Not sure if you have noticed, but a desktop (a real one), even though 3D, is basicly a 2D interface. Most of any typical office is basicly a set of 2D interfaces in a 3D world. If we still choose to use 2D interfaces for the vast majority of tasks in our 3D world, then what possible advantage is there in creating 3D interfaces for most computer tasks?
The only time real documents in my real world are floating around in mid-air is when some idiot leaves the door open and a gust of wind blows them out of their nice, tidy pile.
Yes. What many of these things, from virtual desktops to whacked out 3D GUIs, are trying to do is find a way to organize and navigate the many windows we have nowdays.
And yes, I think ideas like Expose are heading in the right direction. Most of these "virtual" whatevers are not.
Exactly. I think we have our wires crossed. The original poster was saying that these particular cameras (not sure if it was refering to the APS ones or not) were not true panoramic cameras. Then the replying poster talked about print sizes, pressumably not understanding that there was to more panoramic photography than the dimensions of the film or prints.
Anyway. I'll stop now before I start to confuse myself.
Well, this guy is talking about panoramic cameras, not prints. Panoramic camera implies more than just cropping an image from am otherwise regular camera. I'm sure Google can help you out if you want more details on panoramic photography.
I disagree on that point. The director is composing the scenes to fit within that wide-screen format, and then MGM was recomposing the scenes and then re-cropping them.
But that's the whole point: They DIDN'T. If you had bothered to read some of the comments above you, you would have knowen this.
This is simply a case of the Slashdot "editors" being lazy again. If you read some of the above posts, a proper explanation is given. Yet people are still posting here about this because none of the editors have decided to clear up this misconception. So what we end up with is discussion board full of redundant and misleading information.
I see this happen all the time here. And I only ever see it here, because only Slashdot has "editors" that are such a joke. If this is the way they want to run Slashdot, they're more than welcome to--It's their site after all. But it still doesn't change the fact that it's done very badly.
That depends if you think that having more information in the image makes it better, or if the director's/cinimatographer's intended composition makes a better image.
Heh. I remember seeing that in Silence of the Lambs (or was it Red Dragon?). Probably quite realistic since it was an old jail, and they probably would never have imagined someone would know how to do such a thing.
For those of you who don't know the scene. Lector is handed a special phone inside his cell, with his lawyer or someone on the other end. It has no dialing pad/rotor. He hangs-up and then taps in the number he really wants.
I'm sure Mcguyver did this once. But then again, he could do anything.
In NZ our emergencey number is 111. So I guess if you tapped the hook a few times, you might just end up in quite the predicament. Harder to do with anything that has a 9 in it.
I listen to a lot of classical at the moment. One annoyance I find is that some parts will either be very quiet or will be mainly bass. When I'm on the bus or train it just ends up as silence. Try listening to Beethoven's 7th with reduced base. You'll end up missing the begining of the 2nd movment.
I travelled, I developed life-long hobbies. I tinkered with technology and developed new skill sets. I learned a lot about what true friendship was (and wasn't).
Then you weren't really wasting your time, were you?
Finally, IMHO, I've always thought that ATRAC sounds a hell of a lot better than MP3...
Finally, I work at an internationally known british media company, we have tried using MP3 players to record interviews etc, but have always found the quality unacceptable for broadcast, so have gone back to using minidisc recorders...
I suspect that in both these cases, it's simply a case of using the right encoder settings. If your MP3 player only records at 64Kb/s or whatever, then of course it's going to sound like crap. Nothing wrong with MP3 it's self though. Infact I'm pretty sure DVDs use MP3 for the soundtrack.
Take a look at a book - can you see the way the fonts are clearly rendered on the page? Now look at a web page - see the way they appear - that's your answer.
This is a monitor vs paper issue. CSS has nothing to do with it, and it shouldn't.
XHTML and CSS need standard fonts that display just as well as a font rendered in say for instance Macromedia Flash or an Acrobat PDF.
No they don't because most people will find it too blury and hard to read. And besides, this is a browser or OS issue, not a CSS one.
The current limited set of jagged unaliased fonts that CSS defines are not good enough.
I can define any font I want in CSS, and on my computer, they come out rendered the same, if not better than a PDF.
Remember, the web is not print, and is not supposed to be.
Awww... Looks like someone tried to learn XSL and couldn't get their head around it, then decided to call it garbage rather than admit to themselves that they're simply not smart enough to understand it.
LCDs do cause a certain amount of eyestrain...For some people.
One thing to watch is not to enable cleartype if you can help it - the blurryness causes your eyes to constantly try to compensate, which causes very bad eyestrain...For some people.
Why assume that just because you have a problem, that everyone else will, too? Esspecially when most experience the opposite?
I think it depends a lot of your LCD. The larger the pixels, or dot pitch, the more obvious the color fringing will be. My LCD at work has ClearType turned on, and I only notice the color fringing if I stick my face too close to the monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
The only time real documents in my real world are floating around in mid-air is when some idiot leaves the door open and a gust of wind blows them out of their nice, tidy pile.
Yes. What many of these things, from virtual desktops to whacked out 3D GUIs, are trying to do is find a way to organize and navigate the many windows we have nowdays.
And yes, I think ideas like Expose are heading in the right direction. Most of these "virtual" whatevers are not.
The whole thing looks like another silly hack--in the same vein as virtual desktops--rather than a proper method of grouping and using windows.
Atleast virtual desktops are quite usable for the people that want them.
Did you really expect the Slashdot editors to get off their asses and write an entire short description of what Skype is?! SHAME (on you)!
Anyway. I'll stop now before I start to confuse myself.
Well, this guy is talking about panoramic cameras, not prints. Panoramic camera implies more than just cropping an image from am otherwise regular camera. I'm sure Google can help you out if you want more details on panoramic photography.
But that's the whole point: They DIDN'T. If you had bothered to read some of the comments above you, you would have knowen this.
I see this happen all the time here. And I only ever see it here, because only Slashdot has "editors" that are such a joke. If this is the way they want to run Slashdot, they're more than welcome to--It's their site after all. But it still doesn't change the fact that it's done very badly.
That depends if you think that having more information in the image makes it better, or if the director's/cinimatographer's intended composition makes a better image.
I'm not sure journalist is the right word.
Except when there's a terrorist attack. Or something else that makes it onto the TV and can cause people to panic.
For those of you who don't know the scene. Lector is handed a special phone inside his cell, with his lawyer or someone on the other end. It has no dialing pad/rotor. He hangs-up and then taps in the number he really wants.
I'm sure Mcguyver did this once. But then again, he could do anything.
In NZ our emergencey number is 111. So I guess if you tapped the hook a few times, you might just end up in quite the predicament. Harder to do with anything that has a 9 in it.
I listen to a lot of classical at the moment. One annoyance I find is that some parts will either be very quiet or will be mainly bass. When I'm on the bus or train it just ends up as silence. Try listening to Beethoven's 7th with reduced base. You'll end up missing the begining of the 2nd movment.
Then you weren't really wasting your time, were you?
Infact, I think you missed the entire point of his article.
Of course, the deffinition of work that this article is talking about and the deffinition from that book you linked to are very differernt.
99% of people want to work. What the hell else are they going to do? Watch TV all day? Sleep? Most people get sick of those pretty damn quickly.
Finally, I work at an internationally known british media company, we have tried using MP3 players to record interviews etc, but have always found the quality unacceptable for broadcast, so have gone back to using minidisc recorders...
I suspect that in both these cases, it's simply a case of using the right encoder settings. If your MP3 player only records at 64Kb/s or whatever, then of course it's going to sound like crap. Nothing wrong with MP3 it's self though. Infact I'm pretty sure DVDs use MP3 for the soundtrack.
I'd say that's probably the reason. My work LCD is 17" at 1280x1024. Try it on a laptop, as they're usually higher density.
Yes. And that's all it's supposed to do.
Take a look at a book - can you see the way the fonts are clearly rendered on the page? Now look at a web page - see the way they appear - that's your answer.
This is a monitor vs paper issue. CSS has nothing to do with it, and it shouldn't.
XHTML and CSS need standard fonts that display just as well as a font rendered in say for instance Macromedia Flash or an Acrobat PDF.
No they don't because most people will find it too blury and hard to read. And besides, this is a browser or OS issue, not a CSS one.
The current limited set of jagged unaliased fonts that CSS defines are not good enough.
I can define any font I want in CSS, and on my computer, they come out rendered the same, if not better than a PDF.
Remember, the web is not print, and is not supposed to be.
Awww... Looks like someone tried to learn XSL and couldn't get their head around it, then decided to call it garbage rather than admit to themselves that they're simply not smart enough to understand it.
May I ask what you are on about? CSS doesn't render any fonts. The OS still renders the fonts. And what issue is there with default fonts exactly?
One thing to watch is not to enable cleartype if you can help it - the blurryness causes your eyes to constantly try to compensate, which causes very bad eyestrain...For some people.
Why assume that just because you have a problem, that everyone else will, too? Esspecially when most experience the opposite?
People buy LCDs because they are crisp, don't take up much space, and don't flicker.
I think it depends a lot of your LCD. The larger the pixels, or dot pitch, the more obvious the color fringing will be. My LCD at work has ClearType turned on, and I only notice the color fringing if I stick my face too close to the monitor.