The MTF stuff is not really relevant to my argument, they're really just showing off how capable film is.
My argument is that with a sampling period of 7microns in the CMOS you cannot have an image of the same quality as the film can produce.
You're saying that since most lenses have a resolution of 100 lines pairs per mm, which equates roughly to a 5micron resolution between objects. Now that's resolution!, not pitch. Sampling theory tells us that if we can image (throught the lenses) objects 5 microns away, then sampling at more than 2.5 micron distance is redundant and less than 2.5 microns is not enough. The digital sensor still isn't cutting it.
So the "medium speed microfilms' are better than what is common. So film has a greater capability but that capability isn't typically utilized. Whereas they finest pixel pitch on the market that I could find was 3.5micron (FillFactory IBIS). Again, the digital isn't up to snuff.
So when it comes to the shutter speed, I'm almost with you - CMOS is slow. However with a more expensive CCD with 100% fill factor you could get away with 50microsecond integration times. I personally have never used a film camera that can integrate that fast, then again, I've never seen a CMOS camera that can integrate enough light for a decent image at less than 500us.
Blah Blah Blah, I'm wasting time when I should be working. Nice discussing this with you.
The lpm in my statement as well as in the article is referring to the resolution of the system, not the size of the silver particles on the film nor the pixel pitch (effectively the sampling rate.)
That's not exactly true. There are several measures of image quality 1) Contrast Modulation/Color Depth, in this aspect digital has a great advantage over film, as it's easier to tune an ADC than it is to produce silver film with different qualities. 2) Resolution. That is the ability to resolve, as determined by an MTF/CTF test. In this aspect film is much much better than digital. This is due to much smaller particles being photosensitive in film than the pixel pitch of cmos sensors. It's pretty simple sampling theory.
4992 x 3328 pixels over a (36 x 24 mm) 1.4 x.94 inch CMOS array essentially tells you they have a cmos with a 7micron pixel pitch. This is hardly revolutionary. Assuming the optics are similar in quality to a comparable film camera, to have the same image quality that would be equivalent to saying that ordinary film has 7 micron light sensitive (silver?) particles. This is ridiculous!
http://science.howstuffworks.com/film3.htm here says that "The imaging layers contain sub-micron sized grains of silver-halide crystals that act as the photon detectors". That's submicron.
So it's a nice camera. That doesn't mean it's a fantastic sensor - it still suffers from the same attributes that other CMOS/CCD sensors do. They've got phenomenal ADC's but the sensors just can't be packed as tightly as silver can be.
Maybe (most likely) the laser beam has passed through a system of lenses before exiting the observatory like stucture. Maybe after the laser beam has been shaped it no longer is a collimated beam. I skimmed over the CALIPSO site linked as well as the nasa site linked from that page but was unable to find a detailed explanation of how the system worked. The explanations did mention that it is planning on mapping the atmosphere, I would venture a guess that they were doing some processing based on known information about the indices of the different regions of the atmosphere and some gathered information from the laser source that had diffracted through the atmosphere and been sensed. Thus it may make sense that they may want an expanded and/or non-collimated beam. I don't know much about this project, or very much about optics but I do know that not all lasers systems require a collimated beam.
This is a great point. Is the actual idea expressed in the binary? When the copyright expires are the binaries considered to be public property? Or is it the case that the source of the binaries is the expression of the copyrighted idea? So when the clock stikes on the copyright does everyone become owners of the source or do we have to reverse engineer the binaries? Should we even consider what our forefathers had in mind regarding patents or just write a new law? Is it fair that in 50 years Disney company no longer owns Mickey?
Although I'm not sure I see the importance with computer code if it's only the binaries that become public domain as the longevity of particular programs is dwarfed by the life of the copyright.
The article talked about how heat dissipation will be impaired by the 3-D structure (obviously, when you increase volume relative to surface area.) Maybe in years to come we'll see some sort of chip/heatsink integration to channel heat directly from the interior of the 3d structure to the outside by the heatsink rather than the normal dissipation through the chip.
Thank you, finally someone with some respect for life and the power of God and the inherent respect that ought to be due. Too often are people bombarded with "respect belief" and "respect others right to choose" (to murder) and such without considering what is right. And this isn't one of those well what's right for me isn't right for all debates, anyone who goes down the track of arguing for atheism is in deep deep trouble. If someone wants to deny the existence of God without considering the infinite complexity of the world we live in and the perfection with which it operates (with the exception of human perversions (see above)) and then consider the probability that such a world complete with so many diverse organisms and relationships evolved from nothing with no guiding hand but that of chance, that's their problem - don't go spreading ignorance. People like that have either never been educated in the sciences or arts in order to understand the complexity and beauty of our being or have never taken a Probability course to understand the likelihood of this world just happening. think how many monkeys it would take banging on keyboards to develop not Shakespeare but the world and all its intricacies. It'd take a lot more monkeys than there have ever been and a lot more time than there has ever been. So anyway, there is a God, we shouldn't mess with him or his creations and that includes murdering the child he created for our sake, murdering the person who has given up just for the sake of his piffle pain (imagine that: how much does it take before your life has no meaning? I'd say life has meaning not in a being's level of pain but in his conscience and consciousness) and last but not least creating a man in our own image for our own satisfaction. To manipulate what we know about the workings of life to our own ends. This is just plain wrong.
You don't understand the code morphing idea. The reason why they don't post any numbers is that their compilation can find optimizations in the code that are particular to a specific code seqeuence. The speed boost is only a result of natural repetition in code and the optimizations that the compiler can make.
the essence of this plan is to identify which of the mp3's are copyrighted (most likely by certain record labels who pay for a service) so that unrecognized mp3's can be distinguished from those that are recognized as copyrighted. Any use of this stagnates the development of the web as a medium for music sales as they're not suggesting being able to recognize specific rips, only specific songs. So if Artist X releases track Y as an mp3 and on an album, there will be no way of determining whether an mp3 floating about is from the released mp3 or ripped from the album. So if this tracking is ever utilized, it will act as an impediment to the web's capability for legitimate sales of music.
Right, there's nothing about communism that suggests people shouldn't have a right to a free trial. Just because China's brand of "communism" is a little on the totalitarian side doesn't mean that one little rider on an obscure bill vetoed for God know's what reason by Bush makes him a card carrying communist, use your brain not just fantastic speech intended to mislead
Slashdot Mirror
The MTF stuff is not really relevant to my argument, they're really just showing off how capable film is.
My argument is that with a sampling period of 7microns in the CMOS you cannot have an image of the same quality as the film can produce.
You're saying that since most lenses have a resolution of 100 lines pairs per mm, which equates roughly to a 5micron resolution between objects. Now that's resolution!, not pitch. Sampling theory tells us that if we can image (throught the lenses) objects 5 microns away, then sampling at more than 2.5 micron distance is redundant and less than 2.5 microns is not enough. The digital sensor still isn't cutting it.
So the "medium speed microfilms' are better than what is common. So film has a greater capability but that capability isn't typically utilized. Whereas they finest pixel pitch on the market that I could find was 3.5micron (FillFactory IBIS). Again, the digital isn't up to snuff.
So when it comes to the shutter speed, I'm almost with you - CMOS is slow. However with a more expensive CCD with 100% fill factor you could get away with 50microsecond integration times. I personally have never used a film camera that can integrate that fast, then again, I've never seen a CMOS camera that can integrate enough light for a decent image at less than 500us.
Blah Blah Blah, I'm wasting time when I should be working.
Nice discussing this with you.
The lpm in my statement as well as in the article is referring to the resolution of the system, not the size of the silver particles on the film nor the pixel pitch (effectively the sampling rate.)
That's not exactly true. There are several measures of image quality
1) Contrast Modulation/Color Depth, in this aspect digital has a great advantage over film, as it's easier to tune an ADC than it is to produce silver film with different qualities.
2) Resolution. That is the ability to resolve, as determined by an MTF/CTF test. In this aspect film is much much better than digital. This is due to much smaller particles being photosensitive in film than the pixel pitch of cmos sensors. It's pretty simple sampling theory.
I don't think so!o delTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10 598
.94 inch CMOS array essentially tells you they have a cmos with a 7micron pixel pitch. This is hardly revolutionary. Assuming the optics are similar in quality to a comparable film camera, to have the same image quality that would be equivalent to saying that ordinary film has 7 micron light sensitive (silver?) particles. This is ridiculous!
/ resolution.html
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=M
From here.
4992 x 3328 pixels over a (36 x 24 mm) 1.4 x
http://science.howstuffworks.com/film3.htm
here says that "The imaging layers contain sub-micron sized grains of silver-halide crystals that act as the photon detectors". That's submicron.
So it's a nice camera. That doesn't mean it's a fantastic sensor - it still suffers from the same attributes that other CMOS/CCD sensors do. They've got phenomenal ADC's but the sensors just can't be packed as tightly as silver can be.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~fyiglover/articles
says that "All three silver microfilm manufacturers (Agfa, Fuji & Kodak) certify their medium speed microfilms to have the ability to achieve 800 lines/mm of resolution."
Maybe (most likely) the laser beam has passed through a system of lenses before exiting the observatory like stucture. Maybe after the laser beam has been shaped it no longer is a collimated beam.
I skimmed over the CALIPSO site linked as well as the nasa site linked from that page but was unable to find a detailed explanation of how the system worked.
The explanations did mention that it is planning on mapping the atmosphere, I would venture a guess that they were doing some processing based on known information about the indices of the different regions of the atmosphere and some gathered information from the laser source that had diffracted through the atmosphere and been sensed. Thus it may make sense that they may want an expanded and/or non-collimated beam.
I don't know much about this project, or very much about optics but I do know that not all lasers systems require a collimated beam.
woops! isn't 2 + 2 = 4 converted to ternary = to
2 + 2 = 11?
Although I'm not sure I see the importance with computer code if it's only the binaries that become public domain as the longevity of particular programs is dwarfed by the life of the copyright.
The article talked about how heat dissipation will be impaired by the 3-D structure (obviously, when you increase volume relative to surface area.) Maybe in years to come we'll see some sort of chip/heatsink integration to channel heat directly from the interior of the 3d structure to the outside by the heatsink rather than the normal dissipation through the chip.
Have they ever even seen this show? I mean it's far out but I don't think this as a comedy would have a leg to stand on.
Thank you, finally someone with some respect for life and the power of God and the inherent respect that ought to be due. Too often are people bombarded with "respect belief" and "respect others right to choose" (to murder) and such without considering what is right. And this isn't one of those well what's right for me isn't right for all debates, anyone who goes down the track of arguing for atheism is in deep deep trouble. If someone wants to deny the existence of God without considering the infinite complexity of the world we live in and the perfection with which it operates (with the exception of human perversions (see above)) and then consider the probability that such a world complete with so many diverse organisms and relationships evolved from nothing with no guiding hand but that of chance, that's their problem - don't go spreading ignorance. People like that have either never been educated in the sciences or arts in order to understand the complexity and beauty of our being or have never taken a Probability course to understand the likelihood of this world just happening. think how many monkeys it would take banging on keyboards to develop not Shakespeare but the world and all its intricacies. It'd take a lot more monkeys than there have ever been and a lot more time than there has ever been. So anyway, there is a God, we shouldn't mess with him or his creations and that includes murdering the child he created for our sake, murdering the person who has given up just for the sake of his piffle pain (imagine that: how much does it take before your life has no meaning? I'd say life has meaning not in a being's level of pain but in his conscience and consciousness) and last but not least creating a man in our own image for our own satisfaction. To manipulate what we know about the workings of life to our own ends. This is just plain wrong.
You don't understand the code morphing idea. The reason why they don't post any numbers is that their compilation can find optimizations in the code that are particular to a specific code seqeuence. The speed boost is only a result of natural repetition in code and the optimizations that the compiler can make.
the essence of this plan is to identify which of the mp3's are copyrighted (most likely by certain record labels who pay for a service) so that unrecognized mp3's can be distinguished from those that are recognized as copyrighted. Any use of this stagnates the development of the web as a medium for music sales as they're not suggesting being able to recognize specific rips, only specific songs. So if Artist X releases track Y as an mp3 and on an album, there will be no way of determining whether an mp3 floating about is from the released mp3 or ripped from the album. So if this tracking is ever utilized, it will act as an impediment to the web's capability for legitimate sales of music.
Right, there's nothing about communism that suggests people shouldn't have a right to a free trial. Just because China's brand of "communism" is a little on the totalitarian side doesn't mean that one little rider on an obscure bill vetoed for God know's what reason by Bush makes him a card carrying communist, use your brain not just fantastic speech intended to mislead