search results matching tag: rgb

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (15)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (1)     Comments (129)   

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

Unpack the court, it’s packed with unqualified fraudulent unscrupulous appointments now.

Democrats hold control now, and can make the court have as many seats as they like. Shitty, but those are the rules…rules they should change as soon as they take advantage of them. Not unconstitutional. No whining like you normally do….like you are now….crybaby.

Not holding a hearing when the constitution says they “shall”, not they “may choose not to until their party makes the nomination”, is unconstitutional and not following the “rules”, on top of being hypocritical, unethical, and immoral. He wasn’t denied the position by vote, like Bork, he was denied the constitutionally required hearing and vote he was constitutionally guaranteed.

Left of center, yes, but centrists. You clearly don’t know what that means. Holy shit.
Rabid leftists? far from it. You can’t say the same for the right leaners, they are extremist far right wing activist judges, out of touch with the majority of the country and the law. One is a blatant unapologetic rapist, another a dishonest religious zealot with no judicial experience.
I didn’t expect a respected serious jurist like RGB, but didn’t expect people less respectable and less serious than ODB.

I overstate! LMFAHS!! Hilarious coming from the bombastic liar completely divorced from reality that overstates everything that he doesn’t just completely make up.
If overstating everything, desperate to prove himself at every instance makes one a miserable poser and a child looking for approval, why are you so in love with and a zealous follower of a desperate miserable poser child begging for approval, namely Trump?
🤦‍♂️

I must have hit a real nerve to get you this triggered, Snowflake. Whine like a spoiled little girl some more, bobby. Your Trumpist tears are delicious….and your broken English blather makes an entertaining, if fact free, read.

Edit: more good news for ya….the DC appellate court just ruled unanimously that Trump has no say in the release of White House documents surrounding Jan 6 (or any others). The unanimous ruling makes it unlikely the Supreme Court will even consider it. We’re going to see what he’s so terrified will come to light, his complicity in the attempted coup, and exactly what he expected to come from it. Hint, it’s not what he’s been telling you.
Oh, and it sounds like there may be more obstruction of justice investigations since Trump admitted he fired Comey to derail the investigation, and if he hadn’t he would have been convicted and removed from office. His words. Not smart to admit on the air.
Aaaaaand, the full, unedited by Barr, Mueller report may be released soon. The one the investigators wrote before the one they released, including all their findings that Barr apparently refused to accept, allegedly containing lots of never before released findings, charges,evidence, and information. A FOIA request prompted the DOJ to begin vetting it for classified info, should be ready mid February. Not good for a Trump comeback, or Republican mid terms. D’oh! Don’t cry….don’t cry.

bobknight33 said:

You bitch like a little girl.
Now you want to stack the court?


Republicans had control and Garlend was denied. Those are the rules, as shitty as they are.

Shitty but not un Constitutional.

Sotomayor and Kagan are centrist in your eyes but left of center in everyone else eyes.

Kavenaugh and Barrett are conservatives. You hoped for an RGB?

The left held the majority for quite a while and now doesn't.



We all know you over state everything trying to be some beacon of knowledge light.

You just a miserable poser, desperately to prove yourself at every instance.


Do you want a cookie for your efforts? You a child just looking for approval.

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

bobknight33 says...

You bitch like a little girl.
Now you want to stack the court?


Republicans had control and Garlend was denied. Those are the rules, as shitty as they are.

Shitty but not un Constitutional.

Sotomayor and Kagan are centrist in your eyes but left of center in everyone else eyes.

Kavenaugh and Barrett are conservatives. You hoped for an RGB?

The left held the majority for quite a while and now doesn't.



We all know you over state everything trying to be some beacon of knowledge light.

You just a miserable poser, desperately to prove yourself at every instance.


Do you want a cookie for your efforts? You a child just looking for approval.

newtboy said:

Democrats are denied even a hearing for even their centrist picks (Garland) outrageously unconstitutionally, then Republicans pick FAR RIGHT politicos to replace moderate leftist judges. That was new, never before seen in our history.
Sotomayor and Karen are centrists, dumb shit. Kavenaugh and Barrett are extremist far right wingers…

A Disturbance in the Force Trailer

PC guy is BACK! Watch him troll Apple's MacBook event ('I'm

Brett Kavanaugh Is a Terrible Judge & a Liar...

newtboy says...

Bob. You're just being stubborn.
They didn't refute anything..
Guess all logic escapes your brain. "I don't know" is different from "it didn't happen", they all said "I don't know, I don't recall, I don't think he would do that", not "I know it didn't happen"....guess that's too nuanced for today's republicans' education levels. Sad.

Democrats (all senators) are barred from discussing the FBI report in detail at all, so it's against Senate rules for them to refute any details. They did contradict the idea that it's a report of an investigation of the charges since the fbi refused to interview the accused, the accuser, anyone the accuser named as having knowledge, or inspect her medical records, or any other evidence she has offered them.

No, democrats aren't saying you have to believe her, they're saying you have to actually investigate her charges, democrats and independents are saying his demeanor is unsuited for the supreme court based on his Senate testimony, which was all a display of Republicans spinning on their uncontrolled emotions. Watching it confirmed that "feeling".

Jebus Christ, you can't even keep your own made up numbers right, yesterday it was 17, today it's 10, by next week it will be 15 agreed with her at this rate. Facts are Ford said one thing, others say they didn't see that, only Kavanaugh says it didn't happen.

You heard RGB is upset with democrats enough to quit? Lol...from where, Alex Jones or Trump?

I hope Dumbocrats pull the same move retardicans did and refuse to hold hearings if there's another opening, but they have no spine so likely won't.

Yeah, that lone number looks good by itself, you must be so proud of winning so bigly, and pleased your president has strengthened our union so well instead of dividing us further. Unemployment rates are down, but so is average worker income. More people are working more today, but for less money. I would prefer much higher unemployment with wages high enough that single worker households and stay at home parents become a thing....we're going the other direction to the point where multiple wage earners require multiple jobs just to keep a modest family solvent. If full employment still leaves one in poverty, having more people employed hardly helps escape poverty.

Congratulations on getting a hugely divisive temperamental judge forced through by the skin of your teeth. No whining if democrats do the same things in 2.5 years.

bobknight33 said:

No one can confirm her testimony because all that she named refuted it-.. Guess this escapes the logic cells of the leftest brain.

Democrats never contradicted the latest FBI report. There is no there there. So they went with more smear and innuendo.

Conservatives are not spinning emotions, Democrats are. You "have to believer her" On what grounds? No one confirms her story.

Facts are 10 say one thing and Ford say the opposite. ..

Welcome to the new SCOTUS Kavanaugh.

I heard that RBG is disgusted by the Democrat tactics used. Can we say SCOTUS pick #3? Do you think Democrats can pull this sleazy slanderous stunt again?


Democrats are loosing bigly on every issue, Trade, NAFTA, Korea, Paris Climate accord, etc, Most of these are nothing more than major American Job killers and Trump is calling BS for what it is and bring jobs back. 4.2% GDP growth ,, unemployment down to 3.9,% lowest in 39 years.

Vox: How Technicolor changed movies.

I Can't Show You How Pink This Pink Is

vil says...

Essentially there is no such thing as white light or indeed pink light. White light is when all your color receptors are saturated, what you think of as pink is when blue and red light is combined, and the possible wavelength combinations in both cases are sadly endless and impossible to represent fully in a simple table or graph.

Pink is a relatively easy color for monitors because, unlike for example yellow, pink is always a combination of blue and red light, while real life yellow is represented by a combination of blue and green light on your monitor and blue and green receptors in your eye. So yellow exists but we only ever see its representation as a mix of green and blue, while pink is a virtual colour all round :-)

Yes I suspect fluorescense is at play in this case somehow.

With RGB and CMYk the key word is representatiom. There are real life impressions of colours, and then there is the wish for standardisation and representation, but the eye is a very imperfect tool and representation is approximate. Real life paintings are awesome and you dont even come close watching photographs or computer monitors or prints in books.

Buttle said:

Pink is a combination of red and white light.
There are almost surely numerous combinations of various spectral colors that will look exactly like ultra-pink to our limited eyes. Fitting into the various color gamuts involved in color reproduction and perception is not very simple at all.

Whiter than white washing powders work by using fluourescence -- they transmute some of the ultraviolet light striking them into visible light. The reason this works is explainable by a color gamut, the gamut of the human eye. If we could see in the ultraviolet range that is being absorbed then the trick wouldn't be nearly as effective. There are animals, for example bees, that do see colors bluer than we can, and in fact some flowers have patterns that are visible only to them.

It is possible that fluorescence is partly responsible for ultra-pinkness. If it is, that would have been more interesting than what was presented.

I suspect, but do not know, that the CMYK or RGB color representation schemes are up to the task of encoding the colors you describe. The problem is that there is no practical process that can sense them in an image, nor any practical process that can mechanically reproduce them.

I Can't Show You How Pink This Pink Is

Buttle says...

Pink is a combination of red and white light.
There are almost surely numerous combinations of various spectral colors that will look exactly like ultra-pink to our limited eyes. Fitting into the various color gamuts involved in color reproduction and perception is not very simple at all.

Whiter than white washing powders work by using fluourescence -- they transmute some of the ultraviolet light striking them into visible light. The reason this works is explainable by a color gamut, the gamut of the human eye. If we could see in the ultraviolet range that is being absorbed then the trick wouldn't be nearly as effective. There are animals, for example bees, that do see colors bluer than we can, and in fact some flowers have patterns that are visible only to them.

It is possible that fluorescence is partly responsible for ultra-pinkness. If it is, that would have been more interesting than what was presented.

I suspect, but do not know, that the CMYK or RGB color representation schemes are up to the task of encoding the colors you describe. The problem is that there is no practical process that can sense them in an image, nor any practical process that can mechanically reproduce them.

vil said:

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.

I Can't Show You How Pink This Pink Is

vil says...

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.

Virtual reality, explained with some trippy optical illusion

newtboy says...

You went farther than I did then.
All I can say is when I cut out squares in a piece of paper, I could see a difference until they 'masked off' the image, then it had changed. I know these can work without fudging, which is why I was disappointed.
Did you note the difference between the 'colored' image and the 'masked off' image? It sure seems like there's a difference to me, if I stop it 1/2 way through and cover all but 2 squares, one is slightly lighter than the other on my monitor. That went for both the cubes and the floor tiles. Maybe it's 'eye memory' or something, but it sure seemed to me that the center tile was noticeably lighter until the 'masking off' happened.
I used a piece of paper against my monitor to measure the table,....I must have moved it when marking it, because now when I do it, it seems the tables ARE the same size. Damn touch screen, kept starting the video every time I touched it.
If those lines were really pixel straight, my paper is cut with a curve or my monitor has a problem.
Again, you went farther than I did to prove it, so I'll defer to you and accept I'm seeing things, even when I mask them off myself.

EDIT: Just a thought why I may have seen it differently, do you think it's possible that 'light bleed' or 'color bleed' on my monitor has anything to do with it? I mean, since the pixel next to the 'grey' block might be glowing bright yellow, it could color the grey slightly yellow, while the RGB value would not change?

ChaosEngine said:

Sorry, newt, but that's simply inaccurate.

I saw two grey pills too, but you're completely wrong about the others. I screen shotted all the images into paint.net to verify them.

The rubix cube image is 100% real. The RGB values for the blue and yellow tiles are identical (127,128,129).

Same with the the tiles under the table. They are are off by a small amount (rgb 70 68 71 vs rgb 70 68 70), but I'd but that down to the video encoding.

Ditto with the checkboard; zooming in with paint.net the lines are pixel straight (there is some anti-aliasing at the edges, but it doesn't affect the "straightness of the checkerboard").

The tables too, are the same size. I rotated the vertical table.

If you don't believe me, try it yourself.

Virtual reality, explained with some trippy optical illusion

ChaosEngine says...

Sorry, newt, but that's simply inaccurate.

I saw two grey pills too, but you're completely wrong about the others. I screen shotted all the images into paint.net to verify them.

The rubix cube image is 100% real. The RGB values for the blue and yellow tiles are identical (127,128,129).

Same with the the tiles under the table. They are are off by a small amount (rgb 70 68 71 vs rgb 70 68 70), but I'd but that down to the video encoding.

Ditto with the checkboard; zooming in with paint.net the lines are pixel straight (there is some anti-aliasing at the edges, but it doesn't affect the "straightness of the checkerboard").

The tables too, are the same size. I rotated the vertical table.

If you don't believe me, try it yourself.

newtboy said:

OK. Looking extremely closely and using paper to block out the image, I have to say they fudged things on some of them.
I saw two grey pills the whole time.
The colored tiles fade to grey as they "mask off" the other tiles, they start no where near the shade of grey they end up as, their color has faded a lot in the process.
The grey tiles on the floor also change shades as they are 'masked off' quite clearly. I went 1/4 speed, and also tried masking them off myself, they clearly faked this one.
I put a straight edge on the checker board and sure enough, those lines are slightly curved....just barely but they are.
The two table tops are NOT the same size at first, I measured and the vertical table is definitely longer on the long side. That one's obvious.
The spinning dots does work for me, as do convex images and auditory illusions.
So I'm not ready to call 'fake' on this, but IMO it's fudged badly.

How Digital Light Processing (DLP) Works

spawnflagger says...

The Ti DLP chip is the most commercially successful MEMS device created. I own a DLP projector(720p) and a rear projection Mitsubishi DLP TV (1080p). I like that DLP chips can give you 3D (in a checkerboard pattern) basically for "free", and it looks better, IMHO, than other 3D displays which also use active-shutter glasses.

Some nitpicking - most home DLP projectors use a 6-color wheel, not 3.

He also didn't mention that most digital movie theaters use DLP - although this is a a more expensive system, because there are 3 light sources and 3 DLP chips (RGB) instead of having a color wheel - and they are larger chips with more mirrors.

NASA's Incandescent Sun

Evelyn: The Cutest Evil Dead Girl

clint eastwood



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon