Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/17/09
07/17/09
07/17/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
* pauses to reflect *
* but can't as there's no reflection through 7 years of toothpaste spittle *
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/27/09
02/25/09
It's actually performing the flip between you and the mirror. So if you're in the wrong spot it will just look blurry.
02/25/09
all true, except the lens vs mirrors thing. a concave mirror exhibits some of the basic effects of these mirrors, and yet is not lense-like.
02/25/09
So why would a stair climbing robot need such a mirror? It would just create a part which could go out of alignment, and it's not like doing a transformation like this on an image is particularly cpu intensive. In fact, I was doing stuff like this years ago on a 486 in realtime.
02/25/09
"If you can produce such an image using a mirror, then there's no reason you couldn't recreate it agorithmically as well."
there are plenty of good reasons why you can't recreate it algorithmically in real time
02/25/09
oh man shoulda kept reading the whole comment. putting emphasis on 'real time' makes me look like a jackass now.
anyways, if the robotics maker could go without one more moving part, i'm sure they would. i won't pretend to know why they're going the mirror route, but i don't doubt that there are several sufficient reasons.
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
it's like the prosecutors trying to talk about bittorrent and failing... talking optics without understanding is a little off.
02/25/09
Optical distortion: An optical aberration caused because the transverse magnification may be a function of the off-axis image distance. May be positive (pincushion distortion), or negative (barrel distortion).
There is no pincushion or barrel distortion in the mirror's reflection - all lines are straight as stated in the article.
02/26/09
Actually...they're not. I didn't notice this right away, but if you look at all the lines that radiate outwards from the center, yes, they are all as straight as a rail. However, if you look at the vertical line just to the right of the man's right elbow, it does bow outwards a bit.
Really, there is no way to make a wide-angle lens or mirror that won't distort straight lines in some manner. All you have to do is point that thing at a sheet of graph paper and you'll have proof positive.
01/30/09
"Shower the people you know with you", Then steam up the mirror
01/30/09
01/30/09
This is the absolute nadir of art. Now, not only have we taken the world's most accessible "art" form, but we're removed from it any idea that anybody has to actually create something with it, so instead we'll just fiddle with light levels... filters... point it at a mirror and take the vainest picture your 550$ can buy.
But it's actually quite poetic and suitable. Creating an image which essentially reflects the person's vanity by LITERALLY REFLECTING THE PERSON'S VANITY is actually amazing. It's the ultimate aesthetic castration, but I wouldn't expect any of the people in that gallery to understand that at all.
01/30/09
* with an air of icy indignation *
Well, Mr. PJ Peeps Clone, I'll have you know that you are just plain wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And, and...a dunderhead to boot. My camera? It cost $5,000, not $500. And, clearly, money well spent to capture my obviously-worthy self-portrait. Which I've made into a screen saver on my Mac's display. Which is right next to the 8x10 framed glossy of that pic. Both of those underneath my wall-mounted mirror. OK. Mirrors.
So, take that, you, you, you...you dumb guy! No narcissism here. Nope.
* smirks self-satisfiedly *
01/30/09
01/30/09
This shot was taken last week in my hotel room while on location photographing the Sundance Film Festival; I shot almost 7,000 photos in 11 days! (No, not all of me, of course.) (Well, mostly not all of me, I did begrudgingly get two or three celebrity shots.) (Which I then deleted to make more room for shots of me.)
01/30/09
01/30/09
?
01/30/09
01/30/09
No, no, no, just kidding! No naughty bits in my photo--not in the free shots, anyway.