Unavoidable diffraction effects are certainly the "universal speed limit" when it comes to photographic resolution.
However, the Canon 1Ds of course could benefit from more pixels.
For one thing, it's got a Bayer? sensor, so it doesnt have Red, Green, and Blue sensing at every single pixel. That could be improved (like Foveon is trying), or the Bayer arranged sensor could be made more dense.
For a second thing, as with any Nyquist arrangement, you would want your pixels to be under 1/2 the size of the airy disc in order to fully resolve the lens capabilities on a sensor.
I'm sorry to tell you, but you are just plain wrong. Does your camera exceed the laws of physics? Can your lenses somehow focus a point-like source of light to an abnormally small airy disc? The answer is NO.
Realize that the Canon 1Ds has pixels that are SMALLER than the airy disc size at almost all f/stops. You simply cannot achieve better resolution with the lenses available.
Believe what you want about your 135 film, but it takes APERTURE to shrink the airy disc and improve the true image resolution. As far as 35mm film goes, the 11 megapixel 1Ds can image ANYTHING that comes through the lens.
The same is true for my 6 megapixel D60, but only at smaller aperture f/stops.
For sure though, for many moon now we see the white man with power hungry backlighting.
Perhaps this "White LED" you talk of is making the backlighting situation better, but remember what happened when we befriended the White Man. He brought us blankets which made our people sick. I say we should attack this White LED on sight!
It's really the OLED display thats innovative. (As you might hae gathered from the slashdot article title.)
On typical cameras and monitors, any color LCD display will require a big bright power-hungry light source running behind the LCD to make it glow.
But not in this camera, the Organic LED (read light EMITTING diode) actually glow ! There is no need for a big power hungry light source, since the individual pixels generate light.
How to do it privately.
on
NYT on RFID Tags
·
· Score: 4, Informative
A certain chain of stores up here in Alaska allow one to stuff their cart to bustin', then walk up to a U-Check-Out stand.
You scan all the items yourself and you can even pay by cash if you want, the machine has a bill acceptor. The checkout stands even have the sensormatic deal, so you can cancel an items tendancy to set off the "I'm Stealing" beep at the door.
Mainly because my 3 yr old digs it so much. Lets play Dragons Lair. Lets play Dragons Lair. The kid tells his mom, "You're Daphne, I'm Dirk" and he proceeds to rescue here from me.
I think the game surpasses the original, (given proper allowances for what years they were both created.) Dragons Lair 3D allows Dirk freedom of movement, he can go anywhere basically, jumping, rolling, crouching, sneaking, climbing, swinging his sword, running etc. I find the idea much more enjoyable than a "go left, right left left up left right left to survive" type game.
The graphics arent up with the latest "Unreal 2" type lighting, etc. but who cares. They are 3D accelerated and the textures look good and Dirk himself and the cartoony characters look great.
The frustrating aspect of the game is the level bosses, sometimes they are so hard to figure out that you pretty much "throw down the mouse" and say "screw it, I'm not going to try for a 500th time today to beat the smithey" (HOW do you beat the Smithey?)
Dirk gets cool "essences" along the way from various level bosses, dragon wings to help him fly, spirit to keep him alive, eyes to let him see secret doors.
Overall, I give it an "A", with a "B-" for the level bosses and having to determine each of their secret formulas for whippin their butts.
Here is the associated press release from Intel about the HT in 3 Ghz P4's. I have seen screenshots of Windows task manager showing (2) CPU performance graphs.
I have to say, bought three of these Seagate Barracuda IV's with the new fluid bearings, and they are extremely quiet. I wouldn't see one of these drives raising anyones hackles. Hell, have you heard how loud some DVD players are?? I've got a couple that the entire chassis vibrates!
I dont think it would evolve like that.. Microsoft wouldn't choose to sniff through the data, i.e. in this case bank accounts and records. Instead, Microsoft would sniff out which program applications are in widespread use in the public, and then undermine it somehow. (By O/S patches or by releasing competing software.)
> The grain is the limiting factor in film resolution.
Many times that is true, but keep in mind that for a wide variety of situations, diffraction is the limiting factor. Diffraction! The inescapable wave nature of light interacting with your lens aperture. Any lens with an aperture (all!) are subject to the effect. Diffraction prevents a lens from achieving a perfect focus spot. Instead, any one point of an image diffracts to cover a small disc, the airy disc. In MANY shooting situations, the airy disc is bigger than film grains, and much bigger than digital camera pixels. At that point, smaller pixels dont help any furthur. As most know, the furthur you stop down a lens, the greater the depth of field becomes, but at cost -- the airy disc size increases with each reduction in aperture.
I think this is wrong. Jupiters moon Io, and most other moons in our solar system, have locked faces with their planets. However, the immense tidal forces continue, and that is what is responsible for Io's great vulcanism for example.
This stuff may be good for the daytime, when your pupils are dialated small, and you are looking through the tiny center of your eyes lens.
However, as an amateur astronomer, I have read many times about what this surgery means for night vision, when your pupils dialate wide and you use a significant portion of your lens.
The general concensus? It destroys night time vision accuracy. The surgeons cant correct very well for "off axis" aberrations and astigmatisms. People report lots of flare coming off lights at night, and generally, worse vision as your eyes become accomodated to the dark.
There is no question these techniques are getting better, but if someone opts for year 2002 technology, I think they might be ruining some stuff they may or may not be aware of.
Huh?? No.. they've increased transfer rates by operating independant DDR systems with different phase clocks. No one said anything about adding capacity. The "Quad" here means "Four", not anything to do with quadrature modulation of DDR bits!
It's a great place..
on
Skydriving
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Using Windows 2000, I downloaded the verion checker to check my A03, it said "You need to upgrade." So I downloaded and ran the upgrader, it finished in maybe a minute. No hitches, no problems, no implosions.
with lens photography there is infinate amount of raw data
This statement is simply not true. Any lens system is ultimately limited by diffraction, and you cant get away from it. No lens can completely focus anything, there will always be diffraction effects which act to blur fine detail at some level.
Additionally, film is a poor way to judge any systems detail/resolution, since film grains or dye clouds in slides have a finite size that is definitely larger than the pixels in todays modern CCD cameras.
Film has one thing going for it, it is available in large sizes.
Ultimately, the 11 megapixel cameras $6000 price will keep it mostly in the hands of people who need the resolution -- those people making large prints.
Slashdot Mirror
I am talking a bit of trash there.
Unavoidable diffraction effects are certainly the "universal speed limit" when it comes to photographic resolution.
However, the Canon 1Ds of course could benefit from more pixels.
For one thing, it's got a Bayer? sensor, so it doesnt have Red, Green, and Blue sensing at every single pixel. That could be improved (like Foveon is trying), or the Bayer arranged sensor could be made more dense.
For a second thing, as with any Nyquist arrangement, you would want your pixels to be under 1/2 the size of the airy disc in order to fully resolve the lens capabilities on a sensor.
I'm sorry to tell you, but you are just plain wrong. Does your camera exceed the laws of physics? Can your lenses somehow focus a point-like source of light to an abnormally small airy disc? The answer is NO.
Realize that the Canon 1Ds has pixels that are SMALLER than the airy disc size at almost all f/stops. You simply cannot achieve better resolution with the lenses available.
Believe what you want about your 135 film, but it takes APERTURE to shrink the airy disc and improve the true image resolution. As far as 35mm film goes, the 11 megapixel 1Ds can image ANYTHING that comes through the lens.
The same is true for my 6 megapixel D60, but only at smaller aperture f/stops.
You make many good points, Tonto.
For sure though, for many moon now we see the white man with power hungry backlighting.
Perhaps this "White LED" you talk of is making the backlighting situation better, but remember what happened when we befriended the White Man. He brought us blankets which made our people sick. I say we should attack this White LED on sight!
It's really the OLED display thats innovative. (As you might hae gathered from the slashdot article title.)
On typical cameras and monitors, any color LCD display will require a big bright power-hungry light source running behind the LCD to make it glow.
But not in this camera, the Organic LED (read light EMITTING diode) actually glow ! There is no need for a big power hungry light source, since the individual pixels generate light.
You scan all the items yourself and you can even pay by cash if you want, the machine has a bill acceptor. The checkout stands even have the sensormatic deal, so you can cancel an items tendancy to set off the "I'm Stealing" beep at the door.
Here's a pic of one, with an article I havent read
Thank You, GrimJack. Mine was a brainfart... I forgot to use "block".
(FYI)
Mainly because my 3 yr old digs it so much. Lets play Dragons Lair. Lets play Dragons Lair. The kid tells his mom, "You're Daphne, I'm Dirk" and he proceeds to rescue here from me.
I think the game surpasses the original, (given proper allowances for what years they were both created.) Dragons Lair 3D allows Dirk freedom of movement, he can go anywhere basically, jumping, rolling, crouching, sneaking, climbing, swinging his sword, running etc. I find the idea much more enjoyable than a "go left, right left left up left right left to survive" type game.
The graphics arent up with the latest "Unreal 2" type lighting, etc. but who cares. They are 3D accelerated and the textures look good and Dirk himself and the cartoony characters look great.
The frustrating aspect of the game is the level bosses, sometimes they are so hard to figure out that you pretty much "throw down the mouse" and say "screw it, I'm not going to try for a 500th time today to beat the smithey" (HOW do you beat the Smithey?)
Dirk gets cool "essences" along the way from various level bosses, dragon wings to help him fly, spirit to keep him alive, eyes to let him see secret doors.
Overall, I give it an "A", with a "B-" for the level bosses and having to determine each of their secret formulas for whippin their butts.
Here is the associated press release from Intel about the HT in 3 Ghz P4's. I have seen screenshots of Windows task manager showing (2) CPU performance graphs.
Xeon folks arent having the only fun. The 3 Ghz Pentium 4 is also hyperthreaded for that crunchy flavor and great taste.
>What did you plan on doing with an Atari ST and
> a 20 MB HD that was worth $985?
> That's not a troll, I'm sincerely curious.
I had this drive also. You do the typical -- you pack the thing with 256 color dithered porn and warez that fit on (3) 720k floppies.
I have to say, bought three of these Seagate Barracuda IV's with the new fluid bearings, and they are extremely quiet. I wouldn't see one of these drives raising anyones hackles. Hell, have you heard how loud some DVD players are?? I've got a couple that the entire chassis vibrates!
Doesnt Amazon have a patent on this??
(groan)
Show us some JPEGs... Isnt anyone curious what the output looks like?
I dont think it would evolve like that.. Microsoft wouldn't choose to sniff through the data, i.e. in this case bank accounts and records. Instead, Microsoft would sniff out which program applications are in widespread use in the public, and then undermine it somehow. (By O/S patches or by releasing competing software.)
> The grain is the limiting factor in film resolution.
Many times that is true, but keep in mind that for a wide variety of situations, diffraction is the limiting factor. Diffraction! The inescapable wave nature of light interacting with your lens aperture. Any lens with an aperture (all!) are subject to the effect. Diffraction prevents a lens from achieving a perfect focus spot. Instead, any one point of an image diffracts to cover a small disc, the airy disc. In MANY shooting situations, the airy disc is bigger than film grains, and much bigger than digital camera pixels. At that point, smaller pixels dont help any furthur. As most know, the furthur you stop down a lens, the greater the depth of field becomes, but at cost -- the airy disc size increases with each reduction in aperture.
Yeah? Well, the hubble is a optical telescope, and planets aren't optical sources. They can reflect light though.
I think this is wrong. Jupiters moon Io, and most other moons in our solar system, have locked faces with their planets. However, the immense tidal forces continue, and that is what is responsible for Io's great vulcanism for example.
This stuff may be good for the daytime, when your pupils are dialated small, and you are looking through the tiny center of your eyes lens.
However, as an amateur astronomer, I have read many times about what this surgery means for night vision, when your pupils dialate wide and you use a significant portion of your lens.
The general concensus? It destroys night time vision accuracy. The surgeons cant correct very well for "off axis" aberrations and astigmatisms. People report lots of flare coming off lights at night, and generally, worse vision as your eyes become accomodated to the dark.
There is no question these techniques are getting better, but if someone opts for year 2002 technology, I think they might be ruining some stuff they may or may not be aware of.
Toba Khedoori's Drawings. She is one of the chosen.
The UNIVERSE IS GREEN !
Wait...
The UNIVERSE IS TAN !
Huh?? No.. they've increased transfer rates by operating independant DDR systems with different phase clocks. No one said anything about adding capacity. The "Quad" here means "Four", not anything to do with quadrature modulation of DDR bits!
...to wake up a drunk friend.
Using Windows 2000, I downloaded the verion checker to check my A03, it said "You need to upgrade." So I downloaded and ran the upgrader, it finished in maybe a minute. No hitches, no problems, no implosions.
This statement is simply not true. Any lens system is ultimately limited by diffraction, and you cant get away from it. No lens can completely focus anything, there will always be diffraction effects which act to blur fine detail at some level.
Additionally, film is a poor way to judge any systems detail/resolution, since film grains or dye clouds in slides have a finite size that is definitely larger than the pixels in todays modern CCD cameras.
Film has one thing going for it, it is available in large sizes.
Ultimately, the 11 megapixel cameras $6000 price will keep it mostly in the hands of people who need the resolution -- those people making large prints.