clearly you are one of the lucky ones who has not yet been exposed to the music they call dubstep
:-)) You mean that noise that seems to be being emitted from the undercarriage of slow driving cars with big flashy wheels that seem to turn in the wrong direction??:-))))
ei Total Productions wrote: (Edit) . . . So my question is, what other facts of yesterday do you think will become the wivestales of tomorrow? . . .
I wonder about our laws of physics, at least on a grand scale. There seems something wrong with our current understanding of physics when the universe is made up of dark matter (23%) and dark energy (73%) of the total mass energy of the universe.
Me too. I remember the IBM multiple platter, removable disc drives that stood on the floor in 1966.
Yeah....I held a VAX drive pack in my hands once that weighed in at 25lbs, and 20 megabytes. I'm now holding a 64GB USB3 flash drive in my hands that weights less than 2 oz and is 1000 times faster. $50
BTHPhoto wrote: There are most likely real limits to physics, but history has shown that we often confuse the limits of our understanding with the limits of physics. It sounds like you're asking what we don't yet know we don't know. There's nothing wrong with speculating, but the only correct answer is "I don't know."
L Raye wrote: I wonder about our laws of physics, at least on a grand scale. There seems something wrong with our current understanding of physics when the universe is made up of dark matter (23%) and dark energy (73%) of the total mass energy of the universe.
Since we can only see three dimensions, and perceive a 4th that is time, in our time-space world, it's hard to understand something that may exist in another dimension, but yet exerts a force and effect on what we see.
As an informative trip down memory, here is Carl Sagan describing Flatland:
ei Total Productions wrote: I remember when Intel said that they thought the fastest processors they would be able to produce would be 100mhz. They were fighting what they thought were theoretical limits. Today we have processors running at over 4ghz.
For years the common thinking was that larger pixels, i.e lower pixel density, meant better image quality. We all expected high ISO, DR and colot depth to decline as we added more megapixels. Instead each generation of sensor that comes out seems to improve on its predecessor, (or remain equal) but at the same time, has higher density. 24mp APS-C is becoming more common and the image quality is great.
So my question is, what other facts of yesterday do you think will become the wivestales of tomorrow?
Justin Foto wrote: Errrr....So your conjecture is that 100mHz=100MHz? My god, you're wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
George Ruge wrote: Oh crap!! Over a typo?? PUHHLEEEZEEE!!:-(
Since the original topic is about physics, I will point out that with one of my physics professors, making that mistake would equal failing a test. He practiced quantum physics grading - it was either a 100% or it was a 0%.
Justin Foto wrote: Errrr....So your conjecture is that 100mHz=100MHz? My god, you're wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Since the original topic is about physics, I will point out that with one of my physics professors, making that mistake would equal failing a test. He practiced quantum physics grading - it was either a 100% or it was a 0%.
I had a prof like that. when I heard the marking was going to like that I pointed out that students (being youth) were constantly in motion and uncertainty had not been taken into account in the marking equation. I let him know that there were plenty other things I could bring about about his pseudo-quantum marking but I would leave it for later.
I CC;d the head of the physics dept. it got changed quick and I got an A without having to write the final. your prof, and mine, were both idiots.
I remember reading some article (back when I bought a shiny new 56k modem) about how much data that they could squeez through a phone line diameter wire before you would have to upgrade too coax or fiber ... I seriously think that the article must have been wrong since my AT&T high speed is plugged into a normal phone jack and I can stream video
STL-After-Dark wrote: I remember reading some article (back when I bought a shiny new 56k modem) about how much data that they could squeez through a phone line diameter wire before you would have to upgrade too coax or fiber ... I seriously think that the article must have been wrong since my AT&T high speed is plugged into a normal phone jack and I can stream video
How times have changed
I always wondered who "they" were, particularly since they always seem wrong.
I always wondered who "they" were, particularly since they always seem wrong.
In this case 'they' were the phone company. It wasn't just articles, it was the party line when you complained about anything to do with data service over a *cough* non-data line (as they called it).
ei Total Productions wrote: I always wondered who "they" were, particularly since they always seem wrong.
There is a saying that goes something like this:
When a longtime expert in the field says that something is possible, he is almost always right. When he says something is impossible, he is almost always wrong.
Julian W I L D E wrote: I remember when 400 asa "Tri-X" was considered "fast." Now they're creating asa's into the 100,000 range. Perhaps Anything IS possible. ;-) -JULIAN
Haha, I remember when ASA 64 was the fast Kodachrome.
ummm you might want to recheck your calculations. For a 100mhz clock to be one cycle every 10 seconds you would need a shit ton of operations to constitute a full cycle .... like .....mmmmmm.... a lot.
Pretty sure:
100 Hz means "one hundred cycles per second"
100mhz means 100 x one million (mega=million) = 100 million cycles per second
1 Ghz is a 1,000,000,000 or 1 billion cycles per second
Pretty sure:
100 Hz means "one hundred cycles per second"
100mhz means 100 x one million (mega=million) = 100 million cycles per second
1 Ghz is a 1,000,000,000 or 1 billion cycles per second
lol. pretty sure you missed all of page 2 where we beat this dead horse to death already
ei Total Productions wrote: For years the common thinking was that larger pixels, i.e lower pixel density, meant better image quality. We all expected high ISO, DR and colot depth to decline as we added more megapixels. Instead each generation of sensor that comes out seems to improve on its predecessor, (or remain equal) but at the same time, has higher density. 24mp APS-C is becoming more common and the image quality is great.
So my question is, what other facts of yesterday do you think will become the wivestales of tomorrow?
In a thread on future technology a long time ago, I pointed out that a very large pixel count (enabled by sensor materials advances and advances in image processing) would allow eliminating the need for a variety of lenses by the use of pixel cropping. This technique that we now use sparingly would allow us to, for instance, have a 15mm lens as a primary and obtain a medium tele shot by cropping. So a 'well-equipped' photog in the future might have only a 15mm and 200mm lens.
to those who think milli vs Mega doesn't matter, i have an amazing deal to offer you. i'm selling my 6,000,000,000 mP dslr and i'm only asking for $10,000.
ei Total Productions wrote: I dunno, I can thnk of facts that wil one day be wivestales:
Right now, mirrorless cameras don't have the same low light performance as standard DSLR'. The issue is design limitations. I think they will be innovative and that fact will one day not be true.
Right now we often talk about reaching the limit where current lens technology may, at some point, not be able to resolve to the density of the sensors. I think someone will find an innovative way around that as well.
For years, it was claimed that we had to have an AA filter on a full frame, 35mm DSLR to deal with moire'. There is still moire', to a lesser extent than the past, on the D800. Breakthroughs in Bayer design reduced it. I think future breakthroughs and improvements to in camera software will make AA filters a thing of the past somewhere down the road.
I don't think we are anywhee near the limits of technology.
Not all all.
We should be using sonar or a combination of sonar and contrast detection for AF.
Glen Berry
Posts: 2,735
Huntington, West Virginia, US
George Ruge wrote: Bullshit!! In a technical paper, yes, major problem. In an internet forum, get a life!! megahertz versus millihertz?? who even thinks about there even being millihertz... BS!!
You might not think of it, but some folks do.
I was amazed that it took so long for people in this thread to realize that mHz means millihertz. The prefixes used in the metric system are case-sensitive. I learned that as a child.
It was also rather annoying to see so many people criticizing the one person who was actually correct. To make matters worse, once they finally realized they were on the losing side of the debate, some people criticized him even more. That's simply disgusting.
Do us all a favor. Don't attempt to romanticize and champion your own ignorance. If someone educates you, just thank them.
I was amazed that it took so long for people in this thread to realize that mHz means millihertz. The prefixes used in the metric system are case-sensitive. I learned that as a child.
It was also rather annoying to see so many people criticizing the one person who was actually correct. To make matter worse, once they finally realized they were on the losing side of the debate, some people criticized him even more. That's simply disgusting.
Do us all a favor. Don't attempt to romanticize and champion your own ignorance. If someone educates you, just thank them.
no. you do us all a favor and quit calling names and assuming you know us and what goes on in our minds. Plenty of us here know very fucking well what a milli prefix is right from the start and know even more fucking well that its totally fallen into disuse outside very specialized fields (and grade 10 physics exams). What we did not know is where the author of m made at typo or actually meant milli to be completely off.
Whats even worse is that you must have passed all the discussion about it and still felt the need to troll some more.
Wake me when you can pass an exam on Weyl transforms. I have an essay test to give you on evolution of the changed in language as evidenced by the transition of artefact to artifact. There are bonus questions as well. until then have a nice day.
Glen Berry wrote: You might not think of it, but some folks do.
I was amazed that it took so long for people in this thread to realize that mHz means millihertz. The prefixes used in the metric system are case-sensitive. I learned that as a child.
It was also rather annoying to see so many people criticizing the one person who was actually correct. To make matter worse, once they finally realized they were on the losing side of the debate, some people criticized him even more. That's simply disgusting.
Do us all a favor. Don't attempt to romanticize and champion your own ignorance. If someone educates you, just thank them.
AVD AlphaDuctions wrote: no. you do us all a favor and quit calling names and assuming you know us and what goes on in our minds. Plenty of us here know very fucking well what a milli prefix is right from the start and know even more fucking well that its totally fallen into disuse outside very specialized fields (and grade 10 physics exams). What we did not know is where the author of m made at typo or actually meant milli to be completely off.
Whats even worse is that you must have passed all the discussion about it and still felt the need to troll some more.
Wake me when you can pass an exam on Weyl transforms. I have an essay test to give you on evolution of the changed in language as evidenced by the transition of artefact to artifact. There are bonus questions as well. until then have a nice day.
Ah - this is what I like - a calm rational response to a reasonably factual response to an earlier question.
Glen Berry wrote: You might not think of it, but some folks do.
I was amazed that it took so long for people in this thread to realize that mHz means millihertz. The prefixes used in the metric system are case-sensitive. I learned that as a child.
It was also rather annoying to see so many people criticizing the one person who was actually correct. To make matters worse, once they finally realized they were on the losing side of the debate, some people criticized him even more. That's simply disgusting.
Do us all a favor. Don't attempt to romanticize and champion your own ignorance. If someone educates you, just thank them.
Thanks dude!
As for AVD, this is a guy who once tried to educate me on something I do for a living to which he has absolutly no clue about, so being insulted by him is actually kind of funny. He has to bring conformal field theory into this discussion becuase he think it makes him look superior, even though being ignorant about m and M in a discussion about physics is apparently ok. Hmm whatever!
Garrett Sanders wrote: I wish people would stop being so dogmatic about physics.
Why? Are you claiming that physics changed because of our increase in understanding of physics?
You're misusing the word "physic" here. The "physics of the time" is a nonsensical phrase; it implies that physics changed when we started showing some curiosity about the world around us. In reality, physics has NOT changed, instead we just learned more about it.
I was amazed that it took so long for people in this thread to realize that mHz means millihertz. The prefixes used in the metric system are case-sensitive. I learned that as a child.
It was also rather annoying to see so many people criticizing the one person who was actually correct. To make matters worse, once they finally realized they were on the losing side of the debate, some people criticized him even more. That's simply disgusting.
Do us all a favor. Don't attempt to romanticize and champion your own ignorance. If someone educates you, just thank them.
Well said.
I think that if Elizabeth Kolbert had met more people like this alphaductions moron she would not have been so surprised at humanity's willfully self-destructive practices. Then again, if we lived in a society that didn't defend and even celebrate such stupidity, we would probably not still be using oil for energy.
As for AVD, this is a guy who once tried to educate me on something I do for a living to which he has absolutly no clue about, so being insulted by him is actually kind of funny. He has to bring conformal field theory into this discussion becuase he think it makes him look superior, even though being ignorant about m and M in a discussion about physics is apparently ok. Hmm whatever!
It's a common tactic among stupid, ignorant, arrogant fools. When they're backed into a corner because they got caught in their stupidity, they retreat behind some symbol of authority, because it's all that they have left. It works on people who are not knowledgable or who are easily intimidated by the semblance of authority, but it only generates contempt for those with knowledge and the ability and desire to expand their knowledge.
That said, my prediction for the future of digital imaging is that 3D recording will improve drastically, we'll start recording actual color instead of faking with Bayer filters, and we'll see dSLRs and mirrorless system cameras like the Nex and Micro-4/3 systems using less compression (moving from 4:1:1 to 4:2:2, and eventually even offering the option of 4:4:4). That last will require faster processors, more memory, and larger memory cards, so that's probably one of the low-hanging fruits.
The processor industry will of course be pleased as punch if this happens, because it would entice people into wanting faster processors as well as larger hard drives and more memory, which will in turn drive computer upgrades... plus with GPUs becoming increasing powerful AND general-purpose, image processing and video editing and compositing will get quite a boost from video card upgrades.
It's a common tactic among stupid, ignorant, arrogant fools. When they're backed into a corner because they got caught in their stupidity, they retreat behind some symbol of authority, because it's all that they have left. It works on people who are not knowledgable or who are easily intimidated by the semblance of authority, but it only generates contempt for those with knowledge and the ability and desire to expand their knowledge.
That said, my prediction for the future of digital imaging is that 3D recording will improve drastically, we'll start recording actual color instead of faking with Bayer filters, and we'll see dSLRs and mirrorless system cameras like the Nex and Micro-4/3 systems using less compression (moving from 4:1:1 to 4:2:2, and eventually even offering the option of 4:4:4). That last will require faster processors, more memory, and larger memory cards, so that's probably one of the low-hanging fruits.
The processor industry will of course be pleased as punch if this happens, because it would entice people into wanting faster processors as well as larger hard drives and more memory, which will in turn drive computer upgrades... plus with GPUs becoming increasing powerful AND general-purpose, image processing and video editing and compositing will get quite a boost from video card upgrades.
In my humble opinion true color sensors are definitely the way to go. I hate some of the artifacts one sees with Beyer sensors. Trouble is true color sensors are still a long way, performance wise from Beyer sensors. Look at the noise performance on Foveon sensors in comparison. I can understand why from an IC fabrication point of view, it's to do with the depth of the junction picking up the light, which in a Foveon sensor, worst case is buried deep into the silicon, meaning less signal and more gain needed, so more noise, whereas with a Beyer sensor, the junctions are all at the top of the wafer so there there is little signal attenuation.
Over time the performance gap between Beyer and Foveon sensors will decrease, but by definition Foveon will always be behind, noise and SNR wise. That said, good enough is good enough! Right now although I'm super impressed by color rendition of Foveon sensors at low ISO's, they're not versatile enough for me as I want something that works at low light for things like concert photography and has nice color rendition for things like landscapes. Beyer is good enough right now, but when a Foveon or Foveon like sensor gets really good low light / high ISO performance that works for me, I'll buy one.
| 
| 
| edu