Here you can see How does a perfect home studio looks like.

[Stears555]

Watch it in UHD quality!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd-kwcucksk

[El Heggunte]

No, thanks.

Besides, that's not "Video Conversion"

[Cornucopia]

Besides being kitchy ugly in that way that young single bros often are, it is/has:

1. Not very functional with the wiring when you actually need to USE it
2. Crappy sound (Bose is so overrated), with no surround capability, certainly not UHDTV "22.2"
3. Not 3D, Not HFR, Not Wider Gamut
4. Crappy sound, pt. 2 - disappointing acoustics
5. Remote happy, yet lacking a proper learnable universal remote
6. Hampered by loyalty to the Mac architecture

I could go on, but will wrap it up by asking: if it's so perfect, where are the babes, brews & bbq?

Scott

[Stears555]

Besides being kitchy ugly in that way that young single bros often are, it is/has:

1. Not very functional with the wiring when you actually need to USE it
2. Crappy sound (Bose is so overrated), with no surround capability, certainly not UHDTV "22.2"
3. Not 3D, Not HFR, Not Wider Gamut
4. Crappy sound, pt. 2 - disappointing acoustics
5. Remote happy, yet lacking a proper learnable universal remote
6. Hampered by loyalty to the Mac architecture

I could go on, but will wrap it up by asking: if it's so perfect, where are the babes, brews & bbq?

Scott

Forexample: Women are unable (due to their less developed iris) to see any significant differences between wider gamut, and they are unable to see the difference between 4:4:4 and: 4:2:2 colors. Only we, men are able to see. NExt time, we will see your home studio, OKAY? ))

[usually_quiet]

Besides being kitchy ugly in that way that young single bros often are, it is/has:

1. Not very functional with the wiring when you actually need to USE it
2. Crappy sound (Bose is so overrated), with no surround capability, certainly not UHDTV "22.2"
3. Not 3D, Not HFR, Not Wider Gamut
4. Crappy sound, pt. 2 - disappointing acoustics
5. Remote happy, yet lacking a proper learnable universal remote
6. Hampered by loyalty to the Mac architecture

I could go on, but will wrap it up by asking: if it's so perfect, where are the babes, brews & bbq?

Scott

Forexample: Women are unable (due to their less developed iris) to see any significant differences between wider gamut, and they are unable to see the difference between 4:4:4 and: 4:2:2 colors. Only we, men are able to see. NExt time, we will see your home studio, OKAY? ))

Actually, women have better color perception than men. http://www.livescience.com/22894-men-and-women-see-things-differently.html

[Edit] As Scott said, the decor shouts single young man. What a boring monochromatic color scheme. I'm sorry I wasted 30 seconds of my life to see any part of that video.

[Stears555]

Besides being kitchy ugly in that way that young single bros often are, it is/has:

1. Not very functional with the wiring when you actually need to USE it
2. Crappy sound (Bose is so overrated), with no surround capability, certainly not UHDTV "22.2"
3. Not 3D, Not HFR, Not Wider Gamut
4. Crappy sound, pt. 2 - disappointing acoustics
5. Remote happy, yet lacking a proper learnable universal remote
6. Hampered by loyalty to the Mac architecture

I could go on, but will wrap it up by asking: if it's so perfect, where are the babes, brews & bbq?

Scott

Forexample: Women are unable (due to their less developed iris) to see any significant differences between wider gamut, and they are unable to see the difference between 4:4:4 and: 4:2:2 colors. Only we, men are able to see. NExt time, we will see your home studio, OKAY? ))

Actually, women have better color perception than men. http://www.livescience.com/22894-men-and-women-see-things-differently.html

However these test is the contrary of anthropologically facts about retina.

More shocking brutal reality, we didn't see the colors on the same way? http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html

[usually_quiet]

However these test is the contrary of anthropologically facts about retina.

More shocking brutal reality, we didn't see the colors on the same way? http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html

Anthropologically? LOL Well, anthropologists would predict that women should have better color perception due to their role in hunter-gatherer societies, and it appears that visual scientists now agree.

[Stears555]

However these test is the contrary of anthropologically facts about retina.

More shocking brutal reality, we didn't see the colors on the same way? http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html

Anthropologically? LOL Well, anthropologists would predict that women should have better color perception due to their role in hunter-gatherer societies, and it appears that visual scientists now agree.

With the significant lack of color-rids in their iris? That's why I said that it is very strange ,and it is the contrary of anthropological facts.

[usually_quiet]

However these test is the contrary of anthropologically facts about retina.

More shocking brutal reality, we didn't see the colors on the same way? http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html

Anthropologically? LOL Well, anthropologists would predict that women should have better color perception due to their role in hunter-gatherer societies, and it appears that visual scientists now agree.

With the significant lack of color-rids in their iris? That's why I said that it is very strange ,and it is the contrary of anthropological facts.

1. Anthropological means something other than what you think it means. Anthropology is the study of human societies and culture. Maybe you mean anatomical? LOL

2. You are confused. If as you said in your other thread, men have more rods (light/dark receptors) and fewer cones (color receptors) than women, then women should be able to see color variations better than men.

[Edit] You also keep confusing the words "iris" and "retina". The retina is the only part of the eye that contains rods and cones.

[jman98]

1) NOBODY but Stears555 cares.
2) I think this is just a bit of "I'm making crap up as facts because nobody can disprove me". Here's a link to an article that suggests that women may have better color perception than men because of their extra X chromosome. At least that's something more than his link to an article that basically says "You and I see the same color the same way, but may call it by different names". I have no idea what that's supposed to prove.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/health/2006/09/13/Some-women-may-see-100-million-colo...s/200609130255

[usually_quiet]

I know that some other members here think Stears555 is a troll. I'm starting to see why they might think that.

[Stears555]

However these test is the contrary of anthropologically facts about retina.

More shocking brutal reality, we didn't see the colors on the same way? http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html

Anthropologically? LOL Well, anthropologists would predict that women should have better color perception due to their role in hunter-gatherer societies, and it appears that visual scientists now agree.

With the significant lack of color-rids in their iris? That's why I said that it is very strange ,and it is the contrary of anthropological facts.

1. Anthropological means something other than what you think it means. Anthropology is the study of human societies and culture. Maybe you mean anatomical? LOL

2. You are confused. If as you said in your other thread, men have more rods (light/dark receptors) and fewer cones (color receptors) than women, then women should be able to see color variations better than men.

[Edit] You also keep confusing the words "iris" and "retina". The retina is the only part of the eye that contains rods and cones.

Anthropology was the old original name of Human-biology. Cultural anthropology is a modern term.

[usually_quiet]

Anthropology was the old original name of Human-biology.

Then I guess I need to point out to you that this is the 21st century, and the general understanding of meaning of the word in English has changed in the last few hundred years.

[Stears555]

Anthropology was the old original name of Human-biology.

Then I guess I need to point out to you that this is the 21st century, and the general understanding of meaning of the word in English has changed in the last few hundred years.

The original anthropology term became problematic after the deeds (human experimentations) of nazis in ww2. So they changed it to "Human biology" after ww2 which also include body structure, and human genetics)

[usually_quiet]

Anthropology was the old original name of Human-biology.

Then I guess I need to point out to you that this is the 21st century, and the general understanding of meaning of the word in English has changed in the last few hundred years.

The original anthropology term became problematic after the deeds (human experimentations) of nazis in ww2. So they changed it to "Human biology" after ww2 which also include body structure, and human genetics)

Nice try, but we aren't currently living in the period between the early 19th and mid-twentieth century. You have dug your self a nice deep hole already. Stop digging.

...and I'm done here. I'm going to suggest that the moderators move this to off topic.

[DB83]

That guy has more money than sense. I feel sorry for the lady who he expects to marry him.

I find those multi-monitors distracting with the large borders which will, obviously, block some content and AR will surely now be wrong.

Perhaps he can tell me where I can get a chair. Not like that monstrosity but just something that does not collapse when you breathe on it.

[gonca]

@DB83
gamemaniaco isn't looking so bad right about now, is he?

[redwudz]

Moving to Off Topic.

Moderator redwudz

[ranchhand]

SHeeeeeeze, get rid of those antiquated monitors. When I was working, I always spec'd. ultra thin bezel for our video wall setups, they were a few mm. wide. Our company tried glass borderless a couple of times, but they were a pain to calibrate and were really easy to break taking them in and out of cases at trade show setups. Those were best used only at permanent setups.

[hello_hello]

LED back lights for monitors/TVs. I'll confess I've never seen them in action first hand, although I'm hoping that'll still be true when I die.... because I don't get it. I'm fairly confident they'd drive me nuts. I realise it's supposed to have the opposite effect, but I can't see it myself.

Then again I'm on the other side of the social networking generation gap. Creating a virtual tour of my stuff and uploading it to YouTube.... I'm pretty sure I've never considered thinking about it. Maybe because it wouldn't be as interesting, given there's very little exposed desk surface area to admire, or maybe it's because when it comes to cleaning I'm definitely on the opposite end of the OCD scale, or maybe it's because I'd never imagined anyone would give a crap.

[DB83]

But that guy is hardly 'normal'

There's more tablets in his drawers than you see at the local pharmacy.

And I can imagine his betrothed saying "I'm now your wife. Get me outa here"