I have to concur, even with proper tone-mapping, after a while you just realise that it's not a good idea to compress a high range into a smaller one. It's very analogous to compression in music where you take a sound with a dynamic range of perhaps 90 dB and compress it so it takes less than 60, or even fisheye photography where you'd shoot with a FOV of 180 degrees and view it with less than a 40 degrees FOV. Both are helpful if you really need to view the whole dynamic range at once within a smaller dynamic range, but in general you don't want to do that.
HDR in consumer and professional photography has a future but tone-mapping not so much, as it's good to be able to adjust exposure after the shot (the real use of HDR) but you don't want to squeeze the dynamic range.
And according to another study, Blackberry owners are 'big stoopid doo doo heads', while the same study finds that Android users are smooth, cool and 230% more likely to have sex with more than one partner a week.
If you knew anything at all about exoplanet discovery you'd know that most discovered planets orbit awfully close to their star and as a result have a revolution of only a few days, mostly when it comes to observing transits. You're not gonna observe a transit of any planet in the solar system from any other random system (you'd probably never get a single transit because you wouldn't be aligned with the solar system's plane to begin with).
And then I believe that by "same distance" you meant "same revolution", or perhaps you also ignore everything about how gravity works?
No it fucking doesn't. Just because there's something you don't like doesn't mean you can pretend like it's not really there. "And their analysis shows an excess of extinctions every 27 million years, with a confidence level of 99%.". We're talking about hard statistical analysis, there's absolutely nothing that goes in the way of your bullshit "anomaly/bias/incomplete data" explanation.
If your interpretation of Occam's Razor is "if I can't see why things are the way they are then they mustn't be like this" you need to do some reading.
What I really don't get is people like you. We live in an age where we can almost make cars drive themselves through traffic. For a VTOL like a sci-fi flying car, it would be even more trivial to have a system that would take off vertically from a point, reach a specific altitude, follow a specific set of paths and land vertically on a programmed spot.
This would be relatively trivial to achieve, so can you tell me of any single damn reason why an eventual flying car should require more input than "take off and take us to school"?
All of our email, web and telephone traffic is monitored by the state.
Yeah? Tell Americans about that.
As for our "free" health care - it's not free, we pay it through taxes.
Hahahaha. You can't really that dumb, can you?
The article is thin on details, so I was wondering if it wasn't about the same thing except with depth information (as in, a depth map) instead of an unprocessed image.
If you hear a depth map it'll be a hell of a lot more useful to navigate through a crowd than raw images.
Pascal is not a high-level language. -- Steven Feiner