Warp escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>> In fact, I think if preview is off, it only needs width*2 memory (plus 
>> width*something used by libpng), not width*height.
> 
>   I believe pov3.6 and earlier wrote each rendered scanline to the
> image file and then dropped it. Thus it required memory only for one
> scanline at a time, which allowed rendering enormous images even in
> computers with a small amount of memory.

It definitely needs *two* scanlines, not one. Antialiasing requires 
comparing the pixel color with the one above ;) I remember seeing that 
in the code.

I just didn't know if somewhere *else* in the code, POV kept the whole 
image in memory. Thanks for confirming it doesn't.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> 40 megapixels = 40,000,000 pixels.
> 40,000,000 pixels / 2 pixels/second = 20,000,000 seconds.
> 20,000,000 seconds = 333,333 minutes.
> 333,333 minutes = 5,555 hours.
> 5,555 hours = 231.5 days.
> 

Hmm let's see what's available on the farm.

 > Sum of available disk space on these hosts: 8662.28 GB
 > Sum of memory on these hosts: 211062.96 MB

Bah, no aggregate information about CPU power...

These *four* 8-core Xeon computers seem too similar. Might be duplicate 
entries (same computer)... *gets into admin interface* Nope! Different 
hostnames.

How big are your sources? :)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Hmm let's see what's available on the farm.

Ooo, I didn't know you were a farmer?

> These *four* 8-core Xeon computers seem too similar. Might be duplicate 
> entries (same computer)... *gets into admin interface* Nope! Different 
> hostnames.
> 
> How big are your sources? :)

About 3 KB?



Actually, reminds me of something I saw this morning. Some guy saying 
there's basically "no point" in adding more CPUs to the Folding@Home 
project, because a single GPU is something like 50x faster while using 
less electricity...

All I need know is for that guy who's writing a CUBA backing for GHC to 
finish his PhD, and then I can implement my own raytracer in Haskell and 
achieve world domination. Wahahahahaha!! >:-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Hmm let's see what's available on the farm.
> 
> Ooo, I didn't know you were a farmer?

I meant "render farm"...

>> How big are your sources? :)
> 
> About 3 KB?

Send me them and I'll see what comes out of the Xeons.

> Actually, reminds me of something I saw this morning. Some guy saying 
> there's basically "no point" in adding more CPUs to the Folding@Home 
> project, because a single GPU is something like 50x faster while using 
> less electricity...

There's many processes done by Folding@Home that can only be done in 
CPUs. GPUs are the fastest but least flexible (= can run a limited 
subset of algorithms) for the Folding project.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 40 megapixels = 40,000,000 pixels.
> 40,000,000 pixels / 2 pixels/second = 20,000,000 seconds.
> 20,000,000 seconds = 333,333 minutes.
> 333,333 minutes = 5,555 hours.
> 5,555 hours = 231.5 days.

hope it's not another RSOCP! ;)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> 40 megapixel? Hmm how much RAM is it eating? Last time I tried an image 
> around that big, POV-Ray crashed.

Virtual size 144 MB.
Private bytes 98 MB.
Working set  102 MB.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> ...you ask POV-Ray to draw a 40 megapixel image, it renders at roughly 2
> pixels per second, and you calculate how long it will take to render.
>
> And then feel glad you're sitting down. (!)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 40 megapixels = 40,000,000 pixels.
> 40,000,000 pixels / 2 pixels/second = 20,000,000 seconds.
> 20,000,000 seconds = 333,333 minutes.
> 333,333 minutes = 5,555 hours.
> 5,555 hours = 231.5 days.
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

I can't believe I'm the first one asking this, but...

....what the HE** do you need a 40 MP image for?!?!?

Assuming 16:9 proportions, that's like 8400x4725, or 28"x15" at 300DPI.

Or, if its a 4:3 image, then it's like 7300x5475, or 24"x18" at 300DPI.

That's a REALLY nice print :)

....Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers escribió:
> I can't believe I'm the first one asking this, but...

I guess most other POVers didn't think it was anything strange :)

I *have* tried such size of image with William Tracy's image.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> I can't believe I'm the first one asking this...

hey, I don't argue with nuts.  If he wishes to dump his CPU on a 
year-long render, go ahead.  :)

Perhaps he's willing to break the Guiness record on "Most pointless and 
wasteful povray render ever".  Mine was just a 3 day render of some 
glass cups... :P

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> 
> I can't believe I'm the first one asking this, but...
> 
> ....what the HE** do you need a 40 MP image for?!?!?

hmm, I recently did a 6500 by 4800 version of the bloodcells in the hall 
of fame with the intention of putting it up as a poster in the lab. And 
that is still only 150 dpi at approximately A0 ;) . I admit it only took 
306 hours (or just under 2 weeks). BTW anyone know who this 'NEWT' is, 
in case he wants to have that render?

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> I can't believe I'm the first one asking this, but...
> 
> ....what the HE** do you need a 40 MP image for?!?!?

> Or, if its a 4:3 image, then it's like 7300x5475, or 24"x18" at 300DPI.

7800 x 3937.

Zazzle can print this at 100 DPI, yielding 78 x 39 inches.

Yes, you heard me correctly: 6.5 x 3.25 *feet*. As in, the size of a wall.

Almost all my posters on Zazzle have been rendered at sufficiently high 
resolution that they can be ordered up to this large. So, for example, 
if you take *this* image:

http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid/product/228133982621059924

and print it out at *wall size*, it's practically an interactive zoom by 
itself. You can stand on the other size of the room and look at it, and 
then you can walk up to it and view the details with your head less than 
an inch from the surface - and you will see new detail at that distance. 
(!!)

(That image is actually 48 megapixels, because the long dimension is a 
nice power of two... So the poster prints at slightly more than 100 DPI.)

> That's a REALLY nice print :)

Yes, yes it is... It *will* cost you [at least] $130, however. Plus postage.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 306 hours (or just under 2 weeks). BTW anyone know who this 'NEWT' is, in 
> case he wants to have that render?

http://indulgent-studios.tripod.com/
http://www.ballisticmedia.net/bsw/bigImage.php?image=23551
The address isn't recent though. There's also his Zazzle page here
http://www.zazzle.com/dissolution_print-228184578769283321
Comments are relayed to the author usually (the feature may be turned off 
however).

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> 
>> I can't believe I'm the first one asking this, but...
>>
>> ....what the HE** do you need a 40 MP image for?!?!?
> 
>> Or, if its a 4:3 image, then it's like 7300x5475, or 24"x18" at 300DPI.
> 
> 7800 x 3937.
> 
> Zazzle can print this at 100 DPI, yielding 78 x 39 inches.
> 
> Yes, you heard me correctly: 6.5 x 3.25 *feet*. As in, the size of a wall.

Have you sold any prints that size?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez escribió:
> Invisible escribió:
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Hmm let's see what's available on the farm.
>> Ooo, I didn't know you were a farmer?
> I meant "render farm"...
> 
>>> How big are your sources? :)
>> About 3 KB?
> Send me them and I'll see what comes out of the Xeons.

Bump.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
>> 40 megapixel? Hmm how much RAM is it eating? Last time I tried an 
>> image around that big, POV-Ray crashed.
> 
> I have no idea. I haven't looked. I wouldn't expect it to be exceptional...
> 
> Assuming the image were exactly 40,000,000 pixels (which it isn't), I 
> would expect roughly 40,000,000 x 3 bytes = roughly 114 MB. You'd have 
> to have a fairly underpowered machine to not be able to spare 114 MB. 

Aren't you the one who complained about a single Word document taking 
10MB of RAM when open? :)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> Aren't you the one who complained about a single Word document taking 
> 10MB of RAM when open? :)

If a freakin' *huge* image takes up a lot of memory, that's understandable.

If a tiny document takes up a lot of memory, that's completely unecessary.

That's the difference.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Yes, you heard me correctly: 6.5 x 3.25 *feet*. As in, the size of a 
>> wall.
> 
> Have you sold any prints that size?

Uh... actually I don't think I've ever told any prints at all. Except to 
myself. Hmm, maybe I should just close my Zazzle gallery?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:13:05 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Chambers wrote:
>
>> Aren't you the one who complained about a single Word document taking  
>> 10MB of RAM when open? :)
>
> If a freakin' *huge* image takes up a lot of memory, that's  
> understandable.
>
> If a tiny document takes up a lot of memory, that's completely  
> unecessary.
>
> That's the difference.

But how else can you send photos by email?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> But how else can you send photos by email?

That's not even funny. :'{

OTOH, if you can find me a 40 megapixel digital camera, I'll be 
impressed. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   In pov3.7, because of the distributed rendering, things have changed
> a bit: There are no individual scanlines anylonger. I don't really know
> if the entire image is now kept in memory (when there's no preview) or not.
> Chris or Thorsten would be much more qualified to answer this.

When watching the 3.7 preview, you can see that the image is rendered in 
tiles; it appears as though each thread takes the next tile on the 
current line when it's finished. Perhaps this is all that is kept in memory.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:35:34 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> But how else can you send photos by email?
>
> That's not even funny. :'{

But it's sooo easy, especially when you're sending multiple photos.

> OTOH, if you can find me a 40 megapixel digital camera, I'll be  
> impressed. :-P

Sony have a 24MP coming out sometime the Alpha 900.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
47df9af7@news.povray.org...
> OTOH, if you can find me a 40 megapixel digital camera, I'll be impressed. 
> :-P

A good scanner with a resolution of 4800x9600 (46 megapixels) will do. 
There's a Canon one for 150 euros, so it's not like processing this kind of 
image size is uncommon today.

In any case, 40 megapixels is the top range for professional digital 
cameras. They're not hard to find. Expensive though...
And here are 160 and 470 mexapixels cameras:
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f931.cfm

G.

-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

>> OTOH, if you can find me a 40 megapixel digital camera, I'll be impressed. 
>> :-P
> 
> A good scanner with a resolution of 4800x9600 (46 megapixels) will do.

I've yet to see any scanner that goes above 1200 x 1200. (Although many 
seem to feature a special "interpolation mode" that gives you more 
pixels. WTF?)

> There's a Canon one for 150 euros, so it's not like processing this kind of 
> image size is uncommon today.

My point being, anybody who can afford something like that is unlikely 
to try to email it to somebody. ;-)

> In any case, 40 megapixels is the top range for professional digital 
> cameras. They're not hard to find. Expensive though...
> And here are 160 and 470 mexapixels cameras:

OMG! o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
47dfa9a5$1@news.povray.org...

> I've yet to see any scanner that goes above 1200 x 1200. (Although many 
> seem to feature a special "interpolation mode" that gives you more pixels. 
> WTF?)

You should have realised by now that whenever you think that a technology 1) 
is impossible 2) doesn't exist or 3) isn't used by anyone, you're just being 
10-year late ;)

The interpolation mode is mostly there to inflate numbers, AFAIK.

> My point being, anybody who can afford something like that is unlikely to 
> try to email it to somebody. ;-)

As I said, a 4800*9600 scanner is rather cheap nowadays.
Actually I have to buy an all-in-one printer/scanner/copier for my dad and 
one of my concern is *** exactly *** that he'll somehow manage to scan huge 
images (book covers and newspaper articles) and start emailing them to other 
people. He already did that with a bunch of 7 megapixels pictures that were 
forwarded to him.

G.

-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

> You should have realised by now that whenever you think that a technology 1) 
> is impossible 2) doesn't exist or 3) isn't used by anyone, you're just being 
> 10-year late ;)

Oh, I'm sure high resolution scanners exist. I've just never seen any on 
sale. Apparently I shop at a place that only sells ancient technology...

> The interpolation mode is mostly there to inflate numbers, AFAIK.

Yeah, exactly. I guess most people don't understand what "interpolation" 
actually means. :-P

>> My point being, anybody who can afford something like that is unlikely to 
>> try to email it to somebody. ;-)
> 
> As I said, a 4800*9600 scanner is rather cheap nowadays.

Hmm. That's kind of worrying them. Broadband technology is nowhere close 
to keeping up with that kind of file size...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> OMG! o_O
> 

Never heard of the Gigapxl project? (GIYF, I'm lazy to get you the link)

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
47dfc80c$1@news.povray.org...
>> You should have realised by now that whenever you think that a technology 
>> 1) is impossible 2) doesn't exist or 3) isn't used by anyone, you're just 
>> being 10-year late ;)
>
> Oh, I'm sure high resolution scanners exist. I've just never seen any on 
> sale. Apparently I shop at a place that only sells ancient technology...

Of course you saw them on sale, you just didn't look at the resolutions. I 
didn't either until I started shopping for a scanner. Your shops probably 
sell a basic all-in-one like the Canon Pixma MP610 for instance or the Epson 
Perfection line of flatbed scanners.

> Hmm. That's kind of worrying them. Broadband technology is nowhere close 
> to keeping up with that kind of file size...

No but this explains why having lots of RAM and processing power is 
important for regular folks. And what about that 500 Mb movie file than 
anyone with a recent, cheap, entry-level digital camera can record and be 
willing to edit and email to grandma?

G.


-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran escribió:
> No but this explains why having lots of RAM and processing power is 
> important for regular folks.

And why Word or Vista Aero shouldn't be eating it all. Leaves little 
left for video editing.

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh, I'm sure high resolution scanners exist. I've just never seen any on 
>> sale. Apparently I shop at a place that only sells ancient technology...
> 
> Of course you saw them on sale, you just didn't look at the resolutions. I 
> didn't either until I started shopping for a scanner. Your shops probably 
> sell a basic all-in-one like the Canon Pixma MP610 for instance or the Epson 
> Perfection line of flatbed scanners.

Oh, what, in a physical shop? I don't often enter those... ;-)

>> Hmm. That's kind of worrying them. Broadband technology is nowhere close 
>> to keeping up with that kind of file size...
> 
> No but this explains why having lots of RAM and processing power is 
> important for regular folks. And what about that 500 Mb movie file than 
> anyone with a recent, cheap, entry-level digital camera can record and be 
> willing to edit and email to grandma?

I realise this will probably be met with derision, but... you can edit 
video on a "normal" PC now?

[Sure, I'm aware you can do if it you either spend millions on a 
high-end video server or just wait several weeks, but I didn't think the 
hardware or software for doing this exists at the comsumer level yet.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I realise this will probably be met with derision, but... you can edit 
> video on a "normal" PC now?
> 
> [Sure, I'm aware you can do if it you either spend millions on a 
> high-end video server or just wait several weeks, but I didn't think the 
> hardware or software for doing this exists at the comsumer level yet.]

Mac users have been able to do it with just OS-bundled software for some 
years (although you'd be silly to attempt anything fancy), and I believe 
Final Cut Express is not very expensive. Couldn't comment on Windows or 
Linux.

Post a reply to this message

> I realise this will probably be met with derision, but... you can edit 
> video on a "normal" PC now?

Not with your idea of a "normal" PC ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > A good scanner with a resolution of 4800x9600 (46 megapixels) will do.

> I've yet to see any scanner that goes above 1200 x 1200.

  Don't you mean 1200 dpi? That's 1200x1200 pixel for each square inch.

  If you scan a full A4 paper, that makes a total of about 14000x9900 pixels,
ie. about 138 megapixels.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> I've yet to see any scanner that goes above 1200 x 1200.
> 
>   Don't you mean 1200 dpi? That's 1200x1200 pixel for each square inch.
> 
>   If you scan a full A4 paper, that makes a total of about 14000x9900 pixels,
> ie. about 138 megapixels.

Mmm, good points.

Maybe that's why my mum's PC always malfunctions wildly if you *dare* to 
scan anything at more than 300 DPI? (Or maybe that's just M$ PhotoEditor 
being dumb, I'm not sure...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
47dfdb07$1@news.povray.org...

> I realise this will probably be met with derision, but... you can edit 
> video on a "normal" PC now?

Some *** cell phones *** can do (basic) video editing now. So yes, it's 
mainstream technology as demonstrated by millions of YouTube "directors".
You'll need lots of disc space though. A Mini DV tape translates into tens 
of gigabytes.

G.

-- 
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Mac users have been able to do it with just OS-bundled software for some 
> years (although you'd be silly to attempt anything fancy), and I believe 
> Final Cut Express is not very expensive. Couldn't comment on Windows or 
> Linux.

Oh, sure, an Apple Mac counts as both a "PC" and "normal". ;-)

(Seriously, if you can afford a Mac, the world is your oyster...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> Some *** cell phones *** can do (basic) video editing now. So yes, it's 
> mainstream technology as demonstrated by millions of YouTube "directors".
> You'll need lots of disc space though. A Mini DV tape translates into tens 
> of gigabytes.

 From what I've seen of mobile phone "pictures" and "videos", the 
quality as so abysmal as to be laughable. I'm talking about video that 
you'd actually want to *watch*! ;-)

As for YouTube, most of it seems to be either illegal movies, mobile 
phone recordings [most of which demonstrate an awe-inspiring level of 
pointlessness], or footage of computer games.

[But then, I don't suppose most normal people would want to actually put 
the video of their holiday in Molta on YouTube. Who would watch it? And, 
presumably, it would take several weeks to upload...]

Video editing is something that moderately interests me. And I have a 
digital camcorder now. But I'm not aware of any way of getting the 
digital data from the camera to my PC, and that presumably means I'll 
need an expensive video capture card...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> I realise this will probably be met with derision, but... you can edit 
> video on a "normal" PC now?

Define "edit". My digital camera can trim beginning or end of a video, 
right from the camera controls.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> 
>> Mac users have been able to do it with just OS-bundled software for 
>> some years (although you'd be silly to attempt anything fancy), and I 
>> believe Final Cut Express is not very expensive. Couldn't comment on 
>> Windows or Linux.
> 
> Oh, sure, an Apple Mac counts as both a "PC" and "normal". ;-)

Well, that depends what you mean. If you were implicitly excluding Macs 
then I guess it doesn't count :) As for normal, well, I use them for the 
same stuff most others use Windows machines for. It's personal tastes 
really but I find it easier for most things (I'm not a big PC gamer so I 
don't really lose out there).

> (Seriously, if you can afford a Mac, the world is your oyster...)

Macs are not significantly more expensive than Windows PCs. I can afford 
a Mac but I am not a particularly extravagant person...

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:55:45 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
  

spake, saying:

> Gilles Tran wrote:
>
>> Some *** cell phones *** can do (basic) video editing now. So yes, it
's  

>> mainstream technology as demonstrated by millions of YouTube  

>> "directors".
>> You'll need lots of disc space though. A Mini DV tape translates into
  

>> tens of gigabytes.
>
>  From what I've seen of mobile phone "pictures" and "videos", the  

> quality as so abysmal as to be laughable. I'm talking about video that
  

> you'd actually want to *watch*! ;-)

My camera takes still images at 3072*2304, but movies at 640*480; mobile
s  

phones at 320*240 (or better now). Neither of these items are designed  

primarily for taking movies, so a trade-off has to occur. If you can mak
e  

out what's happening then the quality is good enough  

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2197464393936227318 (sound)

> As for YouTube, most of it seems to be either illegal movies, mobile  

> phone recordings [most of which demonstrate an awe-inspiring level of 
 

> pointlessness], or footage of computer games.

Otherwise known as 'things young geeks do' :-)

> Video editing is something that moderately interests me. And I have a 
 

> digital camcorder now. But I'm not aware of any way of getting the  

> digital data from the camera to my PC, and that presumably means I'll 
 

> need an expensive video capture card...

If you want real-time editing and remastering back to the camera then  

quite possibly; if you just want to pull the data then play with it for 
 

burning or uploading then as Gilles said you just need capacity. How doe
s  

your camera want to output data, let me guess Firewire?

-- 

Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh, sure, an Apple Mac counts as both a "PC" and "normal". ;-)
> 
> Well, that depends what you mean. If you were implicitly excluding Macs 
> then I guess it doesn't count :) As for normal, well, I use them for the 
> same stuff most others use Windows machines for. It's personal tastes 
> really but I find it easier for most things (I'm not a big PC gamer so I 
> don't really lose out there).

I just meant that Macs are very rare. [Despite all of Apple's efforts.] 
In all the years I've been alive, I've never actually used one, or met 
anybody who uses one, and I've only ever seen 1 shop that even sells 
them. [Admittedly I don't know a vast number of people or go shopping 
all that might, but hey.]

>> (Seriously, if you can afford a Mac, the world is your oyster...)
> 
> Macs are not significantly more expensive than Windows PCs.

Sure. The cheapest Mac on the market costs £400, for which I could buy 3 
seperate PCs. But no, that's not significantly more expensive. ;-)

> I can afford 
> a Mac but I am not a particularly extravagant person...

Depends on what you mean. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>  From what I've seen of mobile phone "pictures" and "videos", the 
>> quality as so abysmal as to be laughable. I'm talking about video that 
>> you'd actually want to *watch*! ;-)
> 
> My camera takes still images at 3072*2304, but movies at 640*480; 
> mobiles phones at 320*240 (or better now).

My camera is 3 megapixels. My mum bought one that's 5 megapixels. She 
was all, like, "hey, my camera's better than yours!" Until we tried to 
use it. And we discovered that my camera takes "pictures", and hers 
produces grainy unrecognisible things.

I hypothesize this is due to my camera's 45 mm lense, and her camera's 
2.1 mm lense. >:-)

Having the best sensor in the world won't help you if you have crap 
optics. So, yeah, telling me the resolution is interesting, but it isn't 
the whole story.

> Neither of these items are 
> designed primarily for taking movies, so a trade-off has to occur.

No kidding.

(My camera fits in a backpack. My mum's camera fits in your shirt pocket.)

>> As for YouTube, most of it seems to be either illegal movies, mobile 
>> phone recordings [most of which demonstrate an awe-inspiring level of 
>> pointlessness], or footage of computer games.
> 
> Otherwise known as 'things young geeks do' :-)

LOL!

>> Video editing is something that moderately interests me. And I have a 
>> digital camcorder now. But I'm not aware of any way of getting the 
>> digital data from the camera to my PC, and that presumably means I'll 
>> need an expensive video capture card...
> 
> If you want real-time editing and remastering back to the camera then 
> quite possibly; if you just want to pull the data then play with it for 
> burning or uploading then as Gilles said you just need capacity. How 
> does your camera want to output data, let me guess Firewire?

Composite or S-Video.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Invisible escribió:
>> I realise this will probably be met with derision, but... you can edit 
>> video on a "normal" PC now?
> 
> Define "edit". My digital camera can trim beginning or end of a video, 
> right from the camera controls.

Mine can too - but only if you format the DVD a certain way. (i.e., the 
way that's incompatible with DVD players.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
>>>  From what I've seen of mobile phone "pictures" and "videos", the 
>>> quality as so abysmal as to be laughable. I'm talking about video 
>>> that you'd actually want to *watch*! ;-)
>>
>> My camera takes still images at 3072*2304, but movies at 640*480; 
>> mobiles phones at 320*240 (or better now).
> 
> My camera is 3 megapixels. My mum bought one that's 5 megapixels. She 
> was all, like, "hey, my camera's better than yours!" Until we tried to 
> use it. And we discovered that my camera takes "pictures", and hers 
> produces grainy unrecognisible things.
> 
> I hypothesize this is due to my camera's 45 mm lense, and her camera's 
> 2.1 mm lense. >:-)
> 
> Having the best sensor in the world won't help you if you have crap 
> optics. So, yeah, telling me the resolution is interesting, but it isn't 
> the whole story.

Sensor size matters too. If it has 5 megapixels stuffed into a VERY tiny 
area, graininess will show up.

Or so I read.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Invisible escribió:
>>> I realise this will probably be met with derision, but... you can 
>>> edit video on a "normal" PC now?
>>
>> Define "edit". My digital camera can trim beginning or end of a video, 
>> right from the camera controls.
> 
> Mine can too - but only if you format the DVD a certain way. (i.e., the 
> way that's incompatible with DVD players.)
> 

DVD? I'm talking about my photo camera, which can also film videos at 
640x480 30fps. It allows such "editing".

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:39:37 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez  
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:

> Invisible escribió:
>>>>  From what I've seen of mobile phone "pictures" and "videos", the  
>>>> quality as so abysmal as to be laughable. I'm talking about video  
>>>> that you'd actually want to *watch*! ;-)
>>>
>>> My camera takes still images at 3072*2304, but movies at 640*480;  
>>> mobiles phones at 320*240 (or better now).
>>  My camera is 3 megapixels. My mum bought one that's 5 megapixels. She  
>> was all, like, "hey, my camera's better than yours!" Until we tried to  
>> use it. And we discovered that my camera takes "pictures", and hers  
>> produces grainy unrecognisible things.
>>  I hypothesize this is due to my camera's 45 mm lense, and her camera's  
>> 2.1 mm lense. >:-)
>>  Having the best sensor in the world won't help you if you have crap  
>> optics. So, yeah, telling me the resolution is interesting, but it  
>> isn't the whole story.

Yeah I'm assuming you have a still camera that takes decent still shots;  
crap in , crap out - what a surprise. What I'm saying is my 7MP camera  
doesn't take 7MP movies because it's not designed to shunt that amount of  
data around at 30fps.

> Sensor size matters too. If it has 5 megapixels stuffed into a VERY tiny  
> area, graininess will show up.
>
> Or so I read.

Which I why I'm glad I have a large sensor size and lense compared to the  
more pocket-friendly cameras of my friends.

>>> How does your camera want to output data, let me guess Firewire?

>> Composite or S-Video.

How old is it?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I just meant that Macs are very rare. [Despite all of Apple's efforts.]

Less common. I wouldn't say rare. I know half a dozen people who use 
them, and we all started using them completely independently.

> Sure. The cheapest Mac on the market costs £400, for which I could buy 3 
> seperate PCs.

That's very impressive, I had no idea you could buy PCs that cheaply. 
Although I personally certainly wouldn't risk it.

> But no, that's not significantly more expensive. ;-)

My use of 'significant' is certainly arguable. However, you act as if 
Macs are forever outside your price range, like Aston Martins to a 
second-hand Peugeot owner*. They're not. I bet you spent more on your 
last graphics card than I did on my last Mac. :)


*Apple wish.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> A good scanner with a resolution of 4800x9600 (46 megapixels) will do. 
> There's a Canon one for 150 euros, so it's not like processing this kind of 
> image size is uncommon today.
> 

One should also notice that scanner resolutions are dpi-values, so 
that's 46 megapixels for a freakin' square inch. Now, if the photo is 
4*6 inches...

> 
> G.
> 


-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

>> I just meant that Macs are very rare. [Despite all of Apple's efforts.]
> 
> Less common. I wouldn't say rare. I know half a dozen people who use 
> them, and we all started using them completely independently.

Well, maybe it's because I work in the wrong field, but I've never ever 
seen a real, live Mac except on TV. To me, that seems pretty rare. 
(Also, presumably that's why they're so expensive? Because they can't 
sell many of them...)

>> Sure. The cheapest Mac on the market costs £400, for which I could buy 
>> 3 seperate PCs.
> 
> That's very impressive, I had no idea you could buy PCs that cheaply. 
> Although I personally certainly wouldn't risk it.

£20 for a case, £25 for a motherboard with on-board everything, £20 for 
a CPU, maybe £50 for some RAM, £20 for a CD-ROM, and £50 for a HD. That 
makes, oh, £185?

So I guess *three* is a slight exaggeration. But only slight...

I suppose if you wanted to be picky, the OS will cost you 2x that amount 
alone, assuming you're getting it from Micro$oft... [And when you buy a 
Mac, you're partly paying for a proprietry OS, so I guess that would be 
a fairer comparison.]

>> But no, that's not significantly more expensive. ;-)
> 
> My use of 'significant' is certainly arguable. However, you act as if 
> Macs are forever outside your price range, like Aston Martins to a 
> second-hand Peugeot owner*. They're not. I bet you spent more on your 
> last graphics card than I did on my last Mac. :)

Hmm, let me go check...

No, you're wrong.

XFX nVidia GeForce 7900GT 256MB DDR3 520MHz dual-DVI PCI-Express, £153.

I don't think there is any Mac in Creation that can be had for such a 
sum. And that's *the* most expensive graphics card I've ever bought, by 
at least one order of magnitude. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>>> How does your camera want to output data, let me guess Firewire?
> 
>>> Composite or S-Video.
> 
> How old is it?

Bought in Christmas 2007?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> DVD? I'm talking about my photo camera, which can also film videos at 
> 640x480 30fps. It allows such "editing".

Interesting. My still camera will only do 12 FPS at 160x120. Which, 
coupled with the fact that everything looks like a glass of Guinness 
unless it's a blindingly bright midsummer's day at noon, makes it pretty 
useless...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message