taqueso posted:

I thought they meant 'linear' like you had to play it from end to end (or use fastforward or rewind) and couldn't seek to arbitrary points. But you could just make a CD with one track that would be somewhat similar to that.

Cold on a Cob posted:

i know, poor little rich computer touchers, but lmao i was wondering which tech companies would do this first

https://twitter.com/Fullcarry/status/1304491784689471488

the replies are golden too

"if they live somewhere cheaper than it's fair they get paid less"

ok let's move Bezos to Milwaukee then so amazon can pay out more dividends hm?

Cold on a Cob posted:

ok let's move Bezos to Milwaukee then so amazon can pay out more dividends hm?

Cold on a Cob posted:

"if they live somewhere cheaper than it's fair they get paid less"

Paradoxish posted:

legit do not understand the kind of brain damage that makes someone think this way, especially because it is absolutely, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt certain that this person believes in the concept of "meritocracy"

bike tory posted:

It's usually the other way around, where people get a location allowance or something to compensate for increased cost of living. IMO it makes sense in big professions that have collective agreements like teachers or nurses.

Paradoxish posted:

legit do not understand the kind of brain damage that makes someone think this way, especially because it is absolutely, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt certain that this person believes in the concept of "meritocracy"

Ruffian Price posted:

Friend of mine was working in a regional branch of a tech company that generally paid the local average for their offices in different countries, but everybody got the same per diem allowance for travel. HQ coders made a loving petition and got that lowered for all the others because they didn't think it was fair.

Antonymous posted:

Dynamic range is the difference between the darkest and brightest detail a camera can capture in one image, defined as 'stops' or doublings of light, so 3 stops =8x more light, 3 doublings. What's the brightest light a camera can see, how many times do we cut that brightness in half before it's the darkest a camera can see? Right now digital can do about 14 stops. You'll see all kinds of numbers, from 12 to 15, although there is an official standard basically everyone makes up their own. It was common knowledge that film negative had 12-13 stops, so digital has been claiming 13+ for decades despite wildly differing results between cameras, you always have to test for yourself.

Digital is already scraping the physical limit on underexposure. Photons arrive statistically so there's some noise there called shot noise, plus random noise from heat and amplification, so noise cannot go to 0, and I forget the number but we're already counting slightly more than 50% of the photons that arrive on most digital sensors, so there's less than a stop of signal available for underexposure. The big difference in underexposure is signal/noise ratio and some cameras use a lot of processing and expensive components to remove noise, but they don't see more signal. This makes digital great at handling underexposure. The drive for higher resolution has made each 'pixel' (photosite) of the sensor pretty small, and unfortunately the size of the photosite determines how many photons it can count before it gets full and clips, making digital awful at over exposure, the image simply clips white and it's a sudden, hard limit. There's also quantization issues because all sensors are analogue and somewhere in the camera the analogue voltage has to be made into a digital number, which can add noise and clip values. If you want more dynamic range with a given sensor tech, you need bigger pixels and better analogue - digital conversion, and therefore less resolution and maybe less photos / second. But resolution and fast shutters sell cameras more so than dynamic range.

Black and white film uses silver salt that, when exposed to light and then developer, becomes metallic silver, and without exposure remains salt soluble in water (fixer), and so unexposed areas wash away and become clear, making a negative. This process has its own statistics, where the reaction takes more and more light and so it's very hard to react all of the silver atoms, making it almost impossible to lose detail in over exposed areas. and also it takes iirc 4 photons arriving in a very short period of time to react at all, so very dim light even in very long exposures might not activate any silver, which is called reciprocity failure. Even in normal exposure, this makes the film exponentially less sensitive in the shadows of the image so under exposure is bad, almost exactly opposite to digital.

For color film, the silver activates a dye and then all of the silver is washed away with bleach. While black and white sees maybe a little more dynamic range, color negative is really insensitive to changes in the image with over exposure. Black and white will lose contrast with over exposure and grain will get bigger. Color negative will eventually see a little flatting in contrast and hue shifting but seems much less sensitive in my experience. When I shoot super 16mm I over expose 2 stops because then your mid tones get all the fine grain and you get a little more perceived resolution / less perceived grain. You can also develop color film without bleach (or less than necessary) which gives you a black and white image on top of a color image, called 'bleach bypass'. Fight Club, among other films, was developed this way. By leaving silver in the color film the film is somewhat more fragile and some dust removal tech won't work (doesn't matter for cinema).



Open this image in a new tab and look close. Film has a 'toe' where contrast steepens right before black and a 'fog' where signal simply ends, rather than gets noisier like digital. Some color film stocks fog at different levels, so shadows might look blue or green or magenta - the color that bottoms out first. At -2 she's losing detail in her black shirt. But from -1 to +6 there's no way to tell if the film was over or under exposed. At +6 there's some softening but my guess is that to get +6 they needed to open their lens more or do a longer exposure where subtle motion will soften the image. +6 is hard to get to in interior. If this scene had a bright window behind her, or a lightbulb in the shot, you might notice contrast in those bright areas flattening and hues shifting. I'm thinking that by +10 her skin highlights would start to shift hues, but maybe not. Definitely less contrast.

http://www.johnnypatience.com/download/johnny_patience_portra_400_0_to_10.jpg
This is someone testing the same kind of test, normal exposure to +10 stops (which is 1024x brighter) on two different scanners to see which scanner handles over exposure better. Part of film photography now is also how to digitize it (in some sense film photography is delayed digital photography with an intermediate). You can see one scanner handles +10 just fine. The negative is almost certainly a black square to the naked eye, so the scanner is really picking up the subtleties in that blackness.

Here's a $75,000 cinema camera that's looking good -2 to +5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccc9-zhGPbo

I also add that for cinema, where I actually work, shooting on film probably has little impact on the image honestly. People take the dust and grain out of things shot on film and they add it to things shot digitally, all of them get color corrected, there's really no difference. Tarantino and Nolan make prints but I don't think they are contact prints, you're still seeing a digital effects and color and whatever on the print. (was once upon a time in hollywood a contact print? i.e. film-to-film) Super 35 resolves about 3k-4k which is where most digital cameras land now as well (4k sensor resolves about 3k with good debayer algorithms).

On set working on film changes everything. The workflow removes relying on looking at a screen on set for a lot of departments, director, wardrobe, hair and makeup, production design, lighting. The monitors for film cameras are pretty poo poo and so everyone focuses on using their eyes and being extra careful. That's the real power of shooting on film.

Paradoxish posted:

legit do not understand the kind of brain damage that makes someone think this way, especially because it is absolutely, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt certain that this person believes in the concept of "meritocracy"

Paradoxish posted:

legit do not understand the kind of brain damage that makes someone think this way, especially because it is absolutely, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt certain that this person believes in the concept of "meritocracy"

Hodgepodge posted:

awesome. it kind of sounds as if film is a totally different technology than digital in the end. honestly, i think with all the recent advances in condensed matter physics, film may have more room for improvement at the moment. if anyone cares to explore that avenue and also if we retain the capacity to build this sort of poo poo I guess

Encrypted posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnBUcReLAQ4&t=33s

Kreeblah posted:

Same. It's not like the value produced by their work is any less. Why should the company steal more of it just because of where they happen to live?

Antonymous posted:

Dynamic range is the difference between the darkest and brightest detail a camera can capture in one image, defined as 'stops' or doublings of light, so 3 stops =8x more light, 3 doublings. What's the brightest light a camera can see, how many times do we cut that brightness in half before it's the darkest a camera can see? Right now digital can do about 14 stops. You'll see all kinds of numbers, from 12 to 15, although there is an official standard basically everyone makes up their own. It was common knowledge that film negative had 12-13 stops, so digital has been claiming 13+ for decades despite wildly differing results between cameras, you always have to test for yourself.

Digital is already scraping the physical limit on underexposure. Photons arrive statistically so there's some noise there called shot noise, plus random noise from heat and amplification, so noise cannot go to 0, and I forget the number but we're already counting slightly more than 50% of the photons that arrive on most digital sensors, so there's less than a stop of signal available for underexposure. The big difference in underexposure is signal/noise ratio and some cameras use a lot of processing and expensive components to remove noise, but they don't see more signal. This makes digital great at handling underexposure. The drive for higher resolution has made each 'pixel' (photosite) of the sensor pretty small, and unfortunately the size of the photosite determines how many photons it can count before it gets full and clips, making digital awful at over exposure, the image simply clips white and it's a sudden, hard limit. There's also quantization issues because all sensors are analogue and somewhere in the camera the analogue voltage has to be made into a digital number, which can add noise and clip values. If you want more dynamic range with a given sensor tech, you need bigger pixels and better analogue - digital conversion, and therefore less resolution and maybe less photos / second. But resolution and fast shutters sell cameras more so than dynamic range.

Black and white film uses silver salt that, when exposed to light and then developer, becomes metallic silver, and without exposure remains salt soluble in water (fixer), and so unexposed areas wash away and become clear, making a negative. This process has its own statistics, where the reaction takes more and more light and so it's very hard to react all of the silver atoms, making it almost impossible to lose detail in over exposed areas. and also it takes iirc 4 photons arriving in a very short period of time to react at all, so very dim light even in very long exposures might not activate any silver, which is called reciprocity failure. Even in normal exposure, this makes the film exponentially less sensitive in the shadows of the image so under exposure is bad, almost exactly opposite to digital.

For color film, the silver activates a dye and then all of the silver is washed away with bleach. While black and white sees maybe a little more dynamic range, color negative is really insensitive to changes in the image with over exposure. Black and white will lose contrast with over exposure and grain will get bigger. Color negative will eventually see a little flatting in contrast and hue shifting but seems much less sensitive in my experience. When I shoot super 16mm I over expose 2 stops because then your mid tones get all the fine grain and you get a little more perceived resolution / less perceived grain. You can also develop color film without bleach (or less than necessary) which gives you a black and white image on top of a color image, called 'bleach bypass'. Fight Club, among other films, was developed this way. By leaving silver in the color film the film is somewhat more fragile and some dust removal tech won't work (doesn't matter for cinema).



Open this image in a new tab and look close. Film has a 'toe' where contrast steepens right before black and a 'fog' where signal simply ends, rather than gets noisier like digital. Some color film stocks fog at different levels, so shadows might look blue or green or magenta - the color that bottoms out first. At -2 she's losing detail in her black shirt. But from -1 to +6 there's no way to tell if the film was over or under exposed. At +6 there's some softening but my guess is that to get +6 they needed to open their lens more or do a longer exposure where subtle motion will soften the image. +6 is hard to get to in interior. If this scene had a bright window behind her, or a lightbulb in the shot, you might notice contrast in those bright areas flattening and hues shifting. I'm thinking that by +10 her skin highlights would start to shift hues, but maybe not. Definitely less contrast.

http://www.johnnypatience.com/download/johnny_patience_portra_400_0_to_10.jpg
This is someone testing the same kind of test, normal exposure to +10 stops (which is 1024x brighter) on two different scanners to see which scanner handles over exposure better. Part of film photography now is also how to digitize it (in some sense film photography is delayed digital photography with an intermediate). You can see one scanner handles +10 just fine. The negative is almost certainly a black square to the naked eye, so the scanner is really picking up the subtleties in that blackness.

Here's a $75,000 cinema camera that's looking good -2 to +5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccc9-zhGPbo

I also add that for cinema, where I actually work, shooting on film probably has little impact on the image honestly. People take the dust and grain out of things shot on film and they add it to things shot digitally, all of them get color corrected, there's really no difference. Tarantino and Nolan make prints but I don't think they are contact prints, you're still seeing a digital effects and color and whatever on the print. (was once upon a time in hollywood a contact print? i.e. film-to-film) Super 35 resolves about 3k-4k which is where most digital cameras land now as well (4k sensor resolves about 3k with good debayer algorithms).

On set working on film changes everything. The workflow removes relying on looking at a screen on set for a lot of departments, director, wardrobe, hair and makeup, production design, lighting. The monitors for film cameras are pretty poo poo and so everyone focuses on using their eyes and being extra careful. That's the real power of shooting on film.

Kreeblah posted:

Same. It's not like the value produced by their work is any less. Why should the company steal more of it just because of where they happen to live?

Antonymous posted:

Motion picture needs precise control of motion blur. Your integration time has to be for 1/48th of a second, no pauses no skips no double exposure, and ideally completed within 5ms or less (i.e. little rolling shutter).

I'm a camera user not a camera maker but I won't shoot with a camera that uses any of those HDR schemes especially behind the scenes where I can't control them. So the limit for my work is probably full well capacity and will be for a while.

Encrypted posted:

Film's wide dynamic range came from silver grains in various sizes that can react at different rates and essentially soak up large amount of photons.

Morbus posted:

So, fundamentally, there is no difference in recorded scene intensity values or motion blur between:

Antonymous posted:

My understanding is, 1/4800 of a second integrated does not increase sensor dynamic range, you're just under exposing and frame averaging. This works where the sensor is linear, and if read noise is 0 like you said (in reality it isn't), and so fails in shadows where noise is not linear. Underexposing by 100x is going to gently caress up your image, even if you take 100 of them. Those highspeed cameras might take 2400 frames a second but they expose them correctly. I do test this stuff so if there's a camera that you think pulls this off with normal motion blur I'll call up a rental house and go play with it.

Red cameras have this feature, and they have too much of a latency in the reset of the readout and you will see banding in the motion blur, I've tested it. I actually think they didn't think their process through and they just average 48fps or 96fps before compression, rather than putting all the samples together temporally. Good for stop motion. Red also lets you shoot a frame at 1/48 and then another at 1/120 (or whatever you want) and this gives your highlights sharp blur and shadows normal blur when you blend them.

sorry to anyone reading this thread who couldn't give less of a gently caress about cameras lol

Antonymous posted:

I left a lot of technical stuff out of my other post because I felt I'd said enough. But I think it's not just a random assortment of grain sizes, the color negative emulsion is several layers, with previous layers blocking light to following layers both because grain casts shadows onto grains below it and because there are color filters built in between layers of the emulsion, which means really bright light gets modulated down before it reaches them. It's really sophisticated and not something digital can take advantage of, and causes some of the unique flaws of color film that people like, like the softening of warm colors.

dex_sda posted:

All I know about CCD tech is the stuff we use in telescopes. Those sensors are state of the art stuff that can detect individual photons and is designed for brutally long exposition (we're talking literal hours), but it needs to be hooked up to denoisers up the wazoo - a lot of setting up a telescope these days is getting accurate background so you can filter the noise out. If the background is overwhelming (light pollution being the prime problem) then there's nothing you can do of course, but you'd be surprised how much you can ENHANCE the image if you do things right

atomicgeek posted:

Do you actually have to chant "ENHANCE" as you do it, because that would be rad

(I love this photography derail!)

Encrypted posted:

Morbus posted:

dex_sda posted:

it's more drinking a lot of coffee staring at a laptop screen in a shroud while you're shivering from the brutal cold in the dark because you open the dome so that it cools the ccd so there's less circuitry-induced noise in the detectors, all while you hope you calibrated everything right when taking the background photo

Encrypted posted:

Oh cool, I wasn't really thinking about it in 3D sort of way but it make sense.

Guess that also explains why some people went nuts over the foven sensors where the photosite for each color is stacked depending on the wavelength instead of using the traditional bayer pattern. The per-pixel sharpness is just stunning on those without any sort of moire defects.


That being said, the future seems to be something like high refresh 8K on largeish TVs with HDR where our eyes will become the limit and cannot discern any more pixels or brightness level beyond those. And then we can finally stop buying new TVs because there's nothing much else beyond those metrics to improve on.

This but with regular TV size and price.
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/sharp-unveils-new-120inch-8k-display-up-to-120hz-hdmi-21-2048-dimming-zones

dex_sda posted:

btw gently caress elon musk, motherfucking moron made ground-based astronomy esp. radio astronomy so much harder. you already have so much background to keep in mind and the introduced another really stupid source of it

quote:

After more than four years of searching, researchers using the Parkes radio telescope in New South Wales, Australia, have identified the source of some mysterious signals: a microwave oven in the facility’s break room.

...

Writing in a report published in April on the preprint server arXiv, the astronomers at Parkes described the meticulous hunt for the source of “perytons”, fleeting bursts of radio signals that have been intermittently detected by the telescope since 1998. The noise was interfering with their main mission: to understand the source of fast radio bursts (FRBs), brief and elusive signals with possible extragalactic origins.

Emily Petroff at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, who is first author of the paper, says that the team knew early on that the perytons had an earthly explanation. But they nailed the kitchen appliance as the culprit when tests confirmed that the peryton signals — but not the FRBs — could be replicated by simply opening the door of the microwave as the oven was running and if the telescope was pointing in a certain direction.

Shame Boy posted:

I thought astronomy cameras all had peltier or sterling cryocoolers these days, I know that one mikeselectricstuff took apart did anyway

...or well that was a DNA camera (yes really, apparently that's how a lot of DNA sequencers work, they make the DNA base pairs glow different colors and then film the flashes of light it outputs) but he mentioned it was the same kinda camera used for astronomy in that it could detect ultra-low-light levels, had an absurd resolution and needed poo poo like the cryocooler to get the noise floor down.

Shame Boy posted:

Yeah I heard there's a lot of images being ruined by his stupid constellation of satellites flying across the field of view and leaving a big light skidmark, didn't hear about the radio astronomy thing though but it makes sense they'd mess up that too.

I think my favorite radio astronomy interference case is this one though:


If someone opens the door of the microwave in the break room before the timer runs out there's enough energy that leaks in the split second before it shuts off that it was swamping out the telescope. And they were probably microwaving fish too I bet

Antonymous posted:

digital is way more linear than tape

indigi posted:

cameras are boring and suck poo poo