessons -- and the wisdom that comes from chasing one's desires.
"From Stage and Screen: Toe Tappers and Tearjerkers"
Sunday, September 15, 2013
DeWitt Park
At this year's annual Founder's Day concert, one of the concert's largest audiences ever gathered to hear conductor Stephen Peterson and the Ithaca College Wind Ensemble perform Hollywood and Broadway favorites. Friends president Art Ostrander and IC president Tom Rochon welcomed the audience and paid tribute to the Friends, especially Beverly Baker '54 and Baker Travel, who have supported the concert for an amazing 20 years. A gallery of photos captures the spirit of the afternoon.
The Founder's Day Concert in the Park commemorates Ithaca College's founding in 1892 as the Ithaca Conservatory of Music and the rich connection between the college and the Ithaca community ever since.
Sign Up for Intercom
You can rely on Intercom, Ithaca College's electronic newsletter, to bring you news from around our campuses, important announcements, information about major events (concerts, lectures, plays, etc.), reports of special achievements -- in short, all the things that matter to us as a college community.


text:
Maybe "dLOB%" would be more "honest," but is that the stat that the "radio guys" use? (whoa, too many quotations) No, they simply cite LOB, and say how it is a bad thing, which Doc clearly demonstrates hear that it really isn't all that bad, and that in fact, it can be used as a proxy for how many men you get on base (a good thing). And, if we asked nicely, I'm sure Doc would show us a graph that probably shows that "dLOB%" doesn't vary much between winning and losing teams, at least not as much as some of the other important numbers he listed above. (HR, XBH, BB, etc.) That would be my hypothesis anyways...
Hey, Doc, this is pretty cool and all, but I'm not a fan of that LOB graph. Its misleading to say "The team that gets the most guys on base who fail to score still wins 60% of the time, therefore those radio guys are wrong", cause that number isnt reflecting left on base numbers, but rather total runners reaching base. The team that is leaving more men on base is winning because they're simply getting more men on base.
Also, those "radio guys" always use LOB as a proxy for "squandering chances", and the general consensus is that if you fail to plate guys in a large amount of your chances, you're going to lose. The data you've provided doesn't show that sentiment to be wrong. I think a much more honest graph would be a dLOB% (LOB/Total Baserunners) graph
Recent Topics
Question about today's boxscore
fromthemitten - Yesterday, 04:52 PM
Just how much worse can it get?
5412 - Yesterday, 04:06 PM
Diamondbacks v. Cubs - April 23, 2014 (TV: WGN)
Brett - Yesterday, 08:40 AM
2 Tickets, Aisle 219, for Tomorrow's 100th Anniversary game.
MaxM1908 - Apr 22 2014 03:28 PM
2 tickets to 100th Birthday Game - 1st row upper deck
NorthSideIrish - Apr 22 2014 01:00 PM
Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:
Follow @BleacherNation
Bleacher Nation Posts
- Enhanced Box Score: Packers 7, Chi-Feds 5 – April 23, 2014
Yesterday, 04:21 PM
- Afore the Game: Packers v. Chi-Feds (1:20 CT) – Lineups, Broadcast Info, etc.
Yesterday, 10:12 AM
- The Cubs Will Have to Jump Through More Hoops to Provide Free Parking
Yesterday, 10:02 AM
- Jake Arrieta Will Get One More Rehab Start Before Returning
Yesterday, 09:25 AM
- Hello: Here's a $100,000(!) Fantasy Contest for Your Enjoyment and Enrichment
Yesterday, 08:34 AM
Upcoming Calendar Events
Today's birthdays
Breaking down winning in 2012
Posted 23 April 2012 - 06:50 AM
Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:56 AM
Regarding the outliers, it was the A's who somehow beat the Angels despite the Angels getting so many more total bases and base-on-balls. As they say, "stuff happens." We'll need at least a season's worth of data, but I can see two viable hypotheses here. There is the "bad teams find a way to lose" hypothesis: i.e., a bad team will throw away a game despite getting so many more hits and walks due to errors, lack of clutch hits, etc. Alternatively, there is the "good teams will have bad luck, too" hypothesis: i.e., it will be the good teams that consistently get more TB+BB than the opposition, and thus have the most opportunities to accidentally lose one of those games.
Finally, Luke and others asked about the proportion of baserunners who fail to score. Winning teams tend to leave more runners on base than do losing teams. However, a team that scores 4 runs on 10 hits/walks was more efficient than a team that scores 2 runs on 6 hits/walks despite leaving 2 more men on base (40% vs. 33%).
However, I think that we need to factor out homers to get at what people really want to know: are winning teams better at getting men on base home than losing teams? In the example above, say that the winning team hit 1 HR and the losing team hit 0. That means that Team A got 3 runs on 9 non-homers & walks, whereas Team B got 2 runs on 6 non-homers/walks. Now, both are 33% again.
What we really find (and I'll try to post the histogram later today) is that winning teams typically do get a larger proportion of their runners home. Does this mean "clutch" hits? Well, it turns out that the single biggest correlate is doubles + triples. That makes sense: a double has a better chance both of scoring and of driving in runners than does a single or a walk. Almost as important is HR. We've taken out the run scored by the HR, but HR necessarily clear the bases, which increases scoring efficiency . It's a big drop in significance after that (from 10^-11 to 10^-7), but singles are the 3rd most important effect on scoring efficiency. So, getting the ("clutch?") singles helps: but far more frequently it is the extra-base hit that matters. (Adding 1 HR or 2B/3B has the same effect on scoring efficiency as does adding almost 3 singles.)
There is some evidence that base-running matters, too: stolen bases increases scoring efficiency, too, albeit less than just getting another single does.
Well, at least through late April, anyway…..
EDIT Regarding the "sports radio" guys: One hears all-to-often on baseball broadcasts & discussions of baseball that it's the team that makes the most of its opportunities that wins. However, what really seems to be happening is that the team that gets (makes or is given) the most opportunities wins. It is the difference between "get him on, get him over, get him in" and "get him on, get him on, keep the line moving, get him on...."
These do dovetail to an extent: the more hits you get, the more difficult it is to avoid getting hits & walks clustered together. Where people err, I think is in the assumption that all teams are just as good at "setting up" rallies and the good teams add the "clutch" hits to that. Where bad teams often fail is in failing to set up rallies: if you consistently get one or two outs before anybody reaches base, then you are going to get a lower proportion of runners home than when you consistently get guys on with none or one out. And if you are consistently getting singles rather than extra base hits, then you are going to need more hits to get any one baserunner home.
(Another way to look at this is in the proportion of 2-out runs good offenses and bad offenses score; announcers love the clutch 2-out RBI, but the good offenses get a lot more 0-out RBI than do the bad offenses: conversely, bad pitchers give up a lot more 0-out RBI than do the good ones, against whom it's often tough to string together 2-3 hits & walks before getting 2 outs.)
Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:14 AM
Well, it turns out that the single biggest correlate is doubles + triples.
I'm pretty sure when the Cubs' radio guys talk about LOB numbers, they are using them as a proxy for team failing to get runners off the bases at an equitable rate. Typically, at least in recent seasons, after one of them mentions the LOB number the other will often say something along the lines of "it's tough to get those runners home without some extra base hits."
I wonder if we are needing a new stat here, maybe something like Stranded Rate (LOB / Total baserunners). That one should correlate strongly with team SLG, and therefor with winning. But if it correlates strongly with SLG, then maybe we don't need the stat.
By the way, what software are you using for this work? I've worked with (but don't own) both Stata and SPSS. I've thought about grabbing R (which is free) for some of the more complex stuff, but I'm not sure I could spend the time learning it just yet.
Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:13 AM
And, yeah, your stranded rate (LOB/Total Baserunners) is the reciprocal (or close to the reciprocal) of my "Scoring Efficiency ([Runs - HR] / Total BaseRunners), assuming that you exclude HR from baserunners. The data for this year suggest that Keith Moreland is quite right: you need extra base hits to clear the bases. (Zonk is quietly pretty emphatic about this, and he has been ever since he started broadcasting; he was a big doubles guy as a player, so that might be part of it.) However, it also is consistent with the idea that a double scores more easily than a single, which affects either equation. Run-scoring is a 4-wheel drive vehicle, after all.
In the end, this might well be like BABiP: breaking down "success" rates for guys who get walks singles, doubles and triples independently might be useful. What are the traits of the teams that successfully score guys who get walks or singles, and what are the traits of the teams that successfully prevent those same guys from scoring? Unfortunately, the data that I'm collecting can only hint at that.
Posted 23 April 2012 - 12:06 PM
Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:08 AM
We all know that the team that scores more runs wins the game; however, in the long haul, teams that score more runs than they allow don't win every game (or even their fair share). For instance, the Astros have outscored their opponents 76-67 this year, and are 6-11 to show for it. 17 games isn't a strong statistical sample, but it isn't weak, either: you'd expect that their "bad luck" will even out if they play at this level, and they'll be a .500 or better team.
There are a few ways to predict how well a team is going to do based on their runs, and I'll share 1 very bad one and two good ones..
1st, we have good old Line Percentage, or Winning Percentage. This is easy; we just take a team's current record and extrapolate it over 162 games. Basically, it assumes that each team will play exactly as their record indicates. This is a very bad indicator, however, and historically has proven to be.. not so good, for a variety of reasons.
2nd, we have pythagorean win percentage (yes, I know about Pythagenport, but that's even more complicated). Basically, this measures the runs you've scored against the runs you've allowed, and comes up with a pretty basic formula to give you an expected winning percentage (for those interested, the formula I use is RS^2/(RS^2+RA^2). What's very neat about this simple formula is it can tell you what teams seem to be lucky or unlucky (the other side of this coin? what team is gritty or not!). Historically, pythagorean W-L records have come within 10 games of a teams actual record about 97% of the time, which is why people can say with some reasonability that luck can give or take around 10 wins per team over the course of a season (i.e an 81 win team may have actually have 71 or 91 win talent). However, it usually is much closer. After about 30-35 games, this becomes a pretty excellent indicator, so we aren't there yet.
The last predictor (and my favorite) is runs per game regression. Basically, this takes the difference in runs scored and runs allowed per game and asks "how much is 1 run more scored over allowed worth, in terms of winning percentage?" This is a close relative of pythagorean win percentage, but I like it a lot because the regression makes a lot of sense. The numbers have basically shown that a team that scores exactly as much as it allows will go 81-81. For each run per game they score over their opponents (this year), their winning percentage increases by 11.24%, or about 18 wins over the course of the year. What's so cool about this is that it tells you that if you can score 1 more run than you allow, on average, you'll win around 100 games (and if it goes the other way, you'll lose 100). For all the stats, that gives you an easy thing to shoot for!
What we all care about, though, is how these systems affect the Cubs.
WP% Projection: 41-121
Pyth% Projection: 56-106
Reg% Projection: 55-107
Obviously these are all too low. I'd wait until around 35 games before I put a lot of store into them. Still, it's pretty neat!
Posted 24 April 2012 - 06:13 PM
For those who haven't seen box plots in a while, the boxes encompass 50% of the games in which a team had (say) 1 HR, 2 HR, etc. The "whiskers" encompass 75% of the data points. These are a little easier to read than scatter plots, where dozens of points are crammed so closely together (and on a line) that you cannot really appreciate their density. The individual dots are the 12.5% on either end of the distribution. I've included traditional linear regression lines, assuming dependency of the "success" frequency (proportion of non-HR hits+BB scoring) on the stat in question.
I've ordered them on strength of correlation. What also is telling is the slope: i.e., what added proportion of runners score as you add 1 HR, 1 double or triple, etc. Adding power really helps: and that makes sense, as it clears the bases and (in the case of a double or triple) leaves a guy close to home plate.
Stolen bases seem to help more than singles. However, "correlation" vs. "causation" comes to mind here: as singles increase, stolen bases increase. So, part of the slope for stolen bases is building upon the lower slope of singles. It's too early in the season (in terms of numbers of games) to break these down into the effect of 1, 2, 3, etc., steals when there are 1, 2, 3, etc., singles.
I'll post walks tomorrow. I do not want to apologize for Dusty Baker's silly lines, but I do wonder if this is what he saw. Basically, as you add walks, the proportion of runners that score barely increases. It makes sense that this would have the least effect: the runner gets only to first and other runners advance only one base. (Many singles advance guys 2 bases.) HOWEVER.... each walk is a runner, so even if adding 4 walks barely increases the probability of any one runner scoring, you still have 4 more chances to at that same probability. Walks might not clear the bases, and they add more to LOB than anything else, but they are still very, very good for your offense and very, very bad for your pitching.
EDIT: oh, note that these are individual team performances, not with regard to which team won. Teams with higher scoring efficiency do tend to win, but remember that teams with more HR, doubles+triples, etc., tend to win, so what's the horse and what's the cart (or the extent to which it's both) is not resolved by these data.
Posted 03 May 2012 - 02:05 PM
Well, the Cubs had ∆TB+BB of 13: and lost. That supplants the ChiSox's ∆TB+BB=11 loss to the A's from a week ago.
For those who are interested, there is absolutely no obvious pattern in the 7 games. The A's have won 2: but they are among the MLB leaders in games where they have given up 5+ more TB+BB, so they've had the greatest opportunity to "get lucky." No team has lost twice this way, and the losers include the Cards and the Rangers, both of whom are good teams. (I'm betting that, in the end, good teams will have more "got unlucky" loses simply because these teams will have many more games with a lot more TB+BB than the other team.
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:07 PM
Posted 09 May 2012 - 05:09 PM
Posted 11 May 2012 - 08:38 AM
From a statistical point of view, we call this an outlier! Still, they are amusing....
Over Memorial Day weekend, I'm going to do some slightly more advanced breakdowns of how particular performances correlate not just with winning, but with the winning margin. That is, how much do HR, walks, K's, innings pitched by the starter, etc., contribute to winning by 1, 2, 3, etc. runs. Now, on one hand, a win is a win: but the vast majority of teams that make post-season routinely win by a comfortable margin. (Conversely, really bad teams get their collective butt kicked a lot.)
This could give us an idea of which teams have been "lucky" or "unlucky" so far this year, as well as which teams are (for good or ill) doing what we expect.
Posted 11 May 2012 - 08:42 AM
They also reached base via a HBP, but the runner was erased by a double play (so no LOB).
This is more trivia than "how to win," but for people who hate stranded runners, the Orioles put on a clinic last night. They scored 6 runs on 5 hits and 1 walk. Yup: everybody scored. Of course, they hit 5 HR, one of which came after the walk. I've never seen anything like that in a game
Looking forward to your breakdown of margins!
Posted 11 May 2012 - 03:34 PM
They also reached base via a HBP, but the runner was erased by a double play (so no LOB).
This is more trivia than "how to win," but for people who hate stranded runners, the Orioles put on a clinic last night. They scored 6 runs on 5 hits and 1 walk. Yup: everybody scored. Of course, they hit 5 HR, one of which came after the walk. I've never seen anything like that in a game
Looking forward to your breakdown of margins!
D'oh! I missed that! Perfection is so elusive.......
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).


text:
Some people probably think quarterback Jim Plunkett led Stanford to its last Rose Bowl victory.
It's understandable if memories are foggy, because it's been that long.
It was actually Don Bunce, backed by the "Thunderchickens" defense, back in 1972.
The losing team was Michigan and Stanford was still nicknamed "Indians."
No wonder, then, Stanford so thunderously celebrated its 20-14 win over Wisconsin on Tuesday in front of 93,359 on a chilly, crisp day.
You forget how hard it is to do this.
Northwestern, Stanford's academic rival, won a bowl game Tuesday for the first time since the 1949 Rose Bowl.
Casual observers of the 99th Rose Bowl might have wondered how Granddaddy stayed awake during Stanford's dirge march to delirium.
At halftime, the Stanford band paid homage to "cheese" and then left the field smelling like Limburger.
The second half produced one chip-shot, 22-yard field goal. In the third quarter, the teams combined for seven punts and three first downs. The game produced more than twice as many running plays as passing plays, 80 to 37.
If only Wisconsin could have scraped together 17 more passing yards, it would have reached an even 100 for the game.
Sometimes, though, destiny happens when you least expect it.
Tennessee had Peyton Manning for three years but won the national title the year after he left.
Stanford had Andrew Luck at quarterback for three years, but it took freshman Kevin Hogan to finally win the Rose Bowl.
Tuesday's game was all-out, grind-it-out. The coaches, David Shaw and Barry Alvarez, were determined to squeeze all the life out of a game and live with the consequences.
"We're not going to score 40 points a game," Shaw said afterward. "That's just not how we're built right now."
Both teams game-planned to a close finish — the difference being Stanford is much better at closing out.
Alvarez's team punted and defended its way through the day with the lone objective of having one chance to win in the end.
"You're at midfield, or close to midfield, with a chance to win the Rose Bowl," Alvarez said afterward. "I just felt like maybe we were a team of destiny. . . . I just felt like somehow we were going to find a way to score."
Wisconsin got its chance — and flubbed it.


text:
As the global leader in domain names, Verisign powers the invisible navigation that takes people to where they want to go on the Internet.
Verisign's infrastructure services help to ensure that your organization's websites are reliable and always available.
Verisign provides in-depth analysis, insight and response recommendations to help keep businesses and government organizations ahead of new and evolving cyber threats and vulnerabilities.
As the Internet continues to expand, Verisign is committed to creating and driving advancements that keep the Internet fast, safe, and reliable for all users.
WhatsUp Professional 2005 SP1 is a network management solution for small
and mid sized organizations. Further information is available at:
Remote exploitation of a SQL injection vulnerability in IpSwitch Inc.'s
WhatsUp Professional 2005 Service Pack 1 could allow a remote attacker
to gain administrative access to the application.
The main logon screen for the web based front end does not properly
validate input, allowing for SQL injection attacks to occur. SQL
commands can be submitted through the "User Name" and "Password" fields
on the default login page.
The web front end is not enabled by default and must be running for the
application to be vulnerable. It can be enabled under the "Configure",
"Program Options" menu by checking the "Enable web server on port [80]"
Exploit code for this vulnerability is unnecessary; the following SQL
injection attacks can be executed in the "User Name" field of the
http://[target]/NmConsole/Login.asp page:
Reset the Admin user password with a blank password:
- 'UPDATE WebUser SET sPassword=DEFAULT WHERE sUserName='Admin'--
Elevate Guest user privileges to Admin privileges:
- 'UPDATE WebUser SET nUserRightsMask=-1 WHERE sUserName='guest'--
Successful exploitation allows unauthenticated remote attackers to gain
administrative access to the WhatsUp Professional application. SQL
injection attacks can be used to either elevate the privileges of the
Guest user or to change/erase the password of the Admin user. Either
approach will provide a remote attacker with full administrative access
to the application. By default, the Guest user is enabled but has
limited access to the application and the account has a blank password.
iDEFENSE has confirmed the existence of this vulnerability against
WhatsUp Gold Professional 2005 SP1 running on Windows XP Professional
Disabling the web front end to WhatsUp Gold Professional 2005 (SP1) will
prevent the ability to exploit this vulnerability. It can be disabled
under the "Configure", "Program Options" menu by unchecking the "Enable
web server on port [80]" checkbox.
This vulnerability is addressed in WhatsUP Pro 2005 SP1a.
A change log detailing changes in SP1a is available at:
The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) project has assigned the
name CAN-2005-1250 to this issue. This is a candidate for inclusion in
the CVE list (http://cve.mitre.org), which standardizes names for
security problems.
04/25/2005 Initial vendor notification
05/10/2005 Initial vendor response
06/22/2005 Coordinated public disclosure
The discoverer of this vulnerability wishes to remain anonymous.
Get paid for vulnerability research
Free tools, research and upcoming events
Copyright © 2005 Verisign, Inc.
Permission is granted for the redistribution of this alert
electronically. It may not be edited in any way without the express
written consent of iDEFENSE. If you wish to reprint the whole or any
part of this alert in any other medium other than electronically, please
email email@example.com for permission.
Disclaimer: The information in the advisory is believed to be accurate
at the time of publishing based on currently available information. Use
of the information constitutes acceptance for use in an AS IS condition.
There are no warranties with regard to this information. Neither the
author nor the publisher accepts any liability for any direct, indirect,
or consequential loss or damage arising from use of, or reliance on,
this information.


text:
Tenofovir, one of the most effective and commonly prescribed antiretroviral medications for HIV/AIDS, is associated with a significant risk of kidney damage and chronic kidney disease that increases over time, according to a study of more than 10,000 patients led by researchers at the San Francisco VA Medical Center and UCSF.
Latest News
February 10, 2012
February 10, 2012
Scientists at the San Francisco VA Medical Center and the University of California, San Francisco have published a study showing that one of the most effective and commonly prescribed antiretroviral medications for HIV/AIDS, tenofovir, is associated with a significant risk of kidney damage and chronic kidney disease that increases over time. See accompanying news release, Tenofovir, Leading HIV Medication, Linked with Risk of Kidney Damage.
December 21, 2011
In perhaps the most comprehensive survey of the inner workings of HIV, an international team of scientists led by researchers at UCSF has mapped every apparent physical interaction the virus makes with components of the human cells it infects — work that may reveal new ways to design future HIV/AIDS drugs.
December 14, 2011
Scientists at the Gladstone Institutes have discovered new protein fragments in semen that enhance the ability of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, to infect new cells—a discovery that one day could help curb the global spread of this deadly pathogen.
December 14, 2011
UCSF and its affiliate Blood Systems Research Institute have been awarded nearly $33 million in research contracts for four projects as part of a major new research initiative designed to improve the safety and effectiveness of blood transfusions in the United States and abroad.
December 02, 2011
As physicians working on the frontlines of HIV/AIDS since its start 30 years ago near retirement, UCSF is looking to attract and train the next generation of doctors to specialize in HIV/AIDS medicine.
December 01, 2011
Ellen Schell, RN, PhD, director of International Programs for the Global AIDS Interfaith Alliance and an associate adjunct professor in the UCSF School of Nursing, reflects on the uphill battle to combat AIDS in Malawi, a tiny, impoverished country of 15 million.
November 30, 2011
A cheaper laboratory test that helps guide anti-retroviral drug treatment for people with HIV/AIDS may be just as effective as a more sophisticated test, a group of international researchers has found – a discovery that could be particularly important in rural Africa.
November 30, 2011
As we mark World AIDS Day this week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention reports that more than a million Americans now live with the disease, and every year some 50,000 people in the United States alone are newly infected.
November 30, 2011
UCSF has been working for the past 30 years as a leader in AIDS basic and clinical research, patient care, policy development and community and global outreach – efforts that continue today.


text:
for Reservations
Send us your questions or comments and one of our agents will reply to you within 24 hours.
Yoga on the Lake, the premier yoga studio in Sheboygan County, is located in The Shops at Woodlake and offers more than 20 classes a week. Yoga on the Lake welcomes all to our yoga community.
The overall design and focus for Yoga on the Lake is to create a comfortable soothing space where you can experience a connection of body and mind. The studio's floor-to-ceiling bay windows overlook Wood Lake, allowing you to draw nature in to enhance this experience.
For more information or to schedule a class or event at Yoga on the Lake, please call (920) 453-2817.
Cancellation Policy – For any workshop, special event or private, Yoga on the Lake must be notified at least 48 hours in advance if cancelling or rescheduling. All cancellations and no-shows (regardless of cause) received less than 48 hours prior to the schedule time, will be charged at full value. We appreciate your cooperation to improve our quality of services.
Gift cards available - please visit our boutique.
Visit Yoga on the Lake on Facebook for the latest information and updates.
© Kohler Co.
The American Club Resort Hotel is the perfect vacation destination for golf, fine dining and spa services. It's the only Forbes Five-Star resort hotel in Wisconsin and the Midwest's only AAA Five Diamond resort hotel, featuring four championship golf courses designed by the legendary Pete Dye and a Forbes 5-star spa to help you relax and replenish.


text:
Cage fights will benefit Impact Amateur Boxing
Local fighters are putting on the gloves Saturday for a good cause. Grand Junction Harley Davidson and Bush Cree Production are sponsoring CageRaiser 1 on Saturday night at Two Rivers…
Want to read more?
This article and other exclusive local content now require a subscription. (Learn More)


text:
Gateway Center (Interfaith Project)Atlanta, GA
Bummer! Sales have ended.
Unfortunately, tickets for this event are no longer on sale.
Event Details
Gateway is a homeless shelter designed to serve as the gateway to the continuum of care that helps individuals move out of homelessness. While at Gateway we may be assigned to do arts and crafts with kids, help with tutoring, or assist with light cleaning of the facilities.
This service project is part of the Office of Civic Engagement's Interfaith & COmmunity Service Campus Challenge Initiative. While volunteering we will discuss our cultural/religious backgrounds and how our beliefs influence our service.
We will volunteer at Gateway on February, 27, 2013 from 9-12am. Please meet in the Office of Civic Engagement at 8:30am and we will walk to Gateway together.


text:
Write a tea journal, see what others are drinking and get recommendations from people you trust. Sign Up or Learn More
I am a SAHM with three teenage sons. Long time tea lover.
While I was born in the South I don't drink the super sweet the area is known for. Sometimes I will add a teaspoon of sugar to a quart of tea.
I drink black, oolong and green teas, oolong being my favorite. I have yet to find a rooibos I can stomach and have not tried honey bush yet.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana


text:
Dr. Jablon teaches in the middle and high school programs in the Graduate School of Education.
Paul Jablon
Professional Title: Associate Professor
Areas of Academic Focus and Expertise: Inquiry science teaching; interdisciplinary teaching; urban
education; systemic school change; creating effective learning
Area of Work and Concentration at Lesley: Middle school; high
Representative List of Recent Courses Taught: Creating a Community of Learners
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in General Science Principles of
Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Cultures of the High School Engaging High
School Learners through Pro-Social Management Building an Effective Middle
School Team
Education: BS, Manhattan College; PhD, New York University
Representative List of Recent Publications / Exhibitions:
Dr. Jablon worked as a
teacher for 20 years in New York City schools, helping to create schools for
teenagers previously disengaged with school, which are now being replicated
through funding from the Gates Foundation and others. He continues to work with
urban schools throughout the country to utilize effective project-based,
interdisciplinary models that rely on personalized relationships between
teachers and their adolescent students.At the university, he teaches middle and high school
courses that assist teachers and administrators to create effective science and
interdisciplinary programs, peaceable schools, and effective service learning
experiences. In many US cities, he leads staff development workshops for the new
Small High School programs and has directed many funded programs that have
engaged thousands of teachers in more effective inquiry science practices.Dr. Jablon is also senior advisor in the PhD in Educational Studies Program, and sits on the Advanced Graduate Council.
Middle School Programs
High School Programs
Middle and High School Faculty/Staff
Graduate School of Education
PreK-12 Education Programs
PhD Programs
Online Education Programs
Teacher Residency Programs
Professional Development Events and Workshops
Programs Near You
Faculty Profiles
Alumni/Students in the News
School Blogs
Field Placement
Academic Advising
Centers of Excellence
Reggio Emilia
Request more information
Schedule a campus visit
Get your application started today!


text:
When I was in elementary school, we used to play a game at recess called Foursquare. (It's got no relationship to the GPS-driven location visiting game we play now on our modern phones, sorry)! So how does a friendly playground game like foursquare become a card game about political murder? It's not so far off as you might imagine…
In Foursquare, the players arrange themselves in a 2×2 square, and have some sufficiently bouncy ball–usually a dodgeball or basketball, which they toss between them. The game is based on tennis–when the ball is passed to you, it can bounce at most once in your square, and then you have to return it to one of the three other players. You can't catch or kick the ball–you can only bump, volley, spin, or spike it with your hands.
There was one other interesting concept to foursquare at our school recesses, which I think must have been borrowed from card games like 'Chairman Mao', now that I consider it. Each space was numbered one through four–King, Queen, Jack, and Knight. The King was able to set the rules for each round of play. He could outlaw certain shots, require the play to pass a certain way, or the like. When a person was knocked out of the game by being unable to return a serve, this ended the round, and the knocked out player would be demoted to Knight (or to the waiting queue, if there were more than four players). Everyone else would rank up accordingly.
The game created its own kind of ruthless balance. Players would invent cunning shots, including everything from backspins to passing to a player's feet (which usually stopped the ball dead if it worked) to ridiculous two-handed spikes (called bombs) that sent the ball so far away that returning it would be impossible. If the King found these new shots too dangerous, he could outlaw them. If the players found the new rules too oppressive, they could gang up and oust the King.
The game was as much about politics as it was about skill. The Queen player usually wanted the King gone, while the Jack would settle for either King or Queen to be gone, and the Knight and King would be happy to eliminate absolutely anyone but themselves. Thus, it was up to the King to appease the other players as much as to referee, as well as for the other players to make sure that a power-hungry usurper couldn't get within range of the throne.
Kill the Overlord! was a game that I designed before I became a professional designer–in fact, one might say it launched that career, as it's the first game design that I ever submitted to a publisher.
Years after college, I was feeling nostalgic, thinking back to those playground days. I started looking for a game that would recreate that same mix of politics and pressure that Foursquare had created. Ultimately, I resigned to invent my own. The medieval theme for the roles was already in place. For the ball, I decided to take a page from Guillotine and make it the overlord's executioner. Now I had a game where various players were playing Hot Potato–trying to pass the executioner amongst themselves, and not be the last to have it. It wasn't enough to have the most powerful cards–you would also need to convince the other players to work together with you in order to get to the top.
For the roles, I wanted to stray away from the "King makes all the rules" element of the playground game. That could work on a playground, where peer pressure and playground ingenuity would keep you from making a rule like "I can't be knocked out" (everyone would take the ball and form a new game a few paces away from you). It wouldn't work for gamers, who want to run everything by the book. Besides, being Jack, Queen, or Knight in Foursquare was pretty boring, truth be told. It would be better to give each role its own unique power.
The powers were then structured so that the higher ranks had powers more tuned for manipulating the help of the lower classes and for scheming against the top, while the lower players had powers tuned for longevity. In Kill the Overlord! the Slave has the most longevity of any other player (he can get rid of the ball by paying coins, which he usually has in reasonable supply), the middle ranks like Captain have offensive powers (making players shed extra cards), while the Overlord has the least impressive power (he gets a free pass at the start of each turn).
Foursquare on the playground lasts until recess ends, but conditions like that also don't work so well in a card game. To give the game an ultimate goal, points were introduced, in the form of gold coins. In the playground game, you might consider the player who had maintained higher rank for the longest time to be the winner. This idea was built into the scoring system: the higher your rank, the more gold you'll rake in each turn. Maintain higher ranks for a longer time (even if you don't get to the top), and you'll have much more gold than your neighbors.
It was also around this time that I was playing Citadels (specifically the Fantasy Flight Edition that comes with the expansion in the box). In the Citadels expansion, there are 9 roles, and 9 alternate roles. Each role can be switched between one of the two, and the game changes vastly depending on which roles are swapped in and out. An expansion in the box so you can fine-tune your game experience! How cool was that? I decided to create a second set of roles for Kill the Overlord! that could ship in the box with the base game. Once you had played the game with the first eight, you could make it brand new again by trying the other eight. You could even fine-tune the game's level of cutthroated-ness by including or excluding certain roles (as a fan of customizable gameplay, this is one of the most important aspects of the game, IMO).
Another important aspect of the game was the illustration. Even though this was a game of political murder, I wanted to make it a family friendly one, like Guillotine or King's Blood. I commissioned an artist named Tori Parker to do lighthearted characters in both male and female genders, making the cards double-sided. When you become General, for example, you can switch the General's face to match your own gender, creating an instant sense of connection with the character.
Once APE had acquired Kill the Overlord!, development continued, and gameplay was smoothed out and refined. Ranking up had a bit of overhead associated with it, and so we determined that it would only happen when the Overlord was killed, to minimize shuffling and downtime. We tried some outlandish changes (like running two execution orders at once–WAY too complicated), and ultimately found a game that flowed quickly, was simple to pick up, and which got people interested.right away. It's the kind of game that quickly fades into the background after a few hands, allowing you to talk and banter while you play. It's a game that I've played with my 10-year old step brothers and my 40-year old gaming friends, much to the delight of both.
APE Games is currently running a Kickstarter for Kill the Overlord!. I'd encourage you all to pick it up! In the tradition of large-party games like Seven Wonders and Bang!, it's easy to get into and fun for gamers and non-gamers alike.
If you're interested in more lightweight games that travel in your pocket, check out our Minigame Library, now on Kickstarter as well. It includes 4½ new games to add to your collection, plus a carrying case!
Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings, and I wish you all happy gaming!
- Brad