Quote from geeman1 :

morpha said it pretty much. Games can be made to support all versions of dx, but you need two versions of the engine. One engine that is made with dx7/8/9 and another one that is made with dx10/11. Dx10 and up is not compatible to dx9 and earlier.

No longer the case with D3D11. As long as you stay with the feature subset that is supported by D3D9 cards (Shader Model 2 and a lot of limitations on what you can do with different formats and render target layouts), you can use the D3D11 API on D3D9-11 cards. This is new with D3D11, and was not possible in D3D10.

D3D11 will however only work on Vista+, so it's hardly an alternative for LFS in the foreseeable future.

Quote from fujiwara :

Thank you , thank you, thank you ...
You did this because you probably a nice person

Aw sucks...

I have to ask though, why on earth would you want such a horrible song translated? Are you one of those strange a-ha fans collecting everything Morten Harket has ever laid his hands on?

First of all; "oh god, why?"

Second, and I have no idea why I'm doing this, here's a translation from the lyrics of the video. It doesn't match up with your original text, but that seems to have been through a few non-Norwegian keyboards. It's hard to to a direct translation as you'll never get all the connotations right, but it's close.

There is still time.
We have courage, we are creative.
We will pull together. (literally "lift as a flock")
We are many, we are strong enough.

The future is ours.
Much excitement; much sorrow. (literally "many people cry")
Running away from yesterday.
The sky is burning, the earth is crying.

Bridge:
But the wind is whispering words of comfort (literally "good/nice words").
Of peace and freedom and a beloved earth.
We carry the potential (literally "sprout") that never dies.
For hope and life. We want. We dare.

Refrain:
There is still time.
We have courage, we are creative.
We will pull together.
We are many, we are strong enough.
Oh, there is still time.

Our attitude/position is clear.
We will sing, work, dance.
We will look for answers.
We will not be held back/stopped.

Bridge

Refrain

We are many, we are strong enough. x 8
We are many, there is still time.

Refrain

Last edited by wien, Tue 17 Nov 2009, 10:10.

So you basically want people here to help some POS spam site solve captchas so they can spam other sites? And you have to run a (no doubt virus infested) program to boot? Are you really this gullible?

Quote from Velociround :

I think we can almost say everything is suffering with this "NEW ERA MODE".

Its the same with films as well. They're so contrasty they're almost in primary colours. Heck, even photography suffers from it in many cases. It may be I have finally crossed the line into "old fart" and just not understanding the kids and their ways, but this seriously depresses me.

Last edited by wien, Tue 10 Nov 2009, 21:01.

Quote from Homeless_Drunk :

He was another Islamic extremist...and like I said it is difficult not to stereotype when they keep enforcing the stereotype.

And if you Americans didn't continue to enforce the "ignorant and angry" stereotype people might actually listen to what you have to say. At this point I don't think anyone gives a ****.

OpenCL (and The DirectX equivalent - Compute shaders), are basically completely new languages. They're both similar to C in syntax, but that's where the similarities end. The current C++ physics code from LFS would have to be completely rewritten to take advantage of either. Scawen would probably also need to re-jig the algorithms he has spent years developing to allow for the massively parallel execution model of these new languages. That's where the real tricky stuff comes in.

In the near future I think multi-threading would be a much more realistic goal in terms of speeding up the physics.

Quote from arco :

and how much work would it be to implement it in LFS?

Rewriting the entire physics engine? I'm sure that can be done in a jiffy. Could be useful for new developments like proper aerodynamics simulation though, but I'm not certain if even modern GPUs can do that at a high enough detail level to be useful (compared to faking it I mean).

Last edited by wien, Wed 4 Nov 2009, 19:41.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

I have no idea how these details could be processed in the engine like that.

The scene will be effectively be textured using the cubemap-frame from the recorded video that is closest to the point in space you're currently at in the simulation. View dependent effects like specular highlights (or "reflections" as they're called in the real world. ) will as such have been recorded in the video and be displayed semi-correctly as you move about.

I actually knew about the histogram, I just didn't realise how far you meant I should push it. Hmm, I really like the background actually looking white instead of blue, but at the same time I wanted to avoid the heavy contrast look on the bottle itself (the label is actually charcoal grey.) I'm sure that can be fixed though.

Meh, it's way too easy to see yourself blind on this stuff. Going back to my earlier attempts that I was totally happy with at the time I'm left wondering WTF I was thinking.

As for the highlights, I realise they look a bit silly. The strip lights look like a really good idea, but I don't think my two, totally awesome, 11W low-energy light bulbs can light through one of those. Next time (if I'm not chased out of Dodge thanks to these photos.)

Thanks for all your help. Really useful as a reality check.

Quote from spankmeyer :

Also when shooting product images, shoot it with a bit cooler white balance and linger on just the edge of burning highlights.

I twiddled the levels of the JPG a bit to experiment, and I think I like this a lot better. The blue tint to the background certainly helps. It's just miles from what actually came out of the camera and I was a bit afraid of pushing it too far.

Quote from spankmeyer :

Small suggestion that will make your lightbox shots much, much better if you're into that.

The glass is a really good idea. I thought about it to get the reflective "Apple" look, but it didn't occur to me to put a light underneath it. How would you handle the glass to background transition then? Just straight-line it, or maybe try to shop it away? Guess I'll just have to try and see how it turns out.

Thanks for your other advise as well. Slightly over my head, but I think I understand the theory at least. Time to crack open the camera manual again I think.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

I'd try to rent a dSLR and prime lens (probably a 50mm f/1.4) and charge it to the client. You won't get much better out of the FinePix if that's base ISO.

Yeah, I can' get it lower than ISO200. Renting is a good idea, but my quick search revealed no place that does that around here (fairly small town, at least by American standards). I may give Oslo a try if I'm desperate, but we'll see.

Quote from Tomba(FIN) :

That lightbox is awesome! I just have to try making one

Thanks. It's was dead simple to build and took me all of an hour to do. You just need a cardboard box and some stationary. Cut out three sides and cover the rest of the inside with some glossy white paper/cardboard. Then drape some white cloth or tracing paper over the holes, point some light at it and you're done.

Quote from Tomba(FIN) :

Buy a proper camera, if a pic comes so noisy as that with ISO200, you don't do nothing with a camera like that!

You can use photoshop though, search a plugin called noise ninja. It's quite good.

I'd love to buy a camera, but I can't afford one right now. Thanks for the tip about the plug-in though. That stuff is magic! Kinda pricey though, but I guess it's worth it.

Quote from Scott Mckenzie :

When I had finished watching the videos I felt like going to the local Chinese and taking a meat cleaver to their neck.

WTF does your local Chinese have to do with these videos? I don't think matching skin colour is enough evidence to place blame.

So, through no fault of my own, I've agreed to do some product photography for a client. Since I have no experience, talent or equipment nor money to buy experience, talent or equipment I'm completely out of my depth and thought I'd ask you lot for some advice.

So far I've built myself a light box out of spit and duct-tape:


...and taken a few test-shots (see attachment). They come out semi-all-right, but since the camera (a FinePix S7000) is just about pre-WW2, they are very grainy. The photos will apparently be used for print, so I'm worried they may be too grainy?

Is there anything obvious I can do to get a better result that doesn't involve spending a fortune on a proper camera? Is there something you see I'm doin' rong?

Please be gentle.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I wouldn't dream of going veggie.

Oh I'm right there with you. Either way that wasn't targeted at you, more the other posters above. I just get annoyed when people jump on any excuse to outrage about all those horrible people in other countries treating animals badly, while simultaneously chomping down on a steak or an egg produced under conditions pretty damn similar, right in their own back yard.

When they've improved conditions in their own, obnoxiously wealthy countries, they can complain about some Chinese farmers just trying to feed their families.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I say shoot the chinese responsible, as well as the English, American, German, Hungarian (insert your country here) people that do the same. China is probably not much worse than many other countries really.

Indeed. Seeing how we here in the "civilised" world treat poultry/mink/fox and other animals that aren't our pets, I don't see the big difference. The actual killing part may be a bit brutal when compared, but on the whole we're all pretty much the same.

Why does this suddenly warrant outrage when it's the Chinese doing it? Is it because they're furriners and look all funny and strange-like? If you don't want animals to suffer, it's time to go vegetarian.

All kinds of impressed. Looks like such a great experience. I really should get off my fat ass and do something like that... just somewhere with less spiders and snakes, 'cause bwaughah!

Oh FFS: http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/09/0 ... on-the-goddamn-treadmill/

Quote from RocksGt :

So eventually the string will touch the ground but for pure geommetry, nothing about gravity

Isn't that exactly what I said? The string will wrap regardless, but if you start mixing gravity into it like some people seem to do, it would still do nothing but pull the string towards the ground. So either way the levitating red string won't happen.

Quote from TagForce :

...equally stupid airplane puzzle...

I hate you. If that tired old discussion takes off (no pun intended) I'm coming for you. Watch your back.

Last edited by wien, Fri 23 Oct 2009, 14:56.

Quote from Gills4life :

But if you pulled a string tight from both ends of a football pitch it wouldn't drag along the floor because it is rigid and won't dip in the middle. So I am just assuming it will be the blue string because the situation would change if you were to pull it from a much greater distance?

The earth is a sphere. If you pull a string across it it's like pulling a string across the surface of a ball, not a football pitch. As you increase the distance the two pulling points disappear behind each other's horizons and you start wrapping the string around the earth instead of suspending it between the points.

Quote from Gills4life :

Would the curvature of the Earth make the string drag along the floor?

Yes. Isn't that fairly obvious? What force could possibly keep the string in the air when both gravity and the pulling force would pull it towards the earth? (Do it small scale on a football like previously suggested, ignoring gravity for a second.)

Oi Android. Wait up!

Quote from PAracer :

Then again... Once they disappear over the horizon, won't the rope begin to slip off to the side unless a third friend is holding it at the midpoint?

Not until the string is wrapping more than 180 degrees of the earth circumference, and not unless you make the earth out of solid teflon.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

In that case, if you could pull hard enough it would be suspended at steadily decreasing height until the horizon for each person, then wrap around touching the ground, then slowly rise from the horizon to the other person.

Obviously, which is the piece of insight these people would be missing. I'm just trying to create a tiny bit of internal logic in the opinions of what is apparently half (HALF!!!1!) of mcintyrej's college mates, lest I join Android in his depression.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

My turn to be dense, and possibly further Android's plight... my question is:

WHAT?

It doesn't make sense at all, that was my point. That's just the only thought process I could imagine that would lead people to think the red would work. You have to basically imagine the earth as "flat" and that the string pulled taut between the two people on this earth would be suspended above the ground. Then wrap the entire system around a sphere (since we all know the earth is a sphere) and you're there.

This of course ignores gravity pulling the entire string down towards the centre of the earth and that the pulling force would cause the string to be wrapped taut around the earth even if you ignored gravity for whatever reason.

Last edited by wien, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 22:48.