It is difficult to fathom that the site has been around for 20 years, because I've "only" been online for 25 or so and I can't possibly be that old. Right? Right??
The electric company subscription service provides the voltage and amperage I need (all the time) when I need it (right now.) Without it, life would be very difficsy8907^#!Z NO CARRIER
I view streaming content on a variety of devices off of a perfectly acceptable cable internet connection and I still see the compression, but the worst of it is seen on the "main" family TV. Netflix offers the best experience (followed by Amazon Video, followed by the truly horrific Google Play), but it's still there.
I fully admit that I am not a hardcore video guy and not obsessed with tweaking a bunch of TV settings so there is indeed room to make adjustments. That said, I'm very happy with up-scaled DVDs of the same movies on the same TV. Adjusting contrast/brightness would only force the shadows even deeper for disk-based video and that's not an acceptable trade-off.
I should clarify my previous statement above. When I wrote "Visible gradients ruin every single scene always" I didn't meant to imply I'm seeing gradients all the time. I'm only seeing them in scenes containing large percentages of darkness/black.
Call it anything you want: "Netflix uses bagels to compress video" I don't really care. I just wish they would take a closer look at the darkest parts of a scene and stop compressing the hell out of it. Visible gradients ruin every single scene always.
I too read this when I was young, as a part of a science fiction anthology book we had in school. It is the one story from that time that has always stuck with me. The over-shadowing sense of futility and loss in the story really triggered something in my brain.
[[Actually if it had had the 5MP iPhone 4 camera, (which is probably what he assumed since I assumed it too until I looked at the tech specs) he would not have been joking, that could replace a P&S for most people.]]
You don't understand the difference between "better than" and "willing to settle for."
People who are replacing their digital cameras for the iPhone 4 camera are not doing so because it is better than their point and shoot. It's not. They're giving up a number of features they don't understand, don't know how to work, or don't find important for a single button, slower operation, and lower image quality.
Why is it so difficult for people to click on a single link? Why do you need to be spoon fed everything? How about trying to think for yoursel for a change?
Sorry, but no camera can "make" better pictures than any other camera. Cameras are inanimate objects and are not capable of operating themselves.
Making blanket statements like "SLR can make better pictures than p&s's" is absurd on many levels. But to take it further and claim that you can only compare film p&S to digital p&s is to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of how photography even works.
[[I'm speculating here, but does decreasing the pixel size always lead to increased the noise in the image?]]
All else being equal, then yes. However, as we're all aware, advances in technology does not make all things equal.
[[I remember reading an article asserting that 6 - 8MP actually produces the best picture in a compact camera for the same reasons. ie highest SNR and lowest fringing.]]
I think that is dependent on sensor size. The bigger picture here is that the average consumer will never use more than the 6-8MP and that these 10, 12, 13 MP point and shoots are (from a sensor standpoint) nothing more than snakeoil.
[[Yeah, I never understand the people who go to their firefox address bar and type in 'www.google.com' they always get snippy when you suggest that they could just click a few inches to the right and search google from the search box. Yes, change can be hard but often it is for the better. ]]
That's nothing. A number of my coworkers get to Google by first going to yahoo (which they have in their "recently visited sites" list in the address bar drop-down in IE) and typing "www.google.com" in the Yahoo search box.
The first time I saw someone do this I thought they were joking around with me. Not so.
It does not occur to them to type the address in the address bar be cause they don't know what the address bar is really for. A number of them think that the drop-down list is the "favorites."
If I ask someone to change something in a url currently in the address bar (to get to a different part of the same site,) they'll struggle with the task in the same way they would struggle with performing open-heart surgery.
This is what computer use is like in the "real world." I wish more of the/.-type crowd would understand these sorts of challenges.
On my walk to work I pass by the same windows every day. I can glance into them every day. Thus I build up a visual history of what goes on inside those buildings every day for years.
Whereas this photo is a single 1/xxx'th second in time.
Slashdot Mirror
So many memories of those early /. days have come flooding back.
RIP Roblimo.
Happy Birthday /.
It is difficult to fathom that the site has been around for 20 years, because I've "only" been online for 25 or so and I can't possibly be that old. Right? Right??
The electric company subscription service provides the voltage and amperage I need (all the time) when I need it (right now.) Without it, life would be very difficsy8907^#!Z NO CARRIER
I view streaming content on a variety of devices off of a perfectly acceptable cable internet connection and I still see the compression, but the worst of it is seen on the "main" family TV. Netflix offers the best experience (followed by Amazon Video, followed by the truly horrific Google Play), but it's still there.
I fully admit that I am not a hardcore video guy and not obsessed with tweaking a bunch of TV settings so there is indeed room to make adjustments. That said, I'm very happy with up-scaled DVDs of the same movies on the same TV. Adjusting contrast/brightness would only force the shadows even deeper for disk-based video and that's not an acceptable trade-off.
I should clarify my previous statement above. When I wrote "Visible gradients ruin every single scene always" I didn't meant to imply I'm seeing gradients all the time. I'm only seeing them in scenes containing large percentages of darkness/black.
Call it anything you want: "Netflix uses bagels to compress video" I don't really care. I just wish they would take a closer look at the darkest parts of a scene and stop compressing the hell out of it. Visible gradients ruin every single scene always.
I too read this when I was young, as a part of a science fiction anthology book we had in school. It is the one story from that time that has always stuck with me. The over-shadowing sense of futility and loss in the story really triggered something in my brain.
2005 wasn't that long ago, was it?
http://it.slashdot.org/story/0...
[[Actually if it had had the 5MP iPhone 4 camera, (which is probably what he assumed since I assumed it too until I looked at the tech specs) he would not have been joking, that could replace a P&S for most people.]]
You don't understand the difference between "better than" and "willing to settle for."
People who are replacing their digital cameras for the iPhone 4 camera are not doing so because it is better than their point and shoot. It's not. They're giving up a number of features they don't understand, don't know how to work, or don't find important for a single button, slower operation, and lower image quality.
Are these studies the follow-ups mentioned here?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/index.html
Why is it so difficult for people to click on a single link? Why do you need to be spoon fed everything? How about trying to think for yoursel for a change?
That's just your new manager. Hopefully it'll move on to another company before too many other things go missing.
Indeed, including the rest of his statement makes perfect sense and is correct.
It's those people that do not and therefore believe "could" somehow equals "could not" that should be dealt with severely.
There is nothing "mild" about equating "could" to "could not."
These are complete opposites. Period. "Could" will NEVER equal "Could Not."
People who use "could" instead of "could not" do so out of ignorance or laziness.
Most people "could care less."
Which hurts on many levels...
Just don't pulverize it to bits and spread it out in orbit around a planet...or you'll turn everyone below into xenophobes.
Further discussion below:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=607661&cid=24108985
I know of billboards over highways that have been shot with 2MP cameras.
You, like most consumers, believe that more MP means better. You couldn't be more wrong.
Sorry, but no camera can "make" better pictures than any other camera. Cameras are inanimate objects and are not capable of operating themselves.
Making blanket statements like "SLR can make better pictures than p&s's" is absurd on many levels. But to take it further and claim that you can only compare film p&S to digital p&s is to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of how photography even works.
[[I'm speculating here, but does decreasing the pixel size always lead to increased the noise in the image?]]
All else being equal, then yes. However, as we're all aware, advances in technology does not make all things equal.
[[I remember reading an article asserting that 6 - 8MP actually produces the best picture in a compact camera for the same reasons. ie highest SNR and lowest fringing.]]
I think that is dependent on sensor size. The bigger picture here is that the average consumer will never use more than the 6-8MP and that these 10, 12, 13 MP point and shoots are (from a sensor standpoint) nothing more than snakeoil.
[[I wonder how that translates in digital, given you have way less latitude than b+w film]]
I would like to see proof of your statement. Do you have direct experience using a medium format digital back?
[[Yeah, I never understand the people who go to their firefox address bar and type in 'www.google.com'
they always get snippy when you suggest that they could just click a few inches to the right and search google from the search box. Yes, change can be hard but often it is for the better. ]]
That's nothing. A number of my coworkers get to Google by first going to yahoo (which they have in their "recently visited sites" list in the address bar drop-down in IE) and typing "www.google.com" in the Yahoo search box.
The first time I saw someone do this I thought they were joking around with me. Not so.
It does not occur to them to type the address in the address bar be cause they don't know what the address bar is really for. A number of them think that the drop-down list is the "favorites."
If I ask someone to change something in a url currently in the address bar (to get to a different part of the same site,) they'll struggle with the task in the same way they would struggle with performing open-heart surgery.
This is what computer use is like in the "real world." I wish more of the /.-type crowd would understand these sorts of challenges.
Why would anyone want to do that? They'll all be far too busy drinking the SJ kool-aid.
On my walk to work I pass by the same windows every day. I can glance into them every day. Thus I build up a visual history of what goes on inside those buildings every day for years.
Whereas this photo is a single 1/xxx'th second in time.
Which situation produces more information?
So your theory is that petty thieves are trolling Google Maps looking for cool stuff to steal?
You can't possibly be that stupid, can you?
Does anyone have an extension or a way to "un-fix" the tabbed browsing changes? I actually prefer the original method of tabs getting smaller.