I beg to differ too. For the same (top of the line) price you can get a laptop with a Core I7, 16GB of RAM (if not 32GB), 1TB HDD + MSATA SSD (expandable to a RAID0) and a REAL DEDICATED GPU.
Where is the advantage in having a tablet if they are just leaving it on their desks?
Tabs On Top -- No thanks, I want my tabs below the URL bar, where God intended them to be.
That's because you are not using your brain. It makes strictly NO SENSE to have the address bar on top of the tab bar. For each tab in the bar, I expect the info of the particular page to be WITHIN the tab not somewhere else (like, on top).
And, on a side note, I hate the fact that the searches are common to all tab on the same basis as previously.
For a 3m floor height, I find about 27.5G, at least.
45mph => 20.12 m.s^-1
a t_m = 20.12 m.s^-1 a t_m^2 = (3m / 2) (max acceleration obtained at half the floor height).
=> a = 20.12^2 / (3 / 2) \approx 270 m.s^-2 / or 27.5 earth G (G = 9.8 m.s^-2)
Where the limit of the human body for such vertical acceleration seems to be between 2,3G and 5G, depending if you are going up or down... but I haven't tested that myself).
Don't get me wrong, I agree on the effect you are mentioning ("forced blur"). The effect I am talking about really bothers me (as you don't feel the re-focus on object which are clearly at a different distance because of the different stereoscopic separation).
You are probably right as the first might be worse than the last. I am just saying that stereo 3D (with a fixed field, as a cinema screen or a TV) is not able to render a good illusion of a real 3D world.
Let the 3D provide the depth, and let the viewer selectively focus.
Selectively focus on? On the screen of the theater??? Everything will be in-focus at the same time, which would contradict the stereo depth... Thus, the brain would also get dizzy... No solution here, dump stereo 3D...
This is not about photography. This is about Optics. All cameras are different. And If you think that the camera types you would use, with their sensor size norms, aperture norms, quality norms, are the only one in the world : you are wrong.
DoF has no link to FoV. Hence, having an APS-C or Full-Frame sensor does not change the DoF. It just barely changes your "feeling" of it, because of the larger FoV.
And you know why it will never exists? Because the shallowness of the DoF is determined by the diameter of the aperture AND you cannot simply put a diameter larger than a few mm on these devices. This compared to the 30mm~70mm entrance aperture of the objectives on current DSLRs.
That's why they are trying the computational way...
The thing that's the self-convolution of the pupil function is the point spread function (g(theta) in my example from a few posts back).
Wrong. The Point Spread Function (in the case of incoherent imaging) is the magnitude squared of the Fourier Transform of the pupil function.
You can read : Born & Wolf, Principle of Optics, Chapter 8, Section 5 : "Fraunhofer Diffraction at apertures of various forms" (see here, starting p436).
For the case of an ideal, top-hat shaped pupil function, the point spread function will fall to zero, and stay zero, at theta = 2*theta_pupil.
Wrong. In that case, the PSF will be similar to the Airy pattern (circular aperture) or a Cardinal Sine function (square/rectangular aperture). Both have unlimited support (see previous book reference).
Right. And the Fourier transform of a function with an unlimited support in the direct space has a limited support in Fourier space.
Hence, while the optical transfer function will never fall to zero in this case (or any other case with a sharp edge to the pupil function), except for occasional zero crossings.
Wrong. The PSF has unlimited support, thus the OTF (and MTF) has limited support.
Slashdot Mirror
I beg to differ too. For the same (top of the line) price you can get a laptop with a Core I7, 16GB of RAM (if not 32GB), 1TB HDD + MSATA SSD (expandable to a RAID0) and a REAL DEDICATED GPU.
Where is the advantage in having a tablet if they are just leaving it on their desks?
Mod parent up, and see Detection of Earth-like planets around nearby stars using a petal-shaped occulter (probably pay-walled), or Starshades (simple explanation) for further details.
Not sure if limited only to Open Source Desktop Environment...
Put 1090 atmospheres or add 1125 Kg/cm^2... Not everyone is using an archaic unit system. Actually, only very few are...
Thank you,
Right click -> "View Page Source" or "View Selection Source"
(in FF for at least 5 years)
You ARE a *RETARD*.
If your bank is pushing the use of Flash, you *SERIOUSLY* need to consider changing from establishment.
Group your tabs, CTRL+SHIFT+E.
Tabs On Top -- No thanks, I want my tabs below the URL bar, where God intended them to be.
That's because you are not using your brain. It makes strictly NO SENSE to have the address bar on top of the tab bar. For each tab in the bar, I expect the info of the particular page to be WITHIN the tab not somewhere else (like, on top).
And, on a side note, I hate the fact that the searches are common to all tab on the same basis as previously.
...dying *crushed* together.
FTFY
True!
Still a bad-ass acceleration though...
Some trouble with the 'Reply To This' function, I see...
For a 3m floor height, I find about 27.5G, at least.
45mph => 20.12 m.s^-1
a t_m = 20.12 m.s^-1
a t_m^2 = (3m / 2) (max acceleration obtained at half the floor height).
=> a = 20.12^2 / (3 / 2) \approx 270 m.s^-2 / or 27.5 earth G (G = 9.8 m.s^-2)
Where the limit of the human body for such vertical acceleration seems to be between 2,3G and 5G, depending if you are going up or down... but I haven't tested that myself).
Ok, back to work now...
Don't get me wrong, I agree on the effect you are mentioning ("forced blur"). The effect I am talking about really bothers me (as you don't feel the re-focus on object which are clearly at a different distance because of the different stereoscopic separation).
You are probably right as the first might be worse than the last. I am just saying that stereo 3D (with a fixed field, as a cinema screen or a TV) is not able to render a good illusion of a real 3D world.
Let the 3D provide the depth, and let the viewer selectively focus.
Selectively focus on? On the screen of the theater???
Everything will be in-focus at the same time, which would contradict the stereo depth... Thus, the brain would also get dizzy...
No solution here, dump stereo 3D...
Should have been :
Harder,
Better,
Faster,
Sronger
tutututut...
Yeah but now you are at f/8, not f/2 anymore. So you lose a great deal of energy (interesting for low light scenes).
Re-read your original comment and find the missing "for a given [...] field".
The claims. The previous claims are only about optics. I am not talking about the content of the article (yet)...
I feel sad for you now...
This is not about photography. This is about Optics.
All cameras are different. And If you think that the camera types you would use, with their sensor size norms, aperture norms, quality norms, are the only one in the world : you are wrong.
The smaller the sensor size, the shallower the depth of field for a given focal ratio.
Hahahaha, but no.
DoF has no link to FoV. Hence, having an APS-C or Full-Frame sensor does not change the DoF. It just barely changes your "feeling" of it, because of the larger FoV.
And you know why it will never exists? Because the shallowness of the DoF is determined by the diameter of the aperture AND you cannot simply put a diameter larger than a few mm on these devices. This compared to the 30mm~70mm entrance aperture of the objectives on current DSLRs.
That's why they are trying the computational way...
That's why I prefer the Mathematical "nothing" : the empty set has all properties.
No problem. I know how difficult it is to "bridge" the multiple scientific domains required for today's projects.
The thing that's the self-convolution of the pupil function is the point spread function (g(theta) in my example from a few posts back).
Wrong. The Point Spread Function (in the case of incoherent imaging) is the magnitude squared of the Fourier Transform of the pupil function.
You can read : Born & Wolf, Principle of Optics, Chapter 8, Section 5 : "Fraunhofer Diffraction at apertures of various forms" (see here, starting p436).
For the case of an ideal, top-hat shaped pupil function, the point spread function will fall to zero, and stay zero, at theta = 2*theta_pupil.
Wrong. In that case, the PSF will be similar to the Airy pattern (circular aperture) or a Cardinal Sine function (square/rectangular aperture). Both have unlimited support (see previous book reference).
And the Fourier transform of a function with limited support has unlimited support in Fourier space.
Right. And the Fourier transform of a function with an unlimited support in the direct space has a limited support in Fourier space.
Hence, while the optical transfer function will never fall to zero in this case (or any other case with a sharp edge to the pupil function), except for occasional zero crossings.
Wrong. The PSF has unlimited support, thus the OTF (and MTF) has limited support.