Ingredients:
- Meat
- Soup
Directions:
- Combine
- Serve
- 0 Posts
- 217 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: August 9th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
This is the internet. Just do it.
It’s Candy Mountain, Charlie.
68·2 months agoFusion 360 is fantastic. It’s free for non-commercisl use. I’ve been using it for years and have zero complaints. It’s polished and powerful.
People complaining about it for ideological reasons have a point, but I disagree that it’s in some sort of “enshitification spiral”. It’s exactly as usable as it was 5 years ago. There are very few features locked behind a paywall, and they aren’t important to the average maker.
You can even use Fusion to run a CNC router. For free! With all the polish of commercial software.
Everyone I know at my local makerspace uses Fusion. I don’t know a single person who uses FreeCAD. A couple people use TinkerCAD. There’s a very large community of Fusion users and getting help is easy.
I am 100% in favor of FOSS. Give FreeCAD a try. I used it years ago because it had a plugin to make convolute gears with a couple of clicks. But don’t shy away from Fusion just because of all of the haters on here. Give it a try yourself. I think you’ll be impressed by what you get for free.
Any Prusa
2·2 months agoYes, it’s egg-fried rice.
2·2 months agoIt appears to be a wallpaper. TinEye found a bunch of results on various wallpaper websites.
This bastardized version is… something.
That means if you have one hour of full sunlight hit your panels, it will generate 3.8kw of power.
I think you mean kWh of energy, not kW of power, since you multiplied it by time.
4·2 months agoStick it in the microwave until it’s soft, and eat it with butter, salt & pepper, and maybe sour cream.
I want to try this, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxUX7vgNGfM
I agree, and I said as much in my comment. But I don’t blame you for not reading that book.
Bokeh is the quality or feel of the out-of-focus parts of an image, and not the blurry parts themselves.
A lesson on bokeh that no one asked for
That quality is often due to the lens. So a photographer might ask, “How’s the bokeh on that lens when stopped down?” to mean “How good do out-of-focus parts of photos taken with that lens look with the aperture closed slightly? Are the dreamy and beautiful, or are they jagged or weird looking?”
The circles you are seeing in this image are called “circles of confusion”. It’s what an out-of-focus point of light looks like. If you think of every tiny part of a scene as a point of light, when those parts are out of focus, each point creates a circle like this, and they all overlap to create a blurry part of the photo. The brighter points create brighter circles and can become apparent even in fully lit scenes. Like sunlight coming through the gaps in leaves. And it super obvious when it’s like this image, where there were points of light and a black background. Although I don’t think this image is actually a photograph. I think it’s computer art.
So, I wouldn’t call this a bokeh photo because that term doesn’t really make sense. You can’t photograph the quality of a blur. It’s just something the photo has. Of course, language is fluid, and you can call it whatever you want. If you call it a “circle of confusion photo”, photographers will think you’re smart, but everyone else will think you’re weird. 😄
Different optics and different shapes of lens apertures can create distinct types of bokeh. In some poorly designed lenses, the edges of each circle of confusion can be brighter than the center, causing a poor bokeh.
The shape of the aperture is very important to the bokeh. When most lenses’ apertures are wide open, the circles of confusion are perfectly round, but when they are partially closed (“stopped down”), cheaper lenses with 5-bladed apertures make obvious pentagons, while expensive lenses strive to maintain a very circular aperture by using many blades with complex curves, or at least octagons. The cheaper lenses make blurry sections of the photo look edgy and rough, while a high-quality aperture makes out-of-focus sections look dreamy and smooth, even when not wide open. They have “better bokeh”.
Here’s an example of a photograph taken with a lens that has a nine-bladed aperture, taking an out-of-focus picture while being stopped down. It makes the shape of the aperture obvious.
Here’s a photo below showing the bokeh of one lens at many different f-stops. F/1.7 is wide open for this lens, so every other picture is stopped down. The circles of confusion in this example are not circles because they are near the corner of the photo. They are being partially eclipsed by the of the lens itself. Notice how f/2 shows somewhat eclipsed heptagons, but at f/2.8 they don’t appear to be eclipsed anymore. This is because the the “circles” of confusion have gotten too small to be eclipsed anymore.
Also notice that at f/11 you can easily make out some branches. The lens’ focus didn’t change, but the circles of confusion got so small that the background looks like it’s almost in focus. This is how depth-of-field is increased by stopping down the aperture. You’re not really making more things in focus, you’re just making some of the circles small enough that those areas appear to be in focus. How small they have to be depends on how large you print the image, and how far away from it you stand when looking at it. Those areas will never truly be in focus, but the circles of confusion can be so small that your eye can’t tell the difference, and parts of the photo that are close to the focus plane will be indistinguishable from the in-focus parts.
This is also exactly how a pinhole camera works. You don’t even need a lens to focus the light. A tiny pinhole as an aperture creates tiny circles of confusion on a sheet of film all by itself. Nothing is in focus, and yet everything is… sort of.
(From https://m43photo.blogspot.com/2010/09/bokeh-comparison-20mm.html)Here’s a series of photos that show the bokeh of a whole bunch of lenses. Most are good, but you can see subtle differences in their appearance.
So that’s what photographers mean when they say bokeh. They mean the quality of the out-of-focus parts of a photo, not the blurry parts themselves or the circles of confusion.
I like to watch Big Ole Words on YouTube. He’s a collector, and a player. He plays every game like he’s a kid and just got it for Christmas, and it’s the only new game he has. So, he tries really hard to find the fun in it. He has way, way more patience than I do, but he won’t tell you a game is good when it’s not. At least not from what I’ve seen.
I especially like the “games no one played” series of videos. I get to see exactly why no one played those games. 😄
4·2 months agoOf course it’s not! What did you expect, someone to post a 300 DPI image on the internet so you can print it at home?
The average movie poster is 27x40". At 300 DPI, thats 97 megapixels! You expected someone on Lemmy to post a 97 megapixel image?
And since that’s not what you got, you call it “10 pixels”? You sound like a spoiled child.
It’s even worse than I thought. I thought your Lemmy client was having issues, or your web browser. Turns out you have ridiculous demands.
What the heck are you talking about? You can even read the fine print.
(Very zoomed in screenshot)
I can almost count the hairs in his beard.
(Resized 3x in a photo editor so you can count the pixels)
Whatever the problem is, it’s on your end.
Even developing the next generation isn’t a guarantee of success.
The Commodore 128 was a failure. It was far superior to the 64, but they made it backwards compatible by literally embedding a Commodore 64 inside. Software developers just kept developing for the 64.
On the other hand, backward compatibility has worked well for Nintendo and Sony.
12·3 months agoThe source is some old “Top 10 Oldies Myths” article from About.com. Never cite wikipedia. Cite the source. https://web.archive.org/web/20140711194805/http://oldies.about.com/od/oldieshistory/a/oldiesmyths.htm
And that source doesn’t say anything about light sensitivity.
Roy did have eyeglasses to correct his vision, but they were quite normal; en route to an Alabama concert, however, he accidentally left them on the plane. The only other pair he had were prescription sunglasses, so he wore those instead. The very next day Roy was scheduled to open up a European Beatles tour, and there was no time to go find his old pair, so the dark shades stayed on him throughout the tour. The resultant frenzy of Beatlemania ensured that the singer would be seen throughout the world in that pair; by the time he returned home, it was a trademark.
Not that I necessarily believe anything in such an article.
In all my years, I’ve never heard a single person say they ever thought he was blind. I have a really hard time believing this was ever commonly believed.
I’m not disputing that you might have believed it and that some other people might have believed it, too. It’s just, I doubt it was a common thing.
Yes, we know Google is blind, duh.
This is food porn, not tiny little cabinet porn.
You’ll never guess where nevertheless comes from!
Not water. Soup.