When Reapers get shot down, you don't lose a pilot.
F-22s don't get shot down, therefore you don't lose a pilot either;-). I'm not qualified to evaluate the economics of it, but I think we can agree at that point that comparing these UAVs with modern fighter jets is like comparing a motorbike with a cement truck.
I have no math, I only stated facts. And you're wrong about interpolation from the Bayer grid, the upper frequency component that make up the 16 MP data are there. By the way the 16 millions of pixels are actually there, they just have different filters, but put together they have all the spatial resolution.
lol, well the GGP didn't make it clear, but why would you want that? You can already count the hairs on his head with the one that's available. Or do you have some sick fetish about poster-sized close-ups of American president pores?
As I said many many times today, no, in modern combat reflexes aren't that crucial. Like I said, the era of gun dogfights is over. It's pretty rare that a fighter pilot gets less than 3 miles away from an hostile fighter pilot during combat. Most of the stuff happens from quite a distance, and one second more or less doesn't make such a big different in most cases, really. The modern fighter pilot's role is more of decision making these days.
Well, yeah, that's one big problem, I think part of the problem is that it doesn't really do one thing but makes lots of things possible. It's actually not that abstract, you may even consider that it's the opposite of abstract, as it dabbles directly with what constitutes "sound features", that's more like a low level but very potent approach.
I think low level is the right word, the only thing lower level than this is directly setting your sample values by hand (but it would be impossible to accomplish something precise this way). Actually, that's it, that's the explanation of what it does, it may be confusing, but that's the most "low level" approach to sound edition or creation, the assembly language of sound if you will.
I'll admit, it's a hard concept to explain, let alone sell, but that's it, and that's why it's so potent. I could mention what I know can be done with it but the thing is, I only know a few things, when other people experiment with it I learn of new possibilities, I don't actually know the full extent of what can be done with it, because the answer to that is, pretty much any possible sound.
But okay, that doesn't tell you why you should buy it. So here's one : you can try new effects with it, for example, by turning a few knobs or pushing a few buttons you can obtain effects that weren't possible before. You can export the image to work with it in Photoshop/GIMP and experiment with other effects and transformations, for example you could try taking speech, exporting the image, moving the image down a bit and blurring it and mixing it with the original sound to give it a sort of bass resonance. You could try warping and moving stuff around to change how something progresses or make it sound weird, like possibly changing the tone/mood of a voice or, I don't know, I just thought these things up.
You can as well spend your time breaking samples down into separate "layers" of instruments, or even breaking instruments themselves into layers, alterate them separately and arrange them into something different, or go through your collection of cloud pictures to look for the perfect eagle-ish cry, it's hard to tell you what you'll want to do with it really.
I think it's one of these things that you need without knowing you need, to use the Apple I example again, back then people might have thought "What would I need a personal computer for?" and now everybody knows they need that. I think my program answers to a lot of problems, one of them being that lots of people who make music or sound effects don't know where to turn anymore to find new and novel sources of sound. Photosounder is an answer to that problem in that every kind of sound can be created from scratch with it. I'll concede that it won't be the easiest thing for someone to create just what they want by drawing it from scratch, that's not even how it goes (my approach is look at the sounds that sound close to what you want, try to reproduce them, then try to do it again differently in a way that matches what you want), but on the other hand that's the one thing you can do anything with. Not everything there is hard either, if you look at the video that deals with drawing a beat, then it seems relatively simple to create a satisfactory drum beat. Surely you might prefer using your TR-808 to make a drum beat, but at this point it's like all the possible sounds it could make are on wax/CD now, so here's your opportunity to try something new, and it's not even too hard, you only have to draw a curve for a bass drum, and a large blob cut in half for a snare drum, it's easy to experiment from that point.
How do I get all these points across, I don't know, I don't even know if I got them across to you, I'm notorious for failing at explaining my novel ideas.
Aren't we talking about the camera in question used to shoot Obama? Sure, el cheapo cameras kind of suck (for more reasons that you mentioned, the worst mentions would have to go to sensitivity and dynamic range) but I mean, if they didn't suck they wouldn't be low end;-).
By the way, what's the "it" in "It's enough for basic point and shoot needs"? Are you talking about 16 MP??
Unless you get an eye upgrade or suddenly make it an habit to "browse" photographs with something akin to Google Maps, then no, 16 MP will always be enough. The human eye has at its best (a cone of vision of about 2 degrees of arc) a resolution of about 28 seconds of arc. Do the math to find out how much resolution you really need depending on the size of the photograph and its distance from your eyes.
I'm no photographer but I paid a bit of attention to digital cameras over the past decade and I think I can safely say that by picking a popular model by either Nikon or Canon within your price range you can't go wrong.
The whole 100 UAVs vs 1 F-22 is getting a bit silly to be honest, I don't see in what sort of circumstance you would deploy that many UAVs (each need a 2-person crew on the ground as well as the equipment, there's a lot of hidden costs behind the cheap UAVs when you think about it). Besides, even if you did that you might as well deploy SA-3s and use your SA-2s and whatever else that can reach them to intercept them too.
Wow, there's so many reasons why that comparison is flawed, let alone the fact that these are two VERY different airplanes, the F-22 being vastly superior. But because I like to think of myself as a good debater, instead of showing how the comparison is flawed, I'll rather use your comparison to the advantage of my point.
The F-117 in Yugoslavia was pretty much flying the same low altitude path every day. They used that information to place a SA-3 there and shoot at it. If you put a radar close enough to a stealth plane that flies at a low altitude and on its path you can detect it. The F-117 doesn't have a radar warning detector (which the F-22 has) so he couldn't attempt to escape the missiles or launch countermeasures (which it doesn't have, and the F-22 has).
The F-22 doesn't fly such routinely low-altitude missions. Even if it did, it has a much lower detectability anyways, so it's fairly unlikely it could have been detected by radar anyways. Even if it could have, and that the pilot didn't see the radars from a distance (which you totally could with a F-22), and that missiles had been launched at it, it would have been fairly trivial to escape them. So not only could a F-117 avoid such risks by not flying such missions like the F-22 does, but the F-22 is much more stealth, manoeuvrable, has more detectors and all that fancy stuff to detect dangers from a distance, has all the necessary countermeasures, and is much faster.
And you're right about the G-load, however it may be an engineering challenge on its own to design a plane of that kind with a significantly superior g-tolerance.
To make an aircraft as fast, potent and stealth as an F-22 would result necessarily in something about as big and expensive as an F-22. You can make a stealth UAV, there's actually stealth long range missiles, but as for the rest, if you want something fast but that can stay in the air for hours you'll need a lot of fuel, and because of that you'll need a big plane, with everything it implies.
So yeah, replacing the dude inside with a machine doesn't change the problem much, and while you could technically make a F-22 UAV, there's no good reason to.
Slashdot Mirror
A better estimate of useful resolution would cover a normal lens field of view (~45degrees) at your 28arc-seconds per pixel.
That would be a 6,100 x 4,575 image then, or 27.9 MP.
Dooooooooom!!
That's all.
Hehe, yeah, I know the choice doesn't all just come down to Nikon/Canon, but oh well, right now all I can afford anyways is a Nokia ;-).
When Reapers get shot down, you don't lose a pilot.
F-22s don't get shot down, therefore you don't lose a pilot either ;-). I'm not qualified to evaluate the economics of it, but I think we can agree at that point that comparing these UAVs with modern fighter jets is like comparing a motorbike with a cement truck.
I have no math, I only stated facts. And you're wrong about interpolation from the Bayer grid, the upper frequency component that make up the 16 MP data are there. By the way the 16 millions of pixels are actually there, they just have different filters, but put together they have all the spatial resolution.
lol, well the GGP didn't make it clear, but why would you want that? You can already count the hairs on his head with the one that's available. Or do you have some sick fetish about poster-sized close-ups of American president pores?
No, just an ironic hipster ;).
Dogfighting? No one dogfights anymore, ever heard of missiles? Damn IT people and their misconceptions based on unrealistic video games and films.
As I said many many times today, no, in modern combat reflexes aren't that crucial. Like I said, the era of gun dogfights is over. It's pretty rare that a fighter pilot gets less than 3 miles away from an hostile fighter pilot during combat. Most of the stuff happens from quite a distance, and one second more or less doesn't make such a big different in most cases, really. The modern fighter pilot's role is more of decision making these days.
Well, yeah, that's one big problem, I think part of the problem is that it doesn't really do one thing but makes lots of things possible. It's actually not that abstract, you may even consider that it's the opposite of abstract, as it dabbles directly with what constitutes "sound features", that's more like a low level but very potent approach.
I think low level is the right word, the only thing lower level than this is directly setting your sample values by hand (but it would be impossible to accomplish something precise this way). Actually, that's it, that's the explanation of what it does, it may be confusing, but that's the most "low level" approach to sound edition or creation, the assembly language of sound if you will.
I'll admit, it's a hard concept to explain, let alone sell, but that's it, and that's why it's so potent. I could mention what I know can be done with it but the thing is, I only know a few things, when other people experiment with it I learn of new possibilities, I don't actually know the full extent of what can be done with it, because the answer to that is, pretty much any possible sound.
But okay, that doesn't tell you why you should buy it. So here's one : you can try new effects with it, for example, by turning a few knobs or pushing a few buttons you can obtain effects that weren't possible before. You can export the image to work with it in Photoshop/GIMP and experiment with other effects and transformations, for example you could try taking speech, exporting the image, moving the image down a bit and blurring it and mixing it with the original sound to give it a sort of bass resonance. You could try warping and moving stuff around to change how something progresses or make it sound weird, like possibly changing the tone/mood of a voice or, I don't know, I just thought these things up.
You can as well spend your time breaking samples down into separate "layers" of instruments, or even breaking instruments themselves into layers, alterate them separately and arrange them into something different, or go through your collection of cloud pictures to look for the perfect eagle-ish cry, it's hard to tell you what you'll want to do with it really.
I think it's one of these things that you need without knowing you need, to use the Apple I example again, back then people might have thought "What would I need a personal computer for?" and now everybody knows they need that. I think my program answers to a lot of problems, one of them being that lots of people who make music or sound effects don't know where to turn anymore to find new and novel sources of sound. Photosounder is an answer to that problem in that every kind of sound can be created from scratch with it. I'll concede that it won't be the easiest thing for someone to create just what they want by drawing it from scratch, that's not even how it goes (my approach is look at the sounds that sound close to what you want, try to reproduce them, then try to do it again differently in a way that matches what you want), but on the other hand that's the one thing you can do anything with. Not everything there is hard either, if you look at the video that deals with drawing a beat, then it seems relatively simple to create a satisfactory drum beat. Surely you might prefer using your TR-808 to make a drum beat, but at this point it's like all the possible sounds it could make are on wax/CD now, so here's your opportunity to try something new, and it's not even too hard, you only have to draw a curve for a bass drum, and a large blob cut in half for a snare drum, it's easy to experiment from that point.
How do I get all these points across, I don't know, I don't even know if I got them across to you, I'm notorious for failing at explaining my novel ideas.
lol, networking their sensors... I have no idea how 100 UAVs would look on such a radar hehe.
Aren't we talking about the camera in question used to shoot Obama? Sure, el cheapo cameras kind of suck (for more reasons that you mentioned, the worst mentions would have to go to sensitivity and dynamic range) but I mean, if they didn't suck they wouldn't be low end ;-).
By the way, what's the "it" in "It's enough for basic point and shoot needs"? Are you talking about 16 MP??
Unless you get an eye upgrade or suddenly make it an habit to "browse" photographs with something akin to Google Maps, then no, 16 MP will always be enough. The human eye has at its best (a cone of vision of about 2 degrees of arc) a resolution of about 28 seconds of arc. Do the math to find out how much resolution you really need depending on the size of the photograph and its distance from your eyes.
I'm no photographer but I paid a bit of attention to digital cameras over the past decade and I think I can safely say that by picking a popular model by either Nikon or Canon within your price range you can't go wrong.
One acronym will suffice as an answer to your question : RTFA.
True, my comment was about the current capabilities of the current type of UAVs. Someone else then told me about UCAVs.
That is change we can believe in!
(Disclaimer : not intended to be politically charged)
The whole 100 UAVs vs 1 F-22 is getting a bit silly to be honest, I don't see in what sort of circumstance you would deploy that many UAVs (each need a 2-person crew on the ground as well as the equipment, there's a lot of hidden costs behind the cheap UAVs when you think about it). Besides, even if you did that you might as well deploy SA-3s and use your SA-2s and whatever else that can reach them to intercept them too.
a firework!
"Oh my God, in my telescope, a fast moving bright object! What can it be, is it a meteor, is it a plane?"
*PAAAH*
"Aaah my eye! It's blind!! It's blind!!!"
Good job, Blow!
*puts on hard hat*
Thanks for the advice, I get it a lot, but how would you go about integrating it in a way that would make it more useful than as a standalone program?
Oh I didn't even know about these.. thanks for the link heh.
Just one thing though, how are two stealth fighters going to defeat each other if none can acquire the other?
Wow, there's so many reasons why that comparison is flawed, let alone the fact that these are two VERY different airplanes, the F-22 being vastly superior. But because I like to think of myself as a good debater, instead of showing how the comparison is flawed, I'll rather use your comparison to the advantage of my point.
The F-117 in Yugoslavia was pretty much flying the same low altitude path every day. They used that information to place a SA-3 there and shoot at it. If you put a radar close enough to a stealth plane that flies at a low altitude and on its path you can detect it. The F-117 doesn't have a radar warning detector (which the F-22 has) so he couldn't attempt to escape the missiles or launch countermeasures (which it doesn't have, and the F-22 has).
The F-22 doesn't fly such routinely low-altitude missions. Even if it did, it has a much lower detectability anyways, so it's fairly unlikely it could have been detected by radar anyways. Even if it could have, and that the pilot didn't see the radars from a distance (which you totally could with a F-22), and that missiles had been launched at it, it would have been fairly trivial to escape them. So not only could a F-117 avoid such risks by not flying such missions like the F-22 does, but the F-22 is much more stealth, manoeuvrable, has more detectors and all that fancy stuff to detect dangers from a distance, has all the necessary countermeasures, and is much faster.
Check mate.
F-22s don't get shot down. Look it up.
And you're right about the G-load, however it may be an engineering challenge on its own to design a plane of that kind with a significantly superior g-tolerance.
So yeah, replacing the dude inside with a machine doesn't change the problem much, and while you could technically make a F-22 UAV, there's no good reason to.