Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Loote

Member
  • Content Count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About Loote

  • Title
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What I wanted to say is: we can call them greedy, but the prices got so high because of the die size too, the outcome is a sum of two, not just greediness.
  2. I redid some of the work, not because it's wrong, but because inclusion of node makes this hard to read. The I picked the biggest from each gen. 8800 484 9800 324 280 576 480 529 580 520 680 294 780 561 980 398 980ti 601 1080ti 471 2080 545 2080ti 754 Titan V 815 The point is, I read read at some point an article about it and believed it. The claim was(mostly destroyed by poor memory), that the cost of making an GPU that's twice the die size is more than double the price. Now NVidia could probably make 700+ sized GPU at any point, but the performance improvement wouldn't justify the cost. On the other hand in recent years GPU prices rose enough to make bigger dies profitable. You could see the die size reached 600 only once, the big dies were in 500-600 bracket, yet 2080ti is much closet to Titan V's monster of a die than the nearest GTX. I also split 980 and 980ti because of the amount of time there was between them. Now that I look at this, 3080 is probably going to be 500-600 sized and 3080ti as big as possible again, if you can make a card that will sell for $2000, why not...? I think we should concede that not only is Nvidia greedy, but 754 sized 2080ti is more expensive to produce than 561 780ti was.
  3. We were due to get a 7nm bump in performance from NV, considering it's 7nm EUV and adding some architectural improvements, I believe this generation should be great. IIrc they had huge gpus so without node shrink I don't think they'd be able to improve a lot. I wonder about the cost because 7nm is going to be more expensive, but if the silicon is a lot smaller, it can even be cheaper to produce 3070 than 2070 for example
  4. Almost every crack will be a false positive, also, I think quite recently there was a group(not well regarded by any means) that got mass deleted from private trackers because they did include some bad shit in their releases. Virus downloads from scene are like getting murdered by a priest, it's very unlikely, but still possible. That being said, I use private trackers without my paranoia getting in a way, if I am going to get a virus, it's much more likely going to be from some ad than torrents.
  5. I don't think file hosting sites should be blamed for the content that's uploaded there, you can find pirated movies on GDrive and I doubt anyone would even consider deleting the site because of that. Did they not comply with DMCA removal queries? I mean, I'm sure there is someone that used the site legitimately that is suffering from it.
  6. Yes, that's why I mentioned space/$. It's mostly when I read posts from someone needing 1 TB of space after they've removed everything that doesn't need to be backed up and they get some cloud plan that is several times more expensive that I think 'why not use the Drive'. Also, it's one of the options with the best support, apart from built-in tools, there's nothing better. The CDN's impressive too. Of course the rule that if you need x and you can get it for $1, there's no reason to get 1000x for 2$ stands, however it's worth remembering that new smartphone could fill 100GB of space on a weekend. I've been burned by this fitting in 50GB of space for a year and then using more than that in a day. Honestly anything that offers ~1tb for $10 is ok for 99% of users(and cheaper plans, but with option for an upgrade that won't cost you a liver).
  7. Cloud storage - for $10/month you can have unlimited Google Drive space, so basically any other offer is worse in terms size/$. Monitors - nothing has price/performance ratio as good as 1080p monitors, so when you want higher resolution, especially ultra-wide, the price rises painfully.
  8. Yes, I'm kind of crazy when it comes to lossy compression, but I'm not the only one. What's more, even if most photos look really close, some will have more severe compression related problems. Long time ago I had my Oneplus One device set to save .dng files, I made a photo of a certain place and forgot about it, some time have passed, the scenery changed and I've found myself looking for some text that was on that photo and honestly, in normal jpg file I couldn't read it, BUT I had the .dng file which allowed me to read it. If your phone has 'raw mode', you can see that those raws look way worse than normal photos, but also the highlights and shadows contain way more data. The photo will have a lot of noise, but that noise also contains additional information. So the title should be 'Google doesn't compress HEIC image files in Photos app because it'd be inefficient', if you consider .dng files to be original quality, there's no way Google would store those for free.
  9. There's only so much time in your life, you have to spend it wisely. I have seen movies that on a quick rewatch have lost much of their appeal, for example 21 Jump Street I loved the first time, but seeing it the second time with friends was a bit stiff, so you have to watch out for that. reasons to rewatch: -wrong mood when watching for the first time, making you miss a lot of experience, this happened to me recently with The Godfather -when you forget what the movie was about, after 5+ years I tend to forget enough to make rewatch OK -you rate the movie for things other than plot, like style, atmosphere, music, visuals, for example I could play Garden of Words on a loop listening to that sweet, sweet rain(and enjoying the sweet, sweet feet). Just remember, for every rewatch of you favourite movie, you lessen the chance of finding something even better. With TV shows I feel like it's even harder to justify a rewatch, they rarely are based on things that don't loose value on rewatch and it takes a lot of time to watch a TV series. So I rewatch maybe 1 movie in a year, this might increase as I get older. If I was limited to what is available on Netflix etc. I'd probably rewatch much more because there is much less choice compared to where I get movies atm 8).
  10. 200 feet is such low distance, the can also restrict it so when the car detects traffic moving too fast, it assumes it's on a road and won't come to the driver. Personally I hate it when someone comes for the other person, stops in the middle of the road, they let them in and then go, making the rest of the cars wait(quick jump in is fine if there aren't many cars behind). If it's going to work this way, I hate it.
  11. I thought we were talking about streams, nobody keeps raw image, my points were Netflix is bitrate starved and 16k isn't going to need 16 times more bandwidth than 4k, it should achieve better compression ratios. I think Dolby Vision metadata is separate from video stream, so even more, but... 240 fps is impossible on that panel, input device takes up to 120, but the screen maxes out at 60, what's more 12 bit 4:4:4 is limited to 30 Hz, probably due to bandwidth as you say(at 60Hz you get 8 bit color 4:4:4 or 12 bit YCbCr 4:2:2), DV is impossible(or it's not mentioned in Sony's manual) on that panel and even the biggest version is 16K 63 feet x 18 feet (576 modules), so to modify the math: 16384*64/18 =4681,14 16384*4682*36bpp*30fps=82 831 512 137 AKA 77.2GB/s and rising it to 60 fps with DV(for when it's supported) should still not exceed 200GBps
  12. You're ignoring: 1. Cinemas 2. Modularity Not really, assuming software used to produce animations is even capable of doing that, the cost is crazy, usually we get 1080p with backgrounds that don't have so much detail, otherwise a singe movie costs hundreds of millions because there is a human that had to prepare the models, or, as in case of 2D animation, will just draw the same images that won't gain too much by enlarging them. And what you watch has to be interesting, so there's that part of the cost also. Time lapses are what I've seen published in 4k at first and I think they will be just behind porn on 16k too, there's already this: https://nofilmschool.com/First-16K-Short-Film
  13. What is this launcher? I mean, does it want to start with your PC? Does it have to start with your PC? How much resources does it take? Do you have to input your data? How much data? Personally I hate launchers.
  14. 1. UHD BD is rated at up to 128 Mb/s, 25 is Netflix being cheap which means some scenes look better on BD. 2. Compression isn't as straightforward as 4k = 25 -> 16k = 400 I think you know that and used simplification, just pointing that out. If you have ADSL/ADSL2, too bad, if you have well working VDSL, you probably can play 2 '4k' Netflix streams at once, even bad cable connection should be capable of 100+ Mbit/s, which is probably what Netflix 8k is going to be. Any fibre connection is capable of well over gigabit, which is probably going to be enough for compressed 16k video from 10 years in the future. The hardware part is not so far: Regarding this 'screen', it's modular, for now they have one pixel density option, 8k seems like much more reasonable choice, imo it's great that such opportunity presents itself, even if it's not something I'm ever going to afford. 16k is probably just for press, maybe some specialist use cases, but the underlying technology is awesome nonetheless.
  15. Also, Galaxy Fold is doing something that has never been done, we've had phones hat don't loose reception no matter how you hold them and keyboards that work OK since forever. It's like a normal car which looses wheels vs flying car that explodes. I often feel my op6 is too small, even on a 10' tablet I've felt it could've been bigger, but I don't think I'll be considering getting a folded phone in next 5 years.
×