A tilt-shift lens isn't required for the tilt-shift effect.

Yet another completely awesome thing that would have been ridiculously expensive to film without drones.

Not sure if this is truly tilt-shift, as all the focus blur is computer generated. Probably just being pedantic.

Read: "Let me talk outta my ass cause i'm not black and I couldn't care less either way."

You're exactly the indigenous apologist asshole type Stewart is referring to.

People that try to minimize everything into a level playing field..

When clearly there's a ruling class that own the field, all the players and still tilt the board in their favor.

As the only brown person on this site..

Seriously fuck off, dude.

Tilted camera FTW

I lost it at the head tilt... (0:26)

the displaying in this manner isn't shocking, and isn't the full picture... actual data analysis would require you to show of the losers each year, what the diversity looks like... to prove any bias you'd then have to go and show that a white person was picked over someone who CLEARLY should have won (thing about opinions is; everyone has one)...

THEN to take it a step further... you'd have to look at all the movies/actors/directors that weren't nominated... which suddenly increases involves even MORE opinion

THEN of the actually qualified movies/actors/directors you've had to compare the ratio of diversity between those and the level of diversity of movies/actors/directs that aren't qualified to be nominated

etc, etc, etc...

there's alot more to diversity in the oscars than just whom they pick in the end; its the projects/roles available, the movies that get greenlit and why, its the original source materials

but to say there should be more diverse winners is not really conclusively proven by who's won in the past...

i'm sure everyone would feel better about racism if next year everyone that won was of a minority... independant of whether or not they were the best in their category... but equality is about equality; not tilting the scales in the opposite direction

and it's easier to point the finger at the Oscars, because its public, its on the forefront, and there's money involved... whereas going after the more likely causes at the writing/production/casting level... is less glamorous and prone to actually involving some humanity

I'm sure you would find, on that personal level, prejudices involved... but in regards to finger pointing like this video... I'm sure alot of fingers would be pointed at instances that were completely innocent...

but that involves getting personal... and understanding people... and who wants to do that? when you can point to little balls forming an oscar and say "LOOK HOW FEW THERE ARE!"

There were multiple factors involved, and in the case of the Titanic sinking it was possibly partly related to the water temperature and the properties of both the steel hull and the rivets, as well as the design and the careless operation of the vessel.

Before the wreck was found, much more was made of the design of the watertight bulkheads which only went up to E deck. This allowed any four to be compromised without sinking the vessel, but six were breached in the Titanic, so as the boat tilted more, water could flow over the top of the bulkheads.

More recently, since inspection of the wreck became possible, metallurgy has been blamed much more. The hole made by the iceberg was straight and at the bottom of steel panels, indicating rivet failure. Testing of the steel used in the construction also found quality issues there, impurities would have made it more brittle than intended.

The first video on the subject that came up was this one:

The problem wasn't the engine. It seemed strong enough to move the load up the hill. The tilt put the centre of balance nearly under the drive wheels, which caused the engine's power to lift the front end of up rather than drive it forward. The engine was both holding the truck in place on the hill and lifting the front end. If the engine had been defeated, it wouldn't have been able to lift the cab.

So going in reverse might have done it (if it didn't happen to make the ratio too high).

Putting some of those branches on the front bumper to shift the weight would have done it for sure.

*timelapse

I prefer my real tilt-shift lens.

Ugh. I'm going to start downvoting faux tilt-shift eventually....

This thing is practically a Rube Goldberg machine.

A simple tilted chute with a slot that identifies which way the batteries that slide down it are pointing, separating them into forms that deposit them on a conveyor, would have done the trick without all that dancing.

(Yes, I know, I destroy the magic in souls frequently. Utility over aesthetics ho!)

This. The classist element here is palpable. The video even says, "people from all backgrounds." Coulda fooled me. I didn't see any well-to-do folk in there. I'd like to see the counter video where the tall chiseled guy in the suit says hi to random women on the street and we see their reactions. I bet you get quite a few blushing, smiling, tilting their head and tossing/twirling their hair. The reality is that this video is about undesirables with the gall to come up from the sewers.

Where there is a legitimate point comes from inherent physicality differences. Just the other day I turned around in line to find myself about 6 inches from a guy who's got to be 6'8" 325 pounds. I clock in about 6' 230. I'm not used to that feeling. I suddenly realized what it must be like for women all the damn time. Now if some little dude were to comment on my ass, sure, I will engage and laugh it off... But that dude? Even a "hey there" would make me sweat. That said, it's still a reaction rooted in stereotypes.

This brings me to a final point, which is what I'd call a form of sizism. Not the usual fattism, but rather the assumptions that go along with bigger people more generally. Brawny guys, particularly dark skinned brawny guys, are automatically assumed to be dangerous. BNBG, so to speak. While there is some obvious rational basis to this assumption, I think it has gone way to far and negatively impacts the social inclusion of bigger folk. We big folk have to go way overboard with passivity to not be seen as a rapist in waiting. Else, embrace your inner meat head and go cruise the gym scene.

Hopefully this will all get addressed at the next Question Period in the house. Yes, sarcasm. With morons like Calandra and the gutless Scheer as Speaker, perhaps someone finally went tilt and just couldn't take it anymore.

Let's see who the shooter is and the motive, eh?

ps. People are that stupid. See: UK news, Australian news.

I dunno, I think that he was asking an (unfortunately) common question in a way that gave Greenwald a fair and friendly environment to respond to it -- which he did in spectacular style. I thought that his response was definitely the highlight of the Q/A at the end, and arguably a highlight of the entire speech/video.

If he went on Bill O'Reilly or some other Fox News show, the same question would be asked, and then he be interrupted during his response rather that allowing him to point out the ridiculousness of that line of thinking... So, I think that between A) playing Devil's Advocate and getting that question out of the way, and B) kind of "lobbing" the question to him instead of really going full-tilt, it was a good way to allow Greenwald to respond to that issue without having it seem like they were avoiding pressing him with the "tough questions". Pretty well done, I think.

Yeah there are slap bands out there, but they don't work like this is presented to work. The arms would have to bend in multiple dimensions, and then straighten out and be able to provide a stable flying platform. The closest thing I think of for doing something like that is the "bendy" character toys where the metal wire is co-molded inside the body. That is a very heavy solution.
I misspoke on the 2" square, it is 2" x 2", so 4" square. I'm not sure that I agree that theirs is 6" x 3", but even if it is that would mean that the prop size would have to be about 1.25" and that doesn't work for a 6" x 3" vehicle. There isn't enough thrust and the motors at that size don't provide enough RPM's for that kind of weight.
On the electronic side, they show it connecting to a smart phone with video feedback. That means you have to have bluetooth at least, or a 5.4ghz video system if you want more than 30' range. or it has to have a Wifi TX on it. All of those thing require power. Sure it could analyze the video signal to determine subject matter, and provide guidance but you have some very serious issues there. If you do it on board it requires some processor power (More drain), if you do it on the smart phone app it will create lag.
Your phone has over 1,000 mAh in it (1440 in Iphone 5), that is a TON (4-10x) more than what this thing would have. Battery technology may be a big research project right now, but there isn't anything on the horizon that will get them to where they need to be. Most of the tech research is in sub 1C rated batteries for things like full size cars. Something like this needs a 10C rating minimum if not a 20C rating. Unfortunately most of the upcoming technology can not handle drains that fast. Things tend to go "Boom!". When you do something small, and even 6" x 3" is small, you have very serious power vs weight issues. It all comes down to issues of power density, and nothing exists today that will give it to them as they would need..

So right now these guys need to figure out:
1) A new light weight material that can lock rigid but also bend as needed in multiple directions.
2) A new battery technology that allows them to get the power they need, for a 6 axis gyro, 4 motors, control board,a RX, a HD camera and some sort of VTX while reducing weight. How long it powers all of that would be open, but if it is under 10 minutes I think people would be a little disgruntled. Right now people are wanting the video quads to get about 30-45 minutes of flight time on the 5200+mAh batteries.
3) Write code that allows them to analyze video in real time so as to provide object tracking and avoidance without lag while capable of running on a smartphone. It would also need to return to home when the battery runs low. That would be a little tricky on a cliff face, or if you are riding a bike through a forest. Another issue is that they tilt the camera down, they don't say if this is actuated, or done by hand, but it could lead to serious issues with programming object avoidance if you can't see anything above you.
4) Since they show the image as HD on the phone screen, they would also need to come up with a new way to broadcast HD video wirelessly. Right now that system costs $40K and is rather large.

All in all it is a dream product that people are going to get suckered into funding it. Some tech may come out of it that could be monetized, but I don't see the item coming out in this format, at least not in the next 3-5 years. You'd be better off going with AirDog.