Don't feed the trolls. Blurry does not "discuss".

It looks fake. Gotta say. Why was he filming the eagle? Why is the baby in the slow mo all blurry?

THIS is what it looks like when an eagle pwns something bigger than itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYX1VJx2YsI

Hey shiny blurry, you need to learn how to read. Particularly if you want to be taken seriously.

Nothing can completely eliminate uncertainty, we can only hope to reduce uncertainty. It is a false premise to say that there must be absolute certainty, and it is a false solution to say that God gives it.

Is trusting my senses because my senses tell me I was right to trust my senses circular reasoning? In an extremely technical sense, yes. And it's definitely true to say that some people are better at sensing reality than others. But that's all we have and as it turns out we can achieve some pretty cool things operating under those assumptions.

Some, for instance, seem to think that the divine maker of the Universe told them that the earth is 7000 years old. Those people are pretty bad at interpreting reality and they typically have a really bad track record of finding things like AIDS medications. But hey, they sure can feel intellectually superior to a 6th grader or they might think that they're being smart on an Internet forum and that they have figured out some massive flaw to our blind trust in the audacious assumption that everything that goes up must come down.

Others, on the other hand, use a super rigorous technique to reduce the odds that their conclusions are at odds with the reality we can sense and they do things like invent MRI machines that have this weird ability to predict the presence of tumors.

I mean, I'm inclined to believe that our understanding of physics is validated by repeated, accurate predictions of tumors and broken bones and their nature, but I don't think I should trust that. My senses could be deceiving me.

Questions:
Why are all the video thumbnails such bad quality?
I'm looking at them and they are fuzzy, blurry and almost look like they have a screen filter on them. It is possible that the thumbnail process is compressing the images too much creating extensive compression artifact but I don't think that's it. To me they all look like what you would get if you filmed your TV screen with a low resolution video camera and then made a JPG out of it. Just plain ol' low quality.

Why are the comment text boxes so small?
Text boxes, like the one I am typing in right now show about six lines of text. I assume it's to give that sleek/slim look to the page and not take up so much vertical real estate on the page. Sometimes slimmer isn't better. I have to constantly stop and scroll up and down just to read my one paragraph as I'm typing to make sure my sentences make sense. Never mind actually trying to see more of what I've written. It's not quite like reading a book through a pin-hole but it does feel awfully claustrophobic. - Oh hold on... There's a corner I can pull and make the text box window larger - nice. You still may or may not want to set the default box size to text lines of text, at least.

I wonder if aerial imaging is an option.

If scientists can predict the count, mass and orbit shapes of planets as they circle a distant star purely through slight shimmers in a blurry image. Surely there'd be an anomaly in some level of the visual spectrum where aerial imaging could detect a difference.

>> ^chingalera:

makes me feel all gay 'n it's blurry

It's blurry because imageshack is shrinking it slightly. Try the direct link to the image: and make sure your browser hasn't resized it.

Looks good. The comments are very smart. It could do with a small drop shadow/thin black line underneath the navigation bar at the top though.

makes me feel all gay 'n it's blurry

Doesn't seem like a falling satellite to me, but it's hard to tell with video so blurry and shaky. It looks more like the contrail from a commercial airliner at cruising altitude lit by the post-sunset (or pre-sunrise) sun. At first it's flying away with a vector to the left. Later when it's going "straight down), it's just flying directly away.

Oh damn! I just posted almost the same one but mine is the unedited version. Not sure I should dupe it since it doesn't have the music or blurry edged editing...well here's the link to mine. Anyone please feel free to dupe it if you consider it to be a dupe. http://videosift.com/video/Bunny-Loves-Balloon-TOO-MUCH

The whole time I was expecting him to magically make his hat look less ugly. Oh wait. Armani Foreign Currency Exchange. I get it!

Also, as this is the internet, and the camera goes blurry a lot I have to throw out the suggestion that there may have been a bit of slight of camera work in this video. Thoughts? Controversy?

Do you see black or is it more like there is something missing? I get that sometimes. I might be reading and suddenly for some reason I cannot make out the words in the middle of my vision. But it isn't blurry or black or bright or anything. It is just missing. It feels truly weird and it is hard to explain because how can there be nothing in just part of my vision without there being a hole there or a dark spot or something! Like if you look at a painting that is missing a part you can see a shape around the hole, you can see something on the other side. Having part of what you see be just missing without any artifact, it just feels slippery in a way. Like my mind just cannot process that part right now and in its place there is nothing, not even a gap.
>> ^TheFreak:

Forget deja vu, that description of Blindsight might explain one of the strangest things I've ever experienced.
I suffer occular migraines periodically. Generally, when that happens I get a blind spot that grows until my entire vision is gone, then after several minutes it clears up. The process takes about 20-40 minutes from beginning to end.
Well...one day I'm playing Halo online with friends and between games I begin to get an occular migraine. So I let everyone know I might end up running into walls for the duration of the next game. By midpoint of the game I'm completely blind. When the game ends I'm chatting with my friends on my team about the experience of losing my sight like that when someone says, "well for a blind person you played awfully well". Huh? So I have them tell me my score and I was top scorer in the game. Which is when it occurs to me that, even though I was fully blinded for the majority of the game, I never stopped playing.
So at one level I'm perceiving myself as totally without sight, while at another level I'm still moving and reacting, with great precision, to visual input.
Go figure.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Ok, it's an obvious troll, but what the hell, I'll bite.
Why? Do you actually have a reason or do you just want the kids of your blurry lawn?


The old version already exists, is fine and watchable, beloved by millions of people and takes no additional work to produce; whereas the new version, which can barely be distinguished in side-by-side comparisons and not at all in normal viewing conditions, needed a bunch of wasted effort to make. It has consumed human labour to no purpose. Also, it is on Blu-ray so worse by definition.

Obviously I say this as an adult who watches everything in the lowest resolution available. Sometimes I even read books with no pictures at all. 1080p gaylords may have other (wrong) ideas.

I am actually pretty surprised you went for that.

>> ^gorillaman:

Old version's better.


Ok, it's an obvious troll, but what the hell, I'll bite.

Why? Do you actually have a reason or do you just want the kids of your blurry lawn?

>> ^L0cky:

Get the feeling the focal depth is also acting as optimisation as well though. The amount of in focus geometry is pretty low.

The amount of geometry is low, focused or not. I bet the background is just an image, probably mapped to the inside of a giant sphere.

If it wasn't, it wouldn't help that it's blurry. If you're raytracing, you've still got to do all the same calculations to areas that are out of focus that you do to areas that are in focus. The depth of field is calculated by your virtual camera/lense.

As I said, this is probably just a picture on a surface in the background and it's probably blurred solely for the purpose of keeping you from noticing.