Last I checked, 720p was considered "HD", and 1366x768 is more than enough resolution to display it. Sure, some scaling will have to take place (assuming the full panel is used, that is), but there's no reason this shouldn't be called "HD Ready."
While ideas are great, having a working implementation of something is probably more likely to draw interest. It will also help you demonstrate to yourself that you're actually serious about committing time to your project.
I was wondering about this too, and can only surmise that the OP meant brake rotors. Either that or he gets taken to the cleaners when he gets his brakes serviced: "Yeah, your pads are shot, and while we're at it you might want to think about replacing the master cylinder..."
More in the category of "not living up to the hype" than "flop" is the Segway. "IT" (as it was known for more than a year, shrouded in secrecy for more than a year before its unveiling) was to be "revolutionary" and change all our lives. Did that happen? I'm still waiting...
I'd also like to nominate Windows Vista for the list, but even that might be a little premature.
I second Mike Cohn's advice. I haven't read his books, but I've heard him speak on multiple occasions, and I find his approach to be eminently practical.
You're right, but that doesn't stop various marketing organizations from referring to a high-sensitivity mode as "digital image stabilization" or something similar. I don't think Olympus is alone in this practice; unfortunately I think we're going to start to see more of it.
I'm certainly not against the inclusion of high-ISO modes in P&S cameras, especially when they're well implemented as in Fuji's F-series. But I do object to the misleading "image stabilization" label applied by marketing.
If you're referring to Olympus' "Digital Image Stabilization," here's how they describe it:
Digital Image Stabilization Mode uses a high ISO sensitivity and fast shutter speed to enable you to [blah blah blah]
Nothing fancy here about combining multiple exposures and detecting camera/subject movement; just using higher sensitivity than the 50 or 100 that many P&S users are used to, resulting in faster shutter speeds.
Others have alluded to it already, but what you're asking for sounds exactly like noise reduction. And there's plenty of software out there that does that. The problem with noise reduction is that it reduces fine detail as well. (Although some software does a respectable job, it can't perform miracles.)
If you're concerned about noise, what nobody has pointed out yet is that you may want to consider a camera with fewer pixels, a physically larger sensor, or both. Cramming 7 million photosites on a tiny 1/2.5" sensor (yes, they are measured in a strange way--that translates to somewhere around 5.8 x 4.3mm) is a sure recipe for noise. However, there doesn't seem to be any slowing down to the megapixel race, as Sharp has just announced an eight megapixel sensor in this size.
Or, you just might be satisfied with the images you can get from your camera. As you've noticed, "actual photos" (which I assume to mean prints) still look good despite the noise clearly visible when viewing at actual pixels. Printing, especially at modest sizes (e.g. 4 x 6"), has a way of smoothing out the noise, so if you're not a "pixel peeper" you may never notice.:-)
Notebook graphics cards are sometimes upgradeable, though I dare not hazard a guess about how often this is the case. If the notebook model in question was offered with multiple graphics cards, chances are that a given card can be replaced with any other card offered with that notebook. I did this a while back with a Dell Inspiron 8000, replacing (I believe) an ATI Rage 128 with a Radeon 7500. The notebook (or one of its cousins) was later offered with the Radeon 9000, which probably would have worked, but by then it was time to upgrade the entire machine.:-)
As for where to acquire the graphics card upgrade, I called up Dell (parts department, I think) and merely ordered one. I guess not all vendors do this but Dell certainly did (and as far as I know still does).
I would "Make the Switch" and order a MacBook Pro today if it weren't for one thing: Apple continues to hobble their laptops with relatively low-resolution displays. 15.4" displays with WUXGA (1920x1200) resolution have been available for years now.
Before anyone responds with, "But 1920x1200 is too much for a 15-inch display," please let me make that decision for myself. I have a laptop with such a configuration today and I find the display resolution indispensable.
In any case, the MacBook Pro is a work of art and a damn impressive piece of engineering--I have yet to see any of the Wintel notebooks cram a top-of-the-line graphics chip into anything approaching a sub-six-pound package. That Apple has done so with such finesse is a testament to their design and engineering prowess.
Way to go, Apple--now can we please have a WUXGA option for once?
That reasoning only works if you assume that someone only buys a PC immediately after moving. Otherwise the next move is likely to be less than seven years away.
Well, everybody should have an RJ45 crimp tool anyway; I just said that it's not necessary for this particular purpose.:-) That said, I do buy some patch cables because it's nice to have the molded stress relief and snag preventer (or whatever it's called). Also, fairly short cables can be found relatively cheaply, although for longer ones it's more cost-effective to crimp them yourself.
Those newfangled punchdown tools sound pretty nifty. Mine is a no-frills model, but then the only wiring I ever do is in my own house.
The crimp tool is only necessary if you want to make your own patch cables. For in-wall cabling (or any cabling terminated by jacks instead of plugs), the cable is terminated to the jack by use of a punchdown-like tool included with the package of jacks.
Of course if you just have a cord sticking out of your wall, then I guess you'd have to terminate it with a plug.
Besides the other points that were made (probably the most important being that the "resolution" and "response time" of an optical viewfinder is much better than the electronic equivalent), there is no digital SLR that offers a realtime view on the LCD display.
With a larger vehicle, there is of course more energy that must be dissipated, but this is tempered by at least two factors: (1) A greater percentage of the vehicle+driver mass belongs to the vehicle, so it absorbs more of the crash energy. (2) More importantly, in a larger vehicle there is typically more space between the occupants and their immediate surroundings (i.e. the vehicle's interior) as well as the point of impact. More space means that there is more vehicle structure that can be deformed (absorbing crash energy), and that a greater degree of deformation is allowable while maintaining integrity (relatively speaking) of the passenger compartment.
Basically, if the passenger compartment can remain relatively intact (that is, if it doesn't get crushed to the point that its occupants are crushed along with it), the chances for survival are pretty good (assuming the passengers are properly restrained). If the passenger compartment is large, it will have to undergo quite a bit of deformation before the passengers are in danger of being crushed.
Being a bit of an automobile enthusiast, I've read a few articles in various car magazines over the past few years which look at traffic safety records (NHTSA data and the like) that have shown that larger vehicles are generally safer not only (as is fairly obvious) in collisions with smaller vehicles, but in collisions with same-size vehicles and in single-vehicle accidents (in which collisions with stationary objects are included). A little digging would probably turn up some of this research.
Not to mention that the vehicle should be capable of some practical level of acceleration. I would say that, at an absolute minimum, it should be able to propel itself from a stop at a red light through the intersection before the light turns red again.
Furthermore, even to maintain a constant speed, the vehicle would have to provide enough forward thrust to overcome drag, which is considerable at higher speeds.
I have already seen notebook-like "desktop replacement" systems that don't even bother with a battery. If I weren't supposed to be working right now, I might even be able to dig up a URL.:-)
...storing and reviewing digital photos on the road. In my opinion the current hard-drive based portable storage devices are a one-trick pony, which limits their usefulness. On the other hand, notebooks are currently too big for a device whose primary purpose is to store photos and maybe review some on a screen. Sony and IBM have some ~3 lb. wonders that come close, but at around 1 lb. this thing is exactly the right size.
What remains to be seen is how much this thing will cost. If it's priced like a 3 lb. notebook, forget it.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked, 720p was considered "HD", and 1366x768 is more than enough resolution to display it. Sure, some scaling will have to take place (assuming the full panel is used, that is), but there's no reason this shouldn't be called "HD Ready."
Maybe this technique can be adapted to fight image spam more effectively :-)
While ideas are great, having a working implementation of something is probably more likely to draw interest. It will also help you demonstrate to yourself that you're actually serious about committing time to your project.
Cheers,
Jeremy
I was wondering about this too, and can only surmise that the OP meant brake rotors. Either that or he gets taken to the cleaners when he gets his brakes serviced: "Yeah, your pads are shot, and while we're at it you might want to think about replacing the master cylinder..."
how many more of these mistakes can they afford to make?
Unfortunately, it seems that they can afford to make a whole bunch more...
More in the category of "not living up to the hype" than "flop" is the Segway. "IT" (as it was known for more than a year, shrouded in secrecy for more than a year before its unveiling) was to be "revolutionary" and change all our lives. Did that happen? I'm still waiting...
I'd also like to nominate Windows Vista for the list, but even that might be a little premature.
I second Mike Cohn's advice. I haven't read his books, but I've heard him speak on multiple occasions, and I find his approach to be eminently practical.
You're right, but that doesn't stop various marketing organizations from referring to a high-sensitivity mode as "digital image stabilization" or something similar. I don't think Olympus is alone in this practice; unfortunately I think we're going to start to see more of it.
I'm certainly not against the inclusion of high-ISO modes in P&S cameras, especially when they're well implemented as in Fuji's F-series. But I do object to the misleading "image stabilization" label applied by marketing.
If you're referring to Olympus' "Digital Image Stabilization," here's how they describe it:
Digital Image Stabilization Mode uses a high ISO sensitivity and fast shutter speed to enable you to [blah blah blah]
Nothing fancy here about combining multiple exposures and detecting camera/subject movement; just using higher sensitivity than the 50 or 100 that many P&S users are used to, resulting in faster shutter speeds.
Fujifilm has announced plans to "bring back" Velvia 50:
? cid=7-7900-8678
:-)
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp
It's a new formulation, which they're tentatively calling "Velvia II," so don't write off Velvia 50 just yet
Others have alluded to it already, but what you're asking for sounds exactly like noise reduction. And there's plenty of software out there that does that. The problem with noise reduction is that it reduces fine detail as well. (Although some software does a respectable job, it can't perform miracles.)
:-)
If you're concerned about noise, what nobody has pointed out yet is that you may want to consider a camera with fewer pixels, a physically larger sensor, or both. Cramming 7 million photosites on a tiny 1/2.5" sensor (yes, they are measured in a strange way--that translates to somewhere around 5.8 x 4.3mm) is a sure recipe for noise. However, there doesn't seem to be any slowing down to the megapixel race, as Sharp has just announced an eight megapixel sensor in this size.
Or, you just might be satisfied with the images you can get from your camera. As you've noticed, "actual photos" (which I assume to mean prints) still look good despite the noise clearly visible when viewing at actual pixels. Printing, especially at modest sizes (e.g. 4 x 6"), has a way of smoothing out the noise, so if you're not a "pixel peeper" you may never notice.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Notebook graphics cards are sometimes upgradeable, though I dare not hazard a guess about how often this is the case. If the notebook model in question was offered with multiple graphics cards, chances are that a given card can be replaced with any other card offered with that notebook. I did this a while back with a Dell Inspiron 8000, replacing (I believe) an ATI Rage 128 with a Radeon 7500. The notebook (or one of its cousins) was later offered with the Radeon 9000, which probably would have worked, but by then it was time to upgrade the entire machine. :-)
As for where to acquire the graphics card upgrade, I called up Dell (parts department, I think) and merely ordered one. I guess not all vendors do this but Dell certainly did (and as far as I know still does).
Cheers,
Jeremy
I would "Make the Switch" and order a MacBook Pro today if it weren't for one thing: Apple continues to hobble their laptops with relatively low-resolution displays. 15.4" displays with WUXGA (1920x1200) resolution have been available for years now.
Before anyone responds with, "But 1920x1200 is too much for a 15-inch display," please let me make that decision for myself. I have a laptop with such a configuration today and I find the display resolution indispensable.
In any case, the MacBook Pro is a work of art and a damn impressive piece of engineering--I have yet to see any of the Wintel notebooks cram a top-of-the-line graphics chip into anything approaching a sub-six-pound package. That Apple has done so with such finesse is a testament to their design and engineering prowess.
Way to go, Apple--now can we please have a WUXGA option for once?
That reasoning only works if you assume that someone only buys a PC immediately after moving. Otherwise the next move is likely to be less than seven years away.
Those newfangled punchdown tools sound pretty nifty. Mine is a no-frills model, but then the only wiring I ever do is in my own house.
Cheers,
Jeremy
- almost nobody uses 802.11a,
- 802.11a operates in the 5GHz range rather than in 2.4GHz, and
- 802.11a range is inherently less than 802.11b/g,
interference with nearby WLANs is a lot less likely.Cheers,
Jeremy
The crimp tool is only necessary if you want to make your own patch cables. For in-wall cabling (or any cabling terminated by jacks instead of plugs), the cable is terminated to the jack by use of a punchdown-like tool included with the package of jacks.
Of course if you just have a cord sticking out of your wall, then I guess you'd have to terminate it with a plug.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Besides the other points that were made (probably the most important being that the "resolution" and "response time" of an optical viewfinder is much better than the electronic equivalent), there is no digital SLR that offers a realtime view on the LCD display.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Many cameras, even at the consumer level, have been doing this for years--it's known as "dark frame subtraction."
Cheers,
Jeremy
With a larger vehicle, there is of course more energy that must be dissipated, but this is tempered by at least two factors: (1) A greater percentage of the vehicle+driver mass belongs to the vehicle, so it absorbs more of the crash energy. (2) More importantly, in a larger vehicle there is typically more space between the occupants and their immediate surroundings (i.e. the vehicle's interior) as well as the point of impact. More space means that there is more vehicle structure that can be deformed (absorbing crash energy), and that a greater degree of deformation is allowable while maintaining integrity (relatively speaking) of the passenger compartment.
Basically, if the passenger compartment can remain relatively intact (that is, if it doesn't get crushed to the point that its occupants are crushed along with it), the chances for survival are pretty good (assuming the passengers are properly restrained). If the passenger compartment is large, it will have to undergo quite a bit of deformation before the passengers are in danger of being crushed.
Being a bit of an automobile enthusiast, I've read a few articles in various car magazines over the past few years which look at traffic safety records (NHTSA data and the like) that have shown that larger vehicles are generally safer not only (as is fairly obvious) in collisions with smaller vehicles, but in collisions with same-size vehicles and in single-vehicle accidents (in which collisions with stationary objects are included). A little digging would probably turn up some of this research.
Not to mention that the vehicle should be capable of some practical level of acceleration. I would say that, at an absolute minimum, it should be able to propel itself from a stop at a red light through the intersection before the light turns red again.
Furthermore, even to maintain a constant speed, the vehicle would have to provide enough forward thrust to overcome drag, which is considerable at higher speeds.
A contract cannot be "Constitutional" or "unconstitutional," as the very notion of being unconstitutional applies to laws, not to contracts.
I suppose that if a certification were awarded, the acronym could be changed to "GNU's Now Unix." :-)
I have already seen notebook-like "desktop replacement" systems that don't even bother with a battery. If I weren't supposed to be working right now, I might even be able to dig up a URL. :-)
Cheers,
Jeremy
...storing and reviewing digital photos on the road. In my opinion the current hard-drive based portable storage devices are a one-trick pony, which limits their usefulness. On the other hand, notebooks are currently too big for a device whose primary purpose is to store photos and maybe review some on a screen. Sony and IBM have some ~3 lb. wonders that come close, but at around 1 lb. this thing is exactly the right size.
What remains to be seen is how much this thing will cost. If it's priced like a 3 lb. notebook, forget it.
Cheers,
Jeremy