The AI-generated cat pictures thread
#3762
*********** at youtube terminated the account of the last video. So here is another upload...
Redneck Math Fail:
I don't care if you love him or hate him. I want this kids ******* dayjob:
Edit: Thought I'd comment after posting this. That is a $30,000 machine gun and the ammo it fires is about $3.00 a round. At that price a 500 round tin would run you about $1500.00.. Just food for thought considering he fired off an entire tin of ammo.
Redneck Math Fail:
I don't care if you love him or hate him. I want this kids ******* dayjob:
Edit: Thought I'd comment after posting this. That is a $30,000 machine gun and the ammo it fires is about $3.00 a round. At that price a 500 round tin would run you about $1500.00.. Just food for thought considering he fired off an entire tin of ammo.
#3772
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
Nice pl0x Joe!! What model do you have? I'm guessing one of the newer Moto Droids?
(Edit: Joe you bastard...)
TBH, I was impressed at the video capture of the fireworks. Didn't believe it so I checked out some other videos. Pretty crazy for what amounts to a 2mm CCD camera!
I've got an HTC EVO and it took pretty decent pictures at first. Noticed as of late the quality has really gone down hill. Someone suggested that my lens was scratched which would affect the pictures quality. It is indeed scratched up pretty bad. I realize none of these are particurally great, but not bad for a 3 year old phone.
I've been playing with a new ROM lately and found several things wrong with it, one of which is unable to tap to focus the camera.. I'm sure that has some negative affect also.
More random pictures from my phone:
This is my old man's pickup. 1996 Ford Ranger 2.3L 5 speed. Aside from brakes, tires, oil, filters, and gasoline it's 100% stock as delivered from Kentucky. Never in my wildest dreams would've imagined this. Too bad it gets 9mpg on the highway now.
(Edit: Joe you bastard...)
TBH, I was impressed at the video capture of the fireworks. Didn't believe it so I checked out some other videos. Pretty crazy for what amounts to a 2mm CCD camera!
I've got an HTC EVO and it took pretty decent pictures at first. Noticed as of late the quality has really gone down hill. Someone suggested that my lens was scratched which would affect the pictures quality. It is indeed scratched up pretty bad. I realize none of these are particurally great, but not bad for a 3 year old phone.
I've been playing with a new ROM lately and found several things wrong with it, one of which is unable to tap to focus the camera.. I'm sure that has some negative affect also.
More random pictures from my phone:
This is my old man's pickup. 1996 Ford Ranger 2.3L 5 speed. Aside from brakes, tires, oil, filters, and gasoline it's 100% stock as delivered from Kentucky. Never in my wildest dreams would've imagined this. Too bad it gets 9mpg on the highway now.
#3773
1997 Ford F250 7.3L 4x4
I'm always trying to kill it
I keep my bed loaded down
#3774
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
It is impressive, you must admit, to compare what is actually possible with your average cell phone today as compared to a midrange digital camera of just 8 or 10 years ago. Remember when they used floppies? Of course, one thing you'll never get in a phone-sized camera is a decent lens, and a 100MP sensor is for **** if it's got crappy optics in front of it.
There is one thing which really bugs me about every cell-phone camera I've seen, and it's something that would be really quite trivial to fix. There's no way to control the shutter speed.
By definition, a cell-phone camera is always going to be hand-held. So why is it even possible for them to shoot any slower than, say, 1/30? The automatic controls always seem to be hyper-fixated on getting a good exposure, but why? I can fix an underexposed low-light shot in PaintShop, but there's absolutely nothing I can do about a properly-exposed but blurry shot.
This is all just software anyway, so why the hell is there no camera app that lets me manually set the exposure time? Let me decide if I want to sacrifice exposure in exchange for a shot which can be pushed later.
Most point-n-shoot models have this same flaw. My old CoolPix 4300 allowed SLR-style manual shutter and aperture control, and when it came time to replace it, I searched for months to find a modern camera with the same functionality (thank you Canon for producing the S90.)
Unrelated, F2.8 at 500mm:
(No, that isn't photoshopped. It's a real lens.)
Why do you need such a thing? Well, what if you want to photograph a small bird from a quarter-mile away?
Only $25,999 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_EX_DG.html
#3775
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
Yeah I remember this picture from a few weeks ago. See, I EXPECT a diesel to live past 250k miles bone stock on the low end. Granted, the Ford Lima 2.3 is one of the most durable 4 cylinder engines (though absolutely gutless without boost) ever created, I'm still shocked its lasted this long and lacking any sort of problems.
****, my cell phone is better than some digital point and shoot cameras on the market currently! Granted that category is typically full of sub-$100.00 cameras..
You're correct about both exposure and lens. I've seen some silly magnetic "slip on" lens upgrades, which I've been interested in trying. Not practical to mount something like this full time, though.
Still thinking about buying a set just for grins. First I'm going to replace my lens cover on the back of the phone..
Don't own a macro lens so its pretty difficult to photograph the scratches. They're pretty bad and I kinda hope that's the cause of my problem. If not, maybe the EVO replacement will have a better camera. *shrug*
My real complaint is the absolute lack of proper ******* white balance in most cameras on the market. My 40D has great automatic balance but the manual ability is fantastic..
Random picture of a block I'm working on.
Hahaha.
It is impressive, you must admit, to compare what is actually possible with your average cell phone today as compared to a midrange digital camera of just 8 or 10 years ago. Remember when they used floppies? Of course, one thing you'll never get in a phone-sized camera is a decent lens, and a 100MP sensor is for **** if it's got crappy optics in front of it.
There is one thing which really bugs me about every cell-phone camera I've seen, and it's something that would be really quite trivial to fix. There's no way to control the shutter speed.
By definition, a cell-phone camera is always going to be hand-held. So why is it even possible for them to shoot any slower than, say, 1/30? The automatic controls always seem to be hyper-fixated on getting a good exposure, but why? I can fix an underexposed low-light shot in PaintShop, but there's absolutely nothing I can do about a properly-exposed but blurry shot.
This is all just software anyway, so why the hell is there no camera app that lets me manually set the exposure time? Let me decide if I want to sacrifice exposure in exchange for a shot which can be pushed later.
Most point-n-shoot models have this same flaw. My old CoolPix 4300 allowed SLR-style manual shutter and aperture control, and when it came time to replace it, I searched for months to find a modern camera with the same functionality (thank you Canon for producing the S90.)
It is impressive, you must admit, to compare what is actually possible with your average cell phone today as compared to a midrange digital camera of just 8 or 10 years ago. Remember when they used floppies? Of course, one thing you'll never get in a phone-sized camera is a decent lens, and a 100MP sensor is for **** if it's got crappy optics in front of it.
There is one thing which really bugs me about every cell-phone camera I've seen, and it's something that would be really quite trivial to fix. There's no way to control the shutter speed.
By definition, a cell-phone camera is always going to be hand-held. So why is it even possible for them to shoot any slower than, say, 1/30? The automatic controls always seem to be hyper-fixated on getting a good exposure, but why? I can fix an underexposed low-light shot in PaintShop, but there's absolutely nothing I can do about a properly-exposed but blurry shot.
This is all just software anyway, so why the hell is there no camera app that lets me manually set the exposure time? Let me decide if I want to sacrifice exposure in exchange for a shot which can be pushed later.
Most point-n-shoot models have this same flaw. My old CoolPix 4300 allowed SLR-style manual shutter and aperture control, and when it came time to replace it, I searched for months to find a modern camera with the same functionality (thank you Canon for producing the S90.)
You're correct about both exposure and lens. I've seen some silly magnetic "slip on" lens upgrades, which I've been interested in trying. Not practical to mount something like this full time, though.
Still thinking about buying a set just for grins. First I'm going to replace my lens cover on the back of the phone..
Don't own a macro lens so its pretty difficult to photograph the scratches. They're pretty bad and I kinda hope that's the cause of my problem. If not, maybe the EVO replacement will have a better camera. *shrug*
My real complaint is the absolute lack of proper ******* white balance in most cameras on the market. My 40D has great automatic balance but the manual ability is fantastic..
Random picture of a block I'm working on.
#3777
Wow, Really?? Are you that ignorant??
Horsepower means ****. Its nothing more than a mathematical calculation of TORQUE and engine RPM. There mere dictionary definition of the word "horsepower" pretty much speaks it all:
horse·pow·er [hawrs-pou-er]
noun
1. a foot-pound-second unit of power, equivalent to 550 foot-pounds per second, or 745.7 watts.
The formula is something along the lines of 2π(force * radius)(RPM)/33,000 ft-lb/min = HP
Without mechanical torque and James Watt your precious horsepower would simply not exist so GTFO with your "Listen to Carol Shelby too much" bullshit. By the way, how many professional race series have you won? How many cars have you designed and built from the ground up? Yeah, none.
Horsepower means ****. Its nothing more than a mathematical calculation of TORQUE and engine RPM. There mere dictionary definition of the word "horsepower" pretty much speaks it all:
horse·pow·er [hawrs-pou-er]
noun
1. a foot-pound-second unit of power, equivalent to 550 foot-pounds per second, or 745.7 watts.
The formula is something along the lines of 2π(force * radius)(RPM)/33,000 ft-lb/min = HP
Without mechanical torque and James Watt your precious horsepower would simply not exist so GTFO with your "Listen to Carol Shelby too much" bullshit. By the way, how many professional race series have you won? How many cars have you designed and built from the ground up? Yeah, none.
If serious, *you* are that ignorant.
You see, "TORQUE" is completely useless without a little sumpin-sumpin we call "RPM".
Horsepower is the actual measure of useable power that we get from our engine. Horsepower does "work", Torque does not.
It's identical to saying that your solar panel system is better than mine because it produces twice as many Amps, when in reality, my system produces 1.5 times as many watts as yours does. Sure, you can't get to a meaningful number of my watts without having your amps, but saying that amps are a better unit of measure completely bypasses the fact that you also need volts to produce power.
A car with 200 TQ/500 HP will completely destroy a similar car with 500 TQ/200 HP.
An example of "amps":
#3778
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
I mean, having 500 ft/lbs of torque would be great at pushing/pulling **** around, vs something with 200 ft/lbs of torque and the moar horse power.
#3779
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
Frankly, they were crap. Beyond the obvious barrel distortion, which I can fix in software, they exhibited significant chromatic aberration and softening of the image which got progressively worse towards the edges of the frame. They might be ok for clipping onto the front of a camcorder, but on a high-resolution still camera, they're worse than nothing.
Cheap lenses are cheap. That's really what it boils down to. And no add-on lens is going to improve the quality of crappy built-in optics pointed at a tiny imaging sensor.
I just wish the shutter speed could be controlled. That's really all it would take to make me happy. Give me the option to take a sharp but underexposed photo instead of forcing me to end up with correctly-exposed but blurry shots.
#3780
You now have 2 engines producing 1000 ft/lb of torque. Given flat torque curves, one of them (the 200hp engine) Now spins up to 1050 RPM, while the other engine (the 500hp engine) will spin up to 2625 RPM.
So if this engine, with the above mentioned gearing in place was directly turning the wheels without any more additional gearing (a.k.a. transmission), the question is: Do you want a car that will produce 1000ft/lb of torque up to 71.6 MPH (200hp), or do you want the car that will produce that exact same amount of torque up to 178.9 MPH (500hp)
How does gearing affect you? A stock 1994 5-speed Miata is geared to put over 1400 FT/LB of torque to the road in first gear....think about that.