What would your strategy for working with raw image data and implementing a digital “zoom” that doesn’t do any anti aliasing or smoothing? My current thought is to just have an original copy of the data and then the current canvas is just a smaller subset of the original data when zoomed. So a 100x100 pixel image when zoomed 1x would take a 50x50 subset based on the center of the viewport and copy each pixel into a 2x2 to get back to a 100x100 image.
Unless I misunderstand you, you should be able to `ctx.drawImage` from one canvas to another, with `imageSmoothingEnabled` set to false, and it will do what you want.
That's interesting because the 3 blazor projects that I have done client work for are all WASM not server. Do you have a source for the stats on server vs wasm deployments or just what you've experienced so far?
It's just personal experience and what I've heard from other enterprises. Inside corporate networks the latency from Blazor Server isn't a showstopper, and Blazor Server has been production-ready for much longer than Blazor/WASM.
And sadly Blazor WASM even in .NET 6 has runtime performance slower than React, with 5 Mb hello world download.
The other big advantage of Blazor server is you can remove the separate service layer project and deployment target entirely, reducing total code and total infrastructure significantly.
For sure. There has been a lot of pushback in the community from both sides of that issue. They wanted to reduce the boilerplate and make it cleaner to make simpler projects (with the goal of enabling microservice scenarios). But that moved some people's cheese from the standpoint of what the recommended path is. The problem is that there's a huge amount of very good documentation on the microsoft documentation site, but it's not organized in a way that makes it easy to find.
The AAVSO and Project Panoptes are two citizen science astronomy projects that are welcoming to all levels of experience. I think like with all hobbies you can spend a lot or a little, although for good astronomy equipment you either have to have machining/engineering skills or deep pockets for the best stuff. You can't really cheat the laws of physics when it comes to lenses, cameras, and mounts. What interests me is the science behind the data processing of photometry. That and the engineering behind building a remote observatory without spending a fortune. You definitely can find things that the pros can't because you will be able to get way more telescope time than a pro does. Things like verifying exoplanet candidates, or observing variable stars and eclipsing binaries and recording the light curves. All stuff that amateurs can contribute to.
To be fair, it is a bit of a privilege. Like most things, it requires a lot of work too, but people learn humility and kindness from each other. Those who grow up with loving parents are a lot more likely to become loving parents.
