News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The contagious visual blandness of Netflix by dylan604 on Sunday January 22, 2023 @01:54PM (#34480908)
>some of the fastest lenses available at the time

?? more like ever. are you suggesting that we have lenses widely available that are faster today?

Re:The contagious visual blandness of Netflix by dekhn on Sunday January 22, 2023 @04:05PM (#34482219)
probably nobody in a non-classified situation has built such a thing recently. But if you put enough engineering into it, you could exceed those parameters today. Glass/glass manufacture, lens shaping, etc all improved tremendously. It would be obscenely expensive; every lens would be completely custom, you'd probably burn through hundreds of blanks before you had something worth using, and there are other, easier ways to achieve low-light imaging anyway.
Re:The contagious visual blandness of Netflix by dylan604 on Sunday January 22, 2023 @05:29PM (#34482920)
probably? are we just making stuff up now just to prove a point?
Re:The contagious visual blandness of Netflix by dekhn on Monday January 23, 2023 @10:19AM (#34489802)
I mean, I work with optics, and I know the history of making good glass, so.... no?
Re:The contagious visual blandness of Netflix by dylan604 on Monday January 23, 2023 @02:08PM (#34493444)
the fastest commercially available glass is 0.75-1.0. that means the 0.7 from the glass Kubrik used is still the fastest. i seriously doubt that even someone the likes of Kubrik would have the clout to approach the NRO and ask for whatever the best they have is to shoot a feature film. so your non-classified caveat is kind of pointless.
Re:The contagious visual blandness of Netflix by woodruffw on Wednesday January 25, 2023 @03:14PM (#34523538)
This is an unnecessarily hostile reading. I just wasn't sure that it was the fastest lens at the time, and I didn't want to say something incorrect.