A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #136  
Old August 14th 18, 11:36 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default film vs CMOS

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 00:54:04 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
wrote:

On 8/12/2018 12:50 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:


But how do you get a 100% TRUE lossless original? Using good, old
film-based cameras?


film is more lossy than digital.


I don't know much about photography films. And you might need to talk
about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors
and films!

But isn't film molecular level?


Not really. A film image is constructed of crystaline grains which are
far above molecules in size.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
Ads
  #137  
Old August 14th 18, 11:47 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Apd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"Paul" wrote:
Apd wrote:
The term "bitmap" in computing doesn't only refer to picture image
data. For example, the Mac file system:

[..]
But this reference has nothing to do with images,


Yes, that's what I said.

so we cannot become concerned about whether it should
be bitmap or pixmap.


I was giving another use of the term "bitmap" since this part of the
thread is about definitions. I said nothing about pixmaps.


  #138  
Old August 15th 18, 12:45 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Well, he was just dim, if he didn't realise that a JPEG_is_ a bitmap.

it isn't.

jpeg is a compressed file format


True.


yep.

which has nothing whatsoever to do
with bmp files.


Nonsense.


nope. bmp is an entirely separate format.
  #139  
Old August 15th 18, 12:46 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"NY" wrote

|
| Knowing Apple they'd say "Go to the gas station and pull up at the pump
with
| a square (instead of cylindrical) nozzle on the holster" - because they
like
| to reinvent everything and do everything differently from everyone else.

And it will cost you $49.95 for that new square fitting.

| A case in point is how to copy photos that my wife took on her iPad.
Nothing
| as simple as plugging in a USB cable and seeing the iPad as a device in
| Windows, as you would with Android or with a dedicated camera. Oh no.

Awhile back I was trying to help a friend look into
tablets. I knew almost nothing, as I've never used
a tablet. I was trying to figure out what kind of
functionality was available. At the Apple church I
asked the clerk if iPads provided some kind of
file system to store and access files. He had no
idea what I was talking about. After conferring
with other clerks he eventually came back and
said that, yes, there's an app for that. It's called
"Explorer".



  #140  
Old August 15th 18, 12:51 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Awhile back I was trying to help a friend look into
tablets. I knew almost nothing, as I've never used
a tablet.


clearly still the case.

I was trying to figure out what kind of
functionality was available. At the Apple church I
asked the clerk if iPads provided some kind of
file system to store and access files. He had no
idea what I was talking about. After conferring
with other clerks he eventually came back and
said that, yes, there's an app for that. It's called
"Explorer".


he's wrong.
  #141  
Old August 15th 18, 12:56 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

Mayayana wrote:
"NY" wrote

|
| Knowing Apple they'd say "Go to the gas station and pull up at the pump
with
| a square (instead of cylindrical) nozzle on the holster" - because they
like
| to reinvent everything and do everything differently from everyone else.

And it will cost you $49.95 for that new square fitting.

| A case in point is how to copy photos that my wife took on her iPad.
Nothing
| as simple as plugging in a USB cable and seeing the iPad as a device in
| Windows, as you would with Android or with a dedicated camera. Oh no.

Awhile back I was trying to help a friend look into
tablets. I knew almost nothing, as I've never used
a tablet. I was trying to figure out what kind of
functionality was available. At the Apple church I
asked the clerk if iPads provided some kind of
file system to store and access files. He had no
idea what I was talking about. After conferring
with other clerks he eventually came back and
said that, yes, there's an app for that. It's called
"Explorer".


Some things are just hard to do. 2017/06/05

https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/05/io...ystem-to-ipad/

"The company is also launching a new app called Files,
which brings desktop-style file management to iPad"

The presenter has been dwarfed by the concept. I didn't
realize iPads were that big. What if that falls on you ?
Is there a VESA mount ?

https://beta.techcrunch.com/wp-conte...0917.jpg?w=680

Paul
  #142  
Old August 15th 18, 03:43 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"Paul" wrote

|
| And that's also related to BitBLT. Back in the day,
| a system would have BITBLT as a form of graphics
| acceleration. And it worked on bitmaps.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_blit
|
| That predates lots of other graphics acceleration
| technologies. The article says BITBLT came from
| Xerox PARC.
|

Acceleration? BitBlt usually stands for bit block transfer.
It's also the name of the Windows function to copy
a bitmap when it's done between "device contexts",
as opposed to copying a byte array.

| There was a short era of B&W graphics in there,
| which really nobody got to see. The monitor may have
| been monochrome (capable of gray scale), but the
| frame buffers only had "1 bit pixels". Just black
| and white as choices.
|

Those are still around. ICO files are composed of
two bitmaps, or rather any number of pairs of bitmaps.
Each image bitmap is paired with a mask bitmap. The
mask bitmap is just black/white, to indicate which image
pixels shouldn't be displayed, thus allowing for an image
with transparent areas so that it didn't have to be
rectangular.


  #143  
Old August 15th 18, 05:30 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote

|
| And that's also related to BitBLT. Back in the day,
| a system would have BITBLT as a form of graphics
| acceleration. And it worked on bitmaps.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_blit
|
| That predates lots of other graphics acceleration
| technologies. The article says BITBLT came from
| Xerox PARC.
|

Acceleration? BitBlt usually stands for bit block transfer.
It's also the name of the Windows function to copy
a bitmap when it's done between "device contexts",
as opposed to copying a byte array.


Ours would have been similar to this.

https://research.swtch.com/bitblt

"Bitblt combined a rectangle of a source image with a
similarly-sized rectangle in a destination image using
a boolean function and replaced the destination rectangle
with the boolean result."

With a boolean function being XOR perhaps. I think there was
actually a table of functions printed on the card surface,
for easy reference. (You would expect AND, OR, XOR, perhaps
a NOT somethingorother thrown in, and the table would have
all the opcodes shown for it.)

It was unclear how the data was moved around,
because there wasn't enough logic for a DMA circuit
and sequencer.

I would have been more interested, if there was
a software library so I could play with it.

Paul
  #144  
Old August 15th 18, 06:00 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2018-08-14 17:26, nospam wrote:
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
Well, he was just dim, if he didn't realise that a JPEG_is_ a bitmap.

it isn't.
jpeg is a compressed file format


True.

which has nothing whatsoever to do
with bmp files.


Nonsense.

Indeed. A JPEG is a compressed bytemap/bitmap. A BMP is an uncompressed
one.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm the oldest woman on primetime not baking cakes.
- Anne Robinson, RT 2015/8/15-21
  #145  
Old August 15th 18, 09:22 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 586
Default film vs CMOS

"nospam" wrote in message
...
This means that if you take a
photo on 120 film and on 35 mm, with appropriate focal lengths of the two
lenses to give the same field of view of the subject in both cases, and
use
the same aperture, the DOF will be less on the 120 photo than the 35 mm
photo.


nope. it will be identical for the same image quality.


So as long as film grain isn't the limiting issue, you should be able to
take a photo on 120 film with a lens that gives a certain field of view, and
then on 35 mm with a different lens that gives the same field of view, and
if you use the same aperture on both lenses, you shouldn't see a shallower
DOF on a print from the larger format negative?

That goes against everything I've ever learned about photography, and the
fringe benefit of using larger film (the main one being finer level of
detail for the same type of film).

I'll have to try taking comparison photos on my SLR and compact cameras, to
test it.

As I thought, the SLR photo has a shallower DOF than the compact, for same
aperture and comparable lens focal lengths to give same field of view in
both photos.

Nikon D90, 18-200 mm lens, set to 150 mm, 35 mm equivalent=225mm, f5.6,
image size 4288 x 2848 pixels

https://s22.postimg.cc/phiylnsnl/DSC_0151.jpg


Canon Powershot SX260HS, 4.5-90 mm lens, set to 34 mm, no 35 mm equivalent
stated, f5.6, image size 4000 x 2664

https://s22.postimg.cc/k6420pe81/IMG_1316.jpg

Both these are full frame, both focussed on the pins of the mains adaptor in
the centre of the picture. Both pictures taken from same position (ie same
distance to subject in foreground). Very similar image resolution.

  #146  
Old August 15th 18, 11:43 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2018-08-14 17:26, nospam wrote:
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
Well, he was just dim, if he didn't realise that a JPEG_is_ a bitmap.
it isn't.
jpeg is a compressed file format


True.

which has nothing whatsoever to do
with bmp files.


Nonsense.

Indeed. A JPEG is a compressed bytemap/bitmap. A BMP is an uncompressed
one.


Can you please stop making sense when nospam is carefully
misinterpreting/ misrepresenting other posters!? Straw men are people
too!
  #147  
Old August 15th 18, 01:30 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"Frank Slootweg" wrote

| Can you please stop making sense when nospam is carefully
| misinterpreting/ misrepresenting other posters!? Straw men are people
| too!

Ah. The refreshing voice of sanity.


  #148  
Old August 15th 18, 02:30 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Well, he was just dim, if he didn't realise that a JPEG_is_ a bitmap.
it isn't.

jpeg is a compressed file format

True.


yep.

which has nothing whatsoever to do
with bmp files.

Nonsense.


nope. bmp is an entirely separate format.

JPG are compressed bitmaps.

"Bitmap" has a wider reference than *.bmp files.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap
...Similarly, most other image file formats, such as JPEG, TIFF, PNG,
and GIF, also store bitmap images (as opposed to vector graphics),
but they are not usually referred to as bitmaps, since they use
compressed formats internally.

in other words, what you're saying is technically true, but few people
would make that claim.

zip files are compressed files and folders. are you going to claim that
there is no difference between the two?
  #149  
Old August 15th 18, 02:30 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:

Well, he was just dim, if he didn't realise that a JPEG_is_ a bitmap.
it isn't.
jpeg is a compressed file format


True.

which has nothing whatsoever to do
with bmp files.


Nonsense.

Indeed. A JPEG is a compressed bytemap/bitmap. A BMP is an uncompressed
one.


which means they're *different* formats, exactly as i said.

an app that supports one format does not necessarily support the other
format.

or are you now going to claim that any app that can read a jpeg can
also read a bmp?
  #150  
Old August 15th 18, 03:16 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default film vs CMOS

In article , NY
wrote:

This means that if you take a
photo on 120 film and on 35 mm, with appropriate focal lengths of the two
lenses to give the same field of view of the subject in both cases, and
use
the same aperture, the DOF will be less on the 120 photo than the 35 mm
photo.


nope. it will be identical for the same image quality.


So as long as film grain isn't the limiting issue, you should be able to
take a photo on 120 film with a lens that gives a certain field of view, and
then on 35 mm with a different lens that gives the same field of view, and
if you use the same aperture on both lenses, you shouldn't see a shallower
DOF on a print from the larger format negative?


if you do that, then the image quality will be different, which means
other characteristics may also be different.

also, depth of field is a function of the physical aperture (not
f/stop), so if you use the same f/stop on both (for exposure purposes)
you're actually using a larger aperture on the longer focal length
lens, thus the difference you're seeing (along with the difference in
image quality from the larger format, which can't be ignored).

That goes against everything I've ever learned about photography,


it's a common myth.

and the
fringe benefit of using larger film (the main one being finer level of
detail for the same type of film).


in other words, different image quality.

this explains it exceptionally well:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dof_myth/
A commonly cited advantage of smaller digital cameras is their
greater depth-of-field. This is incorrect.

€ The myth, simply stated, is: smaller digital cameras have a larger
depth-of-field than larger digital cameras.

The simple reason why the myth is incorrect is that depth of field is
set by aperture, focal length, and a criterion for spatial
resolution, and if one keeps aperture of the larger camera the same
as that in the smaller camera, the two cameras record the same image
with the same signal-to-noise ratio and the same depth of field with
the same exposure time. Below are details explaining why this is
true, and Figure 1 gives an example.
....
Given the identical photon noise, exposure time, enlargement size,
and number of pixels giving the same spatial resolution (i.e. the
same total image quality), digital cameras with different sized
sensors will produce images with identical depths-of-field. (This
assumes similar relative performance in the camera's electronics,
blur filters, and lenses.) The larger format camera will use a higher
f/ratio and an ISO equal to the ratio of the sensor sizes to achieve
that equality. If the scene is static enough that a longer exposure
time can be used, then the larger format camera will produce the same
depth-of-field images as the smaller format camera, but will collect
more photons and produce higher signal-to-noise images. Another way
to look at the problem, is the larger format camera could use an even
smaller aperture and a longer exposure to achieve a similar
signal-to-noise ratio image with greater depth of field than a
smaller format camera. Thus, the larger format camera has the
advantage for producing equal or better images with equal or better
depth-of-field as smaller format cameras.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.