How the chunk division is divided seems really strange.  I had a render that started a client on frame 563 or something like that and my host started on another odd number like that, too.  Bitmap sequences are acutally just regular bitmaps, right?

In ther galleries my menu bar is on the left, where I chose it to be, but here it is on the right.

Some cameras can be modified to accept a back that has fiber optics or something to transfer the image to a standard polaroid. They are mostly Leicas, I think.

I had a dream about a tornado just last night!

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=995615&Start=1&Artist=TobinLam&ByArtist=Yes

If your hood causes vignetting you should throw it away and get a hood designed specifically for your lens. There is no excuse for it to get in the field of view. My zoom lenses have hoods that correspond to their wide settings so they don't cause vignetting.

So many people bash plastic. Plastic has come a long way and is very tough. If your concerned about electromagnetic shielding, I don't think you have any reasonable options. They are as secure as you make them. I would not hesitate to buy a CF card.

Looks to me like a strip of magnetic tape. That other little thing, though, is obviously a cloud, too.

Looks like you captured a B-17 and a Cessna, just as you thought.

I thought color negatives had a much wider exposure latitude than slide film. At least, that's what I've always been told. I'm thinking the trick isn't exactly poor technique. You are just trying to capture an image with a brightness range beyond your films' capabilities. One of your mistakes was trying to get the entire range on inherently high-contrast Velvia and Provia slides. To me, it looks like you overcompensated for the brightness of the snow and got quite a bit of overexposure. I enjoy Provia and Velvia, but they seem to be the wrong choice for a scene like this if you want the full brightness range. These films are high-contrast and have incredible color saturation, but your scene is also naturally high-contrast and not exactly colorful. It almost looks black and white with a little blue in the sky and some green in the trees.

Since it is still a little early, Canon pobably has something really nice up its sleave. About it being more expensive than the 20D, of course it is. It is brand new. But, it is $100 cheaper than the 20D when the 20D was brand new.

LostPatrol is right. Not all teleconverters are compatible with all lenses, mostly L telephotos. They will cause a slight loss of quality. From the Canon website: 1.4x teleconverter: This tele extender can be used with fixed focal length lenses 135mm and longer (except the 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens), and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4.0L, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lenses. Effective aperture is reduced by one f-stop; autofocus is possible on any EOS camera when combined with a lens having an f/4 or faster maximum aperture. 2x: This extender has been re-designed optically and offers excellent performance with compatible EF lenses (same as the Extender EF 1.4x II). Features a new seven-element design, and same weather-resistant design and anti-reflection internal construction as the new EF 1.4x II. The EF 2x II doubles the focal length of any lens it's mounted to, and reduces its effective aperture by two stops. With the EF 2x II, AF is possible with any EOS body if the lens has an f/2.8 or faster maximum aperture, and compatible Image Stabilization lenses maintain the IS feature when used with any current EOS camera.

Obviously he talked to it, so why isn't there a better photo? A very amusing website!

Sometimes PS will randomnly tell me a photo is locked and I'll just yell at it to shut up and it cooperates!

Check out ie7.com. If you ever go to the Microsoft visitor's center they have a future office with a 3x3 monitor grid that really cool. I opened the task manager and found firefox running in the background!