<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_16_2117244</id>
	<title>High-Speed Video Free With High-Def Photography</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266348240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bugzappy notes a development out of the University of Oxford, where scientists have developed a technology capable of capturing a <a href="http://www.isis-innovation.com/news/news/camerasofthefuture.html">high-resolution still image alongside very high-speed video</a>. The researchers started out trying to capture images of biological processes, such as the behavior of heart tissue under various circumstances. They combined off-the-shelf technologies found in standard cameras and digital movie projectors. What's new is that the picture and the video are captured at the same time on the same sensor. This is done by allowing the camera's pixels to act as if they were part of tens, or even hundreds, of individual cameras taking pictures in rapid succession during a single normal exposure. The trick is that the pattern of pixel exposures keeps the high-resolution content of the overall image, which can then be used as-is, to form a regular high-res picture, or be decoded into a high-speed movie. The research is detailed <a href="http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nmeth.1429.html">in the journal Nature Methods</a> (abstract only without subscription).</htmltext>
<tokenext>bugzappy notes a development out of the University of Oxford , where scientists have developed a technology capable of capturing a high-resolution still image alongside very high-speed video .
The researchers started out trying to capture images of biological processes , such as the behavior of heart tissue under various circumstances .
They combined off-the-shelf technologies found in standard cameras and digital movie projectors .
What 's new is that the picture and the video are captured at the same time on the same sensor .
This is done by allowing the camera 's pixels to act as if they were part of tens , or even hundreds , of individual cameras taking pictures in rapid succession during a single normal exposure .
The trick is that the pattern of pixel exposures keeps the high-resolution content of the overall image , which can then be used as-is , to form a regular high-res picture , or be decoded into a high-speed movie .
The research is detailed in the journal Nature Methods ( abstract only without subscription ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bugzappy notes a development out of the University of Oxford, where scientists have developed a technology capable of capturing a high-resolution still image alongside very high-speed video.
The researchers started out trying to capture images of biological processes, such as the behavior of heart tissue under various circumstances.
They combined off-the-shelf technologies found in standard cameras and digital movie projectors.
What's new is that the picture and the video are captured at the same time on the same sensor.
This is done by allowing the camera's pixels to act as if they were part of tens, or even hundreds, of individual cameras taking pictures in rapid succession during a single normal exposure.
The trick is that the pattern of pixel exposures keeps the high-resolution content of the overall image, which can then be used as-is, to form a regular high-res picture, or be decoded into a high-speed movie.
The research is detailed in the journal Nature Methods (abstract only without subscription).</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166182</id>
	<title>interlacing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like they have a high resolution image sensor but the timing of the data samples from certain groups of pixels is staggered. Sort of like how one frame of interlaced NTSC DVD video can represent a single "high resolution" 720x480 image, or a series of two 720x240 images 1/60th second apart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like they have a high resolution image sensor but the timing of the data samples from certain groups of pixels is staggered .
Sort of like how one frame of interlaced NTSC DVD video can represent a single " high resolution " 720x480 image , or a series of two 720x240 images 1/60th second apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like they have a high resolution image sensor but the timing of the data samples from certain groups of pixels is staggered.
Sort of like how one frame of interlaced NTSC DVD video can represent a single "high resolution" 720x480 image, or a series of two 720x240 images 1/60th second apart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166610</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends. In good lighting you don't need to register all photons. However in a dark room or for watching night sky each photon counts. Here is an informative article: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see\_a\_photon.html<br>Human eye can actually register flash of about 90 photons (10\% of them will reach the retina, so about 9 photons is enough to activate receptors). The sensitivity also depends on the wavelength.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends .
In good lighting you do n't need to register all photons .
However in a dark room or for watching night sky each photon counts .
Here is an informative article : http : //math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see \ _a \ _photon.htmlHuman eye can actually register flash of about 90 photons ( 10 \ % of them will reach the retina , so about 9 photons is enough to activate receptors ) .
The sensitivity also depends on the wavelength .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends.
In good lighting you don't need to register all photons.
However in a dark room or for watching night sky each photon counts.
Here is an informative article: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see\_a\_photon.htmlHuman eye can actually register flash of about 90 photons (10\% of them will reach the retina, so about 9 photons is enough to activate receptors).
The sensitivity also depends on the wavelength.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166172</id>
	<title>I read the title as "High-Def Pornography"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's past my bedtime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's past my bedtime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's past my bedtime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168248</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My eyes have shutters. You must look pretty weird.

About your holographic idea, Heisenberg (or even De Broglie) might have something to say about that. (something about the difficulty of identifying both location and movement of an electron)

Also, (being from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. I have not read TFA) are they talking about staggering pixel capacitor charging across rows? Up until this point, has everyone really been doing this row-by-row? This seems sub-optimal for high-def images of moving objects, anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My eyes have shutters .
You must look pretty weird .
About your holographic idea , Heisenberg ( or even De Broglie ) might have something to say about that .
( something about the difficulty of identifying both location and movement of an electron ) Also , ( being from / .
I have not read TFA ) are they talking about staggering pixel capacitor charging across rows ?
Up until this point , has everyone really been doing this row-by-row ?
This seems sub-optimal for high-def images of moving objects , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My eyes have shutters.
You must look pretty weird.
About your holographic idea, Heisenberg (or even De Broglie) might have something to say about that.
(something about the difficulty of identifying both location and movement of an electron)

Also, (being from /.
I have not read TFA) are they talking about staggering pixel capacitor charging across rows?
Up until this point, has everyone really been doing this row-by-row?
This seems sub-optimal for high-def images of moving objects, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167174</id>
	<title>Free as in Free Links Please (OH MY A FREE LINK!)</title>
	<author>flaptrap</author>
	<datestamp>1265025480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Slashdot not about open access?  I read enough complaints from scientist bloggers about having to be on-campus in-the-office or-else-pay for articles they have a subscription to.</p><p>A little research back to the researchers could doubtless second-source the information; I regularly see the authors post the articles themselves or at least an informative link: <a href="http://www.isis-innovation.com/licensing/3268.html" title="isis-innovation.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.isis-innovation.com/licensing/3268.html</a> [isis-innovation.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Slashdot not about open access ?
I read enough complaints from scientist bloggers about having to be on-campus in-the-office or-else-pay for articles they have a subscription to.A little research back to the researchers could doubtless second-source the information ; I regularly see the authors post the articles themselves or at least an informative link : http : //www.isis-innovation.com/licensing/3268.html [ isis-innovation.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Slashdot not about open access?
I read enough complaints from scientist bloggers about having to be on-campus in-the-office or-else-pay for articles they have a subscription to.A little research back to the researchers could doubtless second-source the information; I regularly see the authors post the articles themselves or at least an informative link: http://www.isis-innovation.com/licensing/3268.html [isis-innovation.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166266</id>
	<title>so, basically....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a new optimized/specialized OS for a digital camera...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a new optimized/specialized OS for a digital camera.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a new optimized/specialized OS for a digital camera...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31170700</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1265045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No it can't.  The pixels have no information about the direction from which each photon arrived.  Without a lense each of your pixels will receive photons from every point in the scene with no way to sort them out.</p></div><p>...and 3 lines later in the post I said: "the angle of light would still be relevant, but this would be done on an individual sensor basis -- rather than one lens orchestrating the entire image".<br>
A bit like fly's eye -- every sensor would only report on a single angle. Place an array of these sensors on a hemisphere (or an only slightly convex/concave surface), and make it dense enough, and you *could* do the rest in software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it ca n't .
The pixels have no information about the direction from which each photon arrived .
Without a lense each of your pixels will receive photons from every point in the scene with no way to sort them out....and 3 lines later in the post I said : " the angle of light would still be relevant , but this would be done on an individual sensor basis -- rather than one lens orchestrating the entire image " .
A bit like fly 's eye -- every sensor would only report on a single angle .
Place an array of these sensors on a hemisphere ( or an only slightly convex/concave surface ) , and make it dense enough , and you * could * do the rest in software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it can't.
The pixels have no information about the direction from which each photon arrived.
Without a lense each of your pixels will receive photons from every point in the scene with no way to sort them out....and 3 lines later in the post I said: "the angle of light would still be relevant, but this would be done on an individual sensor basis -- rather than one lens orchestrating the entire image".
A bit like fly's eye -- every sensor would only report on a single angle.
Place an array of these sensors on a hemisphere (or an only slightly convex/concave surface), and make it dense enough, and you *could* do the rest in software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166246</id>
	<title>Re:Representative sample</title>
	<author>MoeDumb</author>
	<datestamp>1265057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed 5 comments and came to see if the first one would be serious or about porn. Expectation confirmed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed 5 comments and came to see if the first one would be serious or about porn .
Expectation confirmed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed 5 comments and came to see if the first one would be serious or about porn.
Expectation confirmed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31174000</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1265055240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That'd be great for the purposes of mimicking biological eyes, i.e. a sensor for a general-purpose robot to keep data rates down. However, it wouldn't be good for photography or cinematography as an art at all. The idea is to capture both the minute details and the fast motion <i>at the same time</i> to create an experience that's a little different from reality. It's like HDR or UV photography. Our eyes don't have that kind of capability, yet we still would want to take such pictures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'd be great for the purposes of mimicking biological eyes , i.e .
a sensor for a general-purpose robot to keep data rates down .
However , it would n't be good for photography or cinematography as an art at all .
The idea is to capture both the minute details and the fast motion at the same time to create an experience that 's a little different from reality .
It 's like HDR or UV photography .
Our eyes do n't have that kind of capability , yet we still would want to take such pictures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'd be great for the purposes of mimicking biological eyes, i.e.
a sensor for a general-purpose robot to keep data rates down.
However, it wouldn't be good for photography or cinematography as an art at all.
The idea is to capture both the minute details and the fast motion at the same time to create an experience that's a little different from reality.
It's like HDR or UV photography.
Our eyes don't have that kind of capability, yet we still would want to take such pictures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167616</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we still have shutters to use the flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we still have shutters to use the flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we still have shutters to use the flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31170166</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1265043240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The overwhelming majority of digital cameras do not have a shutter.  You do realize that clicking sound comes not from a shutter, but from a small speaker, right?
</p><p>
I'm honestly sorry I didn't patent this technique back in 2005 when I was working with digital image sensors, but suffice to say, it's been known about and used in industry for quite some time.  Engineers have always known there was a tradeoff between the image resolution and frame rate, and this appears a rather obvious compromise.  An image sensor chip has a limited bandwidth for reading out pixels, so naturally the framerate is a factor of the image pixel count.
</p><p>
Most image sensors can be reconfigured rather quickly, perhaps even between frames.  This technique is hardly worth a patent, as it's obvious to anyone who's ever had to make a tradeoff between frame rate and light sensitivity, or frame rate and resolution.  For video, there's the standard D1 resolution of 720 by 480.  For stills, the whole resolution of the sensor is used.  So obvious that it is hard to consider it novel enough to patent.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The overwhelming majority of digital cameras do not have a shutter .
You do realize that clicking sound comes not from a shutter , but from a small speaker , right ?
I 'm honestly sorry I did n't patent this technique back in 2005 when I was working with digital image sensors , but suffice to say , it 's been known about and used in industry for quite some time .
Engineers have always known there was a tradeoff between the image resolution and frame rate , and this appears a rather obvious compromise .
An image sensor chip has a limited bandwidth for reading out pixels , so naturally the framerate is a factor of the image pixel count .
Most image sensors can be reconfigured rather quickly , perhaps even between frames .
This technique is hardly worth a patent , as it 's obvious to anyone who 's ever had to make a tradeoff between frame rate and light sensitivity , or frame rate and resolution .
For video , there 's the standard D1 resolution of 720 by 480 .
For stills , the whole resolution of the sensor is used .
So obvious that it is hard to consider it novel enough to patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The overwhelming majority of digital cameras do not have a shutter.
You do realize that clicking sound comes not from a shutter, but from a small speaker, right?
I'm honestly sorry I didn't patent this technique back in 2005 when I was working with digital image sensors, but suffice to say, it's been known about and used in industry for quite some time.
Engineers have always known there was a tradeoff between the image resolution and frame rate, and this appears a rather obvious compromise.
An image sensor chip has a limited bandwidth for reading out pixels, so naturally the framerate is a factor of the image pixel count.
Most image sensors can be reconfigured rather quickly, perhaps even between frames.
This technique is hardly worth a patent, as it's obvious to anyone who's ever had to make a tradeoff between frame rate and light sensitivity, or frame rate and resolution.
For video, there's the standard D1 resolution of 720 by 480.
For stills, the whole resolution of the sensor is used.
So obvious that it is hard to consider it novel enough to patent.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31169210</id>
	<title>Re: Sounds familiar</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1265040000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like this development would greatly improve a 2008 Casio camera a friend told me about a couple weeks ago.  6MP, with full res shots going into the buffer @ 60fps before you fully press the shutter button.  Up to 1200 fps (tiny) video.<br>Hate to sound like a shill, but "high-resolution still image alongside very high-speed video" describes this pretty well, depending on your definition of "high" at least.</p><p><a href="http://www.exilim.com/intl/ex\_f1/features1.html" title="exilim.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.exilim.com/intl/ex\_f1/features1.html</a> [exilim.com]<br><a href="http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/EXILIM\_High-Speed/EX-F1/" title="casio.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/EXILIM\_High-Speed/EX-F1/</a> [casio.com]<br><a href="http://gizmodo.com/383843/casio-exilim-ex+f1-slow+mo-super-cam-full-review-verdict-totally-unique-shockingly-powerful" title="gizmodo.com" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/383843/casio-exilim-ex+f1-slow+mo-super-cam-full-review-verdict-totally-unique-shockingly-powerful</a> [gizmodo.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like this development would greatly improve a 2008 Casio camera a friend told me about a couple weeks ago .
6MP , with full res shots going into the buffer @ 60fps before you fully press the shutter button .
Up to 1200 fps ( tiny ) video.Hate to sound like a shill , but " high-resolution still image alongside very high-speed video " describes this pretty well , depending on your definition of " high " at least.http : //www.exilim.com/intl/ex \ _f1/features1.html [ exilim.com ] http : //www.casio.com/products/Cameras/EXILIM \ _High-Speed/EX-F1/ [ casio.com ] http : //gizmodo.com/383843/casio-exilim-ex + f1-slow + mo-super-cam-full-review-verdict-totally-unique-shockingly-powerful [ gizmodo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like this development would greatly improve a 2008 Casio camera a friend told me about a couple weeks ago.
6MP, with full res shots going into the buffer @ 60fps before you fully press the shutter button.
Up to 1200 fps (tiny) video.Hate to sound like a shill, but "high-resolution still image alongside very high-speed video" describes this pretty well, depending on your definition of "high" at least.http://www.exilim.com/intl/ex\_f1/features1.html [exilim.com]http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/EXILIM\_High-Speed/EX-F1/ [casio.com]http://gizmodo.com/383843/casio-exilim-ex+f1-slow+mo-super-cam-full-review-verdict-totally-unique-shockingly-powerful [gizmodo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166458</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This entire field can easily be extrapolated. First, the shutter is a mechanical components that isn't required -- every portable computer has video camera that can take still images. The reason we still have shutters in high-end cameras is because of the way sensors are currently designed, and the fact that modern DSLRs are basically upgraded film SLRs.<br>
And what about the lens? If the sensors are omnidirectional and can simply keep reporting their state at a high frequency, the "lens" (its optical purpose) can be done in software. You just need a high density of sensors and the ability to process the information fast enough.<br>
Obviously, the individual sensors can't be truly omnidirectional, but rather their visibility angle would depend on the geometry of the surface they're placed on -- which could be a hemisphere, or even an almost complete sphere. As you mentioned, the angle of light would still be relevant, but this would be done on an individual sensor basis -- rather than one lens orchestrating the entire image.<br> <br>

There, we solved it. Engineers, get to work!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This entire field can easily be extrapolated .
First , the shutter is a mechanical components that is n't required -- every portable computer has video camera that can take still images .
The reason we still have shutters in high-end cameras is because of the way sensors are currently designed , and the fact that modern DSLRs are basically upgraded film SLRs .
And what about the lens ?
If the sensors are omnidirectional and can simply keep reporting their state at a high frequency , the " lens " ( its optical purpose ) can be done in software .
You just need a high density of sensors and the ability to process the information fast enough .
Obviously , the individual sensors ca n't be truly omnidirectional , but rather their visibility angle would depend on the geometry of the surface they 're placed on -- which could be a hemisphere , or even an almost complete sphere .
As you mentioned , the angle of light would still be relevant , but this would be done on an individual sensor basis -- rather than one lens orchestrating the entire image .
There , we solved it .
Engineers , get to work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This entire field can easily be extrapolated.
First, the shutter is a mechanical components that isn't required -- every portable computer has video camera that can take still images.
The reason we still have shutters in high-end cameras is because of the way sensors are currently designed, and the fact that modern DSLRs are basically upgraded film SLRs.
And what about the lens?
If the sensors are omnidirectional and can simply keep reporting their state at a high frequency, the "lens" (its optical purpose) can be done in software.
You just need a high density of sensors and the ability to process the information fast enough.
Obviously, the individual sensors can't be truly omnidirectional, but rather their visibility angle would depend on the geometry of the surface they're placed on -- which could be a hemisphere, or even an almost complete sphere.
As you mentioned, the angle of light would still be relevant, but this would be done on an individual sensor basis -- rather than one lens orchestrating the entire image.
There, we solved it.
Engineers, get to work!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166866</id>
	<title>Sounds familiar</title>
	<author>gringer</author>
	<datestamp>1265022000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like something I remember a flatmate talking about previously; there is a free software program that did this. You took a few low-resolution pictures, ran them through the program, and got out a high resolution image. The same can be done with a video (as the low-resolution pictures).</p><p>I can't recall the name of the program, will have a hunt for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like something I remember a flatmate talking about previously ; there is a free software program that did this .
You took a few low-resolution pictures , ran them through the program , and got out a high resolution image .
The same can be done with a video ( as the low-resolution pictures ) .I ca n't recall the name of the program , will have a hunt for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like something I remember a flatmate talking about previously; there is a free software program that did this.
You took a few low-resolution pictures, ran them through the program, and got out a high resolution image.
The same can be done with a video (as the low-resolution pictures).I can't recall the name of the program, will have a hunt for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167196</id>
	<title>Vide of the thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/releases/2010/100214-cameras-of-the-future.aspx" title="bbsrc.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">Here is video and still image, of their example.</a> [bbsrc.ac.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is video and still image , of their example .
[ bbsrc.ac.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is video and still image, of their example.
[bbsrc.ac.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31172518</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265050500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where, when, and at what angle each photon hit the sensor, so that the zoom, exposure time, and focus can be changed in post-processing (as well as a lot of other cool stuff).</p></div>
</blockquote><p>No, the ultimate sensor would record the quantum wavefunctions of the "photons", rather than the collapse of them. Then you could.. well I'm not sure what that would allow, but it's clearly capturing more information.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where , when , and at what angle each photon hit the sensor , so that the zoom , exposure time , and focus can be changed in post-processing ( as well as a lot of other cool stuff ) .
No , the ultimate sensor would record the quantum wavefunctions of the " photons " , rather than the collapse of them .
Then you could.. well I 'm not sure what that would allow , but it 's clearly capturing more information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where, when, and at what angle each photon hit the sensor, so that the zoom, exposure time, and focus can be changed in post-processing (as well as a lot of other cool stuff).
No, the ultimate sensor would record the quantum wavefunctions of the "photons", rather than the collapse of them.
Then you could.. well I'm not sure what that would allow, but it's clearly capturing more information.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167218</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>EdZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265026140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's of massive value in astronomy. And it's exactly what<a href="http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=36685" title="esa.int">superconducting image sensors</a> [esa.int] do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's of massive value in astronomy .
And it 's exactly whatsuperconducting image sensors [ esa.int ] do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's of massive value in astronomy.
And it's exactly whatsuperconducting image sensors [esa.int] do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166204</id>
	<title>Representative sample</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I read this, there are three comments. Two are about porn. Slashdot in a nutshell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I read this , there are three comments .
Two are about porn .
Slashdot in a nutshell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I read this, there are three comments.
Two are about porn.
Slashdot in a nutshell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166618</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think maybe there's a lack of perspective as to the insane frequency at which photons contact a given surface area.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So it's about as often as a Mexican breeds or a nigger commits a crime, then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think maybe there 's a lack of perspective as to the insane frequency at which photons contact a given surface area .
So it 's about as often as a Mexican breeds or a nigger commits a crime , then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think maybe there's a lack of perspective as to the insane frequency at which photons contact a given surface area.
So it's about as often as a Mexican breeds or a nigger commits a crime, then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166464</id>
	<title>Re:I read the title as "High-Def Pornography"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me too, but then again it was 4:20 not too long ago...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me too , but then again it was 4 : 20 not too long ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me too, but then again it was 4:20 not too long ago...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168292</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds familiar</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265036340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; You took a few low-resolution pictures, ran them through the program, and<br>&gt; got out a high resolution image.</p><p>This is not the same thing at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; You took a few low-resolution pictures , ran them through the program , and &gt; got out a high resolution image.This is not the same thing at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; You took a few low-resolution pictures, ran them through the program, and&gt; got out a high resolution image.This is not the same thing at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167646</id>
	<title>Re:How long</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, RTFA - it was developed to observe biological processes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , RTFA - it was developed to observe biological processes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, RTFA - it was developed to observe biological processes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168096</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265035140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the "lens" (its optical purpose) can be done in software.</p><p>No it can't.  The pixels have no information about the direction from which each photon arrived.  Without a lense each of your pixels will receive photons from every point in the scene with no way to sort them out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...the " lens " ( its optical purpose ) can be done in software.No it ca n't .
The pixels have no information about the direction from which each photon arrived .
Without a lense each of your pixels will receive photons from every point in the scene with no way to sort them out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...the "lens" (its optical purpose) can be done in software.No it can't.
The pixels have no information about the direction from which each photon arrived.
Without a lense each of your pixels will receive photons from every point in the scene with no way to sort them out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31199044</id>
	<title>Firmware update</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1266594060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So when do I get a firmware update to turn my HandyCam into a high-speed video monster?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So when do I get a firmware update to turn my HandyCam into a high-speed video monster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when do I get a firmware update to turn my HandyCam into a high-speed video monster?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166528</id>
	<title>Re:I read the title as "High-Def Pornography"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it's past my bedtime.</p></div><p>The old, worn out, tired, repetitive, unoriginal redundant "I can't read correctly" Slashdot meme.  And this shit keeps getting modded Funny.  How many more iterations of this already-not-very-funny joke need to occur before you assholes realize it's not all that funny?
<br> <br>
Q:  How come there's no truly clever or truly witty humor on Slashdot?
<br>
A:  Because shit like this keeps getting modded up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's past my bedtime.The old , worn out , tired , repetitive , unoriginal redundant " I ca n't read correctly " Slashdot meme .
And this shit keeps getting modded Funny .
How many more iterations of this already-not-very-funny joke need to occur before you assholes realize it 's not all that funny ?
Q : How come there 's no truly clever or truly witty humor on Slashdot ?
A : Because shit like this keeps getting modded up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's past my bedtime.The old, worn out, tired, repetitive, unoriginal redundant "I can't read correctly" Slashdot meme.
And this shit keeps getting modded Funny.
How many more iterations of this already-not-very-funny joke need to occur before you assholes realize it's not all that funny?
Q:  How come there's no truly clever or truly witty humor on Slashdot?
A:  Because shit like this keeps getting modded up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166446</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>nmos</author>
	<datestamp>1265017380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and how eventually cameras will not have a "shutter" as we know it but will simply keep track of how each pixel was illuminated at each moment in time.</p><p>I believe most non-SLR digital cameras already do without a physical shutter.  I've always thought that for these cameras it might be useful to break up a typical exposure into multiple shorter exposures and just stack the resulting images using the differences between frames to detect noise and blur due to camera shake etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and how eventually cameras will not have a " shutter " as we know it but will simply keep track of how each pixel was illuminated at each moment in time.I believe most non-SLR digital cameras already do without a physical shutter .
I 've always thought that for these cameras it might be useful to break up a typical exposure into multiple shorter exposures and just stack the resulting images using the differences between frames to detect noise and blur due to camera shake etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and how eventually cameras will not have a "shutter" as we know it but will simply keep track of how each pixel was illuminated at each moment in time.I believe most non-SLR digital cameras already do without a physical shutter.
I've always thought that for these cameras it might be useful to break up a typical exposure into multiple shorter exposures and just stack the resulting images using the differences between frames to detect noise and blur due to camera shake etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31171570</id>
	<title>Re:How long</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1265047620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has already happened, kind of.  <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5229743/megan-fox-esquire-cover-shot-in-video-not-stills" title="gizmodo.com">Esquire</a> [gizmodo.com] has done covershoots on a video camera, then selected individual frames to pull out for photos and the cover.</p><p>Of course, what the article is talking about is changing how high-speed photography happens in order to get high-speed video on the same chip... essentially, dividing each CCD into 16 subsequent regions, and firing off those sequentially to form 16 frames of video or 1 image.  There is some image degradation inherent in what they're talking about doing, of course.  Each frame of video is going to be 1/16th the otherwise resolution, and the overall image exposure time will be longer than it would have been if they had fired all at once.  But it is a nifty trick to better utilize these CCD beasts we've made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has already happened , kind of .
Esquire [ gizmodo.com ] has done covershoots on a video camera , then selected individual frames to pull out for photos and the cover.Of course , what the article is talking about is changing how high-speed photography happens in order to get high-speed video on the same chip... essentially , dividing each CCD into 16 subsequent regions , and firing off those sequentially to form 16 frames of video or 1 image .
There is some image degradation inherent in what they 're talking about doing , of course .
Each frame of video is going to be 1/16th the otherwise resolution , and the overall image exposure time will be longer than it would have been if they had fired all at once .
But it is a nifty trick to better utilize these CCD beasts we 've made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has already happened, kind of.
Esquire [gizmodo.com] has done covershoots on a video camera, then selected individual frames to pull out for photos and the cover.Of course, what the article is talking about is changing how high-speed photography happens in order to get high-speed video on the same chip... essentially, dividing each CCD into 16 subsequent regions, and firing off those sequentially to form 16 frames of video or 1 image.
There is some image degradation inherent in what they're talking about doing, of course.
Each frame of video is going to be 1/16th the otherwise resolution, and the overall image exposure time will be longer than it would have been if they had fired all at once.
But it is a nifty trick to better utilize these CCD beasts we've made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166242</id>
	<title>Re:I read the title as "High-Def Pornography"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haha me too. (And it's past my bedtime too).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha me too .
( And it 's past my bedtime too ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha me too.
(And it's past my bedtime too).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166140</id>
	<title>How long</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long before it is used for porn?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before it is used for porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before it is used for porn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166466</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1265017560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where, when, and at what angle <b>each photon</b> hit the sensor...</p></div><p>I'm usually one of the last to predict the limits of future technology, but I can not imagine how this could <i>ever</i> be any more practical/useful than capturing/tracking every hundredth, or thousandth, or even millionth photon. I think maybe there's a lack of perspective as to the insane frequency at which photons contact a given surface area.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where , when , and at what angle each photon hit the sensor...I 'm usually one of the last to predict the limits of future technology , but I can not imagine how this could ever be any more practical/useful than capturing/tracking every hundredth , or thousandth , or even millionth photon .
I think maybe there 's a lack of perspective as to the insane frequency at which photons contact a given surface area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where, when, and at what angle each photon hit the sensor...I'm usually one of the last to predict the limits of future technology, but I can not imagine how this could ever be any more practical/useful than capturing/tracking every hundredth, or thousandth, or even millionth photon.
I think maybe there's a lack of perspective as to the insane frequency at which photons contact a given surface area.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166494</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have already been several adaptive sensor/camera designs and prototypes proposed that adjust the integration (shutter) time independently for each pixel on the sensor so that no pixel is saturated (maxed out). Consequently knowing the per-pixel integration time and sensor value allows you to reconstruct a high dynamic range image. This design seems to be the application of the idea of binning (which has been used for noise reduction and improved dynamic range when coupled with a spatially varying attenuation filter) but instead using it to integrate over staggered intervals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have already been several adaptive sensor/camera designs and prototypes proposed that adjust the integration ( shutter ) time independently for each pixel on the sensor so that no pixel is saturated ( maxed out ) .
Consequently knowing the per-pixel integration time and sensor value allows you to reconstruct a high dynamic range image .
This design seems to be the application of the idea of binning ( which has been used for noise reduction and improved dynamic range when coupled with a spatially varying attenuation filter ) but instead using it to integrate over staggered intervals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have already been several adaptive sensor/camera designs and prototypes proposed that adjust the integration (shutter) time independently for each pixel on the sensor so that no pixel is saturated (maxed out).
Consequently knowing the per-pixel integration time and sensor value allows you to reconstruct a high dynamic range image.
This design seems to be the application of the idea of binning (which has been used for noise reduction and improved dynamic range when coupled with a spatially varying attenuation filter) but instead using it to integrate over staggered intervals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318</id>
	<title>I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and how eventually cameras will not have a "shutter" as we know it but will simply keep track of how each pixel was illuminated at each moment in time.  Of course, shutterless sensors are already in widespread use; we call them "eyes", and they have the same benefits that TFA describes:  Your brain can observe low-detail fast-moving objects and high-detail static objects at the same time without having to reconfigure anything.  Consequentially, shutterless cameras would have the side benefit of better approximating biological vision.</p><p>The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where, when, and at what angle each photon hit the sensor, so that the zoom, exposure time, and focus can be changed in post-processing (as well as a lot of other cool stuff).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and how eventually cameras will not have a " shutter " as we know it but will simply keep track of how each pixel was illuminated at each moment in time .
Of course , shutterless sensors are already in widespread use ; we call them " eyes " , and they have the same benefits that TFA describes : Your brain can observe low-detail fast-moving objects and high-detail static objects at the same time without having to reconfigure anything .
Consequentially , shutterless cameras would have the side benefit of better approximating biological vision.The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where , when , and at what angle each photon hit the sensor , so that the zoom , exposure time , and focus can be changed in post-processing ( as well as a lot of other cool stuff ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and how eventually cameras will not have a "shutter" as we know it but will simply keep track of how each pixel was illuminated at each moment in time.
Of course, shutterless sensors are already in widespread use; we call them "eyes", and they have the same benefits that TFA describes:  Your brain can observe low-detail fast-moving objects and high-detail static objects at the same time without having to reconfigure anything.
Consequentially, shutterless cameras would have the side benefit of better approximating biological vision.The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where, when, and at what angle each photon hit the sensor, so that the zoom, exposure time, and focus can be changed in post-processing (as well as a lot of other cool stuff).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166376</id>
	<title>Re:Representative sample</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1265016600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And then your post <i>complains</i> about Slashdot. Add that to the nutshell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then your post complains about Slashdot .
Add that to the nutshell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then your post complains about Slashdot.
Add that to the nutshell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31172410</id>
	<title>Re:Representative sample</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265050200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I read this, there are three comments. One is about porn, and another is about Slashdot itself. Slashdot in a nutshell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I read this , there are three comments .
One is about porn , and another is about Slashdot itself .
Slashdot in a nutshell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I read this, there are three comments.
One is about porn, and another is about Slashdot itself.
Slashdot in a nutshell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166706</id>
	<title>Please help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265020440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will someone please rewrite the summary for those of us who aren't Xhibit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will someone please rewrite the summary for those of us who are n't Xhibit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will someone please rewrite the summary for those of us who aren't Xhibit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168330</id>
	<title>Re:I've actually thought about this...</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1265036520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where, when, and at what angle each photon hit the sensor</p></div><p>That's already been done to some extent. Put a grid of small lenses in front of your sensor and you can trace each ray back through the main lens and reconstruct a lower resolution image from any point of view, or focal length, that would have been viewable from any point within the volume of the camera.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where , when , and at what angle each photon hit the sensorThat 's already been done to some extent .
Put a grid of small lenses in front of your sensor and you can trace each ray back through the main lens and reconstruct a lower resolution image from any point of view , or focal length , that would have been viewable from any point within the volume of the camera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ultimate dream would be a truly holographic sensor that records exactly where, when, and at what angle each photon hit the sensorThat's already been done to some extent.
Put a grid of small lenses in front of your sensor and you can trace each ray back through the main lens and reconstruct a lower resolution image from any point of view, or focal length, that would have been viewable from any point within the volume of the camera.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167676</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you're thinking of is called super-resolution:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-resolution</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 're thinking of is called super-resolution : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-resolution</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you're thinking of is called super-resolution:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-resolution</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166374</id>
	<title>How long? That's what she said!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Specifically for porn with massive, uncircumsized, erect nigger dicks with cum bubbles dripping down from the head.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically for porn with massive , uncircumsized , erect nigger dicks with cum bubbles dripping down from the head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specifically for porn with massive, uncircumsized, erect nigger dicks with cum bubbles dripping down from the head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167396</id>
	<title>They just re-invented interlacing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just when we are about to finally get rid of that horrible hack, it makes a comeback</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... just when we are about to finally get rid of that horrible hack , it makes a comeback</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... just when we are about to finally get rid of that horrible hack, it makes a comeback</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31170166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31174000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31172518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31172410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31171570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31169210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31170700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2117244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2117244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2117244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2117244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31171570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2117244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31172410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2117244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2117244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31172518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31170166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31174000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31170700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2117244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31166866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31169210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31167676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2117244.31168292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
