• 1 Post
  • 96 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 13th, 2023

help-circle

  • You’re mostly right with the depth of field being the big difference but the image being darker is not a function of aperture (f-stop) directly, but rather overall exposure. At the same ISO setting, two identical shots in the same lighting would be the same brightness with truly equal exposure: the reduction in aperture (increasing to m the f-stop number to a higher value) would be compensated for with an equivalent decrease in shutter speed (in simple terms, constricting the hole lets in less light, so we leave the hole open longer to let in the same amount as before).

    In the example, if the scene is darker it’s because the exposure changed, not just because of the aperture.

    Additionally, the number is shown as a fraction because it is a fraction. The “f” in the value (f/2.8) is a variable that stands for “focal length”, that being the focal length of the lens being used. So, for example, a 50mm lens set to f/2 would have its aperture set to a 25mm diameter. (50/2)

    The reason the numbers are strange numbers and non-linear in scale is because they correspond to aperture diameters that let in either double or half the amount of light from the stop next to them. So adjusting from f/2 to f/2.8 cuts the amount of light in half (I think this is basically doubling or halving the area of the circle of the aperture).

    This is why a one stop change at lower values (bigger openings) has a much smaller numeric shift than a one stop change at higher values: adding or subtracting diameter of a larger circle adds or subtracts much more area than the same diameter change to a smaller circle. That’s why one stop goes only from f/2 to f/2.8 on the wide open end, but on the closed down end, one stop goes from f/11 to f/16.




  • My favorite summary and comparison of two movies was something along the lines of:

    "In The Muppet Christmas Carol, Michael Caine plays it absolutely straight, as if there were no Muppets at all, and as if he were completely surrounded by nothing but classically trained professional actors…

    …in Muppet Treasure Island, on the other hand, Tim Curry plays it as if he himself were a Muppet."










  • Because he thinks it makes him look cool and edgy, especially in an environment like this, where the way to gain popularity is to be the most extreme far left voice in the crowd.

    People like that are the vegans of politics: even if you may agree with them in many ways, their repulsive attitude and conduct more than overrules any common views you might share.



  • Same picks for the same reasons.

    … although I’m less proud to admit that I read it as “Known Father” the first time, didn’t catch it until I came to the comments, and he still didn’t make the top 2.

    I just kinda figured that “Known Father” meant he was always talking about his kids and experiences with parenthood, and that was enough to eliminate him.


  • I kinda get it though…it’s not like these armed forces are producing the movie themselves.

    The studio wants to make a movie about/involving these entities. They want it to be as realistic as possible and the entity itself has the authority to give them access that it could also deny.

    If you’re in charge of, say, the Marines PR department, you’re constantly trying to make the Corps look good and boost recruitment. If you can do this for next to nothing against your budget by granting access to a studio making a film that will give you essentially free PR, that’s a great move. The bigger the movies potential, the more the entity in question is motivated to support it.

    On the other hand, if the film is going to make your organization look bad, no PR person with a functioning brain is going to help that project in any way.

    Idunno, I feel like these organizations do enough actually bad things, that I don’t feel the urge to crucify them for cultivating image and working to generate positive PR.


  • Well okay then.

    If my only options are, “Continue eating all the meat you want and the planet is fucked.”

    …or, “Stop eating all meat and go completely vegan…and the planet is still fucked unless everyone else does it too.”

    Well…

    … fire up that grill, man, I’ve got some steaks and burgers in the freezer.

    God, seeing the comments from some people that I’m even nominally on the “same side of the aisle” makes me see how the other side finds it so easy to not only ridicule, but automatically unite in opposition against it.

    Like, nothing brings me closer to being understanding and sympathetic to the people I’d normally be ideologically set totally against…like visiting Lemmy and seeing the shit flowing from the people I broadly tend to align with.



  • This is the thing.

    While I doubt it’ll have any actual difference being seen by anyone anywhere, if this killing were followed up by a few more, or even a dozen more in short order, you would see change.

    Most of it not the kind we’d hope for (tightened security, lockdown corridors for high profile individuals, even less access and interface with these people, etc…not concessions to decency, honesty, civility, humanity, etc.) but you bet your ass that it’d be living rent free in the back of every CEO and billionaire on the planet for a long time.