Well if this is the case that's a good reason to try and improve American technology, that would be the whole frikin point of an announcement like this, definitely NOT to outsorce booster development to another country.
The USA has spent most of it's energies and funds on the shuttle and the space station and wasted a lot of effort on Shuttle replacement.
Both are romantic ideas but they're a complete frikin waste of literally billions of dollars. There are better faster cheaper safer ways of executing a space program but you need objectives, because the truth is there's really not a whole lot of practical stuff to do up there. Multi-billion dollar science labs of questionable value don't excite the public imagination and getting in bed with Russia to build it when you have to pay them & their bankrupt space program to do it was doubly stupid.
It was the latest disasterous lemon sold to congress by the bozos running NASA in a succession of disasterous lemons, the Space shuttle being the biggest disaster inflicted on US Space development.
FWIW I did resolution tests, and my results don't agree with yours but then again I wasn't using a drum scanner. IMHO 11 Mpix digital is a better quality image that 35mm scanned film, by a *long* way in some places depending on the content, speed contrast.
That comparrison also looks at medium format film vs the 1Ds.
Do the math (it's actually simple) if ~12 Mpix = 35mm getting the pixels for Large should give you the dimansion of the film, so yep with enough area you'll hit the number but you're talking a bit less than 100 times the area of 35mm film, 35mm gives you 35mm * 23.3mm = 815mm^2. i.e. a bit less than 350mm film. You'd need 350mm by 230mm. 8x10 film gives you 25.4 * 8 x 25.4 * 10 gives you 254mm * 203mm = 51562mm^2
So, if 35mm film resolves about 12Mpix and 1Gpix/12Mpix = 83.3 we can sheck this against the film area ratios. 51562mm^2 / 815mm^2 = 63mm That is not enough to give give you a Gpix worth of resolution.
It is enough to give you that if you think that 35mm film is the equivalent of 18Mpix, but I think that's ludicrous and the evidnece with cameras like the 1Ds clearly supports my resolution estimates.
Bear in mind that even if you could image better that this, lenses simply cannot resolve the detail over the full image. Look at the transfer functions, they're horrible and the CA is a huge problem.
Quote makes it sound authentic.
on
Online! The Book
·
· Score: 5, Funny
...."If only they had not strewn the book with error, verbiage and irrelavancy."....
35mm film is nowhere near a gigapixel resolution, sure you could scan the film grain, but it's film grain you're getting not useful information. I could equally well enlarge any image in photoshop for no extra detail, it's just as pointless. I doubt even large isn't going to get you there. Look at online comparrisons between a 1Ds (~11 Mpix) and medium format here:
As you can see film doesn't catch all the detail some people seem to think around here.
I've also done my own 35mm film tests with provia iso100 shooting digital test cards & scanned at 4000dpi and concluded that ~12Mpix would be the equivalent of 35mm high res provia, but you have to ignore some issues with film, like noise in the darker portions of the image. Digital in a 1Ds is already significantly better in a number of areas at slightly less resolution than my conclusions at the time, and noise get's worse at higher iso films or push processing and a 1Ds really starts to kick ass.
On top of this scanning is a laborious and expensive proposition.
Well the AirPhoto images use a camera (a very large format film camera infact) and these are scanned then orthorectified and stitched, their name should make it clear what they think their product is. There are other products out there that aren't considered photographic in the terminology of that business. You're free to play with semantics all you like. It doesn't change the facts which we probbaly agree on. Take the info or leave it.
See my other replies to similar comments. I read that and the rest of the article. These images are *photographic*, please understand the post before replying.
Yes this is *very* cool. I'm not as sure as you that he had in mind to exclude these other images with that vague term but it doesn't alter the facts. His image is interesting and unique, others have been using >1Gpix stitched photographis for a *long* time.
Yes I did, let me quote from it: "most detailed stitched digital images ever created".
These Airphoto images are *photographic* so even by the definitions in the article they qualify, yes they are accurate but the method of projection does not exclude them.
No, they can be panned and zoomed depending on the viewer. The UI doesn not define the image. Look at the Earthviewer client to see seamless panning zooming and paging of massive images in 3D.
Images like this are common in GIS applications, often orthorectified product stitched into a seamless continuous image map of massive areas of terrain, these images are vast, far in excess of a gigapixel.
OK, I see your point about chickenhawks. I kinda like Rummy though, especially the way he doesn't pander to the morons in the press corps who traditionally get away with asking the most obviously assinine questions. He doesn't play their game by their rules and I enjoy watching that.
Of course they don't want to be American, but the do envy America and all it has. They've never been able to shake DeGaulle's paranoia and mistrust of Anglo-American ties during WWII. It was a source of much chagrin that DeGaulle couldn't dictate the course of the war, the harsh reality never threatened impinged on his delusions. The same is true of most Frenchmen today.
His post wasn't flamebait. w.r.t. your concern over Afghanistan and the loss of GPS a civilian system would me no better than GPS. GPS denial like Galileo jamming can be localized to the theatre of operations.
Well said. The whole thing about jamming seems to stem from it using different frequencies than the U.S. system, it's a non story dressed up as anti-U.S. propaganda. I'm more concerned with the degradation issue for everyday use. I still don't see the significant strategic value of those extra few meters but I do see it undermining many peaceful civilian applications. Let's hope that Galileo supports the maximum accuracy for everyday civilian use. If it doean't there's very little point.
Sigh, nobody has walked over anyone. Geeze keep your hair on. You don't even know the facts beyone some rant on/. typical, get all hot & bothered over propaganda.
This is the whole point of the ability to Jam. It is inevitable that a U.S. adversary would use Galileo just as they use GPS now. It is denied them with GPS and will hopefully be denied them with Galileo. I'm really not sure this jamming thing is all it's cracked up to be. It sounds like the differing frequencies will make jamming possible (because the U.S. won't step on it's own toes) and it's being blown out of proportion and misrepresented as being designed to be jammed easily.
I'm more concerned about the degradation in accuracy. I mean really, we're talking meter accuracy vs a few meters accuracy. What possible strategic difference could this make? Yet because of the foolish paranoia of a few in uniform thousands of civilian applications are rendered useless while no strategic advantage is gained that I can see.
If this European system doesn't offer more accuracy then it should be scrapped. There is no point to it beyond pure egotism.
Magnetic induction.... WOW, you mean like Radio, Faraday's law & all that? This is a breakthrough, forget that Marconi guy, this magnetic induction could be the next big thing!
In this instance my post wasn't complaining about RH, it was complaining about the propaganda saying RH was doing a great job. Since I have complained on other occasions about RH and what they've done with this move in the past I will respond to your comment on filling the gap, Perens and his latest Debian derived effort looks like it might be a contender, or SuSe might offer an alternative (let's see how the acquisition pans out). That's the beauty of Linux, you have a choice, it still doesn't make the unilateral withdrawal of affordable support and stable releases for the largest distro (in my neck of the woods) a pleasant experience, and it sure doesn't mean they're doing a good job (at least for thos users who were let down).
That is a pretty blatant example of doublethink propaganda. Red Had drops support and release for RHx, and we see an article singing their praises on how great a job they're dowing throwing Fedora over the fence because they can claim some customer retention on the Enterprise front.
No it's not a great job, the reasonably priced support option is gone, and there's nothing they offer between outlandishly expensive enterprise support and free no support. For an Operating system they mostly package, not author, they are doing a really bad job at providing affordable support options or stable releases that the ordinary user might want (like the vast majority of Linux users using RHx who were abandoned). Of course they have explicitly said they're not interested in that business, (probably abandoned to protect margins in the Enterprise business). Why anyone would pretend this is all rosy and RH are doing a great job after leaving such a gaping wound on the Linux desktop is beyond me.
You seem to overlook that it was a lack of electricity and a lack of backup that brought the internet down. Backups tend to provide reduced capability for an hour or so, and not everyone has them. Nobody would argue that electricity isn't critical infrastructure, but going to local backup generation means that *infrastructure* has *failed*. Similarly roads are critical infrastructure, but they failed in the blackout too (thanks to signalling issues).
Yes you can provide redundance, of course electricity is a prerequisite. There are satellite links and microwave and/or radio communications that you could use if you thought it important enough. Once again the cart is before the horse here, life and death is not the definition of critical infrastructure, neither is redundance. Critical in a context like this typically means it is critical for performing business functions (for example), and it certainly meets that definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if this is the case that's a good reason to try and improve American technology, that would be the whole frikin point of an announcement like this, definitely NOT to outsorce booster development to another country.
The USA has spent most of it's energies and funds on the shuttle and the space station and wasted a lot of effort on Shuttle replacement.
Both are romantic ideas but they're a complete frikin waste of literally billions of dollars. There are better faster cheaper safer ways of executing a space program but you need objectives, because the truth is there's really not a whole lot of practical stuff to do up there. Multi-billion dollar science labs of questionable value don't excite the public imagination and getting in bed with Russia to build it when you have to pay them & their bankrupt space program to do it was doubly stupid.
It was the latest disasterous lemon sold to congress by the bozos running NASA in a succession of disasterous lemons, the Space shuttle being the biggest disaster inflicted on US Space development.
FWIW I did resolution tests, and my results don't agree with yours but then again I wasn't using a drum scanner. IMHO 11 Mpix digital is a better quality image that 35mm scanned film, by a *long* way in some places depending on the content, speed contrast.
That comparrison also looks at medium format film vs the 1Ds.
Do the math (it's actually simple) if ~12 Mpix = 35mm getting the pixels for Large should give you the dimansion of the film, so yep with enough area you'll hit the number but you're talking a bit less than 100 times the area of 35mm film, 35mm gives you 35mm * 23.3mm = 815mm^2. i.e. a bit less than 350mm film. You'd need 350mm by 230mm. 8x10 film gives you 25.4 * 8 x 25.4 * 10 gives you 254mm * 203mm = 51562mm^2
So, if 35mm film resolves about 12Mpix and 1Gpix/12Mpix = 83.3 we can sheck this against the film area ratios.
51562mm^2 / 815mm^2 = 63mm That is not enough to give give you a Gpix worth of resolution.
It is enough to give you that if you think that 35mm film is the equivalent of 18Mpix, but I think that's ludicrous and the evidnece with cameras like the 1Ds clearly supports my resolution estimates.
Bear in mind that even if you could image better that this, lenses simply cannot resolve the detail over the full image. Look at the transfer functions, they're horrible and the CA is a huge problem.
...."If only they had not strewn the book with error, verbiage and irrelavancy."....
Hmm... sounds exactly like being online.
RTFT (T=thread), see other comments, you're wrong.
35mm film is nowhere near a gigapixel resolution, sure you could scan the film grain, but it's film grain you're getting not useful information. I could equally well enlarge any image in photoshop for no extra detail, it's just as pointless. I doubt even large isn't going to get you there. Look at online comparrisons between a 1Ds (~11 Mpix) and medium format here:
/ 1ds/1ds-field.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras
As you can see film doesn't catch all the detail some people seem to think around here.
I've also done my own 35mm film tests with provia iso100 shooting digital test cards & scanned at 4000dpi and concluded that ~12Mpix would be the equivalent of 35mm high res provia, but you have to ignore some issues with film, like noise in the darker portions of the image. Digital in a 1Ds is already significantly better in a number of areas at slightly less resolution than my conclusions at the time, and noise get's worse at higher iso films or push processing and a 1Ds really starts to kick ass.
On top of this scanning is a laborious and expensive proposition.
Well the AirPhoto images use a camera (a very large format film camera infact) and these are scanned then orthorectified and stitched, their name should make it clear what they think their product is. There are other products out there that aren't considered photographic in the terminology of that business. You're free to play with semantics all you like. It doesn't change the facts which we probbaly agree on. Take the info or leave it.
Fair enough, we can agree to differ on the semantics, I think we agree on the substance though.
See my other replies to similar comments. I read that and the rest of the article. These images are *photographic*, please understand the post before replying.
Yes this is *very* cool. I'm not as sure as you that he had in mind to exclude these other images with that vague term but it doesn't alter the facts. His image is interesting and unique, others have been using >1Gpix stitched photographis for a *long* time.
That's the situation, I can live with that.
Yes I did, let me quote from it: "most detailed stitched digital images ever created".
These Airphoto images are *photographic* so even by the definitions in the article they qualify, yes they are accurate but the method of projection does not exclude them.
No, they can be panned and zoomed depending on the viewer. The UI doesn not define the image. Look at the Earthviewer client to see seamless panning zooming and paging of massive images in 3D.
Images like this are common in GIS applications, often orthorectified product stitched into a seamless continuous image map of massive areas of terrain, these images are vast, far in excess of a gigapixel.
http://airphotousa.com/
Some even generate even larger contiguous image sets at multiple resolutions from these data sources:
http://www.earthviewer.com/
Your historical ignorance does not make me a nutter.
OK, I see your point about chickenhawks.
I kinda like Rummy though, especially the way he doesn't pander to the morons in the press corps who traditionally get away with asking the most obviously assinine questions. He doesn't play their game by their rules and I enjoy watching that.
Yep great, but the article reports on the talks over limiting the accuracy.
Of course they don't want to be American, but the do envy America and all it has. They've never been able to shake DeGaulle's paranoia and mistrust of Anglo-American ties during WWII. It was a source of much chagrin that DeGaulle couldn't dictate the course of the war, the harsh reality never threatened impinged on his delusions. The same is true of most Frenchmen today.
His post wasn't flamebait. w.r.t. your concern over Afghanistan and the loss of GPS a civilian system would me no better than GPS. GPS denial like Galileo jamming can be localized to the theatre of operations.
Well said. The whole thing about jamming seems to stem from it using different frequencies than the U.S. system, it's a non story dressed up as anti-U.S. propaganda. I'm more concerned with the degradation issue for everyday use. I still don't see the significant strategic value of those extra few meters but I do see it undermining many peaceful civilian applications. Let's hope that Galileo supports the maximum accuracy for everyday civilian use. If it doean't there's very little point.
Sigh, nobody has walked over anyone. Geeze keep your hair on. You don't even know the facts beyone some rant on /. typical, get all hot & bothered over propaganda.
This is the whole point of the ability to Jam. It is inevitable that a U.S. adversary would use Galileo just as they use GPS now. It is denied them with GPS and will hopefully be denied them with Galileo. I'm really not sure this jamming thing is all it's cracked up to be. It sounds like the differing frequencies will make jamming possible (because the U.S. won't step on it's own toes) and it's being blown out of proportion and misrepresented as being designed to be jammed easily.
I'm more concerned about the degradation in accuracy. I mean really, we're talking meter accuracy vs a few meters accuracy. What possible strategic difference could this make? Yet because of the foolish paranoia of a few in uniform thousands of civilian applications are rendered useless while no strategic advantage is gained that I can see.
If this European system doesn't offer more accuracy then it should be scrapped. There is no point to it beyond pure egotism.
Magnetic induction.... WOW, you mean like Radio, Faraday's law & all that? This is a breakthrough, forget that Marconi guy, this magnetic induction could be the next big thing!
In this instance my post wasn't complaining about RH, it was complaining about the propaganda saying RH was doing a great job. Since I have complained on other occasions about RH and what they've done with this move in the past I will respond to your comment on filling the gap, Perens and his latest Debian derived effort looks like it might be a contender, or SuSe might offer an alternative (let's see how the acquisition pans out). That's the beauty of Linux, you have a choice, it still doesn't make the unilateral withdrawal of affordable support and stable releases for the largest distro (in my neck of the woods) a pleasant experience, and it sure doesn't mean they're doing a good job (at least for thos users who were let down).
That is a pretty blatant example of doublethink propaganda. Red Had drops support and release for RHx, and we see an article singing their praises on how great a job they're dowing throwing Fedora over the fence because they can claim some customer retention on the Enterprise front.
No it's not a great job, the reasonably priced support option is gone, and there's nothing they offer between outlandishly expensive enterprise support and free no support. For an Operating system they mostly package, not author, they are doing a really bad job at providing affordable support options or stable releases that the ordinary user might want (like the vast majority of Linux users using RHx who were abandoned). Of course they have explicitly said they're not interested in that business, (probably abandoned to protect margins in the Enterprise business). Why anyone would pretend this is all rosy and RH are doing a great job after leaving such a gaping wound on the Linux desktop is beyond me.
You seem to overlook that it was a lack of electricity and a lack of backup that brought the internet down. Backups tend to provide reduced capability for an hour or so, and not everyone has them. Nobody would argue that electricity isn't critical infrastructure, but going to local backup generation means that *infrastructure* has *failed*. Similarly roads are critical infrastructure, but they failed in the blackout too (thanks to signalling issues).
Yes you can provide redundance, of course electricity is a prerequisite. There are satellite links and microwave and/or radio communications that you could use if you thought it important enough. Once again the cart is before the horse here, life and death is not the definition of critical infrastructure, neither is redundance. Critical in a context like this typically means it is critical for performing business functions (for example), and it certainly meets that definition.