Name four (fünf) kinoes with the most impressive color grading ever
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Name four (fnf) kinoes with the most impressive color grading ever
holy sneed, it's the same color, I've checked
Yes, it's the same colour.
no the right one is darker
wew
kino
Halloween and The Exorcist have dark, crushed blacks and saturated everything else. No mono colours. The lighting in Halloween is coloured a lot
how in the absolute frick does that work. i know the shadow mindfrickery, often demonstrated with chess fields, but that right there is giving me a stroke.
It's your brain doing it.
its fake
>its fake
nope
Colors in general are a big lie, i don't believe in this made up nonsense
>a white person in the dark
>has the same skin tone as
>a black person when the gamma is pushed up so far it bleeds out the colour in their skin and all the surrounding
>anon is having a mental breakdown that he can recognise skintone in a colour shifted environment
>magic wand
>set tolerance to ~14% to get around jpeg compression
>shift+click
>remove it all
>gets rid of teeth and white of the eye but only on the left
Wow, it's almost like it looks different because it is
Bro... the point is that the skin is the same tone but all the other colors are different, so the optical illusion happens
most moronic post of the day award
Brilliant bait, dare I say luminescent
kek this is why I come to tv
moron!
congratulations moron
How do you even function in your everyday life being this moronic
it's for our brain to decide what color the skin is, left looks darkened so our brain thinks "if it's grey when darkened that means it's white", and the opposite for the right picture
so my brain is born racist and its not really my fault?
It’s only racist to not judge people by the color of their skin.
brain literally thinks that the one on the left is a white in the shade and the other one stole someones bike
It's an educated guess.
relative color. the non-skin colors on the right seem bright and faded. this makes the image look brightened up. in that context a medium grey will look like black base color.
the reverse is true for the image on the left
your brain can’t see reality directly but organises and structured it for you. for some reason even though this is true redditors still believe in empiricism as the sole mean for determining reality
you will take the vaxx, science denier.
“Empiricism” is the only way to generate reliable, reproducible data. If magic was real someone would’ve figured it out by now. No one has.
here’s a magic trick for you reddit. prove the statement “only empirically verifiable things are true” using only empirical means. have fun with that. no using nasty a priori idealisms!
>only empirically verifiable things are true
That's not even the claim though. The claim is that only empirically verifiable observations are reasonable to believe to be true.
… except the statement “ only empirically verifiable observations are reasonable to believe to be true”- which you can’t establish empirically lmao
People who follow that statement are more likely to ascertain truth correctly, how can that not be established empirically?
You’re moving goalposts. If you’re going to assert it, and then employ non empirical means to establish it, you’re contradicting yourself. Saying “yeah but people who do that are more likely to find “truth” (again, define this word without circular reasoning)” doesn’t make it not incoherent- it’s also begging the question.
Nobody claimed that.
>independently verified
There’s no mind independent verification of anything which is the entire point
>only empirically verifiable observations are reasonable to believe to be true.
The statement does not ascertain truth. It is a working principle.
You are trying very hard to make your circular reasoning thing work here, but it does not apply.
>does not ascertain truth
>entire axiom relies on the notion that this method is successful at defining truth
Which is what? I think you’re just trained on your modern philzombie positivist crap and have likely never actually thought about this. Are you empirically arriving at a definition of truth or is it axiomatic in an organ you know is both fallible and organising reality indirectly? Think for 5 seconds
No, you are just conflating a method of reliable finding truth with the definition of truth
>finding reliable truth
>btw i’m not assuming what truth is
lol
reliably finding truth*
At least try
What is the genuine distinction there? Are we just being semantic now? How are you not assuming truth when the crux of your entire argument is that a method is effective at discerning it? Sorry to blaspheme materialism bro
"Reliably finding truth" does not imply perfection
reliably finding truth implies you have a clear and distinct idea of truth. explain it to us. otherwise how do you know you’re finding it?
truth = things that are not false.
You seem to be demanding someone empirically define Truth and are screaming gotcha when they call you a moron.
Lmfao here we go. What’s false then?
>call you a moron
No, more like when you flail around pathetically unable to justify your own model of knowledge. Your entire argument cedes that there is non empirical knowledge, every time you’re pressed on it you flounder.
>you flail around pathetically unable to justify your own model of knowledge
And you’re the only person who thinks this.
i’m not- let’s make it really clear to everyone. if you can’t empirically establish true or false, are you or are you not using non empirical knowledge to justify a model of empiricism? yes or no should suffice
empiricism presupposes and needs both to verify them, ie, not empirical things verified empiricism
Anon. Your issue is you’re deifying Truth when no one else is.
I’m really not- i’m saying your statement assumes a non empirical axiom of it to support itself. The system you advocate is verified by something outside of it which it itself cannot actually verify.
And?
Thanks for conceding hun
If only reddit applied gödel to their philosophy
>babbles incoherently
>elaborate?
>y-you c-concede!
Yep, there’s skydaddy bullshit underneath what you’re saying.
literally nobody honest denies this and in math it’s called the incompleteness theorem
All of that is true. What is next in your line of reasoning?
>get two people
>have them each build a tower
>one is only allowed to use empirical data
>one is only allowed to use their feelings
>see who builds the taller structure
>repeat this a billion times (read: civilization)
And like that, empirical evidence that empiricism is truth.
>be a moron
>don’t realise that the empirical only person would be emotional since he can’t use idealisms like mathematics or logic, only sensory information
>think not empirical means emotional because you don’t understand the meanings of words (I guess that would be too a priori and not naturalist enough)
>analogy does nothing to establish what truth is or how it’s empirically derived, just that our brains are wired to intend 3d shapes we can stack
>idealisms like mathematics or logic
But anon, math and logic can (and have been) empirically verified.
>useful = true
So useful lies are true?
Thanks for reminding me of “all models are wrong, but some are useful.”
Based advocate of theocratic monarchy
Why’d they all collapse again?
Jews, making israelitery the objectively most true thing on earth since israelites are incredibly effective at promoting and securing power for their own kind. Case closed
And it had nothing to do with the inability to maintain a false system without tightly controlling what information people had?
“Empiricism” isn’t about instantly believing anything someone says is empirical fact. It’s about how results can be independently verified via reproducing the conditions that generated them.
If its the same color why do they look different?
>it-it's fake, it's not the same color!!
inb4
>n-nuh its totally different, see just look at how everything other than the face is different!
>inb4
too late
>both faces have skin hex color #7d7d7d
This is some fricked up shit. Why are eyes like this?
Because context is more important to survival than the truth.
Hero (2004)
The Kid Detective
The Revenant
Godzilla Minus One
Seven
cool facebook meme
I love when Cinemaphile users get defiant and angry against optical illusions.
>I love when Cinemaphile users get defiant and angry against optical illusions.
Same lol
You are Cinemaphile users
I never made an account
I see the color lobby is alive and well
Yes, we all saw the Vsauce short.
Speak for yourself, shit slurper.
Bioluminescent Black folk could be here
I saw that vsauce video too
Fünf is five chumeroo
>1995
again based on the context your mind assigns a base color. A seems like a lit dark grey, B seems like a shadowed light grey
without 1000000 levels of jpg compression.
>our eyes correct for brightness
>internet loses its mind
Well many internet users have a malfunction in that part of their brain(see: people who thought the dress was gold/white) so illusions like this wow them.
its the brain though and yeah its pretty amazing if you think about it. Without that correction our world would be some weird acid trip of colors switching whenever the light changes slightly.
I took a screenshot of both of their cheeks and I'm amazed they're the same color. I hate optical illusions but I find them extremely fascinating.
Your brain can be wrong.
If everyone’s brain is interpeting something the sane way, it’s meaningless and moronic to say that its wrong
The two flaws in your assertion are
>the human brain is flawless
>no two brains are alike
There is no wrong when talking about colours though as that experience is subjective
Except for how we can objectively quantify color.
No you’re confused. We can quantity how our eyes interpret color. Not the color itself without human interpretation as a factor
Anon. If color wasn’t objectively quantifiable it wouldn’t be reproducible.
Quantifiability and subjectivity aren’t contradictory
Yes, they are. Only what is objective csn be quantified.
>that right pic
ganguro is horrible fashion
color grading was a mistake
weird you can sorta see it if you change the colors back
no one ITT knows how to display the "proof" best
>fünf
that's 5, moron. 4 is vier.
>OMG IS THAT DRESS BLUE OR WHITE???