Your video, Aperture Desk Job Trailer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If it's not on PC it's not for me. Starting at just $400.
I'll up vote because it's Aperture and Steam.

Steam link is very interesting to me.

I'm a PC gamer. I don't own any consoles and 99% of the time I'm perfectly happy with that (using a controller for an FPS is sick and wrong!).

But there are some games I would like to play from my couch with a controller (Arkham for instance)

As for the controller itself, it looks ok, but I really don't see any reason to use it over my trusty old 360 pad. As I said, I'll never play an fps with anything other than kbm, so unless it's better for driving or 3rd person, I'm gonna go with meh.

Oh and just in case anyone thinks I'm just hating on Valve, I'm drinking coffee at work from my aperture science mug and I have a signed poster of the TF2 heavy in my house

Canon manages it by strobing the flash repeatedly though the moving slit. This is called HSS flash as I recall.

It lets you shoot super fast exposures, get huge apertures and still use some fill.

I always thought the aperatures were made of plasma-resistant material since they're in contact with the main blade, that had some reason, too rare or some thermal issue that stopped people from making their entire saber out of it.

Besides, you would think a Sith Lord could twist his hand so that the Jedi's blade hit the plasma before it touched the aperture. Plus, the "hilt blades" come into play whenever you have that trope where the dualists lock blades and push together, allowing use as a weapon.

I disagree on the tilt-shift lens (I own one, by the way) - I just think they used a fast wide-aperture lens - they just used it at full aperture and changed the plane of focus back and forth. This is just the simple effect of adjusting the focus. On the shots where everything was in focus they stopped down to get everything sharp.
On the low depth of field shots the camera and lens pivot on a fixed tripod, and you wouldn't get any perspective changes - the camera does not move.
I'm guessing that this was shot with a 70-200/2.8, which is capable of some rather low DoF shots when focused close like this.

No - you can clearly see that the plane of sharpness and the depth of field give the illusion away (and confirm that the video is not fake) - especially for the baseball at 0:50-1:00 - it is clear that this is an image and not a 3D object. Just like you clearly can see if the glasses are real or not in the final shot.
Quite obvious that the shots with the changing focus aren't faked, especially if you're used to low DoF photography with fast lenses. The plane of sharpness do not follow the 3D shapes when focusing back and forth - the plane follows the still image on the table.

And of course they adjusted the exposure during the shot! They go back and forth from large apertures to small apertures - they had to change the shutter time and/or ISO.

You can also tell that the deepest shadows on the images never get quite dark enough - look at the shadow underneath the globe in the opening shot, versus the deeper blacks on the typewriter and sunglasses. This is easily seen in all the shots, if you know what to look for.
And, stuff like the edges of the papers under the glasses in the final shot - real objects do not have chromatic aberration with a red tint towards the corner of the image and a blue tint towards the centre of the image.

Nope - real.
Of course it isn't one take, but they did not use editing trickery - they do not swap out 3D objects for 2D ones or vice versa.

Any aperture will produce this result, it's just that a larger aperture will produce a fuzzier image, so at one point it will just blur beyond recognition.
Basically every tiny detail in the image is spread out over the area of the shape of the apeture, but if you spread out the image over a large area you can get a pretty decent quality image.
The size of the image is determined by the ratio of the distance from the focal point to the sun and the wall respectively.
In this case the focal point is in the aperture itself but if your using a lens it can be elsewhere.

Diffraction only comes into play when you have a really tiny aperture.

I know next to nothing about photography, but I guess this has something to do with the ratio of the size of the aperture to focal length? Anyone care to explain in more detail?

That's what I was thinking too, he needed to stop the aperture down.

>> ^WaterDweller:

2:50 - Four hour exposure? Seriously? Surely, ten minutes in the darkest of nights would overexpose any image unless you used a really narrow aperture (and possibly even then)?


I wish. Night time photography would be a hell of a lot easier if this were true.

It's not. Four hours on a dark night seems reasonable to me. Depends on the camera settings used, of course, but if you keep the ISO low and use a reasonable aperture for good depth of field four hours sounds reasonable. The main problem with this is sensor bloom from the heat of the batteries and circuit boards in the camera itself.

2:50 - Four hour exposure? Seriously? Surely, ten minutes in the darkest of nights would overexpose any image unless you used a really narrow aperture (and possibly even then)?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Boner: It is still confusing...

Astrophysicists have created the most realistic computer simulation of the universe's evolution to date, tracking activity from the Big Bang to now -- a time span of around 14 billion years -- in high resolution.

Created by a team at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics (CfA) in collaboration with researchers at the Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies (HITS), the Arepo software provides detailed imagery of different galaxies in the local universe using a technique known as "moving mesh".

Unlike previous model simulators, such as the Gadget code, Arepo's hydrodynamic model replicates the gaseous formations following the Big Bang by using a virtual, flexible grid that has the capacity to move to match the motions of the gas, stars, dark matter and dark energy that make up space -- it's like a virtual model of the cosmic web, able to bend and flex to support the matter and celestial bodies that make up the universe. Old simulators instead used a more regimented, fixed, cubic grid.

"We took all the advantages of previous codes and removed the disadvantages," explained Volker Springel, the HITS astrophysicist who built the software. Springel, an expert in galaxy formation who helped build the Millennium Simulation to trace the evolution of 10 billion particles, used Harvard's Odyssey supercomputer to run the simulation. Its 1,024 processor cores allowed the team to compress 14 billion years worth of cosmic history in the space of a few months.

The results are spiral galaxies like the Milky Way and Andromeda that actually look like spiral galaxies -- not the blurred blobs depicted by previous simulators -- generated from data input that stretches as far back as the afterglow of the Big Bang, thus portraying a dramatic cosmic evolution (see the above video for a sneak peek of that evolution from four billion years after the Big Bang).

"We find that Arepo leads to significantly higher star formation rates for galaxies in massive haloes and to more extended gaseous disks in galaxies, which also feature a thinner and smoother morphology than their Gadget counterparts," the team states in a paper describing the technology.

Though the feat is impressive -- CfA astrophysicist Debora Sijacki compares the high-resolution simulation's improvement over previous models to that of the 24.5-metre aperture Giant Magellan Telescope's improvement over all telescopes -- the team aim to generate simulations of larger areas of the universe. If this is achieved, the team will have created not only the most realistic, but the biggest universe simulation ever.



>> ^BoneRemake:

this video is a waste without addition information.
what am I looking at. spiraling gas' or something.
what is the significance, why did nine people upvote something they probably do not understand.
what part of the universe is this ? why didnt it start at the beginning ?
WHY WHY FUCKING WHY.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.