Again, and again. This is a wrong assumption. There will be no motion blur in gfx unless they specifically add it. Again THERE IS NO MOTION BLUR neither in the way it is perceived neither in the way it rendered.
It would have to be millions frames rendered per second for it to be perceived as blurred.
> An FPS can't use it though. In an FPS if someone shoots at you where do you register the > hit? If the character is stretched out in a motion blur, should the hit box also be stretched out?
You'd have to move *pretty* fast for that to be any disadvantage. However, if someone was moving that fast (which is unlikely) there is easy solution:
Graphics would be rendered with motion blur at 24 f/sec (as real movies) BUT the buletts, physics, body parts etc. would all be processed at much higher rate.
If you don't agree with me now, consider this REAL WORLD example:
Start waving your hand very quickly in front of your eyes so that the hand appears to be blurred. Now, try to spit so that you hit the hand. See? Graphics are blurred but your hit is only counted IF and only IF you hit the hand.
> Load up UT2004 or BF2. Look straight up. Have > someone fly a plane fast, directly over your > head. It will blur,
I don't know UT. But I know HL2, D3, Far Cry, etc.
None of them has motion blur. To get an idea what I am talking about, look at the intro video sequences that are included with every mainstream game. They are rendered by raytracing software and they all have motion blur. That's why they look so REAL (unlike games, which do NOT look real at all).
> It's because of your eyes, not because real > objects actually blur when they move fast.
Eh? Did I say the object blurred? I said that your brain and eyes create the effect. Read more carefully dude.
If you wave your hand very quickly in front of your eyes, you will see the effect called motion blur. Do you get it? That's why motion blur is a REALISTIC effect and that's why games gfx are NOT realistic when they dont have motion blur.
What GFX cards need to have in future is MOTION BLUR, above all. That is the single reason why the game intro videos look like real movies, while the game gfx still look like... well like game gfx.
The lack of image processing circuits in todays gfx cards is the problem that needs to be fixed in future.
> The answer, which I've found while talking with > you, is that AES was only deeply audited at > that 128 bit level
AES specifies only 128-bit block. However, the cipher (Rijndael) can operate on larger blocks.
> and 128 bits is an insufficient cipher strength.
I assume you mean 128-bit block. Your statement "insufficient cipher strength" is senseless without context. You probably meant to say that a hash needs a block larger than 128 bits (which is true). Block size isn't "cipher strength".
> 1) Alter the cipher, such that instead of 128 bits of output, it emits 512
Rijndael allows 512-bit block and it doesnt need to be altered.
> 2) Alter the mode, so that the 128 bit cipher > emits a 512 bit authentication block.
"Hash modes" of AES were NOT scrutinized during the AES selection process.
Who cares? It's your problem if you use a obsolete OS. If you don't have money to upgrade to a non-obsolete OS, use Linux or BSD. You could've as well stayed with Windows 3.11.
LOL. Grow up dude. XP has a much better kernel than Win2k. Win2k3 kernel is even better. Vista will have a better kernel than XP as well. THAT is the main reason to upgrade.
> Windows Plug and Play vulnerability's
The author probably intentionally didn't say it applies Windows 2000 only. XP and others are secure.
Win2k are now an *obsolete* system. It's like someone wrote about vulnerabilities in Windows 3.11. It's obsolete. Period.
.. yes -- when compared to "old proven" and **broken** algorithms like MD5 or SHA-1 (let alone MD4, HAVAL, or RIPEMD). The only "old proven" hash algorithm that hasn't been broken is RIPEMD-160.
> one that did not pass the brutal AES audit?
Whirlpool has been chosen by NESSIE, which was a contest similar to AES (but it took place in Europe and it wasn't just about ciphers, but also hash algorithms, stream ciphers, digital signatures, etc.)
> Unfortunately all the popular hashing > algorithms are based on a similar mechanism,
Whirlpool is substantially different from MD4 derived hash algorithms (i.e., SHA-1, SHA-2, RIPEMD, RIPEMD-128/160).
> Best I can tell, we'll have some AES-as-hash > variant get named as the next big hash mechanism.
We already have that. It's called Whirlpool, which is based on a minor variation of the Rijndael cipher (which was selected as AES). And, yes, one of the authors of AES is the co-author of the Whirlpool hash.
> product that traditionally comes only from professional organizations?
That's the mistake. To assume that software is "traditionally a product of professional organizations" is fundamentally unsubstantiated.
by triangulating from open source and blogging. As you've probably noticed, they have a lot in common
This is the most irritating comment I've read in a long time. Blogging has nothing in common with open source, except for it is one of the things that are now considered cool even by mainstream media. Apart from being currently "in", they have nothing in common.
Slashdot Mirror
> But where is the hand? ...
>
> So where do you place the hitbox?
Re-read the post, the answers are contained in it.
> eyes will perceive the motion blur anyway
Again, and again. This is a wrong assumption. There will be no motion blur in gfx unless they specifically add it. Again THERE IS NO MOTION BLUR neither in the way it is perceived neither in the way it rendered.
It would have to be millions frames rendered per second for it to be perceived as blurred.
> An FPS can't use it though. In an FPS if someone shoots at you where do you register the
> hit? If the character is stretched out in a motion blur, should the hit box also be stretched out?
You'd have to move *pretty* fast for that to be any disadvantage. However, if someone was moving that fast (which is unlikely) there is easy solution:
Graphics would be rendered with motion blur at 24 f/sec (as real movies) BUT the buletts, physics, body parts etc. would all be processed at much higher rate.
If you don't agree with me now, consider this REAL WORLD example:
Start waving your hand very quickly in front of your eyes so that the hand appears to be blurred. Now, try to spit so that you hit the hand. See? Graphics are blurred but your hit is only counted IF and only IF you hit the hand.
Thanks so much for the link! Now all you trolls out there go there and take a look WHAT A DIFFERENCE motion blur makes. (And shut up finally.)
> Load up UT2004 or BF2. Look straight up. Have
> someone fly a plane fast, directly over your
> head. It will blur,
I don't know UT. But I know HL2, D3, Far Cry, etc.
None of them has motion blur. To get an idea what I am talking about, look at the intro video sequences that are included with every mainstream game. They are rendered by raytracing software and they all have motion blur. That's why they look so REAL (unlike games, which do NOT look real at all).
> It's because of your eyes, not because real
> objects actually blur when they move fast.
Eh? Did I say the object blurred? I said that your brain and eyes create the effect. Read more carefully dude.
If you wave your hand very quickly in front of your eyes, you will see the effect called motion blur. Do you get it? That's why motion blur is a REALISTIC effect and that's why games gfx are NOT realistic when they dont have motion blur.
Have you ever noticed that a car or train going very fast nearby you looks *blurred*? Ever wondered why that is?
> The real world does not have motion blur.
You are very wrong. Brain and eyes DO create motion blur effect. It is games gfx that looks unnatural.
What GFX cards need to have in future is MOTION BLUR, above all. That is the single reason why the game intro videos look like real movies, while the game gfx still look like... well like game gfx. The lack of image processing circuits in todays gfx cards is the problem that needs to be fixed in future.
> The answer, which I've found while talking with
> you, is that AES was only deeply audited at
> that 128 bit level
AES specifies only 128-bit block. However, the cipher (Rijndael) can operate on larger blocks.
> and 128 bits is an insufficient cipher strength.
I assume you mean 128-bit block. Your statement "insufficient cipher strength" is senseless without context. You probably meant to say that a hash needs a block larger than 128 bits (which is true). Block size isn't "cipher strength".
> 1) Alter the cipher, such that instead of 128 bits of output, it emits 512
Rijndael allows 512-bit block and it doesnt need to be altered.
> 2) Alter the mode, so that the 128 bit cipher
> emits a 512 bit authentication block.
"Hash modes" of AES were NOT scrutinized during the AES selection process.
FYI, all classical hash functions ARE based on ciphers. This includes SHA-1, SHA-2, and Whirlpool. You seem to be re-inventing the wheel.
Who cares? It's your problem if you use a obsolete OS. If you don't have money to upgrade to a non-obsolete OS, use Linux or BSD. You could've as well stayed with Windows 3.11.
If they don't have money, then they have 3 options: 1) Keep using an obsolete OS (not advisable). 2) End 3) Switch to a free OS (BSD, Linux).
Hmm, what was it that made you upgrade from MS-DOS?
> Whoa dude, 2k3 is like awesome to the max. Like totally radical.
You really make the impression that you really know what you're talking about.
> to XP the new themes are so cool.
LOL. Grow up dude. XP has a much better kernel than Win2k. Win2k3 kernel is even better. Vista will have a better kernel than XP as well. THAT is the main reason to upgrade.
> Windows Plug and Play vulnerability's The author probably intentionally didn't say it applies Windows 2000 only. XP and others are secure. Win2k are now an *obsolete* system. It's like someone wrote about vulnerabilities in Windows 3.11. It's obsolete. Period.
.. yes -- when compared to "old proven" and **broken** algorithms like MD5 or SHA-1 (let alone MD4, HAVAL, or RIPEMD). The only "old proven" hash algorithm that hasn't been broken is RIPEMD-160.
> one that did not pass the brutal AES audit? Whirlpool has been chosen by NESSIE, which was a contest similar to AES (but it took place in Europe and it wasn't just about ciphers, but also hash algorithms, stream ciphers, digital signatures, etc.)
Huh?
> I've not seen a good public explanation for the differences between its design and that of Rijndael. Any light you can shed?
e to/WhirlpoolPage.html
Yup. Look for the section "Differences between RIJNDAEL and W" on this page:
http://paginas.terra.com.br/informatica/paulobarr
> Unfortunately all the popular hashing
> algorithms are based on a similar mechanism,
Whirlpool is substantially different from MD4 derived hash algorithms (i.e., SHA-1, SHA-2, RIPEMD, RIPEMD-128/160).
> Best I can tell, we'll have some AES-as-hash
> variant get named as the next big hash mechanism.
We already have that. It's called Whirlpool, which is based on a minor variation of the Rijndael cipher (which was selected as AES). And, yes, one of the authors of AES is the co-author of the Whirlpool hash.
> product that traditionally comes only from professional organizations? That's the mistake. To assume that software is "traditionally a product of professional organizations" is fundamentally unsubstantiated.
by triangulating from open source and blogging. As you've probably noticed, they have a lot in common This is the most irritating comment I've read in a long time. Blogging has nothing in common with open source, except for it is one of the things that are now considered cool even by mainstream media. Apart from being currently "in", they have nothing in common.
> your little game just got posted on Slashdot.
> I predict a 1000% rise in the amount of sales
> over the next week
Why did you think he submitted the story to Slashdot?