From what I have seen of higher end mirrorless cameras the form factor would likely be more similar to my old spotmatic but without the mirror box. Most mirrorless cameras have a much shorter register distance so adapting old lenses to them is simply having an extension tube with the correct mounts on either end to maintain the proper focal range. The benefits of doing away with the mirror box
Control wise I can't speak to Nikon's layout but having used Canon and Pentax DSLRs I find the Pentax setup to be substantially easier and more logical. I would imagine that Nikon's mirrorless would have a similar control layout to their current DSLRs.
For most people all they will ever need is a cellphone camera and even at then the most pixels they would ever need is just over 7 million so they can print a reasonable 8x10. A fully automatic cellphone will produce better results as they don't want to learn how to actually take a picture or work a camera. I use my DSLR all the time and the only time I use the phone is when I don't happen to have my DSLR. I actually still use a fully manual film camera too semi professionally as I know a number of pros who do wedding shoots and having film pictures in addition to digitals is a thing now so I have done a few shoots as an assistant with a couple of film bodies. This is fun for me because those film bodies get a lot of notice as do some of the larger lenses I have because some times I will use a 300mm lens as a portrait lens or a 135mm as a macro. This way I work only with the actual photographer and have to deal with them and as we know each other we know what to expect of each other so there aren't the arguments that they get to have with the customers.
I have tried focus stacking some and it always seems to go sideways for me so I kind of gave up on that technique for now. I have been playing around a lot with macro of late as I have been trying to expand my photographic abilities and just get better all around. As much as I would like an f/0.5 lens as well I do understand their limitations. Even a 50mm at f/1.4 is on the soft side with a narrow DoF but then the people who complain about the softness and DoF of a 50mm at f/1.4 are people who I don't listen to for photographic technique or equipment advice.
If the biggest image you are going to print is an 8x10 then a 7.2MP camera with some reasonable glass would be all you would need. Granted that is a pretty big image for most people as a 5x7 (3.2MP is all that is needed here) is pretty standard and they really don't understand what resolution they actually need. On the other hand I have had 24"x36" prints made from some of my images and there even my 24MP high end DSLR wasn't enough to get the needed resolution. With these images I had created them in different ways as I wanted some very high resolution images some were done using super resolution others were stitched panoramas with lots of overlap, and with one it was both techniques. It all depended on what I was shooting and what effects I was going for but either way I wanted to create some huge images. At this point phone cameras are just a selling point as consumers don't understand that they don't need that many pixels and also they don't understand that they have been diffraction limited to a much smaller number of effective pixels.
I really hope you were just playing along there as that is what I was getting at in a joking manner as a DoF is a function of the lens focal length, F number, and distance to the object. To be able to resolve all that detail you would need a lens that isn't diffraction limited for that sensor which would probably be around f/.5 which even with a 3mm focal length would have a very shallow DoF.
For interesting effects I have been known to stick a 17mm fisheye on up to 19mm of extension tube. A reverse mounted 28mm lens on 112mm of extension tubes and there you end up with a DoF of a few microns which is awesome when you are photographing old semiconductors with feature sizes around 2 to 5 microns even when the lens is stopped down to f/5.6. For more fun get a tilt shift adapter to play with the focal plane, sometimes using those "wrong" can be real fun.
Because consumers don't understand diffracton and false magnification but do understand a bigger number. Too bad this is only going to make the red amplification problem worse as at a pixel size of 800nm it is getting awfully close to the long range of visible red so it will capture even less of that. I would be willing to be I can capture a better quality image with my old K-2000 (10 year old 10MP DLSR) and old screw mount 8 element SMC Takumar f/1.4 but if I used my K-3 and my modern good glass (I own the 3 princesses) I would absolutely crush it. I'd even be willing to bet I could do better than this sensor with a roll of Ektar100 in my Spotmatic F using that same 50mm f/1.4 lens although it would have more noise from the grain.
That said Sony does make some damn fine sensors but no one who knows about optics and sensors really expects this to compete with even entry level DSLRs or mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras, let alone those monster digital medium formats from Hasselblad or Pentax. Instead it will be something for consumers to get into a phone pissing contest over and believe that they can take pictures just as good as a pro can.
I never said a 3DES approach was great only that if someone wanted to roll their own for increased security taking that approach with an existing cipher would be the best option. I did address the key schedule issue when just increasing the rounds as I did state that they would have to generate additional round keys. Cascading ciphers is already used by some tools, see old TrueCrypt or VeraCrypt, but there you are still dependent on a single password. I didn't make any statements on the feasibility of actually breaking AES. I believe that currently the estimate to break AES128 on an ideal classical computer using the best methods available puts the energy requirements at about 10% of the total annual US energy consumption. If one assumes that there exists an ideal quantum computer that can handle it then AES256 would have the same energy requirement, if not then AES256 has the energy requirement on the order of the mass energy of our sun on an ideal classical computer. This type of discussion is always a fun one because one can always bring up Bruce Schneier's "orgy of computation" statement which is probably one of my favorite ones of all time.
To add to your points even experienced respected cryptographers fuck it up some times. Doing cryptography is hard and doing it right is even harder. Concepts like confusion and diffusion are difficult to master and implement. The a good bet for an amateur would be to take an existing block cipher and increase the round count if they wanted to roll their own but then they would need to also generate more round keys. So maybe the best course of action would be to take a 3DES approach to AES and create 3AES. If someone told me today to make some custom block cipher that is what I would do as it would be no worse than existing AES.
While I do recognize the sarcasm it should be noted that one of the founding fathers did know a fair amount about cryptography and even made one of the strongest ciphers of the day. A form of it remained in use through WWII by the US army's signal corps as the M-94 cipher device as it provided enough protection for data that had a very limited lifetime.
Steganography shoudln't change the image size unless the program is really dumb or it increases the entropy of the image making compression less effective. Most of the time it operates by changing the low order bits in an image file. The hidden data basically hides in the noise in the image and to help obfuscate its existence it usually encrypted. By packing too much data into an image you may end up introducing substantally more noise, so if one really wanted to hide a lot of data in an image file I would crank up the ISO to at least 6400 and go even higher to 12,800, 25,600 or more depending on the camera as even the best digitals now have a lot of noise at those ISOs. Also 16 bpc tiffs have a lot of low order bits to play with.
If anyone wants to play around with steganography the program openpuff is a good place to start. Sorry I don't have a link as it is blocked at work.
Actually one of my friends from college once had a terrible time trying to find something that he eventually called bull's milk.
It is a local colloquialism the he learned in either Kenya or Tanzania when he was growing up. He needed it for baking and we were at the grocery store when he asked the clerk where they had sweetened condensed milk. The young clerk had no idea what this stuff was. My friend then described the can as white and red with a pink flower on it and still the clerk had no idea what he was asking for. So in a last effort to find such a thing my buddy asks if they have bull's milk thinking that maybe that term is used here in the US as well for sweetened condensed milk. The comment from the clerk was "I don't think bulls give milk"
Going to the grocery store was always a fun experience with the foreign students.
That is part of the reason I shop for a good amount of things locally. While the microcenter branded SD, microSD, and USB drives aren't quite as cheap as the cheapest ones on amazon it isn't a crap shoot with what I am getting either. Add in that if one craps out I can get it exchanged so I end up getting a better overall product and experience. I've never had one crap out on me as I find they are usually too small to keep using long before that happens but it is nice that if one fails after 6 months I could get it replaced at a cost of a 3 minute drive out of my way to or from work. With microcenter I know what I am getting when I buy it, with amazon I know what I ordered.
its development version works fine for production purposes
Well a slackware beta is generally more stable than other projects' LTS branch.
No matter how many other distros I have tried over the years I always end up back at slackware. I find it doesn't get in my way and has far fewer issues with the software I run on it. For what ever reason GIS software builds wonderfully on it without issue yet has all sorts of problems that need tweaks on other systems.
And now I feel old. Started using it in 95 or 96 and after failing for several days to download all those floppies I went and paid the $5 to get the CD from Walnut Creek CDROM and made floppies from that. Still own that CD and it sits in my cube window as my Geek Card.
Again that is just a power issue. A big pipe and some pumping stations are all that would be needed. Massive amounts of cheap clean power solve a lot of problems at the societal level.
If I collected that much data on a just a handful of random people I would be called a serial stalker and brought up on charges. Why doesn't the same thing happen to these companies?
I also wonder with all of these giant data brokers out there collecting this much data on everyone why is it so many companies screw the pooch when trying to collect debts. For example couple years back I had a case where a debt collector was trying to collect a student loan debt from me that was older than I am and the only match was on the first name.
While I do take proper measures to protect my data it seems that a lot of sites and businesses don't seem to care. There was one financial company that I dealt with that clearly stores passwords in plain text. I had to call them to get an issue resolved and there the person on the other end of the phone asked for my password as confirmation that I was who I said I was. Needless to say the accounts I had there are no longer there. I did similar test with the new financial company to see if they screwed it up that badly and while I can't be sure they at least didn't ask for my password over the phone. Then again they all seem to use your name and last 4 of SSN as good enough authentication.
At this point even though I take steps to protect myself I just assume that those who have my data aren't protecting it properly and it will leak. So with this mindset good personal security measures mean that all I am able to do is limit the damage. A better way of thingking would be:
"Those of us who are security-conscious assume we will get pwned"
I wouldn't advertise a 498 score on the SAT, even if it was just for one of the sections. An overall score ranges from 400 to 1600 and it looks like even a section score of 498 puts you below average. An ACT score ranges from 1 to 36 so it is clear that you aren't using that number. Maybe you were thinking that was a credit score but those top out at 850 with the average being well above the number you provided.
Do some heavy graphics processing. I regularly use over 70GB of ram when working with images on my computer. Just because you can't use that much doesn't mean others of us can't. It takes a lot of memory and processing power to make images that are in the multiple gigapixel range that have 16bpc color depth.
Then having a more energy dense solution would be a better option. I did qualify my original statement when I said where space isn't a concern. Putting them up in the rafters, if conditions would allow that, may be an option in which case you would be making use of otherwise unused space. Even there I'm not sure if the environmental conditions would be appropriate for them.
Slashdot Mirror
And you had to go and ruin it. Let us never speak of this again.
From what I have seen of higher end mirrorless cameras the form factor would likely be more similar to my old spotmatic but without the mirror box. Most mirrorless cameras have a much shorter register distance so adapting old lenses to them is simply having an extension tube with the correct mounts on either end to maintain the proper focal range. The benefits of doing away with the mirror box
Control wise I can't speak to Nikon's layout but having used Canon and Pentax DSLRs I find the Pentax setup to be substantially easier and more logical. I would imagine that Nikon's mirrorless would have a similar control layout to their current DSLRs.
For most people all they will ever need is a cellphone camera and even at then the most pixels they would ever need is just over 7 million so they can print a reasonable 8x10. A fully automatic cellphone will produce better results as they don't want to learn how to actually take a picture or work a camera. I use my DSLR all the time and the only time I use the phone is when I don't happen to have my DSLR. I actually still use a fully manual film camera too semi professionally as I know a number of pros who do wedding shoots and having film pictures in addition to digitals is a thing now so I have done a few shoots as an assistant with a couple of film bodies. This is fun for me because those film bodies get a lot of notice as do some of the larger lenses I have because some times I will use a 300mm lens as a portrait lens or a 135mm as a macro. This way I work only with the actual photographer and have to deal with them and as we know each other we know what to expect of each other so there aren't the arguments that they get to have with the customers.
I have tried focus stacking some and it always seems to go sideways for me so I kind of gave up on that technique for now. I have been playing around a lot with macro of late as I have been trying to expand my photographic abilities and just get better all around. As much as I would like an f/0.5 lens as well I do understand their limitations. Even a 50mm at f/1.4 is on the soft side with a narrow DoF but then the people who complain about the softness and DoF of a 50mm at f/1.4 are people who I don't listen to for photographic technique or equipment advice.
If the biggest image you are going to print is an 8x10 then a 7.2MP camera with some reasonable glass would be all you would need. Granted that is a pretty big image for most people as a 5x7 (3.2MP is all that is needed here) is pretty standard and they really don't understand what resolution they actually need. On the other hand I have had 24"x36" prints made from some of my images and there even my 24MP high end DSLR wasn't enough to get the needed resolution. With these images I had created them in different ways as I wanted some very high resolution images some were done using super resolution others were stitched panoramas with lots of overlap, and with one it was both techniques. It all depended on what I was shooting and what effects I was going for but either way I wanted to create some huge images. At this point phone cameras are just a selling point as consumers don't understand that they don't need that many pixels and also they don't understand that they have been diffraction limited to a much smaller number of effective pixels.
This one won't be as diffraction limited.
I really hope you were just playing along there as that is what I was getting at in a joking manner as a DoF is a function of the lens focal length, F number, and distance to the object. To be able to resolve all that detail you would need a lens that isn't diffraction limited for that sensor which would probably be around f/.5 which even with a 3mm focal length would have a very shallow DoF.
For interesting effects I have been known to stick a 17mm fisheye on up to 19mm of extension tube. A reverse mounted 28mm lens on 112mm of extension tubes and there you end up with a DoF of a few microns which is awesome when you are photographing old semiconductors with feature sizes around 2 to 5 microns even when the lens is stopped down to f/5.6. For more fun get a tilt shift adapter to play with the focal plane, sometimes using those "wrong" can be real fun.
There are x-ray lenses that are in that range and they are sharp but again have that razor thin DoF
Because consumers don't understand diffracton and false magnification but do understand a bigger number. Too bad this is only going to make the red amplification problem worse as at a pixel size of 800nm it is getting awfully close to the long range of visible red so it will capture even less of that. I would be willing to be I can capture a better quality image with my old K-2000 (10 year old 10MP DLSR) and old screw mount 8 element SMC Takumar f/1.4 but if I used my K-3 and my modern good glass (I own the 3 princesses) I would absolutely crush it. I'd even be willing to bet I could do better than this sensor with a roll of Ektar100 in my Spotmatic F using that same 50mm f/1.4 lens although it would have more noise from the grain.
That said Sony does make some damn fine sensors but no one who knows about optics and sensors really expects this to compete with even entry level DSLRs or mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras, let alone those monster digital medium formats from Hasselblad or Pentax. Instead it will be something for consumers to get into a phone pissing contest over and believe that they can take pictures just as good as a pro can.
But I really want a 3mm f/.5 lens (28mm FF equivalent) with a razor thin depth of field that produces 8bit jpgs.
I never said a 3DES approach was great only that if someone wanted to roll their own for increased security taking that approach with an existing cipher would be the best option. I did address the key schedule issue when just increasing the rounds as I did state that they would have to generate additional round keys. Cascading ciphers is already used by some tools, see old TrueCrypt or VeraCrypt, but there you are still dependent on a single password.
I didn't make any statements on the feasibility of actually breaking AES. I believe that currently the estimate to break AES128 on an ideal classical computer using the best methods available puts the energy requirements at about 10% of the total annual US energy consumption. If one assumes that there exists an ideal quantum computer that can handle it then AES256 would have the same energy requirement, if not then AES256 has the energy requirement on the order of the mass energy of our sun on an ideal classical computer. This type of discussion is always a fun one because one can always bring up Bruce Schneier's "orgy of computation" statement which is probably one of my favorite ones of all time.
To add to your points even experienced respected cryptographers fuck it up some times. Doing cryptography is hard and doing it right is even harder. Concepts like confusion and diffusion are difficult to master and implement. The a good bet for an amateur would be to take an existing block cipher and increase the round count if they wanted to roll their own but then they would need to also generate more round keys. So maybe the best course of action would be to take a 3DES approach to AES and create 3AES. If someone told me today to make some custom block cipher that is what I would do as it would be no worse than existing AES.
While I do recognize the sarcasm it should be noted that one of the founding fathers did know a fair amount about cryptography and even made one of the strongest ciphers of the day. A form of it remained in use through WWII by the US army's signal corps as the M-94 cipher device as it provided enough protection for data that had a very limited lifetime.
Steganography shoudln't change the image size unless the program is really dumb or it increases the entropy of the image making compression less effective. Most of the time it operates by changing the low order bits in an image file. The hidden data basically hides in the noise in the image and to help obfuscate its existence it usually encrypted. By packing too much data into an image you may end up introducing substantally more noise, so if one really wanted to hide a lot of data in an image file I would crank up the ISO to at least 6400 and go even higher to 12,800, 25,600 or more depending on the camera as even the best digitals now have a lot of noise at those ISOs. Also 16 bpc tiffs have a lot of low order bits to play with.
If anyone wants to play around with steganography the program openpuff is a good place to start. Sorry I don't have a link as it is blocked at work.
Actually one of my friends from college once had a terrible time trying to find something that he eventually called bull's milk.
It is a local colloquialism the he learned in either Kenya or Tanzania when he was growing up. He needed it for baking and we were at the grocery store when he asked the clerk where they had sweetened condensed milk. The young clerk had no idea what this stuff was. My friend then described the can as white and red with a pink flower on it and still the clerk had no idea what he was asking for. So in a last effort to find such a thing my buddy asks if they have bull's milk thinking that maybe that term is used here in the US as well for sweetened condensed milk. The comment from the clerk was "I don't think bulls give milk"
Going to the grocery store was always a fun experience with the foreign students.
That is part of the reason I shop for a good amount of things locally. While the microcenter branded SD, microSD, and USB drives aren't quite as cheap as the cheapest ones on amazon it isn't a crap shoot with what I am getting either. Add in that if one craps out I can get it exchanged so I end up getting a better overall product and experience. I've never had one crap out on me as I find they are usually too small to keep using long before that happens but it is nice that if one fails after 6 months I could get it replaced at a cost of a 3 minute drive out of my way to or from work. With microcenter I know what I am getting when I buy it, with amazon I know what I ordered.
its development version works fine for production purposes
Well a slackware beta is generally more stable than other projects' LTS branch.
No matter how many other distros I have tried over the years I always end up back at slackware. I find it doesn't get in my way and has far fewer issues with the software I run on it. For what ever reason GIS software builds wonderfully on it without issue yet has all sorts of problems that need tweaks on other systems.
And now I feel old. Started using it in 95 or 96 and after failing for several days to download all those floppies I went and paid the $5 to get the CD from Walnut Creek CDROM and made floppies from that. Still own that CD and it sits in my cube window as my Geek Card.
Again that is just a power issue. A big pipe and some pumping stations are all that would be needed. Massive amounts of cheap clean power solve a lot of problems at the societal level.
Now I wonder how these algorithms deal with this sentence:
A ship shipping ship, shipping shipping ships.
If I collected that much data on a just a handful of random people I would be called a serial stalker and brought up on charges. Why doesn't the same thing happen to these companies?
I also wonder with all of these giant data brokers out there collecting this much data on everyone why is it so many companies screw the pooch when trying to collect debts. For example couple years back I had a case where a debt collector was trying to collect a student loan debt from me that was older than I am and the only match was on the first name.
The good old days on the internet:
Where the men were men, the women were men and the children were FBI agents.
While I do take proper measures to protect my data it seems that a lot of sites and businesses don't seem to care. There was one financial company that I dealt with that clearly stores passwords in plain text. I had to call them to get an issue resolved and there the person on the other end of the phone asked for my password as confirmation that I was who I said I was. Needless to say the accounts I had there are no longer there. I did similar test with the new financial company to see if they screwed it up that badly and while I can't be sure they at least didn't ask for my password over the phone. Then again they all seem to use your name and last 4 of SSN as good enough authentication.
:
At this point even though I take steps to protect myself I just assume that those who have my data aren't protecting it properly and it will leak. So with this mindset good personal security measures mean that all I am able to do is limit the damage. A better way of thingking would be
"Those of us who are security-conscious assume we will get pwned"
I wouldn't advertise a 498 score on the SAT, even if it was just for one of the sections. An overall score ranges from 400 to 1600 and it looks like even a section score of 498 puts you below average. An ACT score ranges from 1 to 36 so it is clear that you aren't using that number. Maybe you were thinking that was a credit score but those top out at 850 with the average being well above the number you provided.
Do some heavy graphics processing. I regularly use over 70GB of ram when working with images on my computer. Just because you can't use that much doesn't mean others of us can't. It takes a lot of memory and processing power to make images that are in the multiple gigapixel range that have 16bpc color depth.
Then having a more energy dense solution would be a better option. I did qualify my original statement when I said where space isn't a concern. Putting them up in the rafters, if conditions would allow that, may be an option in which case you would be making use of otherwise unused space. Even there I'm not sure if the environmental conditions would be appropriate for them.