Watch how gross makeup looks at 1600x magnification

boing
1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/06/13/watch-how-gross-makeup-looks-a.html

…

2 Likes
2

Dude - that cheepy USB microscope that Mark linked to a few years ago makes any part of your body look like an alien landscape. There is dead flecks of skin EVERYWHERE, and hair, and other weirdness. DO NOT look at your balls under that 500x or what ever the max magnification is.

9 Likes
3

To be fair a lot of things look icky close up.

ETA: upon finishing watching that was pretty cool.

3 Likes
4

Do we really need to ask how you know? Also OVERSHARING.

11 Likes
5

Stay curious, my friends…

7 Likes
6

I’m curious hot they get such a deep depth of focus at 1600x.

Edit:
There’s no way that’s 1600x magnification. At 1600x, a thin human hair would be several centimeters thick.

3 Likes
7

I’m pretty sure my regular skin looks at least that gross under that much magnification. The makeup certainly can’t be worse.

6 Likes
8

Only a dude would even think to!

8 Likes
9

Everything looks gross at high magnification. Food looks utterly repulsive. That’s why we eat it at 1x magnification.

8 Likes
10

You’ll also discover that posting videos of sperm on YouTube is apparently a thing (complete with the peanut gallery criticizing the poster’s swimmers).

4 Likes
11

TIL… well that’s filled my weird for the day.

6 Likes
12

Y’all would have loved seeing the video of my sinus endoscopy I had today. Huge, angry polyps and even some slime. The worst he’s ever seen, according to the ENT.

5 Likes
13

Now that’s how you overshare…

9 Likes
14

On a related, if less…distastefully integumentary…note; does anyone have any recommendations on cameras in this genre?

I have need of capabilities(both optical and in terms of being recordable) beyond the basic loupe; and don’t really want to move into classy binocular microscope territory.

However, while some aspects of the genre have improved drastically(price; average performance; odds that you’ll get a more or less well-behaved UVC device rather than some ghastly proprietary drive nightmare); the last time i had a look my experience was that important(and not obvious from the spec sheet) factors like input lag and degree of autofocus(if present) haplessness varied considerably; and with everything mostly moving under cryptic mystery brands that change model numbers and plastics kits as the mood strikes them it was a bit of a toss up.

I spent some time trying to use one that hand nightmare input lag; north of a second; and even when observing static objects that makes things like trying to get the focus dialed in absolutely insufferable. I’d prefer not to go down that path again.

Anything that plays UVC without too much character; has generally adequate specs; and isn’t dogged by hideous input lag or other non-obvious gotchas?

15

I have one of those makeup mirrors that’s got a 5x magnification side. My pores look like Schiaparelli Crater just with that.

4 Likes
16

I skimmed the video, and it looks like similar magnification to what mine does. Actually looking at the video again, it looks very similar to mine, and it says 250x on the Amazon link.

https://www.amazon.com/Plugable-Microscope-Flexible-Observation-Magnification/dp/B00XNYXQHE/ref=as_at/?creativeASIN=B00XNYXQHE&imprToken=iwInfFph7dbjzbuPaHQsSw&slotNum=0&ie=UTF8&linkCode=w61&tag=fabathome-20&linkId=de1790b5b1292d75f44e9cd794f9d461

¯\(ツ)/¯

Really? What sort of magnification would you need? Those suckers are tiny (at least in humans). I tried to see red blood cells and no go.

See above is what I have. I got it when it was on sale ~$20. It’s ok. I mean, pretty cool images, OK quality (not very dense MP wise). I have taken pics of my insects in amber and close up pics of this fine volcanic sand a BB member sent me. It is a toy, but I think one could use it on their phone for portable use.

2 Likes
17

I’ve heard that lots of make-up is toxic
as in poison… but not like mascara as in massacre

1 Like
18

Nah. Video or it didn’t happen. But then it would certainly be oversharing, above and beyond…

19

Thanks, that looks worth a try. I’m not really doing anything requiring heroic magnification (SMT part numbers yes, microbiology not so much); I’d just prefer not to do it as though all adjustments were being relayed via satellite rather than USB.

20

I did a search. i guess I did pay $30, but here are some examples of stuff I took pics of.

ETA - LOL - I was warning about using it on your body back then:

Also, DON’T use it on your body. Even the most clean looking area is full of flaky skin, dirt, and other weirdness. Certain, parts even look like cracked Martian deserts of weirdness.