Seriously, though, that's a testament, IMHO, as to how compact and efficient these folk manage to make this software.
This, in turn, makes it possible to do color correction on darker tones without blowing up noise.
Noise isn't as big a problem as you'd think. Most cameras capable of 1080p have pretty good SnR going on, and ProRes 422 HQ and DNxHD 175 X have reasonable noise levels. Hell, even XDCAM HD422 at 50Mb/s delivers reasonable noise.
In fact, the whole framing of the dyamic range happens in post now and the actual caputerd image is 10 or more bits per chanel with shadows being much brighter and highlights being much darker.
Depends on the camera and media. For instance, all XDCAM media has 8-bit color depth, as does AVCHD and most flavors of H.264 shot by DSLRs. AVC-Intra and XAVC support 10-bit color, but those are only available on a fraction of the cameras in the market right now.
Now, you could get into Log and Raw formats, but then your market of available cameras narrow further, and production costs start to shoot up, as do storage requirements and how much work you need to put into post-production, since you can't just feed raw into Media Composer and do your work in there. That's when you get into having to do an offline/online thing and you're going to need a real color suite to do it all in.
... and post-processing designed to counteract century-old technological biases as old as the medium itself."
In other words, they've gotten better at color correction. I worked on color correction for Walt Disney's Heroes Work Here campaign and I spent a long time agonizing over the woman in the stadium. It wasn't because of any kind of racial bias, it wasn't because of any kind of subconscious decisions. It's entirely because of shooting technique and conditions. The problem was making her skin exhibit contrast against the dark background without making her dress completely blown out.
It was a combination of the fact that she wasn't shot with enough lighting to make her stand out against the background, and that digital imaging sensors don't have as wide a range of exposure (dynamic range) as the human eye.
The problem is even further than that. When you get into psychovisual enhancements to allow lossy compression to better do its job that means discarding details, and details we least often notice happen to be in the darker portions of luminance. What's needed there is some sort of more intelligent encoding system that can differentiate foreground objects from background objects.
*Console headsets*, yes.
No, headsets, in general. Like the one-speaker-and-a-mic kind used by people for phones, or VoIP/Video chat services. The kinds of services where the quality coming out of Bluetooth or USB far surpasses the quality of what's coming into the device to start with.
It's a game! I wouldn't even call it a proper hobby.
True 5.1 surround with 4 speakers in each cup.
Except true 5.1 surround sound involves five speakers and a subwoofer. You're two outputs short of "true" 5.1.
If you want a really uncommon port, consider that until 2009 HTC was using a proprietary USB Mini-B-like connector for headsets on all their smartphones. And there was also the Pop-Port, which I mentioned above.
The XBox 360 has a 3.5mm jack on the controller, for headsets to plug into.
You mean 2.5mm. The original Xbox had one of these too, but you had to use a doodad that connected through the memory card port in the controller. Kind of like how they forced you to purchase a remote control in order to watch DVDs. Also the original headset for the 360 was designed in such a way that it utilized a connector that prevented its use with anything other than a first party (or similarly designed third party) Xbox 360 controller.
The PS3 did not.
The PS3 instead supported standard USB headsets and Bluetooth headsets which are just as prevalent (if not more so, combined) than 2.5mm headsets. Also, this is in stark contrast to the Xbox 360's wireless headset, which used a proprietary RF interface. The only time, to my knowledge, that the Xbox 360 supported a USB microphone was in Rock Band and its sequels.
Then there's the storage drives. For the PS3 it was a 2.5" SATA drive hidden behind a little door, and could be easily removed and replaced. The Xbox 360 utilized 2.5" SATA drives as well, but hidden inside a proprietary case with a proprietary connector that was only to be replaced with other Microsoft manufactured drives. The 360 S *also* used 2.5" SATA drives, but in a different casing that made it entirely incompatible with the original 360 drives (both of which are sold at an exorbitant markup versus standard SATA drives), and to transfer data between drives you had to have a proprietary cable.
Then there was the proprietary Wifi adapter for the 360, and Xbox Live, which is necessary to play games online, be involved in party chats, use the web browser, and watch videos through other services you may already be paying for (including YouTube, Hulu Plus, Netflix, and Comcast's Xfinity among many others) which went from $45 per year to $60 per year (or from $8/mo to $10/mo).
So let's not get all high and mighty about which console manufacturer is better than the other. They all do it. That's what console gaming has become. And if you don't like it, your option is to either wait for Steam Machines or build yourself a PC, because that's the alternative.