Smartphones were trending in that direction prior to the iPhone. Granted Apple definitely accelerated the progress.
I'm saddened by the de-emphasis of the physical QWERTY keyboard though. I'm eligible for an upgrade, but I've been holding onto my G2 because I can't find a decent phone with a physical keyboard anymore. As good as the virtual keyboards of today are (and I've used everything from the iphone's to swype), I'm always faster and more accurate when I switch to the physical keyboard on my phone. Not to mention I will always prefer the feel of physical keys (even a mediocre one such as the G2) over something virtual.
If you don't need the apps - a Nokia E7. I use Swype for day to day quick input and the KB for business mail. Good camera, superb construction, two/three days out of the battery, built in maps etc. Great phone, and cheap to pick up. Just my opinion. I have an iPad for apps, so don't need them on my phone too.
For something like commercial television standards, the spec needs to be created before the equipment can start to be built. Heck, even if the spec is approved, not all technologies will end up being commercially successful (e.g., consumer Beta, SACD, HD-DVD).
The camera technology is approaching to the UHD standard; the RED Epic is pretty close. The first content will probably be viewable in movie theaters, not on your TV at home.
Smartphones were trending in that direction prior to the iPhone. Granted Apple definitely accelerated the progress.</p><p> </p><p> I'm saddened by the de-emphasis of the physical QWERTY keyboard though. I'm eligible for an upgrade, but I've been holding onto my G2 because I can't find a decent phone with a physical keyboard anymore. As good as the virtual keyboards of today are (and I've used everything from the iphone's to swype), I'm always faster and more accurate when I switch to the physical keyboard on my phone. Not to mention I will always prefer the feel of physical keys (even a mediocre one such as the G2) over something virtual.</p>
You probably have a record player at home, because LP's sound way better than anything digital.
And your 'right', virtual keyboards type slower than a full sized computer keyboard - althoug some people are almost as fast, and way faster than most on a normal keyboard - but as fast as any crammed mini keyboard on a phone.
For something like commercial television standards, the spec needs to be created before the equipment can start to be built. Heck, even if the spec is approved, not all technologies will end up being commercially successful (e.g., consumer Beta, SACD, HD-DVD).
The camera technology is approaching to the UHD standard; the RED Epic is pretty close. The first content will probably be viewable in movie theaters, not on your TV at home.
How much better is UHD compared to IMAX? Will the improvement be immediately noticeable?
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>matrix07</strong> <a href="/t/149686/apple-considered-physical-keyboard-for-first-iphone#post_2102366"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> Yes, like everybody and their moms know touchscreen is the future but know shit all how to implement it.</p> </div></div><p> </p><p> <br /> What's your point? Oh right, there wasn't any as usual.</p>
I might word it badly buy you're being too sensitive as usual because I just agreed with you (most of it anyway).
OT - anyone know who David Keppelmeyer is? He tweeted this morning that rumor is Jonathan Ive has resigned from Apple. All twitter says is he's the CEO of the Keppelmeyer Group. Exact tweet, time stamped 5:13 AM is:
Whispers around the traps is that Jnathan Ive has just resigned from Apple. More to come.
How much better is UHD compared to IMAX? Will the improvement be immediately noticeable?
No one knows since no one has seen a UHD projection system in a theater. Remember, UHD is still just a spec, and a few prototypes living in some labs around the world.
UHD is 7680 pixels wide, versus the 2K pixels (width) for the current digital IMAX projection system (which is only deployed in multiplex cinemas with smaller screens).
Note that traditional film-based IMAX systems effectively render about 6K pixels. The original shooting stock is 65mm film passing through the camera horizontally for a bigger film gate, 69.6 mm wide at the normal 24 frames per second. Comparing digital projection to film stock is not an exact conversion, but basically, good commercial film stocks should provide about 80-90 picture elements per millimeter which is where that estimated 6K pixels number emerges.
What UHD will probably initially do is provide high-quality high-definition digital projection on larger screens where right now only film-based projection systems can provide the highest resolution. From a content standpoint, getting UHD source material digitally will probably increase the type of content available. IMAX cameras (the ones used to film) are noisier than conventional cameras and recording dialogue is difficult. Hence a lot of IMAX films are of the nature/landscape style that don't require audio. Also, it is possible that UHD cameras will have better sensitivity to light and perform better in darker environments.
There is a organic quality about film that adds a pleasing texture. While that can be duplicated in part using digital methods (digital film grain options have been in 3D animation packages for 15+ years), it is hard to say when the digital film grain will catch up to analog film's.
Again, it may be difficult to see the difference in UHD and IMAX unless you understand all the myriad factors in creating these films. You could be watching a UHD film and thinking "this doesn't look any better than IMAX". Of course, you might be watching some somber dialogue scene in a candle-lit room, something that couldn't have been recorded on traditional film-based IMAX cameras. There's a lot more than projection display resolution when comparing imaging systems.
OT - anyone know who David Keppelmeyer is? He tweeted this morning that rumor is Jonathan Ive has resigned from Apple. All twitter says is he's the CEO of the Keppelmeyer Group. Exact tweet, time stamped 5:13 AM is:
Whispers around the traps is that Jnathan Ive has just resigned from Apple. More to come.
Smartphones were trending in that direction prior to the iPhone. Granted Apple definitely accelerated the progress.</p><p> </p><p> I'm saddened by the de-emphasis of the physical QWERTY keyboard though. I'm eligible for an upgrade, but I've been holding onto my G2 because I can't find a decent phone with a physical keyboard anymore. As good as the virtual keyboards of today are (and I've used everything from the iphone's to swype), I'm always faster and more accurate when I switch to the physical keyboard on my phone. Not to mention I will always prefer the feel of physical keys (even a mediocre one such as the G2) over something virtual.</p>
You probably have a record player at home, because LP's sound way better than anything digital.
And your 'right', virtual keyboards type slower than a full sized computer keyboard - althoug some people are almost as fast, and way faster than most on a normal keyboard - but as fast as any crammed mini keyboard on a phone.
J.
nah, I don't have a good enough pair of speakers to appreciate the difference. I try to make sure I know where my limitations are-- I'm not the kind of guy that just blindly gets the "best" components without making sure the rest of my system can support it.
I am in the process of slowing converting my music collection to FLAC; though its been a PITA trying to find all my old source material.
WRT to keyboards, the only ones I will buy are cherry MX blues. Currently using this Rosewill, and its been pretty damn good.
I'm sure there are people who can type pretty fast on virtual keyboards. I'm not one of them. Plus half the time autocorrect pisses me off.
You probably have a record player at home, because LP's sound way better than anything digital.
And your 'right', virtual keyboards type slower than a full sized computer keyboard - althoug some people are almost as fast, and way faster than most on a normal keyboard - but as fast as any crammed mini keyboard on a phone.
J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
More accurately, some analog LPs, played on some systems sound better (in certain respects) than some digital sources played on any system.
Some digital sources sound better than others. Same with analog.
"Audiophiles" who have more money than brains claim that. Unfortunately, no one has ever shown it to be true in a properly conducted double blind study.
But feel free to continue writing on your CDs with green magic marker if it makes you happy.
Sounds like Apple didn't get the memo from Android development team
Without Apple it may have been a more gradual transition. Samsung had started testing and implementing touch screens, but they hadn't yet removed physical keyboards. Anyway this article isn't even news. Did anyone on here really believe this option hadn't been considered by Apple? They
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
OT - anyone know who David Keppelmeyer is? He tweeted this morning that rumor is Jonathan Ive has resigned from Apple. All twitter says is he's the CEO of the Keppelmeyer Group. Exact tweet, time stamped 5:13 AM is:
Whispers around the traps is that Jnathan Ive has just resigned from Apple. More to come.
Bleh.. don't pay attention to tweets like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
No one knows since no one has seen a UHD projection system in a theater. Remember, UHD is still just a spec, and a few prototypes living in some labs around the world.
UHD is 7680 pixels wide, versus the 2K pixels (width) for the current digital IMAX projection system (which is only deployed in multiplex cinemas with smaller screens).
Note that traditional film-based IMAX systems effectively render about 6K pixels. The original shooting stock is 65mm film passing through the camera horizontally for a bigger film gate, 69.6 mm wide at the normal 24 frames per second. Comparing digital projection to film stock is not an exact conversion, but basically, good commercial film stocks should provide about 80-90 picture elements per millimeter which is where that estimated 6K pixels number emerges.
What UHD will probably initially do is provide high-quality high-definition digital projection on larger screens where right now only film-based projection systems can provide the highest resolution. From a content standpoint, getting UHD source material digitally will probably increase the type of content available. IMAX cameras (the ones used to film) are noisier than conventional cameras and recording dialogue is difficult. Hence a lot of IMAX films are of the nature/landscape style that don't require audio. Also, it is possible that UHD cameras will have better sensitivity to light and perform better in darker environments.
There is a organic quality about film that adds a pleasing texture. While that can be duplicated in part using digital methods (digital film grain options have been in 3D animation packages for 15+ years), it is hard to say when the digital film grain will catch up to analog film's.
Again, it may be difficult to see the difference in UHD and IMAX unless you understand all the myriad factors in creating these films. You could be watching a UHD film and thinking "this doesn't look any better than IMAX". Of course, you might be watching some somber dialogue scene in a candle-lit room, something that couldn't have been recorded on traditional film-based IMAX cameras. There's a lot more than projection display resolution when comparing imaging systems.
That was a pretty fun post to read, but I don't think people inherently expect the look of film any longer. They're more conditioned to the properties of digital media. Given the direction we've seen with sensors, there's still an ability to benefit from further resolution. They just don't necessarily have to interpolate the data in the same way. Bayer arrays are arranged in an RGBG format, so quite a lot of information is interpolated to achieve output resolution. We could start going away from that, and it would give you cleaner detail especially in reds and blues. If you look at a really really red or blue object shot digitally, the detail can be pretty poor.
No one knows since no one has seen a UHD projection system in a theater. Remember, UHD is still just a spec, and a few prototypes living in some labs around the world.
UHD is 7680 pixels wide, versus the 2K pixels (width) for the current digital IMAX projection system (which is only deployed in multiplex cinemas with smaller screens).
Note that traditional film-based IMAX systems effectively render about 6K pixels. The original shooting stock is 65mm film passing through the camera horizontally for a bigger film gate, 69.6 mm wide at the normal 24 frames per second. Comparing digital projection to film stock is not an exact conversion, but basically, good commercial film stocks should provide about 80-90 picture elements per millimeter which is where that estimated 6K pixels number emerges.
What UHD will probably initially do is provide high-quality high-definition digital projection on larger screens where right now only film-based projection systems can provide the highest resolution. From a content standpoint, getting UHD source material digitally will probably increase the type of content available. IMAX cameras (the ones used to film) are noisier than conventional cameras and recording dialogue is difficult. Hence a lot of IMAX films are of the nature/landscape style that don't require audio. Also, it is possible that UHD cameras will have better sensitivity to light and perform better in darker environments.
There is a organic quality about film that adds a pleasing texture. While that can be duplicated in part using digital methods (digital film grain options have been in 3D animation packages for 15+ years), it is hard to say when the digital film grain will catch up to analog film's.
Again, it may be difficult to see the difference in UHD and IMAX unless you understand all the myriad factors in creating these films. You could be watching a UHD film and thinking "this doesn't look any better than IMAX". Of course, you might be watching some somber dialogue scene in a candle-lit room, something that couldn't have been recorded on traditional film-based IMAX cameras. There's a lot more than projection display resolution when comparing imaging systems.
In addition to your good post: The new movie, The Hobbit, is being shot at 48 frames per second. According to Peter Jackson the sharpness of each frame makes the overall viewing experience much better as each frame has less blur due to capturing less motion. The viewer is getting much more of the available sharpness of the lens and film with only a change in the frames per second.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Smartphones were trending in that direction prior to the iPhone. Granted Apple definitely accelerated the progress.
I'm saddened by the de-emphasis of the physical QWERTY keyboard though. I'm eligible for an upgrade, but I've been holding onto my G2 because I can't find a decent phone with a physical keyboard anymore. As good as the virtual keyboards of today are (and I've used everything from the iphone's to swype), I'm always faster and more accurate when I switch to the physical keyboard on my phone. Not to mention I will always prefer the feel of physical keys (even a mediocre one such as the G2) over something virtual.
If you don't need the apps - a Nokia E7. I use Swype for day to day quick input and the KB for business mail. Good camera, superb construction, two/three days out of the battery, built in maps etc. Great phone, and cheap to pick up. Just my opinion. I have an iPad for apps, so don't need them on my phone too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
UHD is the future, too, but for some reason I can't find anyone who makes those displays nor any 7,680 × 4,320 content. Funny that.
Let me know when you figure out what your point is, aside from taking up space with an irrelevant image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
Yes, like everybody and their moms know touchscreen is the future but know shit all how to implement it.
What's your point? Oh right, there wasn't any as usual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
UHD is the future, too, but for some reason I can't find anyone who makes those displays nor any 7,680 × 4,320 content. Funny that.
A quick Google search has unsurprisingly revealed that Canon was working on UHD prototype cameras way back in 2010.
http://photocinenews.com/2010/09/01/dvinfo-has-first-look-at-canon-uhd-camera/
For something like commercial television standards, the spec needs to be created before the equipment can start to be built. Heck, even if the spec is approved, not all technologies will end up being commercially successful (e.g., consumer Beta, SACD, HD-DVD).
The camera technology is approaching to the UHD standard; the RED Epic is pretty close. The first content will probably be viewable in movie theaters, not on your TV at home.
You probably have a record player at home, because LP's sound way better than anything digital.
And your 'right', virtual keyboards type slower than a full sized computer keyboard - althoug some people are almost as fast, and way faster than most on a normal keyboard - but as fast as any crammed mini keyboard on a phone.
J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
UHD is the future, too, but for some reason I can't find anyone who makes those displays nor any 7,680 × 4,320 content. Funny that.
A quick Google search has unsurprisingly revealed that Canon was working on UHD prototype cameras way back in 2010.
http://photocinenews.com/2010/09/01/dvinfo-has-first-look-at-canon-uhd-camera/
For something like commercial television standards, the spec needs to be created before the equipment can start to be built. Heck, even if the spec is approved, not all technologies will end up being commercially successful (e.g., consumer Beta, SACD, HD-DVD).
The camera technology is approaching to the UHD standard; the RED Epic is pretty close. The first content will probably be viewable in movie theaters, not on your TV at home.
How much better is UHD compared to IMAX? Will the improvement be immediately noticeable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
You probably have a record player at home, because LP's sound way better than anything digital.
More accurately, some analog LPs, played on some systems sound better (in certain respects) than some digital sources played on any system.
Some digital sources sound better than others. Same with analog.
I might word it badly buy you're being too sensitive as usual because I just agreed with you (most of it anyway).
Whispers around the traps is that Jnathan Ive has just resigned from Apple. More to come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
How much better is UHD compared to IMAX? Will the improvement be immediately noticeable?
No one knows since no one has seen a UHD projection system in a theater. Remember, UHD is still just a spec, and a few prototypes living in some labs around the world.
UHD is 7680 pixels wide, versus the 2K pixels (width) for the current digital IMAX projection system (which is only deployed in multiplex cinemas with smaller screens).
Note that traditional film-based IMAX systems effectively render about 6K pixels. The original shooting stock is 65mm film passing through the camera horizontally for a bigger film gate, 69.6 mm wide at the normal 24 frames per second. Comparing digital projection to film stock is not an exact conversion, but basically, good commercial film stocks should provide about 80-90 picture elements per millimeter which is where that estimated 6K pixels number emerges.
What UHD will probably initially do is provide high-quality high-definition digital projection on larger screens where right now only film-based projection systems can provide the highest resolution. From a content standpoint, getting UHD source material digitally will probably increase the type of content available. IMAX cameras (the ones used to film) are noisier than conventional cameras and recording dialogue is difficult. Hence a lot of IMAX films are of the nature/landscape style that don't require audio. Also, it is possible that UHD cameras will have better sensitivity to light and perform better in darker environments.
There is a organic quality about film that adds a pleasing texture. While that can be duplicated in part using digital methods (digital film grain options have been in 3D animation packages for 15+ years), it is hard to say when the digital film grain will catch up to analog film's.
Again, it may be difficult to see the difference in UHD and IMAX unless you understand all the myriad factors in creating these films. You could be watching a UHD film and thinking "this doesn't look any better than IMAX". Of course, you might be watching some somber dialogue scene in a candle-lit room, something that couldn't have been recorded on traditional film-based IMAX cameras. There's a lot more than projection display resolution when comparing imaging systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
OT - anyone know who David Keppelmeyer is? He tweeted this morning that rumor is Jonathan Ive has resigned from Apple. All twitter says is he's the CEO of the Keppelmeyer Group. Exact tweet, time stamped 5:13 AM is:
Whispers around the traps is that Jnathan Ive has just resigned from Apple. More to come.
He is not someone to believe or even listen to
Hey, I heard Abe Vigoda is dead!
nah, I don't have a good enough pair of speakers to appreciate the difference. I try to make sure I know where my limitations are-- I'm not the kind of guy that just blindly gets the "best" components without making sure the rest of my system can support it.
I am in the process of slowing converting my music collection to FLAC; though its been a PITA trying to find all my old source material.
WRT to keyboards, the only ones I will buy are cherry MX blues. Currently using this Rosewill, and its been pretty damn good.
I'm sure there are people who can type pretty fast on virtual keyboards. I'm not one of them. Plus half the time autocorrect pisses me off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
You probably have a record player at home, because LP's sound way better than anything digital.
And your 'right', virtual keyboards type slower than a full sized computer keyboard - althoug some people are almost as fast, and way faster than most on a normal keyboard - but as fast as any crammed mini keyboard on a phone.
J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
More accurately, some analog LPs, played on some systems sound better (in certain respects) than some digital sources played on any system.
Some digital sources sound better than others. Same with analog.
"Audiophiles" who have more money than brains claim that. Unfortunately, no one has ever shown it to be true in a properly conducted double blind study.
But feel free to continue writing on your CDs with green magic marker if it makes you happy.
They would be a bad company if they didn't consider every option, now wouldn't they?
Yeah, the popping and craclling of Records is fantastic too. smh.
Hey, I heard David Keppelmeyer is dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
Sounds like Apple didn't get the memo from Android development team
Without Apple it may have been a more gradual transition. Samsung had started testing and implementing touch screens, but they hadn't yet removed physical keyboards. Anyway this article isn't even news. Did anyone on here really believe this option hadn't been considered by Apple? They
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
OT - anyone know who David Keppelmeyer is? He tweeted this morning that rumor is Jonathan Ive has resigned from Apple. All twitter says is he's the CEO of the Keppelmeyer Group. Exact tweet, time stamped 5:13 AM is:
Whispers around the traps is that Jnathan Ive has just resigned from Apple. More to come.
Bleh.. don't pay attention to tweets like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
No one knows since no one has seen a UHD projection system in a theater. Remember, UHD is still just a spec, and a few prototypes living in some labs around the world.
UHD is 7680 pixels wide, versus the 2K pixels (width) for the current digital IMAX projection system (which is only deployed in multiplex cinemas with smaller screens).
Note that traditional film-based IMAX systems effectively render about 6K pixels. The original shooting stock is 65mm film passing through the camera horizontally for a bigger film gate, 69.6 mm wide at the normal 24 frames per second. Comparing digital projection to film stock is not an exact conversion, but basically, good commercial film stocks should provide about 80-90 picture elements per millimeter which is where that estimated 6K pixels number emerges.
What UHD will probably initially do is provide high-quality high-definition digital projection on larger screens where right now only film-based projection systems can provide the highest resolution. From a content standpoint, getting UHD source material digitally will probably increase the type of content available. IMAX cameras (the ones used to film) are noisier than conventional cameras and recording dialogue is difficult. Hence a lot of IMAX films are of the nature/landscape style that don't require audio. Also, it is possible that UHD cameras will have better sensitivity to light and perform better in darker environments.
There is a organic quality about film that adds a pleasing texture. While that can be duplicated in part using digital methods (digital film grain options have been in 3D animation packages for 15+ years), it is hard to say when the digital film grain will catch up to analog film's.
Again, it may be difficult to see the difference in UHD and IMAX unless you understand all the myriad factors in creating these films. You could be watching a UHD film and thinking "this doesn't look any better than IMAX". Of course, you might be watching some somber dialogue scene in a candle-lit room, something that couldn't have been recorded on traditional film-based IMAX cameras. There's a lot more than projection display resolution when comparing imaging systems.
That was a pretty fun post to read, but I don't think people inherently expect the look of film any longer. They're more conditioned to the properties of digital media. Given the direction we've seen with sensors, there's still an ability to benefit from further resolution. They just don't necessarily have to interpolate the data in the same way. Bayer arrays are arranged in an RGBG format, so quite a lot of information is interpolated to achieve output resolution. We could start going away from that, and it would give you cleaner detail especially in reds and blues. If you look at a really really red or blue object shot digitally, the detail can be pretty poor.
Face of the game? Interesting mixed metaphor there!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
No one knows since no one has seen a UHD projection system in a theater. Remember, UHD is still just a spec, and a few prototypes living in some labs around the world.
UHD is 7680 pixels wide, versus the 2K pixels (width) for the current digital IMAX projection system (which is only deployed in multiplex cinemas with smaller screens).
Note that traditional film-based IMAX systems effectively render about 6K pixels. The original shooting stock is 65mm film passing through the camera horizontally for a bigger film gate, 69.6 mm wide at the normal 24 frames per second. Comparing digital projection to film stock is not an exact conversion, but basically, good commercial film stocks should provide about 80-90 picture elements per millimeter which is where that estimated 6K pixels number emerges.
What UHD will probably initially do is provide high-quality high-definition digital projection on larger screens where right now only film-based projection systems can provide the highest resolution. From a content standpoint, getting UHD source material digitally will probably increase the type of content available. IMAX cameras (the ones used to film) are noisier than conventional cameras and recording dialogue is difficult. Hence a lot of IMAX films are of the nature/landscape style that don't require audio. Also, it is possible that UHD cameras will have better sensitivity to light and perform better in darker environments.
There is a organic quality about film that adds a pleasing texture. While that can be duplicated in part using digital methods (digital film grain options have been in 3D animation packages for 15+ years), it is hard to say when the digital film grain will catch up to analog film's.
Again, it may be difficult to see the difference in UHD and IMAX unless you understand all the myriad factors in creating these films. You could be watching a UHD film and thinking "this doesn't look any better than IMAX". Of course, you might be watching some somber dialogue scene in a candle-lit room, something that couldn't have been recorded on traditional film-based IMAX cameras. There's a lot more than projection display resolution when comparing imaging systems.
In addition to your good post: The new movie, The Hobbit, is being shot at 48 frames per second. According to Peter Jackson the sharpness of each frame makes the overall viewing experience much better as each frame has less blur due to capturing less motion. The viewer is getting much more of the available sharpness of the lens and film with only a change in the frames per second.