 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Even more impressively, they've been able to colour films that were
> originally shot in B&W.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_colorization
Yeah, but only with human intervention. You don't just press a button
and out pops an image with colours that correctly match the original.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But the data never exists as a whole in the first place in cheap cameras.
>
> Actually it does exist, at least in Canon cameras.
That's because they probably use the same hardware in lots of different
cameras. Again it's all about cost, cheaper to use an existing solution that
is slightly more than they need, rather than to develop a new one.
> Really, this is a case study of hardware being deliberately crippled
> through software for marketing reasons.
It's not marketing reasons, it's purely financial reasons, to make maximum
profit. Say it costs Canon $100 to make each camera, whether crippled or
not. You have two options:
Option 1: Sell just one model for $150 and make $50 profit on each camera
Option 2: Sell a crippled version for $125 and a non-crippled one for $200.
If you choose those two prices correctly, you will make more profit.
Companies realise that option 2 is likely to make them much more profit, you
get sales from all the people who couldn't afford $150 before, plus you get
sales from people who think that because it's $200 it must be better than a
$150 camera from another company, and obviously it's better than your $125
you are selling.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:13:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Even more impressively, they've been able to colour films that were
>> originally shot in B&W.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_colorization
>
> Yeah, but only with human intervention. You don't just press a button
> and out pops an image with colours that correctly match the original.
As the original is B&W, that doesn't make sense...
But colourization technology has advanced somewhat since the earliest
films (and in all honesty, the earliest colourized films that I saw were
pretty crap anyways).
But even with colour correction in cameras, the best results usually
involve human intervention.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, but only with human intervention. You don't just press a button
>> and out pops an image with colours that correctly match the original.
>
> As the original is B&W, that doesn't make sense...
I meant you can't just give a machine a BW picture of a tree and have it
automatically know to turn it green. That's impossible. You must have a
human there, and they must know what the hell the colours are supposed
to be.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
48889cb8@news.povray.org...
> Companies realise that option 2 is likely to make them much more profit,
> you get sales from all the people who couldn't afford $150 before, plus
> you get sales from people who think that because it's $200 it must be
> better than a $150 camera from another company, and obviously it's better
> than your $125 you are selling.
Some of the crippled features only exist in uncrippled form in the high-end,
much more expensive SLRs, that have specific hardware features (namely the
abiility to have different and much better lenses and the SRL system itself)
that cater to different people. Both lines of products do not compete with
each other: they're different markets (with a small line of "bridge" cameras
filling the gap). If Canon had left RAW support in the point-and-shoot
digicams, that would not have prevented power users to buy SLRs.
In the end it surely comes down to money and I'm pretty sure that they ran
simulations about this, but the true rationale still looks like real
marketing to me: Canon judged that a digicam belongs to a market segment
that doesn't need (or even understand) RAW support and other fancy high-end
features, so they took those features off of the list to keep their product
lines neatly separated.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:29:54 +0200, Gilles Tran wrote:
> If Canon had left RAW support in the
> point-and-shoot digicams, that would not have prevented power users to
> buy SLRs.
It isn't so much that they didn't leave the support in, they disabled it
specifically in the lower-end cameras. At least according to what I've
read.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:00:48 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> Yeah, but only with human intervention. You don't just press a button
>>> and out pops an image with colours that correctly match the original.
>>
>> As the original is B&W, that doesn't make sense...
>
> I meant you can't just give a machine a BW picture of a tree and have it
> automatically know to turn it green. That's impossible.
I don't know that to be the case. Again, a case of one's ability to
fathom how something like that is done doesn't translate to "there's no
way it could possibly be done".
> You must have a
> human there, and they must know what the hell the colours are supposed
> to be.
Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on how advanced the technology is. It
certainly isn't an *easy* problem to solve, I'll grant that.
Impossible? Smarter people than me have figured out how to do things I
thought weren't possible.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I meant you can't just give a machine a BW picture of a tree and have it
>> automatically know to turn it green. That's impossible.
>
> I don't know that to be the case. Again, a case of one's ability to
> fathom how something like that is done doesn't translate to "there's no
> way it could possibly be done".
It's a basic premise of signal processing that you cannot recover data
that isn't there any more. Shannon's theorum and all that.
Whether you can *fake* something that "looks" right is another matter.
But *recover*? No. Impossible.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:24:51 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I meant you can't just give a machine a BW picture of a tree and have
>>> it automatically know to turn it green. That's impossible.
>>
>> I don't know that to be the case. Again, a case of one's ability to
>> fathom how something like that is done doesn't translate to "there's no
>> way it could possibly be done".
>
> It's a basic premise of signal processing that you cannot recover data
> that isn't there any more. Shannon's theorum and all that.
>
> Whether you can *fake* something that "looks" right is another matter.
> But *recover*? No. Impossible.
At least as far as we know today.
A couple centuries ago, people also believed that if someone's heart
stopped beating it couldn't be restarted and they were dead forever. We
know that to not be the case in all circumstances today.
If you take a photo of something out of focus, you could never recover
the original picture again, right?
Wrong. http://refocus-it.sourceforge.net/
Pretty cool plugin. Even 5 years ago, something like this would have
been thought to be totally impossible.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It's a basic premise of signal processing that you cannot recover data
>> that isn't there any more. Shannon's theorum and all that.
>>
>> Whether you can *fake* something that "looks" right is another matter.
>> But *recover*? No. Impossible.
>
> At least as far as we know today.
Right. And the fact that a mathematical proof of its impossibility
doesn't matter either, right?
How many years do you think it will be before somebody solves the
halting problem, or develops a lossless compression algorithm with an
infinite compression ratio?
> If you take a photo of something out of focus, you could never recover
> the original picture again, right?
>
> Wrong. http://refocus-it.sourceforge.net/
>
> Pretty cool plugin. Even 5 years ago, something like this would have
> been thought to be totally impossible.
I've always thought that, logically, this ought to be possible in
principle. I mean, defocusing is basically a convolution, so it should
be possible to deconvolute it to some degree... (Similarly with echo
cancellation.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
