This is simply arguing semantics. At F2.8 a smaller lens or a larger lens will still deliver the same amount of light to the sensor.
Having a lens gather more light and spill it beyond the sensor is wasted and the main point of the article. The point is putting a larger than needed lens with a larger than needed image circle is only a waste. When you could build a smaller lens with a smaller image circle with the exact same specs.
This why Nikon is building a line of lenses for the smaller APS image circle of it's DSLRs. On the smaller sensor there is NO drawback in using a smaller lens system, with the obvious advantage of it being smaller/lighter/cheaper.
The Majority of the light hitting the center of the image circle does pass through the center of the lens. Even more importantly the out edge of the image circle is where the quality is worse. More Chroma abberations, softer with less resolution and more vignetting. So essentially the article is correct, hanway is wrong.
Hanway is also incorrect on the light gathering. Since the larger lenses are simply wasting light in a larger image circle. You can make a smaller lens that delivers a smaller image circle that will gather just as much light. Again the Article is correct, hanway incorrect.
Actually he highlights the real world compromise of using the existing lenses with smaller sensors. But this is a comopromise.
He is actually correct. F/2.8 is essentially light gathering ability over area. Not total light gather ability. No matter what size sensor you put there within the image circle it is effectively F/2.8.
But it ends up being a waste of lens with smaller sensor. You can use a much smaller lens and deliver the equivalent light to the smaller image circle.
Smaller lenses designed for the smaller image circle will not have less light gathering ability.
A properly designed lens for the smaller image circle will be smaller lighter and put the same light on the sensor. The larger lens is wasting light since a large percentage is dumped outside the sensor.
And while I wont argue the where the light rays come from, the effect remains the same. The outer edges of the image circle is where the performance is worse. Softness, Chromatic Aberration and Vignetting are all worse.
By cropping to the center portion of the image circle the smaller sensors are in the lens sweet spot.
I am in Canada. I don't think real Tivo available here yet. Plus they move stuff around at whim without even advertising the change. Andromeda on the only station here moved from monday to saturday, then bounces between Friday and Saturday without explanation. StarGate good luck. I gave up somewhere in season 6.
I find it is much easier to wait for the series to be available than to try to find that one new episode each week, if there is even a new episode that week. Like I said watching B5 in this manner was a revelation to me. I watched all 5 seasons in a month.
No waiting, no forgetting plotlines when you have to wait a month during the midseason break, no getting into a series and having it cancelled.
Whole series or bust for me.
The only downside is if too many start thinking this way series television might lose ratings and stop production. So by all means keep watching guys.
I love sci-fi binging and I am completely tired of trying to find where they moved the show this week. This started for me with B5 which someone loaned me on tape. I don't think I would have got thru the first season if I were watching weekly. But when binging it you are completely absorbed like reading a book.
I was a fan of Stargate, but now that it is in full syndication and new episodes are few and far between, it is annoyingly impossible to find the new episodes.
Now I have made the conscious decision to stop watching new series off air. I'll watch on DVD when they properly finish the series.
I don't care about using the player as a means to transfer music. I have 96MB flash player. If I want to trade files I am not going to use a 96mb flash player.
What I care about is the really awful DRM software that comes with it that you are forced to use rather than a simple drag and drop model that it should use.
There may be a DRM argument for the big HD players, but for small flash players it does nothing but inconvenience the legitimate use.
So for me DRM does ruin the player. I end up leaving the same tunes on there for months because the software is so bad I am loathe to use it.
This makes is pretty clear to me that Kodaks patent should be invalidated. It is only common sense to use compression as file size grows. This is not a case of valuable research dollars being defended. Did they invent the compression that Sony is using? I don't think so. So where is the Kodak research in this area. What "work" did they do that Sony "stole".
It is a ridiculous farce that rewards people for putting the obvious in writing and filing it. Not true innovation.
Let's face it, the patent system is quite broken. I would start with limiting patent life to 5 years. Plenty of time for a company to earn back their research. But short enough that they can't sit around and wait for the market to use the innovation and then pounce. Also a 5 year life will force more innovation, rather than stagnation. Obviously broad vague ideas or wishes shouldn't be patenable. Solutions should.
I have seen comments that people won't buy players that don't play MP3 players that need DRM.
Please point out such players, because almost every Flash based MP3 player I have seen forces you to use some terrible software that adds some DRM layer to your MP3's. I hate it. It is crap.
Who cares if there is a standard or if the have one standard form of MP3 DRM. The later is probably better.
From my brief examination of wxWindows, I am under the impression it may be a bit closer to native than Qt, but still some functionality in WX is coded and not merely wrappers. There is a wxlib that is a binary.
The big difference is that with wx you can distribute your app either statically linked (one executable) or dynamically linked (separate dll) without paying any fees, even in commercial applications.
Ok I only downloaded it 2 days ago. But it looks really good to me and doesn't have Qt restricitons. After buy both Borland C++ builder and VisC++ I now plan to use only Wx.
Quote from the FAQ: "...basically you can distribute proprietary binaries without distributing any source code, and neither will wxWindows conflict with GPL code you may be using or developing with it. The conditions for using wxWindows 2 are the same whether you are a personal, academic or commercial developer."
I forgot about the HTML formatting stringing everything together. Again in plain text.
Before the current outsource mania. My company had several projects done by Consultant firms in India. All of them pretty much considered raging failures. This I get mostly from friends in the company, though I witnessed the result of one of these projects first hand and it was a complete failure. Mind you this is not routine IT, but building telecom applications.
Do I blame poor indian coders. Not at all. All the Indians who have come to work at our company seem very bright and motivated. They get the job done.
The problem was trying to manage projects that continents away, with time zones out of sync and communications barriers (regardless of the english proficiency).
This is my first point. You have to be very carefull with how critical and how easy to manage the outsourced project is.
So I agree with the article. There are lots of talented Indian programmers. But that doesn't stop the outsourcing from often being a debacle.
My next point is how do you develop your real technology managers (who understand the technology) and architects if you are farming out the lower level work. System Architects don't spring from Universities IMO, it takes some years in the trenches working on the systems to get the needed knowledge.
Furthering of this point. The USA is already lagging on graduating scientists and engineers. It will certainly not encourage more graduates when it is ousourcing their potential work to India.
Is Technology now unimportant in the USA? Will this be a nation of MBA's?
Before the current outsource mania. My company had several projects done by Consultant firms in India. All of them pretty much considered raging failures. This I get mostly from friends in the company, though I witnessed the result of one of these projects first hand and it was a complete failure. Mind you this is not routine IT, but building telecom applications.
Do I blame poor indian coders. Not at all. All the Indians who have come to work at our company seem very bright and motivated. They get the job done.
The problem was trying to manage projects that continents away, with time zones out of sync and communications barriers (regardless of the english proficiency).
This is my first point. You have to be very carefull with how critical and how easy to manage the outsourced project is.
So I agree with the article. There are lots of talented Indian programmers. But that doesn't stop the outsourcing from often being a debacle.
My next point is how do you develop your real technology managers (who understand the technology) and architects if you are farming out the lower level work. System Architects don't spring from Universities IMO, it takes some years in the trenches working on the systems to get the needed knowledge.
Furthering of this point. The USA is already lagging on graduating scientists and engineers. It will certainly not encourage more graduates when it is ousourcing their potential work to India.
Technology now unimportant in the USA. So this will be a nation of MBA's?
I don't like the sound of key revocation. Sounds like you don't buy movies you lease them.
http://www.dvdinfoworld.com/modules.php?op=modload &name=News&file=article&sid=594
Unlike current DVD technology, the BD-ROM format uses a much stronger encryption algorithm based on 128-bit AES. It features system renewability for key revocation, and incorporates a physical technology for preventing so-called ?bit-by-bit? copying to recordable media. Under this scheme, content providers will physically insert a so-called ?ROM mark? onto a prerecorded disk during the mastering process. ?Our goal is to prevent not only casual copying, but also professional copying, as much as possible,? said Fidler.
Still needs new high compression scheme. It is 15GB vs 25GB per layer for blu-ray.
"While the DVD Forum's technical working groups have already completed round-robin verification tests and approved the HD-DVD spec, it still awaits final approval from the steering committee. The spec that is up for vote this week includes four high-efficiency codecs-H.264, Windows Media9, MPEG-2 or a hybrid of MPEG-2 and H.264. It also specifies a blue-laser diode technology."
Re:DLP has Rainbows,and MY HEAD HURTS, Doc!
on
CES 2004 Coverage
·
· Score: 1
Essentially you have to point them out so they know what the heck you are talking about. But I don't have to do anything to make them evident to myself, just watch the movie. Nobody I know gets a headache from them.
Watching underworld the other night, which is largely very dark, the rainbows were inescapable.
They are the most intrusive artifacts of any display technology. Now a 3 chip DLP might be really sweet.
A friend has a DLP projector. Looks great, but Rainbows are very evident to most people, not the minority you usually here. It is the minority that find them an annoyance or cause of headaches.
I have yet to sit down with someone and point out the rainbows and have them tell me they can't see them.
For everything else I agree but the tradeoff is rainbows.
Honestly I loved that scene. Much like Han solo blasting greedo. Lets you know how smugglers stay alive (by not being stupid).
But didn't like Firefly. I watch almost any sci-fi and was a buffy fan so I had hopes Joss would pull a winner here, but I just couldn't get into the whole western thing.
No weapon needed. They simply need to re-direct a decent size asteroid or two, or three...
I am always surprised that most sci-fi movies/shows attack other planets with hi-tech weapons, when all they need do is drop some rocks.
The Xindi want only to wipe us out and are not after our planet, so their research programs into mulitple weapons are kind of funny.
Weapons fail. But Rocks are near unstoppable.
Slashdot Mirror
This is simply arguing semantics. At F2.8 a smaller lens or a larger lens will still deliver the same amount of light to the sensor.
Having a lens gather more light and spill it beyond the sensor is wasted and the main point of the article. The point is putting a larger than needed lens with a larger than needed image circle is only a waste. When you could build a smaller lens with a smaller image circle with the exact same specs.
This why Nikon is building a line of lenses for the smaller APS image circle of it's DSLRs. On the smaller sensor there is NO drawback in using a smaller lens system, with the obvious advantage of it being smaller/lighter/cheaper.
The Majority of the light hitting the center of the image circle does pass through the center of the lens. Even more importantly the out edge of the image circle is where the quality is worse. More Chroma abberations, softer with less resolution and more vignetting. So essentially the article is correct, hanway is wrong. Hanway is also incorrect on the light gathering. Since the larger lenses are simply wasting light in a larger image circle. You can make a smaller lens that delivers a smaller image circle that will gather just as much light. Again the Article is correct, hanway incorrect.
Actually he highlights the real world compromise of using the existing lenses with smaller sensors. But this is a comopromise.
He is actually correct. F/2.8 is essentially light gathering ability over area. Not total light gather ability. No matter what size sensor you put there within the image circle it is effectively F/2.8.
But it ends up being a waste of lens with smaller sensor. You can use a much smaller lens and deliver the equivalent light to the smaller image circle.
Smaller lenses designed for the smaller image circle will not have less light gathering ability.
A properly designed lens for the smaller image circle will be smaller lighter and put the same light on the sensor. The larger lens is wasting light since a large percentage is dumped outside the sensor.
And while I wont argue the where the light rays come from, the effect remains the same. The outer edges of the image circle is where the performance is worse. Softness, Chromatic Aberration and Vignetting are all worse.
By cropping to the center portion of the image circle the smaller sensors are in the lens sweet spot.
I am in Canada. I don't think real Tivo available here yet. Plus they move stuff around at whim without even advertising the change. Andromeda on the only station here moved from monday to saturday, then bounces between Friday and Saturday without explanation. StarGate good luck. I gave up somewhere in season 6.
I find it is much easier to wait for the series to be available than to try to find that one new episode each week, if there is even a new episode that week. Like I said watching B5 in this manner was a revelation to me. I watched all 5 seasons in a month.
No waiting, no forgetting plotlines when you have to wait a month during the midseason break, no getting into a series and having it cancelled.
Whole series or bust for me.
The only downside is if too many start thinking this way series television might lose ratings and stop production. So by all means keep watching guys.
I love sci-fi binging and I am completely tired of trying to find where they moved the show this week. This started for me with B5 which someone loaned me on tape. I don't think I would have got thru the first season if I were watching weekly. But when binging it you are completely absorbed like reading a book.
I was a fan of Stargate, but now that it is in full syndication and new episodes are few and far between, it is annoyingly impossible to find the new episodes.
Now I have made the conscious decision to stop watching new series off air. I'll watch on DVD when they properly finish the series.
It seems Marijuana grows quite well in many climates. I believe BC has sizable production, but then again, that my be hydroponics.
:-)
But still you could get pot from the buds and alcohool from the wasted stalks. Two vices from one plant.
I don't care about using the player as a means to transfer music. I have 96MB flash player. If I want to trade files I am not going to use a 96mb flash player.
What I care about is the really awful DRM software that comes with it that you are forced to use rather than a simple drag and drop model that it should use.
There may be a DRM argument for the big HD players, but for small flash players it does nothing but inconvenience the legitimate use.
So for me DRM does ruin the player. I end up leaving the same tunes on there for months because the software is so bad I am loathe to use it.
I will never buy another DRM player.
I have an RCA player with annoying DRM features that requires it's own SW to do the transfer so it can layer on some stupid and pointless DRM layers.
I want a true drag and drop player that just accepts the mp3s I move onto it. No software should be necessary.
http://www.digicamhistory.com/1980_1983.html Runs on batteries stores images on floppies.
This makes is pretty clear to me that Kodaks patent should be invalidated. It is only common sense to use compression as file size grows. This is not a case of valuable research dollars being defended. Did they invent the compression that Sony is using? I don't think so. So where is the Kodak research in this area. What "work" did they do that Sony "stole".
It is a ridiculous farce that rewards people for putting the obvious in writing and filing it. Not true innovation.
Let's face it, the patent system is quite broken. I would start with limiting patent life to 5 years. Plenty of time for a company to earn back their research. But short enough that they can't sit around and wait for the market to use the innovation and then pounce. Also a 5 year life will force more innovation, rather than stagnation. Obviously broad vague ideas or wishes shouldn't be patenable. Solutions should.
I have seen comments that people won't buy players that don't play MP3 players that need DRM.
Please point out such players, because almost every Flash based MP3 player I have seen forces you to use some terrible software that adds some DRM layer to your MP3's. I hate it. It is crap.
Who cares if there is a standard or if the have one standard form of MP3 DRM. The later is probably better.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvk e2.asp
Obviously someone is thinking of this issue.
From my brief examination of wxWindows, I am under the impression it may be a bit closer to native than Qt, but still some functionality in WX is coded and not merely wrappers. There is a wxlib that is a binary.
The big difference is that with wx you can distribute your app either statically linked (one executable) or dynamically linked (separate dll) without paying any fees, even in commercial applications.
Qt will charge you for this...
Ok I only downloaded it 2 days ago. But it looks really good to me and doesn't have Qt restricitons. After buy both Borland C++ builder and VisC++ I now plan to use only Wx.
...basically you can distribute proprietary binaries without distributing any source code, and neither will wxWindows conflict with GPL code you may be using or developing with it. The conditions for using wxWindows 2 are the same whether you are a personal, academic or commercial developer."
Quote from the FAQ:
"
I forgot about the HTML formatting stringing everything together. Again in plain text.
Before the current outsource mania. My company had several projects done by Consultant firms in India. All of them pretty much considered raging failures. This I get mostly from friends in the company, though I witnessed the result of one of these projects first hand and it was a complete failure. Mind you this is not routine IT, but building telecom applications.
Do I blame poor indian coders. Not at all. All the Indians who have come to work at our company seem very bright and motivated. They get the job done.
The problem was trying to manage projects that continents away, with time zones out of sync and communications barriers (regardless of the english proficiency).
This is my first point. You have to be very carefull with how critical and how easy to manage the outsourced project is.
So I agree with the article. There are lots of talented Indian programmers. But that doesn't stop the outsourcing from often being a debacle.
My next point is how do you develop your real technology managers (who understand the technology) and architects if you are farming out the lower level work. System Architects don't spring from Universities IMO, it takes some years in the trenches working on the systems to get the needed knowledge.
Furthering of this point. The USA is already lagging on graduating scientists and engineers. It will certainly not encourage more graduates when it is ousourcing their potential work to India.
Is Technology now unimportant in the USA? Will this be a nation of MBA's?
Before the current outsource mania. My company had several projects done by Consultant firms in India. All of them pretty much considered raging failures. This I get mostly from friends in the company, though I witnessed the result of one of these projects first hand and it was a complete failure. Mind you this is not routine IT, but building telecom applications. Do I blame poor indian coders. Not at all. All the Indians who have come to work at our company seem very bright and motivated. They get the job done. The problem was trying to manage projects that continents away, with time zones out of sync and communications barriers (regardless of the english proficiency). This is my first point. You have to be very carefull with how critical and how easy to manage the outsourced project is. So I agree with the article. There are lots of talented Indian programmers. But that doesn't stop the outsourcing from often being a debacle. My next point is how do you develop your real technology managers (who understand the technology) and architects if you are farming out the lower level work. System Architects don't spring from Universities IMO, it takes some years in the trenches working on the systems to get the needed knowledge. Furthering of this point. The USA is already lagging on graduating scientists and engineers. It will certainly not encourage more graduates when it is ousourcing their potential work to India. Technology now unimportant in the USA. So this will be a nation of MBA's?
I don't like the sound of key revocation. Sounds like you don't buy movies you lease them. http://www.dvdinfoworld.com/modules.php?op=modload &name=News&file=article&sid=594
Unlike current DVD technology, the BD-ROM format uses a much stronger encryption algorithm based on 128-bit AES. It features system renewability for key revocation, and incorporates a physical technology for preventing so-called ?bit-by-bit? copying to recordable media. Under this scheme, content providers will physically insert a so-called ?ROM mark? onto a prerecorded disk during the mastering process. ?Our goal is to prevent not only casual copying, but also professional copying, as much as possible,? said Fidler.
Still needs new high compression scheme. It is 15GB vs 25GB per layer for blu-ray.
"While the DVD Forum's technical working groups have already completed round-robin verification tests and approved the HD-DVD spec, it still awaits final approval from the steering committee. The spec that is up for vote this week includes four high-efficiency codecs-H.264, Windows Media9, MPEG-2 or a hybrid of MPEG-2 and H.264. It also specifies a blue-laser diode technology."
Essentially you have to point them out so they know what the heck you are talking about. But I don't have to do anything to make them evident to myself, just watch the movie. Nobody I know gets a headache from them.
Watching underworld the other night, which is largely very dark, the rainbows were inescapable.
They are the most intrusive artifacts of any display technology. Now a 3 chip DLP might be really sweet.
A friend has a DLP projector. Looks great, but Rainbows are very evident to most people, not the minority you usually here. It is the minority that find them an annoyance or cause of headaches. I have yet to sit down with someone and point out the rainbows and have them tell me they can't see them. For everything else I agree but the tradeoff is rainbows.
Honestly I loved that scene. Much like Han solo blasting greedo. Lets you know how smugglers stay alive (by not being stupid). But didn't like Firefly. I watch almost any sci-fi and was a buffy fan so I had hopes Joss would pull a winner here, but I just couldn't get into the whole western thing.
Yeah, I thought I remembered something about them violating some treaty about "mass drivers" or something.
Of course B5 is the exception, rather than the rule.
No weapon needed. They simply need to re-direct a decent size asteroid or two, or three... I am always surprised that most sci-fi movies/shows attack other planets with hi-tech weapons, when all they need do is drop some rocks. The Xindi want only to wipe us out and are not after our planet, so their research programs into mulitple weapons are kind of funny. Weapons fail. But Rocks are near unstoppable.