NOTHING could be worse than Battlefield Earth. Unless, of course, they decide to finish the other *half* of the story - Battlefield Earth, Part Deux? Ecchhh....!
Given: 4 watts of total consumption to achieve a travel-size TV projection.
Assume: 2 watts of that are dedicated to the generation of light for that projection.
Possibilities:
1) Use a white light source, which means (for that size and power level) white LEDs. Those are commercially available at 25 lumens/watt. This gives us 50 lumens, which will not make for a wall-sized image viewable except perhaps in pitch-black darkness. However, for a smaller image... say, 16"x12"?... this is equivalent in brightness to an 1800-lumen projector making an 8' x 6' image. That's fairly bright...
By 2005, 60 lumens/watt white LEDs will be out of the lab and into the market. This allows for our hypothetical projector to realize 120 lumens, or roughly 1/10 the output power of an 1100 lumen projector. You could make a 32" x 24" (40" diagonal) image at the same brightness as that 1100 lumen projector makes an 8' x 6' image.
2) use multiple colored light sources, again LEDs. Most of the 'brightness' comes from the green, less from the red, least from the blue. You can assume 50 lumens / watt off the shelf right now, which probably means a 32" - 40" diagonal image from those 2 watts, at the same brightness as an 1100 lumen projector making an 8' x 6' image.
Conclusion: *current* technology allows for TV-sized images to be produced, at brightnesses similar to those of larger images from brighter projectors, from only 2 watts of input power to the optical source.
Well, the article is a translation from the Japanese original, and there are some statements made in there which are contradictory or confusing... but I stand by my statements.
Your "in theory" part describes exactly what I believe is being done - several images of the same subject, from slightly different vantages, are analyzed to produce a higher resolution image of the subject. Not a larger image, a higher-resolution image.
If you got the sense from the article that the algorithm is concerned entirely with stitching together small images to make a large one, you may be right. But I think you're mistaken.
Well, good. I suppose you'd like to inform the nice people over at NEC, now, so that they stop wasting their time demoing technology that can't be done. Oh, and don't forget to yell, "Bumblebees can't fly!" real loud so that they all fall down.
Matlab isn't 64-bit aware at all. Even on IRIX, Solaris, etc. the most recent versions of Matlab have been 32-bit executables.
When *I* do chip design or electrical circuit design, I'm running on a pitiful little Athlon 2600+ - definitely not 64-bit.
With your rendering example, I'd kinda like to see some concrete measured numbers. What renders in 6 hours on a G5 renders in 10 seconds on my Athlon. Convinced? Yeah, me neither.
However, I think you're still thinking in terms of making a nice image from stitching together several images. That's not what's going on here.
They're taking several views of the same thing and using them to synthesize a better image of the actual subject. Out of focus, poor resolution, poor contrast - these are factors which the software corrects for.
See, the point is that the cell phone camera doesn't capture the image. The software essentially "creates" the image, based on information about the subject gleaned from the movie file.
Moreover, the point of this project is not to make hi-res images. It's to make hi-res scans.
I'm sure it's easier to make these sorts of super-resolution images from a camera which produces nice images to start with. The point is, though, that it can produce nice scans from poor cameras.
The whole point - the entire point - of this technique is that it DOES get a hi-res image from a lo-res camera. Not by making you put the lens real close and then stitching together all these medium-res images, but by sort of "averaging" a large number of images of the entire page. So yes, it gets a hi-res image from a lo-res image.
It's different because it's not just making a bunch of small pics into one big one, it's making a bunch of lo-res pics into a hi-res one. It's also different because it doesn't require YOU to do any alignment or adjustment of your composition.
In theory, you could take a 320x240 movie of the *whole page* at once, moving around, and when the movie got sufficiently long the software would reconstruct a high-res image of the whole page, as in 300 dpi or some such scanner-type resolution.
I realize that this is Slashdot, but you might try RTFA. You won't lose karma for that, I promise.
What? No, don't be ridiculous. 195 dB ref: 1 mPa is about 10^20 times 1 mPa, which is approximately 10^17 Pa - that's only ~31.6 TeraPascals. Using the Voltage formula, you'd get 10^7 Pa - ~5.6 MegaPascals.
I must respectfully disagree. There is nothing 'good' about a video camera whose resolution is limited to 352 X 288 at 30 fps, which is what you've described.
This is a nice inexpensive digital recorder, yes. But is does not produce anything even remotely resembling "something high quality, which uses media that will be around for a while".
For $200, I'd be REALLY tempted to get one for casual personal use - mp3 player? Cool! But it's not what the poster asked for.
Ack! No. The quality of 8mm - even Hi8 - while superior to VHS, falls FAR short of DV quality. Depending on who you ask and what's important to you, DV as a format is almost as good as or slightly better than BetaSP.
However, you WON'T find a camera whose optics and CCD's are broadcast quality in your price range. If you get a DV camcorder (or digital 8, same basic thing on different tape stock) you will be limited by the quality of the optics and suchlike. If you get ANY other format, you will be limited by the format itself, and drastically more so.
Here's your shopping strategy: get a DV camcorder. Pick the features you want. Don't consider other formats unless you're planning to drop it off of a tall building and don't want to waste any more money than absolutely necessary.
Disclaimer: I have worked for years in live sports television production, as a truck engineer among MANY other positions. My opinions are based on my experience with the equipment, not on reading a website.
MAD? I don't recall any MAD references, at least not intentionally. I did reference the hell out of Bored of the Rings simply because I think it's funny as shit.
As for the informed (unbiased) part, guess again. Considering that we're having this discussion on Slashdot, it is statistically probable that I've read the LOTR series (including The Hobbit) more times than most/.'ers have had sex. With someone else, I mean. [it's funny; laugh.] I've certainly read the series many times, well into the double digits. Perhaps that qualifies as bias; knowing the series, I like 'em the way they are and resent unnecessary and uncomplimentary changes.
I'm willing to believe that Jackson matured Moxie and Pepsi, otherwise everyone would hate them - not just me. However, that doesn't argue for the necessity to flatten them in the first place.
Just because I think BOTR is funny doesn't mean that my opinion about the Jackson movies is invalid or worthless. At least BOTR was an intentional lampoon... BTW, have you read Doon? (Doone?)
>>"So, is there anybody out there that can name a change or two that they actually considered a major let-down?"
Yes. All the examples you mentioned and more. In fact, after the first movie, I gave up. Haven't seen TTT or ROTK. Not sure I will.
Moxie and Pepsi are total shitheads in the movie. Not so in the book. Elrond was way too stern, and Arwen shouting, "Come get him, motherfuckers!" at the ford was just way overkill. And what's with the whole "Acid Queen from 'Tommy'" shtick for poor Galadriel?
And please, PLEASE tell me why Gimlet had to be the one to suggest the Mines of Moria? That's totally out of character.
All of the changes made served to make the characters involved MORE shallow. The depth and detail of those stories is what separates them from the dozens and millions of D&D plot lines that followed over the years. Seriously; the plot is nothing special. It's the characterization, the mythos, the intricately detailed history of the LOTR and related works that makes them special, not $100M worth of special effects and buffoon-boy Peter Jackson's rewrite.
The Scouring of the Shire is, in fact, a major part of the story. If all you care about is the big battles and Gandalf falling down the well ("What's that, Lassie? A Ballhog!?"), then perhaps you should just stick to John Woo flicks.
This is, of course, *my* opinion.
I realize that the potential audience for the 25-hour miniseries version (which I'd like) would be rather small, and would not serve to make a profit for the filmmakers. However, I can wait until it's possible to render the whole damned thing on my desktop PC, at which point someone will deliver what Jackson's version seemed to promise - Tolkien's work, unmutilated. I would rather NOT watch another classic get Hollywooded, but YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
NOTHING could be worse than Battlefield Earth. Unless, of course, they decide to finish the other *half* of the story - Battlefield Earth, Part Deux? Ecchhh....!
Uh, no. Did you watch the *entire* movie? The latter half really diverged pretty hard.
Given: 4 watts of total consumption to achieve a travel-size TV projection.
... this is equivalent in brightness to an 1800-lumen projector making an 8' x 6' image. That's fairly bright...
Assume: 2 watts of that are dedicated to the generation of light for that projection.
Possibilities:
1) Use a white light source, which means (for that size and power level) white LEDs. Those are commercially available at 25 lumens/watt. This gives us 50 lumens, which will not make for a wall-sized image viewable except perhaps in pitch-black darkness. However, for a smaller image... say, 16"x12"?
By 2005, 60 lumens/watt white LEDs will be out of the lab and into the market. This allows for our hypothetical projector to realize 120 lumens, or roughly 1/10 the output power of an 1100 lumen projector. You could make a 32" x 24" (40" diagonal) image at the same brightness as that 1100 lumen projector makes an 8' x 6' image.
2) use multiple colored light sources, again LEDs. Most of the 'brightness' comes from the green, less from the red, least from the blue. You can assume 50 lumens / watt off the shelf right now, which probably means a 32" - 40" diagonal image from those 2 watts, at the same brightness as an 1100 lumen projector making an 8' x 6' image.
Conclusion: *current* technology allows for TV-sized images to be produced, at brightnesses similar to those of larger images from brighter projectors, from only 2 watts of input power to the optical source.
Sources: Don's LED Page.
Disclaimer: comment author has been an A/V professional since 1987, holds masters in EE.
I hate trolls. Go crawl back under your rock. Excuse me, bridge.
Hey - BILLY GOAT! There, that oughta show you.
Smiley? Hell, he could have included a link to a laugh track - it still wasn't funny.
"Dear Slashdot - I'm looking for a basic commuter car, good gas mileage, my budget is less than $1000. Any suggestions?"
Grandparent poster: " Here's one! [links to 1959 Cadillac Hearse, ground-up restoration, $30,000] Bwa-ha-HA! Made you look!"
See? Not funny there, either. Unless you're 8 years old.
Oh, sorry. I work with a rack full of $20,000 scopes, and didn't realize that there was anything special about that one. 50 GHz is nice, though.
Perhaps, next time, parent poster could include some sort of sign that it was supposed to be funny; perhaps, say, some humor? Just a suggestion...
Err... I came up with a 5-figure, used, standalone HP.
Was that supposed to be funny?
Well, the article is a translation from the Japanese original, and there are some statements made in there which are contradictory or confusing... but I stand by my statements.
Your "in theory" part describes exactly what I believe is being done - several images of the same subject, from slightly different vantages, are analyzed to produce a higher resolution image of the subject. Not a larger image, a higher-resolution image.
If you got the sense from the article that the algorithm is concerned entirely with stitching together small images to make a large one, you may be right. But I think you're mistaken.
Well, good. I suppose you'd like to inform the nice people over at NEC, now, so that they stop wasting their time demoing technology that can't be done. Oh, and don't forget to yell, "Bumblebees can't fly!" real loud so that they all fall down.
Convincing yourself doesn't make it so.
Matlab isn't 64-bit aware at all. Even on IRIX, Solaris, etc. the most recent versions of Matlab have been 32-bit executables.
When *I* do chip design or electrical circuit design, I'm running on a pitiful little Athlon 2600+ - definitely not 64-bit.
With your rendering example, I'd kinda like to see some concrete measured numbers. What renders in 6 hours on a G5 renders in 10 seconds on my Athlon. Convinced? Yeah, me neither.
Crap lens could be a problem.
However, I think you're still thinking in terms of making a nice image from stitching together several images. That's not what's going on here.
They're taking several views of the same thing and using them to synthesize a better image of the actual subject. Out of focus, poor resolution, poor contrast - these are factors which the software corrects for.
See, the point is that the cell phone camera doesn't capture the image. The software essentially "creates" the image, based on information about the subject gleaned from the movie file.
Moreover, the point of this project is not to make hi-res images. It's to make hi-res scans.
I'm sure it's easier to make these sorts of super-resolution images from a camera which produces nice images to start with. The point is, though, that it can produce nice scans from poor cameras.
The whole point - the entire point - of this technique is that it DOES get a hi-res image from a lo-res camera. Not by making you put the lens real close and then stitching together all these medium-res images, but by sort of "averaging" a large number of images of the entire page. So yes, it gets a hi-res image from a lo-res image.
You *did* RTFA, right?
It's different because it's not just making a bunch of small pics into one big one, it's making a bunch of lo-res pics into a hi-res one. It's also different because it doesn't require YOU to do any alignment or adjustment of your composition.
In theory, you could take a 320x240 movie of the *whole page* at once, moving around, and when the movie got sufficiently long the software would reconstruct a high-res image of the whole page, as in 300 dpi or some such scanner-type resolution.
I realize that this is Slashdot, but you might try RTFA. You won't lose karma for that, I promise.
Damn. Screwed up a closing tag. I suck.
Next question is, which formula is applicable? I think the amplitude version (voltage) is correct, as the pressure is the amplitude of the waveform.
It's also notable that the power output is supposed to be 400 W. You'd need some serious coupling to the water and a thoroughly resonant cavity, I'd think, to be able to achieve that sort of pressure (5.6 MPa) at that power level - but then, underwater acoustics are not my speciality. I did find the results of some experiments at which suggested a couple of things; the amplitude version of the dB calculation is appropriate (20Log(V2/V1)), and the potential to achieve 195 dB is not unreasonable, again assuming some increase due to resonant effects.
YMMV
What? No, don't be ridiculous. 195 dB ref: 1 mPa is about 10^20 times 1 mPa, which is approximately 10^17 Pa - that's only ~31.6 TeraPascals. Using the Voltage formula, you'd get 10^7 Pa - ~5.6 MegaPascals.
Those numbers are still pretty spooky, though.
I must respectfully disagree. There is nothing 'good' about a video camera whose resolution is limited to 352 X 288 at 30 fps, which is what you've described.
This is a nice inexpensive digital recorder, yes. But is does not produce anything even remotely resembling "something high quality, which uses media that will be around for a while".
For $200, I'd be REALLY tempted to get one for casual personal use - mp3 player? Cool! But it's not what the poster asked for.
Ack! No. The quality of 8mm - even Hi8 - while superior to VHS, falls FAR short of DV quality. Depending on who you ask and what's important to you, DV as a format is almost as good as or slightly better than BetaSP.
However, you WON'T find a camera whose optics and CCD's are broadcast quality in your price range. If you get a DV camcorder (or digital 8, same basic thing on different tape stock) you will be limited by the quality of the optics and suchlike. If you get ANY other format, you will be limited by the format itself, and drastically more so.
Here's your shopping strategy: get a DV camcorder. Pick the features you want. Don't consider other formats unless you're planning to drop it off of a tall building and don't want to waste any more money than absolutely necessary.
Disclaimer: I have worked for years in live sports television production, as a truck engineer among MANY other positions. My opinions are based on my experience with the equipment, not on reading a website.
Yeah. You got me. Zing. [yawn]
/.-reading geek engineer now. But I was a rock guitarist before that. You should try it. Even YOU might get laid.
Oh, yeah, sure, I might be a
dude - did I just get MY sex life dissed... by an AOL user?
Somebody call Alanis Morrissette, QUICK - because that truly IS ironic.
Sounds like my sex life.
MAD? I don't recall any MAD references, at least not intentionally. I did reference the hell out of Bored of the Rings simply because I think it's funny as shit.
/.'ers have had sex. With someone else, I mean. [it's funny; laugh.] I've certainly read the series many times, well into the double digits. Perhaps that qualifies as bias; knowing the series, I like 'em the way they are and resent unnecessary and uncomplimentary changes.
As for the informed (unbiased) part, guess again. Considering that we're having this discussion on Slashdot, it is statistically probable that I've read the LOTR series (including The Hobbit) more times than most
I'm willing to believe that Jackson matured Moxie and Pepsi, otherwise everyone would hate them - not just me. However, that doesn't argue for the necessity to flatten them in the first place.
Just because I think BOTR is funny doesn't mean that my opinion about the Jackson movies is invalid or worthless. At least BOTR was an intentional lampoon... BTW, have you read Doon? (Doone?)
Actually, I was waiting to see if anyone caught it.
You're welcome.
>>"So, is there anybody out there that can name a change or two that they actually considered a major let-down?"
Yes. All the examples you mentioned and more. In fact, after the first movie, I gave up. Haven't seen TTT or ROTK. Not sure I will.
Moxie and Pepsi are total shitheads in the movie. Not so in the book. Elrond was way too stern, and Arwen shouting, "Come get him, motherfuckers!" at the ford was just way overkill. And what's with the whole "Acid Queen from 'Tommy'" shtick for poor Galadriel?
And please, PLEASE tell me why Gimlet had to be the one to suggest the Mines of Moria? That's totally out of character.
All of the changes made served to make the characters involved MORE shallow. The depth and detail of those stories is what separates them from the dozens and millions of D&D plot lines that followed over the years. Seriously; the plot is nothing special. It's the characterization, the mythos, the intricately detailed history of the LOTR and related works that makes them special, not $100M worth of special effects and buffoon-boy Peter Jackson's rewrite.
The Scouring of the Shire is, in fact, a major part of the story. If all you care about is the big battles and Gandalf falling down the well ("What's that, Lassie? A Ballhog!?"), then perhaps you should just stick to John Woo flicks.
This is, of course, *my* opinion.
I realize that the potential audience for the 25-hour miniseries version (which I'd like) would be rather small, and would not serve to make a profit for the filmmakers. However, I can wait until it's possible to render the whole damned thing on my desktop PC, at which point someone will deliver what Jackson's version seemed to promise - Tolkien's work, unmutilated. I would rather NOT watch another classic get Hollywooded, but YMMV.
I realize that 200 mA is likely to be less than one watt, but that's still a significant amount of heat to emit for a device worn next to the skin.
This thing is going to make a lot of people hot under the collar.
[ducks]