Pretty cool!

One thing I personally dislike in very modern game CG is a tendency to overuse depth of field. For film, *some* use of depth of field can establish the important elements of the view by having them in focus, but in gameplay that is a dangerous thing to do because what the player considers to be important can shift rapidly and is in no way universal or predictable.

But if you play modern games or load up a custom ENB-like shader, they all tend to heavily implement a pretty narrow depth of field by default in what I assume is an effort to "look cool". Very true here, with the settings locking the female character into the focused range and starting in with the blur immediately beyond that. That's fine for a cutscene, but if I'm controlling things in any way or expecting to be able to react to visual information (by, you know, playing the game), the narrow focus really just detracts from the experience. It's like we're looking at the world through a microscope or a camera in macro mode ... just let me see a realistic (often infinite) range of depth in focus!

Hmmm. Well, I have a "low end" pc, and I've tried to play games on it, and was not impressed. Perhaps I should have done more investigation before I bought it, but I wasn't thinking 'game machine' when I did. Also, I have no controllers for it, and playing with the keyboard sucks ass! ;-)
Keep in mind, this setup on the video has over $4K in graphics cards alone, and is probably a $6-7K computer without the 3 TV's. With all that, it doesn't look better to me than last gen 3 screen games. (they should have chosen a different game IMO, I'm sure it does look way better when there's detail to display)

It's good that they're making them easier to set up, but it is still WAY more difficult than a console, which is plug and play. I still haven't gotten my PC to display properly on my TV without a cable across the room, and that's crappy.
I'm also disappointed that they tried to make the new consoles "media players" (crappy PCs). I wish they stuck with games and put it all into display features, but they didn't. I don't use the media features of my ps4 at all (except for Netflix, which my TV would do by itself if I set it up), they're a total waste.

Perhaps I'm stuck in a mid 90's mindset. That's the last time I built my own PC as a game rig. I had the full $250 thrustmaster setup, joystick and throttle with over 20 programmable buttons, and it was GREAT for descent and quake...but I recall being disappointed at how fast it was obsolete. Within 2 years I couldn't play newer games on it without stuttering....so I gave up on that. I can't afford to upgrade my memory and graphics card every 2 years, and motherboard and chip every 3.

I do recall a few games even on ps3 that could do the multiple display thing even at 1080i...I think motorstorm 1&2 (my favorite ps3 games) would do it, but you needed 3 ps3s to make it work. Today, you could probably do that for fairly cheap! What does a ps3 cost these days anyway? I must say, I didn't see anything that made 4K seem better. Motion blur looks the same at 1080 as 4K.

I kind of wish this guy would get a major film directing gig, or innovate in some other area now. All his videos are kind of blurring together as the same thing.

Love the folks in the background with the blurred faces; probably too embarrassed to be in the video.

I'm definitely not seeing any actual legitimate censorship issue and no legitimate point or argument--and certainly no censorship "rule." There is no rule or law against showing nipples on the internet. The decision to blur the photograph was made entirely by this V Magazine at their own discretion for their own reasons.

Compared to many western countries, the United States is relatively light on censorship precisely because of the codification of the first amendment. There are very few circumstances in which the federal government uses criminal law to enforce censorship, and using civil law to do likewise (such as in cases of libel) is relatively hard. Naturally, the truth on the ground is always more complex, because of all of the ways you can sneak sort-of-censorship into local and state laws such school boards determining public school curriculums, shady contracts, and discriminatory public decency laws. That last, which is really more what this guy is arguing about in a ham-fisted way.

I certainly don't believe there should be different laws for men and for women. If a bare-chested man in public is acceptable, I believe a bare-chested woman should be just as acceptable. In this case, I'd go so far as to say I believe that should be federal law, but that can likewise backfire in ways I don't agree with (eg, I believe wether to allow concealed handguns should be a local decision), so I'm not quick to make blanket statements.

Certainly the US is socially and psychologically backward in many, many ways, but it's also better in that respect now on balance than it has ever been in the past.

Trance said he doesn't understand why she doesn't. You said why should she have to? Nobody is saying she has to. She might want to if she'd like to avoid hearing other people speak their mind. It's her choice. Similarly, catcalling is their choice. They don't need to be classy if they don't want to.

The Jessica Williams video is better in that it isn't about privileged white cisgendered problems exclusively. However, it also doesn't make the case very well. There isn't any evidence of "Wall Street douches" making catcalls unless you want to talk about a picture of a blurred out face in a suit verbalizing nothing.

The assertion that many men are making is that girls selectively complain about catcalls. Specifically, they only want attention from the men they want attention from, and expect us to read their minds... I'm sorry... Body language... and figure out the difference.

For example, a (female) friend of mine was a teaching assistant at UT. She tells this story about going over a study on gender differences regarding random propositions for sex. As you might expect the results were that men were more likely to say yes, and women no. Big surprise there. Well, once the professor finished, Vince Young raised his hand and said "that's not how it works." Every girl in the room (according to my friend) blushed, giggled, twirled their hair, and "made eyes at him." It seems every girl in the room was ready for proposition from an nfl quarterback... Just not homeless people drinking on the stoop.

Derren Brown has publicly stated something to effect of his goal is to blur the line between what is possible and what has been staged. I forget the exact quote, but when I read it certainly explained some of his more 'extreme' mental 'tricks'. In particular his trick of taking a 'random' crowd and instantly converting them to some religious belief, and taking random normal people and very quickly talking them into performing an armed robbery in short order. Sorry, but using plants in the audience is well enough for me in most magic tricks. When the SOLE magic trick though is controlling or reading the audience member's mind using plants isn't a 'trick' anymore. It's just lying and I no longer count that as interesting or at all impressive.

The lines are so blurred between Left and Right these days that it's impossible to stand on one side or another. (there is good and bad mixed into both sides).
The new division is more like: Me first/grab what you can take Vs Living in peace and actually having morals.

I know which side I'm on, do you?

Well.., I guess the thing here is to define "Safe to eat" because many of my family members and friends "DO NOT" find it safe to eat.
Including nausea, stomach cramping and diarrhea and sometimes vomiting.

1). Is MSG the same as salt?

No. MSG is made from water, sodium and glutamate. Table salt is made from sodium and chloride.

2). Is MSG safe to eat?

Yes. According to Health Canada, MSG is not a health hazard.

BUT some people may have a sensitivity to MSG. It is the glutamate part of MSG that can produce symptoms such as:

Blurred vision
Tingling and/or burning sensation
Chills and shakes
Feeling of pressure on the face
Headache
Increased heartbeat
Nausea and vomiting
Pain in the face, back, neck or chest

These common symptoms of MSG sensitivity are generally temporary and can appear about 20 minutes after eating MSG and last for about two hours. The symptoms seem to happen faster and are more severe if you eat MSG-containing foods on an empty stomach or drink alcohol at the same time.
http://www.eatrightontario.ca/en/Articles/Food-allergies-intolerances/The-Truth-about-MSG.aspx#.U_wvE4JFcqU

Congratulations! Your video, "Weird Al" Yankovic - Word Crimes (Blurred Lines Parody), has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 13 Badge!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Blurred-Lines

"Weird Al" Yankovic - Word Crimes (Blurred Lines Parody) has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

Blurred Lines (uncensored) has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

Those "experts" sure use a lot of blur.

And whatever the guy in Germany was on, no we don't like our women looking like fresh out of the morgue. I would have send the photo back unedited btw.

Looks like a cheaper DSLR style camera. That's terrible terrible jello effect. And considering at the end I can see one guy with a Canon C100 and Rode VMP, I'd assume they had access to something a bit more modern than an old Nikon or Canon which had TERRIBLE jello effect. That C100 wouldn't exhibit anywhere near that amount of jello unless it was added in post for effect. (Seriously, the camera being used could be a C100 with the handle and mic port detached, but it's too grainy and motion blurred for me to see for sure.) No idea why they would do that either unless, like you stated, they really wanted to bring the quality down.