As a 100%, no dual boot crap linux user, i think that this is a good move for non-gaming linux users who tend to stick on to the onboard video card. These cards have a poor 3D even with DRI enabled.
Contrary to the popular belief, the most affected are not the users, but the computer manufacturers. if a user has a computer that is just working (even with all the security holes), and his option are "buy a new hardware just to upgrade OS" or "stick with what i have for now, will buy a new PC later", he will go for the latter option, unless he/she is a university professor who happens to have a large portion of his grant money at their disposal.
The computer manufaturers, who sell bundled systems and non-bundled system alike, will be forced to erase their catalog of computers equiped with barely functional video cards (i have a *NEW* compaq here on which i cant play TuxRacer. and this game is years old). This effect is going to percolate all the way down to the chipset manufaturers.
So, if M$ is going to force the majority of the manufaturers to upgrade their chipset that does a decent 3D, i guess the probability of any computer bought with no OS having a better onboard chipset is higher.Also, the market price for decent video cards will come down due to the laws of demand and supply.
So, as a linux user, i think this might be what i want to happen. I might not buy a new computer as soon as longhorn comes out, but i'll be sure that the computer i'm going to buy in the future will have a decent 3D experiance without me having to shell out a few extra $$ for an extra videocard.
i really dont know whether you have programmed in Python. i've been programming in python since V1.5. never had a problem with it breaking my code. Though the APIs have changeed quite a few times, the newer APIs were always backward compatible.
Well, for me, transistion from apache V1 to V2 was smooth. i dont know why you complain about not able to recomplile. Maybe you should try to recompile all the modules and see for yourself.
I dont think i contradicted, but i belive that i didnt say things clearly.
As you said, DOF is a function of magnification and aperture. Most of the digicams in the market don't have smaller aperture as the objective lens element is tiny. so not-so-good DOF.
So my statement was bit relative rather than absolute.
On film cameras, high ISO allows you to take sharper pictures in the low light given that you are not going to enlarge the picture. An 8"x11" print from a ISO 400 film negative looks terrible. But as long as people stick to the regular size(4"x5"), the image quality is acceptable. a seasoned photographer will not go for a higher ISO film unless he/she wants the grainy effect.
Consumers are made to belive that the higher ISO is good. But they have to understand that they have to use lower ISO if the light permits. I don't use ISO above 100 on my digi (i'm not lucky enuf to own a Canon EOS 1D Mark II). i will lose my depth of field with a bigger aperture rather than to have a noisy photo.
That photo (golden mask) is one damn good one with reall good dynamic range. I do accept the EOS 1D mark II is the best camera in the market. that is due to the propraitery CMOS sensor that is as big as a 35mm film. I've been lusting after the camera from the day it was released.
The bad depth of field on the glass ornamnets is due to the aperture f/5.6. DOF is aperture/optics related and not due to digital or film. I bet that Canon 1D Mark II has better DOF than the other digi/film cameras.
Re:Dynamic Range and the SIZE of the CCD!!
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Purple fringing is due to the optics rather than the CCD or CMOS. You get purple fringe (or chromatic abberation) in cheap film cameras too.
Good optics depends on
quality of the optics
diameter of the lens (larger the better)
the last depends on the size of the camera. bigger the camera, larger the lens can be (but not always necessarily). There is a size limit for a film camera due to the film size. you cant make a tiny pocket film camera.
But a digicam can be made smaller as the sensor is tiny. Smaller the camera, worse its optics. And so is its purple fringing.
People are made to belive that the ISO 400 is better than ISO 100. Thanks to Kodak and other film companies.
I know few who take pictures with their digicam in ISO 400 and complain about the quality of their camera.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly enuf, i pay $120 for a lousy 128Kbps DSL line in India.
Contrary to the popular belief, the most affected are not the users, but the computer manufacturers. if a user has a computer that is just working (even with all the security holes), and his option are "buy a new hardware just to upgrade OS" or "stick with what i have for now, will buy a new PC later", he will go for the latter option, unless he/she is a university professor who happens to have a large portion of his grant money at their disposal.
The computer manufaturers, who sell bundled systems and non-bundled system alike, will be forced to erase their catalog of computers equiped with barely functional video cards (i have a *NEW* compaq here on which i cant play TuxRacer. and this game is years old). This effect is going to percolate all the way down to the chipset manufaturers.
So, if M$ is going to force the majority of the manufaturers to upgrade their chipset that does a decent 3D, i guess the probability of any computer bought with no OS having a better onboard chipset is higher.Also, the market price for decent video cards will come down due to the laws of demand and supply.
So, as a linux user, i think this might be what i want to happen. I might not buy a new computer as soon as longhorn comes out, but i'll be sure that the computer i'm going to buy in the future will have a decent 3D experiance without me having to shell out a few extra $$ for an extra videocard.
i really dont know whether you have programmed in Python. i've been programming in python since V1.5. never had a problem with it breaking my code. Though the APIs have changeed quite a few times, the newer APIs were always backward compatible. Well, for me, transistion from apache V1 to V2 was smooth. i dont know why you complain about not able to recomplile. Maybe you should try to recompile all the modules and see for yourself.
As you said, DOF is a function of magnification and aperture. Most of the digicams in the market don't have smaller aperture as the objective lens element is tiny. so not-so-good DOF.
So my statement was bit relative rather than absolute.
Consumers are made to belive that the higher ISO is good. But they have to understand that they have to use lower ISO if the light permits. I don't use ISO above 100 on my digi (i'm not lucky enuf to own a Canon EOS 1D Mark II). i will lose my depth of field with a bigger aperture rather than to have a noisy photo.
That photo (golden mask) is one damn good one with reall good dynamic range. I do accept the EOS 1D mark II is the best camera in the market. that is due to the propraitery CMOS sensor that is as big as a 35mm film. I've been lusting after the camera from the day it was released.
The bad depth of field on the glass ornamnets is due to the aperture f/5.6. DOF is aperture/optics related and not due to digital or film. I bet that Canon 1D Mark II has better DOF than the other digi/film cameras.
Good optics depends on
quality of the optics
diameter of the lens (larger the better)
the last depends on the size of the camera. bigger the camera, larger the lens can be (but not always necessarily). There is a size limit for a film camera due to the film size. you cant make a tiny pocket film camera.
But a digicam can be made smaller as the sensor is tiny. Smaller the camera, worse its optics. And so is its purple fringing.
People are made to belive that the ISO 400 is better than ISO 100. Thanks to Kodak and other film companies. I know few who take pictures with their digicam in ISO 400 and complain about the quality of their camera.
That was the first thing i noticed. I'm getting way too much into linux.
Gives a different meaning to the phrase "Game Over"
I know a few indians who shelled out $700 on a monochrome palm V. I think $300 is far cheaper for all the indians(~20%) who can afford.