GeompMankle

Negative again, a series of array operations which are individually idiomatic numpy like this will run very very fast in numba as it can coalesce the ops into a single pass through memory. Numpy can't do this and has to pass through the array for each individually array operation. There's nothing wrong with straight numpy but if you want it compiled-C fast for the whole ensemble of array ops, you need a JIT.

Negative. Fortran is in a better position to guarantee certain facts about sequential access in arrays and solid information about pointer aliasing that is generally not available in C or C++ unless the author of the C/C++ is extremely aware for compiler quirks and pragma. Fortran has a "just works" attitude to high speed array processing where as other languages are focused on edge cases that are good for PhD thesis on general computing optimization but rarely work in the easiest case without extensive pragmas.

See also CUDA. Sure you can write a C to CUDA converter auto-vectorizer but its likely to have all sorts of bugs and usually never work right except in rare hand-tune cases. May as well just write CUDA from scratch if it is to be performant. Same for array processing, wanna array process? Use compiler for array processing like Fortran or ISPC.

What is the point of adding a misconception?

The conception of the theorem is that if the signal being sampled is sufficiently integrable AND bandlimited AND the signal is uniformly sampled at at least the Nyquist rate over all time/space THEN then reconstruction of the bandlimited signal is exactly possible using the sinc interpolator. The proof is covered in "Shannon's original proof" in the Wikipedia article and most books on signal analysis such as Gaskill's Linear System book. Most EE people will have to do the proof as an intro course assignment in the first month of a DSP class.

OTOH, if you are not able to sample the function over all space or time AND the function happens to be periodic outside the interval you did sample THEN reconstruction of the bandlimited periodic signal is possible using the Dirchlet kernel.

If you are not able to sample the function overall space (from the first) AND that function is not periodic, you have small problems which occasionally become big problems if you are no careful. Most DSP books have a chapter about windowing discrete data and dealing with this conundrum. Basically, exact reconstruction is not guaranteed and context-specific techniques need to be employed to ensure desirable fidelity.

If you spend more than 4 hours a day writing Python or you have more than 4 months of experience with Python, PyCharm. Otherwise notepad or pico or vim or emacs or whatever. It is not a good first editor as it is for professional users who need powerful tools.

He probably saved your life. Good time to send him a christmas card next year.

If I correctly interpreted your question as ending in "a single large light[field] sensor], no. Light field cameras take a single field of view and overall entrance pupil and then, given that field of view, they trade resolution for being able to specifically note which part of the entrance pupil saw the object in that low resolution way. As a person who specializes in physical optics rather than computational optics, my extremely biased standpoint is that light field sensors can take one really great camera and make it into a bunch of fairly poor cameras collecting 3D depth information. If you value 3D depth information and the ability to add realistic depth of field blur to a photo more than the 2D resolution and sensitivity/noise properties of the photo, lightfield is for you.

The reason we have multiple lenses sticking out of a phone is to achieve similar high image pixel counts at high sensitivity/low noise across wildly different fields of view (say 108 deg, 69 deg, 28 deg) and wildly different per-pixel angular fields of view in a cost effective manner. A single imaging block capable of seeing a whole 108 deg field of view wide camera image with the per-pixel angular field of view of the 28 deg telephoto imager is generally infeasible in a cost effective way unless you are IMAX.

I generalized. To be specific, the interesting part of liturgical and most classical organ music requires an advanced understanding of harmony and nuance that the typical average citizen of the Earth will rarely accumulate the hundreds to thousands of hours that it takes to appreciate in context. For most people, it's like watching 2700 ELO chess masters play without a commentator: hard to appreciate. On the other hand, for me organs are really fun to listen to so I will put up with classical and liturgical music even if it kind of puts me to sleep and because I've listened to it enough that I can deal. Frankly, sometimes the best part of the typical liturgical organ experience is during the time they are tuning the organ before the audience arrives. I can listen to individual pipes beating against each other and the tuning process a lot longer than I can handle something like Jean Guillou's Improvisations for Christmas.

More power to the folks who can stomach classical organ music though. You guys pay the bills for the rest of us who want to hear melodies we recognized.

However, the organ (particular symphonic organ and theatre variants) are frankly pretty adept at translations of music that is rhythmically and familiar to popular music trends of the last 60 years. In this case, the listener doesn't have to be nearly as intimately familiar with the trends of music between the 1700s and before the date their grandparents were born.

If you are in the states and having trouble getting access to church organs, find your local theatre organ club or ATOS chapter. Most of them have some form of access to theatre pipe organs and if you learn on a theatre organ you will be able to transition to a less diverse and more refined beast like a church instrument. It also helps to not be in a high cost of living area.

The lower the cost of living, the lower the cost of auditorium space. The lower the cost of auditorium space, the easier it is to get access to organs (to a point).

Although most organ music played for liturgical or academic reasons is terrifyingly boring, there is a decent contingent of symphonic and "theatre" (yes -re) organ people who want something that moves us and maybe erodes some of the concrete work elsewhere in building.

Misc tracks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzpQHz2dGX8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VN5DGw3OvA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm_vvBuH2ts

Also, even some of the classical works from folks like Ravel, Liszt and particularly have some ball busters if played on a big machine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdrwazpZvAQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC3cZ-7-IoI .

TLDR: the folks that want to hear organs sound good go find other people that want to hear organs sound good and we have conventions and listen to organs sounding good.

It would be a film video camera if they developed the film in quasi-realtime and then fed it into a scanner or a flying spot mechanism to read out pixels or a video signal. I would donate to a gofundme that wanted to do such a crazy thing.

I think a fairly good argument can be made that the design of this bridge was novel to the point of being negligent as per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSPI0xkTifI

Yeah, people complain about Fortran but writing array operations in Fortran 2003 is great for avoiding aliasing problems and tell the compiler what we need to have done rather than how we think it needs to do it.

This isn't for everyone, but if you attain sufficiently severe depression due to work/relationships/existential issues during the summer months, you will not notice the effects of varying seasonal illumination. Do have to be careful for obvious reasons though. If you are new to this, you probably should try micro-dosing on depression inducing activities during the summer to see if this is a good fit.