Thank you for that informative reply and corrections. Interestingly, it turns out they're shooting the Hobbit with 1/64s shutter speed (as said by more than a couple of comments in one of the links). So a little more blur than what you may have expected.
Also interesting that you say 50% shutter looks good with 50fps footage, and that 100% looks over blurry (and presumably not cinematic in a good way). Have you tried 25% or even a near 0% shutter (if that even exists) to see what that would look like? If so, does it improve the look even further?
I'm a staunch advocate for 60fps frame rates, and yes even 300fps to cater for everyone, including existing 50/60 fps.
However, if there's *anything at all* that 24fps has going for it, it will be the 'motion blur' between each frame that 'enhances' the overall appeal, and gives the film almost an 'echoey' look. However, what would really be interesting is if this 0.04 second gap of motion blur was maintained, but where the footage was still 48fps. I'm assuming the Hobbit uses only 0.02s of motion blur per frame (1/48), but if we were to keep the higher level of motion blur (or even more, perhaps 0.06s!), and keep the framerate at 48fps (so during movement, the blur of footage is moving in smaller increments), this could grab the best of both worlds - a smooth experience and a "cinematic/blurry" one.
tl;dr: How about 48fps with more motion blur to imitate the motion blue from 24fps?
He didn't mention a 'Christian' god though - just a generic god. It doesn't mean that just because someone believes in 'God' that they're automatically part of one of the dumb religions out there. A generic God is definitely a giant superset of the FSM etc.
No I meant 'Christians' or people who think they're Christians, or even people who do believe Jesus is the 'son of God', but for the sake of argument often argue with atheists (and others) for a generic god instead.
Yes of course if you throw in all the supernatural crap and "Jesus being the son of god" etc., then yes, it comes pretty close to the FSM in probability.
Also remember that Richard Dawkins gave the probability of no god on a scale of 1 to 7 as being a 6, or maybe 6.9. I'm pretty sure he would give the FSM 6.999999999 as would most sane people.
See, I think it would've been the done thing for Google to give Microsoft some money for 'copying' their Bing features. Even if it's like, a gentleman's agreement. I know it's hopefully idealistic, optimistic and naive in this somewhat cruel world, where every company is at least somewhat greedy, and worried about lawsuits.
I just think it would have been fair - that's all.
Not "as plausible". Assuming the Christian god is a synonym for just a non-descript generic 'God' (which Christians will kinda think anyway), then this generic 'God' is a superset of all the fantasy creatures including the FSM. That immediately makes him more than 1000x more likely than the FSM/flying unicorn etc.
That's because they're not informed or educated. They can't figure out that screen reflections in shop translates to potentially annoying screen reflections at home.
To add if anyone's reading at this point, liquid mercury has a contact angle between 135 and 142 degrees. So that makes the top three even more "liquid-mercury-like" than liquid mercury, but obviously without the danger that substance brings to the table.
The contact angle of a water droplet has to exceed 150 degrees. This makes it even better at keeping the surface completely dry and dirt free. Plain 'Hydrophobic' is merely more than 90 degrees.
because if you just test against one thing, you will over-optimize for that particular case at the expense of every other video
Which is why you would have not one, but at least a few videos in the 'acid test', which can be automated. But maybe you're saying that would take ages for the computer to check against. Even so, one could always use smaller resolutions (say 200x200).
Is there a page summing up those "metrics" you spoke of - I'd like to see it.
For comparison with a water droplet (the closer to 180 degrees you get, the closer to a perfect non-wettable/sticky surface you have):
This new glass (165 degree contact angle)
The upcoming Neverwet material (160 to 175 degrees)
Lotus leaf or even some birds' feather (150 degrees)
Rain-X (110 degrees - car windshield protector)
Teflon (95-110 degrees - surprisingly low, but then it needs to be tough and heat-proof)
Car wax (90 degrees)
Human skin (90 degrees - PDF warning)
I wonder what the durability of the glass is compared to Neverwet w(which is pervious to solvents, detergents, soap and high pressure water)...
I just can't imagine it to be boring. Optimization is something that tends to get people salivating (even myself sometimes to a degree). Setting a fitness function (e.g.: total of absolute differences to the original RGB values) would define a goal that I think would encourage a ton of creativity, competitiveness and even new math.
Non-troll question: Is there actually an open-source codec which equals or even surpasses H264 in quality? I find it hard to believe the math is so arcane and long-winded that nobody can beat it in quality for a given file size and compress/decompress speed.
It's probably less faddish than you think because a metadata based system encompasses files completely. For example, each tab in your IDE could instead be a keyword which filters out the functions/variables that come under that category. By removing the filter/s, you have a 'document' which contains all the code in the entire project.
Thinking files is ultimately a good idea is almost as bad as saying each HTML page should imitate the A4 size of paper, rather than a (possibly) infinitely long page.
Something called 'Starlite' very almost did that. Unfortunately, the guy behind it was a bit paranoid (and almost made million/billion dollar deals with big companies, but he wanted a 51% share and more control than they were willing to offer). Hoax you say?
Except it has been tested and verified countless times independently. Here's a clip from an old Tomorrow's World (a reputable science prog from the BBC): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4nnLP--uTI
Could you try to think of an evil use for say, aerogel (or the research therefore), a material which if could be massively manufactured cheaply, could have incredibly ramifications for humanity, and mostly only positive ones at that.
Yeah, I just wish you hadn't posted as anon because then you'd read this reply and actually learn something:/
It is ranked LOW for "This language is unusually bad for beginners". In other words, to cut out the double negative, ranked high at being good for beginners.
It seems as if there's some redundancy there. But that can quite a good thing as it means we can check to see how similar they are. And though not exactly the same, they seem to be very similar.
Eventually, they might merge the results, but if you look at how they ask the questions in the first place, it kinda makes sense how these become separate data sets.
A shout goes out to this site which actually does a pretty good job of comparing all the languages on 'subjective' attributes such as "I find it easy to write efficient code in this language" (C being top here), or "Code written in this language tends to be verbose" (Cobol and Assembler are worst here, but Java is 3rd place, and that's bad considering it's meant to be a modern higher level language).
You can even click each language and see what comment it is best for. For example, Haskell is top for "This language has a strong static type system" and "When I write code in this language I can be very sure it is correct". Meanwhile, something like PHP is top for "I am sometimes embarrassed to admit to my peers that I know this language" and "This language has many features which feel "tacked on"".
Slashdot Mirror
To me yes, their message was meant to be read "between the lines". I don't think there was any need for you to point that out.
Why did you get -1 score? Did people think you were lying or something?
Thank you for that informative reply and corrections. Interestingly, it turns out they're shooting the Hobbit with 1/64s shutter speed (as said by more than a couple of comments in one of the links). So a little more blur than what you may have expected.
Also interesting that you say 50% shutter looks good with 50fps footage, and that 100% looks over blurry (and presumably not cinematic in a good way). Have you tried 25% or even a near 0% shutter (if that even exists) to see what that would look like? If so, does it improve the look even further?
I'm a staunch advocate for 60fps frame rates, and yes even 300fps to cater for everyone, including existing 50/60 fps.
However, if there's *anything at all* that 24fps has going for it, it will be the 'motion blur' between each frame that 'enhances' the overall appeal, and gives the film almost an 'echoey' look. However, what would really be interesting is if this 0.04 second gap of motion blur was maintained, but where the footage was still 48fps. I'm assuming the Hobbit uses only 0.02s of motion blur per frame (1/48), but if we were to keep the higher level of motion blur (or even more, perhaps 0.06s!), and keep the framerate at 48fps (so during movement, the blur of footage is moving in smaller increments), this could grab the best of both worlds - a smooth experience and a "cinematic/blurry" one.
tl;dr: How about 48fps with more motion blur to imitate the motion blue from 24fps?
Yes, I'm sure it goes both ways. Though I'm guessing the search engine market is larger, maybe by a lot.
He didn't mention a 'Christian' god though - just a generic god. It doesn't mean that just because someone believes in 'God' that they're automatically part of one of the dumb religions out there. A generic God is definitely a giant superset of the FSM etc.
No I meant 'Christians' or people who think they're Christians, or even people who do believe Jesus is the 'son of God', but for the sake of argument often argue with atheists (and others) for a generic god instead.
Yes of course if you throw in all the supernatural crap and "Jesus being the son of god" etc., then yes, it comes pretty close to the FSM in probability. Also remember that Richard Dawkins gave the probability of no god on a scale of 1 to 7 as being a 6, or maybe 6.9. I'm pretty sure he would give the FSM 6.999999999 as would most sane people.
See, I think it would've been the done thing for Google to give Microsoft some money for 'copying' their Bing features. Even if it's like, a gentleman's agreement. I know it's hopefully idealistic, optimistic and naive in this somewhat cruel world, where every company is at least somewhat greedy, and worried about lawsuits.
I just think it would have been fair - that's all.
Not "as plausible". Assuming the Christian god is a synonym for just a non-descript generic 'God' (which Christians will kinda think anyway), then this generic 'God' is a superset of all the fantasy creatures including the FSM. That immediately makes him more than 1000x more likely than the FSM/flying unicorn etc.
That's because they're not informed or educated. They can't figure out that screen reflections in shop translates to potentially annoying screen reflections at home.
To add if anyone's reading at this point, liquid mercury has a contact angle between 135 and 142 degrees. So that makes the top three even more "liquid-mercury-like" than liquid mercury, but obviously without the danger that substance brings to the table.
Probably, except, dead (or even alive) skin isn't quite so durable, or... mass producible come to that.
The contact angle of a water droplet has to exceed 150 degrees. This makes it even better at keeping the surface completely dry and dirt free. Plain 'Hydrophobic' is merely more than 90 degrees.
because if you just test against one thing, you will over-optimize for that particular case at the expense of every other video
Which is why you would have not one, but at least a few videos in the 'acid test', which can be automated. But maybe you're saying that would take ages for the computer to check against. Even so, one could always use smaller resolutions (say 200x200).
Is there a page summing up those "metrics" you spoke of - I'd like to see it.
For comparison with a water droplet (the closer to 180 degrees you get, the closer to a perfect non-wettable/sticky surface you have):
This new glass (165 degree contact angle)
The upcoming Neverwet material (160 to 175 degrees)
Lotus leaf or even some birds' feather (150 degrees)
Rain-X (110 degrees - car windshield protector)
Teflon (95-110 degrees - surprisingly low, but then it needs to be tough and heat-proof)
Car wax (90 degrees)
Human skin (90 degrees - PDF warning)
I wonder what the durability of the glass is compared to Neverwet w(which is pervious to solvents, detergents, soap and high pressure water)...
But then how can we buy new TV sets that actually look glossy and new!
I just can't imagine it to be boring. Optimization is something that tends to get people salivating (even myself sometimes to a degree). Setting a fitness function (e.g.: total of absolute differences to the original RGB values) would define a goal that I think would encourage a ton of creativity, competitiveness and even new math.
Even if that were true, and the math was exhausted, surely many people would try to beat it for sheer fun?
Non-troll question: Is there actually an open-source codec which equals or even surpasses H264 in quality? I find it hard to believe the math is so arcane and long-winded that nobody can beat it in quality for a given file size and compress/decompress speed.
It's probably less faddish than you think because a metadata based system encompasses files completely. For example, each tab in your IDE could instead be a keyword which filters out the functions/variables that come under that category. By removing the filter/s, you have a 'document' which contains all the code in the entire project.
Thinking files is ultimately a good idea is almost as bad as saying each HTML page should imitate the A4 size of paper, rather than a (possibly) infinitely long page.
Something called 'Starlite' very almost did that. Unfortunately, the guy behind it was a bit paranoid (and almost made million/billion dollar deals with big companies, but he wanted a 51% share and more control than they were willing to offer). Hoax you say?
Except it has been tested and verified countless times independently. Here's a clip from an old Tomorrow's World (a reputable science prog from the BBC):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4nnLP--uTI
Here's more info:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/sq9dw/starlite_is_a_material_claimed_to_be_able_to/
Very sad to see it fall (only his family have the secret now, so I guess there's still hope).
Could you try to think of an evil use for say, aerogel (or the research therefore), a material which if could be massively manufactured cheaply, could have incredibly ramifications for humanity, and mostly only positive ones at that.
Yeah, I just wish you hadn't posted as anon because then you'd read this reply and actually learn something :/
It is ranked LOW for "This language is unusually bad for beginners". In other words, to cut out the double negative, ranked high at being good for beginners.
It seems as if there's some redundancy there. But that can quite a good thing as it means we can check to see how similar they are. And though not exactly the same, they seem to be very similar.
Eventually, they might merge the results, but if you look at how they ask the questions in the first place, it kinda makes sense how these become separate data sets.
A shout goes out to this site which actually does a pretty good job of comparing all the languages on 'subjective' attributes such as "I find it easy to write efficient code in this language" (C being top here), or "Code written in this language tends to be verbose" (Cobol and Assembler are worst here, but Java is 3rd place, and that's bad considering it's meant to be a modern higher level language).
You can even click each language and see what comment it is best for. For example, Haskell is top for "This language has a strong static type system" and "When I write code in this language I can be very sure it is correct". Meanwhile, something like PHP is top for "I am sometimes embarrassed to admit to my peers that I know this language" and "This language has many features which feel "tacked on"".