This is a bit like TV that has a frame rate of 30 (29.97) but a field rate of 60 (59.94) because it's interlaced.
Perhaps you're not explaining yourself clearly, but it's not like that at all. Interlaced video really does have twice the temporal resolution (at the cost of vertical resolution) - the eye isn't being made to believe anything that isn't true.
Faster frame rates require higher shutter speeds, and higher shutter speeds decrease motion blur. This can make footage look stroboscopic-like and unpleasant.
I noticed this years ago in televised (American) Football. Some shots appeared smooth, while other shots appeared harsh and stroboscopic.
As long as the shutter speed is kept the same relative to the frame rate, this won't be an issue. What you may have been seeing were some of the high-speed cameras being used at normal framerates inbetween slow-mo replays - the same thing can be seen at Wimbledon.
Not sure what they'll do if they decide they need a "downsampled" 24fps version of The Hobbit, though.
Actually the "motion blur gap" is only half the width you think it is - in the olden days the shutter would be closed for half the time to allow the film to spool on, so each frame is a snapshot of 1/48th of a second.
Shooting at 48fps, I would expect them to aim for a 1/96s shutter speed. I've worked on motion graphics at 50fps, and 100% motion blur still looks bad at the higher frame rate - 50% looks perfect.
Increasing motion blur to 1/16s on a 48fps shoot would be a complete mess.
So 24fps would give you 1/48th shutter speed (half open half closed) meaning the motion blur for 48fps digital vs 24fps film should be the same, which explains why they picked 48fps - it afforded them the option to do either 48fps, slow motion or 24fps in post without giving anything up (except disk space).
Actually, having worked on 50fps digital effects (albeit nothing fancy), you still need to aim for the half-open/half-closed rate, otherwise it's still too much blur. So at 48fps you should be shooting with 1/96th shutter speed.
The entire reason they went to 48fps was to try and reduce eye strain during 3D movies. They seem to have forgotten that a 72 refresh rate with a 24 frame rate will do the same thing.
Yep, you're right, and Oscar-winning directors Peter Jackson and James Cameron are wrong.
What's really beautiful about this situation is the inexorably awkward position he's put the MPAA in. The money won't let them condone, public opinion will never forgive them if they decry.
*Spins around in a phonebox and becomes... Captain Pedantic!*
A recently reported flaw that allowed an attacker to drastically reduce the number of attempts needed to guess the WPS PIN of a wireless router isn't necessary for some Arcadyan based routers anymore.
Not necessary for what? That alone took me a while to figure it.
According to German computer publisher Heise, some 100,000 routers of type Speedport W921V, W504V and W723V are affected in Germany alone.
Affected by the flaw you've just mentioned above? The one that isn't necessary?
What makes things worse is the fact that in order to exploit the backdoor,
I still hadn't seen any mention of a second flaw, so on first reading it seemed like the backdoor is the same unnecessary flaw as mentioned above. I finally realised that there's an old flaw and a new flaw - or at least I think what's trying to be said...
Only when Victor told them which particles were entangled could they sort their data sets into entangled and non- and see that in fact the entangled set showed the expected correlation.
So no, it sounds like he can't send messages back in time.
"SoC", to me, was utterly without meaning. For the want of half a second of typing, an editor could have given those of us who don't know all the acronyms under the Sun at least an inkling of what the article was about. If "SoC" was a secondary term in a quote from a source, or something (such as "ANSI C" in the summary), I'd be less peeved, but when it's exactly what the article is about, I don't think it's too much to ask.
Just take a look at the Sport pages on the BBC News website - not as niche as Slashdot, but you'd tend not to go there unless you had an interest in sport. And yet we see snippets such as this all around:
Chelsea striker Fernando Torres
Premier League footballer Steven Pienaar
Liverpool's Luis Suarez
I wouldn't have the first idea of who these people played for out of context, but the BBC have made it simple and clear with just a few extra words.
It just seems obvious to me that it would be good journalistic style to go that little extra millimetre to make something which you want people to read easy to read, rather than turning one's nose up at anyone too dumb to understand an article about an unexplained acronym.
Also, if you really feel that a subject line should tell you whether or not you need to read something
As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I feel a good subject line should tell you.
Or can we expect our ANSI C code to be automagically implemented in a SoC in such a short time?
How about you tell us what SoC stands for first? Once again, editors, we don't all know everything about everything in the tech world. Some of us come here to learn new things, and you guys don't make it easy. TFS should at least leave me with an impression of whether or not I need to read the TFA.
The GP refers to slashvertisements for Kickstarter, not an appeal for funds through Kickstarter. Not that I agree with the GP; The article is Slashdot-worthy anyway, and the Kickstarter reference is relevant. But his beef is with what he perceives to be an ad, not an appeal.
There may still be those being cable-fed with modulated analogue versions of digital channels from a distribution cupboard (happens at my place if you don't have satellite, because there's no terrestrial reception behind the hill), and other cases where 888 subs are relied upon.
What's wrong with them installing a camera in every room in your house and monitoring you 24/7, taking a direct line into your plumbing to monitor the chemical composition of your bowel movements and storing meticulous notes on your sexual activity in a database (depersonalised in six months, made dormant in five years)?
The US DHS get my details and my fingerprints when I go through immigration so what's wrong with them getting that stuff 10 hours earlier?
As others have pointed out, it's not clear that they won't be getting this information even if you're not going anywhere near the US.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a bit like TV that has a frame rate of 30 (29.97) but a field rate of 60 (59.94) because it's interlaced.
Perhaps you're not explaining yourself clearly, but it's not like that at all. Interlaced video really does have twice the temporal resolution (at the cost of vertical resolution) - the eye isn't being made to believe anything that isn't true.
Faster frame rates require higher shutter speeds, and higher shutter speeds decrease motion blur. This can make footage look stroboscopic-like and unpleasant. I noticed this years ago in televised (American) Football. Some shots appeared smooth, while other shots appeared harsh and stroboscopic.
As long as the shutter speed is kept the same relative to the frame rate, this won't be an issue. What you may have been seeing were some of the high-speed cameras being used at normal framerates inbetween slow-mo replays - the same thing can be seen at Wimbledon.
Not sure what they'll do if they decide they need a "downsampled" 24fps version of The Hobbit, though.
Actually the "motion blur gap" is only half the width you think it is - in the olden days the shutter would be closed for half the time to allow the film to spool on, so each frame is a snapshot of 1/48th of a second.
Shooting at 48fps, I would expect them to aim for a 1/96s shutter speed. I've worked on motion graphics at 50fps, and 100% motion blur still looks bad at the higher frame rate - 50% looks perfect.
Increasing motion blur to 1/16s on a 48fps shoot would be a complete mess.
Exactly what I was about to say. And you can (should!) turn it off.
So 24fps would give you 1/48th shutter speed (half open half closed) meaning the motion blur for 48fps digital vs 24fps film should be the same, which explains why they picked 48fps - it afforded them the option to do either 48fps, slow motion or 24fps in post without giving anything up (except disk space).
Actually, having worked on 50fps digital effects (albeit nothing fancy), you still need to aim for the half-open/half-closed rate, otherwise it's still too much blur. So at 48fps you should be shooting with 1/96th shutter speed.
The entire reason they went to 48fps was to try and reduce eye strain during 3D movies. They seem to have forgotten that a 72 refresh rate with a 24 frame rate will do the same thing.
Yep, you're right, and Oscar-winning directors Peter Jackson and James Cameron are wrong.
It's nice 'n' all, but... really? Most beautiful?
What's really beautiful about this situation is the inexorably awkward position he's put the MPAA in. The money won't let them condone, public opinion will never forgive them if they decry.
This stimulates the retina, sending electric signals along the optic nerve into the brain where they are decoded as vision.
This begs the question
Raises.
Sorry. I need help.
Ignoring your personal speculation about increasing the ad frequency, how is this a bait-and-switch?
A recently reported flaw that allowed an attacker to drastically reduce the number of attempts needed to guess the WPS PIN of a wireless router isn't necessary for some Arcadyan based routers anymore.
Not necessary for what? That alone took me a while to figure it.
According to German computer publisher Heise, some 100,000 routers of type Speedport W921V, W504V and W723V are affected in Germany alone.
Affected by the flaw you've just mentioned above? The one that isn't necessary?
What makes things worse is the fact that in order to exploit the backdoor,
I still hadn't seen any mention of a second flaw, so on first reading it seemed like the backdoor is the same unnecessary flaw as mentioned above. I finally realised that there's an old flaw and a new flaw - or at least I think what's trying to be said...
There is no "the current moment." Time is relative, lunchtime doubly so.
Only when Victor told them which particles were entangled could they sort their data sets into entangled and non- and see that in fact the entangled set showed the expected correlation.
So no, it sounds like he can't send messages back in time.
They're all male too - why didn't you pick up on that, you misogynist clod!
Wouldn't it be more interesting for Victor to entangle when Alice and Bob's polarizations aren't correlated? What would that mean?
Sorry, are you attempting to refute the possibility of such a feedback loop by pointing out that it hasn't happened yet?
Why not argue that bullets can't kill you because you've never been shot?
"SoC", to me, was utterly without meaning. For the want of half a second of typing, an editor could have given those of us who don't know all the acronyms under the Sun at least an inkling of what the article was about. If "SoC" was a secondary term in a quote from a source, or something (such as "ANSI C" in the summary), I'd be less peeved, but when it's exactly what the article is about, I don't think it's too much to ask.
Just take a look at the Sport pages on the BBC News website - not as niche as Slashdot, but you'd tend not to go there unless you had an interest in sport. And yet we see snippets such as this all around:
Chelsea striker Fernando Torres
Premier League footballer Steven Pienaar
Liverpool's Luis Suarez
I wouldn't have the first idea of who these people played for out of context, but the BBC have made it simple and clear with just a few extra words.
It just seems obvious to me that it would be good journalistic style to go that little extra millimetre to make something which you want people to read easy to read, rather than turning one's nose up at anyone too dumb to understand an article about an unexplained acronym.
Also, if you really feel that a subject line should tell you whether or not you need to read something
As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I feel a good subject line should tell you.
Or can we expect our ANSI C code to be automagically implemented in a SoC in such a short time?
How about you tell us what SoC stands for first? Once again, editors, we don't all know everything about everything in the tech world. Some of us come here to learn new things, and you guys don't make it easy. TFS should at least leave me with an impression of whether or not I need to read the TFA.
This is pure speculation on my part
...the Department of the Bleedin' Obvious.
The GP refers to slashvertisements for Kickstarter, not an appeal for funds through Kickstarter. Not that I agree with the GP; The article is Slashdot-worthy anyway, and the Kickstarter reference is relevant. But his beef is with what he perceives to be an ad, not an appeal.
So when's your Nobel Prize due to arrive?
And what Wikipedia actually says ("says" as in "reports", not "states as fact") is that
In 1959, Louise Volders demonstrated that spiral galaxy M33 does not spin as expected according to Keplerian dynamics
There may still be those being cable-fed with modulated analogue versions of digital channels from a distribution cupboard (happens at my place if you don't have satellite, because there's no terrestrial reception behind the hill), and other cases where 888 subs are relied upon.
The US DHS get my details and my fingerprints when I go through immigration so what's wrong with them getting that stuff 10 hours earlier?
As others have pointed out, it's not clear that they won't be getting this information even if you're not going anywhere near the US.
He didn't say it was his wife.