*facepalm* I just don't get why you insist on decrying this research as useless. The point is to enhance subtle motion/changes so that the viewer notices them. Yes, there may be times when this could draw the attention away from something else, but if that something is not moving/changing colour then it's probably (giving that the enhancement is being used in the first place) not important.
You may as well pour scorn on infrared technology because it prevents you from noticing things that are the same temperature as their surroundings, and yet somehow it's still saved countless lives.
Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are trying to determine if an unexpected mutation in a popular GM grass, Tifton 85, is responsible for the sudden deaths of a small herd of cattle in Elgin, Texas three weeks ago.
So they don't know if that's what killed the cows yet?
the grass started producing cyanide in sufficient quantities to kill a small herd of cattle in Elgin, Texas.
The way this second bit is written implies that it definitely was the grass's fault. Or do they only know that it did produce enough cyanide but haven't been able to confirm that that's what killed the cows?
What? What is it they're not doing? They're demonstrating their new method for enhancing changes in a video, and you're complaining that they're not displaying an "image enhanced in post-production!" disclaimer?
Look at the output, it's completely natural-looking except for objects wobbling as if they are made of jelly.
Under RHEL6.x, it was a non-starter... 30 minutes of use or so, and the screen stops redrawing. You've got a mess on your screen, and (thanks to KVM) restarting X11 doesn't fix it... you have to completely reboot.
No, you've got a mess on your screen, and you have to completely reboot.
I'm sure even I could add a function to stamp a little "image processing on" subtitle to the image. That's if the psychadelic cycling colours didn't give it away. This is research. The little niceties can get left aside until it's ready to roll it out, or after user feedback.
That's a little different - 3D glasses are entirely passive and don't (aside from breakages which are immediately obvious) fail. They're also cheap enough that no-one's really inconvenienced by having to buy a pair.
Yes, clearly the demonstrated ability to remotely monitor a sleeping baby's pulse and breathing will have no practical use.
adding its own bias based on naive attribution of moving areas to distinct objects? Then a human won't see important details behind things that software deemed worthy of emphasizing
This isn't AI. It's actually fairly simple image processing. It has no bias or sense or worth. Yes, it can be tuned - by a human operator who will most likely know what they want to have their attention drawn to. How important are a few pixels in the background behind a barely breathing body when you're searching for a hypothermia victim?
If the concerns you raise had any impact on a particular scenario, the operator can just use their own eyes or switch off the processing.
What kind of movie would that be? I already think the surround audio is overdoing it, since your attention is supposed to be right at the screen, not wondering what's behind you.
You obviously don't watch a lot of horror movies:)
all sound seemed to come from speakers behind the screen. But I didn't care, because it was an awesome movie
I first saw 2001: A Space Odyssey on an analogue SD broadcast, and it was wonderful. That didn't stop me wanting the Blu-ray.
First of all, the video is only on the screen in front of you.
Your view of real life, while it is wider, is also only "in front of you."
Putting in 62 sources just lets some audio nerd create a synthetic, moving, sound front that would never occur in nature. Unless you had a very loud bee flying in a tight cirle around your head:-)
Because apart from bees, all sounds come from only 5 distinct directions? I think you're underestimating the signal processing abilities of the human brain - we can do a lot better than that.
It's a nice idea in theory, but I don't think you'd find many theatres wanting to shell out for 500 pairs of headphones and all the attendant problems, instead of 70 speakers. I'm sure I've read of laserdiscs and DVDs with dedicated headphone tracks though, and most surround amps will simulate it (although I'm not sure how successfully).
Because ears are a miracle of engineering, and the signal processing the brain does is similarly brilliant. The shape of the pinner - the fleshy bit - means that sounds sound different if they get into your ear canal from different directions - otherwise (and I used to wonder this as a kid) how could you tell whether a sound source was directly ahead or directly behind?
As I recall, your brain can also use the tiny timing difference (on the order of 1/3000s) to determine distance and direction
You can fake all of this with just two speakers (the virtual haircut is highly recommended: http://onemansblog.com/2007/05/13/get-your-virtual-haircut-and-other-auditory-illusions/), but only if the two speakers are completely isolated to each ear - i.e., through the use of headphones. And then you have to resort to a "one size fits all" mix. They record these things using dummy heads with realistic inner and outer ears - brilliantly simple.
If you tried to do the same thing with two external speakers, both ears would hear both speakers and the effect is ruined.
According to a 1995 US Census Bureau set of home interviews, most of the respondents with an expressed preference refer to themselves as American Indians or Indians
Not that the GP isn't an ass, but there's nothing I need to do on a computer that my Windows laptop won't do and it stays online just fine, whereas the last time I installed Linux on a laptop I couldn't get any working sound. My anecdote beats your anecdote!
While Microsoft has never locked out apps based on license, it's not impossible that they might chose a more locked-down Apple-esque approach for Surface
It's not impossible that they'll kick a puppy for every copy of Windows 8 sold, either. Won't someone please think of the puppies?
1/64 will be slightly more blurry (it's a slower shutter speed then 1/96), but it makes a good compromise when it's quite likely that there will be 24fps versions of the film (either for standard cinemas or for Blu-ray release).
Slashdot Mirror
*facepalm* I just don't get why you insist on decrying this research as useless. The point is to enhance subtle motion/changes so that the viewer notices them. Yes, there may be times when this could draw the attention away from something else, but if that something is not moving/changing colour then it's probably (giving that the enhancement is being used in the first place) not important.
You may as well pour scorn on infrared technology because it prevents you from noticing things that are the same temperature as their surroundings, and yet somehow it's still saved countless lives.
Scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are trying to determine if an unexpected mutation in a popular GM grass, Tifton 85, is responsible for the sudden deaths of a small herd of cattle in Elgin, Texas three weeks ago.
So they don't know if that's what killed the cows yet?
the grass started producing cyanide in sufficient quantities to kill a small herd of cattle in Elgin, Texas.
The way this second bit is written implies that it definitely was the grass's fault. Or do they only know that it did produce enough cyanide but haven't been able to confirm that that's what killed the cows?
Look at the output, it's completely natural-looking except for objects wobbling as if they are made of jelly.
I thought that was the whole point.
Actually, I said "isolated to each ear."
I'm also neither American, nor illiterate, nor an idiot.
Admittedly the last one is open to opinion, but out of the two of us I'd say you're the most likely candidate at the moment.
Under RHEL6.x, it was a non-starter... 30 minutes of use or so, and the screen stops redrawing. You've got a mess on your screen, and (thanks to KVM) restarting X11 doesn't fix it... you have to completely reboot.
No, you've got a mess on your screen, and you have to completely reboot.
Wordpad? I'll admit I haven't fired it up since I moved to 7, but really?
Programmer's Notepad has a portable version.
There is enough power to punch through rock at great distances, like under 400,000 KM.
How far under 400,000km? One meter? 10km? I've got to assume you didn't mean "over", because, you know, that's the distance to the frickin' Moon.
I'm sure even I could add a function to stamp a little "image processing on" subtitle to the image. That's if the psychadelic cycling colours didn't give it away. This is research. The little niceties can get left aside until it's ready to roll it out, or after user feedback.
That's a little different - 3D glasses are entirely passive and don't (aside from breakages which are immediately obvious) fail. They're also cheap enough that no-one's really inconvenienced by having to buy a pair.
Admittedly I don't know how the details of the algorithm, but would you also call edge detection AI?
adding its own bias based on naive attribution of moving areas to distinct objects? Then a human won't see important details behind things that software deemed worthy of emphasizing
This isn't AI. It's actually fairly simple image processing. It has no bias or sense or worth. Yes, it can be tuned - by a human operator who will most likely know what they want to have their attention drawn to. How important are a few pixels in the background behind a barely breathing body when you're searching for a hypothermia victim?
If the concerns you raise had any impact on a particular scenario, the operator can just use their own eyes or switch off the processing.
If I'd played Bioshock in anything more than 5.1 it would have turned me into a gibbering wreck.
What kind of movie would that be? I already think the surround audio is overdoing it, since your attention is supposed to be right at the screen, not wondering what's behind you.
You obviously don't watch a lot of horror movies :)
all sound seemed to come from speakers behind the screen. But I didn't care, because it was an awesome movie
I first saw 2001: A Space Odyssey on an analogue SD broadcast, and it was wonderful. That didn't stop me wanting the Blu-ray.
First of all, the video is only on the screen in front of you.
Your view of real life, while it is wider, is also only "in front of you."
Putting in 62 sources just lets some audio nerd create a synthetic, moving, sound front that would never occur in nature. Unless you had a very loud bee flying in a tight cirle around your head :-)
Because apart from bees, all sounds come from only 5 distinct directions? I think you're underestimating the signal processing abilities of the human brain - we can do a lot better than that.
It's a nice idea in theory, but I don't think you'd find many theatres wanting to shell out for 500 pairs of headphones and all the attendant problems, instead of 70 speakers. I'm sure I've read of laserdiscs and DVDs with dedicated headphone tracks though, and most surround amps will simulate it (although I'm not sure how successfully).
Because ears are a miracle of engineering, and the signal processing the brain does is similarly brilliant. The shape of the pinner - the fleshy bit - means that sounds sound different if they get into your ear canal from different directions - otherwise (and I used to wonder this as a kid) how could you tell whether a sound source was directly ahead or directly behind?
As I recall, your brain can also use the tiny timing difference (on the order of 1/3000s) to determine distance and direction
You can fake all of this with just two speakers (the virtual haircut is highly recommended: http://onemansblog.com/2007/05/13/get-your-virtual-haircut-and-other-auditory-illusions/), but only if the two speakers are completely isolated to each ear - i.e., through the use of headphones. And then you have to resort to a "one size fits all" mix. They record these things using dummy heads with realistic inner and outer ears - brilliantly simple.
If you tried to do the same thing with two external speakers, both ears would hear both speakers and the effect is ruined.
Yes, the law called them Indians.
Why not?
According to a 1995 US Census Bureau set of home interviews, most of the respondents with an expressed preference refer to themselves as American Indians or Indians
What makes you think they didn't, or that it didn't all go swimmingly up to that point?
Not that the GP isn't an ass, but there's nothing I need to do on a computer that my Windows laptop won't do and it stays online just fine, whereas the last time I installed Linux on a laptop I couldn't get any working sound. My anecdote beats your anecdote!
Haha, okay, there we go, it finally clicked.
It may well be that the submitter meant it in the sense of "some" - but still, poor choice of word.
Patch Makes Certain Skin Cancers Disappear
Six months after treatment, 8 of the patients were cancer free.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, this a clearly some new meaning of the word "certain" of which I was previously unaware.
While Microsoft has never locked out apps based on license, it's not impossible that they might chose a more locked-down Apple-esque approach for Surface
It's not impossible that they'll kick a puppy for every copy of Windows 8 sold, either. Won't someone please think of the puppies?
Whoosh, whoosh-ity whoosh.
What new technology? The article doesn't go into any details, so for all we know it was a student in a library reading a paper book who spotted it.
1/64 will be slightly more blurry (it's a slower shutter speed then 1/96), but it makes a good compromise when it's quite likely that there will be 24fps versions of the film (either for standard cinemas or for Blu-ray release).