There's a simple solution here--use permutation instead of combination (have say six to eight buttons where the sequence uses all of them once, but the order varies). That necessitates a longer PIN, but I think it's a minor inconvenience.
Sigh, the issue is not gaming vs gaming. It's gaming vs other activities. This study gives no illumination upon the following question which is much more important than the one the study actually answered: Given a distribution of various activities that a (young) individual can engage in, including but not limited to physical activity, mathematics, reading, art, and video gaming, if the distribution is predominantly composed of video gaming, will the individual develop better aptitude to a median distribution of activities in their working and personal life? Improved reaction times and snap decision making might make you a better soldier (but even there, how does it compare to military training?), but would it help the majority of occupations? Of course, we can look at games from purely an entertainment point of view, in which case this is irrelevant, but the context set by the article for this discussion is about additional value with scope beyond the gaming activity itself. From my point of view, that is limited given what most people will do in life, and there are more beneficial activities they can do with some of their leisure time than just gaming. I do still play games, but solely for their entertainment value. Why do we need to look for justification beyond that to play games?
be more careful with article summaries. They're wore than newspaper headlines these days. The "Over in the UK Durham University is tasking its supercomputing cluster with nothing less than recreating how galaxies are born and evolve over the course of billions of year" could describe any of the countless galaxy evolution simulations that have been done for a couple of decades already at various places, and gives no indication as to what's new about this instance. In other words, the headline is at best absolutely uninformative, and at worst, misleading.
What's missing is a killer app for most businesses, and it's the data gathering and management side that's lacking, but the analytics side. I think that advanced analytics is not nearly as user friendly and accessible as it could be, and hopefully will be in the future. Visualization/analytics tools like Tableau are a good start, but we need more better (as in smarter in AI/machine learning terms) automation. Eventually I see analytics useful not only to businesses but even individuals, as a way of making the best of the flood of data and information overload we're bombarded with.
The author probably rounded down to 100 times the speed and dropped a zero, possibly as a typo. It's the only plausible explanation I could come up with for this error.
After all the hype that we've been hearing over the years about rail-guns and seeing a few military and hobbyist demos on video sites, this one piece of near-former sci-fi may be finally coming to fruition as a usable approach. It's a great example of the sort of thing that had to wait for technological improvements and refinements, rather than a fundamental scientific or technological breakthrough, and is the convergence of several technologies. I'm encouraged to see more progress on such things which seems to have in recent years been eclipsed by information technology's faster cycles and overhyping in media (and I say this as someone who makes his living as a software engineer).
I live in Canada and I have lived in the USA (during my undergrad). I call BS as there's no comparison between US Republicans and Canadian Conservatives.
Moreover, displays are not all of fixed range! You're a fucking idiot. Even all 8 bit per channel displays have varying actual physical range that they achieve, often expressed as their static contrast ratio; but beyond that, since HDMI got support for deep color, many displays handle 10 bit per channel.
You're a fucking idiot. I was at the University of British Columbia's graphics lab when the first prototype HDR display was built, with a static contrast ratio of 150,000:1. This was accomplished by having an array of LEDs behind the LCD panel, and the LEDs were _individually_ modulated, so that the total contrast ratio was that of the LCD multiplied by that of the LED array. Bright pixels could be as bright as staring into a light bulb, and the dark ones were completely, utterly black. The result was spun off as a company, BrightSide Technologies, which then Dolby bought.
HDR is any image, video, display, or camera sensor that contains more than 8 significant bits per pixel per channel. RAW formats of cameras that actually capture 12 bits (instead of the lowest bits being simply noise, as in most consumer cameras) _are_ HDR.
You are confusing HDR with tone mapping. Everything you have described above is tone mapping, not HDR. Tone mapping is a class of algorithms that compress the dynamic range, so that HDR is transformed to LDR. It is always lossy, and it is perceptually biased. This is why its results leave a lot to be desired. True HDR, on the other hand, is the unbiased, uncompressed representation.
You're really dense, aren't you. HDR is BY DEFINITION anything more than 8-bit per channel. It's exactly what it says--high dynamic range--higher bit depth. You're confusing HDR with tone mapping, which is the set of algorithms reducing HDR to LDR for display on a normal monitor. HDR doens't mean what you think it does. I should know--I was involved in the prototyping of the first digital HDR hardware display at UBC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_imaging: "Indeed, it has been demonstrated that an integral image can very accurately reproduce the wavefront that emanated from the original photographed or computer-generated subject, much like a hologram, but without the need for lasers to create the image; see Fig. 2. This allows the eyes to accommodate (focus) on foreground and background elements, something not possible with lenticular or barrier strip methods."
http://www.broadcastpapers.com/whitepapers/IBCDeMontfortCGContentfor3DTV.pdf:
"The perceived advantages of integral imaging are that only a single aperture camera is needed to capture the 3D data. In addition the display is a full 3D optical model, the model is correctly scaled throughout the image space,
and in viewing accommodation and convergence occur naturally thereby
preventing possible eyestrain."
A prototype microlens array based flat panel video (as in, non-static) display was built by Hitachi in 2006, and they claimed that it solves the conflict between disparity, convergence, and accommodation. A non-digital video display was built way back in 1978: http://www.broadcastpapers.com/whitepapers/IBCDeMontfortCGContentfor3DTV.pdf
You're looking for an intuitive explanation of how this can "can trick the eye into accommodation of various physical distances"; however, note that your lack of insight in no way contradicts my claim, given the literature and hardware. But I'm feeling kind today so I'll give you a couple more hints. Your statement that "So the observer will always focus the eyes at a constant distance" betrays a deep ignorance of optics and physiology, namely that an unfocused image is mathematically equivalent to the focused image convolved with a 2D PSF (point spread function) based on lens parameters, and that the eye's accommodation response is driven in part by vergence and in part by an internal estimate of defocus based on 2D image analysis. The second hint that should help you sort out your internal confusion is the very term "integral imaging"; each microlens is a sort of holo-pixel (see diagrams on wiki). Focusing your eye on a plane will result in an image with a spatially varying amount of defocus because of the image encoding; accommodation will refocus the eye in such a way that a different set of viewing rays will be integrated into each projected visible element on your retina, until the right convolution effect is achieved to undo the image encoding+microlens defocus. It's the same when images are refocused with deconvolution in computational photography.
As a clarification: a microlens array captures the 4D information because it's a 2D array of 2D arrays (the latter being the pixel patch behind each microlens). Compare lenticular arrays, which are analogous to 2D arrays of (horizontal) 1D arrays, thus capturing only three dimensions of the lightfield parameterization.
This is not correct, since microlens arrays are significantly different from lenticular arrays. A lenticular array is made of vertical segments of cylinders, whereas microlens are spherical segments. Lenticular only captures integral light information in one direction (the horizontal), and this is why it cannot handle accommodation. Microlens, on the other hand, can reproduce the full 4D lightfield (4D is enough because the total optical information of a volume is the light rays contained therein, which can each be parameterized by the two pairs of intersection coordinates of the ray and two parallel planes). The tradeoff is the multiplication of required underlying display technology resolution by the level of discretization of parallax viewpoints/focal distances.
Re:why not capture the 14 bit/channel of 1 sensor?
on
HDR Video a Reality
·
· Score: 1
Take a series of shots with no light whatsoever and check how black the raw image really is. You'll find out that your lowest bits are noise. Just because the DAC discretizes to 14 bits doesn't mean it has nearly that dynamic range.
HDR would look real if displayed as HDR--on an HDR display (Brightside Technologies had demoes of hardware at several SIGGRAPH instances). Instead, they display the output of a tone-mapping algorithm that transforms the HDR to LDR for display on a normal monitor that only has a low dynamic range. The only thing they're doing different is that they're using an algorithm to reduce the dynamic range, instead of the camera's sensor, because the sensor does it in a 'dumb' way--by being over- or underexposed, whereas a tone-mapping algorithm can preserve detail by nonlinearly and usually location-adaptively compressing the dynamic range.
They record HDR but then they compress the image to LDR (low dynamic range) for display on a regular monitor. You don't see the HDR display, just the result of the tone-mapping algorithm that transforms the HDR data into an LDR one. This is a common abuse of the term HDR. It's the same thing with the graphics effect in games. The internal processing is HDR, but then it's tone-mapped to LDR for display on a regular monitor, often with the addition of simulated bloom on overexposed areas. It's unfortunate that so many people see bloom and think HDR, but then again marketing is a common factor in many forms of misinformation.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a simple solution here--use permutation instead of combination (have say six to eight buttons where the sequence uses all of them once, but the order varies). That necessitates a longer PIN, but I think it's a minor inconvenience.
Revocable biometrics exist, and you don't have to chop off your fingertips either: for example, http://www.turbine-project.eu/ or http://vast.uccs.edu/biodistmet.html or http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4318487 and so on By the way, not to be a grammar nazi, just informative: did you ever tried -> did you ever try
As someone born in a country with a large gypsy population, I have this to say: it aint bigotry if it's true.
Compared to the Polywell and General Fusion (as well as other MTF variants studied by LANL) ITER is a huge waste of money.
General Fusion will beat them with their magnetized target fusion variant. They have been well-reviewed by LANL scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Fusion
Er, I meant "gaming vs not gaming"...
Sigh, the issue is not gaming vs gaming. It's gaming vs other activities. This study gives no illumination upon the following question which is much more important than the one the study actually answered: Given a distribution of various activities that a (young) individual can engage in, including but not limited to physical activity, mathematics, reading, art, and video gaming, if the distribution is predominantly composed of video gaming, will the individual develop better aptitude to a median distribution of activities in their working and personal life? Improved reaction times and snap decision making might make you a better soldier (but even there, how does it compare to military training?), but would it help the majority of occupations? Of course, we can look at games from purely an entertainment point of view, in which case this is irrelevant, but the context set by the article for this discussion is about additional value with scope beyond the gaming activity itself. From my point of view, that is limited given what most people will do in life, and there are more beneficial activities they can do with some of their leisure time than just gaming. I do still play games, but solely for their entertainment value. Why do we need to look for justification beyond that to play games?
be more careful with article summaries. They're wore than newspaper headlines these days. The "Over in the UK Durham University is tasking its supercomputing cluster with nothing less than recreating how galaxies are born and evolve over the course of billions of year" could describe any of the countless galaxy evolution simulations that have been done for a couple of decades already at various places, and gives no indication as to what's new about this instance. In other words, the headline is at best absolutely uninformative, and at worst, misleading.
What's missing is a killer app for most businesses, and it's the data gathering and management side that's lacking, but the analytics side. I think that advanced analytics is not nearly as user friendly and accessible as it could be, and hopefully will be in the future. Visualization/analytics tools like Tableau are a good start, but we need more better (as in smarter in AI/machine learning terms) automation. Eventually I see analytics useful not only to businesses but even individuals, as a way of making the best of the flood of data and information overload we're bombarded with.
Can't this be recast as a form of the eventual consistency paradigm?
The author probably rounded down to 100 times the speed and dropped a zero, possibly as a typo. It's the only plausible explanation I could come up with for this error.
After all the hype that we've been hearing over the years about rail-guns and seeing a few military and hobbyist demos on video sites, this one piece of near-former sci-fi may be finally coming to fruition as a usable approach. It's a great example of the sort of thing that had to wait for technological improvements and refinements, rather than a fundamental scientific or technological breakthrough, and is the convergence of several technologies. I'm encouraged to see more progress on such things which seems to have in recent years been eclipsed by information technology's faster cycles and overhyping in media (and I say this as someone who makes his living as a software engineer).
I live in Canada and I have lived in the USA (during my undergrad). I call BS as there's no comparison between US Republicans and Canadian Conservatives.
My hat off to you, sir
No comment about the interface, but the Zune has better sound quality than the iPod, due to a better DAC and internal amplifier.
Moreover, displays are not all of fixed range! You're a fucking idiot. Even all 8 bit per channel displays have varying actual physical range that they achieve, often expressed as their static contrast ratio; but beyond that, since HDMI got support for deep color, many displays handle 10 bit per channel.
You're a fucking idiot. I was at the University of British Columbia's graphics lab when the first prototype HDR display was built, with a static contrast ratio of 150,000:1. This was accomplished by having an array of LEDs behind the LCD panel, and the LEDs were _individually_ modulated, so that the total contrast ratio was that of the LCD multiplied by that of the LED array. Bright pixels could be as bright as staring into a light bulb, and the dark ones were completely, utterly black. The result was spun off as a company, BrightSide Technologies, which then Dolby bought.
HDR is any image, video, display, or camera sensor that contains more than 8 significant bits per pixel per channel. RAW formats of cameras that actually capture 12 bits (instead of the lowest bits being simply noise, as in most consumer cameras) _are_ HDR.
You are confusing HDR with tone mapping. Everything you have described above is tone mapping, not HDR. Tone mapping is a class of algorithms that compress the dynamic range, so that HDR is transformed to LDR. It is always lossy, and it is perceptually biased. This is why its results leave a lot to be desired. True HDR, on the other hand, is the unbiased, uncompressed representation.
You're really dense, aren't you. HDR is BY DEFINITION anything more than 8-bit per channel. It's exactly what it says--high dynamic range--higher bit depth. You're confusing HDR with tone mapping, which is the set of algorithms reducing HDR to LDR for display on a normal monitor. HDR doens't mean what you think it does. I should know--I was involved in the prototyping of the first digital HDR hardware display at UBC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_imaging: "Indeed, it has been demonstrated that an integral image can very accurately reproduce the wavefront that emanated from the original photographed or computer-generated subject, much like a hologram, but without the need for lasers to create the image; see Fig. 2. This allows the eyes to accommodate (focus) on foreground and background elements, something not possible with lenticular or barrier strip methods."
http://www.broadcastpapers.com/whitepapers/IBCDeMontfortCGContentfor3DTV.pdf: "The perceived advantages of integral imaging are that only a single aperture camera is needed to capture the 3D data. In addition the display is a full 3D optical model, the model is correctly scaled throughout the image space, and in viewing accommodation and convergence occur naturally thereby preventing possible eyestrain."
A prototype microlens array based flat panel video (as in, non-static) display was built by Hitachi in 2006, and they claimed that it solves the conflict between disparity, convergence, and accommodation. A non-digital video display was built way back in 1978: http://www.broadcastpapers.com/whitepapers/IBCDeMontfortCGContentfor3DTV.pdf
You're looking for an intuitive explanation of how this can "can trick the eye into accommodation of various physical distances"; however, note that your lack of insight in no way contradicts my claim, given the literature and hardware. But I'm feeling kind today so I'll give you a couple more hints. Your statement that "So the observer will always focus the eyes at a constant distance" betrays a deep ignorance of optics and physiology, namely that an unfocused image is mathematically equivalent to the focused image convolved with a 2D PSF (point spread function) based on lens parameters, and that the eye's accommodation response is driven in part by vergence and in part by an internal estimate of defocus based on 2D image analysis. The second hint that should help you sort out your internal confusion is the very term "integral imaging"; each microlens is a sort of holo-pixel (see diagrams on wiki). Focusing your eye on a plane will result in an image with a spatially varying amount of defocus because of the image encoding; accommodation will refocus the eye in such a way that a different set of viewing rays will be integrated into each projected visible element on your retina, until the right convolution effect is achieved to undo the image encoding+microlens defocus. It's the same when images are refocused with deconvolution in computational photography.
Back up your statement with actual information and I will respond or retract.
As a clarification: a microlens array captures the 4D information because it's a 2D array of 2D arrays (the latter being the pixel patch behind each microlens). Compare lenticular arrays, which are analogous to 2D arrays of (horizontal) 1D arrays, thus capturing only three dimensions of the lightfield parameterization.
This is not correct, since microlens arrays are significantly different from lenticular arrays. A lenticular array is made of vertical segments of cylinders, whereas microlens are spherical segments. Lenticular only captures integral light information in one direction (the horizontal), and this is why it cannot handle accommodation. Microlens, on the other hand, can reproduce the full 4D lightfield (4D is enough because the total optical information of a volume is the light rays contained therein, which can each be parameterized by the two pairs of intersection coordinates of the ray and two parallel planes). The tradeoff is the multiplication of required underlying display technology resolution by the level of discretization of parallax viewpoints/focal distances.
Take a series of shots with no light whatsoever and check how black the raw image really is. You'll find out that your lowest bits are noise. Just because the DAC discretizes to 14 bits doesn't mean it has nearly that dynamic range.
HDR would look real if displayed as HDR--on an HDR display (Brightside Technologies had demoes of hardware at several SIGGRAPH instances). Instead, they display the output of a tone-mapping algorithm that transforms the HDR to LDR for display on a normal monitor that only has a low dynamic range. The only thing they're doing different is that they're using an algorithm to reduce the dynamic range, instead of the camera's sensor, because the sensor does it in a 'dumb' way--by being over- or underexposed, whereas a tone-mapping algorithm can preserve detail by nonlinearly and usually location-adaptively compressing the dynamic range.
They record HDR but then they compress the image to LDR (low dynamic range) for display on a regular monitor. You don't see the HDR display, just the result of the tone-mapping algorithm that transforms the HDR data into an LDR one. This is a common abuse of the term HDR. It's the same thing with the graphics effect in games. The internal processing is HDR, but then it's tone-mapped to LDR for display on a regular monitor, often with the addition of simulated bloom on overexposed areas. It's unfortunate that so many people see bloom and think HDR, but then again marketing is a common factor in many forms of misinformation.