@kir_mokum - I take it back - there is also strong chromatic aberration.

The bleeding colors aren't aberrations - it's misplaced colors due to bad post-processing (or rather copying) of the video. Chromatic aberrations would be the same effect pointing out to each corner - this is just all the colors bleeding to the right, for not to mention the VHS tracking artifacts.

the video effect is bad chromatic aberration which is an artifact of a bad lens. it's standard for movies and TV shows with no budget. blood dragon was just drawing from the same influences (80s-early 90s action/fantasy movies/TV, foreign action fantasy movies, taiwanese movies, hong kong movies, telugu movies, possibly nigerian movies) and the underground popularity of synthwave, chillwave, even italodisco, and chiptune. kung fury could have pull some influence from blood dragon but both are based on 30 year old cliches so that influence is a bit meaningless since the source material is so redily available.

According to the manual, you can have 6 "custom" tunings, where you simply tune the guitar however you want (A444, some crazy microtonal tuning or whatever) and then it "remembers" that tuning.

Ultimately, when the price drops enough, I could see this being fairly standard on guitars and ultimately replacing a tuner (I assume it'd be fairly trivial to build a chromatic tuner into it).

@overdude, I know you're being funny, but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that this can replace developing a good ear. Yeah, all those things you mentioned are important, but they're not important all the time. Just because you can drive a manual doesn't mean you can't have an automatic for doing the groceries.

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.

Kind of. They used the chromatic scale, i.e., every whole note between C and C. Unlike scales such as the major, minor, etc., the chromatic scale is sequential, and not built on nice sounds. You can make a LOT of bad-sounding combinations by picking notes from that scale, whereas pretty much all the notes from other scales sound good together musically.


>> ^zomgunicorns:

Here is my comment on this as a music hobbyist:
At first it seems amazing, but really, the numbers are all placed on a scale, in this case the C scale. Scales are notes that sound musical and pleasing when played after each other. So even with Pi's set of numbers, in the musical sense, as long as it's within a scale, it will sound like music. If he were to exclude scales and place the numbers in a linear fashion on the piano, it would not sound like music. And by that, I mean, if the number 1 was C, number 2 was C#, number 3 was D, number 4 was D# and ect.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I wonder if you could paint the whole face, wire the mask up with soft circuits and then connect to an arduino or something similar to run a programmed animation loop. I suppose you could make the animation random but still symmetrical pretty easily, actually. It's just a matter of whether the soft circuits themselves generate enough heat or if something will need to be added.


Well that thermochromic ink is pretty nifty (with the fabric/acrylic ink base). It's been around awhile--like "Mood Rings", but like @blankfist says, "It's Awesome!", due to the application an idea this guy used (now I've got to see if "Rorschach" in the movie uses anything like this or just flat-out uninspired CGI). Imagine using a wider or more controlled version of the thermochromic ink with something like meta-materials; that will come out soon enough (the neater stuff is military only here in the US I would assume). It was found recently that the meta-material molecules set themselves up automatically into Möbius symmetrical setups or "M.C. Escher" topology. If you combine the paint (if possible) afterward, I'll bet you'll be able to get some literally eye-popping effects. Maybe just not the type the military would want. Especially, if you can adhere the "ink finish / lacquer" to the inner portion of the (typically, meta-materials are aiming for "see-through" optics--which is why the topology and structure is very interesting) meta-material.

Really off-topic after this:

Using what @xxovercastxx said, adhering it (maybe with multiple type of thermochromic inks--giving it a far wider chromatic range, at varying temperatures) internally and using the meta-material you might be able to go from invisible to Abrams Tank to Porsche. You'd have to insulate the inner layer somehow to give you very fine control over the temperature or perhaps you could just flat out use electricity to change the colors. I'd imagine changing a thermochromic ink from reacting to temperature to electricity (or hell, anything kinetic: sonic waves, magnetism, etc...) wouldn't be very hard as they are closely related in the first place. You could essentially use light if the inks are responsive enough and it doesn't require a "non-stop" wave of photons; if you could make it behave like a switch that would be perfect. Then throw in some nano-technology with atomic manipulation and you'd have something incredible.

Hell, I wouldn't put something like that one the battlefield; it'd be a damned work of art! Plus, it'd probably cost more than a full-wing of F-22s just to develop; but the stuff that would come out of a development project like that would benefit humanity for a long time.

<sarcasm>Nah, let's just keep building more military.</sarcasm> At least, I know a lot of scientists try to use our addiction to the "military-industrial-complex" as a way to GET some key technological advances made. NASA does the same thing, but they tend to be better at it per dollar spent.

Möbius Symmetry link goes here.

PS: I like to include M.C. Escher (painter--think Inception as well as August Möbius (mathematician; and famous for his Möbius Strip topology of a a finite(?) two dimensional plane twisted at one end (pick a corner ) then connect it to the opposite side (make sure "top" meets "bottom"). Adding electronics I'm sure will be, if not already, worked on heavily. Especially, as I said in military type technologies (cloaking armor, etc...) But, with these you could--with enough precision make an Abrams Tank look like an Edsel. Although shooting it will kill that effect fairly quick (although I'm sure mitigation of visual anomalies will greatly depend on angle-of-view and distance) --

"Hey! That Edsel has four and one-half wheels! Ford is outrageous; why would we by this lemon!?!" His cousin responds right after;

"Bob! I got no idea whatever your sayin!?!" "It clearly has four wheels on my side!!!". "I thought Edsels were black?"

Another off-topic bit about "Edsel(s)":
Not the doo-wop group (although, the group is related to the real "Edsel"; they changed their name after the Edsel came out to capitalize on the name recognition from: "The Essos") that my dictionary keeps telling me it is; "Edsels <--with the "s" is misspelled according to the THREE combined English dictionaries. WTF? Typically I try to only misspell when I'm doing something as above in the first sentence by "Bob", "sayin" is part of my colloquialisms for them. I know, I tried hard for that "50's" feel... Yes, this is also so far off topic that I should just blog it. Can one of the admins throw a gadget in for us to use in our posts--like this, to count the topic changes. Perhaps a grammar-Nazi™ one!. Done!

P.S.- I didn't check for continuity logic or reading comprehension (and at this length, it's always needed--as it can sound like buck-shot mentally). Take as is. That reminds me: I should make a "colloquialism" English dictionary add-on for Firefox with auto conversion and "by decade" setups. It'd be fun (there's probably one around already ).

Merry Christmas everybody.
Also, the mask rocks! I also added one-helluva-edit after thinking about it; it seemed worth the trouble to bring up.
So hopefully you read it and didn't feel like I was wasting your time. Long posts are like that.

^The reharmonization is definitely more chromatic than the original, but it's all functional.

>> ^Fusionaut:
History of the universe:
.... nothing...BLAAAAM!!! PROTONS NUETRONS PROTONS NUETRONS ELECTRONS

.. that's pretty close from what I've read



Let me put it like this: I understand your concern.

The central point, which was the point of my earlier post, is the fact that, however unlikely, outlandish and ridiculous this all sounds, it is based upon, as far as ANY human being can tell, irrefutable evidence, and lots of it.

A famous example, and a favorite quote-mine among creationists is this sentence from Charles Darwin:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

What creationists always omit, of course, is that this sentence is a build-up and an introduction to an explanation of exactly HOW the eye COULD in fact have evolved by natural selection, an explanation that has, in large part, been confirmed by tests and evidence later.

Anyway, the point is this: I could admit, as Darwin partially did, that the ENTIRE theory of evolution, the thesis that every single animal has evolved from a 3 billion old ancestor and thus ALL life, from banana to bacteria to bonobo and even human, has evolved all from a common ancestor, seems freely to be ABSURD IN THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE DEGREE.

So why do I still accept it?

Because of the evidence. The evidence shows, with crystal clear precision, just like it shows that atoms are real, or that bacteria cause disease, that evolution happened, and that, in the grand scheme of things, we humans are more or less closely related to every living thing ever examined.

And this is also the case for the theories about "nothing...BLAAAAM!!! PROTONS NUETRONS PROTONS.........." Its not that scientists really want it to be this way, or that they have some "something out of nothing" fetish, this is what the EVIDENCE tells us. There simply is nothing in that evidence about a guide or god of any kind, and even if there was, we would have an entirely new, even bigger problem to begin with.

Thanks a lot for the promote laura!!

In reply to this comment by laura:
*promote!

The music at the beginning and right at the end - chromatically going down chord changes - sounds like "are you sure you want to try this?"

Great sift!

How is he taking the Bible completely out of context?

Exactly, it helps to provide the explanation, or the context, if you have to.

Take for example something that frequently IS taken out of context (by creationists) Darwin, this bit being one of their favourites:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

This quote IS taken out of its context, but it would be insufficient of someone defending Darwin or Darwinism to simply yell "OUT OF CONTEXT!!!" unless we explain how. The above quote is the start of a chapter where Darwin actually EXPLAINS how the eye could have evolved. In context, the quote is merely a set-up, written to draw the reader in, only to explain how the un-intuitive is actually the case.

By contrast, take Sam Harris mention of slavery, there isnt a single chapter or verse in the entire bible that condemns slavery. In a book that is looked as a superb moral guide by billions of people, how is that "taking things COMPLETELY out of context"? Is there a way to hold the bible, perhaps at a certain angle, so that when you read it it clearly condemns the practice of slavery?

>> ^theaceofclubz:
Upvote for the controversy. "When I draw money out the ATM I don't look for media, I look the niggazs." I feel it is some truth, but more something that has to do with poverty than skin chromatization.


Oh, come on, he's keepin' it real.

ace you're such a chromatization preferentialist.

Upvote for the controversy. "When I draw money out the ATM I don't look for media, I look the niggazs." I feel it is some truth, but more something that has to do with poverty than skin chromatization.