Cigarettes After Sex - Apocalypse
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=paODmdHQWMo
WordAll #809 completed in 52s (I nearly confused this one with Nigeria)
🟩🟩🟩🟩 👈 perfect game!
wordall.xyz
Wordle 1,080 3/6* (I nearly confused this one with Svalbard)
⬛⬛🟨🟨⬛
🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://www.nytimes.com/games/wordle/index.html
#Worldle #864 (03.06.2024) 1/6 (100%) (starting word 'chalk')
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🎉
🧭⭐🚩🔤
https://worldle.teuteuf.fr
La palabra del día #879 6/6 (culo)
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩🟨⬛🟨
⬛🟩⬛🟩🟩
⬛🟩⬛🟩🟩
🟩🟩⬛🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://lapalabradeldia.com/
Le Mot (@WordleFR) #876 2/6 (doesn't count)
🟩⬛🟨🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://wordle.louan.me
Framed #815 (nope. I watched the first half of ¿Quién lo mató? on Amazon Prime and the first third of Eric on Netflix. The film simulation on Eric is nearly perfect, however like most digital 35mm film simulation (I know movie film is different), it suffers from the focal plane being too broad (there are caveats with regards to smaller than 'full frame' sensors). With any camera, where the camera is focussed and the narrowness of the lens aperture (denoted using f/stops - the higher the number the smaller the hole and the greater the depth of field) defines to what distance things will be in focus*. With a 35mm sized recording medium the focal plain only really begins to get usefully larger way upwards from ~f/3.5†. It's in part why compact film cameras and a naïve use of film SLRs tends to produce a very distinctive 'filmy' look - the lighting is not professionally controlled and auto-exposure gets it wrong- a 35mm SLR with a good lens, in good light, with modern colour film, at f/8 or above, really doesn't look that much different than a full frame digital camera with similarly good lens**. With modern digital cinema cameras they can operate effectively in much lower light (at a higher ISO) which means the cameras can operate at a higher f/stop (smaller aperture) which means far more is in focus and the focal plain is wider than it would be with film in similar light. The only way Eric's film simulation could have been improved was lowering the f/stop more often to produce a silkier film like look (possibly having to negatively exposure compensate for good lighting - kind of perverse really). Ditto for a full-frame digital SLR (or rangefinder) the colours and film grain can be emulated but to make it look more film like a person would have to shoot and focus more like film with fixed ISO and closer attention to lighting. Or just not bother emulating anything other than the excellent colours of film - the best bit.***)
🎥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥
https://framed.wtf
* And a combination of lens MTF, the recording medium and the limits of lens diffraction but I'm trying to keep my rant succinct.
** I do not buy into the film versus digital argument with today's full frame digital sensors, although with a note about digital blown highlights.
https://youtu.be/a1xjcyyuDM0
*** Thus finishes the rant tangentially about focus and Dominic Cumberbatch. I have not checked it for typos.
† There are good, and very expensive, lenses that operate at much larger apertures but even the good ones require a lot of effort to get right at lower f/stops because it's hard to get right. So I'm talking 'in general' about f/3.5 and below.
John /
npub1kl…y9ewk
2024-06-03 09:03:05
Author Public Key
npub1kl0rkn7t6r2zlnafntg5207hej3p62cafa9jxd720k4q0fgjw6jsty9ewkPublished at
2024-06-03 09:03:05Event JSON
{
"id": "ce5fd96f15e82ff14d4820d714b722d364d1ab78cbc2c54ddd86e0541c87c2b4",
"pubkey": "b7de3b4fcbd0d42fcfa99ad1453fd7cca21d2b1d4f4b2337ca7daa07a51276a5",
"created_at": 1717405385,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"809"
],
[
"t",
"Worldle"
],
[
"t",
"worldle"
],
[
"t",
"864"
],
[
"t",
"879"
],
[
"t",
"876"
],
[
"t",
"815"
],
[
"r",
"https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=paODmdHQWMo"
],
[
"r",
"wordall.xyz"
],
[
"r",
"https://www.nytimes.com/games/wordle/index.html"
],
[
"r",
"https://worldle.teuteuf.fr"
],
[
"r",
"https://lapalabradeldia.com/"
],
[
"r",
"https://wordle.louan.me"
],
[
"r",
"3.5†."
],
[
"r",
"https://framed.wtf"
],
[
"r",
"https://youtu.be/a1xjcyyuDM0"
]
],
"content": "Cigarettes After Sex - Apocalypse \nhttps://music.youtube.com/watch?v=paODmdHQWMo\n\nWordAll #809 completed in 52s (I nearly confused this one with Nigeria)\n\n🟩🟩🟩🟩 👈 perfect game!\n\nwordall.xyz\n\nWordle 1,080 3/6* (I nearly confused this one with Svalbard)\n\n⬛⬛🟨🟨⬛\n🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛\n🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩\n\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/games/wordle/index.html\n\n#Worldle #864 (03.06.2024) 1/6 (100%) (starting word 'chalk')\n🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🎉\n🧭⭐🚩🔤\nhttps://worldle.teuteuf.fr\n\nLa palabra del día #879 6/6 (culo)\n\n⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛\n⬛🟩🟨⬛🟨\n⬛🟩⬛🟩🟩\n⬛🟩⬛🟩🟩\n🟩🟩⬛🟩🟩\n🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩\n\nhttps://lapalabradeldia.com/\n\nLe Mot (@WordleFR) #876 2/6 (doesn't count)\n\n🟩⬛🟨🟩⬛\n🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩\n\nhttps://wordle.louan.me\n\nFramed #815 (nope. I watched the first half of ¿Quién lo mató? on Amazon Prime and the first third of Eric on Netflix. The film simulation on Eric is nearly perfect, however like most digital 35mm film simulation (I know movie film is different), it suffers from the focal plane being too broad (there are caveats with regards to smaller than 'full frame' sensors). With any camera, where the camera is focussed and the narrowness of the lens aperture (denoted using f/stops - the higher the number the smaller the hole and the greater the depth of field) defines to what distance things will be in focus*. With a 35mm sized recording medium the focal plain only really begins to get usefully larger way upwards from ~f/3.5†. It's in part why compact film cameras and a naïve use of film SLRs tends to produce a very distinctive 'filmy' look - the lighting is not professionally controlled and auto-exposure gets it wrong- a 35mm SLR with a good lens, in good light, with modern colour film, at f/8 or above, really doesn't look that much different than a full frame digital camera with similarly good lens**. With modern digital cinema cameras they can operate effectively in much lower light (at a higher ISO) which means the cameras can operate at a higher f/stop (smaller aperture) which means far more is in focus and the focal plain is wider than it would be with film in similar light. The only way Eric's film simulation could have been improved was lowering the f/stop more often to produce a silkier film like look (possibly having to negatively exposure compensate for good lighting - kind of perverse really). Ditto for a full-frame digital SLR (or rangefinder) the colours and film grain can be emulated but to make it look more film like a person would have to shoot and focus more like film with fixed ISO and closer attention to lighting. Or just not bother emulating anything other than the excellent colours of film - the best bit.***)\n🎥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥\n\nhttps://framed.wtf\n\n* And a combination of lens MTF, the recording medium and the limits of lens diffraction but I'm trying to keep my rant succinct.\n** I do not buy into the film versus digital argument with today's full frame digital sensors, although with a note about digital blown highlights.\nhttps://youtu.be/a1xjcyyuDM0\n*** Thus finishes the rant tangentially about focus and Dominic Cumberbatch. I have not checked it for typos.\n† There are good, and very expensive, lenses that operate at much larger apertures but even the good ones require a lot of effort to get right at lower f/stops because it's hard to get right. So I'm talking 'in general' about f/3.5 and below.",
"sig": "f41478da1044b1132455561681a21cd12097fd0d4a241c4c63a1822a375636cdd2f581b846f5c4a68c737f2c7279337efd0ac22a35b0794b8003b4d4dd9ee67a"
}