The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Pretty neat, but can they do it without the white dots all over the face? Couldn't they make the tracking dots only visible in UV light, so the camera can track them but they don't interfere with the projected image? That would look so much better.

@moonsammy At 1:52 and 2:42 you can see it's just an off the shelf Canon DSLR. I'm assuming it has some sort of filter that only allows UV light through.

@jmd I don't think those are hot pixels. Notice the spots aren't always in the same place, and in some scenes aren't there at all. In the last scene the spot only shows up as the UV filter slides over, so it's possibly dust on the lens, filter or sensor.

Wow, that makes me SO afraid to think what my skin must look like under UV. I've had severe Texas sun burns repeatedly, not good.
On a side note, are these people in trouble now for doing 'black face'?

There are a couple of good points about this video, a couple of bad ones, and several things he didn't mention that he should have.
The good - yes people usually use too little, and don't reapply as often as they should, they also don't realise that water resistant doesn't mean water proof, and don't reapply after going in the water.

The bad - he didn't debunk that study at all - conducting perfect studies are next to impossible, that doesn't mean this study was not useful in guiding decision making. Then he turned around, and without even referring to a study, said that sunscreen is "good", as if we should completely disregard a large study done across many years, but take his word for something 'because he says so'. There is actually no proof that sunscreens are good, only that they reduce the rate of burning if used as directed, and they may reduce the rates of some cancers, but the important thing is that the wavelengths that are causing the burning are not necessarily the ones that are doing the most DNA damage - so sunscreens should only be used as a last resort, the DNA will still suffer UV damage no matter what SPF you use if you stay out too long in the hot part of the day (usually 10-4).

Things he didn't mention - if you leave sunscreen on too long and continue to stay out in the sun, the UV rays react with the sunscreen in the deeper layers of the dermis to form free radicals (which can be cancer forming compounds). So using it improperly could potentially increase your risk of getting cancer.

This is not even to mention the numerous dodgy compounds that are often in sunscreens that have had very little testing done on them over the long term to ensure they are safe for human use. Or the fact sunscreens (even broad spectrum ones) provide very little UVA protection, and little to no infrared protection (which also causes damage).

So in my opinion, sunscreens have the potential to be good, but a far better option is to get your sun when the sun is not at it's hottest so you get enough vitamin D, then the rest of the day, cover yourself with effective clothing/wide brimmed hat if you are outside. If you absolutely have to be outside and it is impossible to wear proper clothing then follow his advice and make sure you use the sunscreen as directed, as this is far more important than going for an SPF higher than about 15. Just be prepared to buy a lot of sunscreen because you will be very surprised how much you have to use to cover yourself properly.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Shiny, from the context in which Volump used the quote, it really seems that he did understand what Lumbsten was saying, and was accurately pointing out that it is incorrect, or at least misleading. The human eye has a pretty significant blind spot as the result of the nervous connections having to pass through the layer of photoreceptors. While there are some who argue that the layout of the vertebrate eye helps to cope with damage cause by UV radiation, it doesn't make sense to argue that it functions this way because it is 'designed' for use out of water. The eyes of fishes have the same design (...extremely good evidence for evolutionary relatedness), and fish, of course, usually use their eyes underwater.
A stronger argument suggesting an adaptive trade-off between the costs of having nervous connections in front of the photoreceptors and some other benefits of this anatomy would be that the arrangement of the vertebrate eye allows for the photoreceptors to be closer to their blood supply in the choriod.

It seems that this is simply a robotic MIG welder set at low power/high wire speed and grounded to the floor plate. It would likely not be good for anything structural, but great for art and the like.
Neat!
Side note, that guy should be wearing a face mask, and the window should be UV tinted to avoid blinding people watching, welding is dangerous if you ignore the safety equipment (my eyes were damaged by it, and I always used proper safety equipment).

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Hmm. This could have been done better. I was hoping to see visualizations of:
* Birds' extremely high-speed vision; fast enough to fly through trees' foliage.
* Jumping spiders with 2 focusable main eyes and 6 other eyes.
* Mantis shrimp with their 6+ receptors, including UV, IR and polarization.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.