You're really dense, aren't you. HDR is BY DEFINITION anything more than 8-bit per channel. It's exactly what it says--high dynamic range--higher bit depth. You're confusing HDR with tone mapping, which is the set of algorithms reducing HDR to LDR for display on a normal monitor. HDR doens't mean what you think it does. I should know--I was involved in the prototyping of the first digital HDR hardware display at UBC.
MORON MORON MORON. HDR does not mean "higher than 8-bit". Fuck you and the bullshit you're spreading.
HDR means images have a DYNAMIC contrast range where values are not capped at 0 and whatever the max of whatever format you're using is. The contrast range is not based on the ENTIRE image, but based on AREAS of the image. HENCE THE WORD DYNAMIC, YOU FUCKING TOOL.
High is a relative term that, in this context, means "greater than", or "in excess of".
Dynamic means "changing".
Range refers to the set of values the image format can hold.
A high dynamic range photo is a photo that has been manipulated in software to dynamically have a larger range of contrast in specific areas. The overall range of the photo is the same.
There is no such thing as an HDR sensor, or an HDR camera, or HDR hardware. Sensors are physically fixed-range.
You're an idiot. Not only is that display not using the same principles as HDR photos, it's not calculating the contrast ratio in any way that makes sense.
HDR is any image, video, display, or camera sensor that contains more than 8 significant bits per pixel per channel.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HDR MEANS. High Dynamic Range
Each word means something.
RAW formats are NOT 12-bit. RAW formats are WHATEVER THE CAMERA SENSOR GRABS. 8-bit. 10-bit. 12-bit. 14-bit. 16-bit. IT DOESN'T MATTER. And no, they are not HDR. They are simply a higher range than your shitty 8-bit jpegs. There is nothing DYNAMIC about them.
You can ALWAYS tell when it's been used because the dark part of the picture is brighter than it should be in relation to the bright part of the picture.
They record HDR but then they compress the image to LDR (low dynamic range) for display on a regular monitor. You don't see the HDR display, just the result of the tone-mapping algorithm that transforms the HDR data into an LDR one. This is a common abuse of the term HDR. It's the same thing with the graphics effect in games. The internal processing is HDR, but then it's tone-mapped to LDR for display on a regular monitor, often with the addition of simulated bloom on overexposed areas. It's unfortunate that so many people see bloom and think HDR, but then again marketing is a common factor in many forms of misinformation.
No, you fucking moron, you are simply 100% WRONG.
For this video, they are recording in LOW RANGE (YUY2 or YV12), and then combining the stills of two different video streams in order to futz the two LOW RANGE videos taken at different SPACES in the sensor's RANGE into a single LOW RANGE video that preserves the RANGE of each separate image DYNAMICALLY in certain AREAS of the final, LOW RANGE, video.
For HDR photos, the only difference is that they're shooting in their camera's RAW format (or they should be) so they have more control over how each individual photo is level-mapped to the final output photo.
HDR is DESIGNED for LOW RANGE DISPLAYS. There is no such thing as a HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE display. This would be a display that artificially adjusts contrast levels in specific areas of the display while still living in the fixed contrast level of the overall display.
HDR images on an "HDR display" would be DOUBLY molested.
An HDR image on a high range display would look just like an HDR image on a low range display. You could stretch the contrast of the image artificially via some filter built into the display, but this is no different than stretching 4:3 content to fill a 16:9 display.
When you're talking about HDR photos being compressed to LDR, what you're referring to is the mapping of RAW, 12-bit, 16-bit, etc. images to an 8-bit space. This process has NOTHING TO DO with HDR, regardless of whether or not you've applied HDR to a set of RAW images.
Again, there is no such thing as a LOW DYNAMIC RANGE display. There is no such thing as a DYNAMIC RANGE display. All displays are fixed range, and all image formats are fixed range.
The "dynamic" in HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE means that the contrast WITHIN dark/light areas is preserved, but the overall original-to-output brightness mapping is DYNAMIC; the mapping is different for different areas of the output image.
In the following examples, the widths of things represent the contrast / color range.
No, HDR would look fake if displayed on an "HDR" display.
HDR FUCKS with the contrast on an image, plain and simple.
HDR is DESIGNED for use with 8-bit displays.
If you had a higher-quality display, you would shoot in RAW or a 12-bit, 16-bit, etc. format and show the images properly, with no software tomfoolery that alters the contrast of the overall image by combining multiple copies of the same image taken with different exposure settings.
HDR is shit. Mathematically. Objectively. Subjectively. Artistically.
HDR means taking multiple pictures at multiple exposure settings and then combining them in software.
The goal is to preserve contrast in a dark area of the picture while doing the same for a bright area.
The problem is that our shitty image formats and displays physically can't hold and show the information properly - there are only 256 brightness levels, and the contrast between bright/dark areas you see in real life is in the range of tens of thousands of levels.
Every HDR image looks fake because it is fake. It's actually a LOWER contrast range.
HDR imaging is an effect achieved by taking multiple disparate exposures of a subject and combining them to create images of a higher exposure range.
No, that's not it at all. Images do not have an "exposure range". Sensors do.
HDR means taking several pictures with different exposure settings, then artificially combining them in order to preserve the contrast range within various parts of the photo (such as retaining details in a shadowed area without having the bright sky be washed out).
HDR is a shitty software hack, and it destroys the contrast range across the entire image. It makes every picture look like someone applied unsharp mask and cranked up the contrast for 3 different selection regions.
We should be developing better sensors, switching to a better image format, and producing better display technology.
We already have sensors and image formats that can handle the job. We just need better displays. But display technology has taken a nosedive in terms of image quality since the CRT days.
My understanding of the term Beta is that all features are complete. Has something changed?
Alpha is when code is released in-house for testing, beta is when it's released to outsiders for testing. Presumably one wouldn't release a beta unless the features were not only completed, but tested in alpha.
Actually, being in beta means the app is feature-complete, but still needs testing. The whole idea that 'beta testing' is done by the customer/public is what used to be called 'acceptance testing'.
Actually, there is no formal definition of "beta", "alpha", etc. And even within various organizations, the usage is so nebulous and changing as to be completely pointless.
Don't even get me started on build numbering. 1.9.12.2152 MEANS NOTHING.
Just fucking number your shit sequentially. If you're at version 1 and release an update to fix a typo, you're then at version 2.
Sure, lots of software will end up being at version 10,000, but so what? 10,000 is more informative than 1.9.12.2152. And if it bothers you, maybe you should focus on testing software more thoroughly before release.
I know this isn't how things are done in Washington, but in a democracy shouldn't the government be answering to its concerned citizens instead of just focusing on what makes things easy/profitable/convenient/one-sided for large corporations?
You mentioned "Washington" and "democracy" (affirmatively) in the same sentence. Why?
The United States is a republic, and it's system of government is a representative democracy. The citizen's do not matter until they care enough to take up arms against their government. See 1776 and 1861.
Opt-out is better than nothing, but it's a pansy-assed attempt to keep industry "involved". Opt-in is really the only logical solution to privacy issues.
I'm a big proponent of "opt-away" myself.
I don't like giving information out, so I minimize it. If some site wants to track me in some non-trivial way, I stop using the site.
You don't need to "tab right in", the cursor's focus automatically goes to the search box. That was the whole point. Keyboard-only users don't have the crap fade in; they can just type a search query. What is the matter with you people? Any UI change at all, in any application or website, gets nothing but complaints from Slashdot. I defy you to find one counterexample.
Read what you're responding to, and think. Javascript focusing does not work with many screen reading programs, nor should they.
Slashdot Mirror
Said devices are legit and use legit keys.
They do not give you the full, unaltered, digital stream.
They give you a fucked digital stream or an analog stream at a gimped resolution.
See HDFury.
If i look at the pastbin post this is just a complex way to publish 40 keys, not ONE master key
It's the master key matrix - not an HDCP key by itself, but THE key to generate all valid HDCP keys.
The one key to generate them all.
You're really dense, aren't you. HDR is BY DEFINITION anything more than 8-bit per channel. It's exactly what it says--high dynamic range--higher bit depth. You're confusing HDR with tone mapping, which is the set of algorithms reducing HDR to LDR for display on a normal monitor. HDR doens't mean what you think it does. I should know--I was involved in the prototyping of the first digital HDR hardware display at UBC.
MORON MORON MORON.
HDR does not mean "higher than 8-bit".
Fuck you and the bullshit you're spreading.
HDR means images have a DYNAMIC contrast range where values are not capped at 0 and whatever the max of whatever format you're using is. The contrast range is not based on the ENTIRE image, but based on AREAS of the image. HENCE THE WORD DYNAMIC, YOU FUCKING TOOL.
Uh, you're an idiot.
A "dimension" is any orthogonally-distinct property that can take on a range of values.
If you change any dimension you have a different thing entirely, by definition. X or Y or Z or R or G or B.
High is a relative term that, in this context, means "greater than", or "in excess of".
Dynamic means "changing".
Range refers to the set of values the image format can hold.
A high dynamic range photo is a photo that has been manipulated in software to dynamically have a larger range of contrast in specific areas. The overall range of the photo is the same.
There is no such thing as an HDR sensor, or an HDR camera, or HDR hardware. Sensors are physically fixed-range.
You know NOTHING.
You're an idiot.
Not only is that display not using the same principles as HDR photos, it's not calculating the contrast ratio in any way that makes sense.
HDR is any image, video, display, or camera sensor that contains more than 8 significant bits per pixel per channel.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HDR MEANS.
High
Dynamic
Range
Each word means something.
RAW formats are NOT 12-bit.
RAW formats are WHATEVER THE CAMERA SENSOR GRABS.
8-bit. 10-bit. 12-bit. 14-bit. 16-bit. IT DOESN'T MATTER. And no, they are not HDR. They are simply a higher range than your shitty 8-bit jpegs. There is nothing DYNAMIC about them.
NOBODY IS CONFUSING ANYTHING WITH TONE MAPPING.
DYNAMIC has a MEANING.
LOOK IT UP.
FALSE FALSE FALSE! That would be collusion and illegal. They have been beaten down about this in the past, in other jurisdictions. Please see :
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/06/australia-calls-shenanigans-on-ebay-paypal-only-policy.ars
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2010/02/26/ebay-paypal-tie-up-draws-complaints-in-germany
TRUE TRUE TRUE!
They're actually doing it.
Please see ebay.com
Just use temporary credit card numbers.
Citi Cards has one, so does Discover.
1 time use numbers. Discovers expire the same month as your normal card.
Citi Card's expire the next calendar month and you can even set a limit. I couldn't imagine using anything else.
Xbox Live! doesn't allow these types of cards.
I'm pretty sure PayPal can block them too, if people start using them enough to piss them off.
You can ALWAYS tell when it's been used because the dark part of the picture is brighter than it should be in relation to the bright part of the picture.
This is what HDR IS.
They record HDR but then they compress the image to LDR (low dynamic range) for display on a regular monitor. You don't see the HDR display, just the result of the tone-mapping algorithm that transforms the HDR data into an LDR one. This is a common abuse of the term HDR. It's the same thing with the graphics effect in games. The internal processing is HDR, but then it's tone-mapped to LDR for display on a regular monitor, often with the addition of simulated bloom on overexposed areas. It's unfortunate that so many people see bloom and think HDR, but then again marketing is a common factor in many forms of misinformation.
No, you fucking moron, you are simply 100% WRONG.
For this video, they are recording in LOW RANGE (YUY2 or YV12), and then combining the stills of two different video streams in order to futz the two LOW RANGE videos taken at different SPACES in the sensor's RANGE into a single LOW RANGE video that preserves the RANGE of each separate image DYNAMICALLY in certain AREAS of the final, LOW RANGE, video.
For HDR photos, the only difference is that they're shooting in their camera's RAW format (or they should be) so they have more control over how each individual photo is level-mapped to the final output photo.
HDR is DESIGNED for LOW RANGE DISPLAYS.
There is no such thing as a HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE display. This would be a display that artificially adjusts contrast levels in specific areas of the display while still living in the fixed contrast level of the overall display.
HDR images on an "HDR display" would be DOUBLY molested.
An HDR image on a high range display would look just like an HDR image on a low range display. You could stretch the contrast of the image artificially via some filter built into the display, but this is no different than stretching 4:3 content to fill a 16:9 display.
When you're talking about HDR photos being compressed to LDR, what you're referring to is the mapping of RAW, 12-bit, 16-bit, etc. images to an 8-bit space. This process has NOTHING TO DO with HDR, regardless of whether or not you've applied HDR to a set of RAW images.
Again, there is no such thing as a LOW DYNAMIC RANGE display. There is no such thing as a DYNAMIC RANGE display. All displays are fixed range, and all image formats are fixed range.
The "dynamic" in HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE means that the contrast WITHIN dark/light areas is preserved, but the overall original-to-output brightness mapping is DYNAMIC; the mapping is different for different areas of the output image.
In the following examples, the widths of things represent the contrast / color range.
This is a normal photo:
[___SCENE____CONTRAST____RANGE___]
----exposure----[SENSOR_RANGE]----
Take picture, with a set exposure offset, record sensor data.
[SENSOR_DATA]
Map sensor data to image format of choice for final display.
JPEG: [SENSOR_DATA] --> [JPEG]
Something better than JPEG: [SENSOR_DATA] --> [BETTER_FORMAT]
RAW: [SENSOR_DATA] --> [SENSOR_DATA]
This is an HDR photo:
[___SCENE____CONTRAST____RANGE___]
------exposure------[SENSOR_RANGE]
---------[SENSOR_RANGE]--exposure-
[SENSOR_RANGE]------exposure------
Take multiple pictures at different exposure settings, record sensor data.
[SENSOR_DATA]1
[SENSOR_DATA]2
[SENSOR_DATA]3
Combine [SENSOR_DATA]s into a single image by defining different areas and combining them:
Area 1: Use [SENSOR_DATA]1 and futz edges with [SENSOR_DATA]2
Area 2: Use [SENSOR_DATA]3 and futz edges with [SENSOR_DATA]1
Area 3: Use [SENSOR_DATA]2 and futz edges with [SENSOR_DATA]3
Area 1 + Area 2 + Area 3 = [IMAGE__DATA]
Note the widths of [SENSOR_DATA] and [IMAGE__DATA].
Map image data to image format of choice for final display.
JPEG: [IMAGE__DATA] --> [JPEG]
Something better than JPEG: [IMAGE__DATA] --> [BETTER_FORMAT]
RAW: [IMAGE__DATA] --> [IMAGE__DATA]
No, HDR would look fake if displayed on an "HDR" display.
HDR FUCKS with the contrast on an image, plain and simple.
HDR is DESIGNED for use with 8-bit displays.
If you had a higher-quality display, you would shoot in RAW or a 12-bit, 16-bit, etc. format and show the images properly, with no software tomfoolery that alters the contrast of the overall image by combining multiple copies of the same image taken with different exposure settings.
HDR is shit.
Mathematically.
Objectively.
Subjectively.
Artistically.
HDR means taking multiple pictures at multiple exposure settings and then combining them in software.
The goal is to preserve contrast in a dark area of the picture while doing the same for a bright area.
The problem is that our shitty image formats and displays physically can't hold and show the information properly - there are only 256 brightness levels, and the contrast between bright/dark areas you see in real life is in the range of tens of thousands of levels.
Every HDR image looks fake because it is fake.
It's actually a LOWER contrast range.
HDR is shit.
HDR imaging is an effect achieved by taking multiple disparate exposures of a subject and combining them to create images of a higher exposure range.
No, that's not it at all.
Images do not have an "exposure range".
Sensors do.
HDR means taking several pictures with different exposure settings, then artificially combining them in order to preserve the contrast range within various parts of the photo (such as retaining details in a shadowed area without having the bright sky be washed out).
HDR is a shitty software hack, and it destroys the contrast range across the entire image. It makes every picture look like someone applied unsharp mask and cranked up the contrast for 3 different selection regions.
We should be developing better sensors, switching to a better image format, and producing better display technology.
We already have sensors and image formats that can handle the job. We just need better displays. But display technology has taken a nosedive in terms of image quality since the CRT days.
Actually, unlike photographs, videos are already 3D: Two spatial dimensions and time.
Well gee, seems to me photographs are 5 dimensional:
Red, green, blue, x, y.
My understanding of the term Beta is that all features are complete. Has something changed?
Alpha is when code is released in-house for testing, beta is when it's released to outsiders for testing. Presumably one wouldn't release a beta unless the features were not only completed, but tested in alpha.
Actually, being in beta means the app is feature-complete, but still needs testing. The whole idea that 'beta testing' is done by the customer/public is what used to be called 'acceptance testing'.
Actually, there is no formal definition of "beta", "alpha", etc.
And even within various organizations, the usage is so nebulous and changing as to be completely pointless.
Don't even get me started on build numbering.
1.9.12.2152 MEANS NOTHING.
Just fucking number your shit sequentially.
If you're at version 1 and release an update to fix a typo, you're then at version 2.
Sure, lots of software will end up being at version 10,000, but so what? 10,000 is more informative than 1.9.12.2152.
And if it bothers you, maybe you should focus on testing software more thoroughly before release.
I thought worms were found in apples.
I haven't seen this copy-pasta spam in ages.
It only gets more retarded with time.
National vs State derp?
If by taking up arms you mean voting them out.
Obviously not, because that has never worked.
I know this isn't how things are done in Washington, but in a democracy shouldn't the government be answering to its concerned citizens instead of just focusing on what makes things easy/profitable/convenient/one-sided for large corporations?
You mentioned "Washington" and "democracy" (affirmatively) in the same sentence.
Why?
The United States is a republic, and it's system of government is a representative democracy. The citizen's do not matter until they care enough to take up arms against their government. See 1776 and 1861.
Opt-out is better than nothing, but it's a pansy-assed attempt to keep industry "involved". Opt-in is really the only logical solution to privacy issues.
I'm a big proponent of "opt-away" myself.
I don't like giving information out, so I minimize it. If some site wants to track me in some non-trivial way, I stop using the site.
You can stop trackers if you use Firefox. I use Ghostery but you could also use No script and block everything.
Unfortunately, people want sites to function.
Standard practice with No Script is:
10: Notice blocked items
20: Click No Script icon
30: Click "Temporarily allow all this page"
40: If page works, GOTO 60
50: GOTO 10
60: Success
Although it's easy to claim they don't tie my account info to my searches, It would be a goldmine (literally) if they did so.
Literally.
Haha, I read this post on Slashdot a couple of minutes ago. Nice job, guy, completely ignoring the article and just rushing to get the first post.
You don't need to "tab right in", the cursor's focus automatically goes to the search box. That was the whole point. Keyboard-only users don't have the crap fade in; they can just type a search query. What is the matter with you people? Any UI change at all, in any application or website, gets nothing but complaints from Slashdot. I defy you to find one counterexample.
Read what you're responding to, and think.
Javascript focusing does not work with many screen reading programs, nor should they.