Why does this picture look like a very basic computer simulation of a lump of rock, and nothing at all like a photo. How was the picture actually taken?
Hold on a second... So if I leave my bicycle unlocked outside my house, you are perfectly free to come along and steal it because I don't care enough to lock it up?
I take photos for a living, and whilst what the article said is a simplification, it is also generally true.
As you no doubt know, depth of field is controlled by three factors, the aperture, the distance to subject, and the focal length of the lens being used. In this case we must assume that the distance to the subject is the same for both cameras, which leaves the other two variables to determine what happens. Standard digital cameras do tend to have apertures which do not go as small as SLRs, typically they go down to only f/8, compared to SLR lenses whoch go down routinely to f/22. However, apertures below f/16 are very rarely used, because of diffraction causing poor image quality, and theres not a huge difference in DOF when going to f/22.
So this leaves focal length as the last point. Due to the much, much smaller chips used in standard cameras, the focal lengths of the lenses tend to be hugely smaller than on an SLR, for the same angle of view (aka zoom to you). Often the lenses are somewhere around the 2-8mm range, compared to ~18mm being the lowest standard lens with SLRs. This difference in focal lengths used has an enourmous effect on the DOF which is achieved, and is the main reason why the article is correct in saying SLRs create photos with less DOF than standard cameras.
Of course, you knew that anyway
Ok, I'll name one. The Saab 9-3. This comes in three tunes, 1.8, 2.0 and 2.0T. Strangely, given the naming, they all use the same turbo charged 2 litre engines, but they run 150, 175 and 210bhp respectively. The 150 and 175 have exactly the same mechanicals, but the boost pressures are 0.5 bar and 0.7 bar respectively. Look here for more information.
Also, as I think someone else has mentioned, the VAG group small diesels also do the same.
It's light-years, not light-miles. Not comparable.
No. Light miles is a unit of time (ie, the amount of time it takes for light to travel one mile), so it would be valid to say that I am 3 million light miles old, but not 3 million light-years.
I know, that is why I am confused. The article summary says
But the James E. Webb space telescope, currently under construction, and scheduled to be launched in 2011, will be able to see even further and catch phenomena which happened 13.5 billion light-years ago
People usually talk in terms of countries, so what are the ISO people using Great Britain for, I wonder?
Probably avoiding using UK, which is the Ukraine. I would imagine it is easier to use GB which is definately relevant, whereas finding another abbreviation for the Ukraine would be a pain.
I don't see any reason why there should be regulation. It's not as if customer data is stored on the ATMs, it is all stored back in the central bank servers, which presumably are a lot more secure. So if there is a problem with the ATM and someone can get money out of it by hacking, then its only going to hurt the bank, and not individual customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to be pedantic, but doesn't it look much more like a ravioli than an empanada or a gyoza?
OK, but the detail still looks undefined - was it taken from a long way away, and this is a crop on the file?
Why does this picture look like a very basic computer simulation of a lump of rock, and nothing at all like a photo. How was the picture actually taken?
You have to blink whilst doing the selfie, to make sure it isn't a photo http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tech...
unlimited ammo, no jamming, perfect accuracy, adjustable power
still, you raise an interesting point
how's that different to 2D movies where the background is out of focus?
i think he meant $0055 million
I have one of these with 4x750GB seagate drives. I get 35mb/sec read and about 15-20 write. I'm using OSX on AFS and SMB shares
hence the idea of having a great big rock as a counterweight
like the moon?
those who understand binary and those who don't
it orders a drink and sits down. After a few minutes it starts weeping. the barman is concerned so he asks what is wrong.
"I've lost an electron"
"Really, are you sure?"
"Yes! I'm positive!"
which one slides off first?
.
.
.
The one with the smaller Mu
Stop buying me those Barbra Streisand DVDs for God's sake!
Hold on a second... So if I leave my bicycle unlocked outside my house, you are perfectly free to come along and steal it because I don't care enough to lock it up?
one handed surfing?
I take photos for a living, and whilst what the article said is a simplification, it is also generally true. As you no doubt know, depth of field is controlled by three factors, the aperture, the distance to subject, and the focal length of the lens being used. In this case we must assume that the distance to the subject is the same for both cameras, which leaves the other two variables to determine what happens. Standard digital cameras do tend to have apertures which do not go as small as SLRs, typically they go down to only f/8, compared to SLR lenses whoch go down routinely to f/22. However, apertures below f/16 are very rarely used, because of diffraction causing poor image quality, and theres not a huge difference in DOF when going to f/22. So this leaves focal length as the last point. Due to the much, much smaller chips used in standard cameras, the focal lengths of the lenses tend to be hugely smaller than on an SLR, for the same angle of view (aka zoom to you). Often the lenses are somewhere around the 2-8mm range, compared to ~18mm being the lowest standard lens with SLRs. This difference in focal lengths used has an enourmous effect on the DOF which is achieved, and is the main reason why the article is correct in saying SLRs create photos with less DOF than standard cameras. Of course, you knew that anyway
...to BMW 2002 or greater
Are you aware that a 2002 BMW (what you meant to say), and a BMW 2002 are two very different things?
Ok, I'll name one. The Saab 9-3. This comes in three tunes, 1.8, 2.0 and 2.0T. Strangely, given the naming, they all use the same turbo charged 2 litre engines, but they run 150, 175 and 210bhp respectively. The 150 and 175 have exactly the same mechanicals, but the boost pressures are 0.5 bar and 0.7 bar respectively. Look here for more information.
Also, as I think someone else has mentioned, the VAG group small diesels also do the same.
Here is a copy of the photo, as the site is S L O W at the moment
It's light-years, not light-miles. Not comparable.
No. Light miles is a unit of time (ie, the amount of time it takes for light to travel one mile), so it would be valid to say that I am 3 million light miles old, but not 3 million light-years.
I know, that is why I am confused. The article summary says
But the James E. Webb space telescope, currently under construction, and scheduled to be launched in 2011, will be able to see even further and catch phenomena which happened 13.5 billion light-years ago
That is like saying "I was born 48 miles ago..."
13.5 billion light years ago? Maybe I am being stupid, but I always thought that a light year was a measurement of distance?
Pong had good graphics
Compared to what - a book?
People usually talk in terms of countries, so what are the ISO people using Great Britain for, I wonder?
Probably avoiding using UK, which is the Ukraine. I would imagine it is easier to use GB which is definately relevant, whereas finding another abbreviation for the Ukraine would be a pain.
I don't see any reason why there should be regulation. It's not as if customer data is stored on the ATMs, it is all stored back in the central bank servers, which presumably are a lot more secure. So if there is a problem with the ATM and someone can get money out of it by hacking, then its only going to hurt the bank, and not individual customers.