I wouldn't worry about not being good with channels. Someone will always fix it for you.

Two observations:
1. Since the guy's face wasn't blurred out, he must have signed a permission slip to appear on camera. So apparently he is proud of his own behavior.
2. He had a hell of a mess to clean up with all those chopped toppings strewn all over.

Dang.

I am fascinated and quite proud of humanity for this feat. It is no small accomplishment and the NASA engineers should be congratulated on their planning and execution of a near flawless automated landing.

However all that being said this video is not very exciting nor captivating, the majority of it is simply a brownish blur of an image.

An overlay of what is taking place and maybe even some highlights would help this video have more general impact.

I'm on the fence about that. I half want to see it looking good, and half want to see it the way it was. The only thing I really don't like visually about TNG is the foam rocks, and I doubt any amount of light touch editing will fix that.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^messenger:
I prefer the old one because the effects are part of the time it came from. Having advanced graphics is anachronistic and takes me out of the story.
(and I don't have a lawn)

It's not the effects that bother me as much as the crappy video quality. It's blurred and the colour grading is awful.

>> ^messenger:

I prefer the old one because the effects are part of the time it came from. Having advanced graphics is anachronistic and takes me out of the story.
(and I don't have a lawn)


It's not the effects that bother me as much as the crappy video quality. It's blurred and the colour grading is awful.

>> ^L0cky:

Get the feeling the focal depth is also acting as optimisation as well though. The amount of in focus geometry is pretty low.

The amount of geometry is low, focused or not. I bet the background is just an image, probably mapped to the inside of a giant sphere.

If it wasn't, it wouldn't help that it's blurry. If you're raytracing, you've still got to do all the same calculations to areas that are out of focus that you do to areas that are in focus. The depth of field is calculated by your virtual camera/lense.

As I said, this is probably just a picture on a surface in the background and it's probably blurred solely for the purpose of keeping you from noticing.

I want that chess set.

I'd like to see a version without nearly as much depth of field blurring.

There is a bit more debate about what exactly is going on than he is implying. While there is some suppression of the optic nerve signals during a saccade, it isn't clear it is entirely suppressed. Rather, it just seems that the motion blur from the extremely high image velocity renders the image useless. One trick I like to demonstrate that to myself is looking at a fast fan. If you move your eyes in the direction of the fan blade, you'll actually see a clear image of the blade because the retinal image velocity will be much lower.

On another note, it's an absolute shame that he had to blur out the faces of the Syrian dancers.

I'm guessing they would have been persecuted if their faces were made available, sadly.

ha ha! so jealous of your polluted mind. 38-39°C is a very unique piece of work. thanks for sharing it.
In reply to this comment by geo321:
sigh. I'm too messed up. The animations are blurring to look like people doing a differrent plot than what I saw them do before.

sigh. I'm too messed up. The animations are blurring to look like people doing a differrent plot than what I saw them do before.

I love how one of the cubicle worker's computer screen was blurred out!

Is the video messed up for anyone else? When it shatters it reappears for a second and blurs a bit and then disappears again.

Everything but private businesses, right?



Well, officers of public companies are (or should be) held to account by their board, their shareholders, and the market. Those are the people with interests at stake. The reason why public spending is held to such standards is because every taxpayer (and citizen) has interests at stake.

Conversely, there is not much good reason to hold a private business accountable for spending. If you have a lemonade stand and you want to spend all your profits on candy, then that's really up to you. If you're mad that your boss spends all the company money on candy (or lets the secretary do so), work somewhere else.

To be clear, I don't like how the US handled the bailouts of private enterprises because it blurs these lines. But that's a generally separate issue.

Created by the crew at Blur Studios.