Not every tap water tastes the same. I have had tap water that is a bliss to drink but I’ve also had tap water that was barely drinkable without being filtered…

Also, tea and coffee also profit from using good water while making them.

I can very much live with that. Love me some suse

What distro would a moka pot be?

Interesting. I can attest to analogue IMAX having great sound, however, if you watched an analogue film projection of a current film in the last 20 to 30 years, the audio was most likely digital anyways and I believe that is also true for IMAX, since the film itself does not even have audio on it. I suppose, a good audio master and especially a good audio system do a lot of heavy lifting.

And yea, hfr is meh. The effect it has on film is very underwhelming. The only film I have seen where it worked was Avatar. In Avatar 2 it works well in the scenes it’s in, however, the transition between the hfr and normal parts is extremely jarring and takes you out of the movie. The film you saw in hfr was probably one of the hobbit films, since it was a big marketing thing for them.

If we‘re talking IMAX, sure. No digital camera can reach that kind of resolution. But the standard 35mm film and even regular 70mm has been surpassed by digital cameras for a little while now, if we’re talking pure quality. Digital has higher resolution, higher dynamic range, higher sensitivity, etc.

What analogue film has is a texture and a feel that digital cannot emulate. It’s not objectively better but subjectively, it’s nicer. It has a certain look. It’s like vinyl records. They’re objectively worse than the digital masters but many still prefer them.

Digital video is not necessarily more compressed than analog film. The way your phone shoots it, yes. Modern digital cinema cameras however are both higher resolution and have a higher dynamic range than motion picture film. They shoot raw imagery that is incredibly high quality and detailed (and indeed needs large SSDs and hard drives) and is not behind film in any way, quality wise. This was different, even 10 years ago but by now, if all you care about is quality, digital is more than enough.

However, what digital cameras cannot reproduce is the the texture the feel and the specific look of film. Post processing gets close today but not all the way. Besides, the process of shooting film is very different and some directors and photographers prefer the more difficult yet more down to earth process.

Btw, in practice, most blockbuster films today are actually shot on digital cameras, especially the likes of RED, ARRI and Sony. Analog is only used by some productions although they are a minority now. Fanatics like Tarantino and Nolan are doing their best though to keep film alive and in the case of Nolan, push it to the limits by shooting 70mm and 70mm IMAX film. Especially the latter is better than any current digital camera but due to IMAX being much more difficult and expensive to shoot, almost no one besides Nolan uses it.

Windows 10 is also nearing end of life. In two years it’s over

There are still workarounds for getting new macOS on older not supported hardware (aka the OpenCore Legacy Patcher) which works very well, even with really old macs. But yes, of course, there are no official updates.

That’s not an Apple problem per se though, that’s an industry problem. Windows 11 isn’t officially supported on Devices older than 2018 and unofficially not older than like 2015-ish, if you want full functionality and a non-hacky install (because of TPM 2.0). Also, most Android phones have a notoriously short period getting updates (although that is getting better with some manufacturers promising and delivering way more than before).

Choose a life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television. Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers… Choose DSY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit crushing game shows, stucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away in the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself, choose your future. Choose life… But why would I want to do a thing like that?

Yea, that’s not right, at least not in modern film. The distance to the subject and thus the resulting focal length needed to get proper framing drastically impacts the look. Every (or at least most of them) Cinematographer and Director has their own preferences.

For example, Emmanuel Lubezki, the Director of Photography for films like The Revenant, Children of Men and Birdman prefers the use of very short lenses thus he has to get close to the subject while Ridley Scott as Director prefers the use of longer lenses in his films, moving the camera further away.

And all that has nothing in the slightest to do with focus or zoom. The opposite, motion picture cameras usually do not use zoom lenses but fixed focal (prime) lenses and tape, too was rarely ever used in motion picture production. Today they usually use various types of flash media (like SSDs or CFast cards) or, if they feel fancy, still analogue film.

In TV (live) production, that’s a little different. Tape or other magnetic storage media were used for a long time up into the HD era. Nowadays, SSD or SD recording is used just as well. Also, TV cameras are indeed usually outfitted with powerful zoom lenses since the convenience of fast zoom tops the image quality of prime lenses, especially in live settings. (You can’t just swap lenses when every second counts). But even then, going as far away as possible isn’t usually what’s done. It always depends on the circumstances, the location and the needs of the shoot.

Modern TV and motion picture cameras are large for a number of other reasons. They support a whole lot more features than a good video capable mirrorless photo camera (like a Sony A7 IV) like multiple video outputs in industry standards (SDI, not HDMI), larger batteries, hotswappable redundant storage, mounting points for additional equipment, microphone ports, support for more video codecs and higher data rates, higher resolution, etc. And of course, a whole bunch of cooling for prolonged use without any hitches or glitches.

Well, not all digital but predominantly

Because it (illegally) removes the need for an Adobe CC subscription. Without the patch, the program would look for Adobe‘s services.

Yes and no. It’s a logo by mozilla for sth firefox related but not the actual Firefox logo

I have one (a friend gave it to when she needed something faster) and the screen works fine. However, the battery is pretty much cooked and due the glued screen it’s a nope for replacing it…

If Linux supported all that proprietary software that I need (or am used to using), I’d have switched already… And in my gaming machine, I’ll be switching, if Linux finally supports HDR

Yes and no. USB-C is “the faster connector” compared to USB-A 3 because it supports faster protocols like USB 4 and even Thunderbolt 5. USB-A does not. It tops out at USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (gawd what an awful naming scheme) with 20Gbps and even that’s rare. The newer, faster protocols with 40Gbps (USB4) or even 120Gbps (TB5) need the USB-C connector.

Yes, but with arch you have to because you have to set it up yourself. In all seriousness, arch is a great base but unless you have the patience and knowledge to set it up yourself, staying with arch based distros (like Manjaro) is much easier. And if you’re new to Linux in general but actually wanna try it, start with something like Mint. It’s fast, stable, easy to work with and this a good entry point

What the fuck happened here?

Cost? A USB-A 3.0 connector is probably a few cents cheaper than a B 3.0 connector

I have an external 3,5“ HDD enclosure that needs a male to male USB 3.0 A cable to plug into a PC. Still wondering, why they didn’t use B…