Matthew W. Phillips

Having a computing background, I recognize that any algorithm is only as good as the rules that govern it. I don't doubt that an algorithm has the capability to be superior (since it could be tailor made to the image at hand). Where I express doubt is in how much research and accuracy is present in the algorithm used. When writing a program, your algorithm is your rules that govern the program. These rules must be precise and explicit for the program to accomplish this task. I would be curious to know what "rules" they are using with regards to the grain structure for am image. Is this done on a per pixel basis or is the whole image scanned to get an approximation of how to set up the grain structure?

Calling laws "anti-trans" is an over simplification. Many of those have to do with the trans-female in female sports debate which is far more nuanced that people like you want to admit. Regardless of what feels good to you, there is a biological difference between born males and born females. Even with hormone replacement therapy, there are differences in muscle mass, bone density, etc that give a biological male an edge over a biological female. That isn't bigotry, that is science. Many of those sorts of arguments have more to do with the fairness of the competition and not as a way to prevent trans students from competing in sports. My question to you on that grounds is this: At what point do the rights of some infringe on the rights of others? On one hand, you discuss women's rights in this thread (right to vote) but now you are fine with women's sports essentially being destroyed by allowing biological men to compete with them? Look at the results of some of these competitions that have been "inclusive" and you will quickly see that the results aren't even close. Biological women have de facto been stripped of the ability to truly compete in their own sports. At this point, we might as well not separate sports by gender lines anymore. Edit: As for the "trans-bathroom" debate, I admit that this is a stupid thing to fight over. The easy solution to satisfy everyone is to just have businesses invest in single-unit unisex bathrooms. Now everyone gets privacy and no one is disenfranchised. This issue seems more like a non-issue to me.

But if you read the rest of my quote, I said that I am completely fine with service people denying me service for any reason they see fit. Therefore, I do not see it as "marginalizing" anyone to deny them service. I am literally saying that I am fine with going through the same so-called "oppression" that those groups are dealing with. If I don't care about it directed at me, why would I care if it is directed at someone else? I realize that no one in this world owes me anything. I am fine with it. If they wont do something for me, I guess I find someone else or do it myself if it is important enough.

Drunk driving has a negative impact for society regardless of emotional motivation. In addition to injuries and potential loss of life, drunk driving also causes property damage ($$$), instability on the roadways, and accidents cause gridlock which has a windfall effect on the community as a whole. It is the opposite of a "public good". Once again, the issue is more of a pragmatic one that an emotional one. Having approximately half of the adult population not able to influence the direction of the country isn't just "discriminatory"; it is stupid. When one studies management theory, you learn that diversity of opinion and perspective is a powerful thing. This is what is not talked about enough by proponents of "social justice". Businesses that embrace diversity of viewpoint, perspective, culture, etc tend to benefit because they have a larger well of creativity and ideas to draw from. This is never the selling point though as people like you promote the "beat you over the head" approach and tell you to embrace diversity because it is the "right thing to do" and that if you disagree, you are a bigot. Catching flies with honey is always better than using vinegar. But when you make people out to be terrible people from the get go, don't expect them to consider anything you have to say. Sure, emotions are stronger than logic for most people. This is because people are inherently reactive. Emotions happen to you whereas logic takes a conscious effort to think though a problem and formulate a solution; it also takes the confidence and will to take a first step in most cases.

I looked into this...interesting. But macOS only + $1,000 for full version gets a "no dawg" from me.

Thanks for the in-depth tutorial. I appreciate it.

I could be outdated on this but it used to be Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism were the three largest religions in the world by affiliation. Has this changed? I haven't "told most everyone here". I told Chance directly. If you have contradictions to bring up then go for it. But a blanket statement like above has no value if you don't point out specifics.

I would like to know how you can generalize this point? I have known black people from two parent households where both parents had PhDs and I have known white people from single mother homes where their mom had a boyfriend that beat them and locked them in a closet. It must be great to generalize people based on stereotypes. Are you sure it isn't you that has bias?

This right here shows that you have lost the argument. You are far too emotionally invested. I prefer to look at the reasoning of arguments when assessing things instead of feelings. I would never say I "hate" anyone; even someone who disagrees with me. You sound like one of those people who thinks that someone is a bigot just because they see the world differently than you. Regarding religion, I do agree with the Golden Rule "Do unto others." So I am consistent in saying that I couldn't care less if some photographer didn't want to take pictures of my wedding. It wouldn't matter why they didn't want to. If they don't want to do it, I would prefer they didn't. I am sure you will counter with some "straight white male privilege" nonsense and that I don't understand oppression (because you can obvious sum up my entire life knowing nearly nothing about me because reasons) but I am consistent. I would not personally refuse to take pictures at a gay wedding if I did weddings but I support the right of service people to only take work they want to take. If you don't like that, it is your problem. And I will not apologize for feeling that way. So you can begin the retaliatory -isms that I am sure you will call me.

Fixed this for you. ? You already lost the debate because you are making it emotional. Logic is not predicated on emotion; it is based on a system of reasoning that must be consistent whether it makes you feel comfortable or not.

Fair enough. My question now is, how predictable is the grain structure based on the structure of the image? Is it something that could reliably be done using a computer algorithm? Or is the process still inherently random in that the darker images have larger grain than the lighter images but the size of the grains are not reasonably consistent from one image to another? I ask this because I am trying to determine if something like Dehancer can be relied upon to be reasonably reliable to produce a grain structure that is superior to adding an overlay from Cinegrain, for example.

Maybe I misspoke. I don't need microscopically stable images. I just need something much better than I have gotten from CP16. I imagine what worked for Hollywood for as long as it has is good for me. And your footage looks fine as far as I can tell. But I have not gotten anywhere close with the CP16 which is (one reason) why I am done with the platform. Too many issues to deal with and too many compromises when many other alternatives (digital or film) exist if I save my coins.

Surely adding expletives to your statement makes it much more persuasive. ?

I am not arguing that you are correct in this. However, even with grain overlays on digital images, it still seems to be the case that grain over dark areas isnt noticeable as much as it is in highlights. So, from a practical standpoint, how much difference does this have when viewing?

You do realize that using isolated incidence of truth is how prejudice happens, right? The irony of your logic is that it is the same logic that leads to the type of bigotry that you claim to be against. Let me give you another example that I have heard that uses your logic: "Black people make up 50% of the prison population despite being only 13-14% of the population. Therefore, black people are criminals". I hope now that you can see the flaw in your reasoning?

Even if that were true, that is a ridiculously simplistic argument. "Because (member of set) X was formed due to Y, (every member of) X is always formed based on Y." Logic not even once. Learn how logic is formulated before you resort to rudimentary rhetoric.

Look, I am trying to be polite with you. I recommend you drop it.

Thank you for your honestly. In this case, I will just agree to disagree with you.

I agree with your post but I think (I dont want to misquote so correct me if I am wrong) that Chance, Phil, and Uli are implying is that religion is a "cop out" or a way to legally justify bigotry. I am not sure how they come to this conclusion since the tenets of the major religions are widely available for all to view on the interwebs and these tenets largely predate modern institutions like photography, legalized gay weddings, or even the United States of America. But I cannot begrudge a person of the right to their opinion.

In preproduction of a short that I will be shooting on the BMPCC 4k and looking into lens selection. For my budget, I am looking at the Meike Cine prime set or the Fujinon 18-55mm zoom for starters. I have seen some footage with the p4k paired with the Meike Cine primes but I couldnt find any clips of the p4k paired with the zoom. Has anyone used this lens? What are the pros/cons? Would it be a better/worst option that the low cost cine primes set? I guess for the same price, I could rent a Zeiss prime if I kept it to one focal length for the whole shoot. This seems limiting but who knows? What do you all think? Thanks in advance. Matthew

Off Topic says "No politics or religion, please" so I doubt it would last.

Maybe it will be like this legally. That should terrify people though. Discrimination is just a negative take on the word "discernment". If people in service jobs aren't allowed to discern the work they take then I worry that we will end up with a talent shortage in said fields. I see a talent shortage already happening in academia due to too much regulation by government. People will opt out of certain fields if they believe the government is getting in their business too much. This hurts the economy as a whole. Not sure how things are where you are at but where I am at (Northern California), we have such a shortage of labor willing to take work that some businesses are shutting down just because they cannot find employees to do it. Not sure how they are supporting themselves but I admire anyone who will not be bullied into taking work they don't want.

Obviously, the easiest way around this is to not offer blanket types of work and negotiate everything by job. The photographer should ask first about the nature of the job and, instead of declining outright, ask about when they need it done. If they don't want to do the work, play coy and say "sorry, I am booked up at that time."

Maybe if you go into a store and see "Wedding" on the menu. But I assumed most businesses of this nature tend to contract by job? If so, the idea is pitched to the photographer and they decided whether to take it or not. Just like Karim said about the cake. If you have a cake that says "Happy Birthday" sitting in your bakery, sure, you must sell it to whomever comes through the door. But if you are asking someone for a custom job, I cannot imagine that they are legally required to honor your request.

The grain is...well, I believe it was Steve Yedlin that already pointed out in one of his "rants" that grain can be algorithmic or it can be filmed and it pretty much is just as valid either way since the grain structure is random and not tied to any particular thing as some people tend to think. I think Dehancer using that argument that grain is somehow "baked in" or specific to the image. There is no justification for this in the actual science as far as I can tell. As for halation, I don't get why this is so desirable. Most people associate the "film look" or "movie look" with Kodak since most motion pictures have been shot on their stock. Yet Kodak has had an Anti-halation layer for decades. Unless you want to emulate a niche stock then I don't see the appeal of it. As for bloom, that is pretty much just a wrapper for the Resolve "Glow" tool. And their film stock selection is just a guesstimation based on the tint of different film stocks. You can get your own tint by shooting a roll of still film of the type to emulate on a grey card and then pixel peep the color to check the RGB values. Then you can use the Offset Resolve tool in a node to get that tint by adjusting those values. It is how I do BW emulation since BW film (Kodak 7222) is not pure R = G = B but has a slight Red shift with a slightly higher Green shift.