Most of the time you can't even tell the difference between frame rates, except when it emerges as artifacts at 24 fps.
24 fps movies are purposefully shot with more motion blur to hide the jerkiness. But nothing really gets around it when panning.
So 24fps primarily equals artifacts: Blurring, jerky motion, and juddering pans.
How nonsensical is it, and how resistant change do you have to be, to worship these artifacts. They are no more beneficial than ticks/pops were on Vinyl. There is certain nostalgia value to listening to something with ticks/pops sometimes, but it isn't something we put everywhere because we can't do without it.
So these resistant to change, Luddites in love with quite irritating artifacts have taken to calling superior motion video with less blur, less judder and less jerking: "The Soap Opera Effect".
Do a freeze frame on a soap opera and good movie. You can still tell which is which when frozen. Soaps look like crap, because they have crap production values. Poor sets, poor lighting, poor cameras, shot without any flair.
Shoot 48fps (or 60 fps or 120 fps for that matter) with great sets, great lighting, great cameras and great flair and it will be amazing and have nothing in common with soap operas.
The Soap Opera Effect originated from TV performance not theater performance. Modern LCD TVs have refresh rates between 120-240Hz in addition to built in motion correction hardware. You can take the any source and basically make it look like a Soap Opera, smooth and fluid. For many people, myself included, this is very distracting. Maybe I am just old, and use to seeing certain types of formats, but when I see a smooth and fluid movie it looks odd.
Personally, I turn off all the motion correction hardware on my TV. I choose to watch TV has it was intended by the creator. General Hospital is smooth and fluid while Hawaii Five O not so much. I have a PS3 set to output 24p, so it also will not perform any video processing, and I can watch a movie in it's most raw form.
On a 120Hz LCD TV there are not juddering pans, painful transitions, or any other negatives associated with watching a movie in the theater. If you have never watched a 24 FPS movie on a properly configured modern entertainment system then don't be so quick to judge the desire to retain the ‘film look’.
No problem, as long as they are off because most of the components are going to be designed for much higher temperatures than 60C. The specified operating temperature is based a powered device, likely running at higher than normal power dissipation, and should have some head room for reliability for the weakest link (display, battery, processor, etc). If you turn the device off, than it becomes a matter of hot storage and not hot operating. Typically, in military electronics the hot storage temperature is about 30C higher than the hot operating temperature. You obviously don't have military grade devices, but many of the internal components have similar temperature ranges.
From a storage standpoint it is highly unlikely that you will permanently damage ICs, IMO. I would be more concerned about a device with an LCD display being damaged by temperature before any other component. Typically, the LCD itself is robust but many of the films that are required for LCD performance can be sensitive to high temperature.
Bottom line is storing you devices in the car is fine as long as they are off, and I would keep them out of direct sunlight.
Official temperatures are always measured in shade. A car parked in direct sunlight, even with windows open could easily hit 10F above officially recorded temperatures.
Could be hotter than that depending on color, size, number of windows, and where it is parked. Many military electronics have to be designed for hot storage up to +85C. An example situation is where a plane is parked in the sun, on the tarmac (which reflects more heat), in the desert, on the hottest day ever, in the early afternoon when air temperatures peak.
Can't they just stack a shitload of gpus and parallelize the stitching? Where's the bottleneck?
Well considering 3 frames is about 3 GB of data, I would guess it takes that long to write the data to a harddisk. Accordingly, to the article they are still working on filtering out the data they do/don't want.
You mean studios will finally be able to pan at a reasonable speed without it looking jittery and fucking terrible?
24 fps is terrible and you should feel bad for propping up a dying standard.
I have my PS3 setup to output 24p with a 120 Hz LCD TV. The difference between watching a movie in the theater and at home is night and day. I don't see any of the issues at home that are prevalent in the theater, but I still get that characteristic low fps film look. As well, the brightness of a modern LCD TV allows for significantly more contrast than is possible in the theater. I simply can't enjoy going to the theater anymore, and 48 fps won't change that.
Increasing the frame rate will make it look like a home video?
Yes home video is typically 60 fps, and the increased frame rate makes it much smoother and fluid. You can see the effect of this on most modern 120/240Hz LCD TVs. If you turn on the motion correction features it will make any source look smooth and fluid, even film, giving the appearance as though it was shot using a 'handy cam'.
What on earth does my method of dress have to do with my level of intelligence? Why does the manner in which I speak imply something about my character? I'm educated, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start dressing like a hipster douche in a GQ ad, and certainly not to avoid being hassled by police that have no business harassing me in the first place. I've been in those situations, too, although when I was growing up, it was the grunge look (flannel shirts, chain wallets) that was a target by our local police. Just wearing a Tool shirt was enough to get me harassed. Hell, just carrying (not even riding, just carrying) a skateboard was enough to get someone harassed by the cops in my town.
I had a 4.0 GPA, perfect attendance, and volunteered, but that all goes out the window because I'm wearing a t-shirt for a band the cops don't like? Come on.
I am for freedom, and if I choose to exercise my freedoms in a legal but socially unacceptable manner, I understand society cannot stop me but nor is society required to embrace my behavior.
Your behavior, dress, and speech means everything in the real world. For people we don't know, just met, or see passing by we judge them based on these characteristics. Welcome to the real world. You are free to dress like a thug, even if you have an 200 IQ and use your genius to clone puppies, but I am also free to look down on you because of how you dress. I don't know you any more than the similarly dressed thug who stole my TV, so why would you expect me to treat you any differently if you choose to dress and act in the same way?
Likewise, if you want to skateboard in public or someones private property it is unrealistic to believe you won't be judged or questioned by the public or property owners over your actions. Don't want to have problems, stay on your own property or go to the skate park where it is socially acceptable to skate. Don't have a skate park or want to skate in public, fine but accept that your actions will draw unwanted attention and assume the responsibility of exercising your freedom.
Ivy Bridge is smaller in area than Sandy Bridge. Assuming I got the right numbers from Wikipedia, 160 mm^2 vs 216. That's 74% the area for heat transfer.
Agreed, but it doesn't necessarily scale linearly when including spreading affects. Using the numbers you provided one would estimate a ~35% increase in temperature at a given power dissipation, when comparing the Ivy Bridge to the Sandy Bridge. Based on the linked article the increase was only ~30%, which seems reasonable if expecting slightly improved heater transfer performance due to spreading across an oversized heatsink.
With the limited amount of hardware information in this thread, one could probably conclude that most of the increase in temperature is due to a reduction in die size.
It's clear in the article, but the headline here sort of implies that the chips run hotter in general, whereas this test is only saying the new chips run hotter when overclocked. From what I can find, when run at the rated voltages/speeds, Ivy Bridge CPUs run at about the same temperature as last gen's CPUs.
Seems like that would make sense if at normal 'voltage/speed' the Ivy Bridge is using less power. Based on the the numbers in the link the Ivy Bridge has a higher overall thermal resistance, junction-to-air, of roughly 30% [=((100C-20C)/(80C-20C))*(231W/236W)]. Based on other reviews the Ivy Bridge processors uses less power at stock frequency/voltage so that may be offsetting much of the temperature rise due to an increase in package resistance and heatsink interface resistance, under normal conditions.
Power dissipation increases exponential with increases in frequency/voltage and it appears to rise faster with the Ivy Bridge processors. So as the power dissipation approaches or exceeds that of the Sandy Bridge processor much higher processor temperatures will be measured in the Ivy Bridge because of the higher thermal resistances.
I think this is a non-issue for the average consumer. However, overclockers would probably be better off with the Sandy Bridge hardware.
I don't think anyone disputes the necessity of auto insurance or the laws requiring it.
Emphasis mine...I think any responsible person sees the value of auto insurance but that doesn't mean it needs to be required by law. I live in a state the does not require auto insurance. However, my state does require me to show financial responsibility if I am in an accident or someone is an accident while using my vehicle. I own three vehicle, and all three vehicles are insured because financially that makes the most sense for me. I made this decision on my own, I was not forced to buy anything by my state/government. It is simply a matter of personal responsibility.
Why doesn't the drone have a self-destruct functionality?
I mean... isn't this like the ultimate reason for that functionality? So that technology doesn't get into enemy hands? Just like spies having these suicide pills?
Oh well... seems like this one doesn't have any.
It is likely that self-destruct functionality depends on the technology that is employed in the drones. Most sensitive electronics can be zeroized in some fashion to protect cyrpto keys without loss of the hardware. In some cases destructive zeroization is required, but another poster mentioned accidental activation of self-destruct systems is a reality so it needs to be considered with care where either loss of life/injury or expensive hardware costs could occur.
In the case of an unmanned vehicle it seems like the self-destruct mechanisms become far more complex if the autonomous systems have to determine when to destroy the vehicle or specific hardware. Assuming that in this case the drone was no longer in contact with the Operator how does it know that it is enemy hands? How does one ensure that the vehicle never gets confused and self-destructs during normal operation or in a friendly hanger?
I am sure extensive trade studies and have been done on this specific topic, but I have never seen real world technical problems and solutions documented anywhere. Would be interested if anyone has links to any technical information.
"Admitting" that you know of this "weakness" is simply acknowledging what every materials science student already knows - there is no way to prevent fatigue failure of aluminum. Doesn't matter if it's a Boeing plane or an Airbus plane - every aluminum plane has this weakness.
Your post comes across as if there is something inherently wrong with using aluminum. Just because aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit doesn't imply there is a design problem. The fatigue properties are just one of many design aspects that have to be balanced, and there are number of ways to mitigate fatigue risks. Also, the fatigue curve on wiki is generic and not not necessarily representative of a aircraft grade Aluminum Alloy such as 7075. Many high performance aluminum alloys have a sharp knee between 10E6 and 10E8 cycles. Finally, admitting they know the weakness of aluminum is hardly all encompassing as there are many more steps required to determine when fatigue failures will occur, it is a lot more complicated than matching number of cycles to a given stress.
As this obviously isn't obvious to everyone, I'll explain:
Say the minimum cost of living for a certain time is 100, and citizen A earns 150, then person a has 20 left. If we then introduce citizen B, who earns 200, then that person has 100 percent left. If we tax them equally, say 20%, citizen A pays 30 and citizen B pays 40.
As this might sound fair, it really isn't. Why? Because citizen A:s "discretionary income", as it is called, has shrunk by 60% and citizen B:s with only 40%. So citizen A:s life will be far more more affected by the "fair" taxation than citizen B:s.
This argument is fundamentally flawed. It only holds true if both citizen A and B agree that the minimum cost of living is 100. However, if Citizen B desires for themselves a minimum cost of living no less than 160, and that is what drives them to obtain an income of 200, then the progressive taxation will deprive them of their personal desires. As a society I believe we are far more 'collective' than we will ever admit.
You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape. - Ellyn Mustard