I think you don't understand the difference between lossy and lossless compression. A camera that's designed to make JPEGs as you take photos is not easy to upgrade to taking JPEG2000s. And you certainly don't want to recompress the initial JPEGs into any other lossy format. However, cameras like the DC260/265/290 which run a documented OS and people can write programs for (heck, I have Tetris on my DC260, and I've played Gauntlet using MAME on a DC265) can safely post-process a JPEG image into a smaller file of exactly the same quality with this new technique. Now, a camera as old as the 260 may not have the RAM or CPU time to do it, but that's not to say that newer cameras couldn't. Or perhaps I'm carrying a Pocket PC with me that I can use to repack my JPEGs. Sure, the resultant file isn't a JPEG, but it can be turned back into the original JPEG with no loss in quality. Repacking images using JPEG2000 will lose quality.
I found this via 7-zip's forums on SourceForge. And Jeff's Archive Comparison Test site has been my main source of compression application information since I bought a RAR licence way back in '98 or something. It's quite well known if you're a compression junky.
No offence taken. That's a healthy skepticism you've got going there.
Nah, it's just that there's nothing interesting released this time round. 2003's pre-xmas season rocked -- I bought heaps of stuff. This season, my biggest purchase was a domain. Hardly riveting stuff.
Well, my digital camera produces JPEGs. I might have a RAW option, but I like to fit more than a couple of pics on the card. So, my originals are JPEGs. If I change them to another lossy format, I lose qualtiy. This technique retains the original quality and is basicially a post-process that can be tacked on the end of the process. In fact, as I've stated in another post, you don't even have to do this live, you can re-pack the images when you have the time and power to do it.
Basically it boils down to the fact that there's a huge legacy of investment in JPEGs. This new technique respects that legacy and offers a way to extend its value before we have to just completely throw it away and move to a new format.
What is 300% smaller? 30% smaller is 70% of the original size. 300% smaller is, what, -200% of the original size? I can only imagine that you mean it compresses to 33% of the original size (making the original 300%, or three times, larger than the compressed file), which is fine, but this technique shaves 30% off an already quite small JPEG without any change in image quality.
Hmm, I could claim I was trying to emphasise the fact that it was losslessly compressing the file, not lossily recompessing the image. Or I could just say I was lazy and I'm sorry.
Okay, let's say I'm an Australian on holiday. I've bought a, oo, A$500 camera and I decided to fork out A$250 for a 256MB card. For ease of calculation, let's say a typical image of a qualtiy I'm happy with is 1MB. (This is low, but my cameras are old.) I can put 256 photos on that card. Now, lets say that each evening when I get back to the hotel, I plug the camera in to recharge, and I tell it to do an extra compression cycle on all my images. I can now fit 320 photos on my camera. Remember, this is a lossless technique that can be applied to any JPEG after it's created. What I have at the hotel is time and power. What this new technology does is turn that into storage space. No one will need to make cameras that do this live, it can be done post.
Unfortunately many areas in WoW appear to be built assuming that more than one person will be doing them at any given time. Even if you're not teaming up, a fully spawned zone where you have to surgically kill one thing at a time turns into a deadly swam fest if the thing you're beating up on decides to run off to its friends just before you kill it. Caves that respawn when you're trying to get out don't help either. You really need other players to be causing a bit of chaos in what would otherwise be a disturbingly even distribution of enemies. It is so much of a joy to be able to leapfrog through a crowd with another player, rather than grind through it by yourself.
Given that there are only two islands and that you can run through almost every zone in a day -- and it only takes about four hours to go from the northern to southern tips, excluding monster encounters, I'd say this is a very small world indeed. Add to that the fact that there are only two major cities with the highly desirable Auction House (with one neutral AH just north of the middle of nowhere), 200,000 concurrent players would result in your PC needing to manage roughly 50,000 people every time you wanted to auction off that cool thing you just found but can't use.
This obviously won't scale. And it's disappointing that the solution appears to be more and more parallel worlds, when the point is to be playing with heaps of other people. It's not like you can pick your server at the beginning of the session either, you have to commit when you create your character.
Here's what I see when I look at this card: Two dual-6800 cards each using SLI, together using Alienware's video array. Unfortunately, the problems are:
No Video Array yet
The only company even rumoured to be working on a 2x 16 channel PCI Express motherboard (Tyan) won't even confirm it yet
The motherboard BIOS has to be tweaked to cope with the card
The card is only dual 6600.
Given that there are single-card solutions better than this dual-GPU single card, and that it only works on one motherboard are a real problem. Currently, it's just a cute stunt. When it performs better than any other single card and can be paired with another for a record-breaking 4 GPU solution, that's when we need to see a/. article.
They've been around long enough that a secondhand one should be affordable. They may be a little pricey, but they aren't just about protection from being dropped, they're highly water and sand resistant.
We replaced every motherboard in a 38 PC lab (stupid Acer). It was annoying and it wasted a couple of lunchtimes, but this is why we have an IT Manager.
Given that Gigabyte used SLI on a single card to produce a one-slot dual-GPU card, Video Array could be used to double it again. Imagine a pair of dual 6800 cards. Shame it looks like there are about three peices missing from this puzzle.
Slashdot Mirror
I've done my pointless UI eye-candy phase, but if someone can use 3D graphics to build a more efficient interface, I'm all for it.
Yeah, I was looking at all three titles and wondering if it was a taste-based arrest...
I think you don't understand the difference between lossy and lossless compression. A camera that's designed to make JPEGs as you take photos is not easy to upgrade to taking JPEG2000s. And you certainly don't want to recompress the initial JPEGs into any other lossy format. However, cameras like the DC260/265/290 which run a documented OS and people can write programs for (heck, I have Tetris on my DC260, and I've played Gauntlet using MAME on a DC265) can safely post-process a JPEG image into a smaller file of exactly the same quality with this new technique. Now, a camera as old as the 260 may not have the RAM or CPU time to do it, but that's not to say that newer cameras couldn't. Or perhaps I'm carrying a Pocket PC with me that I can use to repack my JPEGs. Sure, the resultant file isn't a JPEG, but it can be turned back into the original JPEG with no loss in quality . Repacking images using JPEG2000 will lose quality.
I found this via 7-zip's forums on SourceForge. And Jeff's Archive Comparison Test site has been my main source of compression application information since I bought a RAR licence way back in '98 or something. It's quite well known if you're a compression junky.
No offence taken. That's a healthy skepticism you've got going there.
P0000928.JPG 1536x1024 24bit Exif [OK] 389208 --> 349593 bytes (10.18%), optimized.
P0000929.JPG 1536x1024 24bit Exif [OK] 385734 --> 345325 bytes (10.48%), optimized.
P0000930.JPG 1024x1536 24bit Exif [OK] 366738 --> 327438 bytes (10.72%), optimized.
P0000932.JPG 1024x1536 24bit Exif [OK] 446747 --> 416485 bytes (6.77%), optimized.
Nah, it's just that there's nothing interesting released this time round. 2003's pre-xmas season rocked -- I bought heaps of stuff. This season, my biggest purchase was a domain. Hardly riveting stuff.
Basically it boils down to the fact that there's a huge legacy of investment in JPEGs. This new technique respects that legacy and offers a way to extend its value before we have to just completely throw it away and move to a new format.
What is 300% smaller? 30% smaller is 70% of the original size. 300% smaller is, what, -200% of the original size? I can only imagine that you mean it compresses to 33% of the original size (making the original 300%, or three times, larger than the compressed file), which is fine, but this technique shaves 30% off an already quite small JPEG without any change in image quality.
I'm going to test how well the metadata (EXIF) survives tomorrow. Does anyone know if there's a PocketPC port of this?
Hmm, I could claim I was trying to emphasise the fact that it was losslessly compressing the file, not lossily recompessing the image. Or I could just say I was lazy and I'm sorry.
Just as an aside, there are already mobile phone photo post-processors like this one that turns multiple shots into a single high-res pic. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to pack the JPEG 30% smaller before you upload it to Flickr, or whatever.
Okay, let's say I'm an Australian on holiday. I've bought a, oo, A$500 camera and I decided to fork out A$250 for a 256MB card. For ease of calculation, let's say a typical image of a qualtiy I'm happy with is 1MB. (This is low, but my cameras are old.) I can put 256 photos on that card. Now, lets say that each evening when I get back to the hotel, I plug the camera in to recharge, and I tell it to do an extra compression cycle on all my images. I can now fit 320 photos on my camera. Remember, this is a lossless technique that can be applied to any JPEG after it's created. What I have at the hotel is time and power. What this new technology does is turn that into storage space. No one will need to make cameras that do this live, it can be done post.
Where does "pre-n" live, frequency-wise? I assume it eats even more 2.4GHz than g. There's always InfraRed...
- Get one news organisation to discredit itself while claiming you did something bad
- ???
- Profit.
There's teflon-coated and then there's Bush. He may not be able to pronounce nuclear, but he takes avoiding repercussions to a new level.Unfortunately many areas in WoW appear to be built assuming that more than one person will be doing them at any given time. Even if you're not teaming up, a fully spawned zone where you have to surgically kill one thing at a time turns into a deadly swam fest if the thing you're beating up on decides to run off to its friends just before you kill it. Caves that respawn when you're trying to get out don't help either. You really need other players to be causing a bit of chaos in what would otherwise be a disturbingly even distribution of enemies. It is so much of a joy to be able to leapfrog through a crowd with another player, rather than grind through it by yourself.
This obviously won't scale. And it's disappointing that the solution appears to be more and more parallel worlds, when the point is to be playing with heaps of other people. It's not like you can pick your server at the beginning of the session either, you have to commit when you create your character.
- No Video Array yet
- The only company even rumoured to be working on a 2x 16 channel PCI Express motherboard (Tyan) won't even confirm it yet
- The motherboard BIOS has to be tweaked to cope with the card
- The card is only dual 6600.
Given that there are single-card solutions better than this dual-GPU single card, and that it only works on one motherboard are a real problem. Currently, it's just a cute stunt. When it performs better than any other single card and can be paired with another for a record-breaking 4 GPU solution, that's when we need to see aThey've been around long enough that a secondhand one should be affordable. They may be a little pricey, but they aren't just about protection from being dropped, they're highly water and sand resistant.
Here's my blog entry from way back.
We replaced every motherboard in a 38 PC lab (stupid Acer). It was annoying and it wasted a couple of lunchtimes, but this is why we have an IT Manager.
I lived through the cheap capacitor recipe problem, I can live through this.
This is why I didn't bother to "fix" it when my system drive set itself up as E: the last time I rebuilt a home PC.
That still only makes Ethanol an oil booster, it doesn't provide any sort of independence from fossil fuels.
Given that Gigabyte used SLI on a single card to produce a one-slot dual-GPU card, Video Array could be used to double it again. Imagine a pair of dual 6800 cards. Shame it looks like there are about three peices missing from this puzzle.