 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
Well yeah, OK, I rephrase: It defies explanation.
> 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.
But surely no scanner on Earth has sufficient resolution that you can
amplify a signal by many orders of magnitude and not be swamped by
noise? The photo posted contains almost no blue whatsoever, so you'd
have to apply a ridiculous amount of gain to that channel...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:13:38 +0100, Orchid XP v8 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.
>
> Well yeah, OK, I rephrase: It defies explanation.
See my explanation below. :-)
>> 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.
>
> But surely no scanner on Earth has sufficient resolution that you can
> amplify a signal by many orders of magnitude and not be swamped by
> noise? The photo posted contains almost no blue whatsoever, so you'd
> have to apply a ridiculous amount of gain to that channel...
Except that's clearly not the case. There is blue in the photo, though -
that's clearly visible by looking at a breakdown of the RGB channels
using something like the GIMP. There's certainly more red and green in
the photo, but just look at the outfit the baby's wearing and tell me
there's no blue there - on the shoulders and the matching "pants" (don't
know the word for that part of the outfit). Along the baseboard to the
left of the chair - that's a purplish colour there, blue is a component
of that.
Jim
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.
> Nope. But other database products were.
Yeah, and they are comparable like Blender and Paint are completely
comparable.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-Jul-08 15:33, scott wrote:
>> The resolution doesn't really compare, but the Amiga was targetted at
>> normal TVs. The Amiga's 640x480 is quite near to modern DVD's 720x564.
>
> The video chip on the Acorn was actually pretty cool, it was completely
> programmable so you could pretty much drive anything you wanted from a
> TV to a high resolution monitor. Even when I got my first LCD monitor I
> plugged it in and it worked! If you found some weird monitor that
> didn't quite work, chances were that someone could help you out and
> write the config file for you.
>
>> Thing is, up until this point, computer graphics had always been
>> blocky things made out of a dozen flat colours. Computer graphics
>> *looked* like computer graphics. Computer sound *sounded* like
>> computer sound.
>
> Well, to be honest, I don't see the *huge* leap between my BBC B from 10
> years earlier that could do 640x256 and 16 colours to 640x480 and 32
> colours. I would have expected a lot more.
It is not only the number of colours, There was also the hardware to
animate them at 25 frames per second.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
