While I appreciate anyone rebuilding from the studs, there is so much left out that I think is essential to even a basic discussion.
1. Not all sensors are CMOS/Bayer. Fuji's APS C series uses X-Trans filters, which are similar to Bayer, but a very different overlay. And there's RYYB, Nonacell, EXR, Quad Bayer, and others.
2. Building your own crude demosaicing and LUT (look up table) process is ok, but important to mention that every sensor is different and requires its own demosaicing and debayering algorithms that are fine-tuned to that particular sensor.
3. Pro photogs and color graders have been doing this work for a long time, and there are much more well-defined processes for getting to a good image. Most color grading software (Resolve, SCRATCH, Baselight) have a wide variety of LUT stacking options to build proper color chains.
4. etc.
Having a discussion about RAW processing that talks about human perception w/o talking about CIE, color spaces, input and output LUTs, ACES, and several other acronyms feels unintentionally misleading to someone who really wants to dig into the core of digital capture and post-processing.
(side note - I've always found it one of the industry's great ironies that Kodak IP - Bruce Bayer's original 1976 patent - is the single biggest thing that killed Kodak in the industry.)
I've been on h.news for 12 years, but rarely post. Mostly listen and learn. This one just hit me.
I do a fair amount of hiring. In the past 5 yrs-ish, I've seen a new level of arrogance in interviews. People can (and do) think very highly of themselves. That's ok. But the outright person-to-person rudeness and breakdown of simple courtesy is new. My suspicion is the prevalence of social media as a primary comms method for many, and its tendency to stoke open conflict, has lowered the bar on what is considered "acceptable" in interpersonal contact.
I'm a pretty kind and forgiving soul. But folks like that go on a special list. I don't want to make the mistake of letting that particular person pass through in future hiring rounds. That kind of naked toxicity can kill a team, or at the very least, create a giant management and HR headache.
"Adam" will eventually figure out that everybody you pass on the way up, you meet on the way down. Experience is what you get just after you need it.
This is a really wonderful explanation that removes the woo from QM. As a non-scientist, I've spent a lot of time reading about QM and trying to understand stuff, and eventually get lost in hand-waviness about dimensions and vague references to Schrodinger and his boxes of semi-cats. Thanks!!
Our business is virtual live music. We have tried everything - Jamulus, JamKazam, various plugins for Ableton, Protools, Logic, etc. Bottom line is speed of light = speed of light.
Good musicians can adapt to low-latency group playback, but it's difficult, and at that point, it isn't true realtime collaboration. The band/musicians are more focused on staying in time and fighting the latency versus really listening to each other and being a band.
One great tool for doing long-distance collaboration is Endlesss. (yes, three "s"s). Loop-based work that allows for real collaboration, and getting around the latency issue.
There is, sort of. The Cinematographers' Mailing List, in constant operation since 1996, is an old-school listserv. Its members range from non-cinematographers, to beginners, to (many) academy-award winners. It is easily the largest single body of living knowledge in the world of cinematography and filmmaking. Join and ask... I promise you there are 100 people who know the granular, minute details of how this shot was accomplished, and chances are good that several members know people who worked on the movie. https://cinematography.net
As a small bit of trivia for those who wonder - it has been diligently maintained as a listserv, and a very simple website, because it is actively used by filmmaking crews in active production, which frequently takes place in god-forsaken corners of the earth with extremely limited connectivity. If it's 2am in the desert in Morocco, and you need help on alternate solutions for the the gimbal rig that just crapped out... you need a low-bandwidth way to tap into the collective wisdom. And that sort of active community happens regularly.
We have done high-level client review and approval meetings in a Horizon-style interface (Venues), with a surprising level of success. We were hesitant at first because of our client-base and the significant dollars at stake in these reviews. Comments:
1. A surprising amount of emotional communication is possible with these avatars. The combination of arm/hand/finger articulation and movement + head nod/move/position + hearing someone's voice... that is synthesized at a much higher level than you might anticipate. I was truly surprised at the level of nuance we were all able to glean from fairly minor, almost involuntary movements people make, how that is represented through avatars, and then translates effectively to accurate social communication.
2. The physical representation of space and the avatars around that space carry the same "tribal" rules that exist in RealSpace. Certain groups tend to gravitate to each other. Side conversations can occur in a way that can actually be helpful to the overall gestalt. Leaders position as leaders, subordinates as subordinates. (Avatar group interaction is a fascinating, evolving sociology.)
3. Most importantly - all participants across multiple meetings and multiple clients agree it was far more effective then Zoom/Meet/Teams/etc. Latency is rarely perceived as an issue, the brain adapts and adjusts amazingly quickly to the new representation of space and human interaction, and decisions are made quickly because of the interactions, not in spite of them.
Of course it is in its infancy. But once you have done real business and interaction in these environments, it's disappointing (and counter-productive) to return to the endless talking squares on a monitor.
If Glass is your thing, I highly recommend Idagio. It is explicitly focused on Classical, and its filtering is focused on what you'd want out of a Classical-focused search.
For instance, with Glass - there are 171 albums on Idagio.
And it breaks them down with works, instrumentation, ensembles, soloists, genres (piano solo, chamber, secular vocal. etc.), conductors, and recording date.
If you want to compare the 22 piano solo albums that Jeroen van Veen has recorded of Glass's music - easy to pull all of them up quickly.
Their encoding is also vastly superior to Spotify or (yikes) YouTube Music. If you have a decent signal-chain for listening, high-quality components, and enjoy Classical... Idagio is head-and-shoulders above the rest.
1. Not all sensors are CMOS/Bayer. Fuji's APS C series uses X-Trans filters, which are similar to Bayer, but a very different overlay. And there's RYYB, Nonacell, EXR, Quad Bayer, and others. 2. Building your own crude demosaicing and LUT (look up table) process is ok, but important to mention that every sensor is different and requires its own demosaicing and debayering algorithms that are fine-tuned to that particular sensor. 3. Pro photogs and color graders have been doing this work for a long time, and there are much more well-defined processes for getting to a good image. Most color grading software (Resolve, SCRATCH, Baselight) have a wide variety of LUT stacking options to build proper color chains. 4. etc.
Having a discussion about RAW processing that talks about human perception w/o talking about CIE, color spaces, input and output LUTs, ACES, and several other acronyms feels unintentionally misleading to someone who really wants to dig into the core of digital capture and post-processing.
(side note - I've always found it one of the industry's great ironies that Kodak IP - Bruce Bayer's original 1976 patent - is the single biggest thing that killed Kodak in the industry.)