It would seem simple enough to rig up a LFSR to a few dozen.1 to 5W devices and have it cycle at some variable rate likely controlled by another LFSR. That should produce enough load noise, bonus points if you can have the low load devices do something useful. Generating good enough randomness is pretty easy, even really good randomness is pretty easy if you just have a bunch of reverse biased diodes and use the output to also control some devices to induce a random load.
Strangely I still am listening to what I like and new music is coming out all the time but it isn't pop music. Just because German industrial, Scandinavian style Taiwanese death metal, modern classical, etc. isn't being played on any of the pop stations near me doesn't mean that those styles aren't being created. Hell with places like YouTube it is now easier than ever to find new bands/musicians that you might like and with Amazon one can get almost any album.
There's nothing for miles and no public transportation.
I grew up in an area like that. Outer ring suburb where the houses across the street backed up to farm fields and so did the ones on my side if you went down a little further. We built things, started things we built on fire, rode bikes through farm fields, shoot BB guns at trash, and in general horsed around. Now we would probably be called terrorists and locked away. We were always heading into town to go the the hardware store for fresh supplies on our bikes. Catapults, trebuchets, giant cross bows (think roman ballista made using a bumper jack and garage door springs), potato cannons, we built it all.There were wooded areas near by where we built forts, and if you dug down a few feet there you hit clay so we figured out how to basically make our own terracotta objects. A parent's garage with tools was a welcome work space in the summer when they were at work.
A co-worker of mine had a phrase/rhetorical question for such situations:
If cats had machine guns would dogs still chase them?
In technical meetings if someone started asking absurd what-if questions he would trot it out. There was one project where the customer was notorious for bringing up such situations over trivial things where it got used a lot. People here still refer to such discussion when they crop up as cats with machine guns.
Yes I do. When I first wondered if it would be possible to do such a thing I did some searching and found the following 2 posts from someone who had puttered around with it some: post 1 post 2
My takeaway from that is that he was gong for more of a flare effect which he did sort of achieve but only with modifying the plate which would likely result in other legal issues. In the tests he did he was still operating in the 10s of watts range which isn't that much power. Instead my thought would be to throw the exposure off of the camera and massively underexpose the plate. To do this you would need to have a draw in the 100s of watts and have it be over a larger area near the plate. Also the LEDs to use looks to be these ones. Working in IR also has the advantage that many states have resigned their license plates so that they are easier to read in the IR spectrum as the cameras used for ALPRs are IR cameras. Also keep in mind that covering your license plate with anything may be illegal in your state as it is in Minnesota and that there may be vehicle illumination laws which apply but that doesn't appear to be the case in MN as they only cover visible light. But from what I can tell pumping out half a KW of IR in front of and behind your car in MN isn't illegal (IANAL) so long as the device doing it doesn't cover the license plate.
I've looked into it some and you need a lot of IR power to do it. Basically you want something that really messes with he metering on the camera which takes a lot of light. For something like a vehicle and ALPRs (automated license plate readers) it seems doable but for a single person you many need to lug around a fairly sizable battery that is capable of 10s of watts of continuous output. For cars 100s of watts of continuous output is nothing
When it comes to concrete the expert advice I got from one of my neighbor's friends who works for a construction company making all sorts of structures is:
A lot is a good start
More is better
And too much is just about right
This discussion was had while helping my neighbor build his shed as we were leveling and pouring an 8" thick slab for a 10'x16' shed with a bunch of rebar added in for good measure. Basically just over build with it and you will be good. 2 years later helping build his new detached garage the pour was 12" thick for a 25'x30' structure.
It sure seems like the government wants to relive the 90s with discussions about limits on cryptography and violent video games. What is next, the vulgar lyrics in rap? I guess this generation needs to relearn these lessons.
They aren't even good for that since a ball point pen can open the zipper and then you can just run the locked zippers over it again to reseal it. Thus you have a shtty lock that doesn't protect against anything or even provide notification that your stuff has been opened.
I don't even want that much. I just want every congress critter and senator to oprovide all of their login credentials for all their communication services and financial institutions as well as providing their mother's maiden name, full social security number, city of birth, name of second grade teacher, favorite aunt or uncle, and first pet's name. Do that and I will accept that backdoored encryption is good. They are the ones always saying that regular people have no need for strong encryption and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear so let them go first with that new openness and show everyone how well it works.
In that case something like what the new Pentax digitals have might be what one wants with their wireless tethering. I haven't used it as my camera is one generation back and so doesn't support it. I have found that digital camera controls range from just pisses me off to being somewhat intuitive with Pentax being the somewhat intuitive and Canon just pissing me off. Granted these are for high end DSLRs not point and shoots which I just get mad at because I want to do something the camera things I shouldn't. Up until late last year I was still exclusively using film in an old but very high end all manual 35mm camera so all I really want is a quality view finder, and an easy way to set aperture, ISO, and shutter speed for controls.
I think we have already seen the split with cameras and you are going to see brands like Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Minolta, Olympus, etc making very good cameras for serious amateurs and pros while the general population takes cat and food pics with their cellphone and can get a reasonable 8x10 under ideal circumstances. The point and shoot will likely disappear in the next few years and the superzooms will be a very small market. Likely just a stepping stone between the cellphone and high end DSLR or mirrorless, if those eat the DLSR market, likely within a decade. My wife loves her cellphone camera and 3 year old point and shoot digital because she just wants to push a button and get a not completely shitty picture (out of focus, under/over exposed) but wants nothing to do with my cameras. Yet if she needs some nice pictures of quilts for publication she will have me take some really nice ones with my camera to be sent off.
Even just using the sensor in a cellphone, if one could replace the lens, wouldn't provide much of an increase in quality or ability as the pixel pitch on those sensors is so tiny that you are diffraction limited basically at all f-stops, seriously anything smaller than f/1.4 and you are diffraction limited on an ideal lens. I own one lens that wouldn't be diffraction limited with that sensor and even then that lens would be wide open which means it would be fairly soft as would even today's best variable aperture lenses, unless you went and rented one of those Ziess f/0.7 lenses. That still doesn't address the depth of field issue with those tiny lenses (a 10mm focal length lens on an iPhone would be about the same field of view as a 70mm lens on a full frame or 35mm camera) but would have depth of filed of from infinity down to about 5 feet even at f/1.4 but you could get within 1/2 of an inch of something and be able to focus and then get a shallow DoF. There are a lot of cases where one wants to have a super shallow depth of field like in portrait or product photography which those cameras wouldn't be able to do. At the same time if one wanted to go ultra wide on one of those sensors how would one use and manipulate a 1 or 1.5 mm lens?
Perhaps an add-on that allowed you to attach professional lenses to your iPhone (which already has a pretty good CCD.)
People already do make add on lenses for iPhones and while they will give you some telephoto abilities they will never produce professional results. The reason is that the sensor in the iPhone and stock lens are already diffraction limited so any lens with a greater f-stop than the factory one will only make that worse. Also since no lens is perfect adding another one will only introduce additional optical defects and aberrations into the final image. Now some times this is acceptable (look at 1.4x and 2x telephoto converters) but the results are not as good as just using a larger lens to begin with. For example I have a very nice SMC Takumar 200mm lens and a really cheap 400mm lens, I get better results with the cheap 400mm lens than using the 200mm with a 2x telephoto converter. That said before I got the 400mm I would use the 200mm + 2x converter for that extra reach as the results were still better than a tighter crop of an image taken with just the 200mm lens. So don't expect adding more glass in front will work miracles.
Moving on to sensors the iPhone has a very good sensor for its size but it is still a tiny sensor (about 6mm x 5mm). Compare that to a professional full frame sensor that is 24mm x 36mm, APS-C 22mm x 14mm, medium format (43mm x 32mm or 53mm x 40mm) sensor. The light gathering ability of those larger sensors is substantially better that the tiny sensors in cellphones. The iPhone does use a back illuminated sensor which does help it out with high ISO noise but even then the high ISO performance of the larger sensors is vastly superior. It looks like the iPhone tops out at ISO 1250 which is pretty damn low compared to even an old DSLR (I have a 10 year old one that tops out at ISO 3200 and one less than 2 years old that tops out at ISO 51,200) and the amount of noise in the image from the iPhone is comparable to my newest camera at ISO 25,600 or the older one at ISO1600.
Then you have the combination of the existing lens plus sensor on the phone which produces a very deep depth of field, even with the "telephoto" lens on the iPhone. Yes software can fake it but there is a reason that professionals like a mild telephoto (in the 70mm to 150mm range) with a nice f/2 aperture on a full frame camera or better yet a 200mm on a medium format for portraits. The depth of field comes about because of the sensor size and focal length so a big sensor with a big lens will give you a shallower depth of field while the tiny sensor (crop factor of about 7) with tiny focal length (about 4mm) give a very deep depth of field. If I want that I will stick my 17mm fish-eye or 28mm wide angle on my full frame camera, set the f-stop to f/11 or f/16 spin the focusing ring over to about 2 meters and not bother focusing it again and go do some street photography. In looking at a lab test of the iPhone 8 image quality I'm not impressed with what it produces under ideal circumstances but there one is a pixel peeper.
All that aside a camera like what one finds on a modern good quality cell phone will be all most people, 99% of people fall in this category, will ever need and they will never find the camera being the limiting factor in their photography ability. The only area that these cameras could really improve would be in noise reduction, especially at high ISO, as they are at the limits of what can be done to improve image quality with optics and pixel densities. Even there they may be rapidly approaching the limits but I don't know much about that area of senso
Considering that a lot of pro photographers are getting fed up with Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom with the move to creative cloud programs like GIMP, RawTherapee, and DarkTable are getting a fair amount of attention now. Inertial will keep people using Photoshop for years though. If you want image alignment programs I suggest checking out Hugin for aligning images. I haven't tried it for focus stacking (I have only done it once to get an idea of how it works) but I know for other stacking it works well.
I would really be interested in how the Model 3 SR compares to the current BMW 330i in cornering. I love beating on cars on twisty mountain roads and my E46 325i with the softening stock suspension (it has 220,000 miles on it) is a riot but I really should drop in a new suspension as it is really has a lot of abusive miles on it.
Apparently my $5000 Leica was allowed because it wasn't a good camera:-)
Now I wonder if I could get my Spotmatic F in and just stick the radioactive 50mm f/1.4 or the 3rd party 135mm f/2.3 on it and push some ISO 400 film to 6400. If that fails there is always bringing in one of those old pocket folding cameras and really pushing the ISO. Given what you said about looking like a good camera I bet one could bring in a Hasselblad 500 C/M as those all look like they are antiques and no one would be the wiser. They would stop everyone who has any version of a Canon Rebel with the kit lens. Also I don't think they will be able to tell a nice lens from bad lens as I don't think anyone who isn't really serious about photography would be able to recognize a good lens from bad lens. If they could then the vast majority of kit lenses would already be in the trash.
I used that as an example of government leaking crap just like they would leak inevitably leak master crypto keys, or super secret NSA backdoor. My latter link was included to show that there are other ways around it too.
Slashdot Mirror
It would seem simple enough to rig up a LFSR to a few dozen .1 to 5W devices and have it cycle at some variable rate likely controlled by another LFSR. That should produce enough load noise, bonus points if you can have the low load devices do something useful. Generating good enough randomness is pretty easy, even really good randomness is pretty easy if you just have a bunch of reverse biased diodes and use the output to also control some devices to induce a random load.
Strangely I still am listening to what I like and new music is coming out all the time but it isn't pop music. Just because German industrial, Scandinavian style Taiwanese death metal, modern classical, etc. isn't being played on any of the pop stations near me doesn't mean that those styles aren't being created. Hell with places like YouTube it is now easier than ever to find new bands/musicians that you might like and with Amazon one can get almost any album.
There's nothing for miles and no public transportation.
I grew up in an area like that. Outer ring suburb where the houses across the street backed up to farm fields and so did the ones on my side if you went down a little further. We built things, started things we built on fire, rode bikes through farm fields, shoot BB guns at trash, and in general horsed around. Now we would probably be called terrorists and locked away. We were always heading into town to go the the hardware store for fresh supplies on our bikes. Catapults, trebuchets, giant cross bows (think roman ballista made using a bumper jack and garage door springs), potato cannons, we built it all.There were wooded areas near by where we built forts, and if you dug down a few feet there you hit clay so we figured out how to basically make our own terracotta objects. A parent's garage with tools was a welcome work space in the summer when they were at work.
If cats had machine guns would dogs still chase them?
In technical meetings if someone started asking absurd what-if questions he would trot it out. There was one project where the customer was notorious for bringing up such situations over trivial things where it got used a lot. People here still refer to such discussion when they crop up as cats with machine guns.
Yes I do. When I first wondered if it would be possible to do such a thing I did some searching and found the following 2 posts from someone who had puttered around with it some:
post 1
post 2
My takeaway from that is that he was gong for more of a flare effect which he did sort of achieve but only with modifying the plate which would likely result in other legal issues. In the tests he did he was still operating in the 10s of watts range which isn't that much power. Instead my thought would be to throw the exposure off of the camera and massively underexpose the plate. To do this you would need to have a draw in the 100s of watts and have it be over a larger area near the plate. Also the LEDs to use looks to be these ones. Working in IR also has the advantage that many states have resigned their license plates so that they are easier to read in the IR spectrum as the cameras used for ALPRs are IR cameras. Also keep in mind that covering your license plate with anything may be illegal in your state as it is in Minnesota and that there may be vehicle illumination laws which apply but that doesn't appear to be the case in MN as they only cover visible light. But from what I can tell pumping out half a KW of IR in front of and behind your car in MN isn't illegal (IANAL) so long as the device doing it doesn't cover the license plate.
I've looked into it some and you need a lot of IR power to do it. Basically you want something that really messes with he metering on the camera which takes a lot of light. For something like a vehicle and ALPRs (automated license plate readers) it seems doable but for a single person you many need to lug around a fairly sizable battery that is capable of 10s of watts of continuous output. For cars 100s of watts of continuous output is nothing
When it comes to concrete the expert advice I got from one of my neighbor's friends who works for a construction company making all sorts of structures is:
A lot is a good start
More is better
And too much is just about right
This discussion was had while helping my neighbor build his shed as we were leveling and pouring an 8" thick slab for a 10'x16' shed with a bunch of rebar added in for good measure. Basically just over build with it and you will be good. 2 years later helping build his new detached garage the pour was 12" thick for a 25'x30' structure.
It sure seems like the government wants to relive the 90s with discussions about limits on cryptography and violent video games. What is next, the vulgar lyrics in rap?
I guess this generation needs to relearn these lessons.
They aren't even good for that since a ball point pen can open the zipper and then you can just run the locked zippers over it again to reseal it. Thus you have a shtty lock that doesn't protect against anything or even provide notification that your stuff has been opened.
heroes have built-in helmets with perfect aim and the grunts pass out from a bitch slap while being unable to shoot any primaries with an Uzi.
Which is why the shoot out in Heat is probably one of the best ever.
I don't even want that much. I just want every congress critter and senator to oprovide all of their login credentials for all their communication services and financial institutions as well as providing their mother's maiden name, full social security number, city of birth, name of second grade teacher, favorite aunt or uncle, and first pet's name. Do that and I will accept that backdoored encryption is good. They are the ones always saying that regular people have no need for strong encryption and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear so let them go first with that new openness and show everyone how well it works.
Kind of but with lower quality. It is more like sending negatives taken with a Holga through the mail.
In that case something like what the new Pentax digitals have might be what one wants with their wireless tethering. I haven't used it as my camera is one generation back and so doesn't support it. I have found that digital camera controls range from just pisses me off to being somewhat intuitive with Pentax being the somewhat intuitive and Canon just pissing me off. Granted these are for high end DSLRs not point and shoots which I just get mad at because I want to do something the camera things I shouldn't. Up until late last year I was still exclusively using film in an old but very high end all manual 35mm camera so all I really want is a quality view finder, and an easy way to set aperture, ISO, and shutter speed for controls.
I think we have already seen the split with cameras and you are going to see brands like Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Minolta, Olympus, etc making very good cameras for serious amateurs and pros while the general population takes cat and food pics with their cellphone and can get a reasonable 8x10 under ideal circumstances. The point and shoot will likely disappear in the next few years and the superzooms will be a very small market. Likely just a stepping stone between the cellphone and high end DSLR or mirrorless, if those eat the DLSR market, likely within a decade. My wife loves her cellphone camera and 3 year old point and shoot digital because she just wants to push a button and get a not completely shitty picture (out of focus, under/over exposed) but wants nothing to do with my cameras. Yet if she needs some nice pictures of quilts for publication she will have me take some really nice ones with my camera to be sent off.
Even just using the sensor in a cellphone, if one could replace the lens, wouldn't provide much of an increase in quality or ability as the pixel pitch on those sensors is so tiny that you are diffraction limited basically at all f-stops, seriously anything smaller than f/1.4 and you are diffraction limited on an ideal lens. I own one lens that wouldn't be diffraction limited with that sensor and even then that lens would be wide open which means it would be fairly soft as would even today's best variable aperture lenses, unless you went and rented one of those Ziess f/0.7 lenses. That still doesn't address the depth of field issue with those tiny lenses (a 10mm focal length lens on an iPhone would be about the same field of view as a 70mm lens on a full frame or 35mm camera) but would have depth of filed of from infinity down to about 5 feet even at f/1.4 but you could get within 1/2 of an inch of something and be able to focus and then get a shallow DoF. There are a lot of cases where one wants to have a super shallow depth of field like in portrait or product photography which those cameras wouldn't be able to do. At the same time if one wanted to go ultra wide on one of those sensors how would one use and manipulate a 1 or 1.5 mm lens?
Only if you choose a Molossus.
There's a quick, easy solution to this.
How do they taste?
From what I understand like lobster.
Perhaps an add-on that allowed you to attach professional lenses to your iPhone (which already has a pretty good CCD.)
People already do make add on lenses for iPhones and while they will give you some telephoto abilities they will never produce professional results. The reason is that the sensor in the iPhone and stock lens are already diffraction limited so any lens with a greater f-stop than the factory one will only make that worse. Also since no lens is perfect adding another one will only introduce additional optical defects and aberrations into the final image. Now some times this is acceptable (look at 1.4x and 2x telephoto converters) but the results are not as good as just using a larger lens to begin with. For example I have a very nice SMC Takumar 200mm lens and a really cheap 400mm lens, I get better results with the cheap 400mm lens than using the 200mm with a 2x telephoto converter. That said before I got the 400mm I would use the 200mm + 2x converter for that extra reach as the results were still better than a tighter crop of an image taken with just the 200mm lens. So don't expect adding more glass in front will work miracles.
Moving on to sensors the iPhone has a very good sensor for its size but it is still a tiny sensor (about 6mm x 5mm). Compare that to a professional full frame sensor that is 24mm x 36mm, APS-C 22mm x 14mm, medium format (43mm x 32mm or 53mm x 40mm) sensor. The light gathering ability of those larger sensors is substantially better that the tiny sensors in cellphones. The iPhone does use a back illuminated sensor which does help it out with high ISO noise but even then the high ISO performance of the larger sensors is vastly superior. It looks like the iPhone tops out at ISO 1250 which is pretty damn low compared to even an old DSLR (I have a 10 year old one that tops out at ISO 3200 and one less than 2 years old that tops out at ISO 51,200) and the amount of noise in the image from the iPhone is comparable to my newest camera at ISO 25,600 or the older one at ISO1600.
Then you have the combination of the existing lens plus sensor on the phone which produces a very deep depth of field, even with the "telephoto" lens on the iPhone. Yes software can fake it but there is a reason that professionals like a mild telephoto (in the 70mm to 150mm range) with a nice f/2 aperture on a full frame camera or better yet a 200mm on a medium format for portraits. The depth of field comes about because of the sensor size and focal length so a big sensor with a big lens will give you a shallower depth of field while the tiny sensor (crop factor of about 7) with tiny focal length (about 4mm) give a very deep depth of field. If I want that I will stick my 17mm fish-eye or 28mm wide angle on my full frame camera, set the f-stop to f/11 or f/16 spin the focusing ring over to about 2 meters and not bother focusing it again and go do some street photography. In looking at a lab test of the iPhone 8 image quality I'm not impressed with what it produces under ideal circumstances but there one is a pixel peeper.
All that aside a camera like what one finds on a modern good quality cell phone will be all most people, 99% of people fall in this category, will ever need and they will never find the camera being the limiting factor in their photography ability. The only area that these cameras could really improve would be in noise reduction, especially at high ISO, as they are at the limits of what can be done to improve image quality with optics and pixel densities. Even there they may be rapidly approaching the limits but I don't know much about that area of senso
I only go there because of the comments.
Considering that a lot of pro photographers are getting fed up with Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom with the move to creative cloud programs like GIMP, RawTherapee, and DarkTable are getting a fair amount of attention now. Inertial will keep people using Photoshop for years though. If you want image alignment programs I suggest checking out Hugin for aligning images. I haven't tried it for focus stacking (I have only done it once to get an idea of how it works) but I know for other stacking it works well.
I would really be interested in how the Model 3 SR compares to the current BMW 330i in cornering. I love beating on cars on twisty mountain roads and my E46 325i with the softening stock suspension (it has 220,000 miles on it) is a riot but I really should drop in a new suspension as it is really has a lot of abusive miles on it.
Apparently my $5000 Leica was allowed because it wasn't a good camera :-)
Now I wonder if I could get my Spotmatic F in and just stick the radioactive 50mm f/1.4 or the 3rd party 135mm f/2.3 on it and push some ISO 400 film to 6400. If that fails there is always bringing in one of those old pocket folding cameras and really pushing the ISO. Given what you said about looking like a good camera I bet one could bring in a Hasselblad 500 C/M as those all look like they are antiques and no one would be the wiser. They would stop everyone who has any version of a Canon Rebel with the kit lens. Also I don't think they will be able to tell a nice lens from bad lens as I don't think anyone who isn't really serious about photography would be able to recognize a good lens from bad lens. If they could then the vast majority of kit lenses would already be in the trash.
I used that as an example of government leaking crap just like they would leak inevitably leak master crypto keys, or super secret NSA backdoor. My latter link was included to show that there are other ways around it too.
I thought the DHS's rainbow of death was replaced by something else.
I'd rather have them doing proxy dick waving by comparing launch button sizes than by comparing smoking holes in the ground.
I believe Justin Long was in Live Free or Die Hard but I think that may have finished off his career.
Like a rock I'm dull and boring
Or that was the joke we had about those commercials in college.