> while it makes sense for DM's, it makes less sense for group chats, which, being real time, make the shelf life of messages a bit short.
Neither are real time once you introduce delayed communication. Not sure I see the distinction.
Actually, I'd argue that unreliable transport breaks the real-time assumption even without introducing delayed communication. Is there immediate feedback if your message can't reach it's destination?
Edit: As I'm digging, this seems to be focused on stereoscopic video as opposed to actual point clouds. It appears applications like cinematic mode use a monocular depth map, and their lidar outputs raw point cloud data.
A LIDAR point cloud from a single point of view is a mono-ocular depth map. Unless the LIDAR in question is like, using supernova level gamma rays or neutrino generators for the laser part to get density and albedo volumetric data for its whole distance range.
You just can't see the back of a thing by knowing the shape of the front side with current technologies.
Right! My terminology may be imprecise here, but I believe there is still an important distinction:
The depth map stored for image processing is image metadata, meaning it calculates one depth per pixel from a single position in space. Note that it doesn't have the ability to measure that many depth values, so it measures what it can using LIDAR and focus information and estimates the rest.
On the other hand, a point cloud is not image data. It isn't necessarily taken from a single position, in theory the device could be moved around to capture addition angles, and the result is a sparse point cloud of depth measurements. Also, raw point cloud data doesn't necessarily come tagged with point metadata such as color.
I also note that these distinctions start to vanish when dealing with video or using more than one capture device.
No, LIDAR data are necessarily taken from a single position. They are 3D, but literally single eyed. You can't tell from LIDAR data if you're looking at a half-cut apple or an intact one. This becomes obvious the moment you tried to rotate a LIDAR capture - it's just the skin. You need depth maps from all angles to reconstruct the complete skin.
So you have to have minimum two for front and back of a dancer. Actually, the seams are kind of dubious so let's say three 120 degrees apart. Well we need ones looking down as well as up for baggy clothing, so more like nine, 30 degrees apart vertically and 120 degrees horizontally, ...
and ^ this will go far down enough that installing few dozens of identical non-Apple cameras in a monstrous sci-fi cage starts making a lot more sense than an iPhone, for a video.
Probably, but humanity doesn't seem to have the luxury of rejecting anything in total, and I'm not convinced the attempts are working.
When Scott was rejected he was immediately given a platform by Fox news. Our current regime was rejected quite thoroughly across a number of platforms (the Republican primary, Twitter, Congress, etc.) but here we stand.
That's how the earliest color photography worked. "Making color separations by reloading the camera and changing the filter between exposures was inconvenient", notes Wikipedia.
I think they are both more asking about 'per pixel color filters'; that is, something like a sensor filter/glass but the color separators could change (at least 'per-line') fast enough to get a proper readout of the color in formation.
AKA imagine a camera with R/G/B filters being quickly rotated out for 3 exposures, then imagine it again but the technology is integrated right into the sensor (and, ideally, the sensor and switching mechanism is fast enough to read out with rolling shutter competitive with modern ILCs)
Your link isn’t working for me but the IPCC middle of the road scenario has 10in by 2100 and past IPCC middle of the road estimates from the 90s have so far turned out to be reasonably accurate predictions.
After digging into it a bit to find a better source for you, it turns out that my number was wrong anyway. Turns out the sea level rise for the contiguous US is expected to be quite a bit higher than the global average. I had no idea!
That said, I don't think they assume our emissions trend from the last 50 years will continue unabated.
Neither are real time once you introduce delayed communication. Not sure I see the distinction.
Actually, I'd argue that unreliable transport breaks the real-time assumption even without introducing delayed communication. Is there immediate feedback if your message can't reach it's destination?
reply