There's a whole specialty field called "display calibration" that goes deep, deep down this rabbit hole. And yes, they (Tom Cruise and the guy whose name you can't hear because Tom interrupts him) are correct. Motion smoothing is violating image fidelity. It should be turned off.

We are stuck with 24 frames per second in movies, forever. Peter Jackson tried 48 frames per second with The Hobbit. It failed because it felt like the "soap opera effect".

But in almost all other video contexts, more FPS is better. Obviously in gaming more is better. YouTube supports up to 60 FPS, as does most decent recording software these days.

The blue shift that almost every TV has when on display is also a result of funky default settings. The human eye perceives a blue light as slightly brighter than a full spectrum light with the same intensity. So it works to sell TVs. And when you switch it off the default color scheme, you're first impression will be that the picture looks muted or even yellowish. This is because you are accustomed to seeing way to much blue.

If you are a true video aficionado, you'll get yourself a color meter for a few hundred bucks and do an amateur display calibration on your set.

If you are a video psycho (of if you sell faithful video experiences to an audience like in a theater) you'll hire a professional to come out with a high end spectrophotometer and calibrate each display input properly using a standardized video source.

Retard jokes are my rape jokes (go for it though, doesn't really bother me, just not that funny). My aunt has DS. She is high functioning like the folks in this video, holds a job, helps around the house, etc. For that we're blessed. However, I'd argue that this video doesn't do the best job of showing the full spectrum of downs. Everyone in this video is very high functioning, and it isn't always like that. I've met some DS people that really need help to do even the most basic tasks. Often, it's nearly impossible to get much more than a word or two out of them, and they can be extremely irritable. The high functioning folks can manage their lives, but it would be a mistake to assume they are all as capable as these folks.

Wow, they really managed to get the full spectrum of commentators there didn't they?

The comics who really have no friggen idea of taste, and it's not a case of the topic as one of the commentator's said, it's the quality and intent of the joke. Some of those commedians have no idea when a joke is just mean spirited and cruel.

But then, they also got that one guy who was a complete wet blanket on everything, no-one was apparently allowed to laugh at anything, geeze.

But I do agree how incredibly bad it is for people to not show images of Mohamed purely out of fear. It's not due to any actual respect for religion or anything, it's purely because they're afraid they'll be killed. That's when something needs to be done, because it is not being religiously insensitive of people to print a picture of Mohamed, it's being completely unrealistic and disgustingly single minded to want to kill others for doing so.

People get shitty when images of Jesus are lampooned, but they generally aren't firebombed for it. People who can't handle others making fun of their messiahs are obviously not secure enough in their faith. If they were they could let it pass as a joke that doesn't concern them as they 'know they are right'. If they are that incensed by their prophet being lampooned then perhaps they need to question themselves and whether them getting so annoyed is due to them actually sharing in the doubts themselves?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^ pot smokers would find the idea of getting stoned and raping someone pretty silly.

Not to say that it couldn't happen - but I doubt that pot would have anything to do with it.

When you look at the full spectrum of drugs around - caffeine, booze and prescriptions - pot falls way over on the "non-violent, watch TV, eat something yummy" end.

I do recording and editing a lot as part of one of my jobs, and this is an especially notable video for me. When audio is being edited, one of the final things done to the audio is to "normalize" it, so that all the sounds are scaled up to take advantage of the full spectrum of available sound. Simply increasing the volume will result in "clipping" off the loudest parts of the song, and if too much of it clips, you end up with distortion and noise. Conversely, if you average out the loudest sounds so that the entire song is normalized louder, you lose the clarity of the song, as this video demonstrates.

Ideally, you'd employ a soft limiter to keep the loudest parts of the song, like those drum beats, from being too loud, and THEN normalize it. The result is a song with just as much "punch" as the original, but increasing the rest of it just loud enough to take as much advantage of this spectrum as possible. That way you get more data in the track, and the song will retain quality when you adjust the volume via a hardware knob during playback.

Nowadays, most recordings are done as multitrack recordings, with a microphone dedicated to each instrument. The recordings are pulled into a multi-track editor and then each track is tweaked to have the maximum effect on the song as a whole. So in the end, using limiters is often not necessary, as you can tweak the individual drum track (or whatever instrument has a particularly loud noise) to mesh more closely with the rest of the song, while retaining its punch.

I probably went into a bit too much detail there, but in any case, awesome find eric!