I didn't "get" the THX intro until I heard it in my own home cinema setup, with a really nice Dynaudio speakers, calibrated for good sound. Then I experienced a chord that grew deeper, fuller, and more powerful, swelling and swelling to an awesome climax.

When I heard it in theatres, it was always way too loud, with an ear-piercing treble that was just annoying and made you cover your ears. It was always annoying - never awesome.
In by own setup I could finally hear the majesty of it, without that piercing treble making me wince, and could instead feel being swept away by the deep notes.

it's exactly what the filmmaker wanted you to see *if you see it in a calibrated theatre.

You hear it. It is still to small to see at these early dates.

You see it when it is large enough to see.

But hey keep reaching for some flickering electric pulse.

Un like you I don't just sit around and read this and that and claim to be the expert on ALL things. Book smart is 1 thing. Its not real world.



My Education and career. Like I can make this shit up. I've worked in more hospitals and clinics than you can ever imagine. I've worked in other areas than mentioned. Ive worked in the morgue, I've watched hundreds of cath and vascular cases. I watched 1 patient die on the table. I worked in rooms with just recently dead patients. Ive assisted in replacing CT tube, calibrating Nuc Med cameras. It goes on and on.




You are proven Way the FUCK wrong.

Newt you clearly out of you depth. Walk away in shame now and keep at least a little dignity.

Your an Elitist TOOL who "knows" all the right answers, even when they are wrong.


Few thing I know for certain. I will be 60 in November. Tesla stock will 4X within 4 years and turn my 1 Million into 4 million dollars. And "you" will still believe that you are the smartest.

In 4 years I wound even remember you.
Newt who?

Possibly trivial, but I'd think doing by hand with no calibration would be tiresome and possibly add in errors. It's still evolutionary if not revolutionary.

Not sure that I'd call it trivial, but from what one can gather, using the panel of known colors as a calibrant for correction during processing does seem like an obvious approach. I'm assuming that the newsworthiness of this is in the trick or complexity of the post-processing - removing scatter, haze, correcting the full color spectrum with multiple calibration points - it won't be a simple linear correction. I ain't no expert, but have spent oodles of time trying to color correct videos and stills from our scuba trips, and the *automatic* color correction in current software is still pretty poor IMO, relying often on a single color as the calibrant (so, a "pure" white region in the photo, a "pure" black region in the photo etc.). Manual adjustment of the photo color balance for UW vids and photos is on my list of "What Hell must be like".

@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.

You’re reading it wrong. The IPCC is showing temperature anomaly relative to a specific time frame, you have to compare against the same starting time frame or it is meaningless. Which is by the by an extremely frequently repeated trope used by the hard core denial side.

If you cant find comparable reference frames, use change from a common year. Go look at NOAA’s temps for 2000 and 2019 and take the delta, then compare that delta to the IPCC, you’ll find both fall around the sub 0.5C of change from 2000 to 2020, close ish at least to one another.

Edit:
That may have been a lazy explanation. I went and looked for your 0.83 for 2018, which looks like it is referencing a NOAA release, it lists it's values as calibrated against the 1951-1980 mean.
The IPCC however lists their own numbers as calibrated against the 1986-2005 mean.
Obviously, the mean temp from 1951-1980 is gonna be much lower than the the mean from 1986-2005, so you can't to a direct comparison. If you look at the instrumental portion of the IPCC results you'll see how much it 'under' hits the NOAA data too, just because it's calibrated to a warmer baseline.
Make sense?

Calibration, Calibration, Calibration.

RTINGS.com reviews TVs in-depth, and also provide color calibration info (within the Settings, or sometimes hidden menu) for each TV model they review. If your TV is on there, it's worth trying their settings before spending money on a calibration device+software.

There's a whole specialty field called "display calibration" that goes deep, deep down this rabbit hole. And yes, they (Tom Cruise and the guy whose name you can't hear because Tom interrupts him) are correct. Motion smoothing is violating image fidelity. It should be turned off.

We are stuck with 24 frames per second in movies, forever. Peter Jackson tried 48 frames per second with The Hobbit. It failed because it felt like the "soap opera effect".

But in almost all other video contexts, more FPS is better. Obviously in gaming more is better. YouTube supports up to 60 FPS, as does most decent recording software these days.

The blue shift that almost every TV has when on display is also a result of funky default settings. The human eye perceives a blue light as slightly brighter than a full spectrum light with the same intensity. So it works to sell TVs. And when you switch it off the default color scheme, you're first impression will be that the picture looks muted or even yellowish. This is because you are accustomed to seeing way to much blue.

If you are a true video aficionado, you'll get yourself a color meter for a few hundred bucks and do an amateur display calibration on your set.

If you are a video psycho (of if you sell faithful video experiences to an audience like in a theater) you'll hire a professional to come out with a high end spectrophotometer and calibrate each display input properly using a standardized video source.

The reason no-one believed Trump would win was that we were all suckered into believing that no-one would be dumb enough to vote for the asshole.

On one hand, we were right. In any sane election, Trump would have lost because he got TWO MILLION less votes.

On the other hand, we underestimated the stupidity of half the US electorate.

The dumbest people voted for the dumbest, most crooked candidate and he is now merrily fucking over the very same people who voted for him, while they lie back screaming "yeah, fuck me harder.... I can take it! more!!"

Sorry USA, but if you don't get your shit together, we'll just have to wait for your inevitable economic collapse, because there's no way you can maintain your position if this is the calibre of leader you intend to elect in future.

Right, well these are all pretty easy, and the point was exaggeration for comedic effect...

It's not funny, but if one wanted to actually be instructional, the fine line now would be something like: can I ask a woman out a third time after she turned me down twice, the difference between telling a woman "You look great" and "that dress looks great on you" + looking her up and down, should you ever tell a woman you work with you're attracted to her, can I proposition a woman a second time if she's still at my place after a date and said no once? If not, can I ask her to leave then? Can I play that song Baby its cold Outside or Blurred Lines at the office party? Can I tell a joke about sex and should I stop when a woman enters the room, or does that make it worse?

IMO, it's not helpful to pretend it should be obvious and everyone who doesn't get it is a laughable idiot or creep. Or to insist that there's a definite line and you're either a "decent person" or a "complete wanker"... most of us are somewhere in between and vary day to day. Or to say "if it feels wrong it IS wrong"... obviously some men have their feels calibrated differently and would benefit from the rules to being more explicit.

Either that, or the answer to all of these is "depends on the woman..." you just need to get to know them, and even then you probably will make a mistake.

After the recent production numbers of the Model 3 and the reports of horrible working conditions at the Fremont plant, Tesla lost a lot of its shine for me.

Elon Musk seems to be convinced that being a Silicon Valley bigshot of his calibre is enough to run this operation, or that industrialism of the sort that, say, Toyota is engaged in is outdated. Those pitiful production numbers and the issues with the workforce indicate to me that management at Tesla (read: Musk) is not capable of industrial manufacture of cars at scale. Not at this time, at least.

It does not have to be about fitting into gamut, pink is a combination of blue and red light, which monitors are good at.

The problem with real world materials is that perception is not as simple as that. The combination of reflected, refracted, and even radiated (transformed wavelength) and polarized light, the micro-structure of the surface and possibly other properties can influence perception.

Like your favourite washing powder makes your whites whiter, this stuff makes pinks look pinker somehow. Its about fooling your eyes in specific conditions. You can simulate the difference between a known pink - a standard colour sample - and this awesome new pink by putting them side by side and calibrating the camera and monitor to show the new pink as pink and the reference pink as less pink, like at the end of the video, but that cant beat walking into an art gallery and seeing it with your own eyes. I mean probably, I havent seen this particular pink, but I have seen modern paintings which look nothing like their RGB or CMYK reproductions.

*ban8.0
James Victoru
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8WhKEsp5LI

*related= https://videosift.com/video/Apple-Watch-Band-HERMES-Edition
* ban7.0
James Victoru
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2aWWC9FeIA

*related= http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Buy-Instagram-Followers
* ban6.0
Swisswatches view
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQH8boModUo


*related= http://videosift.com/video/Cyprus-company-formation
* ban5.0
Swisswatches view
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4egM_uTRsEU


*related= http://videosift.com/video/Best-hcg-Drop
* ban4.0
Swisswatches view
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxkJGyZMiFA


*related= http://videosift.com/video/Top-Work-From-Home
* ban3.0
Swisswatches view
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_bpI9r7R0k


*related= http://videosift.com/video/Cartier-Calibre-de-Cartier-Watches
* ban2.0
Swisswatches view
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG5lfUoqxfc


*related= http://videosift.com/video/Cartier-tank-MC
* ban1.0
Swisswatches view
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfm_hnDYva8