Do you still make updates for recipe labs? I remember being pretty blown away by how much stuff you managed to cram in there, and it was a big inspiration for me when I started building EatThisMuch. We're still dragging our feet on creating a bunch of features that you've had for years :)
Paleo diets happen to be high protein and low carb. Protein is the most satiating macronutrient and carbs are the least. This type of diet is effective because macronutrient ratio it makes it easier to have a calorie deficit and not be hungry.
"In studies of satiation, it is important to match the palatability of the foods when they are compared. If it is not, the fact that one food tastes better than another could override any effects of the nutrient composition on amount consumed (Drewnowski 1998). In addition, to study the specific effects of macronutrients, they must be manipulated independently of energy density."
"These three studies indicate that the amount of fat in the diet did not influence satiation when the energy density was held constant."
"These results provide clear evidence that the energy density of food can affect satiation independently of macronutrient content and palatability."
Not a scientific benchmark, but I have a linode that has 8 cores before and after that just finished its upgrade. Previously it was consistently using just under 5/8 CPUs and is now using a ~2/8 CPUs with the same in/out traffic.
They did hire Marc Levoy. I have been hoping for this for awhile. Can't wait for the next iteration. There are certain things you can't replicate with just a single tiny camera, but they are doing a great job!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6483182
> There are certain things you can't replicate with just a single tiny camera
MOST DoF and bokeh effects in photography can't be replicated with a single small camera.
As a photographer, bokeh is surprisingly difficult to fake, and looks glaringly bad when you notice. The blur effect is due to focal distance ratio differences, and it's very difficult to determine the distance in software. Hell, it's hard to determine it with 2 lenses, as the HTC implementation does.
Look at this picture, for example: http://static.trustedreviews.com/94/00002b836/8517/blue-htc-... For most software, it's extremely difficult, even with distance data, to separate the bush in the back from the blue toy. As a result... messy looking blur.
Unfortunately, as a non-professional photographer, I think this article very disingenuous. Most of the shots aren't taken from the same distance, angle, nor lighting. "Here we are, closer to the subject and from a different angle; notice that we don't have to deal with distinguishing our focused subject from subjects that no longer exist!" "Sure these look the same, but this one is done with optics and is definitely better!"
While it is unfortunate that they did not do the exact angle in all shots, it is still possible to see the difference in the simulated and real effects.
I can say that, as a non-professional photographer, picking up a prime lens and using that for the family shots has been an extremely eye opening experience. To the point that I actually dislike most photos from point and shoots.
There is definitely a bit of "quit caring about aperture." And I can't argue against progress in making the phone cameras better. I'm just not seeing compelling evidence to ditch my DSLR.
They're clearly taken with the same lightning (outdoors and around the same time), but with different iso/aperture/exposure -- as they would have to be. The dedicated camera will let in much more light than the phone camera.
I do agree the zoom/distancing on the "foliage" photos are unfortunate for comparison -- but the fluffy animals more than make up for it IMNHO.
Very true. We do this kind of work in VFX all the time to reduce CG rendering costs for blurs that are expensive in 3d but cheap in 2d. Even with access to sub pixel (4x, 8x etc.) depth maps there are always lots of issues to deal with around edges.
But given that jpeg is good enough for most people I'm sure these types of tools are too.
According to the article, and my own experience with google's version, it's good enough for simple portraits. Since most photos, and close to 100% of photos anybody actually cares about, are portraits that makes it a pretty useful feature.
Thanks! Great example. Does it look like the large camera is focusing a few inches back from the front of the ball and the Google Camera is sharpest at the center of the ball?
Edit: I was trying to look at the sharpness of features on the ball -- specifically the lettering on the left side.
Focus point of the large camera should be the exact center of the image. The center of the ball is a little out of focus as the center of the image is the top left of the ball. User Error :)
I did a quick comparison of a full frame slr vs moto x with this lens blur effect. I tried to match the blur amount, but made no other adjustments. Work really well compared to everything else I have seen!
http://onionpants.s3.amazonaws.com/IMG_0455.jpg
Compare HTC's bokeh or any other attempt at this vs Google's and you will see that there is definitely a difference in how the out-of-focus areas are rendered.
