As someone who spends a lot of time making things that have no direct use, I can assure you that these projects have massive value later on. They lead to bigger, more complex projects and ultimately a much greater understanding through real world experience AND any research that was done to make the steps in the first place. It also gives us much more confidence and a greater stength in our stride as we tackle problems in things we will use. Every now and then, we have to re-evaluate things we "know", and look at them again under the light of what we have learnt since we last looked at it. We know everything until we realise we don't.
that's ~81 minutes or just under an hour and a half. When was their discovery of the issue? If that's 1.5 hours from becoming aware of the issue to closing it, it's not terrible. What time of day was it at the office doing the maintenance? Was it even in office hours when someone would be there?
I pondered this also, but I'd imagine it would only be sections that are transparent. There'd be a lot where it just wouldn't be feasible like the cargo bay. The article talks about the "central body of the aircraft". So I guess the nose and tail will be opaque? If so, they could compensate with extra lights for example.
I've done a little back reading on this now to see what it's all about. And all I can say is for goodness sake, don't bite the hand that gives you free stuff. Personally, I usually choose gentoo or fedora. But I still recognise the value of Ubuntu.
Moore's Law has become an expectation, and thus a design method from a marketing point of view. This is particularly visible in harddisks where they release a harddisk that has been designed to scale up, but only contains a single platter, then a little over a year and a half later, the same hard disk is released with a second platter. The expectation allows them to get ahead, while the previous iteration is slowly allowed to get to it's full potential. Then they work on the next thing and while the current platform grows.
Why not just take the figurative bullets out of the gun (no networked devices allowed) instead of building an expensive figurative bullet proof vest. If they don't need the networked device for the test, there is no reason to allow it in the room in the first place
While you make some good points, you've wandered from the issue.
It gets tough for me to distinguish networked devices (iPhone? iTouch?) from non-networked ones (calculator? electronic dictionary? iPod?)
It's not that easy to tell any more. Simply looking at the shell of the device isn't enough to know unless you are very familiar with an extremely wide range of devices. Even the people selling the devices usually aren't familiar with technology which has been off the shelf for a few months. It's simply not reasonable to expect the original poster to be able to tell the difference. He/She has some good ideals here, and it would be nice to come up with a solution. Given the ever expanding functionality of small devices, it may be worth discussing whether it's reasonable to expect to bring your own equipment into an exam in the first place.
I imagine it's pretty similar to the trill of having sex in a public place. You're not supposed to be doing that there, and the risk is a turn on. For me, that risk isn't worth the consequences, but everyones' priorities are different.
I'm curious how well it works in ambient noise. From the looks of the comments I've read here, quite possibly well...
It's also interesting to note that a number of users have mentioned that if it uses multiple microphones then_____. The article talks of using one, and using a "set of signatures". It's basically working by listening to how the tap sounds on one part of the phone compared to another part. While the structure of the shell will play a small role in this, mostly it will be influenced by the electronics inside the phone since they are generally not symetrical. However, the caseings could be specifically made to optimise the process. Say by having I think slanted layer of air in the LCD protector, or putting extra knobs of plastic inside the casing.
When you view 3D content windowed, it's fairly easy on the eye to transition between what's 3D and what's not 3D (neutral). So I reckon, just leave any panels neutral and hard alined to an edge. As a rule of thumb, I've found that anything the user needs to explicitly interpret (language and stats), is much better neutral. Leave the content to being the content.
As for the cross-hair, that's less obvious. My gut feeling is to leave it neutral since it's so small, it's not going to be _that_ noticeable that it doesn't quite comply with the depth of field. Having it hanging infront of your eyes is definitely going to be a distraction.
On the ghosting thing, anaglyphs have to be optimized for the glasses. Even different models of glasses from the same manufacturer don't perform the same. So an image that looks good on one, will almost definitely have ghosting issues on another.
When you add another dimension to a playback medium, the first temptation is to exploit that new dimension to the point of exaggeration. That is where 3-D TV is now.
Totally agree. There's another aspect to this. 3D depth perception is totally dependant on the viewer's balance between their left and right eyes. If their eyes are not sufficiently balanced, then they have trouble percieving the depth, hense the original poster's comment
Definitely. I've been wanting to try the D700 for a while. Even my old (like bottom-mid range 4 years ago) Cannon power shot captures at lot of stuff my eyes can't.
is approximately 40 times the size of Canon's largest commercial CMOS sensor
And then quantifies that
The approximately 21.1 megapixel 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor employed in the company's EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS 5D Mark II digital SLR cameras
So the new sensor is ~40 times larger than their 21.1MP sensor.
120MP/40=3MP: If we assume that they are the same sensor, and take a chunk of the sensor the same size as as their 21.1MP sensor, we get 3MP.
21.1MP/3MP=7: The 21.1MP sensor is 7 times more dense than this sensor if we assume it to only be 120MP. Meaning that the receptors are potentially as much as 7 times the size, therefore making them highly sensitive and suitable for really low light, while having incredible high resolution. This adds a lot of weight to the possiblity that they are the same sensor.
With that difference in density, they could use current technology and still have room to use for their
innovative circuit design
I'm not saying you're wrong. It's quite possible that they are different sensors. However, your resoning is:
This follows last week's development announcement
You are quoting an announcement, not a chip.
These are both impressive achievements. Cannon would have pumped a lot of money into this, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they decided to milk it a little.
The article says that there's currently no information available about the resolution. I just wondered if this might be the same sensor from the story the other day about the 120MP sensor...? Two stories for the price of one? Agree? Disagree?
There is currently no information about the sensor's resolution.
Darn, that was my biggest question. Low light photography has always been one of my interests, so I would have a lot of fun with a camera based on this technology:D... Actually, I'd be rather keen to have a try making my own... Maybe that's for another day though.;)
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who spends a lot of time making things that have no direct use, I can assure you that these projects have massive value later on. They lead to bigger, more complex projects and ultimately a much greater understanding through real world experience AND any research that was done to make the steps in the first place. It also gives us much more confidence and a greater stength in our stride as we tackle problems in things we will use. Every now and then, we have to re-evaluate things we "know", and look at them again under the light of what we have learnt since we last looked at it. We know everything until we realise we don't.
Imagine them having a romantic night out. "OW My eye!"... or worse...
that's ~81 minutes or just under an hour and a half. When was their discovery of the issue? If that's 1.5 hours from becoming aware of the issue to closing it, it's not terrible. What time of day was it at the office doing the maintenance? Was it even in office hours when someone would be there?
This is illuded to in the article. It sounds like the cabin would be coated in an LCD like material.
I pondered this also, but I'd imagine it would only be sections that are transparent. There'd be a lot where it just wouldn't be feasible like the cargo bay. The article talks about the "central body of the aircraft". So I guess the nose and tail will be opaque? If so, they could compensate with extra lights for example.
I love the concept of this, but I can't see my mum going for it!
I've done a little back reading on this now to see what it's all about. And all I can say is for goodness sake, don't bite the hand that gives you free stuff. Personally, I usually choose gentoo or fedora. But I still recognise the value of Ubuntu.
Moore's Law has become an expectation, and thus a design method from a marketing point of view. This is particularly visible in harddisks where they release a harddisk that has been designed to scale up, but only contains a single platter, then a little over a year and a half later, the same hard disk is released with a second platter. The expectation allows them to get ahead, while the previous iteration is slowly allowed to get to it's full potential. Then they work on the next thing and while the current platform grows.
It's awesome!
Why not just take the figurative bullets out of the gun (no networked devices allowed) instead of building an expensive figurative bullet proof vest. If they don't need the networked device for the test, there is no reason to allow it in the room in the first place
While you make some good points, you've wandered from the issue.
It gets tough for me to distinguish networked devices (iPhone? iTouch?) from non-networked ones (calculator? electronic dictionary? iPod?)
It's not that easy to tell any more. Simply looking at the shell of the device isn't enough to know unless you are very familiar with an extremely wide range of devices. Even the people selling the devices usually aren't familiar with technology which has been off the shelf for a few months. It's simply not reasonable to expect the original poster to be able to tell the difference. He/She has some good ideals here, and it would be nice to come up with a solution. Given the ever expanding functionality of small devices, it may be worth discussing whether it's reasonable to expect to bring your own equipment into an exam in the first place.
Reality usually isn't as simple as theory.
I imagine it's pretty similar to the trill of having sex in a public place. You're not supposed to be doing that there, and the risk is a turn on. For me, that risk isn't worth the consequences, but everyones' priorities are different.
I'm curious how well it works in ambient noise. From the looks of the comments I've read here, quite possibly well...
It's also interesting to note that a number of users have mentioned that if it uses multiple microphones then_____. The article talks of using one, and using a "set of signatures". It's basically working by listening to how the tap sounds on one part of the phone compared to another part. While the structure of the shell will play a small role in this, mostly it will be influenced by the electronics inside the phone since they are generally not symetrical. However, the caseings could be specifically made to optimise the process. Say by having I think slanted layer of air in the LCD protector, or putting extra knobs of plastic inside the casing.
Actually, this is a really good idea. Potentially a couple of old monitors could be stuck behind them with a live feed of something outside.
I'm the only gay eskimo in my tribe
When you view 3D content windowed, it's fairly easy on the eye to transition between what's 3D and what's not 3D (neutral). So I reckon, just leave any panels neutral and hard alined to an edge. As a rule of thumb, I've found that anything the user needs to explicitly interpret (language and stats), is much better neutral. Leave the content to being the content.
As for the cross-hair, that's less obvious. My gut feeling is to leave it neutral since it's so small, it's not going to be _that_ noticeable that it doesn't quite comply with the depth of field. Having it hanging infront of your eyes is definitely going to be a distraction.
On the ghosting thing, anaglyphs have to be optimized for the glasses. Even different models of glasses from the same manufacturer don't perform the same. So an image that looks good on one, will almost definitely have ghosting issues on another.
When you add another dimension to a playback medium, the first temptation is to exploit that new dimension to the point of exaggeration. That is where 3-D TV is now.
Totally agree. There's another aspect to this. 3D depth perception is totally dependant on the viewer's balance between their left and right eyes. If their eyes are not sufficiently balanced, then they have trouble percieving the depth, hense the original poster's comment
and unimpressive dimensionality effect
In 2015.... Chrome 256 released!
Definitely. I've been wanting to try the D700 for a while. Even my old (like bottom-mid range 4 years ago) Cannon power shot captures at lot of stuff my eyes can't.
The article says
is approximately 40 times the size of Canon's largest commercial CMOS sensor
And then quantifies that
The approximately 21.1 megapixel 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor employed in the company's EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS 5D Mark II digital SLR cameras
So the new sensor is ~40 times larger than their 21.1MP sensor.
120MP/40=3MP: If we assume that they are the same sensor, and take a chunk of the sensor the same size as as their 21.1MP sensor, we get 3MP.
21.1MP/3MP=7: The 21.1MP sensor is 7 times more dense than this sensor if we assume it to only be 120MP. Meaning that the receptors are potentially as much as 7 times the size, therefore making them highly sensitive and suitable for really low light, while having incredible high resolution. This adds a lot of weight to the possiblity that they are the same sensor.
With that difference in density, they could use current technology and still have room to use for their
innovative circuit design
I'm not saying you're wrong. It's quite possible that they are different sensors. However, your resoning is:
This follows last week's development announcement
You are quoting an announcement, not a chip.
These are both impressive achievements. Cannon would have pumped a lot of money into this, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they decided to milk it a little.
Did read. I disagree that that means they are not related. It's only a statement made by the reporter.
The article says that there's currently no information available about the resolution. I just wondered if this might be the same sensor from the story the other day about the 120MP sensor...? Two stories for the price of one? Agree? Disagree?
There is currently no information about the sensor's resolution.
Darn, that was my biggest question. Low light photography has always been one of my interests, so I would have a lot of fun with a camera based on this technology :D ... Actually, I'd be rather keen to have a try making my own... Maybe that's for another day though. ;)
We like to do things organically. Now we want to search video. It's inspired by a rat, and a virus. We call it.... the VIRAT!
I really like stories like this. Where ever feasible, I try to repair rather than replace.