 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yep. There's only so much that human senses can perceive. ;-)
True, and it's a shed load more than 256 levels. The attached photo
demonstrates nicely, see how with only 8bits/channel there is almost no
detail in the clouds at the top, nor in the dark wall and radiator at the
bottom? I can assure you in real life I can see a lot more detail. Once we
get display devices with higher contrast then higher bpp will surely follow
to better replicate what we see with our eyes. IIRC cinema projectors use
16 bit/channel already.
> (Similarly, "CD-quality audio" was invented, what, 20 years ago? And it
> still hasn't changed to this day...)
That's because not many people can hear higher than 20 kHz. Add in 10%
margin for the anti aliasing filters, and with a 22 kHz nyquist frequency
you get to 44 kHz sample rate. There isn't much incentive to go higher,
although DVD uses 48 kHz. 16-bit per sample is also probably ok, because
that correpsonds (IIRC) to a roughly 100 dB range of sounds, which is about
what the ear is sensitive to while listening to music. (OK if you wanted to
reproduce a pin dropping and then a jet engine in your living room, you
might need more than 16 bits to get it sounding good...)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'img_0298.jpg' (101 KB)
Preview of image 'img_0298.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yep. There's only so much that human senses can perceive. ;-)
>
> True, and it's a shed load more than 256 levels. The attached photo
> demonstrates nicely, see how with only 8bits/channel there is almost no
> detail in the clouds at the top, nor in the dark wall and radiator at
> the bottom? I can assure you in real life I can see a lot more detail.
There's a good reason for that: every time you point your eyes somewhere
else, all the exposure settings automatically change! ;-)
That's why it's so damned hard to find a good exposure setting on a
camera - one that reveals as much detail as the human eye. The human eye
doesn't use just *one* exposure setting, but a constantly changing level.
> Once we get display devices with higher contrast then higher bpp will
> surely follow to better replicate what we see with our eyes. IIRC
> cinema projectors use 16 bit/channel already.
Well, we'll see.
>> (Similarly, "CD-quality audio" was invented, what, 20 years ago? And
>> it still hasn't changed to this day...)
>
> That's because not many people can hear higher than 20 kHz.
Indeed. No real point going higher.
> There isn't much incentive to go higher, although DVD uses 48 kHz.
Now there's interesting. Do you have a reference for that? Last I heard,
DVD audio typically has lossy compression applied to it...
> 16-bit per sample is also probably
> ok, because that correpsonds (IIRC) to a roughly 100 dB range of sounds,
> which is about what the ear is sensitive to while listening to music.
Heh. It sounds OK to me! ;-)
[I gather there is a thing called "Super Audio CD", but it hasn't really
taken off because nobody can hear the difference.]
> (OK if you wanted to reproduce a pin dropping and then a jet engine in
> your living room, you might need more than 16 bits to get it sounding
> good...)
Hope - because you'll be *deaf* after the jet! :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> There's a good reason for that: every time you point your eyes somewhere
> else, all the exposure settings automatically change! ;-)
Of course, but it doesn't affect the fact that 8bit/channel is nowhere near
enough to give a realistic looking image.
> That's why it's so damned hard to find a good exposure setting on a
> camera - one that reveals as much detail as the human eye. The human eye
> doesn't use just *one* exposure setting, but a constantly changing level.
That's why people take HDR images (by quickly taking several images in
sucession with different exposures) and then combining them into one HDR
image. On your computer you can then vary the exposure and reveal all the
detail that would have been impossible to capture in a single 8bit image.
> Now there's interesting. Do you have a reference for that? Last I heard,
> DVD audio typically has lossy compression applied to it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video#Audio_data
> [I gather there is a thing called "Super Audio CD", but it hasn't really
> taken off because nobody can hear the difference.]
Or rather, in the majority of hi-fi systems it is not the 16bit/44kHz source
data that is the limiting factor on the quality.
> Hope - because you'll be *deaf* after the jet! :-D
Yup - but you wanted an accurate reproduction in your living room of that
scene where someone is run over by a jet taking off ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
> > I'll agree, Windows 3.x sucked. :)
> I was always astounded that "66 MHz" PCs would crawl along unbearably
> slowly
False memories. Windows 3 was already used in 6 MHz 286 computers.
If Windows 3 was "unbearably slow" in a 66 MHz 486, I can only imagine
how slow it must have been in a 286.
Obviously given that it was used in practice, it was not that slow.
> (On the other hand... You know how Linux is supposed to be "fast"? I
> tried running Debian on my Amiga 1200. Waiting for Gnome to start up
Gnome is not linux.
Try porting gnome to your beloved AmigaOS and let's see how fast it is
there.
> is... well let me put it this way. It makes a 486 SX look like greased
> lightning. From typing "startx" to having a usable desktop takes about
> 20 *minutes*!! Not kidding!!)
Why would you even want to use gnome in a slow computer? Use a lighter
window manager.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> There's a good reason for that: every time you point your eyes
>> somewhere else, all the exposure settings automatically change! ;-)
>
> Of course, but it doesn't affect the fact that 8bit/channel is nowhere
> near enough to give a realistic looking image.
Well... it looks fine to me, that's all I'm saying. ;-)
>> Now there's interesting. Do you have a reference for that? Last I
>> heard, DVD audio typically has lossy compression applied to it...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video#Audio_data
OK, well that's pretty weird. I wonder why they suddenly changed it to
48 kHz then...?
>> [I gather there is a thing called "Super Audio CD", but it hasn't
>> really taken off because nobody can hear the difference.]
>
> Or rather, in the majority of hi-fi systems it is not the 16bit/44kHz
> source data that is the limiting factor on the quality.
Not by a *long* shot! ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I was always astounded that "66 MHz" PCs would crawl along unbearably
>> slowly
>
> False memories. Windows 3 was already used in 6 MHz 286 computers.
> If Windows 3 was "unbearably slow" in a 66 MHz 486, I can only imagine
> how slow it must have been in a 286.
>
> Obviously given that it was used in practice, it was not that slow.
Ah, OK. Spending 20 minutes waiting for Access to load each time I
wanted to work on my assignment at college must be a false memory then...
> Why would you even want to use gnome in a slow computer? Use a lighter
> window manager.
Because Gnome does the same thing that AmigaOS does, and lighter WMs don't.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Ah, OK. Spending 20 minutes waiting for Access to load each time I
> wanted to work on my assignment at college must be a false memory then...
Microsoft Access for the AmigaOS was hugely popular, I suppose.
"Hey, Blender for linux takes hours to create an image, while MS Paint
is blazingly fast. Clearly Windows is much faster than Linux."
> > Why would you even want to use gnome in a slow computer? Use a lighter
> > window manager.
> Because Gnome does the same thing that AmigaOS does, and lighter WMs don't.
Now you are an expert on window managers, I see.
Exactly what is it that Gnome does that no other window manager does?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Ah, OK. Spending 20 minutes waiting for Access to load each time I
>> wanted to work on my assignment at college must be a false memory then...
>
> Microsoft Access for the AmigaOS was hugely popular, I suppose.
Nope. But other database products were.
The real point is more that on a PC, just switching from one window to
another always seemed to take forever, whereas on an Amiga it was
instantaneous unless the machine was under heavy load.
> "Hey, Blender for linux takes hours to create an image, while MS Paint
> is blazingly fast. Clearly Windows is much faster than Linux."
OK, forget it. This conversation is over.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:49:10 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> OK, that's just absurd. The sofa and the rug are *exactly* the same
> colour. How the hell can the machine tell them apart? Additionally, how
> on earth can it tell what colour they were originally? That's
> impossible...
Except it clearly isn't impossible, because it was done. The way this
works is by using white balance. I've done it myself many, many times
with old photos in the GIMP.
But the sofa and the rug aren't exactly the same colour - the rug is
darker than the sofa (? looks like a chair to me). Adjusting the white
balance of the photo involves picking out something that actually is/was
white (like the white on the baby's shirt). That gives the computer a
reference to make the adjustments from. When photos age, they tend to
age consistently and the colours adjust with consistency. The computer
basically is doing an "undo" on the age effect applied by real life.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:47:20 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> And I'm sure if you pay even more money, you can get better specs.
>> Predator was released years earlier and featured some impressive
>> computer graphics; that computer had to come form somewhere. But
>> certainly you wouldn't find one in somebody's *house*!
>>
>>
> What amazes me about the Amiga is how frequently it was used for digital
> effects in a number of TV shows.
Yep, I remember selling the Amiga for Software Etc. - we had a local TV
station bring in their setup to do a demo. Pretty cool stuff.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
