jcs

Regarding Heisenberg, I wrote it that way to simplify the statement and to emphasize that we can't know anything completely when missing critical details (such as position or momentum (mass * velocity)): "Heisenberg brought to light we can't know anything completely at the lowest levels of physics, with any certainty." emphasis added. Years ago I worked with surgeons and rocket scientists (literally, from CalTech, JPL, etc.) when I wrote a real-time physics simulation to train doctors in laparoscopy using realistic mannequins and force-feedback computed from instrument position (trocars etc.) and the virtual 3D models of the lower GI. In college and speaking with these folks and with other pHDs in various fields over the years (academics in general), there seemed to be a competition over who could appear smarter, better than the rest. A competition to be smart sounding, lol. Thus big words and complex explanations of things that could instead use smaller words and simpler explanations. Since then, a metric I apply: is the idea complex and are they using big words and trying to sound impressive. The more complex the idea and words used, the less likely the idea has real value. As the coat of paint & polish is covering up the lack of substance. It's ironic that sesquipedalian defines a person who uses complex words lol! Sometimes I do it too; it takes a bit more work to simplify things. For "God" and "Simulation", recall I finalized the idea with a state space of 4 possibilities: "God", "Simulation","God & Simulation", and "Neither", which covers all possible positions one could take, so to clarify not all religious or scientific folks think the same way. Did any of us agree on what "truth" is, and how we determine what is "true"? It appears to me that "daily truth" is more about persuasion and personal experience (anecdotal) vs. scientific study, along with computed probabilities from real-world experiments. Peer review of research papers along with independent replication is kind of the last defense against personal bias/ego before a scientific idea starts to become widely accepted (can still take a while, rightfully a skeptical bunch, since sometimes an idea is accepted then later found to be wrong!). The entire scientific process and logic itself are human constructs, and there may be hidden flaws in these systems which prevent us from getting closer to the base reality, whatever that is (if it even exists!). Recent thinking has been going deeper into the idea that consciousness is primary. Meaning that reality doesn't exist without a consciousness to perceive it. And if this is "true", what effect does that have on the concept of "truth"?! Seems to imply that fundamentally, "true" is what we perceive to be true at any moment. And thus the root cause of all internet arguments, driven by the ego

Great keyword, "likely" which brings probability into the discussion. In the event of no advances in medical science, the state space of your statement could be within that range. However if medical science makes great advances, and those advances are made available to us (vs. kept private/secret), then the state space extends quite a bit more years. So we don't know if that statement is 'true' or not, perhaps we could make a guess based on past advances in medical science, giving us a possibly useful probability of likelihood. Heisenberg brought to light we can't know anything completely at the lowest levels of physics, with any certainty. And this percolates up to the large scale as well. Douglas Adams had great fun with this concept with the Infinite Improbability Drive in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (read the books- genius and funny too!). The concept of truth, causality, consciousness and reality itself get even weirder with the double-slit and quantum eraser experiments. Combine this with quantum entanglement in general, as well as the apparently quantized nature of 'quantum' physics, and now we have many scientists and philosophers pondering how can the universe "know" in a sense whether there is a conscious observer, or not, and manifest reality accordingly. Folks on the spiritual side of the fence think "God" and on the science side of the fence think "computer simulation". The state space is one, the other, both, or neither. 25% probability for each possible state. There's currently no way to test any of these theories. And again, this entire paragraph is created by an ego and could be completely off the mark as to the 'truth' of the base reality. Sure, convincing people of any 'truth' and getting enough people to believe it, to follow it, is quite powerful in controlling the population or selling products. Perhaps the most common form of 'truth' is general consensus. If enough people believe it, it can be considered true, such as Canon color and even ARRI color. From my personal point of view, and testing with actors/models, Canon and more so ARRI seem to please the most people with the least effort, especially for skin tones. I can also get pretty good skin tones with Sony and Panasonic (latest cameras), however it used to be a lot harder than it is now. A7S II skin tones from a raw photo: And again, consensus changes, so collective 'truth' changes over time. Yeah, tautologies, logic, and math in general are self-defining systems of their own truth. If we play within their domains and rules, the concept of truth is well defined. Does 'truth' apply to artistic expression at all? Or is it a deeper, more abstract, non-label-able thing, and that's perhaps why art can be so beyond-words emotionally moving? Thanks for the video, that's another great example of dancing egos. They have different points of view about truth, argue about what truth is, and cannot reach agreement. Then this fellow adds his own analysis from yet another point of view: and thus the pattern repeats, like a fractal. If one accepts that each of us is running a separate 'reality simulation' in each of our brains, with each of us seeing reality from a different point of view, and that our egos have convinced us that our view of reality is the correct one, from one person to a group of people, then we can keep an open mind as to what truth is and what is true. Truth doesn't really matter until we try to convince others to match our own view. To live together, to manage limited resources, and to treat each other in a sustainable way requires 'convincer' strategies of truth. Academics tend to use big words and complicated structures of thought and language to convince others of their 'rightness'. In my experience, the more complicated the explanation, the less likely we'll be able to convince people of the root concept or idea. It's easy to make things complicated, and quite challenging to reduce complexity down to simple, generalized concepts that ring true to many people. In a sense, complexity seems to be another trick in the ego's bag of tricks to deceive ourselves and those we try to convince that our ideas are true. And perhaps this post is way too complicated and is another example of this concept. I hope to be able to simplify in the future.

@Tim Sewell if we set up the cameras and lenses using equivalence, each person can see the differences, whatever they may be. Larger formats will have a harder time with commonly available lenses to get deep DOF and smaller sensor formats will have a harder time with shallow DOF. In the region of common overlap where the formats can be matched with equivalence, we can see if a particular format has characteristics that we prefer, which will be unique to each person. If we don't match cameras and lenses with equivalence, how can we tell if a specific format and lenses has any special characteristics? How can we justify spending the money for the larger formats?

Or Veyrons?

Some paths appeal to some, other paths appeal to others. Many ways for the ego to go. No right path. No wrong path. Just paths. Pointing a camera at a mirror provides clues for the curious.

I should have put a disclaimer regarding the 'triggered' comment, not directed at you or anyone in particular, just a pattern I've observed. Regarding truth, let's play. What is truth, and how do you know anything is true?

You're right, in the domain of predicate logic, Boolean algebra, etc. Here we're talking about human perception of reality itself, and this squirrelly, wet bar of soap known as the ego. A long time friend, who's studied philosophy his whole life (along with his wife), suggested a couple books yesterday after discussing this topic: Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism "In this modern spiritual classic, the Tibetan meditation master Chögyam Trungpa highlights the commonest pitfall to which every aspirant on the spiritual path falls prey: what he calls spiritual materialism. The universal tendency, he shows, is to see spirituality as a process of self-improvement—the impulse to develop and refine the ego when the ego is, by nature, essentially empty. "The problem is that ego can convert anything to its own use," he said, "even spirituality." His incisive, compassionate teachings serve to wake us up from this trick we all play on ourselves, and to offer us a far brighter reality: the true and joyous liberation that inevitably involves letting go of the self rather than working to improve it. It is a message that has resonated with students for nearly thirty years, and remains fresh as ever today." and In Search of the Miraculous "Peter Demianovich Ousepnsky (1878-1947) was born in Moscow. He became one of the most important writers on abstract mathematical theory in the early 20th century. Ouspensky searched throughout Europe, Egypt, and the Orient for a teaching that would solve for him the problems of man and the universe. In 1915, in St. Petersberg, he met with George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff, who taught that most humans do not possess a unified mind-body consciousness and thus live their lives in a state of hypnotic "waking sleep", but it is possible to transcend to a higher state of consciousness and achieve full human potential. This is the record of Ouspensky's eight years of work as Gurdjieff's pupil. It combines the logic of a mathematician with the vision of a mystic." I'll read/listen to them soon. I found this as recommendations from those books via Amazon: Cosmic Trigger I: Final Secret of the Illuminati "The great modern classic of a brilliant rebel's personal exploration into the nature of consciousness. Cosmic Trigger deals with a process of deliberately induced brain change. This process is called 'initiation' or 'vision quest' in many traditional societies and can loosely be considered some dangerous variety of self-psychotherapy in modern terminology. I do not recommend it for everybody...briefly, the main thing I learned in my experiments is that 'reality' is always plural and mutable." What drew me to that book were comments about 'triggering' and people's egos (see the comments), very relevant as to what happens online and in the world today. I noticed a funny pattern years ago, that simply bringing awareness of the ego itself, could cause people to become irrational and angry. Understanding this pattern better is interesting for this ego (mine ). My buddy sent another one, Center of the Cyclone: An Autobiography of Inner Space "The Center of the Cyclone is an autobiographical work authored by famed fringe scientist and psychedelic pioneer, Dr. John C. Lilly. This is his most well known book and his first mainstream work, setting the tone for his dual career as scientist and explorer of human consciousness. In intimate detail, Lilly tells the story of how he left mainstream science to become an explorer of the "far out places" of the human mind. Using his own brain as a laboratory, and utilizing every method of consciousness alteration at his disposal --including LSD, isolation tanks, and zany new age encounter groups -- Lilly takes us on his decades-long quest to discover the true nature of consciousness and reality, overturning many of his own assumptions and those of mainstream science along the way." which leads to this book, Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer: Theory and Experiments, "Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer was written by Dr. John C. Lilly about his research conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health. In it, he discusses his invention of float tanks, early communication with dolphins, and investigations into the use of LSD for personal and cultural development. This historic work is reprinted in this version, in its entirety, for the first time in 25 years." Metaprogramming is a common technique used in hypnotherapy/NLP today... I find these subjects fascinating for personal and business relationships, and for writers and filmmakers, understanding how the ego and the mind works is priceless for storytelling.

The reason we try to take the tester's ego out of an experiment, is to reduce as many variables as possible in order to learn whatever the goal of the experiment is. For a camera test, our goal is to understand actual differences in the camera systems, vs. the tester's personal preference or bias (ego). This has nothing to do with computers, as human beings would then look at the results of the tests to see if they can see any differences and if so, what are those differences. That sounds reasonable. A non-biased equivalence test would allow many people to reach their own conclusions. And Andrew has all the gear and experience to create a reasonable equivalence test showing the differences between these camera systems.

Or shoot equivalence tests with all the right settings, including ISO and let other people see for themselves, leaving the ego of the tester out of the equation as much as possible. An even better test would have a technically competent, non-photographer who knows nothing about the purpose of the test and knows nothing about cameras, DOF, perspective, color, etc., following instructions precisely to perform the test (related to the concepts of single- and double- blind studies, to remove testing bias as much as possible). @Shirozina CFA/color-separation quality differences would be interesting to see, I think this may be why, for example, the F65 looks so much better to me vs. the F55. Might also explain why the A7S II looks better than the A7S I and FS700 and the green-magenta balance sensitivity, etc. Another factor could be simply that the ultra-high end cameras get more TLC and tweaking to make thing looks better (CFA, sensor design, software, etc.).

The Illusion & Truth Paradox, in a documentary: Ted talk explaining his process (watch the documentary first if you're interested, this contains spoilers):

It would be cool if you could set up say the 1DX II, a Sony with the Kippon MF focal reducer, and the H3D using equivalence math (and same distance camera to subject) for a comparison. To show the differences in the available optics for the different formats, their character, and the differences in sensor and color performance. Maybe even the GH5 too with something like a Voigtlander F.95 etc. In that way you can match perspective, bokeh, and compression (as best as is possible with available lenses and camera settings) so the lens and sensor characters can more clearly be seen.

Depth cameras are cool. Worked with a company a few years ago doing background subtraction without a greenscreen (aka segmentation). It's a quite challenging problem when using an image-only camera. Here's PewDiePie using the version before I joined the company as CTO (I worked on later Playstation and Xbox versions. For iPhone/iPad we switched to alpha-channel overlays instead of background subtraction): The XBox version used the Kinect's depth sensor, however the depth resolution was pretty low, and thus the edges where still a bit blocky. The True Depth sensor on the iPhone X looks decent. I'm still happy with my iPhone 5S- plenty fast, looks good, fits in my pocket, and hasn't bent . The iPhone X is the first iPhone in many years that I might consider getting, possibly as a development target for software products which use the advanced hardware features.

Right on, man. I do the same thing regarding just putting information out there to be helpful. Indeed we are in tough times, lots of things are changing, we've got to adapt for sure. Just being aware of our ego, what it is, how it works, and what it does is helpful. I'm not sure we can control it directly- it seems to operate mostly in the subconscious mind. It's kinda like working out: gotta keep practicing and slowly we get our mind in shape. And if we stop practicing, we go back to our old ways. Realizing that others are struggling with their egos too, is also a great realization: empathy. And helping others to see this is perhaps a good use of the ego.

Control? Projection? See the pattern? Again, not good or bad, just an awareness of what the ego does and how it works. Much of our behavior is unconscious. Becoming aware of our ego can be a useful, entertaining exercise. Doesn't need to be any deeper than that. If you want to go deeper, you can get a better insight into your life. Watching Jim and the reporter is an excellent example of two egos dancing. Perhaps useful to look at ourselves in the same way, from the point of view of a third observer, if we frequently get into arguments to better understand why. Perhaps start by asking, "why am I arguing/controlling/snarking"? On the topic of filmmaking, this insight into human behavior is tremendously helpful in coming up with interesting, flawed characters, who are entertaining to watch (to be absolutely clear, this is not referencing anyone on this forum). Straight-laced, flawless characters are boring, unless paired with someone who is flawed!

Looks like Jim Carrey is not making a film about Terrance McKenna: https://www.gossipcop.com/jim-carrey-terence-mckenna-movie-psychedelic-drugs-philosopher-biopic/

Jonesy, my goal has been and continues to be, figuring out how to better communicate. By telling you that I am aware of the illusions created by my ego, everything I say is clearly from my own point of view, and if you disagree, it's OK. When I first read these ideas years ago, it didn't make any sense at all, especially Zen, which seemed totally crazy and pointless. Which is why many people throw around the word Zen because they think it's cool, however they have no idea what it really means. Some of the more esoteric parts of Zen and Buddhism don't seem true to me (e.g. carry-overs from Hinduism), however the concepts of ego and layers of illusion do seem very helpful in dealing with life as a human being. So you're right, it sounds like double-talk. Buddha said the same thing, and he continued to share what he learned. Note I didn't say preach, and I hope I can learn to talk about these concepts so they don't sound like preaching at all. A funny pattern that appears is that the more I try to write in a manner that is non-argumentative, the more folks seem to want to argue. This feels like the ego, in that it doesn't want to admit one doesn't know truth. What is truth? How do you know anything is true? Can you write things you believe to be true that most people will agree with? Maybe. Can you write things you believe to be true that everyone will agree with? Probably not. Even if you show a tautology in math, people who don't understand math won't agree. Even if you show something using the scientific method, some people will disagree and find flaws that may not exist or just simply won't believe you (this happens all the time in science, only years later are some ideas accepted as true!). If we accept that we don't know anything for sure, we keep ourselves open to learning something new, and getting closer to the truth, whatever it may be. How many times have you been absolutely certain about something, 100% certain, then later learned you were wrong? That's the point in accepting that the ego may be creating an illusion and that what one thinks, sometimes what most everyone thinks (such as the world is flat or the Earth is the center of the universe), is wrong. Newton's equations of motion are kinda true, in that they do very well to predict the motions of objects, including in the presence of gravity. However it's an incomplete model, and we need Einstein's equations of relativity on the large/fast scale and quantum physics on the small scale to better describe reality. And none of these concepts exactly describe reality since we can't unify gravity, for example, other than string/m-theory neither of which we can test yet in the real world. When each of us believes our own thoughts are absolute truth, then we aren't open to new ideas, to seeing another person's point of view, and to learning something new. From my point of view it feels better to say these things seem right to me, what do you think? Vs. me saying these things are all true, perhaps polarizing, and not open to others points of view. From my first short film, "Truth and Perfection exist only in Mathematics, and Mathematics cannot describe a Universe running on Infinities and Probabilities". If you disagree, it's OK, how would you show why this isn't true for you?

It's totally OK that you disagree! I used to be very competitive at everything: sports (played them all in high school and college), racing cars, competing in software and business, winning lawsuits, winning arguments, however in the end it wasn't satisfying. Winning means someone else is losing, which creates resentment, and a net increase in suffering. This is especially true in personal relationships: we don't want to alienate our friends, families, or partners. In business, especially with the responsibility of a leadership position, it is especially tricky to get points across while being aware of each person's ego. Even if everyone ultimately realizes you are right, if they resent you it makes it hard to lead without drama. Thus I learned it's really important to let everyone know you really care for them, want the best for them, it's not personal, and to keep the business and/or tech debates focused on the issues vs. letting it get personal. I don't want to "win on the internet". It was never my point to prove anyone wrong, rather I was trying to show what I believed to be true. Yet my methods ultimately made people think I was trying to prove them wrong, and thus came resentment. When I use the word 'ego' it's not simply arrogance, it's the thing in our consciousness that makes us appear separate from each other and nature. The only way I've found to not experience ego is through deep meditation and/or using DMT to turn off the individual-human-state reality filter: the ego. The ego is a truly clever thing, the ultimate deceiver sometimes, not good or bad, it helps us to survive, and when out of control causes great suffering for self and others.

I had read about, how as we approach the Big Realization (note I'm not saying the Truth), our ego's get more and more clever, creating even "better simulations" so we think we've finally solved it all, that we have arrived, that we are enlightened... Hurray! And then slowly we realize that once again, we've deceived ourselves, and we're not there yet, there's still more to learn. Once we recognize that pattern, we can stop telling other's we've finally solved it all, that we know the solution, that we know the truth, that we know the Right Way, that we know anything at all. Even what I'm writing right now it's that same pattern, so it's really impossible to get this point across in words. It's like they say, you can really only smile and nod, and recognize that we are all playing the ego game, and ultimately live kindly as humans and not try to project our individual beliefs on others. Maybe we'll talk about it, maybe we'll agree, maybe we won't. Math and science were developed as a tools to try to reach consensus, and these tools work well enough for us to create houses, cars, roads, bridges, microwave ovens, foods, medicines, etc. The concepts of the Rule of Law have helped us to live relatively peacefully in the latest civilization (not including wars which twisted the law in order to justify war). Once we get to the level below quantum physics nothing works anymore, so we don't really know what is going on at the deepest levels, and thus it's metaphysical. Perhaps there's a fundamental flaw in the ideas of math and physics, and it's blocking a better description of reality. There's really no point arguing about it when we realize how our egos create illusions which we then project on others. It's kinda funny how it all seems to work! And maybe everything I've written here is just another illusion! Buddha said keep questioning everything he said- it's just what he found to work for himself, and if you find a better way, follow that. Similar to the Scientific Method: keep updating the ideas as we learn more. What we all do seem to agree on with people who have empathy (again, psychopaths/sociopaths/narcissists probably don't have empathy), is to treat others as we'd want to be treated. Be kind, implement the Golden Rule. It seems the more we can do that, the more we can reduce suffering and be happier. It appears Jim Carrey has been preparing to play Terrance McKenna: http://www.mckennite.com/articles/carrey. From Jim: "The deeper you go into the psychedelic dimension, the bigger it gets. I've seen things no human being has ever seen before, and no other human being will ever see again. I retreated to nature and I took five grams of dried mushrooms in order to prepare for this role". “The real message of psychedelics, I think, is to reclaim experience and to trust yourself. Your perceptions are primary. Your feelings are correct. Everything must constellate out and make sense and parse with what you know. If you don’t start from that assumption then you are off center to begin with. And the psychedelics will dissolve the cultural programming that has potentially made you a mark and restore your authenticity.” I felt the same way for a while, then realized that what I was seeing and experiencing was not unique at all. And that the ego was once again playing the game. 5 grams of psilocybe cubensis (see Jim Carrey link) would be a sufficient dose of DMT to put most people over the threshold for 'ego death', a state of consciousness where the human filter, what defines a human as a human, a specific person, to melt away. That's when transcendental awareness or cosmic consciousness can be experienced. That's what Jim meant when he said "You don't exist, we are not important, it's not our planet" etc. However this is just the ego again, running a different awareness simulation. So that's not the end of the journey. Once we come to this realization, it's kind of an AHA moment and also a NOW WHAT? moment. How are we supposed to live? What should we do if the ego is always creating illusions? Hungry: eat, tired: sleep, curious: explore. Just be. Be a human. Be aware of attachment. Be kind. That does seem to be the simple answer. Again, I reached the same conclusion as the pioneering teachers before us, however I realize it too may be another illusion, and until something that seems to work better is understood, this feels right. Feels like truth, feels like true love. So it's kind of recursively amusing realizing that these concepts where we become aware of the illusions of the ego, and write about them, are further examples of the illusions of the ego. So we can listen to other people's views of reality and respect them, realizing their ego is creating a specialized version of reality for them. It may be similar to our reality, and it may not. And it makes no sense to argue about it! It seems kindness and the Golden Rule are fundamental principles we'd hope all would agree to, perhaps there is an even better way, I don't know. @Don Kotlos, @Jonesy Jones I saw patterns in what Jesus said that were so similar to what Buddha said, I figured maybe he studied Buddhism. Alan Watts also has great insite into what Jesus was really trying to say: that we are all children of God, not just him: Recently this was published: https://www.feelguide.com/2017/01/19/bbc-doc-proves-jesus-was-a-buddhist-monk-named-issa-who-spent-16-years-in-india-tibet/. The Dalai Lama wrote about about Christianity and Buddhism: http://www.wisdompubs.org/blog/201603/dalai-lama-reflects-faith-buddhism-and-christianity. I don't know if it matters if this is true or not, it does seem he said the same things as Buddha, and that some of it was changed for political and religious reasons. I'm not sure if it will ever be possible to know. The pattern is Christianity kept splitting into more and more sects, e.g Catholics to Lutherans, to Latter Day Saints, and especially the Mennonites (there was also splitting and fragmentation of Buddhism, and in recent history when it was studied collectively, some sects had gotten the main ideas completely backwards!). It seems the splits kept happening as they got farther away from what Jesus and Buddha really said. We can look at what Buddha said and later Jesus to perhaps get a better understanding of the original concepts before politics and religion fragmented and changed them.

@Anaconda_ Jim is on a path that may lead him to understanding there is even more. Jim thinks he's awoken from the Matrix. He hasn't. He's just in another one! The Matrix, Inception, Rick & Morty (nested simulations) play on this idea. @iamoui "there is no me" "it's not our world", it's good you see the pattern and that he's still playing the game. I don't think his intention is nihilism. We do see religions and philosophies being used as justification for selfishness and destroying life. Now that I see the power of the ego game, I'm having trouble writing anything at all. Ego is not positive or negative. No judgement. It just is. A system that filters our awareness that we are all connected, and protects us from information overload. I don't know if it's possible to escape it, the ego game, when in human form. From what I have learned, the closest is to recognize that we can't escape it, and recognizing that even that statement may not be true! The concept of nondualism is helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism. I've only ever achieved this (or the illusion of it!) with deep meditation and/or by using a tool such as DMT. It's the ego that frightens people away from psychoactive tools. I've also realized that living as a human being in this reality with that level of consciousness and awareness all the time is not desirable in human form, especially when no one else is in that state of consciousness! No one understands you, and it makes sense why: you are seeing and experiencing reality in a way they cannot understand in a normal state of consciousness. The game seems to be, that we are all God, we make up what God is, all of the universe, collectively, is God. Not the God from any religion. When we become aware of this, it can be wonderful, terrifying, or both. Collectively we are all responsible for our actions, as well as for our relationships with those around us, for our homes, neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, the planet, and the entire universe (and multiverse if it exists and whatever is beyond that!). The mechanism of the ego seems to be to protect us from the overwhelming information of what is going on in the universe, including that we are all co-creating it together with the concept of God. What Carl Sagan said, is what we as humans truly seem to enjoy most of the time: to be kind, to create life, and not to destroy it. I don't want to put down anyone's faith. However some religions have mechanisms which don't recognize that we are all collectively God. And that we can be forgiven no matter what terrible actions we have done, or even worse that said actions are justified as being in line with the teachings of their faith. Being raised with Christian and Jewish influences, and later studying Buddhism, Zen, Hinduism, and Taoism (all related), I began to ask the question: "How can we unite everyone?" Is it even possible? If that was your job, how would you go about doing it? Listening to Alan Watts was tremendously helpful! Most people I refer him to can't get through the material- too hard, too long, too boring, etc. Studying Zen can seem pointless after a while: incredibly difficult and abstract. Now it all makes sense, or more appropriately, I get the point about the ego and the mind games. Yet the funny thing is that once you know the games of the ego, you can never be sure of anything! So do I really get it, or is this state another illusion! So then the Zen answer to the question "Well, then, once you learn all this, how are you supposed to live?". When wet, seek shelter. When cold seek warmth. When hungry, eat. When bad things happen, know that it will pass. When good things happen, know that it will pass. Paddle with the stream, perhaps laterally, but not upstream. Enjoy your life as a human being. If we get attached to people or things, it will cause suffering. True Love is not attachment. Understanding that everything is connected, we are not separate from each other or our environment: we are all responsible. We enjoy it when others are kind to us and thus we are motivated to be kind to others. Understanding that our egos will play games with our minds and to remind ourselves of this when things get challenging. Let go of control whenever you can, whenever it won't cause harm. Are you speaking with joy and smiling or something else? Thus the point seems to be after all the deep metaphysical searching, we come back to simple ideas everyone can understand and perform. Current mainstream media, movies, music etc. bombard people and overwhelm them with information that takes them away from these concepts. A puzzle to be solved is how do we provide sufficient control of resources without competition, so that we can live on this planet and minimize suffering. The human beings who rule this planet are psychopaths/sociopaths/narcissists. It's not a judgement or negative statement, only a recognition of behavior that leads to absolute rulership of humans dominating others. Is it possible for them to learn these concepts, or can enough people who have learned them change the systems in a positive way? And online, on forums, etc., can we have fun conversations and friendly debates, while remembering these things? Do you think they'll understand what he was doing? Seems like there could be a better way. I don't know. Maybe it's a start.

Two egos dancing. The longest, most passionate threads are arguments. Politics, religion, conspiracies, cameras, and gear. The pattern repeats. It's drama. We enjoy it. It's an addiction. Is there another way? There is, recognizing that it's all games of our egos, creating layers of illusions. The answer is so simple, you'll chuckle when you get it

The F65 frame has a lot more detail, and I like the color better vs. the F35. Did you put a FilmConvert emulation on them? The F35 looks like a film emulation (black is not black, even so detail goes away much faster vs. the F65 as light drops: much less sensitive). The F35 frame looks like a "look" which could also be applied to the F65 frame, which looks more neutral. I've been a fan of the F65 since Oblivion and Lucy: At the end of the thread I pushed saturation on an example F65 frame: while it turned a bit orange, it didn't go magenta (maybe a hair) or green, which I though was pretty good for a Sony at the time See the EOSHD thread in this post, last page. The F65 EXR frames are still there for grading.

Why stop there? GH5, 1DXII, C200, C300II next? Expect a call from Zacuto soon ?

@squig for all we know it could be the same camera with random color grades. #itsajoke

From what I've seen the F55 is not nearly as good as the F65, for whatever reason (hardware, grading, etc.). Before the Sony A9, the default PP's haven't looked very good (still can create weird skin tones). People had to figure out how to get decent color, e.g. for the A7S II using Slog2 + SGamut3.cine + 12 Sat + manually setting WB and WB Offset. The A7S I and FS700 had very challenging color, especially for skintones. Note that Canon's default Picture Style on the 1DX II doesn't look as good as the 5D3 (I had to create a custom Picture Style, which was way more work than should be necessary). If WB and exposure are set correctly, these cameras should produce gorgeous results with the default settings (Like Fuji & Olympus)!

Lol. "Remember to vote sept 12th!"- is this part of your campaign?