Humus - Comments

More pages: 1 ... 11 ... 21 ... 31 ... 41 ... 51 ... 61 ... 71 ... 81 ... 91 ... 101 ... 111 ... 121 ... 131 ... 141 ... 151 ... 161 ... 171 ... 181 ... 191 ... 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 ... 211 ... 221 ... 231 ... 241 ... 251 ... 261 ... 271 ... 281 ... 291 ... 301 ... 311 ... 321 ... 331 ... 341 ... 351 ... 361 ... 371 ... 381 ... 391 ... 401 ... 411 ... 421 ... 431 ... 438

Query FailedHumus
Sunday, March 15, 2009

Det �r mycket m�jligt, men det vet jag inget om.

PatBenson
Sunday, March 15, 2009

S� sant s� sorgligt - Tantog�rden h�ll h�g klass och fyllde ett glapp mellan andra traditionella scener. Jag kan ha fel men var/�r inte delar av Tanto K-m�rkta ?

Humus
Wednesday, March 11, 2009

lone,
My 4MP number was not a scientifically derived number, but based on gut feeling. It of course varies from camera to camera how high real resolution you can squeeze out of it. My arguments for the pixel race being crazy is because both that you really need to be perfectly in the focus sweet spot for you to get any additional detail out of a higher resolution, and because the highest resolution displays out there are about 4MP, so if you're targetting any digital medium there's not much use of anything higher than that anyway. You'd have to make some really huge prints to be able to really use that resolution. Of course, it's always nice to have additional pixels to work with in an intermediate step if you want to retouch something, but personally I have never found I needed anything close to what cameras offer these days. In the tradeoff between quality and higher resolution I wish manufacturers would lean towards quality instead of the big marketting number, which is useless for the vast majority of users anyway.

lone
Wednesday, March 11, 2009

You said ", particularly a compact", that implies that this is also true, if only to a lesser extent, of other cameras. Notice that I did not quote that part, because that's not the part I was reacting to. Clearly 12MP is not far beyond what's meaningful to put into a camera in general, otherwise there would be no point in $35000 hasselblad 60mpx sensors (or scanning large format photographs to hundreds of megapixels, though I won't drag you into an argument about scanner resolution, film grain and equivalent megapixels.
still, there's a reason those old bellows cameras are still around, heh).

Now if you want to talk about the optics on compact cameras (and really that's only part of the issue, the other one that is equally important is the size of the sensor, and to a lesser degree, the pattern the photosites are aranged into), what you say above is going to be true for some aperture/focal lengths combinations (usually it will be true for wider apertures and longer focals, though not always), but get to a lens' sweet spot, and even if it's a compact lens, you can get enough sharpness to get resolution above 4Mpx.

If what you got was equivalent to scaling up from 4 to 12Mpx, then scaling down would not lose details, but you clearly do. Lucky enough I do have a p&s lying around, so i shot one of my standard test sheets, resized it from 10mpx to 4, and compared (10 is all I've got at my disposal, sorry i'm not really into p&s). You can check out the result at http://stashbox.org/423435/humus.jpg (this is a 200% blow up of both versions). At 10Mpx, I can make out about 50% of the letters in the 2.8pt font line, and can definitely read over 90% of 3.0pt. At 4Mpx, I read about 50% of the letters from line 3.3pt, and can read over 90% of the text at line 3.5pt.

Now, that being said, I do wholeheartedly agree that the megapixel race is silly, given that most people have no concept of what it takes to make a sharp picture with a given lens, or that it would make any difference... and they don't _want_ to know, what they want are large files. Of course the memory manufacturers are happy to sell bigger and bigger memory cards. So yeah, I'm with you there. If you want resolution, you go dslr with pro optics. That or you use medium to large format film, which can give you scans of mindblowingly high resolution, even with vintage lenses.

The bottom line to me is this, if 6Mpx are enough for you then all is well, and if you're into HDR (I'm *really* not but to each his own) then I can see how you'd get really excited about this camera. However compact lenses can give incredible results, and can definitely yield sharpness beyond what can be recorded within 4Mpx sensors.

I gotta say though, despite all of the above about compact cameras, I was originally only reacting to the fact that your statement was overly broad (hence my first paragraph above), but then after you replied, I had to test your much stronger "4Mpx scaled up" claim. To be fair, I would guess that the usable resolution from this camera here (panasonic dmc-lx2) would be around 6, perhaps 7mpx tops, so "in substance", you're right, though you might want to revise your numbers slightly up.

Overlord
Friday, March 6, 2009

Yea, but cell is more like a GPU, each SPU is definitely way more powerful than a processor element in the gpu, it has at least 3 times higher clock speeds (in the case of the original PS3 5 times) and can do a lot of more work per clock.
so 4cells*8cores*3-5times the speed=96-160gpu core equivalent, and that's pretty close to the last gen of graphics chips.

But on the other hand GPUs are moving more towards the the generality of what CPUs can do, so somewhere these will intersect, i think this is the path the ps4 will take.

ULJarad
Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Sony seems to be going in the opposite direction though, having the CPU do all the work. Wouldn't it be prudent to have focused more heavily on a really advanced gpu doing all the work than four+ processors with a bunch of cores?

Overlord
Wednesday, March 4, 2009

It has been rumored that the PS4 won't have separate GPU/CPU chips, just like how the PS3 where meant to work before they added the RSX chip (the design originally called for at least 4 cell chips working in parallel and at maximum speed, but that proved to be too expensive).

So yea, the CPU is doomed in it's current form.

ULJarad
Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Neat. I'll need to do some more reading.

So, what's the deal with processors then? Will their role continue to dwindle in and out of games?


General
	News 3D Pictures Textures Articles Cool stuff
Other
	FAQ About Humus
Other 3D sites
	OpenGL.org GameDev.net Beyond3D Rage3D
Programming info
	OpenGL extension registry NeHe