Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Please use 'bokeh' in a more useful way (Score 1) 49

I'm not too worried about that. Not least because an important part of the "portrait" aesthetic that they're going for, here, is the more flattering portrait perspective. Which is achieved by shooting from a decent working distance. The focal length on phone-cams is far too short to even come close to filling the frame with a well composed portrait that doesn't over-emphasize noses and whatnot. There's no hard and fast rule about distance, but generally you don't shoot decent looking portraits from arm's-length selfie distances.

Further: it's going to be very difficult for software-faked shallow depth of field to handle things like stray hairs, raggedy clothing textiles and other detailed bits against exactly the sort of complex backgrounds that photographers use shallow DoF to throw out of focus in the first place. To the casual observer at relatively low resolution, the faux shallow DoF may appear at least more interesting than no treatment at all, but to an eye that looks at such things even occasionally, it's going to ring false. Further, it's going to be extra-not-good if there's an attempt to apply it to video, looking for a more cinematic result from control of DoF (racking focus, that sort of thing). No, there won't be anybody who bought a $1000 85/1.4 for their Canon or their Nikon suddenly wishing they hadn't because their phone can do the same thing. Just isn't going to happen.

Comment Re:Waiting for the "just as good as a dSLR comment (Score 1) 49

The problem isn't the 'bokeh' of the tiny lens and sensor. That's a discussion about the quality of the out-of-focus area rendering. No, the problem with the tiny sensors and tiny lenses with their very small apertures is that they cannot produce shallow enough depth of field in the first place to even produce an out of focus background in the first place. Basic physics. So there's no point trying to compare the OoF rendering quality (is the bokeh harsh? smooth?) of that tiny platform to a larger format sensor with a quality fast prime lens, because simple physics makes that comparison pointless. That's why they're faking this in software: because there's no physical way to do it with the tiny camera. Light doesn't work that way.

Comment Re:Have fewer babies. (Score 1) 149

Yes, yes. You're either actually a fool, or just pretending to be one so you can score some sort of lazy rhetorical points with an imaginary audience of lower-information-than-you audience.

If you do the things that make you a first-world country, you'll have fewer babies and need fewer resources (like water) so you don't have to chase your tail trying to squeeze water out of the air. As usual, everyone is so paralyzed by political correctness that their afraid to point out that places like India are suffering a culture problem, not a water problem.

Comment Re:Please use 'bokeh' in a more useful way (Score 2) 49

Yeah, yeah. That's what the word means. But since it was fashionably inserted into discussions among actual photographers, it's been used in the context of discussing the quality of the blue, not the existence of the blur. It's useful - it's a succinct word that conveys that specific meaning. Trying, here, to preserve that clarity (if you'll pardon the pun) instead of letting it dumb down like so many other terms do.

Comment Please use 'bokeh' in a more useful way (Score 4, Interesting) 49

'Bokeh' is used when referring to the quality of the out-of-focus background (or foreground) of the image, not the fact that it is out of focus. Shallow depth of field images have blurry elements. By definition. But different lenses render that OoF area differently. Some lenses have a jittery, doubled-up, or ring-like pattern, or render OoF highlights as oblong smears or as hard circles. It just depends on the lens design. So when we talk about this, it's about the quality, not the quantity or existence of blurred areas.

Think of it like this: every lens of a given format, focal length and aperture will produce essentially the same mount of OoF areas. It's just physics. The focal plane is where it is, and the meaningfully in-focus area (say, on the subject's face) is going to be a given depth (for a given display size and resolution). Period.

But that's like saying all pianos can play a middle C note. They can. But some sound twangy or harsh, while others sound more pleasing to the ear. Likewise with the OoF rendering by some lenses. With the piano we can say "it plays middle C, but the tone is harsh" - and with the camera, we can say that the lens when wide open can render shallow DoF and thus blur the background, but the bokeh is harsh (or, creamy, or busy, or smooth - whatever... it's the "tone," the visual quality of the blur rendering, generally considered to be more appealing the more creamy it is - though sometimes harsh, nervous bokeh is desireable for certain cinematic moods, etc).

Sorry, pet peeve. "Shallow depth of field" doesn't mean "has bokeh." That's like saying the car's suspension has ride. All cars do! But what's the quality of the ride? More like a sports car, or a limo? Better bokeh usually comes from much higher quality glass, and more of it in the design of the lens. Big, fat, fast prime portrait lenses are built - among other things - to play that visual note more elegantly than cheaper lenses do, even though they both hit the note when told do if they can achieve the same aperture at a given focal length.

Comment Re:Have fewer babies. (Score 1) 149

The point is to stop being a third-world country so that - just like throughout the developed world, families don't feel the need to have so many babies to use as slave labor on the farm. There's a reason that countries like the US, or Germany, have their resident populations shrinking. Because people living more prosperously have fewer babies. And thus use far less in the way of resources like water (and especially, use it less wastefully than those who are doing old-school agriculture in a more primitive way). Prosperity makes for smaller families, which relieves stress on resources. So: India needs to stop carrying on like a third world country. Culturally, legally, governmentally, financially, agriculturally. And they will start having fewer babies. And need less water (and food, and energy, and everything else).

Comment Re:Have fewer babies. (Score 3, Insightful) 149

It's called education and prosperity. If it weren't for immigration (and immigrants having lots of children), countries like Germany and the US would have shrinking populations. Once a population reaches a better level of creature-comfort prosperity, and aren't living a hand-to-mouth agrarian lifestyle, they stop having so many babies.

Comment Re:2nd amendment (Score 1) 112

The rights protected by the Second Amendment don't grant you protection from prosecution when you destroy someone else's property (with a gun, or a chainsaw, or fire, or your fists). It's a federal felony to shoot at an aircraft, and the FAA now considers any drone (or RC plane, etc) over 9 ounces to be an aircraft.

And for what it's worth, the FPV hobby in the US is essentially now illegal. Operators cannot fly unless they are observing the aircraft with their own un-aided eyes at all times.

Comment Re:Make up your mind (Score 0) 157

So, what is "militarization," to you? Presumably you don't consider the classical police night stick to be an example of militarization. But using one to disable a violent person is a risk to the officer's life, and being able to disable that same person from twenty feet away, using a tazer or a beanbag so that the officer's life isn't at as much risk ... that's "militarization" to you? Is the fact that a cop is carrying a sidearm militarization? No? Why not?

Comment Re:Asking too much` (Score 2) 67

The point isn't that they're a developing nation. They're not. It's that they spin things with that sort of description whenever they have to explain away things like selling poisoned baby food or grain shipments full of melamine. Pretending they don't have the technical chops to perform sophisticated industrial espionage, because, you know, they're just a simple farming community ... such nonsense.

Comment Asking too much` (Score 2) 67

This reminds me of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's 2015 comment (in the wake of an obvious wave of government- and business-oriented hacking out of a well known government facility in China) that they couldn't possibly be responsible for such things, since as just a developing nation, they didn't have the sophistication.

Obviously the laziness of users around the world who don't change default passwords is a different problem, but shipping stuff configured and documented in a way that makes not securing it the default mode in the hands of users is just ... laziness.

Comment Re:Make up your mind (Score 2, Insightful) 157

dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.

So, you'd be in favor of cops not being allowed to wear body armor. Because, after all, the job is risky, and it's not fair to give them any sort of advantage that might save their lives while they're acting on your behalf and dealing with someone who wants to kill them.

Your absurd false dichotomy (the police must either allow themselves to be killed, or they are baby killers) shows that you are either pretending to have given this no actual thought, or you really can't muster the critical thinking skills to think this through. Here's an idea: go, right now, today, and ask your local city/county cops about their ride-along program. Do it for a week or two, in a rough urban area. Report back.

Comment Re:It gives me pleasure to introuce you to the fut (Score 1) 157

police are not warriors.
they absolutely ARE guardians.

No, they are not guardians. They generally are asked to gather evidence and start the process of prosecution after someone has violated the law. They aren't, and can't be "guardians" without being everywhere, all the time, and able to stop everything that might threaten you. That's not even close to their mandate or their capability. If an ongoing violent event happens to occur for long enough to allow them to arrive on the scene while it's still in progress (or, by luck, they happen to be there when something starts), then they become warriors if the circumstances require that. Which is why they carry weapons.

Slashdot Top Deals

Earth is a beta site.