!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
~~Hot glass emits sodium vapors. Sodium vapors block the wavelength of the light that the film is sensitive to. The torch emits on wider spectrum so the torch flames are leaving an impression on the film.~~
I was wrong. The sodium vapors and the torch plume are in one unified stream. If the flame was different before and after the glass it would be a valid theory.
Looking at the picture, my theory may be wrong. There is a black spot on the torch too far from the hot glass. (Maybe some hot glass dripped on the torch?)
My other theory is that the flames where so bright they had to edit the footage. Old film developers had a technique to darken an area called "burning". It was not so precise to only cover over the flame so the area around the bright spots got darkened as well.
Modern HDR can have a similar effect. When an algorithm can't be sure of how dark an area between a dark and a bright spot must be, it make the transition gradually causing the "HDR Effect" where, for example, the sky gets brighter the closer you get to the horizon, building, subject.
If this was filmed in the late sixties using an older orthicon camera it might be an artifact of the way that the image is produced.
I'm just going from memory, but I believe the tubes used a brightness-amplifying screen kept charged with electrons that, when struck by light, would result in a brighter image that could be scanned by a beam. The downside of this technique is that a very bright area would suck up electrons from around it faster than they could recharge, resulting in a dark halo.
I think I remember some of the oldest classic Doctor Who episodes has this visual artifact, as well as some old Beatles TV recordings.
The camera is overwhelmed by the extremely bright light of the flames.
It's a limitation of the recording systems they had.
I would suggest it's the shadow the flame throws onto the coat of the glass maker, as they probably had a light source behind the camera while filming.
Edit: It might also be due to darker orange red colour of the flame around its bright centre as seen here: Glasbläser bei der Arbeit – Deutsches Museum
You're not wrong. I was simplifying, and your description is more technical.
No offense taken.
Those old black and white television cameras had a lot of limitations. For instance, things that were white and glossy would cause an extra-bright flare effect that would leave trails across the screen whenever it moved, and it was even worse on video. Guitar companies had to invent a brand new shade of yellow for musicians who performed on TV that still looked white on camera, but didn't light up like a road flare under the studio lights.
Which is a long way of saying that when it comes to those old cameras I would expect the light from a blowtorch to cause some weird artifacts.
Got a source on that guitar thing? That's interesting.
Not off the top of my head, but the paint color is called "TV Yellow."
As a related phenomenon the Addams Family set was painted in colour so that each element would show distinctly on black and white television.
I don’t know if Mr Rodger’s was shot on film or video, but either way, the flame was glowing in a wavelength the camera couldn’t pick up. Either it was a color that the chemicals in the film don’t react too or it’s not something the electronic sensors were sensitive too. Probably a high frequency violet bordering on ultraviolet. TV cameras are optimized to record the frequencies of light the human eye can see, making allowances for cost & technological capabilities. They may not work the way you’d expect as red fades to infrared or violet goes towards ultraviolet, especially when using 70’s or 80’s TV cameras in the price range of PBS.
Dont ask why it looks like a crack pipe.
I just assumed it was for Mr. Rogers' well-documented crack habit.
Wouldn't you... like to be... my dealer?
It's called conservation of energy. The flame is hot and represents a local concentration of thermal energy. In order to concentrate this heat, thermal energy must be drawn from the outside air, greatly cooling it. This causes the air around the flame to appear black on film, as it is giving off much less light than the flame.
/s
Quality shitpost tbh.
Unsharp masking. Low-frequency (blurred) brightness is subtracted, to preserve and enhance local detail.
Evidently old video cameras were just Like That. I assumed it was a choice for telecine - converting high-dynamic-range film to lower-range television. After all, it can be done in analog, given a positive and a negative print.