The mirrors can only focus on one place at a time though - to get the light to hit multiple CCDs they'd have to move, or you'd have to move the focus point so the light hits multiple sensors, bluring it, bringing you back to square 1.
I was originally 2A, a shortened more discreet version of the name I used for writing music, AcidAlex, that I moved to after I moved away from writing acidy music, but keeping my roots. Funnily, one of the tracks I wrote under AcidAlex was called "I have 42". I think I started writing under 2A before I realised it was actually hex for 42, had quite a nice "NO WAY!!!" moment there like there was some deeper meaning to it (if I believed in that kinda thing) *lol*
Nobody's spotted it's double meaning before, but then I don't know many people that have any reason to use hex (maybe if I used &h42, the people who've dabbled in VB might spot it), and the people on here wouldn't know of my AcidAlex roots.
After my karma plummeted on my 2A account, something I could never figure out why (got modded up more often than down) - seemed like a good time to add the hint of hex to my name.
"I'm kind of interested in why the patterns have to be done randomly (or pseudo-randomly)"
Because you want each reading to be as different to all other readings taken for the shot as possible, so the best "random" generators (one's that produce the most convincing white-noise) are statistically gonna be about the best way to do this. If you did it pattern based, you'd possibly have to put the extra work into compensating for it so you don't get image artifacts (although not really sure about that).
"That mean that two shots using the exact same settings could produce vastly different results"
Each mirror is flickered enough times in different combinations to cancel that out - would have to be, if you can get different results, then it can't be accurate enough to useful.
No dummy, if you bothered to take into account the context, 'do do' is obviously being used in its adjective form, not noun. All cameras do complex maths, this cameras complex maths just happen to be poo.
Well the mirrors actually more like flicker throughout the the period of exposure, so have multiple chances to detect light. Also, with the focal point on the CCD on a standard camera, each sensor can only collect light from the area it covers, whereas a mirror will be collecting light from a larger area than it's size, and focusing it all onto the sensor, more than making up for the fact it gets shorter total amount of exposure time.
"And how can this possibly deal with the equivalent of a range of shutter speeds in front of a standard sensor?"
Shutter has to move a greater distance, these only gotta move TINY distances, and being so small, a tiny electromagnetic (or something) field can completely open or close it in a very small amount of time. Compare that with having to move an entire shutter. So, you've got smaller things to move, and smaller distances to move them by. Sounds line win * win (win^2) to me.
"Look at the website referenced in the story- you'll see what I mean in their sample photos of even still items"
*pmsl* what way exactly do you think that photos of a STILL SCENE in any way reflect (hehe, reflect) image loss that WOULD be caused by taking photos of a moving scene?!!
Anyway, this isn't a simple case of turn-by-turn turning on each mirror then off again, at any one sample time multiple mirrors will be reflecting to the sensor, and for each photograph taken, each mirror will have been read from multiple times, in random (enough) order. The amount of blur you get from photographing a moving scene will be proportional to the total exposure time, as it is with any type of photography.
Tiny pixels have a chance of being triggered by a single stray photon (or something), causing speckles on the image. You can figure out the anomalies by taking multiple readings from each pixel, and discarding any that are very different from the rest, but that can be slow. Or, you can discard based on pixels very different from their surrounding pixels, and replace with the average of surrounding pixels, and then you start to lose picture quality.
Using lenses, each mirror can capture light from a larger area that it takes up, and reflect it to a larger sensor, which means it's not going to be as affected by single stray photons.
(I pretty much made all that up on the spot, but it sounds right)
"I would like to refer/. crowd to the fact that telescopes use mirrors and not lenses for good reasons"
Well, they do often (or always?) still use lenses, but if you stick one mirror in there, you could half the length of the telescope (assuming you're bouncing the light the complete length of the telescope) or the thickness of the lens, and the effects are obviously greater if you curve the mirror too. Not such an issue when you have plenty of light.
"Think a million times worse, as each pixel is scanned individually, then reassembled to store on the flash card"
Well tha's not actually true, as the photograph isn't put together until each of the mirrors has had a turn at the sensor at least once, which means the camera must have enough fast memory to store the data from the readings and process it.
Yeah but this time (unlike buying from a 3rd party retailer), MS will have your credit card details on file, and would be much easier to verify against, than if you lost your licence details after any other kind of purchase.
Oo, know all about networks of hard to detect people that are able to hit us while we're at home, at work... what we need is a war; the war on zombies!
Slashdot Mirror
The mirrors can only focus on one place at a time though - to get the light to hit multiple CCDs they'd have to move, or you'd have to move the focus point so the light hits multiple sensors, bluring it, bringing you back to square 1.
Ya can hardly call it "locked down" if your first act with it is to bypass paying for it by downloading a cracked version *lol* come on!!!
I was originally 2A, a shortened more discreet version of the name I used for writing music, AcidAlex, that I moved to after I moved away from writing acidy music, but keeping my roots. Funnily, one of the tracks I wrote under AcidAlex was called "I have 42". I think I started writing under 2A before I realised it was actually hex for 42, had quite a nice "NO WAY!!!" moment there like there was some deeper meaning to it (if I believed in that kinda thing) *lol*
:-)
Nobody's spotted it's double meaning before, but then I don't know many people that have any reason to use hex (maybe if I used &h42, the people who've dabbled in VB might spot it), and the people on here wouldn't know of my AcidAlex roots.
After my karma plummeted on my 2A account, something I could never figure out why (got modded up more often than down) - seemed like a good time to add the hint of hex to my name.
"nice to see it in the wild"
Totally! And take good care of that domain
"tiny mirrors that must turn on and off and then focus the reflected light"
The lenses are fixed throughout the exposure, so the light's already focuses.
"that then just filters the information using some complex maths?"
Well, the maths actually expands the data to the full size of the image - could be that a million pixels only needs a 3000 readings or somethin.
"I'm kind of interested in why the patterns have to be done randomly (or pseudo-randomly)"
Because you want each reading to be as different to all other readings taken for the shot as possible, so the best "random" generators (one's that produce the most convincing white-noise) are statistically gonna be about the best way to do this. If you did it pattern based, you'd possibly have to put the extra work into compensating for it so you don't get image artifacts (although not really sure about that).
"That mean that two shots using the exact same settings could produce vastly different results"
Each mirror is flickered enough times in different combinations to cancel that out - would have to be, if you can get different results, then it can't be accurate enough to useful.
No dummy, if you bothered to take into account the context, 'do do' is obviously being used in its adjective form, not noun. All cameras do complex maths, this cameras complex maths just happen to be poo.
Well the mirrors actually more like flicker throughout the the period of exposure, so have multiple chances to detect light. Also, with the focal point on the CCD on a standard camera, each sensor can only collect light from the area it covers, whereas a mirror will be collecting light from a larger area than it's size, and focusing it all onto the sensor, more than making up for the fact it gets shorter total amount of exposure time.
"And how can this possibly deal with the equivalent of a range of shutter speeds in front of a standard sensor?"
Shutter has to move a greater distance, these only gotta move TINY distances, and being so small, a tiny electromagnetic (or something) field can completely open or close it in a very small amount of time. Compare that with having to move an entire shutter. So, you've got smaller things to move, and smaller distances to move them by. Sounds line win * win (win^2) to me.
The resolution would be defined by the number of mirrors so HAHAHAH take that :-p
a) my guess is most people will burn it to disk, stick it on another partition... generally have more than one copy.
b) Linux folk have been downloading whole OS from the internet for ages, but even so, vista's the LEAST of the internets worries!
WOW... that post you linked to was dated Oct 20 (or 16 in dec) ...
don't get out much huh?
Nah, you just turn off all the mirrors (or try to), take the reading, and subtract that value from all future readings.
"Look at the website referenced in the story- you'll see what I mean in their sample photos of even still items"
*pmsl* what way exactly do you think that photos of a STILL SCENE in any way reflect (hehe, reflect) image loss that WOULD be caused by taking photos of a moving scene?!!
Anyway, this isn't a simple case of turn-by-turn turning on each mirror then off again, at any one sample time multiple mirrors will be reflecting to the sensor, and for each photograph taken, each mirror will have been read from multiple times, in random (enough) order. The amount of blur you get from photographing a moving scene will be proportional to the total exposure time, as it is with any type of photography.
"then you can in theory reconstruct your compressed signal from cN observations"
THE SPEED OF LIGHT TIMES N?!! That'll take forever!
"(with c some constant)"
Oh...
Fine by me, will just get the license key and issue a chargeback on the card :-)
(joking of cause, I'll not be buying software)
Tiny pixels have a chance of being triggered by a single stray photon (or something), causing speckles on the image. You can figure out the anomalies by taking multiple readings from each pixel, and discarding any that are very different from the rest, but that can be slow. Or, you can discard based on pixels very different from their surrounding pixels, and replace with the average of surrounding pixels, and then you start to lose picture quality.
Using lenses, each mirror can capture light from a larger area that it takes up, and reflect it to a larger sensor, which means it's not going to be as affected by single stray photons.
(I pretty much made all that up on the spot, but it sounds right)
Yes, but the word was not used within the mathmatical context.
How many bits at a time do you think a harddrive head can read?
"I would like to refer /. crowd to the fact that telescopes use mirrors and not lenses for good reasons"
Well, they do often (or always?) still use lenses, but if you stick one mirror in there, you could half the length of the telescope (assuming you're bouncing the light the complete length of the telescope) or the thickness of the lens, and the effects are obviously greater if you curve the mirror too. Not such an issue when you have plenty of light.
"Think a million times worse, as each pixel is scanned individually, then reassembled to store on the flash card"
Well tha's not actually true, as the photograph isn't put together until each of the mirrors has had a turn at the sensor at least once, which means the camera must have enough fast memory to store the data from the readings and process it.
Unfortunately they turned out not to be very accurate when photgraphing girls. Mirrors, as everyone knows, makes them look fat.
Yeah but this time (unlike buying from a 3rd party retailer), MS will have your credit card details on file, and would be much easier to verify against, than if you lost your licence details after any other kind of purchase.
I wouldn't pay too much attention;
"a relatively low number of computer users are likely to get Vista by downloading it from the Internet"
We know that bit's not true!
Oh I get it!
See I was thinking it should be renamed "CAN'T SPAM"... is kinda misleading to anyone who read it like I did...
Oo, know all about networks of hard to detect people that are able to hit us while we're at home, at work... what we need is a war; the war on zombies!