Damphousse
-
Posts
913 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by Damphousse
-
-
18 hours ago, IronFilm said:
"Dude drew huge audiences and made a ton of money"
Errr.... you just described the current crop of top vloggers!Why stop there? Why not truncate my post at "dude" and have it describe almost half the planet. Yes if you chop up posts and ignore the parts you don't like you can make anything on the internet say anything.
19 hours ago, IronFilm said:Because they're copyright violations.
Is that why? The article I read went out of its way to detail the fact no claim of copyright was ever made.
QuoteAlthough YouTube may want to erase the Paul nightmare from its site, YouTubers know the company's rules and can subvert the system. With the body censored, YouTube either has to find a new violation of its guidelines or treat re-uploads as a copyright issue — but Paul doesn't seem to care if people repost his work.
Paul could have filed a claim with Content ID to get his video removed from other channels. Every new upload to YouTube is cross-referenced with the Content ID database, and if a video matches, the original owner can decide to take it down (or monetize it).
It’s possible that Paul doesn’t have access to Content ID or that tweaked versions of the video are avoiding detection. But so far, it’s clear that YouTube isn’t able to remove the video just because it belongs to someone else: takedowns of full re-uploads that show the body cite a violation of YouTube's policies, not copyright.
21 hours ago, Orangenz said:Indirectly of course it does (and by liberal I mean progressive, not left-right politics). That's why Henk wotsits name gets away with so much and actually appears in ads for Youtube. Here's an example from today https://youtu.be/s0elpY1a90Y
I have no idea what you are talking about. This thread was about a guy filming dead bodies, laughing at them, and posting his videos on the internet. It is a pretty simply and straight forward thing. I appreciate you my not like this "Henk" character's politics and that is your right. But it would probably be better to start your own thread about youtube stars that you hate because of their politics. I personally don't know enough about any youtube "star" to even know their politics and I certainly wouldn't call for banning anyone just because they preferred politics slightly different from mine. I honestly don't know of any religion, ethnicity, major political party, etc that condones what Logan Paul did. The man is a deviant. This has nothing to do with politics. Let's try and stay on topic.
-
3 hours ago, eleison said:
Junk in one era, can considered to be a master piece in another. Wasn't Shakespeare considered mass produced tripe of it's time?
Uh, no. Dude drew huge audiences and made a ton of money. His work was recognized by royalty. He may not have been as popular or well regarded as he is today but he certainly was not regarded as a random youtuber during his day.
3 hours ago, eleison said:Or earlier comic books that were considered trash only to be read by deviant teenagers in the heat of puberty, now considered great arts of works worth thousands of dollars?
No.
Look up the diamond water paradox. No one considers early comic books as "great arts". They are worth thousands of dollars because they are rare and they launched a genre that makes billions at the box office today. I guarantee you if two million copies of Action Comics #1 were found tomorrow in mint condition the price of that issue would drop to pennies.
Show the average person Action Comics #1 and a modern day Jim Lee Superman and we all know they would pick the Jim Lee as the superior product... unless they are a weird hipster trying to be edgy... like some of the people in this thread.
1 hour ago, Orangenz said:The point is more that 1) youtube didn't censor him or other liberal sex freaks like the youngturks guy while it does censor and demonitise conservative voices all the time. How an algorithm manages such a delicate political perspective I don't know.
I don't think literally any of that is true. The video has been removed from the guy's youtube channel. I believe he removed it voluntarily, but Youtube seems to be chasing down other copies of it that are popping up like wildfire.
This has literally nothing to do with liberal or conservative. That's kind of the point. This is the low hanging fruit. No slippery slope here. No controversy. Regardless of politics everyone agrees video taping and laughing at suicide victims is wrong. Amazing this thread is this long.
-
3 hours ago, dahlfors said:
This is bad for hosting, servers, cloud services etc. The nature of this bug and the fix for it won't have any serious speed impact on normal client computer usage, like gaming, video editing etc.
And you are basing this on...
I see nothing but confusion and vague statements on the internet. There is literally a decade worth of processors out there used in all kinds of configurations and applications. I read a statement that different chips will experience different degrees of impact. I haven't seen anyone say gaming and video editing on all systems is out of the woods. Is there an article that clears those areas on all machines?
-
Did you read the thread about how ALL modern Intel chip based computers are going to have to be intentionally crippled in the coming weeks and take up to a 30% performance hit?
You may want to let the dust settle on this thing before buying a computer. All current benchmarks are meaningless. We will have to see how computers are affected by the rewrite of the Windows and Mac OS kernel code.
-
4 hours ago, PannySVHS said:
@Cinegain, first example is long, and seemingley milking the concept without offering much visual interest in doing so, 2min seems bloated to me. Tonal gradation more nuanced in the hightlights than what typical GH2 videos show. It is not offering cinematography but photography rather so, with all that slow and unspecific movement. Second video looks colorwise like osiris lut has been used. I have seen only super few GH5 videos that have wowed me due to the generic approach in all departments of cinematography, lack coming from users side.
Valid criticisms but content aside though it is very good work. You have to separate content from technical quality. Nothing about those clips made me nostalgic for the GH2.
Having said that the studio shoot had crazy controlled lighting so there really shouldn't have been any dynamic range or roll off issues. Not exactly a stress test. Obviously the second video was a stress test. Highlights weren't as quite as nice as some other cameras but I don't know if it was the grade or what. But the highlights didn't blow like crap there way they usually do with these DSLR cameras.
Color looked good. Very serviceable.
Given all the video convinces and what the camera is capable in competent hands I see no reason to even think about the GH2. If people aren't creative with the GH5 it ain't the camera.
-
1 hour ago, silvertonesx24 said:
"Modern culture is corrupting our children" is an argument as old as time.
So are community standards designed to mitigate those bad effects. Or are we to believe you wish to go back to a world where Big Tobacco marketed cigarettes to kids?
India fumes as Big Tobacco targets young people in bid to recruit new smokers
From The American College of Pediatricians...
"Consumption of pornography is associated with many negative emotional, psychological, and physical health outcomes. These include increased rates of depression, anxiety, acting out and violent behavior, younger age of sexual debut, sexual promiscuity, increased risk of teen pregnancy, and a distorted view of relationships between men and women."
Not really something a seven year old should be randomly exposed to while watching cartoons. Never imagined that would be a controversial statement.
1 hour ago, bwhitz said:I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe in content standards. Paul should be shunned, if nothing else, for being a talentless hack. And people should be shunned for watching garbage that people like him put out. I feel bad for the professional-media industry in general these days. I mean, this guy has made well-over 10 million jumping around like a asshat and talking about nonsense. There are girls that are multi-millionaires from fucking make-up tutorials. Who the hell is going to want to actually write and film real stories in the future?
I actually think tutorials of all sorts are one of the best things about Youtube. Make up tutorials might be useless for a guy like me but most people on the planet at some point would be interested in make up tips. The business world is full of stuff like that. A lot of the time people overlook very simple practical low key unmet needs in search of a fancy luxury. It is amazing how much money one can make tapping into an unmet need with a mundane but well executed plan. I've never watched Blue Collar Millionaires but I love the concept of the show. It is kind of amusing reading this forum sometimes because we talk about 4k raw and 10 bit this and that. Yet there are scores of people earning hundreds of thousands a year and sometimes millions with an old Canon DSLR and an 8 bit compressed codec.
Having said that the next great narrative writer or director is not going to be derailed making make up tutorials. And make up tutorial girl is not going to pen the next Godfather trilogy. Those people for the most part are in totally different buckets.
-
41 minutes ago, IronFilm said:
It is a little surprising and a little sad when I see so many comments like this.
Because we're all media creators here, yet we're totally unaware of one of the biggest media creators on the biggest media platform of them all?!
As Logan Paul was one of the biggest vloggers of 2017, his content has billions and billions and billions of views across all the platforms.
Quality over quantity, perhaps?
I'm fairly certain there are tons of Michelin Star chefs in France that have never heard of Papa Johns.
43 minutes ago, IronFilm said:Next people here will be telling me they don't know who PewDiePie or Jon Olsson are....
We are aware of who PewDiePie is. After his antisemitic stuff Disney severed ties with him and the story popped up on my radar during the financial news. Otherwise I would have never heard of him.
What I'm surprised by is the fact that you are not aware of the multidecade trend of society fragmenting. Schools are more segregated now than they were in the 60s.
The only time I know what has been said on Fox and Friends is when the NY Times writes an article about it expressing their outrage. I proudly admit to my complete ignorance of whatever Fox News is pushing at any given time.
My interest in video is as a hobby, for stock video sales, and perhaps in the future some professional corporate stuff as a side thing to my main line of work. I have no idea how PewDiePie would fit into any of that. Unless someone buys one of my stock videos and puts it up on youtube themselves none of the content I create will appear on youtube and none of it will ever be monetized utilizing the youtube model.
Bollywood is the most prolific movie creator in the world. Second place historically has been Nigeria of all places. And the United States in years past was third. I couldn't name a single director, producer, or DP from the top two most prolific movie creating regions. So, yeah... youtube jokers? No, don't know any of them unless they really cock something up and earn the wrath of the elites.
-
Is Youtube even profitable? I agree something needs to be done to prevent children from seeing stuff like this but I don't think Youtube is being "greedy". Last I heard they were struggling just to be about break even. That is not to say that I don't think they may be "greedy" in the future. I just wanted to point out there are probably modest small businesses in your home town that you've never heard of that may be more profitable than Youtube.
12 hours ago, IronFilm said:
Oh, and as for censorship, I don't believe in any of that. "We don't have free speech to talk about the weather".You show pron to grade school children?!
I think we all censor and obviously the government censors and throws people in jail for breaking the rules... And I think we all agree that is a good thing.
7 hours ago, IronFilm said:I was a bit shocked when I realised last week that my GF had never heard of Logan Paul, seeing as she spends most of her free time on YouTube!
That's not the way youtube works.
4 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:With no objective moral standard, who can really say Paul is wrong?
Laughing at the dead body of a man who died alone in despair? You are going to have to work hard to explain to me where the ambiguity is.
2 hours ago, no_connection said:Don't know who that is and I don't think I have seen him.
None of my youtube recommended content have any of what you are talking about. What you watch is what you get I guess.
Exactly.
35 minutes ago, Cliff Totten said:I think we need to be careful about wanting to limit the voices of idiots on the web. Everybody, no matter how despicable we think they are, has a right to speak their mind. I think we would all be going down a VERY slippery slope if we started censoring people that we think that dont have the morale values that we have.
The guy is a total ass. But he should have that right to be an ass. We certainly have the right to ignore him. Censorship is a very, VERY dangerous thing and its potential for abuse is massive once you start approving ways to justify doing it.
Censorship is FAR more dangerous to society than this dick-head ever will be.
How many of you are showing pron to children on this forum?! I don't know of any society that doesn't have some controls in place. I've never heard any parent in any country grumble about the laws that prevent the exposure of children to pron.
Andrew pointed out something egregious. Don't show videos of people laughing at unfortunate suicide victims. Where is the slope?
Really to me this is about children. Youtube is an amazing repository of knowledge. Unfortunately I'm not in school anymore but I marvel at all the tutorials on the internet on a variety of topics. If I had children I would love to turn them loose on youtube and have them learn about whatever interests them. Unfortunately I've heard too many stories from parents about their kids being exposed to pornographic things on Youtube. They leave the kid watching a cute cartoon and come back in the room 15 minutes later and some kind of sick cartoon pron is on. It's ridiculous. The very generation that would benefit the most from the internet is the one that has to be banned from using it because of nonsense like this.
I like the .xxx top level domain. It would be nice if all the lewd stuff was required to use that so you could do a router level filter at your house and not subject your children to pron.
Youtube should require videos with adult themes, strong language, nudity, sex, violence, or dead bodies to tag their videos for each applicable category. That way the user could filter youtube search results and not see that stuff. There will definitely be some gray area but crap like this and pornographic cartoons at least will be filtered out.
4 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:"Ethics" and "moral standards" are tossed around the article as if there are any. Everyone has an opinion about what should or shouldn't happen, but no one is willing to own up to an actual objective standard of morality with which to base said opinions. With no objective moral standard, who can really say Paul is wrong? You can't. I mean, you can, but not with any soundness to your position. With no moral foundation, none of you are right, or wrong.
The 20th century was all about eliminating objective morality. The 21st century is living with the consequences.
Maybe I was being a bit harsh. I see what you are saying. I just don't think we are there yet. But we really are trying our best to destroy all standards. If we bring kids up on this stuff their moral compass is definitely going to be defective.
-
11 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:
Bluerays will be relevant for as long as there are players. Comparing to what people said before streaming was invented is not so relevant imo.
Its like with cameras. Just because a new one is out doesn't mean the old one is bad.
It depends who you are. For the vast majority of movies I simply would not get the use out of it before I could get the 4k HDR version for the same price or cheaper.
1080p Blu-rays simply never reached the level of market penetration DVDs did and they are already obsoleted. 4k may end up being a reasonable point to get off the resolution train and combined with whatever HDR format wins there may be a point in a few years where more aggressive library building makes sense.
It's like cell phones. I can't imagine a cell phone 3-4 years from now being amazingly better that what we have now. There will come a time when it makes sense to get off the consumer upgrade treadmill but for now I don't think we are there yet with Blu-ray discs.
-
17 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:
Well they do have 4k HDR Blu-rays now. Why would they "go away"? They are the best thing since Sliced Bread.
I should have been clearer. I meant blu-ray in the traditional sense... 1080p. HD blu-ray discs are dirt cheap but I would rather wait for 4k AND HDR. If I buy a 1080p disc now I just wonder how many times am I actually going to watch it before the 4k HDR box set is selling on Amazon at a deep discount.
-
We've been here before. I remember people who amassed large VHS libraries. The difference was those things stayed relevant for a lot longer. Blurays have barely gotten a chance to crack the market and we are on to the next format.
As far as video viewing I'm not buying anything until the HDR stuff gets sorted out... and affordable.
Blurays are now cheap enough you can buy a few movies that you really want. But there is no way building a library of those things is going to make economic sense. How many movies do you rewatch frequently?
If you are in a family situation and you get something that the kids like I can see. But again that is a special situation. Indiscriminately amassing blurays doesn't make sense.
Five years from now the HDR landscape is going to look very different. With Dolby vision HDR vs HDR10 vs HLG vs HDR10+ competing that killed any desire I had to get a 4k TV... not that I had much desire at all to begin with. Unlike most of the VHS days we know some radical things are coming pretty soon. I'm just chilling with what I have and we'll see in a few years. 1080p plasma is working for me right now.
Streaming is definitely not as good looking as physical media. But Blurays are obviously going to be obsolete soon and we need to see where the HDR format wars are going to end up before buying into that generation.
-
5 hours ago, mkabi said:
Apperently, the Canon 7D Mark 3 and 90D is also expected with 4K...
Not... going... to... happen.
How would they cripple them so as not to compete with the C100 MK II? You realize the C100 MK II is still only 1080p and costs $3,500? I have no inside information but after considering Canon C line of cameras I've given up trying to figure out their crippling strategy. They surprised me by putting raw into the C200... and surprised me by nixing the 10 bit 4:2:2 codec. What will they do for C100 MK III? 4K, no raw, and only 8 bit 4:2:0? Still seems like too much overlap with the C200. I have a funny feeling a lot of the raw hopefuls with the C200 are going to be using 8 bit 4:2:0 more than they anticipated. And if they can save thousands on a camera...
-
21 hours ago, IronFilm said:
And $2,000 either which way means nothing at all when you're earning $50K/yr or more from that camera.
If you're a full time filmmaker with a few years of professional experience under your belt, it is hard to understand why a GH5 would be your A Cam.
Unless you're diversified across a few areas such as director/editor/writer/photography, then of course you don't want to be over invested in gear! And a GH5 or even a G85 is perfect for you.I'm definitely not a full time filmmaker with years of pro experience and I'm definitely not going to make $50K/yr just from any camera. Having said that no way would I get a GH5. I was thinking more along the lines of a Canon C300 MK II. I will be able to take the tax deduction for the depreciation and if the camera can make a few thousand dollars a year for my business it will pay itself off in a few years of very light use. Plus I get to use it for my hobby for free.
I am not a pro so I am not going to mess with a focus pulling system and I want something with great easy to grade color and a robust codec. As a nonpro ease of use in a business environment is key. The less I have to color correct and/or grade the better. Canon DPAF is great for a novices.
I've made a few thousand dollars with stock photography and video clips just from my hobby over the years. When I started thinking about using a camera for some marketing stuff at work I realized I needed something a bit easier and faster to use than my BMPCC. I also needed 4k for future proofing and marketing.
The thing is I could definitely benefit a bit from some video material but it isn't enough to hire someone. And I also have gotten in the habit of just filming random stuff in my free time and selling it as stock footage. This stuff ends up in family videos but now I am thinking why not shoot stuff a bit more focused and use it for marketing stuff at work. Also because this stuff is just shot at random and mostly serendipitously I can't really rent a camera or hire someone to shoot it.
I guess what I am saying is no you don't have to be a full time pro with years of experience to pass on the GH5. If you are novice that needs ease of use and you can take a tax deduction and also throw a couple grand a year down to the bottom line from using the camera $10,000 is doable. With tax deductions and a couple grand income per year it would take about 4 years to break even on that camera with very light use.
Initial cost and residual cost of a camera are just way down on the list when you look at it from the point of view of a successful business. Speed, ease of use, manufacturer support, tax deductions etc just combine to blow away the consideration of a few thousand dollars either way.
Sure avoiding buying a camera in the first year or two after it is launched is a good idea for things like Canon's high end C series cameras. No one enjoys taking an overnight $6,000 haircut. But after that? The ease of use and reliability and support are just too important to me.
Anyway I am no accountant or small business guru. These are just my random musings. Although I can't see a flaw in my logic. I've looked at several cameras and they are all missing features. It isn't until you get to a certain level that things really start coming together.
-
21 hours ago, Garrett S said:
Interestingly, it’s also possible that the most popular cameras sell for lower prices relative to their new prices because so many people have bought them and used supply is high when those customers decide to move on to new cameras.
However each camera has maintained its value, I think the cameras with low scores were (are) futuristic in some way. They have to be to still be relevant today, or to have still been relevant so recently (in the case of the GH2).
There’s a lot of limitations to my analysis. It’s mostly for fun and to drive discussion.
I hate to thread crap but all these cameras are used for different purposes by different populations. And all these companies have different business models.
You ranked the Sony F3 in the middle of the pack but you can buy a very nice used car with its deprecation. Where as you ranked the GH4 almost in the lower third. The GH4's TOTAL deprecation is equivalent to how much the F3 has lost in some months. They are just totally different beasts used by completely different populations.
But in a way the F3 is a much better buy than the GH4 because people made millions with that camera. If you are buying a camera for a high revenue business the purchasing decision is much different than if you are just a hobbyist. No one running a high revenue company would even touch most of the cameras on that list. They need something reliable that is broadcast compliant, etc
Also with depreciation you have to remember recapture. If you take the depreciation on the camera for years and then sell it for a nice chunk of change you have to add that nice upside over and above the depreciated value back to your income and be taxed on it. No free lunch... At least in the US.
So much of what we consider on this site is irrelevant if you are a business. And a number of those cameras are "business" cameras. It does me no good to get a Panasonic GH2 if I need time code, rugged body, XLR inputs, professional service network, broadcast compliant codec, etc. Throw depreciation and recapture in the mix and it totally scrambles the picture. If you can sell one camera for $2,000 more than another camera by the time the tax man has his way with you assuming a 33% tax bracket and 3.8% medicare tax you are going to walk away with substantially less than $2,000 "profit". Okay it is still better to get the $2,000 extra and pay tax on it but it isn't the same thing as just getting $2,000 free and clear.
I am a complete cheapskate when it comes to personal hobbies, but when it comes to work I need something efficient and bullet proof that lets me get the job done reliably in record time so I can move on to other money making endeavors.
-
5 hours ago, hmcindie said:
Here is an interesting review from someone who seems to agree with Damphousse.
QuoteUnfortunately Poels has no clue how to distinguish fact from fiction, and by his own admission he has no interest in making that distinction. As a result the documentary offers a mix of basic scientific insights, plain falsehoods, and misleading statements regarding climate science.
Okay. If this guy isn't even willing to stand by the assertions made in his work why in god's holy name are so many people in this thread trying to defend this crap and saying it may be true?! The film maker himself isn't even willing to hazard a guess as to whether any of this nonsense is true. Some people are so brainwashed into thinking there is "both sides" to every issue they can't tell BS when it hits them right between the eyes.
Kind of eerie though. In those two sentences the author summed up my frustration with multiple documentaries. At best the scientific insights are "basic". No advanced principles will be explored. I guess they don't want to alienate the audience. And whether through design or accident "plain falsehoods" and "misleading statements" abound. Now that the video equipment has been democratized and there are multiple channels of distribution everybody and their brother is jumping into the documentary business... and the product is uniformly terrible.
Having said that I do have to eat a bit of crow. If this movie is meant to be some kind of absurdist performance art where he interviews a bunch of fringe people and records whatever foulness pours out of their pie hole sans filter then it does have some artistic merit. That is at least a somewhat unique idea. So just record it and let the audience wade through it... okay. It's an idea.
The problem though as I stated before is I've come to realize the public at large does not have my educational attainment and there is a disturbingly large portion of the general public who are inclined to believe anything no matter how ridiculous it is. Take the windmills and farms thing that was pointed out earlier in the thread. What for me is common knowledge immediately conflicted with that statement. All you have to do is look at big agriculture states in the United States. Iowa is number two in agriculture... and it is number two in wind energy. Simple. Okay they are a swing state so maybe some lefty nonsense is at play. Let's go down the list. Texas is number three in agriculture. How do they rank in wind? NUMBER FUCKING ONE! Yes folks. Deep red redneck right wing big oil Texas is NUMBER FUCKING ONE in wind. OMG!!! Bu-bu-bu what about MUH BOTH SIDES?! We know Cali is ranks up there with wind power but which state is right behind Cali? Oklahoma.... That's right. The Orange Moron's EPA chief is the former attorney general of the state that ranked right behind Cali for wind power. By the way the Texas governor that was responsible for Texas' wind boom is the Orange Moron's Energy secretary. Can anyone please find MUH BOTH SIDES?!
Oh and how did Texas' governor know wind power would be a great idea in a big agriculture state? Well he knew it... because he grew up on a FUCKING FARM! Another fun fact Texas' longest serving Republican governor used to be a Democrat. He was a supporter of Al Gore's 1988 presidential run. Yes... that Al Gore. These guys don't care. They build wind all over right wing states because it doesn't pollute and it makes economic sense. They support big oil because the oil companies line their pockets. They feed right wing red meat BS to the voters to stay in office. Everyone is getting played and they are winning. It's as simple as that. It is amazing what you figure out about the world and the system when you have an education. So go ahead and look for your "BOTH SIDES". The right wingers in America are producing more wind power than the left.
-
I have lost interest in a lot of what Hollywood puts out. It just isn't entertaining for me. As a result a lot of my viewing has turned to things like news and documentaries. The problem with documentaries though is a lot of them are either heavily slanted or very light on scientific rigor or both. I suppose they have to water things down in order not to turn off the general member of the public but for someone like me they come off as fluff. I either learn nothing or very little. That's the best case scenario. Unfortunately a lot the time I find people making documentaries that are purposely omitting or manipulating data to push whatever agenda they like. And then the third problem is due to the dearth of scientific knowledge in the general population a lot of film makers simply don't have the background to make an accurate documentary. I see one groan worthy statement after another in those things.
If I see people putting out misinformation sometimes I will call it out. If that offends people I don't know what to say. Science doesn't care about people's feelings. Facts are facts.
7 hours ago, sanveer said:Absolutely Incorrect. 90-99% of the Main Stream Media is Left (/Libertarian) Controlled and Funded. Therefore the Majority of Right (/Conservatice) Wing Media is relegated to Alternative News Streams and/ or channels with high viewerships but very uninspiring monetary models.
90% of AMERICANS believe global warming is either occurring or going to occur. There is no "Left Right" to that question. Are you proposing that 50% of the news media should cater to 10% of the population?!
I can't say it enough. I am stunned at the amount of airtime the fringe hold outs get and yet still scream they are being persecuted.
-
17 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:
I'm no climate change denier but the discussion is getting way too dogmatic on both sides of the fence.
No one said you are a climate change denier nor did they reference you in any way. I quoted Marijn and responded to his movie.
Also given the rather deplorable recent events people should really think hard before saying "both sides".
17 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:Further research is needed there to gauge the impact losing all that land to wind farms will have on food supply.
A bit of a strawman arguement. No one in this thread said we shouldn't study all aspects of alternative energy. In fact you are responding to a quote that says just the opposite...
19 hours ago, Damphousse said:Instead of arguing about whether climate change is happening and whether humans play a role we should be studying the topic more and looking to see what changes we need to make.
There is no form of energy generation that doesn't have pros and cons. We should be studying and debating the pros and cons of different kinds of energy generation. What we should NOT be doing is debating whether climate change has occurred or whether we should do something about it. The solutions are not going to be easy so instead of wasting time on settled science why don't we research and debate the things that are still a question mark.
And by the way your comment about farm land is ironic considering the study that just came out...
QuoteNearly 4 in 10 U.S. adults are now obese, CDC says
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-obesity-rates-us-20171012-story.html
Lol. What is the bigger problem? Global warming or not enough farm land!
17 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:Furthermore, it's interesting to hear what Freeman Dyson says in the film about the computer models - that they are a good tool for understanding the climate but a bad tool for predicting it.
I'm better educated than just about anyone on this forum and I have a much more solid science background than the vast majority of people on the planet. No one with a serious science background thinks models of complex poorly understood systems are simple and infallible. If you follow the climate change science for a substantial length of time you will quickly realize that no one is trending out specific targets and hitting them year after year. Science just doesn't work that way. The entire thing is a work in progress. But that doesn't mean warming isn't occurring or that humans have nothing to do with it.
There is plenty of lively debate amongst climatologists just as there is in every scientific field. This false narrative that climatologist are just sitting there cashing grant checks and not doing any work is just bizarre. They do research, publish papers, and debate just like all other scientists.
Anyway we saw this before with cigarettes. Plenty of moneyed interests told us "the science isn't settled". We had to sit through congressional hearings about "both sides". Guys, there are not two valid sides to every issue. Sometimes people are just wrong.
-
Quote
Marijn: "However, The media is letting us believe that the science is settled. No more debate! I believe in the importance of having different opinions to stay critical and focused toward important system shifts. Above all the climate debate is so politicized and dogmatized that the dialog is gone."
The science is settled. Not every topic has two sides.
Instead of arguing about whether climate change is happening and whether humans play a role we should be studying the topic more and looking to see what changes we need to make. There are an infinite number of things to debate. It makes no sense to debate something as settled as climate change.
In any scientific endeavor there are going to be outlier nonconformist opinions. That is not unusual. What is weird is how much airtime these screwball deniers get and then they turn around and claim they are being crushed by some global conspiracy. I have never seen a nonconformist opinion get so much airtime and yet scream so loud they are a victims.
I like the equipment used, the budget, and the small crew but other than that I don't think the world needs yet another half baked climate documentary.
-
2 hours ago, meudig said:
I really don't care about measuring a films success on box office numbers, and especially just domestic numbers. I'm just quite happy the film is made.
That is contradictory. If it doesn't make box office or rental numbers there won't be any more movies made. Hollywood isn't running a charity. No matter how sweet and nice Harvey Weinstein seems.
2 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:...the 400 million for marketing could well be part of the "Hollywood Accounting" strategy. It seems like a ridiculous amount of marketing...though I haven't seen it yet, the budget for making a film like this seems in line.
$400 million is Andrew's estimate for TOTAL, not just marketing costs. Still seems crazy but it isn't out of line. Valerian cost $180 million to make...
QuoteTo eke out a profit, Valerian needs to gross at least $400 million.
http://www.newsweek.com/2017/07/14/valerian-movie-weekend-review-spic-expensive-sci-fi-632026.html
-
58 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:
Yes I agree 100% but the problem is - they spent $400 million on making and marketing it as fodder for the masses.
Grossly overrated the reach and popularity of the source material.
The budget of the film was $155 million after tax rebates and other stuff. The marketing effort was HUGE.
They better hope the long term outlook is good for it... I think it will be... It'll stand up well in 5, 10, 20 years.
Oh, sh-t. I didn't realize they spent that much on marketing. Ouch.
-
$36 million domestically is under expectations but hardly what I would call "bombing" especially considering the source material. The original was not some great smash hit during its theatrical run. Not sure why a sequel would be. Come back in five years and I guarantee you this thing is profitable.
-
On 10/6/2017 at 8:23 AM, Andrew Reid said:
Someone needs to explain that test from Tony I guess.
The D850 has 3 auto white balance modes -
1. Keep absolute white
2. Normal
3. Keep warm ambient cast
The A7R II in the test is shifted to the usual Sony zombie yellow with poor skin tones and warm whites are neither true white or orange - they are yellow! This is exactly what EOSHD Pro Color sets out to fix - and does. Don't use the default Standard Sony colour!!
The GH5 in the test is under exposed or some other issue. It is doing a good job of getting the ambient temperature of the light in that room though, whereas the Nikon appears to be set to the first auto WB mode.
This stuff should be mentioned at the very start of the test and the different options cycled through in the test as well...
Otherwise people think it's a performance issue.
It's not. It's a setup issue.
Thank you for explaining this. I've seen all three cameras come up with nice footage. Obviously it will be easier to achieve with some cameras vs others. I think a review like Tony's does a real disservice. I agree with your comment about the GH5 exposure. There is obviously so much more detail present in the overhead lights. The D850 has less detail and the lights are totally blown in the A7R II footage. But the A7R II has more details in the shadows.
It would be interesting to see the colors on each camera with something like a simple gray card used for custom white balance.
I just think it is ludicrous to get wildly different results out of cameras of that caliber and not even attempt to try some very easy common sense adjustments. It just turns it into an utterly meaningless exercise.
-
On 9/28/2017 at 8:01 PM, Kisaha said:
2) the governments in power on a democracy do just that, represent the opinion of the general population.
The United States is not a democracy. -
7 years ago a Sony F3 was $16,000 plus another $900 for S-log. Now it can be picked up for less than $1,500. Seven years ago the BMPCC didn't even exist. It only started shipping 4 years ago for $1,000. I picked it up a couple of years later for $500.
I can't even imagine what I will be able to pick up for $500 20 years from now. Camera tech is advancing so much it is waayyyy too early to talk about a camera for life. I see most of the components for a camera for life floating out there right now (DPAF, IBIS, raw, 10 bit 4:2:2, wifi, downsampled 4K, etc). The problem is they are not all in one affordable package. In a few years you will have all of that in a small package for a few thousand dollars on the used market. I'm an amatuer so I need all the aids such as DPAF and stabilization that I can get.
Image quality wise there are definitely cameras out there that do the trick. But the convenience factor and bells and whistles are definitely going to take a quantum leap. I look back 5 years ago and no one in their right mind was talking about autofocus as a must have. Then Canon dropped DPAF and most people changed their tune.
Another thing to think about is power. With the decarbonization of society battery tech will take a quantum leap in the next decade or so. We will have smaller more efficient battery tech. People are researching things like instantly charging batteries and batteries that have almost an infinite life span. Who knows which of these technologies will arrive in our lifetime.
This is just one lens technology currently being researched...
QuoteThe advantage, Prof Capasso said, is that these "metalenses" avoid shortfalls - called aberrations - that are inherent in traditional glass optics.
"The quality of our images is actually better than with a state-of-the-art objective lens. I think it is no exaggeration to say that this is potentially revolutionary."
Those comparisons were made against top-end lenses used in research microscopes, designed to achieve absolute maximum magnification. The focal spot of the flat lens was typically 30% sharper than its competition, meaning that in a lab setting, finer details can be revealed.
But the technology could be revolutionary for another reason, Prof Capasso maintains.
"The conventional fabrication of shaped lenses depends on moulding and essentially goes back to 19th Century technology.
"But our lenses, being planar, can be fabricated in the same foundries that make computer chips. So all of a sudden the factories that make integrated circuits can make our lenses."
And with ease. Electronics manufacturers making microprocessors and memory chips routinely craft components far smaller than the pillars in the flat lenses. Yet a memory chip containing billions of components may cost just a few pounds.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36438686
If this comes to fruition cell phone cameras will have sharper lenses than the lenses on current cinema cameras. You can read the whole article. These lenses are thinner than a human hair and can be made as large as 12 inches in diameter or larger.
20 years from now you will be laughed out of the room if you show up with a camera from 2017.
Hey YouTube and Facebook - time to stop burying the good stuff with wall-to-wall bullshit
In: Cameras
Posted
Youtube being worth "billions" is questionable. They've lost money for years. I think they may be in the neighborhood of breakeven at the moment. A lot of businesses are more profitable than Youtube with a fraction of the awfulness.
There are at least two problems with that. The first is keeping your child off of Youtube and Facebook is going to be a tough struggle and turn them into an outcast. The second is you will deprive them of the good content on Youtube... There is no good content on Facebook.
I've been off of Facebook for years. It is terrible. Everyone just gossiping and showing off while corporations harvest your data. And I don't even want to get into the Russia stuff so as not to trigger anyone. Just a terrible cesspool.
I don't have any children, that god, but if I ever do I'm dreading dealing with their internet usage.