netjeff.com

Suppose you have a lot of photos all with the same object in them, or photos from the same area.  Navigating the photos as thumbnails doesn't work very well when you have more than a handful of photos.

A Univ of Washington team has a demonstration of a system for navigating the photos in 3D.  The system computes the relationship between the camera position among all the photos, then allows you to "zoom in" on the object by finding another photo that is closer.  Or it allows you to "circle around" an object by finding photos to the left and right.

This system does not attempt to stitch photos into seamless panorama, nor does it attempt to build a complete virtual 3D world.  But the effect is almost that good.

They've produced a 5 minute video demonstrating their system (Flash).  Scroll down on the page for a description of the system.  You You can also get all the details on the team's main project page.   Microsoft Research has some beta software based on the UW research (I haven't tried it out yet).

There's lots of discussion about whether DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) is a good thing or a bad thing.  But most of the debate assumes that the idea of DRM is actually possible.  In this Slashdot posting, Eustace Tilly summarized the fundamental fallacy of DRM (my emphasis added):

[DRM relies on cryptography, and] cryptography is designed so that a message from A can be read by B but not by C. With DRM, B and C are the same person.  The message from A (the publisher) must be readable by B (the consumer) but not by C (the consumer).

I hope you understand now why DRM is a concept flawed in its fundamentals.

DRM would be useful. So would a perpetual motion machine. It is wishful thinking to believe that the sheer utility of a function means it is capable of being produced.

If you're shopping for an HDTV, is it worth it to pay more money for a set that supports higher resolution (at the same screen size)?

The latest digital TVs support different maximum resolutions: 480p (853×480), 720p (1280×720), & 1080p (1920×1080). The first resolution (480p) is typically referred to has "enhanced definition", while the last two (720 & 1080) are referred to as "high definition" (HDTV).

Digital TVs will down-convert higher resolution signals to the resolution that the TVs support. So a 480 set can still display a 1080 signal by down-converting the signal to display fewer pixels.

For the same screen size, higher resolution sets cost more money. Most people would assume that for a given screen size (say 40 inches), a 1080p set would be better than a 720p set. But depending on how far away you are sitting from the screen, you may not be able to see the difference in quality because the pixels will be too small. In that case you're wasting your money. So at what point are you wasting your money on pixels you won't be able to see?

Carlton Bale blogged on this question, and created a chart (see below). For a 40 inch TV, and sitting 8 feet away, most people will see the benefit of 720p over 480p. But most people will not see any additional benefit going to 1080p. So if you're buying a 40 inch TV and watching from 8 feet, it's a waste of money to pay more for a 1080p set.

Try Chris Spurgeon's solution:  A flash drive embedded in a regulation 16 pound bowling ball.  Seriously.

http://www.spurgeonworld.com/blog/archives/2006/11/no_more_misplac.html 

[Via Engadget]

Apple is talking to Eneco about using Eneco's solid-state cooling technology.

One interesting side-effect is that Eneco's cooling technology generates electricity. This could be especially appealing in laptops.  Two problems laptops must solve are dissipating waste-heat (cooling) and extending battery life.  Laptops could use Eneco's technology to both cool the laptop, and then use the electricity generated from the cooling to extend the battery life of the laptop.

Update: Slashdot picked up on Eneco's technology.  Two readers point out a similar technology back in 2002 from Cool Chips.  Unfortunately, Cool Chips seems to be stalled.   Hopefully Eneco will make better progress.

Update: ITWeek reports on a meeting where Eneco presented to potential investors.  Scroll two-thirds of the way down to read about some concerns the audience had regarding the commercialization of the technology. The ITWeek article concludes:

The lack of clarity on such fundamental design issues suggests it is likely to be some time before Eneco powered devices emerge. But if these issues can be overcome – and anyone with any experience of energy conversion technologies will tell you it remains a big if – the company does appear to have a truly disruptive technology that could deliver clean, cheap and efficient power to a raft of different industries.