TheDailyWTF.com also did a white-out, with similar reasoning. You probably shouldn't say "the only" when talking about something as huge as the web, you're bound to be wrong. :)
Oh wait, I see the confusion. Yes, the blades are synced to the camera's *framerate*, not to its shutter speed. It's shutter speed is just quick enough to catch the blades without (much) motion blurring.
"Lately"? That went around the webs 2 years ago. (Well, not that exact movie, someone re-uploaded it. But suffice to say, it's older than dirt in Internet-time.)
Anyway, film cameras have shutter speed, also. I can't speak for digital, although I assume it's the same there... assuming this is a standard film camera, the blades are probably spinning at some multiple of 24FPS (framerate of the camera) / 5 (number of blades).
I'm guessing the camera wasn't actually synched to the chopper, unless this is some kind of flight testing, but its framerate and the chopper's RPM just happened to hit the right combination of awesome.
MarcZero: that would be one hell of a detailed toy.
Note: if a British person ever tries to make fun of the US because we don't use the metric system, make sure to mention that they still weigh people with "stones."
For the record: 6st 5lb = 89 lbs 5st 13lb = 83 lbs
Kitty: Way to see the trees while ignoring the surrounding forest.
The point is that there's no point in me, or the US for that matter, cutting pollution as long as "third-world" countries, like China and India, are allowed to do whatever the hell they want. Including dumping electronics into rivers, and expelling massive quantities of unfiltered smog from coal plants.
This, BTW, is one of the reasons the US never signed the Kyoto Protocol. It gave developing countries, the place where the problem *really* exists, a complete pass on reducing carbon emissions. It's pointless for the US, already more efficient than China, should bend over backwards to be even more efficient while China does nothing.
I do nothing about global warming, other than things that are "duh" obvious. (i.e. riding a commuter train to work, since it saves me money. I don't give a crap if it releases less carbon or not.)
Why? Because the biggest threat to global warming isn't in Europe or the US, it's in China and India. If you look at a graph of pollution vs GNP, the US actually looks pretty good on average-- sure we are the biggest polluters, but we also have the largest GNP.
Once you get China to stop dumping old electronics directly into their rivers, then maybe I'll think about acting on it. For the time-being, it seems pointless for me to make any sacrifices.
I believe climate change is real, but this video's a little far-fetched, isn't it?
Of course I have a natural knee-jerk reaction against people who try to convince me using only my emotions and without a SINGLE ACTUAL FACT. If you want me to change my behavior, you need to tell me WHY to do it, not show me monkeys killing themselves with tears in their eyes.
The message here is vastly exaggerated to a ridiculous degree. No, the world isn't going to turn into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
But I suppose by being a person who thinks climate change is real, but also thinks most environmentalists are exaggerating the threat by orders of magnitude, I guess that makes me a denier, right? Because there sure can't be any middle-ground!
No.
Anyway, film cameras have shutter speed, also. I can't speak for digital, although I assume it's the same there... assuming this is a standard film camera, the blades are probably spinning at some multiple of 24FPS (framerate of the camera) / 5 (number of blades).
I'm guessing the camera wasn't actually synched to the chopper, unless this is some kind of flight testing, but its framerate and the chopper's RPM just happened to hit the right combination of awesome.
MarcZero: that would be one hell of a detailed toy.
By B-movie standards, Barbarella is KING of the B-movies. It's the Citizen Kane of B-movies.
Feh.
For the record:
6st 5lb = 89 lbs
5st 13lb = 83 lbs
The point is that there's no point in me, or the US for that matter, cutting pollution as long as "third-world" countries, like China and India, are allowed to do whatever the hell they want. Including dumping electronics into rivers, and expelling massive quantities of unfiltered smog from coal plants.
This, BTW, is one of the reasons the US never signed the Kyoto Protocol. It gave developing countries, the place where the problem *really* exists, a complete pass on reducing carbon emissions. It's pointless for the US, already more efficient than China, should bend over backwards to be even more efficient while China does nothing.
Why? Because the biggest threat to global warming isn't in Europe or the US, it's in China and India. If you look at a graph of pollution vs GNP, the US actually looks pretty good on average-- sure we are the biggest polluters, but we also have the largest GNP.
Once you get China to stop dumping old electronics directly into their rivers, then maybe I'll think about acting on it. For the time-being, it seems pointless for me to make any sacrifices.
Of course I have a natural knee-jerk reaction against people who try to convince me using only my emotions and without a SINGLE ACTUAL FACT. If you want me to change my behavior, you need to tell me WHY to do it, not show me monkeys killing themselves with tears in their eyes.
The message here is vastly exaggerated to a ridiculous degree. No, the world isn't going to turn into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
But I suppose by being a person who thinks climate change is real, but also thinks most environmentalists are exaggerating the threat by orders of magnitude, I guess that makes me a denier, right? Because there sure can't be any middle-ground!