# Do you think technology will advance enough for... (low light; noise reduction)



## prodigy2k7 (Mar 5, 2009)

Do you think in the future, pixel size wont matter much? Where my XTi can use ISO 6400 with same performance of Nikon D3?

I dont like to use ISO 800 or higher on my XTi, its pretty bad...

When do you think there will be a time (if ever?) that smaller pixels can some how gather a higher percentage of the light available?

Just a thought, could be an interesting discussion IMO.

Thanks


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 5, 2009)

The day that an XTI will compare to a D3 in low noise?  Not in this lifetime.

As far as technology... its a never stopping process.  There are already technologies that are available that can take a users to uber clean 6-digit ISO settings... but is it available to the masses?  Not yet.

Like *EVERY* technology out there, they release it out in trickles and small spurts so that they can sell more units to more people over a longer time.  If they released a 100mp camera tomorrow that could take ISO 256,000 as clean as a D3x at ISO 100... they would sell TONS fewer than if they released 20 interim models over 5 years, each slowly leading up to this.

Intel does the same.  I was living in Texas and visited the Intel main offices in Dallas in 2002, I have a non-disclosure hanging over my head, but let me say that I saw fully functioning SINGLE CPU units that make your average 16 CPU processors look like turtles.  They also mentioned to me that it was coming out likely sometime in 2020-2025, and at least 15-25 slower variants before that.

Car manufacturers do the same... right now, even in this dying economy, GM and Ford know what models are coming out in 4-5 years... it's already designed, penned and set in concrete.  The only thing that they do not know is volume.

Camera technology is no different in this manner.


----------



## Overread (Mar 5, 2009)

yah Jerry summed it up.
The budget cameras are always going to be hobbled and canon do this quite strongly too - but even at the 1D end of the scale the upgrades are slow. Its mostly defined by the market leader as to what the standard is  and for a long time that was canon (first IS etc..) however Nikon have pushed things recently so it will be interesting to see how canon (and the other makers) react to this.

It also seems as if quite a few newer companies are jumping onto the DSLR bandwagon and trying to hack out their own turf - electronic viewfinders and other little differences are creeping in.


----------



## Slaphead (Mar 5, 2009)

I dunno guys, give it 8-10 years then I think the entry level DSLR's will at least equal, if not better, the D3 in terms of hi ISO image quality. Look how far things have come in the last 10 years.

Of course the future entry level cameras will be hobbled, but they'll be hobbled in terms of the future high end cameras.

The biggest question I have at the moment is about the future of the crop sensor. IMHO I think that buying DX (or canons equivalent) lenses might be a mistake as Nikon, and I believe Canon, already have at least 2 camera models featuring full frame sensors. It's inevitable that that the full frame sensor will find its way into the midrange cameras, and maybe even entry level eventually.


----------



## Overread (Mar 5, 2009)

I must say - for printing - I don't like the canon 1.6 crop sensor.
Online images look fine, but in print they seem way too wide as a general rule - ok for landscape or portrates of horses (long face ) but in general it just seems too long


----------



## MikeBcos (Mar 5, 2009)

Slaphead said:


> I dunno guys, give it 8-10 years then I think the entry level DSLR's will at least equal, if not better, the D3 in terms of hi ISO image quality. Look how far things have come in the last 10 years.



I agree, in 10 years or so entry-level DSLRs will have quality at least equal to the D3, but by then the D11 or whatever it will be called, will far surpass that, it will be a 45MP camera capable of 64,000 ISO.


----------



## Overread (Mar 5, 2009)

hmm I don't know about the MPs though - at the moment the camera sensors of 20MP (and less) are outresolving current lenses - so I think a cap will be the advance of lens technologies - which is considerably slower than the advance of digital cameras.
This might be a good thing for us as it should force camera makers to look at other things to improve on the cameras whilst they update lenses - like getting more dynamic range and better high ISO values (without losing sharpness).


----------



## MikeBcos (Mar 5, 2009)

Overread said:


> hmm I don't know about the MPs though - at the moment the camera sensors of 20MP (and less) are outresolving current lenses - so I think a cap will be the advance of lens technologies - which is considerably slower than the advance of digital cameras.
> This might be a good thing for us as it should force camera makers to look at other things to improve on the cameras whilst they update lenses - like getting more dynamic range and better high ISO values (without losing sharpness).



Software within the camera will overcome lens issues, at least until some other method of refracting light is used instead of glass.

What I would really like is a pixel-less sensor, continuous tones with the image written as a vector file.

I can dream - right?


----------



## bigtwinky (Mar 5, 2009)

The future of ISO sensitivity can be summed up IMO in two words: black silicone

While still years away from commercial use, it was discovered by accident and is 100 to 500 times more sensitive to light than a traditional silicon wafer.

As with anything else, when it makes its debut, it will only be in high end cameras.  But hey, I remember a day when only high end cards had A/C, or ABS or even air bags.  

Black Silicon: Black Silicon Discovery Could Change Digital Photography, Night Vision Forever



> With the accidental discovery of "black silicon," Harvard physicists may have very well changed the digital photography, solar power and night vision industries forever. What is black silicon, you say? Well, it's just as it sounds. Black silicon. It's what this revolutionary new material _does_ that's important, starting with light sensitivity. Early indications show black silicon is 100 to 500 times more sensitive to light than a traditional silicon wafer.
> 
> To create the special silicon, Harvard physicist Eric Mazur shined a super powerful laser onto a silicon wafer. The laser's output briefly matches all the energy produced by the sun falling onto the Earth's entire surface at a given moment in time. To spice the experiment up, he also had researchers apply sulfur hexafluoride, which the semiconductor industry uses to make etchings in silicon for circuitry. Seriously, he did this just for kicks and to secure more funding for an old project.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steph (Mar 5, 2009)

Overread said:


> I must say - for printing - I don't like the canon 1.6 crop sensor.
> Online images look fine, but in print they seem way too wide as a general rule - ok for landscape or portrates of horses (long face ) but in general it just seems too long



:scratch: I don't get this comment. Canon's APS sensor and full frame sensor have the same aspect ratios (3:2).


----------



## Overread (Mar 5, 2009)

sshh I don't have full frame to complain about


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 5, 2009)

...


----------



## brianT (Mar 5, 2009)

Engineers and scientists CAN build amazing technology today (such as JerryPH's Intel CPU example), but selling it as consumer products is another thing.

There's laboratory computers capable of unbelievable power, vehicles that can run for thousands of miles without a drop of gasoline, and probably cameras with much more dynamic range than anything else made before.

However, to sell technologies as consumer products, they must be able to manufacture these things at reasonable costs (even factoring in economy of scale), and sometimes (and most likely) re-tool manufacturing plants.  Also, products must be able to operate under a range of conditions of the weather to usability.  And they must be durable enough to last atleast up to or beyond the warranty.  Additionally, marketing breakthrough technologies is a big task.  There's been many vehicles that were beyond their time, but didn't sell.

So as a result of these factors, we get products that are released in stages over time.


----------



## Overread (Mar 5, 2009)

don't underestimate the power of the marketing devision - if you ever have a look at the firmwire hacks out for many lower level cameras you can see that even with existing technologies things are held back from the original design in order to promote the sale of higher profit products.
I do not doubt that things are held back form us - partly as you say manufacturing processes and resources often have to be changed and prepared - but also because the marketing devision have their hand in things


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 5, 2009)

...


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 5, 2009)

bjorkfiend said:


> I have to say that I do not agree at all with this sort of talk.  There is certainly a huge gap between consumer-level technology and lab technology but that gap cannot be explained by strategic marketing.  All computing industries are governed by the capabilities of their hardware and it would be folly for hardware designers to not release market-ready equipment to the end users.
> 
> Rather, this equipment is simply not ready for large scale use.



I disagree, and if I did not have a non-disclosure clause with my name on it, I could *easily* prove it.  

Everyone *knows* that it takes more than a year to design and manufacture a single automobile... hell they prepare the manufacturing line a MINIMUM of *2* years in advance for coming lines of cars (3 years in advance if you are Honda, Hyundai or Kia).  

They do that so that the "current" year cars are ready and in production on the September of the *YEAR BEFORE* their year of designation (ie 2010 production cars are already being mass produced in September 2009)!

Now how could they possibly do this if the designs were not already ratified and finalized YEARS in advance?  They could not.  I have had access to insider info on the Chevrolet "Blue Devil" Z06 Corvette since 2002... strange that it is just next year (2010) released!  That's 8 years of knowing the EXACT detail of the car... from HP output, to final looks, available colours... everything.  How is that possible if it was not finalized YEARS ago?  It could not be.

Trust me, camera companies are already working not one generation ahead, but a *minimum* of 2-4 generations ahead.  Intel has a 10 generation line all ready to release and go into production tomorrow if it was financially worth it for them to do... obviously, its not, so they don't do it.  Keep them stringing along, its the financially SMART thing to do!

Its not a very smart company that doesn't think ahead... but not to worry, these companies last about 1-2 generations of their product before going bankrupt, thats why you don't see many of them in the first place.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 5, 2009)

bjorkfiend said:


> These companies spend tons of money in R&D to bring these products to fruition and, if they are market-ready, they will certainly be available at some price.



Trust me, nothing that is market ready is realeased immediately unless it is the first year of that company's existance.  Everything after that is a loooooong well through out process and the high tech industries are the ones with a nice deep closet of goodies all ready for us years in advance.  They know exactly how to pull that last penny out of our pockets... or they die, so they play the game VERY well. 

Intel will NOT release one generation faster than planned, ready or not, it is financial suicide.  They are also working very closely with partners like Microsoft, to always maintain a balance.  Ever wonder why it always takes about the same amount of time to boot a computer or an application TODAY that it did 12-15 years ago?  You would HOPE that a XT computer would be slower to boot than a quad core, wouldn't you?  Do the test... and then tell me also why in the "old days" we needed 250k to have an operating system vs the minimum hardware requirements of 20 *GIG* for Windows Vista's operating systen requirements!

People see this every day of their lives in almost anything marketed... I am continually surprised that people cannot see the truth of the matter.  Microsoft are masters at pulling the public by the nose an inch at a time.  Remember the famous Windows NT5?  I had a copy of that on my computer back in 1989... so why was it released as Windows 2000 in 2001?

I have examples after examples that prove this.


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 5, 2009)

bjorkfiend said:


> These companies spend tons of money in R&D to bring these products to fruition and, if they are market-ready, they will certainly be available at some price.


 
I'll have to go with Jerry on this one. It's not just the technology industry, I see happen a LOT in the construction arena as well. Most of the time, leaps in technology are just that...LEAPS. Then the industries figure out how to release those leaps in increments for the people/companies who want the best in everything, so they are constantly buying the best of what comes out.

What do you think makes a surveying instrument company more money....releasing the GPS unit that is accurate to .001' for $50,000, or come out with increments to that end for $30,000 each over 3 or 4 steps.


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 5, 2009)

...


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 5, 2009)

The feasibility, market and technology were there before the first iPhone was released to have a 3G, bluetooth, large SSD iPhone and don't think for a minute otherwise that the rollout was 95.234% marketting based. There are very few industries (my background is in technology publishing, it's horrid there) where the lastest-and-greatest, even if fiscally viable, will be in the public hands.

They're damned good at creating the perception that it is, though.


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 5, 2009)

...


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 5, 2009)

No, only about 8 in the case of the iPhone, but it's not terribly short either.


----------



## AlexColeman (Mar 5, 2009)

It all boils down to how much more money they can make by spreading it out over 2x the releases, and 4x the total profit.


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 5, 2009)

...


----------



## djacobox372 (Mar 5, 2009)

Overread said:


> hmm I don't know about the MPs though - at the moment the camera sensors of 20MP (and less) are outresolving current lenses - so I think a cap will be the advance of lens technologies - which is considerably slower than the advance of digital cameras.
> This might be a good thing for us as it should force camera makers to look at other things to improve on the cameras whilst they update lenses - like getting more dynamic range and better high ISO values (without losing sharpness).



That's a bit misleading--while true that 20mp is pushing the envelope on lens resolution *AT 35MM*, but a cheapo medium format film camera with a 50yo lens can squeeze out much more detail than a 24mp d3x. 

The next evolutionary step of photography = cameras capable of shooting 1000+ photos per second, allowing hdr processing to be done in camera with hand-held shots.


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 5, 2009)

bjorkfiend said:


> 8 years is a pretty long time in the world of technology.  What do you think Apple was waiting for in their release?  Was the 3G infrastructure in place that whole time?
> 
> Since the 3G variant of the iPhone showed itself only a year after the initial version was released this would mean that you're saying that Apple was sitting on a completed, market ready 3G version 7 years prior to the release of the non-3G version?  Since Apple had no other cellular solution to milk prior to the iPhone's release it doesn't make much sense that this decision was purely based on marketing.
> 
> I don't mean to be combantant; I'd sincerely like to know what they were thinking if that is true.



The technology at that size was available. The 3G network was small, the price point would have been higher but they'd have turned a profit even with a teeny network. If they were really smart they would have either rolled out the 3G first or wait a few years so as not to tick off their customers. It's quite at the outer extents, but they had the ball rolling on that many years before it was released. 

Obviously they waited so they could not just enter the market, but to conquer it and take over the world! *evillaugh*


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 5, 2009)

> allowing hdr processing to be done in camera with hand-held shots



I can't wait for the day... SOOC purists are going to explode in little tiny puffs of logic.


----------



## skieur (Mar 5, 2009)

Overread said:


> hmm I don't know about the MPs though - at the moment the camera sensors of 20MP (and less) are outresolving current lenses - so I think a cap will be the advance of lens technologies - which is considerably slower than the advance of digital cameras.
> This might be a good thing for us as it should force camera makers to look at other things to improve on the cameras whilst they update lenses - like getting more dynamic range and better high ISO values (without losing sharpness).


 
They did however develop a gigapixel camera chip last year, so the pixel wars will continue.  Obviously lens design will need to be more innovative to benefit from the pixel wars.

skieur


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 5, 2009)

bjorkfiend said:


> I'm not sure what you are intending to say here so I will only say that, though computer performance has increased dramatically in the last 15 years, software requirements are always one step ahead.  Install CS4 on that XT machine and I think the performance increase should be apparent.
> 
> I find it interesting that I am a software developer by trade yet I have to come to a photography forum to argue about technology.  Thanks folks!



Computer performance HAS drastically improved, what I am saying is that software has also equally ballooned and slowed down the performance to keep the balance.  I doubt you will get CS4 to run on an XT machine becuase they usually maxed out at speeds about 500 times slower than that of the latest speed demons and had the ability to support *at most* a massive 640K of memory (no typo)... so suffice to say, your CS4 won't even LOAD much less run on XT type machines, I won't even mention that this was the day where there was NO mouse support and no operating systems that even used a mouse, becuase everything was command-line oriented.

My point was that the time to do similar tasks 15 years ago vs today is the same.  It still takes 2 minutes to boot a PC, it takes *MUCH LONGER* today to turn off a PC, it still takes 5-10 seconds to load a word processing application and it still takes 5 seconds to send a 5-page print job to a printer.  These are approximates, of course, but this is the point I was making.  Where are the improvements you speak of?

In all that time, all we have REALLY improved is the interface.  Wow, what progress (if you really want to call Vista's AERO interface "progress").  

The day I need to increase RAM from 1 gig to 2 gig, increase GPU RAM from 32mb to 128 (MINIMUM, 256 suggested) and increase hard drive space used by the operating system from 5 gig to 20gig, increase processor speed 25% (without AERO, make that 35% if AERO is used)... JUST TO MATCH THE PERFORMANCE of the older system, you know there is something obviously wrong.  I am now, in the last paragraph talking only about the differences between Windows XP and Windows Vista.  On top of that, 90% of my client's 2 year or older custom applications, DO NOT RUN under Vista (but just fly under XP).  

Again... wow, what progress.

If you are a software developer, you will know that Vista will not reliably run custom complex applications that are coded using .NET 1, 1.1 or .NET 2.  Ever wonder why there wasn't much if any backwards compatibility there?  Becuase they knew Vista was coming and that they would be forced to pay for newer, more complex, slower, more demanding applications... and that the customers would be forced to purchase them... again.

See the vicious ring a little clearer now?


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 5, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> I can't wait for the day... SOOC purists are going to explode in little tiny puffs of logic.



ROFL... in that sense, this aspect never changes.  We're all going to be "that old stuffy photographer that wants to do things the OLD WAY..."  one day ourselves.


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 5, 2009)

...


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 5, 2009)

> I think your view is a bit cynical, however.



Jerry, Cynical?


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 5, 2009)

...


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 5, 2009)

Well, I was in Dallas and I did see where Kennedy was shot... and I say it was aliens... *communist* aliens.

Make of that what you will... lol.


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 5, 2009)

...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Mar 6, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> My point was that the time to do similar tasks 15 years ago vs today is the same.  It still takes 2 minutes to boot a PC, it takes *MUCH LONGER* today to turn off a PC, it still takes 5-10 seconds to load a word processing application and it still takes 5 seconds to send a 5-page print job to a printer.  These are approximates, of course, but this is the point I was making.  Where are the improvements you speak of?




Actually,  i would like to point out there are plenty of advancements...
My 7 year old computer, 1.8GHZ intel celeron was a piece of crap, it took 2 full minutes to load CS4, i just recently got a new computer, it loads CS4 in 2 seconds flat 

I have seen just in the last few months, prices drop in memory... 4 gigs of DDR2 memory is cheap these days...

The prices certainly have dropped a lot...

Besides prices, hardware is going very well too, Intel took off pretty well since the core 2 family came out. a computer today for $1,000 cost about $1500 probably a year ago, and even more a year before that..

Edit: my boot time is also really fast


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 6, 2009)

prodigy2k7 said:


> My 7 year old computer, 1.8GHZ intel celeron was a piece of crap, it took 2 full minutes to load CS4, i just recently got a new computer, it loads CS4 in 2 seconds flat



That's funny, becuase my XT loaded Corel Draw 1 in 1.5 seconds... and that was "state of the art" in it's time too, so... nope, try again. 



prodigy2k7 said:


> I have seen just in the last few months, prices drop in memory... 4 gigs of DDR2 memory is cheap these days...



But back then, all we needed was 640k, not 4 or 8 or 16 gigs of RAM, so, how much did 640k (the maximum amount installable at the time) of RAM cost vs the 16gig of RAM that is the maximum on my current PC?  I'd be ahead about $125 in the "old days".  See what I mean?



prodigy2k7 said:


> Besides prices, hardware is going very well too, Intel took off pretty well since the core 2 family came out. a computer today for $1,000 cost about $1500 probably a year ago, and even more a year before that.



Trust me, you will need each byte of RAM and every penny for that quad core for the next big software release, becuase it will make your current speed demon into one huge sludge-fest.



prodigy2k7 said:


> Edit: my boot time is also really fast


Is it less than 1.5 seconds?  Thats all it took to boot DOS on a bad day.   ...oh, did you notice that it takes longer to get through the POST today than it did back in the 80s?    Now the BIOS has to enumerate all the hardware for PnP, and since that did not exist in the old days, thats a good 5-10 seconds saved right there.

Shut down... a joke.  With an XT, if there is no app running, flip the switch...DONE.

Software functionality, OS functionality have increased, technical specifications keep rising, but I sure do not see anyone completing ANY of the tasks faster today than they took 20 years ago.

Hardware and software bloating keeps things status quo.


----------



## Early (Mar 6, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Like *EVERY* technology out there, they release it out in trickles and small spurts so that they can sell more units to more people over a longer time.  If they released a 100mp camera tomorrow that could take ISO 256,000 as clean as a D3x at ISO 100... they would sell TONS fewer than if they released 20 interim models over 5 years, each slowly leading up to this.


They even go so far as to take away, then charge you to put it back.  I'm talking about how much sharper TV reception was back in the 80's and 90's, but now you have to pay extra for HD.


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 6, 2009)

...


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 6, 2009)

I am near done with this thread, but Ithink that the people who aren't afraid to open their eyes and see a healthy dose of reality know that I was not only correct, but correct on many levels.

I don't say that bjorkfiend is wrong, but I will say that she sees only one small (maybe 5-6 year?) time segment of the process, whereas I've been in this game since the late 70's.  When I started, there was no public internet (heck our school had NOT ONE computer, we were taught to type on IBM typewritters!!), we sent messages from one side of the world to the other via teams of relayed computers connected via 300 baud modems.  It took about a week to 10 days to get a message from Montreal Canada to Munich Germany.

There is also a healthy amount of marketing that I've been involved in, and indeed a part of (I was one of the first original Canadian team members who introduced Lotus 1-2-3 to Canada about 3 months after it came out in the USA).  I was part of the marketing team that introduced "Hydra" (now known as Terminal Server to all you more up to date people) across Canada in the late 1990s.  I also have a passion for cars... I mentioned Corvettes... I've been to the Corvette museum and then been on private tours of the Corvette plant in Bowling Green (KY not MO), no less than 6 times, and have a few connections at GM in the marketing departments that "share" choice tidbits with me from time to time.

This is part of what I know what I know and why I can tell you, that it is a naive person (not a lack of intelligence, mind you, just someone that's lacking experience and insight into the "real" way things work behind closed doors), that thinks that things are just made up and sold on the same day in today's markets.

Someone mentioned Black Silicone.  I wonder how many camera manufacturers are already deep in research preparing the foundation for a camera that can take pictures as bright as day without noise at 0-1 lux?  The smart money is saying that ALL the big ones are at the very least doing so very serious looking into this technology... just as car manufacturers are planning 2-3 generations ahead.  The "Mako Shark" 'Vette of the mid 60s came out as the Sting Ray of 1970s (yet another example of advanced planning). 

I could go on and on and on, but in the end, it doesn't matter... one just believes what they want... very few *really* know... unless they've been there.  I've been there and back... a few times and am not afraid to play the same game to my advantage that the marketing teams are playing with the general "buying" public. 



			
				Early said:
			
		

> They even go so far as to take away, then charge you to put it back. I'm talking about how much sharper TV reception was back in the 80's and 90's, but now you have to pay extra for HD.



Meh... thats easy.  Here is a better one... how many US available cars in 1982-1988 did 50MPG or higher?  47 (winner being the deisle Rabbit at 50mpg city, 67mpg highway).  How many cars in 2009 can do 50MPG or higher?  4... and the 2008 Jetta deisel is struggling to make  37mpg on the highway!

Why could the hybrid cars of 3 years ago do 63MPG yet today those SAME MODELS barely eek out 38MPG?  Because they are already planning and controlling the markets getting ready for... raised prices and increased profits.

It's all about the holy dollar, and the faster people realize that, the sooner they won't get played as easily. 

I'm outta here... nice convo!


----------



## rufus5150 (Mar 6, 2009)

> Why could the hybrid cars of 3 years ago do 63MPG yet today those SAME MODELS barely eek out 38MPG?



Actually, I read somewhere (fairly) recently that they had gone back and re-rated many of the hybrids because the system and assumptions they used to rate the MPG incredibly unrealistic.

Here it is, but doesn't quite explain a 63-38 gap:

New MPG Ratings Hurt Hybrids | Autopia from Wired.com


----------



## MikeBcos (Mar 6, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Meh... thats easy.  Here is a better one... how many US available cars in 1982-1988 did 50MPG or higher?  47 (winner being the deisle Rabbit at 50mpg city, 67mpg highway).  How many cars in 2009 can do 50MPG or higher?  4... and the 2008 Jetta deisel is struggling to make  37mpg on the highway!
> 
> Why could the hybrid cars of 3 years ago do 63MPG yet today those SAME MODELS barely eek out 38MPG?  Because they are already planning and controlling the markets getting ready for... raised prices and increased profits.
> 
> ...



This is due more to the fact that fuel economy is measured differently now, in 1984 the EPA adjusted its method of testing which reduced reported figures by 22%. In 2008 and did the same thing, taking another 12% off those figures. I doubt that many cars from 1982 could actually do 50mpg.

The 2009 Jetta TDI is rated 41mpg, using the methods the EPA used to calculate economy in 1982 that would have been rated at about 54mpg.

Regulatory Announcement: EPA Proposes New Test Methods for Fuel Economy Window Stickers | Fuel Economy | US EPA


----------



## MikeBcos (Mar 6, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> Actually, I read somewhere (fairly) recently that they had gone back and re-rated many of the hybrids because the system and assumptions they used to rate the MPG incredibly unrealistic.
> 
> Here it is, but doesn't quite explain a 63-38 gap:
> 
> New MPG Ratings Hurt Hybrids | Autopia from Wired.com



The Prius has been rated 45mpg since 2006, I have yet to find a vehicle that was rated 63mpg three years ago that is now rated 38mpg. The closest I have come is the Honda Insight ar 58mpg in 2006 but that is no longer manufactured.


----------



## TimothyHughes (Mar 6, 2009)

Slaphead said:


> I dunno guys, give it 8-10 years then I think the entry level DSLR's will at least equal, if not better, the D3 in terms of hi ISO image quality. Look how far things have come in the last 10 years.



Sooner than 8 years. I just read an article on the micro 4/3rds system which is coming along nicely. Low noise, high pixel density sensors are getting exponentially better every year due to the r&d funds going into the compact point and shoot market segment.


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 6, 2009)

...


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 6, 2009)

Ah, I'm sincerely sorry! Also have to tell you then, that your better half is likely prettier than you are.  As a side note, when I had the yellow cockateil bird avatar... that wasn't me either... lol.



MikeBcos said:


> This is due more to the fact that fuel economy is measured differently now, in 1984 the EPA adjusted its method of testing which reduced reported figures by 22%. In 2008 and did the same thing, taking another 12% off those figures. I doubt that many cars from 1982 could actually do 50mpg.



Thanks Mike, though I am sure that explains some of it, but still doesn't explain a drop from 63 to 35mpg for the Prius hybrid.  Anyways, its not like the EPA ratings were something even vaguely accurate anyways... lol


----------



## schumionbike (Mar 6, 2009)

At least we know that Jerry do not discriminate against women being software engineer.  I heard a story once where one of the big corporate officer at Texas Instrument walk up to a guy at a banquet to congrat him on being selected as a TI Fellow ( I don't know what that is but apparently it's a big deal).  The person who received TI Fellow was actually his wife.  

As far as the technology go, I don't know, I think the development is going to slow down though.  I mean does anyone really a camera that is noiseless at 25,600 ISO? It seam like most people are happy with the D3 performance.  Maybe if the D3X could get faster and get less noise but the number of peole that required that kind of megapixel isn't alot and they probably aren't shooting sport either.  I'm sure there is but there won't be enough demand to justify it.  I'm sure in 1910 cars are breaking speed record everyday.  Not so much any more...the need to go 250 mph isn't there.  So in short, no, an XTI probably won't get to the D3 performance, most consumer just simply don't need or care for it.  If you're a pro, you'll be willing to pay for the best and will pay a premium for the best technology.


----------



## bjorkfiend (Mar 6, 2009)

...


----------



## Parkerman (Mar 7, 2009)

schumionbike said:


> At least we know that Jerry do not discriminate against women being software engineer.  I heard a story once where one of the big corporate officer at Texas Instrument walk up to a guy at a banquet to congrat him on being selected as a TI Fellow ( I don't know what that is but apparently it's a big deal).  The person who received TI Fellow was actually his wife.
> 
> As far as the technology go, I don't know, I think the development is going to slow down though.  I mean does anyone really a camera that is noiseless at 25,600 ISO? It seam like most people are happy with the D3 performance.  Maybe if the D3X could get faster and get less noise but the number of peole that required that kind of megapixel isn't alot and they probably aren't shooting sport either.  I'm sure there is but there won't be enough demand to justify it.  I'm sure in 1910 cars are breaking speed record everyday.  Not so much any more...the need to go 250 mph isn't there.  So in short, no, an XTI probably won't get to the D3 performance, most consumer just simply don't need or care for it.  If you're a pro, you'll be willing to pay for the best and will pay a premium for the best technology.




There will always be a need for better low light performance.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Mar 11, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> That's funny, becuase my XT loaded Corel Draw 1 in 1.5 seconds... and that was "state of the art" in it's time too, so... nope, try again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Apples and Oranges, you cant compare DOS to Windows vista, The only reason DOS loads faster is because its so simple compared to vista. The software is way more complex in vista.
You don't compare hardware, by changing the software...

"I'd be ahead about $125 in the "old days".  See what I mean?"
No I dont see what you mean...

"Trust me, you will need each byte of RAM and every penny for that quad core for the next big software release, becuase it will make your current speed demon into one huge sludge-fest."

Na, im still good for a few years. 

"Shut down... a joke.  With an XT, if there is no app running, flip the switch...DONE."

Are you talking about the "XT" from canon? The camera?
Thats because its one piece of software, designed to do 1 thing, windows is more user friendly and has a more complex GUI, it has to close all the programs first... If you wanted to, you could press the POWER button to turn it off faster if you wish... A camera, your basically just cutting the power, since there is no reason to do stuff before it shuts off, a PC does stuff before it shuts down...


Edit: There are some bottlenecks due to HDDs being slow, but other than that, how can you say hardware HASEN'T advanced?
Go try some video editing and encoding, tell me when its done in 2048, then post results
gg


----------



## MikeBcos (Mar 11, 2009)

prodigy2k7 said:


> "Shut down... a joke.  With an XT, if there is no app running, flip the switch...DONE."
> 
> Are you talking about the "XT" from canon? The camera?



No, he's talking about computers, pre x86 computers, IBM 8088 and 8089 systems, the 8088 was my first real PC, although I had owned Atari and Sinclair computers for many years before that.


----------



## Dao (Mar 11, 2009)

MikeBcos said:


> No, he's talking about computers, pre x86 computers, IBM 8088 and 8089 systems, the 8088 was my first real PC, although I had owned Atari and Sinclair computers for many years before that.



My first computer had a 6502 CPU.  And then I added a Z-80 processor card to run CPM.


----------



## MikeBcos (Mar 11, 2009)

Dao said:


> My first computer had a 6502 CPU.  And then I added a Z-80 processor card to run CPM.



That just shows how much older than me you are.


----------



## Dao (Mar 11, 2009)

MikeBcos said:


> That just shows how much older than me you are.




hahaha  LOL:lmao:


You know, I learned how to use computer when I was a baby.


----------

