Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Sad they are not doing anything much these days (Score 1) 428

Look at this diagram to see the additive colour mixing problem in a perceptually reasonably uniform diagram.

Obviously, all output colour spaces with only three primaries are a compromise. The goal would be to use additional primaries to "draw" a polyline that better approximates the shape of the uv diagram in the cyan and green region. And to move a bit closer to the purple line in the lower right region. Adding Cyan is the obvious first thing to do - the blue primary in that case would also be a bit more purple than in a standard scenario, and the green as close to 530nm as possible. The six primary case with two green wavelengths (yellow-green and blue-green) would not be convoluted, but actually still grow the gamut. However, adding cyan is a distinctly more practical solution.

Your RYCV solution would work, inasmuch as it would yield a useable colour space that is still larger than sRGB. But if you draw the RYCV polyline in the UV diagram, you'll see that RCGB actually covers a larger area, in spite of two of its primaries being fairly close together, in terms of wavelength.

Comment Re:Retina iMacs DO have wide gamut displays (Score 1) 428

P3 and Adobe RGB != true wide gamut. All these are still beneath what you can achieve by adding some near-monochrome cyan and purple. And perhaps splitting green into two colours.

Note that I am still talking about additive colour mixture here. Just mixtures that have more than three primaries.

Comment Re:Ummmm (Score 2) 428

Sure, but as they are the only major player to control the entire tech stack, they would be the only ones who could conceivably break out of the "chicken and egg" problem that is inherent to moving away from RGB. They even have experience with doing shifts like that right: for instance, they took their sweet time dealing with high DPI displays for OS X. But when they introduced them in their product line, they "just worked". Which is more than you can say of many other innovations in the PC world.

Same with this idea: no display manufacturer will start making innovative displays that break backward compatibility. Unless there is demand, which will not happen unless the software stack is ready. Apple would be uniquely positioned to demand such things to be made.

Ah well, one can dream, right? :)

Comment Sad they are not doing anything much these days (Score 4, Interesting) 428

As insane and nasty as Steve Jobs apparently was as a person, he at least seems to have had a technological vision. Which seemingly cannot be said of the current CEO, whose vision seems to extend as far as adding new Emojis to the line-up.

The sad thing is that Apple would be uniquely positioned to introduce a whole range of new technologies into the consumer marketplace. On their devices, they control the entire technology stack: from hardware to software, it is all theirs. And they are the only player who has this sort of position that allows paradigm shifts to be done in-house.

For instance, they would be the only ones who could, conceivably, do a seamless job of integrating HDR into the user experience. Or WGD (Wide Gamut Displays). The latter would be particularly cool: if you are capable of doing something like a Retina display with its minuscule pixels, there is nothing that limits you to good old RGB anymore. Make it RGCB (Red Green Cyan Blue), or R/YG/BG/C/B/P (Red Yellow-Green Blue-Green Cyan Blue Purple - perhaps in some hexagonal pixel arrangement). And watch people swoon when they see the colours such displays can show. Purple and blue flowers, plants, sunsets, skies - all suddenly look vastly more natural than on an sRGB device. Cameras (at least SLRs) record wide gamut colours already, it is the displays that can't keep pace.

And what does Apple do? They now offer pink iPhone case options. Yeah, sure, guys. Makes me want to work for you - such vision, wow! :)

Comment Re:I think this ought to be worded a bit more subt (Score 1) 232

Nitpick: a physically based renderer would of course also be free to use physically correct lens models. Which remove any "perfect edges" you might have had with a pinhole camera.

And at least in the movie industry, there are entire teams that take care of the "too perfect" look. With "Fast and Furious 7" being an obvious example: the Weta crew are pretty good at that sort of thing.

Comment I think this ought to be worded a bit more subtly (Score 2) 232

The authors have a point, but "Hollywood Turning Against Flashy Digital Effects You Can See From a Mile Off as Being Artificial" would be more accurate. The VFX industry will definitely not shrink, it will just shift focus a bit. There are some things we are only now getting the hang of, and which were simply not possible before. And these will be the shiny new toys of the next decade.

Consider the necromancy that Weta Digital pulled off with the likeness of the late Paul Walker for "Fast and Furious 7". For some of the shots in that movie, even the chaps on the VFX team could no longer tell what was real, and what was not. That sort of thing is going to be a considerable part of the future: it's VFX alright, but of the more subtle sort.

Think a new movie with Marilyn Monroe, or something like that. A totally normal, Woody-Allen-like movie, with zero visible special effects, and scenes that are implausible from a physics viewpoint. Not even any stunts. Ordinary human beings acting in some normal, run-of-the-mill story. Just with a totally convincing, resurrected Marilyn Monroe (or some other iconic star of the 1950ies) playing one of the roles, together with current stars.

But I fully agree that Gigantic Explosions in Space With Lots of Tentacles, Vol. XXVII, is no longer the hottest thing in movies. That is indeed getting a bit long in the tooth.

Comment Re:No it isn't (Score 3, Insightful) 62

Exactly this. Including the authors of Word would indeed be absurd. But the authors of software that is *directly pertinent* to the research in questions should get some sort of credit.

Of course, this has fuzzy borders: to stay with the graphics examples, meshlab is probably too general to get much credit these days (it is a MS Word of mesh processing, so to speak). Mitsuba, on the other hand, probably counts for a lot of research papers where it was used - for a number of tasks, no comparable open-source software exists.

Comment Re:No it isn't (Score 4, Insightful) 62

You have a good point with regard to "where does it end". But you seem to have mis-understood what this is about: this is not about automatically getting credits or co-authorship whenever someone uses the software you wrote. That would indeed be strange.

Rather, the point they are making is that being the (co-)author of such a software should count as much as being the (co-)author a paper, with regard to getting tenure, or for general performance reviews within academia. Sort-of-similar metrics could be applied to this as they are applied to publications: how many people downloaded it (probably a fairly bad metric), how many papers mention using the software for experiments (probably better). The whole thing is a bit shaky, of course: if someone writes some fairly trivial piece of software that ends up being ubiquitous, they get lots of credit - while highly specialised software that took ages and lots of brainpower to develop scores low.

But this dilemma is of course equally true for publications themselves: citation counts and such are not very good metrics, either.

Comment Yes, that is a very real problem (Score 5, Insightful) 62

And yes, we have to fix this somehow, sooner or later. At least in my area (Computer Graphics), complex, cutting-edge research increasingly builds on highly specialised software stacks that are being maintained by researchers the community. Whose efforts usually are not appropriately rewarded. An example is meshlab: that thing is hugely useful for lots of people - but in retrospect, the main author has all but described developing it as a mistake. As it cost him too much time that he would have needed elsewhere in his career efforts.

A few guys are lucky, like Wenzel Jakob: he both wrote Mitsuba (the extremely useful research path tracer that everyone uses these days to build on), as well as a couple of high profile publications that set him up for an academic career. But in a lot of cases, even very good researchers only have the time and brainpower for one thing at a time: software *or* publications. We need both of them, but only reward one category. Bad move, systemically speaking.

Comment Re:Hope is good (Score 1) 48

This technique may for instance cause sever cardiovascular issues

I suspect you have never seen someone actually dying from Duchenne. Getting cardiovascular disease a decade or two down the road would be something that sufferers would probably all be quite ok with, if they could breathe on their own again for a couple of years.

Of course, the optimal thing would be a cure that does not screw up the cardiovascular system in the process. Or cause cancer. But if you are suffocating because your lung muscles are no longer functional, you will gladly take sub-optimal remedies like this one.

Comment Re:VWs are hipster mobiles anyway... (Score 1) 313

Or, the VW Crafter. Seen the vans in the US? You either buy a RAM Promaster which is pretty much a Fiat Ducato, or pay Mercedes prices for a Sprinter. If VW managed to get the Crafter onto US soil, they would make a mint due to fleets, just because the van could be serviced at not just VW places, but M-B, as well as Freightliner depots.

You do realise that the Sprinter and the Crafter are basically the same vehicle, co-developed by VW and Mercedes, just with a different radiator grill in the front? VW and Mercedes have been doing that for several generations of Sprinter/Crafter now: the body is the same, and each of them puts a different grill on it, and offers slightly different engines. But that is as far as the difference goes. Co-developing these things probably saves them $$$, and there would be little point to have two different vehicles that are almost identical anyway.

Comment Re:speaking of war (Score 2) 1134

And, by the way, the majority of Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Poland, Soviet territories or otherwise outside Germany. How did not being subject to Germany's confiscation of Jews' guns work out for them?

Mind you, at the time, a number of these states had restrictive gun ownership laws that were fairly similar to those of Nazi Germany. So in many cases, there was no real difference with regard to the capability (or lack thereof) for Jewish self-defence. That having been said, in this whole context it is vitally important to remember that the Nazis managed to keep the true nature of the Holocaust a secret from the majority of the population, including Jews that were still at large, or living in ghettoes and such, during the entire duration of the Third Reich. Sure, anti-semitism was widespread, and far too few people objected to "the Jews" being taken away for "deportation", or to "labor camps". These were the reasons that were publicly given for removing Jewish people from their places of residence: and to their shame, hardly anyone in the non-Jewish population batted an eyelid to this happening (as if "just" deporting an entire part of the population was a tolerable thing to happen!).

However, had they actually known that the place "the Jews" were headed to was not just "labor camps", but actual death camps - well, there is no way to say what would have happened, had people actually known this. IMHO, at least Jewish self-defence would likely have been much more pronounced: if you know that you are going to die anyway (as opposed to being sent to some labor camp, which sounds at least theoretically survivable), you become much more motivated to make any sort of attempt to fight back.

There was actually a precedent why the Nazis decided to keep the Holocaust such a state secret, even with Anti-Semitism being rampant in the population: and that was the outcome of Aktion T4. Basically, there was such a public outcry over their earlier programme to straight out kill mentally handicapped people for "reasons of public health", that the programme had to be halted. To put this into full perspective, you have to realise that this push-back against Nazi policy took place while Nazi Germany was already a fully developed police state that was at war. And still public opinion was so much against T4 happening, that the party leadership caved in. No wonder that they chose to do their dirty work in total secrecy from then on.

How did the Warsaw uprising work out for anyone?

You do realise that the main reason for the Warsaw Uprising to fail was the swinish behaviour of the Soviets in the whole matter? The Polish Underground Army started the uprising to co-incide with the Red Army reaching Warsaw in time to join in on the whole thing, which would have made the outcome of the fight a foregone conclusion. What they had not counted on was that the Polish underground fighters were, by and large, not communists - and were therefore expendable to Stalin, and were rather seen as a problem by themselves. So the Soviets patiently stopped on the outskirts of Warsaw while the uprising went on, waited until the Germans had finished off the Poles, and only then took Warsaw.

So the failure of the uprising is hardly a valid data point to argue against armed insurrections in general. You just have to time them right, and pick the right sort of allies for them to succeed.

Slashdot Top Deals

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.

Working...