Assuming that IE implements the same feature, will sites use this? If clients can turn it off, I suspect that web sites won't trust it. This is something that is most accurately done on the server, and I think that's where it will stay.
You're right, of course. Everyone who's saying this is "obviously" intentional are jumping the gun in a big way. I've got $5 right here that says it's an accident.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
Assuming you have a DSLR, look at the histogram the next time you take a picture with highlights in it. Chances are you'll find a sharp spike of all-white pixels on the right edge of the histogram.
Film overloads gracefully. It's natural. We're used to the way highlights look on film. This graceful overload curve is called a shoulder. Even several stops above white film is still getting just a little bit whiter as you add more and more light to it. If you look at a histogram of a properly scanned film image you'll see it go back down to zero as it approaches 255 white. Color objects merely get less saturated as they gradually wash out to white.
Digital, including your point-and-shoot to DSLRs to $250,000 digital cinema cameras, are completely different. The highlights on digital head towards white (255) and simply clip as soon as they get there. Digital has no shoulder and there is no gradual overload. $250,000 digital cinema and video cameras sometimes have shoulder adjustments, but they don't do what film does. Every slightly overexposed digital shot shows a spike on the right (white or 255) side of the histogram. This spike counts all the pixels that pegged at 255.
That's an interesting comparison you've linked to, thanks. I agree that there are alot of factors that bring the practical MP resolution of typical 35mm usage down into the teens (or even lower) in many situations. However, I think that the 24MP figure is still a fair number to use when comparing the two formats under ideal conditions. It's certainly not accurate to claim flat out (as the OP did) that digital resolution has surpassed 35mm film. Maybe the best way to summarize the current situation is that resolution is no longer an important differentiator between the two formats.
Subjectively speaking I prefer digital images due to the color purity and "smoothness". The only thing that really bothers me about digital is the way that it blows out highlights (pixels go to #ffffff abruptly). I'm sure the industry will find a way to fix this one way or another.
One last point: The resolution argument is nearly moot for people (like me) who look at their photos online where screen resolution is limited to maybe 1600x1200 pixels max. The only time I long for more resolution is when I want to crop and enlarge a small portion of a shot -- but this does happen often enough that I lust for a new D200 to replace my D70.
I've spent a fair amount of time in a darkroom, and I have to disagree. I think Photoshop can do nearly everything you can do in a darkroom, plus much more.
My dad was a professional photog for years, and routinely worked miracles in the darkroom. He picked up Photoshop a few years ago and never looked back.
There's not really any data in the grain, but I agree that some grain looks better than others artistically. The noise generated by the Nikon D70 is particularly organic looking, IMHO.
Exactly. Keeping the current form factor and increasing the resolution means packing more pixels in the same area of sensor. This runs smack into fundamental problems with physics.
You can expect all you want, but you are going to be sorely disappointed. 25mp digicams that work with the form factor of existing consumer cameras and lenses will require a revolution in sensor technology.
The resolution... of the digital medium have surpassed that of the 35mm format
This just isn't true. I've switched to digital as well, but the resolution of 35mm film is roughly 24 megapixels. This is still 3x the resolution of the best consumer digicams.
Moreover, Moore's Law does not apply to the sensors used in digital cameras because they are essentially A/D converters. It will be very difficult to increase their resolution much further without introducing unacceptably high levels of noise.
The speed of light in a given medium, such as the vacuum of space, is constant. In a different medium, the speed of light is different, but still constant. Some exotic media (such as the one you link to) slow light remarkably, but that's not really relevant to this discussion.
>> The Singularity is the true point of destruction, the actual hole part of the black hole
> The event horizon is the methaphorical "hole in space"
Yeah, but an object isn't destroyed just by crossing the event horizon. In fact, for a sufficiently large black hole, you could cross the event horizon without noticing anything disruptive. Inside the black hole, GR works fine until you get near the singularity. What would actually kill you on the way down is the stretching effect of tidal forces.
Light emitted in the appropriate direction would orbit the black hole several times before entering/leaving the black hole, so... the distance it travels might not be what you expected
That's true, but it's not really germane to the OP's claim that light slows down near a black hole. Assuming for simplicity that the object is directly between the observer and the black hole, then the observer will simply see it fade into infrared.
so light being emitted from something almost at the Event Horizon but not yet inside the threshold takes a much longer time to escape and be seen by someone then it would in normal space going at 186,000 miles per second.
Not true. The speed of light is a constant, even near a black hole.
As I understand it, what actually happens to the light emitted by an object approaching an event horizon is that it gets increasingly red-shifted. So an observer at a safe distance would see the object "fade" into infrared and then into ever-longer radio waves until it crosses the horizon.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O
on
Adobe Lightroom Review
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I think most photographers enjoy working on their own photos.
If your time is so valuable, you could just hire a photographer to take the pictures for you and skip that chore as well.
I doubt consumers will want to upgrade all their DVDs as well, but that's not going to stop them from buying HD-DVDs when new movies come out.
Players will support both formats for a time and consumers will slowly switch to HD over time, perhaps without even realizing it. Upgrading a DVD player is even less of a big deal than upgrading a TV.
Even worse, I would think, since there's usually little written context available during an IM chat. Even humans have trouble comprehending without context.
Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. If and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the resource. If the media type remains unknown, the recipient SHOULD treat it as type "application/octet-stream".
That's great, but it's all irrelevant. The HTTP 1.1 protocol says that a browser shouldn't try to guess the MIME type of a document if it's specified by the server. IE ignores this and tries to guess the MIME type anyway.
Note the key difference between an OS (your example) and a browser (reality).
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming that IE implements the same feature, will sites use this? If clients can turn it off, I suspect that web sites won't trust it. This is something that is most accurately done on the server, and I think that's where it will stay.
You don't think incompetence can adequately explain this? If so, I think you vastly underestimate the "power" of incompetence. :-)
You're right, of course. Everyone who's saying this is "obviously" intentional are jumping the gun in a big way. I've got $5 right here that says it's an accident.
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
You're welcome.
Assuming you have a DSLR, look at the histogram the next time you take a picture with highlights in it. Chances are you'll find a sharp spike of all-white pixels on the right edge of the histogram.
I like Ken Rockwell's common sense take on photography. He's got some interesting comments on this topic here.
The text below is quoted from here: clicky
Film overloads gracefully. It's natural. We're used to the way highlights look on film. This graceful overload curve is called a shoulder. Even several stops above white film is still getting just a little bit whiter as you add more and more light to it. If you look at a histogram of a properly scanned film image you'll see it go back down to zero as it approaches 255 white. Color objects merely get less saturated as they gradually wash out to white.
Digital, including your point-and-shoot to DSLRs to $250,000 digital cinema cameras, are completely different. The highlights on digital head towards white (255) and simply clip as soon as they get there. Digital has no shoulder and there is no gradual overload. $250,000 digital cinema and video cameras sometimes have shoulder adjustments, but they don't do what film does. Every slightly overexposed digital shot shows a spike on the right (white or 255) side of the histogram. This spike counts all the pixels that pegged at 255.
That's an interesting comparison you've linked to, thanks. I agree that there are alot of factors that bring the practical MP resolution of typical 35mm usage down into the teens (or even lower) in many situations. However, I think that the 24MP figure is still a fair number to use when comparing the two formats under ideal conditions. It's certainly not accurate to claim flat out (as the OP did) that digital resolution has surpassed 35mm film. Maybe the best way to summarize the current situation is that resolution is no longer an important differentiator between the two formats.
Subjectively speaking I prefer digital images due to the color purity and "smoothness". The only thing that really bothers me about digital is the way that it blows out highlights (pixels go to #ffffff abruptly). I'm sure the industry will find a way to fix this one way or another.
One last point: The resolution argument is nearly moot for people (like me) who look at their photos online where screen resolution is limited to maybe 1600x1200 pixels max. The only time I long for more resolution is when I want to crop and enlarge a small portion of a shot -- but this does happen often enough that I lust for a new D200 to replace my D70.
I've spent a fair amount of time in a darkroom, and I have to disagree. I think Photoshop can do nearly everything you can do in a darkroom, plus much more.
My dad was a professional photog for years, and routinely worked miracles in the darkroom. He picked up Photoshop a few years ago and never looked back.
There's not really any data in the grain, but I agree that some grain looks better than others artistically. The noise generated by the Nikon D70 is particularly organic looking, IMHO.
Exactly. Keeping the current form factor and increasing the resolution means packing more pixels in the same area of sensor. This runs smack into fundamental problems with physics.
You can expect all you want, but you are going to be sorely disappointed. 25mp digicams that work with the form factor of existing consumer cameras and lenses will require a revolution in sensor technology.
The resolution ... of the digital medium have surpassed that of the 35mm format
This just isn't true. I've switched to digital as well, but the resolution of 35mm film is roughly 24 megapixels. This is still 3x the resolution of the best consumer digicams.
Moreover, Moore's Law does not apply to the sensors used in digital cameras because they are essentially A/D converters. It will be very difficult to increase their resolution much further without introducing unacceptably high levels of noise.
The speed of light in a given medium, such as the vacuum of space, is constant. In a different medium, the speed of light is different, but still constant. Some exotic media (such as the one you link to) slow light remarkably, but that's not really relevant to this discussion.
That makes sense, thanks.
Because the speed of light is constant in a vacuum. If you choose another medium, you get another (constant) speed of light.
Please read up on Special Relativity for more details.
>> The Singularity is the true point of destruction, the actual hole part of the black hole
> The event horizon is the methaphorical "hole in space"
Yeah, but an object isn't destroyed just by crossing the event horizon. In fact, for a sufficiently large black hole, you could cross the event horizon without noticing anything disruptive. Inside the black hole, GR works fine until you get near the singularity. What would actually kill you on the way down is the stretching effect of tidal forces.
Light emitted in the appropriate direction would orbit the black hole several times before entering/leaving the black hole, so ... the distance it travels might not be what you expected
That's true, but it's not really germane to the OP's claim that light slows down near a black hole. Assuming for simplicity that the object is directly between the observer and the black hole, then the observer will simply see it fade into infrared.
so light being emitted from something almost at the Event Horizon but not yet inside the threshold takes a much longer time to escape and be seen by someone then it would in normal space going at 186,000 miles per second.
Not true. The speed of light is a constant, even near a black hole.
As I understand it, what actually happens to the light emitted by an object approaching an event horizon is that it gets increasingly red-shifted. So an observer at a safe distance would see the object "fade" into infrared and then into ever-longer radio waves until it crosses the horizon.
I think most photographers enjoy working on their own photos.
If your time is so valuable, you could just hire a photographer to take the pictures for you and skip that chore as well.
I doubt consumers will want to upgrade all their DVDs as well, but that's not going to stop them from buying HD-DVDs when new movies come out.
Players will support both formats for a time and consumers will slowly switch to HD over time, perhaps without even realizing it. Upgrading a DVD player is even less of a big deal than upgrading a TV.
Okay, that is just plain funny.
Even worse, I would think, since there's usually little written context available during an IM chat. Even humans have trouble comprehending without context.
That's great, but it's all irrelevant. The HTTP 1.1 protocol says that a browser shouldn't try to guess the MIME type of a document if it's specified by the server. IE ignores this and tries to guess the MIME type anyway.
Note the key difference between an OS (your example) and a browser (reality).
It's not important. A related example: Of all the people who use SSL (or even TLS), what percent do so "knowingly"? Not alot, and who cares?