Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Bill Nye To Debate Creationist Museum Founder Ken Ham

nattt Re:Bad call (611 comments)

You know, if you posit a magically all-powerful being, and have a good imagination, you can reconcile any discrepancy you find and make any story, no matter how contradictory to reality or itself, "make sense".

That said, you're obviously a poe. Nicely done. They style and content are excellent.

about a year ago
top

US Doctors Back Circumcision

nattt Re:Lies (1264 comments)

Penile cancer rates are not zero among circumcised and it's such a none issue as it's also incredibly rare among the un-circumcised too. The recent HIV studies are very poor, and quite frankly, bad science (the circed men were given condoms and extra counciling the others did not, and the study was cut short, thus skewing the data as there was a good period where the circed men had to heal up before engaging in sexual activity).

more than 2 years ago
top

2013 H-1B Visa Supply Nearly Exhausted

nattt unsigned short (428 comments)

Maybe the visa numbers are stored in an unsigned short and can't go above 65535 anyway....

more than 2 years ago
top

US Survey Shows Piracy Common and Accepted

nattt Re:Sauce for the goose (528 comments)

Absolutely the "slap on the wrist" in Canada shows that it's cheaper to steal millions of songs and make vast amounts of profit from them, than to steal 22 songs or whatever and just listen to them. Of course, private copying is still legal in Canada, and that is done by stealing money from photographers and computer programmers and anyone who has backed up their files to a burned CD.

more than 2 years ago
top

IBM Granted Your-Paychecks-Are-What-You-Eat Patent

nattt Re:How do you determine healthy food? (455 comments)

Well, yes there is because they're uniquely addictive, and encourage over-eating. While it's hard to over-eat on just high fat and protein - you feel full quickly and don't get those "snacking" urges between meals, you do with carbs, especially wheat. For a person with a healthy metabolism that hasn't been damaged, indeed you can consume a fair number of carbs. The problem is that so many of us no longer have such a metabolism due to the vast over-consumption of carbs (fructose is probably one of the main gotchas, along with wheat). Our bodies now react rather differently to carb intake.

"we're taking in more calories then we're using... and thus getting fat" - to say that helps not at all. What we need to know is "why" - why are our bodies that normally self-regulate so well, getting our energy consumption so wrong. Address that issue, and you'll get to the bottom of things quickly.

more than 2 years ago
top

IBM Granted Your-Paychecks-Are-What-You-Eat Patent

nattt Re:How do you determine healthy food? (455 comments)

Salt is not bad for you, indeed studies have shown that those that consume the least salt have higher mortality.

more than 2 years ago
top

IBM Granted Your-Paychecks-Are-What-You-Eat Patent

nattt Re:How do you determine healthy food? (455 comments)

Well, yes it is excessive carbs that make you fat. And wheat is indeed killing us.

more than 2 years ago
top

IBM Granted Your-Paychecks-Are-What-You-Eat Patent

nattt Re:How do you determine healthy food? (455 comments)

But there's nothing wrong with saturated fat? Where are you getting "low fat" from?

more than 2 years ago
top

Soon, No More Film Movie Cameras

nattt Re:Loss of (or difference in) color fidelity? (227 comments)

Typical motion picture film stock maxes out at around 14.5 stops of dynamic range. Any camera that shows a greater DR will hold the scene better. Film is also relatively noisy (grain) in the shadows meaning you get much better low light performance with a quality digital cinema camera. Good digital has already outdone 35mm film in terms of measured resolution and noise performance. It's just starting to take over on dynamic range.

Quantization is a non-issue because that is in film, grain limited and digital has been less noisy (it's equivalent to grain) for quite a while, hence the better low light performance.

more than 3 years ago
top

Soon, No More Film Movie Cameras

nattt Re:And for good reasons... (227 comments)

Add in the weight of the mag and film stock, and the size of the mag and film stock.

more than 3 years ago
top

Soon, No More Film Movie Cameras

nattt Re:Special offer (227 comments)

No, good 35mm motion picture film stock like 5219 measures about 3k resolution. 80MP would equate to what - 12k. Don't be silly - that's a vast over-estimation of the resolution of film and you're also well into lens and diffraction limitations at that point. Don't confuse scanning resolution with measured detail, and don't confuse 35mm motion picture film with 35mm stills film which is somewhat larger...

more than 3 years ago
top

Soon, No More Film Movie Cameras

nattt Re:Special offer (227 comments)

Which film stock are you referring to? at 35mm to get 8k rez you'd need a lens capable of passing detail at 160lp/mm.

more than 3 years ago
top

Soon, No More Film Movie Cameras

nattt Re:Movie theaters (227 comments)

Yes, there's some oversampling, so the 3k detail in 35mm film is scanned at 4k to avoid aliasing artifacts and get some over-sampling in there. But 65mm film is around twice the size, hence the greater resolution on it's scan at 8k to preserve it's detail with some oversampling, and larger again for proper IMAX for it's larger frame area.

more than 3 years ago
top

Soon, No More Film Movie Cameras

nattt Re:How many Star Wars reels were archived? (227 comments)

For archive purposes they generally use open uncompressed formats. That takes up more space, but is utterly more reliable.

more than 3 years ago
top

Soon, No More Film Movie Cameras

nattt Re:Special offer (227 comments)

A good 35 film neg will contain around 3k of resolution. This is generally scanned at 4k to preserve all the detail. Scanning beyond that makes for larger files, but no more actual detail. "Digital film" - as in the files from modern digital cinema cameras like the RED Epic is already recording more detail than that 35mm film neg.

more than 3 years ago
top

Soon, No More Film Movie Cameras

nattt Re:Movie theaters (227 comments)

Film doesn't have a "true RGB" resolution because the granularity of the three layers is different. If you examine some film scans the detail you'll pick up in blue is much less than the other channels due to the larger grain size in that channel. Even at 160 l/mm that's like what, 3.5k across the film? Typically 35mm film will measure around 3k resolution. RED Epic will measure (in the recorded file) ~4k and in A/B testing does look sharper than 35mm film, looking more like 65mm film.

more than 3 years ago
top

Soon, No More Film Movie Cameras

nattt Re:Movie theaters (227 comments)

4k scan is typical for 35mm film. 65mm (think Baraka or Samsara) would be scanned at 8k. IMAX would be scanned higher still. As for digital projection, 2k is standard, 4k becoming more common.

more than 3 years ago

Submissions

nattt hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

nattt has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?