Saturday, 12 January 2013

It's A Mystery

This video:

is for some reason under a cloud and YT haven't approved it for monetisation.  As such, this is not a problem since i can't envisage a time when i'll be able to derive any kind of income from Adsense as such, unless it's about a tenner a year or something, but it is puzzling and a little concerning.  Clearly it's a response to this:

but since that actively solicits responses and is clearly "in the fold", i don't get what the problem's supposed to be and doubt it has anything to do with it.  The software used to edit that video included Windows Live Movie Maker (which i have long since come to despise but can't buy anything else that's commercial, so it's that or Linux stuff i have yet to get my head round, or Avidemux which is fine for what it does but dislikes the codec for the camera.), Audacity (Open Source) and the Gimp (also Open Source).  So then we move on to the verbal content, which so far as i can see mentions YT itself, a few usernames and Doctor Who.  Therefore, i'm left with the conclusion that it's the word "FALMER" on my top, but if it's that, what about the humongous amount of Adidas and Bench stuff in my vids?  Sorry, just don't get it.  Oh yes, just one other thought:  the intro may have been mistaken in its design for Test Card F, but clearly it isn't because it's based on this, which is free for non-commercial use.

Going to town on this, note the strategically positioned label here:

Note also the assiduously signposted intellectual property right acknowledgement here:

And also this video:

where i'm wearing the same outfit and it's monetised:

So all of that's rather confusing.

On the topic of screenshots from my YouTube account:

Both of these images are inversions from the most recent uploads.  The one on the left is a true inversion, the right hand one a value inversion.  It can be seen from the top right thumbnail that the inversion on yesterday's video, irritatingly, turned out to be merely a value inversion, which is annoying because it's not a worthwhile inversion and i suspect is actually harder to implement than a real inversion.  I will now explain.  Here's an image suggesting the RGB colour space:

Here's its bitwise inversion:

And here's its value inversion:

The first and second images are reflections about the plane bisecting the cube between the magenta and green vertices.  The last can be explained using these diagrams.  Here's the HSV colour space (which is cylindrical):

Here's that's value inversion:

And here's its RGB inversion:

The inverted spectrum thought experiment relies, more or less, on an RGB inversion, or sometimes on a rotation of the HSV colour space.  Only the simplified monochrome argument is about mere value inversion.

At some point, i will put something together about why green isn't made of yellow and blue, but that can wait.  So far, i'm just annoyed and equally puzzled at the transformation the camera carried out as an inversion.  It is an inversion, to be sure, but not a particularly obvious one, and to my mind not the most useful one.  The intro and outro screens:

(which are JPEGs and therefore inaccurate already regardless of compression artifacts) are inverted thus:  Take pixel (960, 540) in the subscribe button in the centre of the outro screen.  It looks like this:

and has the hex triplet value 85FD05.  In binary, this is 100001011111110100000101.  Here's the RGB inversion of it:
which has the hex triplet value of 7A02FA, which is 011110100000001011111010.  In other words, everything which is a zero in one is a one in the other.  Contrast this with the rather less pretty value inversion version:

whose RGB hex triplet value is 010200, which is 00010000001000000000.  I consider this to be complete rubbish.  I appreciate that there's more to life than the RGB colour space, but can't understand why this decision was made.  Maybe there's something to do with the way CCDs work which make it easier to manage.  However, it also means that in this video:

the intro and outro screens are inverted differently than the main part of the video.  Having said that, the white and black examples at least still work fine.

If you happen to have ploughed through this tedious diatribe up to this point, kindly recall that i'm not writing this so that anyone reads it but in a sense the reverse, so that may be a couple of minutes of your life you'll never get back but you have nobody to blame but yourself and no-one's forcing you to read all this b0llox.