So is the light sourcing ray-traced or not?

And push the light source back
*Kicks the mic into the sun located next to the window*

So at the beginning of this video we see a canyon being lit by some bluish celestial body straight ahead. then a shadow from this ship hits the ground in the foreground but we are LOOKING at the light source and I don't see the ship blocking it. This is the kind of massive cheat that I just can't get behind.

pretty sweet for in-engine though, if that's what this was.

You asked Ulysses a question and he answered it. Stale humour, he did not find it funny. Curiousity sated.

You escalated from there.

Perhaps offended was the wrong word, but you seem driven to prove that non feminists, particularly the male variant, seem to be colourblind to Schuler's humour, it's something they can't possibly find funny because their attitude or lack of understanding blocks out the spectrum where the funny wavelength is in this particular comedic light source. Basically any other reason than a good old fashioned, totally subjective "I didn't find that funny".

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.

> I can imagine this replacing ALL outdoor lighting.

As long as they still build a pole to hold FIVE walls around and above the light source in order to not pollute the night sky.

I'm in total agreement with @MichaelL. Strictly speaking, this is definitely not an optical illusion by virtue of the fact that it is not an illusion.

You're just seeing objective reality the way nature is presenting it to the universe and the same way everyone else sees it. It would only be an optical illusion if it physically existed one way but your eyes/brain perceived it a different way.


It'd be like turning on a light in a dark room and declaring it an optical illusion that everything is illuminated because the photons from the light source are making everything look bright, but in reality it's all dark, so: optical illusion. "The room is being incorrectly perceived because it's actually dark, but you're perceiving it as bright."

Yeah, no.

Were you not paying attention in physics class the day they explained the difference between mass and weight? As @Payback pointed out the energy required to overcome inertia is the same no matter what the gravity, low gravity simply allows you to "spread the duration" of the force like a fulcrum.

I.e. it would be easier than on earth but you still have to apply enough force to move 2-300kg of mass, you just have the option of doing so less rapidly (making it easier but not easy).

Even if this were not the case your argument still makes no sense. If it was indeed faked then surely they were on wires anyway? How else are you proposing they replicated the effects of low gravity?

The fact your comment got 3 likes is rather depressing. As someone who makes researching conspiracy theories a borderline obsessive hobby I can say with some confidence that the whole faked moon landing thing is about the most debunk-able one ever conceived. It is an insult to the very term "conspiracy theory" and helps give the rest of us a bad name .

Radiation belt? = 7 mins of expertly calculated exposure, there is a 1000ish page NASA manual on how they did this.

Cameras? = they had about 20 DIFFERENT cameras & much like anyone else would the crappy poorly framed or exposed shots weren't used for publicity

Multiple light sources? = The surface of the moon is both highly reflective and uneven. (mythbusters did the shit out of that one)

Most complicated machine ever built? = Actually launched, several times, to the freaking moon and back!

Waving flag? = Funny how every single shot of the flag waving is when someone is holding/touching it eh? (& what kind of retard leaves evidence of wind in the most expensive coverup of all time?)

The Russian space programme? = They just turned a blind eye to their arch rivals lauding it over them? They were in on it? You have to get really paranoid before that one starts to make any sense whatsoever.

etc. etc. etc.

I have a lot of time for conspiracy theories and I'm happy to speculate with the best of them but I've yet to find a single good argument for the landing not happening. I can maybe work with the possibility that some things were omitted/covered up (Monoliths etc.) because this could not be conclusively refuted by empirical facts. Suggesting that it never happened however is so easy to disprove it blows my mind that people still have time for the idea.

For your own sake try looking into the opposing arguments. There are plenty people with PHD's and direct experience who are happy to take you through the counters to all this stuff. And they back it up with actual evidence and experiments rather than conjecture and selective information. Your mind will thank you for it

It would be kinda cool if the sun started shooting out EMPs at us randomly two or three times a week for a few years. Either that, or take a boat ride out to see some 300 miles from any light source at night. Not sure how else you could avoid light pollution now a days.

wow, i remember trying raytrace software on my atari st.. a ball and two light sources.. took an entire night to render one frame.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

@GenjiKilpatrick, you forgot rule #427,362: If Danny can't think of a way to improve a technology that he was just introduced to, off-hand, via information he learned in a two-minute video, then further innovation is clearly impossible.
>> ^dannym3141:
The only way i can imagine to get more visible light out of this, other than actually increasing the intensity of the light emitted per cell by the stuff...


@dannym3141: I too assumed that the cells were emitting the light, but if you read/watch it again, the cells are merely producing energy (via carbon somehow) that is stored in batteries. The light source is still just a light.


Perhaps you've forgotten rule #427,362 ammendment A which suggests you read things carefully to ensure you're not over reacting, for example when someone uses the phrase "genuine question" and then tries to explain their point more clearly and asks for clarification from the other.

I'm afraid i don't have time to read up on every technology that i see cool videos of, but lucky for me some other people do and if i ask nicely and sound interested i tend to find they're happy to explain it to me.

If you'd read my first post which actually started the matter i think you'd have understood my confusion and maybe not needed to be rude? Earlier i asked "why don't they shine the weak light onto a solar panel?" Well, it seems that kinda is what they do, thanks for letting me know

I'm surprised that someone as apparently vigilant to information as yourself (what with you knowing rule #427,362 so well) didn't even bother to read the original question. So when genji tells me "it would get better", i think the method of operation has been confirmed and then i try and use my understanding of how something like that might work to try and understand how it might be improved. Then, i try and discuss it.

I'm not going to apologise for trying to figure out and find out how something works.

@GenjiKilpatrick, you forgot rule #427,362: If Danny can't think of a way to improve a technology that he was just introduced to, off-hand, via information he learned in a two-minute video, then further innovation is clearly impossible.
>> ^dannym3141:

The only way i can imagine to get more visible light out of this, other than actually increasing the intensity of the light emitted per cell by the stuff...



@dannym3141: I too assumed that the cells were emitting the light, but if you read/watch it again, the cells are merely producing energy (via carbon somehow) that is stored in batteries. The light source is still just a light.

Surpassed only by the comeback..

I think the green aspect makes it pretty useless as a light source for roads, and they're really dim. Never once mentioned advancements or improvements. Is that as good as it gets? Because it looked bad. Maybe they could be used to clean the air, and shine onto solar panels which store it for later release through an actually decent light. Heh, there's an idea. Solar powered torch (well, carbon powered really).