New DLR Trains
 

On 14 Mar, 22:22, Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...DLR%20Rail%20C...

The images are quite large and one has Ken on it!


Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

New DLR Trains
 

On Mar 15, 9:34 am, "Richard J." wrote:
Offramp wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:11 pm, Dave Newt wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...DLR%20Vehicle%...

The guy on the right, has he been photoshopped in, has he got an
oddly-proportioned head or am I hallucinating?

I have measured it and it seems to be 50% larger than a normal head.

That's because Ian Brown is nearest to the camera! It's a wide-angle shot
taken close to the train and the people, so you get that sort of distortion.

Re your comment in another post about 10 megapixel images: They do have
their uses. For example, in this case you can see from the shape of the dot
over the 'i' in 'capacity' that it's in New Johnston Book at a large size,
contrary to the TfL design rules. (The dot is about 20 x 20 pixels, at
which size it's possible to see that it has concave sides to the diamond, a
feature of New Johnston Book that is not supposed to be readily visible. The
rules say that NJ Book should not be used at larger sizes than 12-point.
New Johnston Light should be used instead.)
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Great stuff. I'm a font fan so it makes a lot of sense.

New DLR Trains
 

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:05:25 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 14 Mar, 22:22, Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here

http://dlr-admin.appius.com/uploads/...DLR%20Rail%20C...

The images are quite large and one has Ken on it!


Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

Mr Thant has a smallish shot of the interior on his London Connections
blog. I have no idea how he keeps it so up to date!
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

New DLR Trains
 

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 14 Mar, 22:22, Paul Corfield wrote:
It would seem there has been a press launch for the new DLR stock.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/7723.aspx

Some piccies here



Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

http://www.therailwaycentre.com/News...40308_DLR.html

Second picture seems what you need...

Paul S

New DLR Trains
 

On 15 Mar, 17:49, Paul Corfield wrote:
Has anyone got a shot of the interior layout? *I hope they follow the
sensible version in the refurbished existing units and never again
consider the disaster that was tried out in twenty units a few years
ago.

I'm reasonably sure it's exactly the same as the existing trains, or
at least seems that way.

Mr Thant has a smallish shot of the interior on his London Connections
blog. *I have no idea how he keeps it so up to date!

Relentless nagging from commenters seems to do the trick.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

New DLR Trains
 

Quite large: I noticed how slow they were loading... The first one is
"4952.73 kB (5071591 bytes)". Let this be a warning to people who
think it is cool to have an 8 or 10 megapixel camera: You get no
significant added detail, you just get a huge huge huge file that no
one wants. Stick to 4/5 megapixel.

I don't think this is true: I had 5 megapixel camera until last year,
and now have 10 megapixel one - and it adds significant amount of
detail. Of course now I have to resize my photos when I e-mail them
(to make them fit into some people's mailboxes), but even when I
resize them to be of 5MP size, they are still much clearer and more
detailed than comparable 5MP photos.

New DLR Trains
 

I'm a bit concerned about the visibility of the destination indicator
- since the front of the train is now more reflective and placed under
larger angle, it may make it much more reflective then before.

New DLR Trains
 

On Mar 15, 8:30 pm, alex_t wrote:
Quite large: I noticed how slow they were loading... The first one is
"4952.73 kB (5071591 bytes)". Let this be a warning to people who
think it is cool to have an 8 or 10 megapixel camera: You get no
significant added detail, you just get a huge huge huge file that no
one wants. Stick to 4/5 megapixel.

I don't think this is true: I had 5 megapixel camera until last year,
and now have 10 megapixel one - and it adds significant amount of
detail. Of course now I have to resize my photos when I e-mail them
(to make them fit into some people's mailboxes), but even when I
resize them to be of 5MP size, they are still much clearer and more
detailed than comparable 5MP photos.

Yes. Agreed. Agreed when resizing takes place.

New DLR Trains
 

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Offramp wrote:

On Mar 15, 8:30 pm, alex_t wrote:

Quite large: I noticed how slow they were loading... The first one is
"4952.73 kB (5071591 bytes)". Let this be a warning to people who
think it is cool to have an 8 or 10 megapixel camera: You get no
significant added detail, you just get a huge huge huge file that no
one wants. Stick to 4/5 megapixel.

I don't think this is true: I had 5 megapixel camera until last year,
and now have 10 megapixel one - and it adds significant amount of
detail. Of course now I have to resize my photos when I e-mail them (to
make them fit into some people's mailboxes), but even when I resize
them to be of 5MP size, they are still much clearer and more detailed
than comparable 5MP photos.

Yes. Agreed. Agreed when resizing takes place.

Well hang on, what? So a 10 MPx camera not only captures more information
than a 5 MPx one, but in fact so much more that when you reduce the images
to 5 MPx they still look better? This is a rum proposition, most rum. How
could this possibly be the case?

The problem with this argument is that you can't just compare two cameras
and say "well, this is 10 MPx and it looks better than this 5 MPx one",
because they also have completely different optics, and sensors with
different properties and quality, as well as just differing in number of
pixels, plus different postprocessing. I suppose you could compre two DSLR
bodies with identical lenses but different chips, and just ignore
differences in the chips other than pixel count. But, as far as i can
tell, that's not what we're doing!

You can look at this mathematically, as i'm sure you're all aware. The
resolution of a camera, based on Airy discs and all that, is given by 1.22
* l * F, where l is the wavelength of the light (let's say it's 500 nm,
blue-green) and F is the F-number. My camera apparently has a minimum
F-number of F/3.3 (bit rubbish, but there you go), which makes for a
resolution of 2.013 microns at the detector. The chip is apparently 6.16
mm wide and 4.62 mm tall, and is divided into 3072 pixels across and 2304
vertically, for a pixel size of bang on 2 microns. Wahey, perfectly
matched! Now, if i shoot at higher F-numbers (or longer wavelengths), then
the optical resolution falls below that of the chip, and i'm oversampling
and wasting bits. But it's not true to say that i'd be just as well off
with a 5 MPx camera under all conditions.

Now, having said that, my camera is 7 MPx, and has a really pretty good
lens. I could well believe that some 10 MPx micro-compact with a diddy
little lens would fall on the wrong side of the resolution matchup.

But then, oversampling is not completely pointless. It is possible to take
an oversampled image and recover more resolution by applying deconvolution
to it. Digital cameras do a lot of postprocessing, so maybe this is
something they do. Although really good quality deconvolution is pretty
computionally expensive, so i suspect not. Or maybe they just do a
poor-quality version.

tom

--
A plug on its back, straining to suck voltage from the sky

New DLR Trains
 

On 15 Mar, 23:36, Tom Anderson wrote:
Well hang on, what? So a 10 MPx camera not only captures more information
than a 5 MPx one, but in fact so much more that when you reduce the images
to 5 MPx they still look better? This is a rum proposition, most rum. How
could this possibly be the case?

Google "Bayer filter", for one thing. You're also assuming CCDs are
perfect devices, without noise between adjacent pixels, which
absolutely is not the case.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London