Is there a high resolution timer?

is there a high resolution timer which is more accurate than System.getCurrentTimeMillis() ?
nanaseconds or something similar?

is there a high resolution timer which is more
accurate than System.getCurrentTimeMillis() ?
nanaseconds or something similar?Doubt it. It all comes down to how granular your OS/hardware can be. Even with milliseconds, at least on boxes running windows, it is only accurate to some multiple of milliseconds (something like 18).

Similar Messages

  • High-resolution timer for the iPhone

    The NSDate class is actually very high-resolution.
    NSDate *startDate = [[NSDate alloc] init];
    // do something
    NSDate *endDate = [[NSDate alloc] init];
    double seconds = [endDate timeIntervalSinceDate:startDate];
    iPhone simulator: 0.001013 or 0.000983 ms accuracy (about twice as long as it takes to pull the date)
    iPhone debug: between about 0.014 and 0.015 ms accuracy (it takes that long to pull the date)
    The [NSDate date] might be simpler than alloc and init, but it actually takes about 3 millionths of a second longer on the simulator.

    So are you asking for a way to obtain a timestamp with less latency or how to implement a timer?

  • In iMovie, why do I get the msg "high resolution video thumbnails and then it immediately starts with "now" and it's hung up for a long time

    In iMovie, why do I get the msg "high resolution video thumbnails" and it automatically goes to Now and the laptop is hung up for a very long time and I have to shut down to get out of it?

    Hi,
    Welcome to the    Discussions
    So we have DSL Modem <-> Base Station <-> Computer connected by Ethernet.
    Is the Modem Routing ?
    Is the Base Station set to "Share An IP" ?
    (i.e are there two DHCP servers on your LAN ?)
    Is Internet Sharing On in th G5s System Preferences > Sharing pane ?
    In the Base Station is Port Mapping Protocol Enabled if it is doing routing ?
    It is in the NAT tab of the Internet Pane.
    Is the G5 also doing WiFi to the Base Station ?
    Also check the Modem is not Blocking PINGS as this log shows no PING (But I am not sure it even got that far)
    7:45 PM Thursday; February 18, 2010
    Please, if posting Logs, do not post any Log info after the line "Binary Images for iChat"

  • Why is there no scaling for high resolution monitors in Adobe Bridge CC?

    Why is there no scaling for high resolution monitors in Adobe Bridge CC?
    Photoshop CC, Illustrator CC and Indesign CC have 200% scaling for high resolution monitors in their preferences panel but Bridge CC does not, when will this feature be added to Bridge CC Adobe???

    qsea wrote:
    Why is there no scaling for high resolution monitors in Adobe Bridge CC?
    Photoshop CC, Illustrator CC and Indesign CC have 200% scaling…
    Inconsistency between or among applications in the artificial "suites" should come as no surprise.
    The "suite" concept is a fabrication of Adobe marketing and bean-counting types.  The engineering teams are totally independent of each other, they are not only in different buildings but in different cities and states of the American Union, even in different countries.
    The fact that they have little if any communication among them is highlighted by requests occasionally made in these forums by top Adobe engineers to let the other teams know when there are problems in one application that impact our workflow in another one.

  • Is there a way to take a high resolution image, and trace it in a lower resolution?

    Layers appear to need to be all in the same resolution, so I'm thinking layers are out. Is there any other ways to do this?

    Hi Trevor, thanks for responding!
    Basically, my goal is to use a higher resolution image as the basis for pixel art, but underlaying the higher resolution source picture under a much lower resolution layer, and "trace" out the basis for the pixel art on top of it. I suppose it would be a bit like onion skinning, but I'd need the two (layers? canvasses?) to be of radically different resolutions to accomplish what I'm trying to achieve. It's not a "size" issue, as I'd want the top to be the same physical size as the bottom, just have the top be, let's say 64 pixels by 64 pixels, and the bottom image to be 800 pixels by 800 pixels.
    If that doesn't make sense, let me know, and I'll have another go at it!
    Thanks very much!

  • FaceTime freezes when same room has no problems. The picture is high resolution. There are no freezes when calling my daughter's iPad but the picture is lower resolution. Can I troubleshoot this?

    FaceTime freezes when I call my son's iPad. Calling his iPhone in the same room has no problems. The picture is high resolution. There are no freezes when calling my daughter's iPad but the picture is lower resolution. Can I troubleshoot this?

    Thanks Mario, but I tried everything there before posting my question. I may not have been clear in my question since I accidently recorded the whole question as the title and tried to edit. In brief: I have no trouble connecting with my daughter's iPad or my son's iPhone. However, his iPad is sending much higher resolution pictures and we disconnect after about a minute.  Oddly, he can hear and see me while my screen first freezes, then goes black and gives me a message of "reconnecting" until it quits trying and shows the buttons to end or redial. The picture quality difference is what is leading me to believe it is bandwidth related. However, I get anywhere from 5 to 10 MB download speeds; usually closer to 10. Last summer, I had 4 granddaughters on their iPads, a grandson on his gaming device and me on cell phone or pc, all using the bandwidth at once with no complaints. If there is a way to lower his outgoing resolution, I think that would help.

  • Counter/timer high resolution

    Dear all
     I have developed a counter-timer program by using NI PCI-6601 card and LabVIEW 7.1 on P-IV with Windows XP.
    It gives satisfactory results when I apply i.e.
                                                                  Input 100000 Hz at 1 sec high Time and 1.00E-7 sec low time  which gives output 100000 counts,
                                                                  Input 100000 Hz at 0.5 sec high Time and 1.00E-7 sec low time  which gives output 50000 counts and
                                                                  Input 100000 Hz at 0.2 sec high Time and 1.00E-7 sec low time  which gives output 20000 counts
     But when I goes to achieve high resolution it gives incorrect data i.e.
                                              Input 100000 Hz at 0.1sec high Time and 1.00E-7 sec low time  which gives output 20000/10000 counts, and below this value it also gives wrong output data.
                                                         I want to achieve .001 sec high time.
                                                         Please help me to solve this problem.
    Best Wishes
    Ishfaq

    Hello Neal M,
    Thanks for reply and sparing time for me. I am using counter-0 for reading and counter-2 for pulse output.
    I want to achieve the following readings/counts at respective inputs which are following:
     Input 100000 Hz at 0.1sec high Time and 1.00E-7 sec low time  then the output should be 10000 counts,
     Input 100000 Hz at 0.01sec high Time and 1.00E-7 sec low time  then the output should be 1000 counts and 
     Input 100000 Hz at 0.001sec high Time and 1.00E-7 sec low time  then the output should be 100 counts.
    I am also sending you "counter timer high resolution.vi" in attachment.
    Thanks a lot again in helping me.
    Ishfaq
    Attachments:
    counter timer high resolution1.vi ‏192 KB

  • Is there a way to set my camera on my iPhone 5 to take a higher resolution picture

    How can I take a higher resolution pic on my iPhone 5? Please help and it seems like when I upload my pic to the computer or share via email or other media, the resolution is really low. Please help.

    The iPhone always takes photos at its highest resolution. If you share by anything other than copying to your computer via USB or sending via email the resolution will be reduced by the transfer medium. Email gives you a choice of resolutions, however, many email providers will not accept photos at the camera's highest resolution.
    It's also possible that you don't understand how resolution is measured. Image file size has very little to do with image resolution.

  • Are There Any Advantages To High Resolution Displays?

    I am looking to buy a new 17 inch MacBook Pro at the end of this month and seeking practical advice on configuration options I should choose.
    I am curious about what other people think of the advantages and disadvantages of the high resolution displays. Perhaps it is just a personal preference on the part of different users but non-graphics users I have talked to who have used the high res screens say they don't like them and why but I have yet to talk to any artists who have used them and whether artists find real advantages. My feeling is that it would be good to be able to fit a larger (more pixels) image on the screen or is it better to just leave high res screens to those who work with high definition video/animation?
    My usage of the computer is largely in Photoshop and other graphics programs like Painter, and web design.

    Just to be clear, though, reducing the resolution of an LCD can have a negative effect on image quality. LCDs have an optimal "native" resolution and setting the resolution below that native level results in a poorer quality image.
    Leopard claims "resolution independence" - I have not tried it yet, but if you read the description of this feature, you will note that it applies to the user interface elements. Granted, that's often what you notice the most (i.e. the problem with reducing the resolution below native for an LCD is that the text in Finder, all of the menu bar items, etc., looks "fuzzy"). By appropriately scaling the UI elements, Leopard overcomes the limitation. But the "fuzzyness" will still apply to non-UI things that are displayed - i.e. images. Since based on your posts you will be working with images primarily, high-res vs. standard is still a choice I'd recommend considering carefully, and ideally by trying them both side-by-side.
    Ps. Thanks for awarding points!

  • Forum oddity, w.r.t high resolution screen.

    I started a thread on Windows/ Photoshop entitled "CS4 with a high resolution screen". People have replied to this, according to e-mail direct response. However, it is not on the list of forums, and neither does it appear on 'search'.
    To repeat: we have a high resolution HP LP 3065 screen, which supports up to 2560 x 1600 pixels. At this resolution, images are still less than print size, but CS4 is essentially unusable because the menu text and other icons do not scale. Does anyone know if it is possible to manage this silly interface to allow the user to see what they are doing? Is there even a visual disability option? Even MS Office 2000 - ten years old - allows "large icons".
    If not, I think this is another way in which CS4 is in fact worse than CS3, which (mostly) used the Windows UI and which was therefore considerably more flexible. The screen in question is supported by dual DVI connections to an Nvidia FX3700 card - a CUDA multiprocessor device optimised for 2D images and CAD - and an eight processor, 3 GHz machine. With all of this processor power, CS4 is still much slower than CS3 on a single processor laptop. The paint follows the pen by several centimetres, like early Photoshop on a pre-Pentium processor.

    I started this by saying that through an oddity of this forum software, my original thread had vanished from the list. Exactly the same thing happened to this one, which i had to find through searching the forum list. The previous one vanished completely. One appears to get a different list if one comes in via a direct URL or via support > Forums > windows: an .asp error, presumably, but Adobe please note.
    Someone asked why use a high res screen. If you work on a large image, you either operate at the pixel level - a plate on a table top if you are at 1020 x 768 and working with a 20 megapixel image - or you shrink the thing down to fit. In the latter case, each pixel that you see is, depending on the native image size, an average of a large number of adjacent pixels. In the case of a 24Meg image and the above screen size, each visible pixel is an average (or however Adobe calculate it) of a bit over 20 pixels from the native image. If you look at 2560 x 1600 you are still seeing a composite, but of a quarter fewer source pixels per point. If you look at the natve image as 'actual pixels', the 'dinner plate' is four time bigger in proportion to that of the SVGA image.
    That said, imagine the layers pallet in which one layer has, let's say, a football set against an group of players , P/shop users will expect to see a black blob representing its position in the layer. At high resolution, however, the blob is represented on the screen by a patch that is smaller than a full stop on a page of type, and essentially invisible from 150 cm from the screen. Thus: squint, lean forward, mutter angrily.
    Why can one not set the icons and the ephemeral facilities such as the layers pallet to be any size you want? It is really very silly.

  • How can you make a pixlated image a higher resolution in Photoshop CC? i have tryed image size but it doesnt seem to work someone please help

    As you can see in the screenshot here ----> Gyazo - b048a0770df6264af1ff398951acd4f9.png I have typed a higher resolution but when I try the pixles never seen to ever go away and it increases the file size every time, is there an easier way? PS: if another adobe cc software is needed to complete this task I have every one so it doesn't have to only be in Photoshop.

    The image has been reduced in size and over sharpened to the point that jaggies artifacts abound.  You will not be happy with the result of interpolate the images up in size increase the number of pixels..   You need to find the original image file from the camera.

  • Saving an image to a higher resolution from a lower one

    I have photoshop cs6 on my MacBook Pro and downloaded images I'm working on for a friend who needs them for professional use. They're all in 72 dpi so I managed to save them at a higher resolution of 300 dpi, and in Tiff format but when I try to email them the images revert back to 72 dpi. How can I keep the resolution at 300 or higher for email
    Thanks

    I know you haven't asked for advice about the actual re-sampling process, but I can't help myself .
    If the images are for print reproduction or a similar high quality requirement the results are likely to be very poor even if up-sampled to 300dpi. It's OK to down-sample images if the pixel data is there in the first place. If it's only 72dpi and then up-sampled, and even if it looks good on screen, it'll be rubbish in commercial print.
    The exception might be if the actual dimensions of the 72dpi image is large and it is up-sampled to 300dpi but at the same time the dimensions are reduced considerably that should help preserve some quality.
    All that said, if you are using Mail, try selecting Actual Size, as shown in the image (if you haven't already). The option only appears when you add an attachment to an email.

  • Increasing physical dimensions of high resolution image?

    I have an image that I want to use in a video, though it is not physically large enough to fill the 1920 x 1080 dimensions of the video, though it has a 300ppi resolution and video only needs 72ppi. How do I take advantage of the fact that it is high resolution image, and increase the physical dimensions of the image? Is there a way to do this?
    Thanks.

    Hi Marian.
    Thanks for the excellent link. And I believe it is spot on.
    ***Warning: This is an off topic rant. And it's over 500 words.***
    I did not get my first computer until 2001. Although I am a scientist at heart (university trained in chemistry and physics), and quite comfortable with technology, there was something deep within me that was resistant to buying a computer. Almost an inner foreboding. Even though I had already been using corporate computer nets (not the internet) since 1979, the PC seemed ominous to me.
    And the internet seemed even more ominous. To the point that I didn't hook up to the web until 2006. I had a sense that the web was a double edged sword, and had the potential to diminish its users. Even though I had never been on line and had very little idea of what it was really all about. What I found was what I feared. A wasteland punctuated by oases of useful information. A wasteland in the literal sense. For every second saved on the task at hand, a minute is wasted by the distractions that bombard us on the way to saving that second.
    I'm not saying that the web is bad. Just that it's fraught with danger. And the worst danger is the notion that a concrete answer to every question is just a Google away. And with that, the odieous notion that every question can be answered comprehensively in one quarter of an internet page, leaving the rest for advertising.
    I do quite a bit of writing, and my first experience at writing for the internet was a disaster. Among other things, I am a fly fishing guide. A new internet fly fishing magazine had requested I submit a series of articles. Personal anecdotes about my experiences. The first article I submitted was about 2400 words. They loved it, but they said it said it was too long. So, I did a rewrite. It came in at 1800 words. And the rewrite took more time and effort than writing the original 2400 words. And the article was diminished. And still too long. They wanted it shorter.
    At this point, I dug in my heels. I admitted I understood such constraints on paper publishing, but how could they insist on such constraints on web publishing? How much does is cost to add a web page to an article? It's just another page they could slather with advertising. To which they replied, no one will read an article longer than 1200 words. I was flabbergasted. I like long articles and books. I'm bummed when I come to the end. In the end, these folks had an editor hack it down to 1200 words and publish it over my signature without my knowledge or permission. When I saw the article, I was appalled. I didn't recognize it. And demanded they take it down.
    Maybe the publisher was right about his readers having short attention spans. I hope not, but I'm afraid it's true. And this mindset is the 500 pound gorilla in the room that few want to address.
    I'm not by any stretch suggesting we should turn back the clock of progress. Only that we need to be aware of the negative potential of any new technology. And resist that negative potential with all our hearts. Or our minds will suffer.
    FWIW.
    Peace,
    Lee

  • [HELP] Changing LCD screens on a S55 B5280 Laptop for a higher resolution one

    Hi!
    I was wondering if there's any LCD screen that i can buy to replace the one that comes with the Toshiba  S55 B5280, that can provide a higher resolution. It would be the first time that i've changed a LCD screen for one capable of more resolution.
    Can someone help me on the subject? I don't need any "how-to" to do it, i just need to know which models that provide a higher resolution than 1366x768 are fully compatible with this particular laptop.
    Thanks in advance.

    ArchLinux is designed to run whether in VirtualBox or on a real machine. 
    If you have a TV connector plugged in it will chop some regular lines at the bottom to make up for the difference in TV resolution.
    There are a couple of packages related to nvidia hardware, nouveau is one of them.  Just do a pacman -Ss nvidia for possibilities of things you might need to install.  Your nvidia hardware is a little newer, so probably nvidia is the package you'll need instead of nouveau. 
    Are you using X?  When you install the proper xf86-video-* driver it shouldn't have any problems with X.  If modesetting is turned off, then some resolutions may not be made available (especially in Gnome), so it is best to keep it turned on if at all possible (kernel default).
    Last edited by nomorewindows (2012-03-12 17:19:55)

  • Help  High Resolution Thumbnails - Taking forever!!

    I have 1700 photos in my iPhoto libarry.  When I open the app today, I was asked if I wanted to generate high resolution thumbnails.  (I had been asked before but clicked - Ask Later).  Today, with no much happening, I said yes.
    It's been almost 4 hours - and the status bar has not even moved 1/2".
    I've searched the data base and have seen that it can take some time - especially for poeple with large libraries.  But 1700 photos and 4 hours.  That just does not seem right.
    Any ideas?  Just have patience?  Or is there a problem?
    Tim

    Hi Tim,
    What ultimately happened?  I have a brand new MBPr and roughly 4,000 photos... A few hours here and my progress bar is "stuck" on 95+%...
    Keith

Maybe you are looking for