Tidus44 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Sound bite for formula fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor. Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ub3rman123 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The new engines sound like they don't need hearing protection to listen to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor. Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) If ya want loud try a drag strip, i learned my lesson the hard way. At least its not a constant brrrrrrooooooooooommmmm all the time. Edited March 18, 2014 by Thor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werne Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Meh, I still prefer the sound of a good old 2-stroke 1500ccm Harley, but the old models only, new ones don't sound the same for some reason. The low-frequency tones, that bass after each detonation and the low RPM of a fine-tuned engine is what I like about those old bikes, I could listen to a purring Harley for hours. :happy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor. Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) HELLOOOO!!!! THX certified HD receiver with soundcard support in, what ever that coloured cable is called. http://www.crutchfield.com/S-DnQmDI3MRsg/p_580TXS705B/Onkyo-TX-SR705-Black.html the price is right!!! :woot:http://www.crutchfield.com.edgesuite.net/pix.crutchfield.com/ImageHandler/fixedscale/900/900/products/2007/580/x580TXS705B-b.jpeg If anyone knows of a similar model with the same features but updated, please let me know. This ones a particular awesome model do its THX certification which is far superior to Dolby, also true fact owned by Creative, the same company that makes the sound cards.. If only there was one available, in a sense it has the same guts as a sound card would and then some. If you thought Lucas Arts owned the trademark think again. Edited March 18, 2014 by Thor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyro Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Ok, so I've been doing one of my assignments for university. What I need to do is to produce 3 images in Photoshop about anything relating to conflict, or the extension of the body/mind. Naturally, I chose conflict. So what I've done is rendered that sword I made yesterday, placed it on a snowy field and covered it with blood, as if there was a big battle there. I just finished it and then re-read the assignment criteria, and it states that my image must be 300 dpi or I will incur a penalty. So my question is this: would a pixel dimension of 1600 x 1200 (5.49M) be considered 300 dpi? I'm asking because I'd rather not do the whole thing again, and I'm not sure I understand what it means by "300 dpi". If I change the resolution (pixels/inch) from 72 to 300, my image size goes to 6666 x 5000 pixels, which just doesn't seem right. Here is the image, if anyone is interested: http://puu.sh/7AL3h.jpg Edited March 19, 2014 by billyro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vindekarr Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) The new engines sound like they don't need hearing protection to listen to. They don't. I actually went to that race(I live in Melbourne) and while the cars are still extremely loud, you don't need earmuffs anymore. To be honest, I actually prefer the new sound, and massively prefer the new cars. They're a lot more entertaining to watch, because they put a far greater emphasis on the driver. I often saw drivers crossed-up coming out of corners, and a lot of involuntary powersliding-it reminded me of the '80s if anything. EDIT: According to the FIA(Formula One's governing body) there are "massive, sweeping" alterations coming to the exhaust system, aimed at making the cars sound more F1-like. Don't worry about the link, it's to ANN, Australia's taxpayer-funded news website. It's got an excellent reputation. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-18/ecclestone-vows-to-make-f1-cars-roar/5329838?section=vic Edited March 19, 2014 by Vindekarr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ub3rman123 Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 And there I was excited because I found a rusted exhaust system on a junker I could clean up for my Beetle. Right now my exhaust leaks a lot, meaning I get to drive with my windows open when it's freezing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliasTheory Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Ok, so I've been doing one of my assignments for university. What I need to do is to produce 3 images in Photoshop about anything relating to conflict, or the extension of the body/mind. Naturally, I chose conflict. So what I've done is rendered that sword I made yesterday, placed it on a snowy field and covered it with blood, as if there was a big battle there. I just finished it and then re-read the assignment criteria, and it states that my image must be 300 dpi or I will incur a penalty. So my question is this: would a pixel dimension of 1600 x 1200 (5.49M) be considered 300 dpi? I'm asking because I'd rather not do the whole thing again, and I'm not sure I understand what it means by "300 dpi". If I change the resolution (pixels/inch) from 72 to 300, my image size goes to 6666 x 5000 pixels, which just doesn't seem right. Here is the image, if anyone is interested: http://puu.sh/7AL3h.jpg From my understanding, "300DPI" refers to the printer density of your image (ink dots per linear inch). It's essentially an output resolution, and should be used to determine if your printer can display the proper colors given the dimensions you'd like to print at. Your image might be in high resolution, but if your DPI is inadequate (or it's not properly adjusted), you'll end up with a poor quality result; this is because multiple ink dots are needed to show each pixel. DPI doesn't change your image's printed dimensions. It's commonly confused with PPI. To answer your question (300PPI), it really depends on what you wanted the original size of your image to be in inches. 1600x1200 could be considered 300PPI if your image was to be printed 5.3"x4". Since you worked at 72PPI, this would currently make your picture 22.2"x16.6". If you wanted the same juicy 300PPI quality of the 5.3"x4" in the 22.2"x16.6", then you'd need 6666x5000 pixels. So if you want a 5.3"x4" physical version of your image when it's done, then you'd be fine. If your professor/teacher wanted a specific size (in inches) to be printed, then multiplying the dimensions through PPI would give the appropriate pixel dimensions to work with. Simply stating 300PPI is incomplete per se, though it does mean high resolution is emphasized. An analogy would be asking for the distance traveled if I said I was going at 100MPH with no other information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now