minutephysics - 2015-03-20
Thanks to http://www.audible.com/minutephysics for supporting this video! MinutePhysics is on Google+ - http://bit.ly/qzEwc6 And facebook - http://facebook.com/minutephysics And twitter - @minutephysics Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics -- all in a minute! Music by Nathaniel Schroeder http://www.soundcloud.com/drschroeder This video made possible by the following Patreon Supporters: Mark Wes Brown John Green Florian Philipp Rens van der Heijden Bob Bolch Daniel Ametsreiter Joël Quenneville Richard Pearson David Dailey Steven Mulder Karim Ethi Raj Ryan Kyle William Ricketts Collin Mandris Matt Jonathan Foster Siddharth Sadanand Maarten Daalder Robby Olivam Alan Browning Jonathan Piersa Julia Person James Craver Sarah Chavis Yonatan Bisk Richard Campbell Chris Barrett Jan A Christopher Coleman Daniel “YoureDown” Breger Hendrik Payer Daniel Yip Matt K William Pearson Kevin Lynch Nick Ward Kevin john eriksson Allan Farrell Tobias Olesen Chris Chapin Michael Keefe Jon Mann Bert Goethals Joji Wata Adam Naber Rob Ibsen Jacob Gumpert Peter Collier Andi Davis Aarthy Raymond Cason Evan Gale Paul Tori McClanahan Andrew Stobie Dominik Steenken Danilo Metzger Christian Altenhofen Ezra Lee Roy Morgan Olivia Darroch Amber Ciarvella ryan horlacher Keith Chang Milokot Janel Christensen Will Scherer Mike Fulcher Larom Lancaster Liam Callaway John Harman Christos Papandreou Fernando Pazin Johnathon Kinville Jason Medrano Andrew Barnett Katharina Schuchmann John Gietzen Michael Tardibuono Matthew Hebert Christy Filipich Pierre-Louis Bourgeois Genevieve Lawrence Brian D'Agostini Chris Dominik Menzi Ryan A. Schauer Daniel Johnson Nico Houbraken Michael Carr Ragnhild Elizabeth Meisterling Lysann Schlegel Magnus Krokstad Chase Turner Owain Blackwood Russ Arrell Brenden Bullock Asaf Gartner Mark Samberg Tina Johnston Mike Cochrane Tom Murphy Peter L Jeff Erica Pratt David Artur Szczypta David Drueding Nicklas Ulvnäs Nigel W James Nelson Mary Foster-Smith Clayton Neff Michael Merino Jason and Gayle Corfman Mihaly Barasz Steven Klurfeld Richard Bairwell Tamas Bartal Erven Justin Prahl Michael Maitlen John Harman Hans van Staveren Kasey Karlin Nazario M K Jacques LABBÉ Geralyn Byers jason black Candice Blodgett Daniel Gibbs Henry Berthelsen Andy Kittner Steve Hall Erdumas Rob Snyder John Kelly Jessica Rosenstein Bill Tomiyasu Vasco Simões Eoin Simon Hammersley iain Holger Alexis Carpenter Jay Goodman Joseph Perry Mark Govea Eduardo Rampelotto Gatto Created by Henry Reich
Well that's a video topic that I wouldn't have been interested in 10 minutes ago
Same
Why?
@Deivison Carvalho if I was being taught about that in school it would be boring and uninteresting
This was pretty good and explained it perfectly
There's a reason for that, and it goes all the way back to slow computers with no FPUs/hardware multiplication/division.
Doing the correct blur algorithm requires you to remove gamma-correction from the pixels by applying the gamma curve. That requires tons of multiplications, and older processors could take as many as 250 CPU cycles to do a single multiplication. Obviously nobody wanted to wait a full 5 minutes just for their old Macs to blur up an image in Photoshop 2.0...
Averaging two values only requires an addition and a bit-shift to the right. That's blazingly fast - some CPUs only took like 4 cycles to do that. BAM - there you go.
All that, plus the history of gamma-correction standards, brought us to this mess we have today.
@Nic Jolly Okay, if the clock speed does not refer to CPU cycles per time, what does it refer to then?
It doesn't need FPU and tons of multiplication, it just needs is a 256 entry 8bit LUT in either direction, compared to the convolution operation of a blur it is trivial.
@Cleroth wat
@Galantir Galadross you got angry so it works as a troll comment
@Gewel ✔ You really are insane aren't you? If you already classify that as being angry lol you really have a mental issue.
He just basically called Apple lazy :D
aplle is lazy...
@Clever Tango oh boy just wait till he hears about apple.
Not only apple thohgh
and he is right
That is because Apple is probably lazy. Their products are up to 3 times overpriced compared to similar or better products. I did the study. Apple also put updates in older model to make them slower and incite the people to buy a new model. They stopped relatively recently because they got caught. Needless to say, Apple's "good" reputation, is greatly exaggerated.
Americans blend away the u in color.
@sheepwshotguns but there's U in 'MURICA
Armour
Americans are the worst, I know because I am one and I live with them. Why can't everyone just use metric, Celsius, or even one spelling of a word?
Don’t worry, that “U” doesn’t go to waste. British people recycle is for “mum”
No (colo)u(r)
>An Adobe product not having the default option be the best choice.
As typical as the sun rising in the morning.
I like Mr. Barack Obama.
haha hating on adobe cause everyone does it how funny and original
@Forfunckle Studios Hating a company due to their bad consumer practice is clearly wrong
same por Apple
Nice greentext.
This actually helped me so much with the raytracer I was writing
shouldn't you be writing it in linear space and then using tone mapping, instead of sRGB space?
My reasons are different, generating color gradients mathematically for display in RGB, the color space of the frame buffer.
hal hahah ok!
Wow, that's dope
That sounds like the embodiment of pain
Interestingly, the non-linear storage of brightness in computer graphics did not evolve as a clever deliberate choice; instead, it was merely a legacy from the display systems used back then: Cathode ray tubes. Their brightness happens to be roughly proportional to the square of the control voltage. Designers of TV broadcasting norms were aware of this, and decided to compensate for this effect in the broadcasting side of the system, to keep the receivers as simple as possible. When those same receivers were later adapted as computer displays, the computer engineers never seemed to have paid any attention to this detail. It was only when computers started to be used in the printing industry that this quirk started to get any attention in computer technology.
@MrBrN197 Roughly speaking, taking a square-root means keeping the first half of a numbers most significant bits and dropping the other half, essentially cutting the size in half. This is more complicated in practics, but I how you get the idea.
@Ruhrpottpatriot This still doesn't quite make sense. information like that would be stored in 4 byte floating point numbers which will still use all the bits to represent a number. I don't think that's what he was referring to as compression... there is a common idea that storing the values non-linearly stores only the useful information for the human eye and I don't quite understand it.
@MrBrN197 -- You get more details out of the same pixels, or fewer bytes needed for the same (apparent) detail per pixel. Its like audio codecs; mp3 drops the parts we don't really hear to save on space.
@Tlaloc_Temporal yeah mp3 throws away bytes to the camera doesn't... only when you compress an image file does any compression happen but they usually refer to a different kind of saving. I just haven't quite understood it.
@MrBrN197 -- The loos usually happens when you convert a file to mp3, but same difference.
Perhaps floating point numbers are a better analogue. By loosing accuracy, you can gain very large numbers in a smaller size. In floats, you loose precision at all scales, with square roots, you loose precision at high numbers.
“in the real world” he says, displaying a digital video, processed digitally, on a digital computer screen…
How do you know someone's not using analog computer screen?
-metasprite: The best part: I WAS using an analog computer screen when I made this comment.
(What can I say, I loved my Eizo F930 dearly. And I only got it in 2006, for 50 bucks. Which was crazy for the image quality that it still had.)
wait videos arent real? what did i see with mine own eyes? @Evi1M4chine
@Evi1M4chine I also love CRT monitors!
@Evi1M4chine im on analog too
Now it's going to bother me forever every time I see "lazy" blending.
MinutePhysics always finds a way to make me care about such arbitrary things. XD
Performance wise, a square root is something you usually try to avoid while coding, so it would make it slower to do. But as a programmer I'm guilty of just not knowing that and I would have made the average, not because I'm lazy, but because I'm ignorant :P
I've heard of it referred to as "artistically correct" to do it the wrong way. I don't remember where; it might have been in Photoshop (which I don't currently have access to)
Shout out for Apple
my penis got hard when i luked at me mums bat cave
This is also one of the reasons NTSC picture was lousy.
More than one million views and no comments??
As a person who does does a lot of graphic art on the computer, I'm amazed I didn't know this before. And why this has not been fixed.
+DarkEspeon All you need is to create array of sq roots for values 0-255 and use this array instead of calling sq root function each time. I call it optimisation. Same in the other way (power of 2).
+trhtpc I meant values from 0 to 1 in 1/256 step each.
It's only 5 million operations for a megapixel image if it's a bitmap. If it's a bitmap, you are wrong.
That first sentence is the most innocent thing ive ever read
I find it quite mesmerizing nobody mentions using a GPU to do the right thing fast. Even a phone's GPU can do it realtime, and nVidia and ATI cards can do 1 square root per cycle, per thread.
YES BEAUTY SHOULD BE THE DEFAULT! YES YES YES!
As a student of computer science I can say this is accurate. We learn to blur images with the wrong approach and then with the good approach. It's about understanding how computer graphics work, the same for bubble sort, we learn the easiest method first. What is wrong is have the wrong method in professional tool as the video says.
tl;dr: When you try to add two halfs (pints of beer) together and try to store the result in a single (shot)glass you shouldn't look surpised when your counter gets wet and the wifey yells at you for being an idiot.
Angel Alvarado true
so your saying in computer science you learn the easiest method first, even if it's wrong? No wonder the general quality and reliability of software is absolute shit.
But really I think here the problem is not that the 'easy' way of bluring images is wrong: it's about understanding what you are actually trying to do. It is absolutely 100% correct to blur by averaging data values. But the point is that you are not taking into account what the data values actually mean. The goal is to blur the final image (made of squared values) not the data values...
There is nothing wrong with bubble sort (even if the first sorting method I used was a variant of insertion sort that swapped the elements instead of keeping track of the smallest element).
For small data sets it works quickly enough, and the code is simple to write and maintain.
Using a more advanced sorting method for small data sets incur a needless development time and bug penalty.
Using a library has foot print penalties, but is a good way if you can massage you data to fit the library.
Angel Alvarado actually
Bubble sort, even if its slower, is a correct approach to sorting
Unlike blurring images without squaring the values first, which results in a bad and wrong output
is anyone else getting super bass in their headphones?
I'm not really a fan of Nicki Minaj
as super as sidefirings get...
but ^^
no speakers...
so sweat...
no deafness...
and super mids... well sorta ^ ^
Someone isn't using neutral headphones I see
me mdr xb950b1
What
My mind is blown once again. Thank you, MinutePhysics.
That's why professional photographers always use "raw" image format. It preserves colour and brightness information correctly.
No, your computer is broken. Because you smashed it with a wrench.
Why would you need a wrench for your computer, though?
@sharon.amy.alfred films because whu not?!?
well, indeed it's not sqrt, but gamma transform ^1/2.2, or indeed it is sRGB transform that is more complicated. Ok, it can roughly be approximated by sqrt, but please don't say it IS sqrt. It's not more complicated to do the real math.
It doesnt particularly matter, sqrt is just a function that will space big values apart more than it will which is what the video wants to show. Introducing the actual real math there wouldnt serve to do anything, other than alienate the average viewer for no real reason. He puts an asterix for people like you as well
What's the point of the video if not to be accurate?
The video literally says this already at 2:01.
thank you. Now all I see is incorrect bluring.
:P
if you REALLY want the Blur to use the correct Luminosity value, don't use RGB, but switch to LAB image mode (Image>Mode>Lab in Photoshop).
Only there you will find the correct Luminosity applied to the color edges.
In Photoshop I set the image to 32-bits/channel mode, then it does the math right. Too bad many functions aren't implemented or poorly adapted to that mode.
THANK YOU ALOT. I really wanted correct this because the blur effects I used to ajust ilummination in 3D render was getting a weird darkess. =D =D =D
You know, a fun game for videos like these is to scroll to the comments section and see how many comments there are before some smart-ass tries to prove the central point of the video wrong. For example, this video had a score of five comments.
For me I got 9 comments in.
8 comments in. Wow, you were pretty much right.
Ah the triangle inequality, so useful
Can someone give me a video on the internet that is not sponsored by audible?
Porn
Moritz, "but why always audible (literally every educational youtube channel I know is sponsored by audible)?" --- because educated people are much more likely to be interested in books. Targeted advertising at its best.
Yes, but it's sponsored by Dollar Shave Club
Every video sponsored by brilliant
Audible cut a deal with youtube to fake video creators plugging their software. Most of the videos are generated with algorithms, and the spoken portion is just a computer program reading written scripts. YouTube simply fills in the scripts with ads for Audible, Honey, Wix, Patreon, whatever, and the video creators continue to get paid jack shit, while the marketing executives who cut the deal get paid fat cash.
Well this answers why gradients with transparencies are so ugly in Illustrator.
2:34
You missed the part where you draw red! xD
i'll have to remember this when mixing colours :D
Nope... beauty isn't the default... laziness is... ask any engineer...
punishment for people who invented blurring.
wow you clearly don't understand sarcasm.
" That was in the past... however in software in the present still use the same technique..."
Guess what. That algorithm is still much slower, comparing to what a standard method can do. Absolute speed of a CPU means nothing in this context.
caramida9
engineers are hardwired energy optimization machines.
EFFICIENCY IS. It’s just that greedy assholes who love to overwork the people they leech on and call them selfish if their victims don’t let them, call that "laziness".
Life has been trained for billions of years, to not use any more resources that are absolutely necessary. Because all life that did worse, is the one that’s now extinct.
this explains alot
i thank you for letting us know this
I FINALLY understand the purpose of lab color mode in Photoshop! thank you <3
MP telling about complicated science of colours.
Me who is colourblind: still watching the video.
sqrt()? Why not log2()?
It's a poor description, I spent a few confused seconds trying to figure out what the hell he was on about before realizing he was talking about gamma. The correct equation is Vc = Vo ^ (1-gamma), and since gamma is around 2.2 on NTSC and most monitors the power value is 0.4545 which is reasonably close to the sqrt function (x^0.5). Gamma does vary considerably though across color systems and devices, so if you're designing art for a handheld console (say) and you want it to look the same on the target then you actually have to design it on a calibrated monitor, transform it by the gamma function of that monitor and then again by the inverse gamma function of the target device.
Because there are infinite data points as you approach zero of its log2() and since computers definitely can't store infinite information, ()^2.2 is the better option (not to mention that log(0) is undefined). Although the decibel scale has all the same problems but is in use.
Myndale: People even use color profiles that store a different curve for each subpixel of the physical screen nowadays.
Because they do not equal you dumb.
♥️"Shouldn't beauty be the default?"♥️
Hmmm, now can you fix this in Inkscape?
Yes., Go to the XML editor, find the filter definition (under <svg:defs>), find the style attribute and remove the 'color-interpolation-filters' property from it (or delete it whole if it's the only property.)
Remember that Inkscape can only do what SVG can, and probably less. More info:
https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/filters.html#FilterPrimitivesOverviewIntro
"The vast majority of software, from iOS to Instagram to standard settings in photoshop"
Well then, that explains why I didn't notice this when I tried to see the 'sludge'. Messing with gamma ramps while developing games comes up with some seriously interesting looks!
Audible, the leading provider of YouTube sponsorship!
the bass in this video is shaking my house
This comment was so random I had to lol.
Maybe you should upgrade from your cardboard box. :p
@RaJuanJohnson lol!!!
INVISIGOTH - didn't StarTrek have an episode where bass was used to create hostility and drive everybody against each other!? Maybe that was why I reacted so negatively to the comments in the video about beauty: but I'm atypical in my reactions generally: maybe the Illuminati, or breitbart or someone are trying to get everyone really mad in the hopes it will transfer into raging toxic hate & entitlement!
250th like
"Shouldn't beauty just be the default?"
2:05 - I find this part very Fibonacci
Wow! Just checked and Photoshop does mess it up :( But! Blender's node editor, free 3d software, makes it yellow how its supposed it be! :D
@Niek Nooijens Autodesk installers download and install simultaneously. God, are you talking a bunch of poppycock.
And you're graduating in IT? Boy, I'd hate to be your employer.
I feel sorry for your employer, you clearly have 0 communication skills. He clearly wasn't talking about the download
@Nat Wright He is talking about the installer. Autodesk installers serve double duty as a downloader. Reading must be hard, I see.
All of the issues he is talking about, I have literally not dealt with at all, nor has any of my peers (which is hundreds of students and industry professionals).
Now, Max isn't the easiest software to play along with, but there is a reason Maya and Max are industry standards.
The only logical conclusion to draw from this is: failure on part of the end user.
Am I saying Blender is shit and you shouldn't use it? No. Am I saying Max is the best shit on the market? Nope. I'm merely contesting his claims and stating they're bullshit.
/
(GIMP works toooooooo)
When i see this i just think.
"Now you mention it.."
Beauty is the default! Look how elegantly an entire image was stored using as few bright gradations as the human eye can even notice!
wow, this was soo helpfull! i have been doing this wrong all this time already, must go and fix all my programs now :)
... I seem to remember running into this when making a small thing in Python, and correcting it...
Oh! I remember! I wanted to convert to grayscale, and figured out that to do it properly I needed to do that.
I'm interested in trying out the difference between these settings in photoshop, but even after I made the change shown in this video, photoshop appears to still blend the exact same way. Clicking that box hasn't altered any of the blending methods I've tested so far. Maybe I'm missing something and there's more to it than just clicking that box in the advanced color settings?
Same here :-/
his method will fix it for blending one layer on top of another one.
To fix blurring one layer into itself, you have to use LAB mode rather than RGB.
Not sure if you ever figured it out but this is what I do to fix it:
https://imgur.com/a/Ovc9bsJ
This is what a linear workflow does
from a programming point of view though, blurring functions are already computationally heavy, and square roots are notoriously slow to process as well. I think we'd find that blurring images the correct way on devices like iOS with high pixel densities might actually produce upsetting lag in the interface. It's the kind of trade off that can be well worth it for the small number of people it might actually upset and teh small number of images it might mess up. IMO
That's what look up tables are for. :)
You have no fucking clue what a lookup table is.
No, I was not referring to the *blur*, but the gamma correction!
What Joe meant was a rainbow table. You only need a couple of megabytes to map one for every single color
You literally pre-compute the inverse gamma curve and the normal gamma curve...multiply the working texels by the appropriate value of the inverse curve to get back to linear color space, blend, and multiply by the gamma curve to convert back to sRGB encoding....the curve is the same for each color channel too so you don't even have to waste memory pre-calculating for every possible color
This just blew my mind.
It also means that I've never ever seen a technically accurate blur merge of color in my life before this video.
Damn son.
0:34 Human vision like our hearing LOL what???!!...
Alternative verbiage might be, "Human vision, akin to our hearing, ...". This might be more clear.
Photoshop: Edit -> Color Settings... -> More Options
Yes, there it is. Amazing discovery. Thanks a lot for teaching us how to fix these pesky colors.
0:29 ugliness
me : look at mirror
...
...
well it is not me
Katie Wood - 2016-09-19
ahh!!! this means a lot to me as a digital artist!! thank you for explaining why my drawings turn out like garbage when i try to blur them
Michael Finlay - 2019-03-13
hmm this would look better blurred...
OH MY GOD NO
Xero0 - 2019-07-03
I dont usually draw or make graphic designs, but I ocasionally do, specially cause I'm a game designer (still in university tho) and this is super useful
xHigx - 2019-07-09
which software is yours? i use paint tool sai and it's blend perfectly i tried it right now
ThonkSmartTM - 2019-09-05
Paint Dot Net blurs them perfectly
Нестор Капленко - 2020-02-13
My drawings usually turn out like garbage even without blurring.