Film doesn't have a "true RGB" resolution because the granularity of the three layers is different. If you examine some film scans the detail you'll pick up in blue is much less than the other channels due to the larger grain size in that channel. Even at 160 l/mm that's like what, 3.5k across the film? Typically 35mm film will measure around 3k resolution. RED Epic will measure (in the recorded file) ~4k and in A/B testing does look sharper than 35mm film, looking more like 65mm film.
4k scan is typical for 35mm film. 65mm (think Baraka or Samsara) would be scanned at 8k. IMAX would be scanned higher still. As for digital projection, 2k is standard, 4k becoming more common.
Film negs use three layers which respond to it's three primary colours, CMY. Digital generally uses three filters to do RGB primaries. Our eye's cone cells come in three types - LMS.
35mm film negative measures around 3k resolution - so 3000 pixels across. Any more rez on the scan and you won't get more detail out of the image. Digital is already at 5k with the RED Epic. Digital is not limited to HD, and most "HD" cameras don't measure HD resolution anyway.
But when I take the original and re-save it in Photoshop CS5 I don't see the void lettering. I reduced the JPEG quality and kept trying and at quality 1, the lowest setting I was starting to see a pattern, but no words appeared.
I'd say their idea is nice, but doomed to failure, not least they mention "If you can’t see the message in the recompressed image, make sure your browser is rendering the images without scaling or filtering." which would be the obvious source of attack on such a method should it actually work in practise.
Given games companies use ISPs for internet access, could they not pass the full costs costs directly back to the games companies in their internet bill? Somehow, I think that would be appropriate.
So, if carbohydrates are so utterly necessary, why can we live perfectly happily without them, but if you tried doing the same thing with fat, you'd be dead before you know it. Fat is necessary, carbohydrates are not. Anyone who proscribes that a diabetic eat diets rich in carbohydrates is the idiot.
But the question is "why do people eat too much?" Could it be because sugar and starchy carbohydrates are addictive? Could it be because fat people eat too much because they're starving at a cellular level because all that insulin running around in their blood is turning the carbohydrate they eat into fat and storing it away before the cells that need the energy can get at it? People eat too much because they're fat, not the other way around, and it all comes back to the food pyramid and utterly bogus (but good for agribusiness income) diet advice from your ever so friendly government.
Starch has not always been our staple diet. The "absolute consensus" is not absolute. The reasoning is based around how starches interact with insulin, and the evidence is vast if you bother to look.
What matters of course, is the diet that effects you in your environment. In USA / Canada / UK where we're told to base our diets on grains, and avoid saturated fat we see correlations between wheat consumption and heart disease, and low cholesterol correlating with cancer.
And for vastly longer than "ages", grains were not part of our diet at all. The recently obesity epidemic has coincided with the (incorrect) assumption that eating fat makes you fat, that eating cholesterol is bad etc. What's the life expectancy of a 3rd world grain eater?
Now that wheat consumption is linked to heart disease (whereas we now see saturated fat is not) and how starches and sugars interact with our metabolism through insulin, and low cholesterol is associated with increase cancer risk, you really have to think that the diet of grains needs serious consideration, and the advice to base our diets on grains (advice given by grain producers and their lobbies) and that such recommendations are very suspect.
We just used to slot some cardboard or sheet plastic in the back of the calculator - Casio fx7000-G so that when the teach pushed a pen in to hit the rest switch, it just hit the plastic and didn't reset the calculator.
Of course, there's no real offence going on - not like the kind of offence we feel when people are killed, buildings burned, or little girl's are genital mutilated, or raped then beaten for being raped or stoned, or any of the other atrocities commited by the "religion of peace". It's feigned offence for the political reason of giving their population something to hate because they're so oppressed that they need something to keep their mind off their poor miserable lives.
The lack of consensus is due to those that steadfastly believe that fat is bad even after it has been debunked. Dietary studies are not easy to undertake, and pre-conceived notions mean that often the testing is poor.
The corn lobby is strong. The wheat and starch lobby is strong.
If the study was testing fat, the rats would be eating just fat. But the study tested "cafeteria food" which is high in sugar and starch and also high in fat. The headline says that fatty foods are bad - ignoring the fact that the food is high in sugar and starch also.
In other studies with rats, it has been shown that sugar alone is addictive. There have not been studies that show that fat alone is addictive.
You have not shown that the study was focussing on fatty foods as 4 of the 6 foods mentioned in the study are high in sugar / starch.
Physics might be simple, but biology is not. We're not just machines - we have brains, and we have hormones like insulin. Simple calories in doesn't explain why in study after study people loose more on low carb diets.
And the mistake you made was going back to the "normal" food, which is all high in carbs, high in sugar and just plain not good for you. People actually follow the "food pyramid" advice and get fat as it says to base your diet around starches and grains, which is utterly wrong. A healthy diet is rich in good meat and veg, and low in starch and no grains at all.
High fat high protein foods do keep the cravings for food away longer. High carbohydrate foods will have you craving even higher carb foods, and it's a bad cycle to get into. Just one chocolate bar or ice-cream can start those carb cravings up.
Slashdot Mirror
Film doesn't have a "true RGB" resolution because the granularity of the three layers is different. If you examine some film scans the detail you'll pick up in blue is much less than the other channels due to the larger grain size in that channel. Even at 160 l/mm that's like what, 3.5k across the film? Typically 35mm film will measure around 3k resolution. RED Epic will measure (in the recorded file) ~4k and in A/B testing does look sharper than 35mm film, looking more like 65mm film.
4k scan is typical for 35mm film. 65mm (think Baraka or Samsara) would be scanned at 8k. IMAX would be scanned higher still. As for digital projection, 2k is standard, 4k becoming more common.
Film negs use three layers which respond to it's three primary colours, CMY. Digital generally uses three filters to do RGB primaries. Our eye's cone cells come in three types - LMS.
3k is the neg. Projected film doesn't generally measure more than 720p in a typical cinema. Digital projection already out-measures film projection.
35mm film negative measures around 3k resolution - so 3000 pixels across. Any more rez on the scan and you won't get more detail out of the image. Digital is already at 5k with the RED Epic. Digital is not limited to HD, and most "HD" cameras don't measure HD resolution anyway.
Film only lasted as long as it did because of digital intermediates and digital technology, film scanners etc.
Surely the behaviour of a criminal, stealing code that they didn't intend to obey the licence of?
Exactly! If you want to protect it, trademark it. Did they name their company with an "i" post iPod or pre "ipod" though?
Nothing excuses the theme tune though...
So I downloaded their test image here: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~abl26/copy-google.jpg that they claim gets a message on it when compressed by google proxy http://www.google.com/gwt/x/i?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cl.cam.ac.uk/~abl26/copy-google.jpg&wsi=223e8e5df695e99c&ei=6ixQTebOCoPoxQW8rYlv&wsc=yq&whp=012e012f72be
But when I take the original and re-save it in Photoshop CS5 I don't see the void lettering. I reduced the JPEG quality and kept trying and at quality 1, the lowest setting I was starting to see a pattern, but no words appeared.
I'd say their idea is nice, but doomed to failure, not least they mention "If you can’t see the message in the recompressed image, make sure your browser is rendering the images without scaling or filtering." which would be the obvious source of attack on such a method should it actually work in practise.
Given games companies use ISPs for internet access, could they not pass the full costs costs directly back to the games companies in their internet bill? Somehow, I think that would be appropriate.
So, if carbohydrates are so utterly necessary, why can we live perfectly happily without them, but if you tried doing the same thing with fat, you'd be dead before you know it. Fat is necessary, carbohydrates are not. Anyone who proscribes that a diabetic eat diets rich in carbohydrates is the idiot.
But the question is "why do people eat too much?" Could it be because sugar and starchy carbohydrates are addictive? Could it be because fat people eat too much because they're starving at a cellular level because all that insulin running around in their blood is turning the carbohydrate they eat into fat and storing it away before the cells that need the energy can get at it? People eat too much because they're fat, not the other way around, and it all comes back to the food pyramid and utterly bogus (but good for agribusiness income) diet advice from your ever so friendly government.
Starch has not always been our staple diet. The "absolute consensus" is not absolute. The reasoning is based around how starches interact with insulin, and the evidence is vast if you bother to look.
What matters of course, is the diet that effects you in your environment. In USA / Canada / UK where we're told to base our diets on grains, and avoid saturated fat we see correlations between wheat consumption and heart disease, and low cholesterol correlating with cancer.
And for vastly longer than "ages", grains were not part of our diet at all. The recently obesity epidemic has coincided with the (incorrect) assumption that eating fat makes you fat, that eating cholesterol is bad etc. What's the life expectancy of a 3rd world grain eater?
Now that wheat consumption is linked to heart disease (whereas we now see saturated fat is not) and how starches and sugars interact with our metabolism through insulin, and low cholesterol is associated with increase cancer risk, you really have to think that the diet of grains needs serious consideration, and the advice to base our diets on grains (advice given by grain producers and their lobbies) and that such recommendations are very suspect.
Actually, it's all down to heavy consumption of wheat and grains, and starches too, high fructose corn syrup, and the demonization of saturated fat.
We just used to slot some cardboard or sheet plastic in the back of the calculator - Casio fx7000-G so that when the teach pushed a pen in to hit the rest switch, it just hit the plastic and didn't reset the calculator.
That's not blasphemy, that's massphemy!
Of course, there's no real offence going on - not like the kind of offence we feel when people are killed, buildings burned, or little girl's are genital mutilated, or raped then beaten for being raped or stoned, or any of the other atrocities commited by the "religion of peace". It's feigned offence for the political reason of giving their population something to hate because they're so oppressed that they need something to keep their mind off their poor miserable lives.
The DA is a wanker and should be locked up.
The lack of consensus is due to those that steadfastly believe that fat is bad even after it has been debunked. Dietary studies are not easy to undertake, and pre-conceived notions mean that often the testing is poor.
The corn lobby is strong. The wheat and starch lobby is strong.
If the study was testing fat, the rats would be eating just fat. But the study tested "cafeteria food" which is high in sugar and starch and also high in fat. The headline says that fatty foods are bad - ignoring the fact that the food is high in sugar and starch also.
In other studies with rats, it has been shown that sugar alone is addictive. There have not been studies that show that fat alone is addictive.
You have not shown that the study was focussing on fatty foods as 4 of the 6 foods mentioned in the study are high in sugar / starch.
Physics might be simple, but biology is not. We're not just machines - we have brains, and we have hormones like insulin. Simple calories in doesn't explain why in study after study people loose more on low carb diets.
And the mistake you made was going back to the "normal" food, which is all high in carbs, high in sugar and just plain not good for you. People actually follow the "food pyramid" advice and get fat as it says to base your diet around starches and grains, which is utterly wrong. A healthy diet is rich in good meat and veg, and low in starch and no grains at all.
High fat high protein foods do keep the cravings for food away longer. High carbohydrate foods will have you craving even higher carb foods, and it's a bad cycle to get into. Just one chocolate bar or ice-cream can start those carb cravings up.