Name four (fnf) kinoes with the most impressive color grading ever

Name four (fünf) kinoes with the most impressive color grading ever

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    holy sneed, it's the same color, I've checked

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      holy sneed, it's the same color, I've checked

      Yes, it's the same colour.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no the right one is darker

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wew

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      kino

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Halloween and The Exorcist have dark, crushed blacks and saturated everything else. No mono colours. The lighting in Halloween is coloured a lot

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's your brain doing it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its fake

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >its fake
        nope

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Colors in general are a big lie, i don't believe in this made up nonsense

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >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

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it-it's fake, it's not the same color!!

      >its fake
      nope

      >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

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Bro... the point is that the skin is the same tone but all the other colors are different, so the optical illusion happens

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        most moronic post of the day award

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Brilliant bait, dare I say luminescent

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        kek this is why I come to tv

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        moron!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        congratulations moron

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How do you even function in your everyday life being this moronic

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        so my brain is born racist and its not really my fault?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It’s only racist to not judge people by the color of their skin.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      brain literally thinks that the one on the left is a white in the shade and the other one stole someones bike

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's an educated guess.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you will take the vaxx, science denier.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        “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.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          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!

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              … except the statement “ only empirically verifiable observations are reasonable to believe to be true”- which you can’t establish empirically lmao

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                People who follow that statement are more likely to ascertain truth correctly, how can that not be established empirically?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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.

                “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.

                Nobody claimed that.
                >independently verified
                There’s no mind independent verification of anything which is the entire point

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, you are just conflating a method of reliable finding truth with the definition of truth

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >finding reliable truth
                >btw i’m not assuming what truth is
                lol

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                reliably finding truth*
                At least try

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                "Reliably finding truth" does not imply perfection

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you flail around pathetically unable to justify your own model of knowledge

                And you’re the only person who thinks this.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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

                >idealisms like mathematics or logic
                But anon, math and logic can (and have been) empirically verified.

                empiricism presupposes and needs both to verify them, ie, not empirical things verified empiricism

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon. Your issue is you’re deifying Truth when no one else is.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for conceding hun

                literally nobody honest denies this and in math it’s called the incompleteness theorem

                If only reddit applied gödel to their philosophy

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >babbles incoherently
                >elaborate?
                >y-you c-concede!

                Yep, there’s skydaddy bullshit underneath what you’re saying.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                literally nobody honest denies this and in math it’s called the incompleteness theorem

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All of that is true. What is next in your line of reasoning?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >idealisms like mathematics or logic
                But anon, math and logic can (and have been) empirically verified.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >useful = true
                So useful lies are true?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for reminding me of “all models are wrong, but some are useful.”

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Based advocate of theocratic monarchy

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why’d they all collapse again?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And it had nothing to do with the inability to maintain a false system without tightly controlling what information people had?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                “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.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If its the same color why do they look different?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >it-it's fake, it's not the same color!!

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    inb4
    >n-nuh its totally different, see just look at how everything other than the face is different!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      [...]
      >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

      >inb4
      too late

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >both faces have skin hex color #7d7d7d
    This is some fricked up shit. Why are eyes like this?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because context is more important to survival than the truth.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hero (2004)
    The Kid Detective
    The Revenant
    Godzilla Minus One
    Seven

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    cool facebook meme

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I love when Cinemaphile users get defiant and angry against optical illusions.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I love when Cinemaphile users get defiant and angry against optical illusions.
      Same lol

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I love when Cinemaphile users get defiant and angry against optical illusions.
      Same lol

      You are Cinemaphile users

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I never made an account

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I see the color lobby is alive and well

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, we all saw the Vsauce short.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Speak for yourself, shit slurper.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bioluminescent Black folk could be here

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I saw that vsauce video too

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fünf is five chumeroo

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1995

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    without 1000000 levels of jpg compression.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >our eyes correct for brightness
    >internet loses its mind

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Your brain can be wrong.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If everyone’s brain is interpeting something the sane way, it’s meaningless and moronic to say that its wrong

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The two flaws in your assertion are
        >the human brain is flawless
        >no two brains are alike

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There is no wrong when talking about colours though as that experience is subjective

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Except for how we can objectively quantify color.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No you’re confused. We can quantity how our eyes interpret color. Not the color itself without human interpretation as a factor

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon. If color wasn’t objectively quantifiable it wouldn’t be reproducible.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Quantifiability and subjectivity aren’t contradictory

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, they are. Only what is objective csn be quantified.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >that right pic
    ganguro is horrible fashion

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    color grading was a mistake

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    weird you can sorta see it if you change the colors back

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no one ITT knows how to display the "proof" best

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >fünf
    that's 5, moron. 4 is vier.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >OMG IS THAT DRESS BLUE OR WHITE???

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *