Yes, it cannot be run "in" apache, and this is a good thing.
The way most rails stacks are setup your webserver (I use apache for instance) gets a request. The web server looks for the file on the disk, if it's there it sends it and that's the end. If the file is not there, the server asks a load balancer (ModProxyBalancer, Pound, Nginx, even FastCGI*) to send a request to one of a pool of persistent rails processes which can then handle it.
Now, if you serve up say, 5 images and 3 JS or CSS files on a page on average, that means that 5 out of 8 requests will use a bloated webserver process containing RoR, when in reality we need far fewer processes since only 1 in 8 requests actually ever touches ruby code. Less loaded and running code makes a big difference.
The other advantage is that this makes adding extra servers easy. You've already got the scalability built in, expanding out is just adding another server and adding its rails daemons.
I'm suprised, the camera phone did a great job, which is a good thing for consumers who don't know how to color correct their photos. However, as the article points out, this is solely a product of post-processing in the camera. I'm quite surprised that the 400D did such a terrible job with the white balance. Was it stuck on the daylight preset or was the AWB that bad?
They didn't really address night time flash performance. Lots of people want to take pictures when they go out at night and these tests were inadequate since the subjects were small and close. Large people 5-6 feet away require a brighter flash and/or higher ISOs. Cell phone cameras haven't the room for a large flash and the capacitors it requires. I wonder how these phones would fare under these conditions?
Also not addressed was dynamic range. The test scene was fairly flat. If you're on a vacation, and whip out your dinky cell phone to take a picture of the landscape, what might on a DSLR be a nice image of the land and sky, could turn out to be a dark silhouette of the land with a detailed sky, detailed land with a blown out sky, or some combination. How good is the metering as well? Will your relatives be a series of black lumps against the grand canyon if you aren't a pro photog? The more this stuff is automatic the more joe consumer wins.
Additionally, the lens choice on the 400d is slightly disappointing. Cheap lenses like the 18-55 kit lens can't really give you the detail possible with 10 megapixels.
What I thought was most remarkable was that this was not a technological breakthrough, we've been able to record turntables since PCs had sound cards, but that it was the packaging that caused this change. Most people simply aren't going to discover that they only need a program like Soundforge and a decent soundcard to do everything these packages do.
All it takes is removing a couple steps to make something extremely attractive to the consumer
There is software that does this already. What you want is Noise Ninja and DxO. Noise ninja can build a custom noise profile for your camera, and DxO can correct standard errors with lenses. DxO might not be available for your consumer camera.
Noise Ninja will compensate for the parts of your sensor that are naturally, always, noisy. DxO will correct vignetting and distortion from lenses.
I'm a bit baffled by your question. If I were you I'd pick up Professional Photoshop by Dan Margulis. It's the best color correction book out there. He'll answer your questions. As for what you said about the sky, cameras are different than the human eye, and with a wide angle lens the sky SHOULD have a variation in color. You can fix this with a mask. Refer to Margulis to see when this is appropriate and how it should be done.
You're right about it not being guaranteed, and if I have to upgrade it I will. However, the less time I have to spend upgrading servers the more time I have for stuff my bosses actually care about.
Even though it's only one release, it's a big deal. I'm using Ubuntu 6.06 Long Term Support in a server I recently built my company for just that reason. Having the peace of mind that there will be regular backports for 5 years on my free OS of choice was a deal breaker.
Well, NASA was always a money pit, we just used to spend more money because NASA was considered part of national defense. Check out this chart of the NASA budget over time and adjusted for inflation. The budget in 1966 was about double that of today. Let's also remember that a lot of what was important was the manned moon missions. Sure, they grab attention, but as far as good science goes I think most people agree that robotic exploration is a better idea. What we have now is a more diverse and less inspiring science program. This is probably a good thing.
Listen, in any affiliate program policing affiliates can be impossible. I think Zango's a disreputable and disgusting company, but that doesn't mean they're guilty in this case. Blame the affiliates.
The advantage of XHTML is that it's easier for machines (and developers) to process and work with after it's written. Additionally it supports emerging useful new standards such as XForms, and other XML processing tools.
The disadvantage of XHTML is that it's harder to write initially and has stricter rules. Most people write broken HTML 4 transitional pages that, quite honestly, work fine for their audience (web only).
Parsing HTML is a bitch, working with it is, quite simply difficult. Additionally XHTML supports embedding other XML formats than XHTML within it, like MathML (an way to display formatted math equations) SVG (XML Vector Graphics) and any other arbitrary XML based format in an easy to understand way via namespacing.
There's a whole suite of tools built around XML (XPath and XSLT for example) that enable one to deal with MathML and SVG as easily as XHTML. It makes things simpler.
XHTML is, however, a lot harder to write. HTML tolerates a lot of errors, XHTML technically tolerates none, though browsers usually overlook this.
For my job, where I have to create sometimes copious amounts of HTML that will be seen only by IE or Firefox on windows or a mac, and often times be deleted within a few months, I just write HTML4 transitional and don't really worry about validating. I test both browsers and leave it at that.
For my personal site, or shit that I have extra time to do I write XHTML because I like to make neat, clean things, but honestly there's never a tangible payoff from it for most applications.
I will say this however, people who know XHTML are the people who know how to really write a web page. The people who've never heard of it are the ones that are a bitch to work with and slow you down with their ugly ass tag soup pages with no CSS.
Well, they do and they don't. My 20D gets about 5 stops of dynamic range, which looks to be about what this thing outputs. It's not at all rare, in fact, for my 20D's dynamic range to exceed that of scene if it's relatively flat.
A lot of the HDR images made with photoshop have more dynamic range than the human eye does. The human eye can trick one into thinking contrary that however due to how quickly it adapts on changing focus.
Oh yeah, that explains all the mac users switching to photoshop's main competitor..... ummmm, what's its name again. Oh right, it DOESN'T EXIST. Aperture and Lightroom are fine for small corrections, but anyone who knows what they're doing will want photoshop's fuller suite. That includes RAW editing. In fact, that especially includes it, because when you want to do REAL correction with the best techniques you want Layers, L channel sharpening, Blend modes, masking, and other advanced retouching features.
Adobe knows this, Lightroom is a starting point, I shudder to think of anyone making final changes to all their photos in it. Also, these products have shitty to no CMYK support. While this is less important for fine art photos these days due to the rise of inkjets color space conversions demand control over your product, and control = photoshop.
Also as far as graphic design goes, I don't know if you noticed but illustrator can't do shit with raster. Like it or not tons of stuff in graphic design requires pixel level manips of raster data and photoshop is best to do that with. It runs well alongside illustrator.
I agree, and to those that say "the real world has arbitrary constraints" that doesn't mean that the unnecessary ones (like the crappy logo font and ugly curve) need be retained. Also, the green is ugly, and despite having been a member of this site for more years than I care to remember it sucks.
There's tons of posterization and compression artifacts in DVD. DVD sucks balls compared to real HDTV. It is many times better than broadcast and VHS tho.
To whoever modded me flaimbait: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. There's no reason my list of pro uses for 35mm should be considered such.
Apparently I should let my employer (a very well known and published photographer) know that 35mm isn't any good (we have switched to digital but he shot for decades with it) I suppose I should also let a number of my Professors in photo school know that also. I also suppose I should inform press photographers who before digital shot mostly with 35mm equipment. I also suppose I should inform Kodak and Fuji and tell them to stop making their lines of professional 35mm reversal and negative films, which are available in a much wider selection than they have consumer films available. I also suppose I should tell police photographers who've shot with 35mm for decades (and many still do).
Sure, for paid jobs it isn't ideal most of the times, but sometimes, when portability or processing costs must be kept low 35mm is much more attractive than medium or large format. Sure, digital is far better, and 35 is dead now, but in the days of film 35mm was just as professional as anything else if the situation demanded it.
Slashdot: where there's a conspiracy in everything.
Because seriously, I want to hear you make the business case for allowing returns on models with flashed firmware. What company wants to tie up their helplines with the clueless newbies who will surely start whining after flashing their firmware.
I don't know shit about console games, but wouldn't it be logical to expect next gen game's prices to fall as the 360's userbase increases, therefore increasing the size of the market? I mean, all the launch titles will be outdated before there's decent market penetration.
If you're technically literate enough to read slashdot you should know that google is your friend. I promise you that the first documents for search terms 'xen virtualization' and 'stateless linux' are very useful.
Film has greater dynamic range and a larger gamut than PC monitors and it shows. When trying to edit motion picture effects images often HAVE to be 16 bits per pixel to accomodate this fact. While the difference is not noticable on today's PC monitors, where the editing takes place, the difference is very noticable once the film has been transfered to film and projected.
Current output devices don't have the same range in any respect as the human eye, we have a lot of improvements that can be made to image output devices.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it cannot be run "in" apache, and this is a good thing.
i ng-rails-with-apache-2-2-mod_proxy_balancer-and-mo ngrel
The way most rails stacks are setup your webserver (I use apache for instance) gets a request.
The web server looks for the file on the disk, if it's there it sends it and that's the end.
If the file is not there, the server asks a load balancer (ModProxyBalancer, Pound, Nginx, even FastCGI*)
to send a request to one of a pool of persistent rails processes which can then handle it.
Now, if you serve up say, 5 images and 3 JS or CSS files on a page on average, that means that 5 out of 8 requests will use a bloated webserver process containing RoR, when in reality we need far fewer processes since only 1 in 8 requests actually ever touches ruby code. Less loaded and running code makes a big difference.
The other advantage is that this makes adding extra servers easy. You've already got the scalability built in, expanding out is just adding another server and adding its rails daemons.
If you're still confused, here's a good diagram:
http://blog.innerewut.de/articles/2006/04/21/scal
*Yes I know FastCGI isn't really a load balancer in the same sense as NGinx and Pound and ModProxyBalancer
I'm suprised, the camera phone did a great job, which is a good thing for consumers who don't know how to color correct their photos. However, as the article points out, this is solely a product of post-processing in the camera. I'm quite surprised that the 400D did such a terrible job with the white balance. Was it stuck on the daylight preset or was the AWB that bad?
They didn't really address night time flash performance. Lots of people want to take pictures when they go out at night and these tests were inadequate since the subjects were small and close. Large people 5-6 feet away require a brighter flash and/or higher ISOs. Cell phone cameras haven't the room for a large flash and the capacitors it requires. I wonder how these phones would fare under these conditions?
Also not addressed was dynamic range. The test scene was fairly flat. If you're on a vacation, and whip out your dinky cell phone to take a picture of the landscape, what might on a DSLR be a nice image of the land and sky, could turn out to be a dark silhouette of the land with a detailed sky, detailed land with a blown out sky, or some combination. How good is the metering as well? Will your relatives be a series of black lumps against the grand canyon if you aren't a pro photog? The more this stuff is automatic the more joe consumer wins.
Additionally, the lens choice on the 400d is slightly disappointing. Cheap lenses like the 18-55 kit lens can't really give you the detail possible with 10 megapixels.
What I thought was most remarkable was that this was not a technological breakthrough, we've been able to record turntables since PCs had sound cards, but that it was the packaging that caused this change. Most people simply aren't going to discover that they only need a program like Soundforge and a decent soundcard to do everything these packages do.
All it takes is removing a couple steps to make something extremely attractive to the consumer
There is software that does this already. What you want is Noise Ninja and DxO. Noise ninja can build a custom noise profile for your camera, and DxO can correct standard errors with lenses. DxO might not be available for your consumer camera.
Noise Ninja will compensate for the parts of your sensor that are naturally, always, noisy. DxO will correct vignetting and distortion from lenses.
I'm a bit baffled by your question. If I were you I'd pick up Professional Photoshop by Dan Margulis. It's the best color correction book out there. He'll answer your questions. As for what you said about the sky, cameras are different than the human eye, and with a wide angle lens the sky SHOULD have a variation in color. You can fix this with a mask. Refer to Margulis to see when this is appropriate and how it should be done.
Leave it to the pasty white boys of Slashdot to state misinformed stereotypes relating to a culture they have very limited exposure to.
And yes, I am aware of the contradictions in that statement.
You're right about it not being guaranteed, and if I have to upgrade it I will. However, the less time I have to spend upgrading servers the more time I have for stuff my bosses actually care about.
Even though it's only one release, it's a big deal. I'm using Ubuntu 6.06 Long Term Support in a server I recently built my company for just that reason. Having the peace of mind that there will be regular backports for 5 years on my free OS of choice was a deal breaker.
Well, NASA was always a money pit, we just used to spend more money because NASA was considered part of national defense. Check out this chart of the NASA budget over time and adjusted for inflation. The budget in 1966 was about double that of today. Let's also remember that a lot of what was important was the manned moon missions. Sure, they grab attention, but as far as good science goes I think most people agree that robotic exploration is a better idea. What we have now is a more diverse and less inspiring science program. This is probably a good thing.
Listen, in any affiliate program policing affiliates can be impossible. I think Zango's a disreputable and disgusting company, but that doesn't mean they're guilty in this case. Blame the affiliates.
The advantage of XHTML is that it's easier for machines (and developers) to process and work with after it's written. Additionally it supports emerging useful new standards such as XForms, and other XML processing tools.
The disadvantage of XHTML is that it's harder to write initially and has stricter rules. Most people write broken HTML 4 transitional pages that, quite honestly, work fine for their audience (web only).
Parsing HTML is a bitch, working with it is, quite simply difficult. Additionally XHTML supports embedding other XML formats than XHTML within it, like MathML (an way to display formatted math equations) SVG (XML Vector Graphics) and any other arbitrary XML based format in an easy to understand way via namespacing.
There's a whole suite of tools built around XML (XPath and XSLT for example) that enable one to deal with MathML and SVG as easily as XHTML. It makes things simpler.
XHTML is, however, a lot harder to write. HTML tolerates a lot of errors, XHTML technically tolerates none, though browsers usually overlook this.
For my job, where I have to create sometimes copious amounts of HTML that will be seen only by IE or Firefox on windows or a mac, and often times be deleted within a few months, I just write HTML4 transitional and don't really worry about validating. I test both browsers and leave it at that.
For my personal site, or shit that I have extra time to do I write XHTML because I like to make neat, clean things, but honestly there's never a tangible payoff from it for most applications.
I will say this however, people who know XHTML are the people who know how to really write a web page. The people who've never heard of it are the ones that are a bitch to work with and slow you down with their ugly ass tag soup pages with no CSS.
Well, they do and they don't. My 20D gets about 5 stops of dynamic range, which looks to be about what this thing outputs. It's not at all rare, in fact, for my 20D's dynamic range to exceed that of scene if it's relatively flat.
A lot of the HDR images made with photoshop have more dynamic range than the human eye does. The human eye can trick one into thinking contrary that however due to how quickly it adapts on changing focus.
Oh yeah, that explains all the mac users switching to photoshop's main competitor..... ummmm, what's its name again. Oh right, it DOESN'T EXIST. Aperture and Lightroom are fine for small corrections, but anyone who knows what they're doing will want photoshop's fuller suite. That includes RAW editing. In fact, that especially includes it, because when you want to do REAL correction with the best techniques you want Layers, L channel sharpening, Blend modes, masking, and other advanced retouching features.
Adobe knows this, Lightroom is a starting point, I shudder to think of anyone making final changes to all their photos in it. Also, these products have shitty to no CMYK support. While this is less important for fine art photos these days due to the rise of inkjets color space conversions demand control over your product, and control = photoshop.
Also as far as graphic design goes, I don't know if you noticed but illustrator can't do shit with raster. Like it or not tons of stuff in graphic design requires pixel level manips of raster data and photoshop is best to do that with. It runs well alongside illustrator.
I agree, and to those that say "the real world has arbitrary constraints" that doesn't mean that the unnecessary ones (like the crappy logo font and ugly curve) need be retained. Also, the green is ugly, and despite having been a member of this site for more years than I care to remember it sucks.
There's tons of posterization and compression artifacts in DVD. DVD sucks balls compared to real HDTV. It is many times better than broadcast and VHS tho.
To whoever modded me flaimbait: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. There's no reason my list of pro uses for 35mm should be considered such.
Apparently I should let my employer (a very well known and published photographer) know that 35mm isn't any good (we have switched to digital but he shot for decades with it) I suppose I should also let a number of my Professors in photo school know that also. I also suppose I should inform press photographers who before digital shot mostly with 35mm equipment. I also suppose I should inform Kodak and Fuji and tell them to stop making their lines of professional 35mm reversal and negative films, which are available in a much wider selection than they have consumer films available. I also suppose I should tell police photographers who've shot with 35mm for decades (and many still do).
Sure, for paid jobs it isn't ideal most of the times, but sometimes, when portability or processing costs must be kept low 35mm is much more attractive than medium or large format. Sure, digital is far better, and 35 is dead now, but in the days of film 35mm was just as professional as anything else if the situation demanded it.
Slashdot: where there's a conspiracy in everything.
Because seriously, I want to hear you make the business case for allowing returns on models with flashed firmware. What company wants to tie up their helplines with the clueless newbies who will surely start whining after flashing their firmware.
I don't know shit about console games, but wouldn't it be logical to expect next gen game's prices to fall as the 360's userbase increases, therefore increasing the size of the market? I mean, all the launch titles will be outdated before there's decent market penetration.
why not just look it up on say, google?
here I'll even link you, www.google.com.
If you're technically literate enough to read slashdot you should know that google is your friend. I promise you that the first documents for search terms 'xen virtualization' and 'stateless linux' are very useful.
I wish I had mod points to mod you up.
Am I the only one who read the headline and thought: "Oh shit, bird flu is here and now!".
I am not a doctor, however, you can always go to a pro photo lab and have a high quality drum scan, or maybe a high quality sigma scan done.
Film has greater dynamic range and a larger gamut than PC monitors and it shows. When trying to edit motion picture effects images often HAVE to be 16 bits per pixel to accomodate this fact. While the difference is not noticable on today's PC monitors, where the editing takes place, the difference is very noticable once the film has been transfered to film and projected.
Current output devices don't have the same range in any respect as the human eye, we have a lot of improvements that can be made to image output devices.
*flamebait*
It'd be the holy grail if it were a 1ds MK II