jcs

Thanks for the physics lesson, tugela. Sounds like you're an expert on warp drives and gravity shielding. Maybe you can explain yourself in more detail how what you propose is possible? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive https://www.wired.com/1998/03/antigravity/ Response algorithm: http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2011/04/01/matchers-and-mismatchers-how-to-work-with-impossib

After having written a few physics-based computer simulations (flight, driving, and virtual reality), I can tell you that vehicles that can make instant turns and stops effectively have no mass. Very small, lightweight objects with high-thrust systems can approximate this kind of motion, however 15+ foot objects going incredible speeds then stopping instantly defy explanation if these objects have mass (vs. a massless optical projection). The theory is these objects don't subject their payloads/passengers to any g-forces at all. They are either warping space, and thus the object isn't even moving (space is warped around the object, creating effective motion without any velocity and thus no momentum), or somehow partially or fully shielding the object from interacting with the Higgs Field (or whatever is fundamentally really going on) to massively reduce apparent mass. Without additional tricks up their sleeves, objects that have effectively zero mass travel at the speed of light, so they'd need some kind of additional shielding.

I've seen older footage of UFO 'swarms' that look compelling, especially when they are moving around, from before there were drones and so many UFO hoaxers. I've seen enough footage to believe there is advanced technology flying around, e.g. mass reduction / antigrav / electrogravitics, however there's no evidence these vehicles are extraterrestrial. That said, there is pretty compelling evidence that there have been advanced vehicles flying in the sky before modern history. Who made them and where they are from remain big mysteries.

Once I figured out how they did it, I didn't want to publish this material. However, it's important that we challenge the people behind these hoaxes. If done by private individuals (vs. govcorp), they are wittingly or unwittingly contributing negatively to the information war. If they are using Kevlar or similar string/thread, that could be very dangerous to light aircraft and airliners. Shot on the 1DX II in 4K (sky video), 24-105F4L and 70-200 F2.8L II, full resolution stills processed in Adobe Camera RAW:

If one is an audiophile, and one can afford the extra $500 or so, the sound quality alone provided by Sound Devices verses the others is totally worth it (listen to the examples in this post): Digital limiters are just slightly above useless. If the sound level barely kisses the limit, a digital limiter might be able to not destroy the take. Sound Devices analog limiters will not clip, even under crazy high levels (there are some side effects if you do this, but the result will be very usable, as shown here:)

Roland or Behringer.

Maybe they are using this kind of technology for the display: https://www.leia3d.com/technology/ Apple won't be far behind...

Here's the Aputure Deity vs. the Schoeps CMIT5U: Curious how the Deity sounds next to the NTG-2 or NTG-3 in the same conditions, as it's quite thin and noisy compared to the CMIT5U in this test. I'm also a fan of Audio Technica. For those needing a shotgun and stereo too, the AT BP4029 creates great mid-side stereo (allowing you to mix mono to ultra-wide stereo and anything in-between in post): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/215893-REG/Audio_Technica_BP4029_BP4029_AT835ST_Stereo.html. While it's not the quietist mic, the quality and imaging is excellent, sometimes capturing audio that when played back on desktop monitor speakers makes me turn around during playback thinking the recorded sound is live in the room

Simple mic-on-camera placement (in the studio all mics are boomed close to talent). In the outside shoot with the NTG-2 and CMIT5U, mic to mouth was about 4 feet. Primary noise source (street) was camera right (perpendicular, so best rejection possible (no sound behind camera, so no need to mic top down)). RAW photo courtesy Canon 5D3, 24-105 F4L lens. 1DX II, Tiffen variable ND, Kamerar VF-4+ VF, Sony 7506 headphones, Mogami XLR cable, ancient Bogen 3001 tripod. That's what the 1DX II rigged up to be functionally equivalent to a C300 II looks like. Actually it does 4K60p and the C300 II can't (C300 II does 10-bit 422 4K and 12-bit RGB 444 2k and the 1DX II can't (8-bit 422 4K, and 8-bit 420 1080p)). Might sell the 1DX II when C200 is released. 5D3 still great for stills. Makes sense, part of what makes higher end mics sound better is the internal amp. Does the Fethead pass phantom power or do you need to run the NTG-2 on the battery? Here's the NTG-2 used as a wireless mic (Sennhieser G3), and thus with a preamp into the camera (Schoeps needs phantom power so it can't be used this way):

Sounds Device rock for sure, especially the analog limiters! It's still a kinda heavy metal box (will be replacing the Zoom F4 with the Sound Devices Mixpre-6). If the Saramonic sounds decent enough, would work well for run & gun (no tripod). Might have to try it (if SD made such a device that would be amazing!). The Schoeps + preamp is >10x the $ vs. Rode (a more fair test would be to use the Rode with the F4 and not on the battery). Just not having to do any post work is a huge time saver (let alone the quality difference!).

Like most people I always look for the best value, best bang for buck, etc. I purchased the Rode NTG-2 years ago when it first came out and it has provided good quality for a very reasonable price. Since it can work with a battery when phantom power isn't available, as is the case with DSLRs, it provides a very light, compact simple solution. On a recent outdoor shoot, I used the Rode NTG-2 and noticed how it picked up a lot of off-axis sound, and was generally noisy, which required a bit of audio post to sound decent: We shot in the same location under similar conditions using the Schoeps CMIT5U, using a Zoom F4 to provide phantom power and also a preamp: I didn't need to do any post work on the audio at all and the quality difference is substantial. With a preamp DSLRs can use high-end mics, and the 1DX II for example, can sound as good as the C300 II. The only issue is the Zoom F4 is big and heavy, so run & gun could use a much smaller and lighter preamp. Something like this: https://www.amazon.com/Saramonic-SmartRig-Audio-Adapter-Smartphones/dp/B00WITIHZ6/ + this https://www.amazon.com/Rode-SC3-3-5mm-TRRS-Adaptor/dp/B00L6C8PNU/ (there are cheaper versions available) would keep things small and light with decent quality. Shot run & gun style with mic on camera using my Filmic Skin picture style and very minimal grading. Canon 1DX II FF 1080p ALL-I (post sharpened) and Canon 24-105 F4L lens using DPAF (could squeak out a little more detail and shallower DOF with the 24-70 F2.8L II when using a tripod).

Electrostatics made headphones rock, now keyboards too: http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/peripherals/what-keyboard-10-best-keyboards-compared-1028011

Some folks lament you can't use an ARRI Alexa on Netflix because of the 4K requirement. OKJA used the Alexa 65 as the primary camera, so 100% Alexas! (including the lower resolution XT: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3967856/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec. As long as the main camera meets the 4K requirement, other cameras can be used too). $50M budget...

Have been using the new Windows 10 box more frequently- the FocusRite Scarlett (1st gen) has issues there as well- doesn't come out of sleep reliably. Have to pull and reinstall USB cable to reset it. Maybe they fixed these issues for Gen 2. Given the sound quality of that Behringer demo against the FocusRite- definitely worth a look for those on a budget.

I too have a Zoom F4, purchased so I could capture 4 channels needed for the Sennheiser Ambeo VR (Ambisonic) microphone. Kudos to Zoom for getting the noise floor down (vs. the H4n, lol, which was really bad). Using Schoeps mics for voice recording (CMC641 and CMIT5U), the extra quality provided by the Sound Devices preamps and complete audio path is worth it. From my own projects, the Sound Devices hardware is much fuller, more detailed, smoother, and has an analog feel to it. The Zoom F4 is comparatively thinner, less detailed, and has digital harshness and is less smooth vs. the Sound Devices. The digital limiter is 'nasty' compared to the analog limiter on the Sound Devices. Listening on Focal Listen headphones through the FocusRite 2i2, the Analog Devices 688 vs. the Zoom F8 illustrates the same quality differences I hear between the USBPre2 (which has the same preamps and audio topology as the 688) and the Zoom F4 (which has the same preamps and audio topology as the Zoom F8): From this video: As soon as the Sound Devices Mixpre-6 is released, I'll be selling my Zoom F4 (mint condition! :)) and replacing with the Mixpre-6.

The Behringer sounded more detailed in the highs and also fuller in the lows vs. the Focusrite, which sounded kind of thin comparatively in that test. For the price the Behringer sounds like a good deal, minimally worth testing with your own gear.

Zbush is clearly the best 3D software for designing 3D bushes! Zbrush models can be used for vfx, video games, 3D printing (with some additional processing), etc. It's been around for a long time... http://pixologic.com/zbrush/industry/

I've got a Scarlett 2i2 (1st gen). Nice preamps, better than the RME Fireface 800 (which I sold). I did have occasional issues with ASIO drivers on Windows and some issues without drivers on OSX in PP CC (could be Adobe's issue- crackling and loss of audio; could also have been a USB issue on the MacPro). Still a great value for the money. The Scarlett 2i2 is now on a recently built Windows 10 box (ASUS MB), and so far no audio issues. From your list, I'd give the Roland a spin, looks very good. If you want decent limiters (I couldn't find any info on the Roland's limiters; if they are decent Roland would mention them: http://www.roland.ca/products/rubix22/features/), I'd spend the extra $500 and get this: https://www.sounddevices.com/products/recorders/mixpre-3. You can also use for location recording and as a DSLR preamp. It has analog limiters, which are amazing. The preamps and sound quality are the best in the industry for the cost. I use a Sound Devices USB Pre 2 on my main workstation and the preamp quality is superb, headphone output is very good, and driving monitors or Stax earspeakers is amazing.

The 1DC has very sharp/detailed 1080p in Super35 mode. For online streaming delivery, even the 5D3 was sharp enough in 1080p with a little bit of post-sharpening (I shot this 5 years ago): When shooting people, especially close ups, you really don't want a razor sharp image anyway. If you need something really sharp for wide shots, there are plenty of options from Sony and Panasonic (typically you shoot 4K at around 100Mbps and downsample to 1080p in post). Canon's 4K (C300 II and 1DX II) isn't razor sharp either, neither with enough photosites to capture full 4K resolution. However, it's much better than 1080p, and both can provide pleasing, filmic looks. Here's the 1DX II in full frame 1080p, 24-105 F4L lens, Rode NTG2*, handheld and post stabilized and sharpened in PP CC: This was shot using my custom Filmic Skin picture profile, with very minor tweaks in post using Lumetri. For YouTube delivery, especially for medium to close up shots, all Canon's DSLRs can look good with a little post sharpening. * I think it's time to retire the Rode NTG2 for these kinds of shots. I have better mics however they all require phantom power (much better at side-noise rejection). That's another aspect of DSLR shooting: we need a preamp to get decent audio quality (wireless is another option). Here again, Sony and Panasonic provide factory add-on hot-shoe solutions.

@kaylee if you're going to have a sculpture made, just reference photos are sufficient. 3D data is useful if you're going to use a computer to 3D print. I think the highest quality results are still achieved using a laser depth scanner along with photos as texture maps (again, not really suitable for pets since they typically won't hold still). Photogrammetry uses cross-correlation to match pixels from multiple views. You can get 3D depth from just two photos (I wrote software to do this years ago). For a full 3D model, you needs a lot of views and it takes a very long time to compute; additionally the results typically tend to require a lot of manual post-clean up. A laser scan provides an accurate 3D point cloud and along with high resolution 2D photos, modern tools can convert to triangles for which the 2D photos can be used as texture maps. Even so, to provide 'movie quality results' (as seen in the movies ), a lot of manual 3D modeling work is still required. In summary, very expensive for a life-sized large pet result! Reference photos for a sculptor might be the most cost effective solution right now (until we get Star Trek Replicator technology from our Alien Overlords ).

Multicamera photogrammetry is the best solution for objects which can move, such as pets. This is not 3D scanning, since the capture is simultaneous, instant: You can do photogrammetry with just one camera for still objects or even people if they hold fairly still, this is a form of 3D scanning: https://www.allegorithmic.com/blog/go-scan-world-photogrammetry-smartphone http://www.agisoft.com/community/showcase/ (one of the better quality solutions) http://www.photomodeler.com/ http://www.photomodeler.com/products/scanner/default.html This is pretty cool, though low res last time I looked at it: https://structure.io/ (uses a depth sensor along with a camera; really a developer tool at this stage vs. consumer/professional product) http://3dscanexpert.com/3-free-3d-scanning-apps/

Should work fine for apps which support multiple GPUs.

I consulted on a project a few years ago where the product was 3D printed pets. I recommended photogrammetry for the capture since all cameras can fire at once: if the pet isn't perfectly still, not a problem. The end result is a very high quality 3D object and texture map. This company uses your own photos, so there's a bit of art / manual modeling going on. Less accurate, but perhaps more affordable than shooting in a multi camera booth and using photogrammetry: https://3dprint.com/160671/furever3d-3d-print-miniature-pets/

Maybe it can be used to clean sun screens too? https://www.amazon.com/WHOOSH-Award-Winning-Screen-Cleaner-Antimicrobial/dp/B00DOPW5L0.

The chemicals in sunscreen can accelerate cancer. Extra time in the sun without burning can lead to melanoma (see the studies from Australia). Best to cover the skin or use zinc. A few minutes a day are very beneficial for vitamin D! All this info available online