[t]http://i.imgur.com/X2CGltm.png[/t]
[url=http://promotions.newegg.com/nepro/17-2173/index.html]Just what I've always wanted![/url]
I wouldn't want a two screen laptop, nevermind nine.
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
Why are there three... On the bottom???
[QUOTE=pentium;52038409]Japan is famous for their Galápagos syndrome. Repeatedly it's amazed me how they'll take a technology the west has since retired in favor of something new or simply never adopted and just spent the next 20+ years continuing to develop it. The result is something massively incompatible with our concept of a modern standard but it's scary just how well it performs side by side.[/QUOTE]
I've never understood personally why North America had to develop its own ATSC system and not just join forces and develop DVB technology instead.
Oh that's right, all the April fool's stuff is coming out a day early
[QUOTE=Weirdo009;52037292]I don't want them to be hidden I want them removed completely, I had it like that before but I reformatted recently and now it got reset.[/QUOTE]
Hide disabled and disable them all. I do it that way.
Oh my God...
They're shutting down the network file shares in my workplace because they pose a "security risk."
The alternative?
[I]SharePoint.[/I]
Yeah, the network shares I copy files from on an hourly basis is being replaced with a fucking website.
Security over productivity, I guess.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52038728]Oh my God...
They're shutting down the network file shares in my workplace because they pose a "security risk."
The alternative?
[I]SharePoint.[/I]
Yeah, the network shares I copy files from on an hourly basis is being replaced with a fucking website.
Security over productivity, I guess.[/QUOTE]
You can mount a SharePoint thing as a network drive IIRC
I fucking hate it when a vendor discontinues a product but the new product is sold as a drop-in replacement, excluding drivers.
We are not buying your new shit you say is gonna work in the same knockout. We are buying it so when our shit breaks we can swap it in a few minutes and not have to spend weeks updating our machines because of one fucking touchscreen driver.
Is Miracast still garbage or has it improved over the years
[QUOTE=TrafficMan;52038647][t]http://i.imgur.com/X2CGltm.png[/t]
[url=http://promotions.newegg.com/nepro/17-2173/index.html]Just what I've always wanted![/url][/QUOTE]
The true protector of virginity
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;52038825]Also a shame they/others now use unmarked native advertising. Some of that shit is just painful to see.[/QUOTE]
I'm trying to show a friend a photo of a sick repair I did while drunk. Not some healthy relationship ad showing a yeast infected snatch.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52038776]Is Miracast still garbage or has it improved over the years[/QUOTE]
Sometimes it works
[QUOTE=Reagy;52036836]Also saying that I'll take any of your shit if you want to use it [url]https://horobox.co.uk/[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that offers like this are how you end up with 5 TB of Mexican midget horse porn.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52038748]You can mount a SharePoint thing as a network drive IIRC[/QUOTE]
via webdav, but its shit. [sp]As Is Sharepoint[/sp]
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;52038910]I'm pretty sure that offers like this are how you end up with 5 TB of Mexican midget horse porn.[/QUOTE]
Seen worse.
[QUOTE=Reagy;52038952]Seen worse.[/QUOTE]
How much filespace have you even used with horobox? I've been curious for a while given how long you've had it up.
[QUOTE=wingless;52038963]How much filespace have you even used with horobox? I've been curious for a while given how long you've had it up.[/QUOTE]
48GB (this includes site files) total across 54464 files (51805 within /u/).
Not a lot actually, its pretty much all images which take up hardly anything.
Okay, now the fucking april fools jokes are ramping up.
But it's only 10:45 PM GMT.
[QUOTE=TrafficMan;52038647][t]http://i.imgur.com/X2CGltm.png[/t]
[url=http://promotions.newegg.com/nepro/17-2173/index.html]Just what I've always wanted![/url][/QUOTE]
Finally I can video edit on the go and have so much screen space!
Just went to a birthday and we decided that the sound was absolute crap.
So we decided to bring the amp and the subwoofer from my home. Only 2km away and well, a 500w subwoofer, a car subwoofer amp and a computer PSU were the perfect things to bring back to the party.
We stole one speaker from the existing sound system (usual home 2.0 speakers) and used the woofer and I'd say it was pretty good. It had an aux input and really good volume. I liked it, others liked it and it was fun.
[QUOTE=garychencool;52039200]Finally I can video edit on the go and have so much screen space![/QUOTE]
For about 3 minutes before the battery dies.
[QUOTE=helifreak;52039356]For about 3 minutes before the battery dies.[/QUOTE]
Hey, just as long as the old ASUS gaming laptop I have with the 1st gen Core i7!
Laptop? I've been using it as a space heater.
[QUOTE=Xanadu;52039669]Laptop? I've been using it as a space heater.[/QUOTE]
The C2D MacBook would be a better bet for that. The whole thing's a heatsink...
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52038728]Oh my God...
They're shutting down the network file shares in my workplace because they pose a "security risk."
The alternative?
[B][I]SharePoint.[/I][/B]
Yeah, the network shares I copy files from on an hourly basis is being replaced with a fucking website.
Security over productivity, I guess.[/QUOTE]
I feel sorry for your suffering.
[QUOTE=Kiwi;52039792]Toasty.
Then again my c2d Tecra m10 doesn't even hit past 65c on both cpu and gpu under full tilt.
Toshiba has a fairly aggressive fan profile on it.[/QUOTE]
Fuck even when I max out the CPU fan on that thing it reaches 90-100C easy when just using Chrome and the higher power GPU :v:
And this is after cleaning and repasting the thing. It just runs hotter than hell.
If that works I'm taking it on camping trips from now on.
[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1531431&p=52035449&viewfull=1#post52035449"]Meanwhile in the Android thread, this topic was brought up:[/URL]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52035449][B]One thing I don't get is, why don't they just put a 1:1 square cmos camera in phones, so it just rotates the 16:9 crop to stop people shooting vertical videos?[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=garychencool;52035477]No one is going to really use it (they might just disable it themselves), it's gonna cost more money to design, built and support, a 1:1 sensor would have to be a specially built one since they don't really exist for phones right now, rotating the crop on the sensor will likely cause resolution degradation, rotating the sensor is going to involve using the devices accelerator and for it to be seemless, it would have to be very fast at doing it, it would require a brushless motor system of some sort to handle the sensor rotation (realistically it would rotate the entire camera module with lens, etc.), no one really cares about vertical videos still being a thing anymore as sometimes it's better to capture vertical things, it's hard to hold a large phone in landscape with one hand without almost falling out of your hand or holding it in a semi-awkward position, phone makers are making phones thinner and thinner and the camera module would very likely be a lot larger, more complex, use more battery life.
It would add to the optical image stabilization by eliminating the rotation in camera shake tho.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52035753]I don't mean adding a motor to rotate it, I mean rotate it in software. If you had a 1:1 sensor it just rotates depending on how the user is holding the phone. with a 2880x2880 sensor you can just create one a stick it on a whole bunch of other phones.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;52035759]because no one makes square cmos sensors
at all[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52035968]But it's a result of people being stupid with technology, like when my mother clicks on ads.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=garychencool;52036464]Maybe you should install an ad blocker of some sort? Or the ads are relevant to her interests and she OK with it?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52036922]The point is, if you give people the means to do something stupid like film vertical videos, they'll do it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=garychencool;52037180]People will find ways to do stupid things with everything so I don't see your point here. As silly as vertical videos are, over-engineering something that people probably won't want to really spend the extra money on is silly and a gimmick.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52037493]It's not that hard to make a 1:1 sensor for a phone, they make a new sensor every 1-2 year anyway, it's not a massive deal, just make a 1:1 sensor, slap it in 3 or 4 models in the current line and make the software give you a 16:9 recording while it still gives you a zoomed in vertical preview when upright (until you change it in settings). I don't see what's hard about it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;52037794]i mean this in the nicest way possible
if this was worth it in any way whatsoever, it would have been done already. since it hasn't, it's either not financially worth the effort to make a square sensor (which as far as i can tell there's like a single line that's camera sized in the world), or it's not worth it to say "you can shoot widescreen in either vertical or horizontal"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52037930]Condescension, I'm calling it.
Now I mean this in the least sarcastic way possible; vertical videos are stupid, they should just make a 1:1 sensor to stop this nonsense and until you can give me a valid source for you reasoning, I'm not going to consider your opinion valid.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;52037988]so if vertical videos are stupid
why does snapchat let you film vertically[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52038001]For the same reason they have a range of stupid filters.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;52038007]also generally mobile screen consumption is in the portrait format
for quick things happening, it makes more sense to shoot in portrait? and since a 1:1 sensor DOESN'T EXIST at the scale to make phones feasible, why would we even bother
also you're literally wasting pixels on a 1:1 sensor by cropping to 16:9. how is that financially prudent to pay for 2880x2880, but never use all of them
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52038001]For the same reason they have a range of stupid filters.[/QUOTE]
dog filter is unironically the best thing 2016 brought us[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52038032]CMOS sensors are so cheap now, it wouldn't be that much of a waste. Dog filter.... you're being sarcastic or something. Let me recalibrate my sarcasm detector. No no, let me stop this now, this argument is getting out of hand.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;52038039]it's also a waste of space inside
there's literally no upside to making a square sensor to solve a people problem
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
please robochimp, tell me how artificially restricting people from being able to take portrait video at the camera level (which by the way would break any app that interacted with the camera) is somehow a viable solution for stopping the horrible horrible plague that is "vertical video"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LennyPenny;52038151]Why the fuck would you prevent people from taking vertical pictures/videos?
The reason they exist is so that you don't have to rotate your phone for every short whiled image/video or spend too long zooming in
You might as well make phones landscape only instead of wasting pixels on a 1:1 which aren't gonna get used because what you always really want is 4:3 or 16:9[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=garychencool;52038418]Clearly the solution is to over engineer this shit and make it a circle sensor instead of a square sensor, that way you don't waste pixels at all! It will only cost $1000 per camera module. Lens, phone and everything else not included.
I even made a gif to demonstrate this maximum pixel efficiency with a circular imaging sensor!
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/23M9qLt.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=garychencool;52039887]
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52037493]It's not that hard to make a 1:1 sensor for a phone, [/QUOTE]
It probably isn't but it costs money that no one actually wants to spend to actually make.
[QUOTE]they make a new sensor every 1-2 year anyway,[/QUOTE]
So? Improving an existing design is a lot easier than making a completely new sensor and everything.
[QUOTE] it's not a massive deal, [/QUOTE]
It is a massive deal, and it would either be a huge gimmick, a huge failure or cause an uproar of people wanting to bring vertical videos back (let's be real, 4Chan would make it happen).
[QUOTE]just make a 1:1 sensor, slap it in 3 or 4 models in the current line and make the software give you a 16:9 recording while it still gives you a zoomed in vertical preview when upright (until you change it in settings). [/QUOTE]
No serious phone maker will slap it on any of their models unless it's this one, specialty, niche model which probably won't make it to market due to it being a super niche product that most people don't want.
[QUOTE]I don't see what's hard about it.[/QUOTE]
Money. Time. Effort. Realistic outcome and usefulness. Not wanting to be a laughing stock.
The only way I see this being a useful thing is a major phone maker like Samsung or Sony or Apple marketing it as a ~revolutionary~ optical image stabilization that will rotate the entire camera module and lens based on the accelerometer, kind of like those brushless motor gimbal cameras. It would very likely make the phones thicker and more people care about thinner and lighter phones these days anyways. It's probably going to require more battery life to operate.
Maybe it will be an attachment like what Sony made (and it didn't really seem to take off at all).
[IMG]https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2013/09/0903_qx10phone_1200-660x495.jpg[/IMG]
But why won't a square sensor and rotating it in software be practical?
1) processing time: basically the phone will have to process many things at the same time such as the rotation of the phone, which pixels to grab data from, compressing and saving the footage, etc. How camera sensors work: light hits sensor, sensor read out data goes to camera chip to process everything then sends data to the phone's OS or whatever camera hardware chip it may have to speed up such processing. It's possible but hard to tell the sensor to ignore x, y pixels of the sensor. Often a camera sensor will push a full sensor read out (and only that) and let the camera processing handle cropping, dumping of data, etc.
2) rolling shutter: all cell phone cameras have this sort of thing, so do many DSLRs and even video cameras built for video. This can be fixed in post but it can take a long time and just adds to the processing power required to run this live. It would require a lot of live tracking on the accelerometer to rotate the image it wants and dump the rest of the data from the sensor read out. Why not do it in post? Users are gonna get mad when they can't share their recently shot video and not use the feature anymore. And the direction of the scanning is one direction so rotating the phone would affect how it shows up on video.
Why isn't there an app to do this already? Probably because it's just not practical or doable in real time. It greatly hinders the user experience if a user can't view and share their recently shot video to others. That is why a phyiscal rotating camera module would be more practical and usable.
[media]https://youtu.be/S5l7GNJaorU?t=7m54s[/media]
Watch this video at 7:54, basically they put a GoPro Session (the cube one) in a Nerf football, blast it up in the air and add counter rotation in post and this is pretty much what it looks like. This topic reminded me of this interesting video. [/QUOTE]
So, how realistic would a 1:1 camera sensor end up on a smartphone in the near future? RoboChimp wanted a software-based implementation, while it seems to be easier to have a hardware-based implementation while improving existing optical image stabilization and using the technologies found in gimbal cameras.
this is an interesting memo
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5168294/ShareX/2017/03/chrome_2017-03-31_21-00-36.png[/img]
[QUOTE=pentium;52028959]Keep in mind that this is analog HD. It's not as simple as you insert a hi-vision disc in the player and connect component/DVI cabling to your TV. It's the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sub-Nyquist_sampling_encoding]MUSE System[/url].
[t]http://www.fahrenbruch.de/Muse/Pioneer%20X0%205.jpg[/t]
Even after he bought the player and a movie or two he still needs another converter to adapt MUSE to modern digital HD which is another few hundred dollars.
I mean, HD laserdiscs sound cool and all but fucking that kind of a base cost just to set the player up? No thanks.[/QUOTE]You just get an MUSE decoder and go out with component.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.