You don't need to store two whole independent images. The high quality image can predict from the low quality image, and the low quality image can be a lower resolution, too. It is less efficient than storing one image, but more efficient than storing two independent images.
Digital video tape formats (e.g. DV, HDV) are an example. Other containers that operate in this mode are TS and Ogg (and optionally, MKV). Any sort of live streaming format generally is, too.
Depends on the car. My Bolt battery takes a LONG time to get warm just from driving, even with the battery heater running. You can speed it up a bit with yoyo driving (speed up to use power, then regen brake to dump power back into the battery, repeat as necessary) for about a half hour.
Those were all SPI-alike, or at least run in their SPI mode, including the ones linked. (I also used a Nokia 6100 LCD back in the day, and it was SPI, though with a wider interface option).
This is not a "mirrorless camera sensor", at least how it's meant to be interpreted. While technically mirrorless like all webcams, the sensor is under a quarter of the area of the smallest Sony mirrorless intechangeable-lens cameras.
Came to say basically the same thing. Not to mention they also refer to their F1.8 "Glass" when their own technical specs list the lens elements as plastic.
It's basically a $10 sensor, a $5 mic, $5 of miscellaneous plastic and circuitry, and yet they want $175 for what?
I might have given all their typical startup BS and hyperbole a pass if it was like $79 or something reasonable, but at $175 it just seems like a scam.
That's ridiculous. 48MP should be capable of at least 4K video. Are their yields still not high enough at 4K even if they're charging an order of magnitude more than what the components actually cost?
Also hilarious that they say it's "binned" to 1080p when they're actually only getting the rejects that weren't good enough for 4K! Way to be technically correct, Opal.
Technically Sonys current smallest decent mirrorless is apsc and I guess the 1" family (25mm) rx100 cameras could count as mirrorless if you bend things...and this webcam rocks a sensor half that size.
it's like yeah there's no mirror that flips up to expose the sensor because there's no optical through-the-lens viewfinder either...which is what the mirror was for in the first place...
Seems like a cool idea though, but it seems like it could be done even better: get an iPhone 15 Pro Max sensor and put it behind an actual quality glass lens, then add in the beam-forming mic array stuff and MAKE IT A NORMAL CLASS-COMPLIANT WEBCAM, which unlike the C1, the Tadpole is from what I understand.
Interestingly, the smooth bokeh has become a bit popular and is available with Canon "defocus smoothing" lenses (among other older examples). Rather than varying the aperture size over time, these just have a ND filter with the aperture window function coated on (and also a normal iris - the effect works best at the largest aperture setting).
Cortex-M4/M33 are pretty widely deployed on microcontrollers with control hardware, for example the STM32G4 and Reneasas RA series.
There's still a few reasons not to use it, though. Saving and restoring the float registers adds interrupt handling overhead. If you can fit into 16 bit integers, you can also use the 2 way SIMD instructions and get at least double the throughput.
Finally, floats themselves have a lot of footguns. You have to be very careful about propagating NaNs etc into control loops. It's also really easy (in C) to accidentally promote to double.
The size of most electric motors is proportional to the torque they produce - so if you can spin it faster, you can get more power for the same weight. There are some other factors that make high speed worse - for example, bearing and core losses. The PCB motor is a coreless motor though, so it has no core loss, biasing it even harder towards high speed operation.
Propellers generally get less efficient with higher speeds though, which might be a bigger factor than any of this.
> Propellers generally get less efficient with higher speeds though, which might be a bigger factor than any of this.
Unless operated at lower air-pressure (higher altitude) then higher speed is generally more efficient.
Source: Musk interviews about why electronic very high altitude aircraft make sense in a lot of ways (faster, more energy efficient, potentially cheaper, less polluting). But only after battery densities are improved in the future.
Musk isn't correct though, or maybe you misunderstood or misquoted him. Higher speed is only more efficient if the craft itself moves at a higher speed.
To explain a bit further: a prop is at its most efficient when it has clean air to work with and that only works if the craft moves forward at least as much as one prop's worth of air in the direction of motion. Less than that and the prop will encounter it's own backwash. This is the reason why variable props exist, to ensure that the prop has enough 'bite' rather than that it just churns the local air. So at low revs you run a higher angle than when you go faster and towards the tips of the prop the angle gets flatter as well.
Which more or less defines the range of a variable prop, once the tips are nearly flat there is nothing more to gain. Another important factor is blade count. A single blade is theoretically most efficient because it can run at the highest RPM before the blade encounters it's own wake again, but there are balancing issues and vibration issues with low (<3) blade count props. And in practice the efficiency gains are offset by complexity, weight (a single blade needs a counterweight) and drag of that weight. Two is common enough though because it is easy to make a sturdy two blader prop. Three is optimal from a longevity and maintenance point of view, and a offers very good efficiency.
And I think you meant 'electric', not 'electronic'.
> Musk isn't correct though, or maybe you misunderstood or misquoted him. Higher speed is only more efficient if the craft itself moves at a higher speed.
He's got it completely backwards from what Musk said in that interview, see my reply.
Hm, I don't entirely know how this works, but for RC planes we use slower motors and higher prop pitch for efficiency, faster motors and lower prop pitch for acceleration.
If you're going to cite sources like that at least get it remotelyclosetoright.
"For aircraft, or just generally, you want to move a large mass of air slowly. So you can reduce the velocity component of kinetic energy, which goes as the square. You want to move a large amount of mass slowly, not a small amount of mass fast... So, the way you make aircraft engines more efficient is you move a lot of air slowly. Like big fans, basically, big slow fans work great. Small, tiny. fast-moving jets, are very inefficient." - your favorite billionaire, in the exact interview you're inversely misquoting. (JRE #1609 last ~12 minutes is electric planes)
Huh? No way, the energy needed goes up with the cube of the speed, but the mass moved only goes up linearly-- the reason is that you are having to accelerate a small mass a lot rather than a big mass a little. The most efficient is a big slow propeller, but size and mass constraints put limits on how big and slow you can go.
A coreless motor has more losses, not less. That's because the field isn't focused as nicely. It's just that the losses aren't in the core but in the air.
Core losses by the way are typically a different kind of loss, they are eddy currents resulting from the fact that the stator laminates are not infinitely thin.
