I always appreciate feedback and opposing views that potentially broaden my horizon. I don't have time at this moment to read the articles you have linked to but I've bookmarked them to read tonight after work
Intelligence takes work? First I've heard about that. Sure, utilising intelligence to create new things, undertake science, refine and present new ideas, learning, building etc -- they all take work. I.e. it takes work to use your intelligence to its full potential. But I don't think that's the same thing as saying "Intelligence? That takes work".
Try spelling the word properly, if you're looking for people to support your idea.
The OP did spell the word correctly (commercialise). Try getting out of your minority group if you're looking for people to support your idea. Most of the world does not follow Noah Webster's dumbed down revision of the English Language so that idiots can spell incorrectly.
Thank you! And I was just going to post a reply to my own message wondering aloud if they manipulated the light using at the microlens level. Seem that this is exactly what they're doing
[quote]This is achieved by inserting a microlens array between the sensor and main lens, creating a plenoptic camera.[/quote]
That would still only give several (two, maybe three depending on the array) planes of focus, though, and at a sacrifice of resolution. Still, pretty cool idea.
Just adding to my above comment, those numbers I used as an example are not typical. More often than not the final DOF I am after is probably 1mm maximum and each photo in the stack has way less than 0.5mm DOF.
I use focus stacking for my microscopy, however does (or could) this method "scale up" to objects, or parts of objects, that span a much greater distance (i.e. beyond the mm or sub-mm range I have experience with (you're in a better position to answer this than me I think, judging from your post history). I'm asking because I know when I stack say 50 images each with a depth of field of 0.5mm to create an image with ~25mm (just as an example) alignment problems become problematic (I'm not talking about stacking by hand, but using software) and I often have to manually adjust the alignment and transformations by hand to get the best image.
Have you ever tried to reduce depth of field (DOF) to a photo that has too much (for artistic purposes) DOF? It's not easy at all. If you had a pair or more of images, of the same subject, from a slightly different viewpoint (i.e. of the kind you'd take for "stereoscopic" photography) it might be easier because at least then you had some additional cues as to distance from the imaging plane of various objects within the scene, and using that it should be possible to create software to uses those cues to refine the DOF, however I don't think it would be perfect. Doing it by hand (e.g. in Photoshop) is possible but time consuming and very difficult to do right (there are a lot of approximations you have to make). The easiest, and best IMO, way of achieving your desired DOF is to do it with the camera at the time you're taking the photo.
Back to the article, I actually don't understand how the process reported could work. To record light the recording medium (e.g. CCD or CMOS sensor) has to have the light fall on it and this implies focus. Possibly it somehow also records the direction of light to allow focus manipulation post-capture. Or possibly it takes multiple shallow DOF images at once. I wish the "article" had more details.
From the video (I only watched 5 minutes before getting bored, though) I am not sure he even used his own algorithm/s. It does appear that he used Gephi and its built-in or 3rd party algorithms (plugins) to display the data in a way that made associations not immediately apparent... apparent. The tanker truck incident cluster is an example of this, and about when I stopped watching.
The visualisations look like they were generated using Gephi. Interesting use. I wonder if the search for "search terms" was initially refined by graphing the raw data and continuing from there.
I can definitely recommend Lost Horizon as well. It sure had a lot of fun playing it and, yes, it is beautifully rendered. Quite cheap as well, which is always a bonus!
I was going to suggest The Longest Journey as well but noticed it had an ESRB rating of M for language (although I don't remember anything specifically wrong with the language used in it).
Also, I recently played "Lost Horizon" which although it has mixed reviews (most negative reviews saying it was "too easy") I found a lot of fun to play and quite amusing in places. A didn't find the puzzles too easy, in fact I found them to be a refreshing "balance" and at least all the solutions were logical.
Before the above comment is moderated away as a troll or something (it isn't by the way), I'd like to completely agree! I used linux almost exclusively from 1994 until about 2009. Then I gave up, despite my ideals, and just installed Windows. I even bought Windows 7 when it came out and am happily using it. Why? Because I just want shit to work. I don't have the time any more to tweak an OS to a point where it almost works; I need to get work done. But even with that considered I was using linux and KDE to develop my open source app using KDE and KDevelop until KDE 4 came out. Yes, yes, yes, I could have changed my development methods and made things work, but I had (and have) very little spare time these days to "set up an environment" so I just stopped developing it. My app didn't even rely on KDE... had nothing to do with it in fact, but my dev environment was KDE-Based and I had no time to adapt. I reckon others may have been in the same position. I still have linux installed, but instead of on my primary partition it's not even on a real partition anymore -- it's in a VM. I can't see that changing in the near future because, as I said, I need to get shit done and not fuck around with tweaking an OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks Greg,
I always appreciate feedback and opposing views that potentially broaden my horizon. I don't have time at this moment to read the articles you have linked to but I've bookmarked them to read tonight after work
Cheers
I'll believe this the second you can show me a true Scots man.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/dido/art/2239982-true-scotsman
Exercise, diet , makeup, hair removal, clothing, haircuts, healthcare, stress at work / school, sleeping habbits, alcohol , tobacco , dental care, etc ...
I don't do any of those things. Except maybe for sleeping and alcohol :-( Hair removal is looking after itself.
I actually didn't even think about that. I just automatically assumed that she in fact is a history geek. I have no idea what that says about me.
Intelligence takes work? First I've heard about that. Sure, utilising intelligence to create new things, undertake science, refine and present new ideas, learning, building etc -- they all take work. I.e. it takes work to use your intelligence to its full potential. But I don't think that's the same thing as saying "Intelligence? That takes work".
Try spelling the word properly, if you're looking for people to support your idea.
The OP did spell the word correctly (commercialise). Try getting out of your minority group if you're looking for people to support your idea. Most of the world does not follow Noah Webster's dumbed down revision of the English Language so that idiots can spell incorrectly.
Thanks. That is now my experiment for the day ;-)
Thank you! And I was just going to post a reply to my own message wondering aloud if they manipulated the light using at the microlens level. Seem that this is exactly what they're doing
[quote]This is achieved by inserting a microlens array between the sensor and main lens, creating a plenoptic camera.[/quote]
That would still only give several (two, maybe three depending on the array) planes of focus, though, and at a sacrifice of resolution. Still, pretty cool idea.
Just adding to my above comment, those numbers I used as an example are not typical. More often than not the final DOF I am after is probably 1mm maximum and each photo in the stack has way less than 0.5mm DOF.
I use focus stacking for my microscopy, however does (or could) this method "scale up" to objects, or parts of objects, that span a much greater distance (i.e. beyond the mm or sub-mm range I have experience with (you're in a better position to answer this than me I think, judging from your post history). I'm asking because I know when I stack say 50 images each with a depth of field of 0.5mm to create an image with ~25mm (just as an example) alignment problems become problematic (I'm not talking about stacking by hand, but using software) and I often have to manually adjust the alignment and transformations by hand to get the best image.
Have you ever tried to reduce depth of field (DOF) to a photo that has too much (for artistic purposes) DOF? It's not easy at all. If you had a pair or more of images, of the same subject, from a slightly different viewpoint (i.e. of the kind you'd take for "stereoscopic" photography) it might be easier because at least then you had some additional cues as to distance from the imaging plane of various objects within the scene, and using that it should be possible to create software to uses those cues to refine the DOF, however I don't think it would be perfect. Doing it by hand (e.g. in Photoshop) is possible but time consuming and very difficult to do right (there are a lot of approximations you have to make). The easiest, and best IMO, way of achieving your desired DOF is to do it with the camera at the time you're taking the photo.
Back to the article, I actually don't understand how the process reported could work. To record light the recording medium (e.g. CCD or CMOS sensor) has to have the light fall on it and this implies focus. Possibly it somehow also records the direction of light to allow focus manipulation post-capture. Or possibly it takes multiple shallow DOF images at once. I wish the "article" had more details.
Xiph's accompanying YouTube video.
That's pretty damn awesome! Not sure if it's ironic, but awesome nonetheless. Bookmarked.
Hi! I remember seeing you (or another libertarian) at the Unseen University last time I was there! Are you still an orangutan? Oook.
Let BASIC die
From the video (I only watched 5 minutes before getting bored, though) I am not sure he even used his own algorithm/s. It does appear that he used Gephi and its built-in or 3rd party algorithms (plugins) to display the data in a way that made associations not immediately apparent... apparent. The tanker truck incident cluster is an example of this, and about when I stopped watching.
The visualisations look like they were generated using Gephi. Interesting use. I wonder if the search for "search terms" was initially refined by graphing the raw data and continuing from there.
That was 8 days ago! I am so glad they reported this so promptly.
I cannot recall that scene
I can definitely recommend Lost Horizon as well. It sure had a lot of fun playing it and, yes, it is beautifully rendered. Quite cheap as well, which is always a bonus!
I was going to suggest The Longest Journey as well but noticed it had an ESRB rating of M for language (although I don't remember anything specifically wrong with the language used in it).
Also, I recently played "Lost Horizon" which although it has mixed reviews (most negative reviews saying it was "too easy") I found a lot of fun to play and quite amusing in places. A didn't find the puzzles too easy, in fact I found them to be a refreshing "balance" and at least all the solutions were logical.
Cheers
I suspect a lot of industries have a similar "hierarchy"
Hmm. How do you see the audio icon if... you cannot see?
Yes, so you don't actually use your OS to do work and get things done (apart from maybe web browsing or development).
Before the above comment is moderated away as a troll or something (it isn't by the way), I'd like to completely agree! I used linux almost exclusively from 1994 until about 2009. Then I gave up, despite my ideals, and just installed Windows. I even bought Windows 7 when it came out and am happily using it. Why? Because I just want shit to work. I don't have the time any more to tweak an OS to a point where it almost works; I need to get work done. But even with that considered I was using linux and KDE to develop my open source app using KDE and KDevelop until KDE 4 came out. Yes, yes, yes, I could have changed my development methods and made things work, but I had (and have) very little spare time these days to "set up an environment" so I just stopped developing it. My app didn't even rely on KDE... had nothing to do with it in fact, but my dev environment was KDE-Based and I had no time to adapt. I reckon others may have been in the same position. I still have linux installed, but instead of on my primary partition it's not even on a real partition anymore -- it's in a VM. I can't see that changing in the near future because, as I said, I need to get shit done and not fuck around with tweaking an OS.
It's quite simple really
Well, that's how it works around here anyway :(