http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/blog.php?3-Official-MediaCollege-com-Blog Tips & tricks, industry news and professional commentary. en Thu, 23 May 2013 11:54:05 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/images/misc/rss.jpg http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/blog.php?3-Official-MediaCollege-com-Blog Subscribe with My Yahoo!Subscribe with NewsGatorSubscribe with My AOLSubscribe with BloglinesSubscribe with NetvibesSubscribe with GoogleSubscribe with Pageflakes http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/liUarLcPhLw/entry.php Sun, 12 May 2013 10:03:33 GMT Google has officially announced the first lineup of paid subscription channels. As you'd expect, this move has attracted mixed responses. The world seems full of people who decline to understand the cost of producing decent quality content (the "I need everything for free, immediately" crowd). These people have the knives out for those who are trying to find some way to make quality content generation viable.

I understand that some content can be made very cheaply and there are producers who are making money from YouTube's advertising model. However there is a severe limit to the type of content that can be made like this. Honestly, when's the last time you saw a web series that has production values on a par with Game of Thrones? Answer: Never, because it can't be done. For programs on this level, there has to be a lot more income per view than can be provided by instream advertisements.

So, eager to support some of my favourite content providers, I headed over to check out the list of pilot channels to subscribe to. Guess what?

This paid channel is unavailable in your country.
This paid channel is unavailable in your country.
This paid channel is unavailable in your country.

Every. single. channel.

Well that's that then. The bane of honest consumers strikes again - lack of access to legal content. Yet again, the consumers who want to do it properly, pay for content legally and support the industry are turned away.

Where do these people turn to? Piracy.

I understand that the transition to a global digital media environment is difficult. I understand that international licensing problems create delays but enough is enough. This problem has been serious for more than a decade and still nothing has been done to stem the bleeding. People are turning to piracy in their millions because the big players refuse to create an easy international licensing scheme (or fix any of the other things they do that encourage piracy). We're creating generations of digital thieves because it's too difficult or impossible for most of the world to buy content legally.

When will this madness stop? ]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?88-Yay-Paid-YouTube-Channels!-Oh-wait http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?88-Yay-Paid-YouTube-Channels!-Oh-wait http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/jlwVR7G6xAI/entry.php Wed, 03 Apr 2013 03:50:27 GMT Three years ago I posted a short blog entry (http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?50-OpenShot-Video-Editor-for-Linux) about a new video editing application for Linux called OpenShot... Three years ago I posted a short blog entry about a new video editing application for Linux called OpenShot. I asked if anyone thought that it would be a viable free editing option for the masses.



The post got exactly one response and that took two years. This highlights a real problem with Linux-only editing solutions: Very few people actually edit video on Linux (ignoring specialist high-end applications for film studios because we're not talking about that market). I'm a Linux user myself but only for server applications - I gave up on using a Linux desktop years ago because there simply aren't enough serious applications available.

Linux editing applications face a catch-22. They can't get much mainstream attention because most editors use MacOS or Windows, while most editors aren't interested in Linux because it has no proven, mature, easy-to-use editing apps (IMO products like Cinelerra and Kdenlive do not qualify).

What's the solution? Go multi-platform. That's why I was so happy to see that Jonathan Thomas, the developer of OpenShot, has launched a Kickstarter campaign to expand the application to Windows and MacOS. I think this could get OpenShot the attention it needs to expand, while also solving another problem over in the MacOS/Windows worlds...

There are very few decent free video editors. Microsoft comes and goes with Windows Movie Maker and it's helped a lot of people get started, but it's always been a bit too limited.

Over on the Mac there's obviously iMovie which is fine for getting your feet wet, but apart from a sexy interface it doesn't offer much. Unfortunately its confounding, proprietary way of dealing with file management makes it a non-starter for anyone wanting interoperability.

There are other options but not a lot that are cross-platform, simple to learn and still useful for more advanced applications.

Every week someone asks me to recommend a free video editing application and I struggle to answer confidently. It's my hope that by the end of the year I'll fijust be able to say "OpenShot".

To help this all along, I'm very happy to announce that MediaCollege.com has committed to being a corporate sponsor of the OpenShot project. We made this decision because we believe there's a real need for a free video editing solution that can fill the gap left by Windows Movie Maker, especially for schools, non-profits and people who can't get access to paid software.

We'll keep you up to date with progress, but in the meantime we encourage you all to consider donating a few dollars to the campaign. There are some great rewards on offer, but the real reward is helping to bring video editing to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to do it. That's got to be a good thing. ]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?87-OpenShot-video-editor-to-become-multi-platform http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?87-OpenShot-video-editor-to-become-multi-platform http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/s_zdnligPo4/entry.php Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:38:35 GMT Here's a lovely and fascinating video showing Nikon's lens-making process. Nice to see how much of it is done with real human hands.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abybv2LrmK8 ]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?86-The-Making-of-a-Camera-Lens http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?86-The-Making-of-a-Camera-Lens http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/IHimTLx4f5w/entry.php Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:01:15 GMT 4K resolution (http://www.mediacollege.com/video/resolution/4k.html) is the current popular topic in videophile circles. What exactly is it and do you need to worry about it? Here are a few thoughts... 4K resolution is the current popular topic in videophile circles. What exactly is it and do you need to worry about it? Here are a few thoughts on the latest high-resolution video format...



On YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul4IXTvIrec ]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?85-Should-you-be-interested-in-4K http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?85-Should-you-be-interested-in-4K http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/_Mq4h151GAk/entry.php Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:53:14 GMT Now that I've seen The Hobbit in both 24 fps and 48 fps it's finally time to announce the verdict. Was I right in predicting that it would be an overall improvement? Watch the video to see if you agree with me...


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wgFs0QaU6Q)

Links from the video:
What's So Great About 24P? (from 2010)
Frames per second: 24 vs 48 (From 2012)
Stu Maschwitz argues in favor of 24 fps ]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?84-Comparing-48-fps-to-24-fps http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?84-Comparing-48-fps-to-24-fps http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/jJntauaYv30/entry.php Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:19:27 GMT UPDATE: I've seen The Hobbit and posted a video about it.

I've previously commented a number of times about the frame rate of cinematic movies (e.g. here and here). I've mentioned that I think the current rate of 24p is a deficiency that will inevitably be fixed, but it won't be an easy transition for some people. There are those, especially in the film industry, who are very attached to 24p and who feel that faster frame rates are a threat to the art of film.

So a great deal hinges on the reaction to Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, which was shot in 3D and the higher frame rate of 48p (48 fps). Earlier this year a sneak preview of The Hobbit's 48p footage met with mixed reactions and caused those of us who support it to get a little nervous. I've stayed in the 48p camp and I'm still betting that it's just going to take some getting used to.

Now the Premiere has taken place and some of the invited guests have spoken. To be fair, this isn't the most objective audience so we should wait until the masses get to have their say, but for what it's worth the comments so far have been positive. As expected, many commenters said that it took a while to get used to the new ultra-vivid imagery. However they have also said that the adjustment only took a matter of minutes and from then on, they loved it.

Reviews of the film have an embargo until it has screened in the USA, so we don't yet know what the critics think. I doubt whether there will be any immediate consensus - I think it likely that critics and the public will stay divided over frame rates for a while.

But only for a while - in the end higher frame rates will be the norm and we'll wonder why there was ever any argument about it. ]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?83-First-Comments-About-the-Hobbit-s-48-fps http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?83-First-Comments-About-the-Hobbit-s-48-fps http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/zm7hHhxtaXQ/entry.php Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:29:01 GMT Have a good look at the series of images below. This was posted online a couple of weeks ago (credits & links at bottom of post). The images are not Photoshopped.



As you can imagine, these photos created several comment streams lambasting the incompetent crew and talking about the pitfalls of hiring inexperienced people.

So what happened? How could a crew get this shoot so badly wrong? Answer honestly before you watch the resulting video...



Yep, it was a setup for a gag. The "crew" were actually part of the scene and it was all fake.

I think there are two things to take away from this:

(1) The ad is a very funny poke at the clichés of auto advertising, using them to creative advantage in an area of marketing where it's hard to find new angles. In addition, the pre-release of the "disaster" photos created a lot of discussion and anticipation. This was a well-executed exercise in viral marketing.

(2) It's a lesson in being careful before you comment online. I read through dozens of comments from people who certainly seemed to know about film production, but I couldn't find a single one who picked the fakery. Of course it's easy for me to say this after the fact, but really... look at the way the crew and equipment are set up ridiculously close to the water, the position of the flecky boards, etc. Also note more clichés such as the director with fold-out chair, beret and megaphone!

BTW, if you're wondering about the talent in this video, it's "That Guy" (Leigh Hart) and rugby legend Colin Meads. Leigh Hart actually owns the production company Moon Enterprises that made the ad and is behind many well-known New Zealand comedy series such as Moon TV and Leigh Harts Mysterious Planet.

Anyway, well done to Ssangyong New Zealand and Moon Enterprises. Thanks for the fun.

Credits
Photography: Brady Dyer Photography
Production: Moon Enterprises ]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?82-Film-Shoot-Safety-Fail http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?82-Film-Shoot-Safety-Fail http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/9dRy0SDlH6Q/entry.php Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:48:03 GMT I've been using Adobe Creative Cloud for a few months now, so I thought it was about time to do a bit of a video review. Creative Cloud is the online subscription service where you can download any of the Creative Suite applications whenever you like. It's an alternative to buying the disks and Adobe clearly would like customers to be moving in this direction.

I talk about the service itself rather than the individual applications. Here's the executive summary:

Does it work, and is it easy to use?
Yes.

Is it worth the money?
Probably, if you use a lot of the apps. If you don't, you'll need to check the prices and do the calculations yourself.

Are there any problems?
I had a few, but nothing too serious.

Do you recommend it?
In most cases, yes, but you'll need to check the financial side of it first. Also, you'll want a good reliable Internet connection on the same computer that you run the apps, otherwise it could be a bit of a pain.

Watch the video review below, or if you're reading this without embedded video support, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c8vnPm4_eU

]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?81-Adobe-Creative-Cloud-Review http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?81-Adobe-Creative-Cloud-Review http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/x2yhWVlY9Oo/entry.php Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:50:34 GMT For many of us, one of the best things about watching Olympic games is pulling apart the television coverage. Not in a nasty way - it's usually very good and I remember the excitement of seeing some great innovations over the years; for example, the tracking camera that runs alongside the track & field runners.

So what was the big innovation at London? Super-slow motion, it seems. This is where they use a camera that shoots at higher than normal frame rates which results in spectacularly smooth slow motion replays.

Super-slow motion (SSM) is not exactly new but I've never seen it done so much at one event. And I mean overdone. It's like they needed some innovation - any innovation - so they had a meeting of all the directors and told them to pile on the SSMs.

Often it worked very well. More often it didn't. I quickly lost count of the endless SSM montages. If there was no sporting action to slow down, use a shot of a spectator. Or a duck. Or water lapping. Whatever it is, slow it down and replay it five times.

This is a classic example of doing something just because you can. SSMs have a reason to exist, and that reason isn't to show off your SSM cameras. Many of the SSM shots I saw would have been better at normal speed. During the rowing I became highly frustrated at only seeing half a race because the director had spent the last minute showing numerous SSM cutaway shots which had absolutely no relevance and could have been done in ten seconds.

One shot that sticks in my mind was during the 50km race walk. A Japanese contender was clutching his chest in discomfort and the director chose to show an unbelievably drawn-out SSM shot of it. This shot would have been rather slow even at normal speed (remember, this is a walking race!) but in slow motion it was excruciating. Even the commentator made several pointed comments. Here's a tip for up-and-coming directors: When your commentator says "I'm really not enjoying watching this", that's a hint for you to move on.

I couldn't find any London 2012 examples on YouTube to illustrate this post but here's a doozy from the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics. This is a fantastic example of why you should think about the usefulness of a shot before you put it to air:

]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?80-Gratuitous-Super-Slow-Motion http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?80-Gratuitous-Super-Slow-Motion http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/N12NOQqe4_Q/entry.php Wed, 08 Aug 2012 02:13:03 GMT If you have no idea what it's like to be burned by a client who decides not to pay up, count yourself lucky and watch the video below to see what's it's like for everyone else. If you'd like to avoid this situation, or if you need any sort of legal documents for your creative business, head on over to www.docracy.com. This is a free source of documents and resources for all types of business and there's something for almost every type of business, especially freelancers.

]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?79-Free-Legal-Documents-for-Freelancers http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?79-Free-Legal-Documents-for-Freelancers http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/Vt8fM1-ZILc/entry.php Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:14:56 GMT Here's a video from back in 2006 that looks at the power of subliminal priming to steer the mind to a particular way of thinking. Marketing experts are the target of this mock marketing campaign - feel their pain as the tables are turned and they realize they are just as susceptible as the rest of us.

]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?78-Subliminal-Advertising http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?78-Subliminal-Advertising http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/sSPHMMzFknE/entry.php Sun, 03 Jun 2012 15:19:00 GMT I'm not good with heights but I'll climb a camera tower if I have to. Over the years I've climbed some dubious ladders and had some hairy moments, and I've often told stories about them. But after seeing this video I don't think I'll ever complain about a climb again. Watch as two guys climb to the very top of a 1768-foot (539m) transmission tower to perform maintenance work. It's even more insane than you expect.

]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?77-Climbing-a-Transmission-Tower http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?77-Climbing-a-Transmission-Tower http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/j_kdsS-ShpU/entry.php Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:28:24 GMT It's no secret that I'm not a fan of 24p, in fact I think it's the most glaring deficiency in modern filmmaking techniques. Frankly I find it hard to believe that we've done so much to make films so realistic and immersive in almost every way, yet we're still stuck with the jarring, unnatural flicker-fest that is 24p.

I honestly believe that within a couple of decades we'll look back on 24p with a condescending smile and wonder how audiences ever took it seriously.

Of course not everyone shares my enthusiasm for improved "temporal resolution". The most common argument against 48p or 60p is that it's "too real" (see my previous blog post for more on this and my rebuttal).

In a nutshell, I feel that the "too real" argument is no different now to when it was first used against sound and colour in movies. In any case, if filmmakers really want to lower the technical specs in return for improved artistic quality, they are free to do so (e.g. The Artist, The Elephant Man, etc).

Peter Jackson had a severe reality check after a preview screening of The Hobbit at CinemaCon, when about half the audience reacted negatively to the higher frame rate (48p). Jackson is a big fan of both 3-D and 48p, so it was probably a bit of a shock to see the bad press he's been getting over this screening.

However I maintain that it's all about getting used to it. 24p is very much the "film look" that we're all used to, and it's going to take some adjusting to adapt to a more realistic look. Just as a movie-goers took time to adapt to talkies, movie-goers will need time to adapt to 48p. I believe younger people (especially gamers) will adapt more quickly because they are less institutionalized.

Mark my words. It may take time but eventually some higher frame rate such as 48p or 60p will become the standard and it will appear completely appropriate for a film look. Before you die you'll have come to expect it in every film you watch. Trust me! ]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?71-Frames-per-second-24-vs-48 http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?71-Frames-per-second-24-vs-48 http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/nNr7_-F22hg/entry.php Sat, 14 Apr 2012 04:25:33 GMT As a release date approaches, Adobe has unveiled many more features in the CS6 lineup. As far as Premiere Pro goes, it looks like a decent upgrade. Nothing Earth-shattering but plenty of fairly... As a release date approaches, Adobe has unveiled many more features in the CS6 lineup. As far as Premiere Pro goes, it looks like a decent upgrade. Nothing Earth-shattering but plenty of fairly important changes.

I like the look of the new interface. The old interface is still available and I assume you can still dynamically change windows and panels as before. I particularly like the way you can now re-organize and remove buttons in the monitor panels - I always thought they had a lot of empty space, and if you primarily use a keyboard or third-party controller, the buttons are a useless waste of screen space.

In the revamped Project panel you now have 16x9 thumbnails that are much more functional, including setting in-and-out points without having to open the file. And yes, thumbnails appear to have adopted Apple's famous direct scrubbing feature.

Other interesting new features:
- Improved Audio Meter panel.
- Improved Media Browser.
- Expanded multicam support (I'm interested in how this pans out, as I've never thought the multicam feature offered much advantage over traditional methods).
- Improved image stabilization with Warp Stabilizer, and rolling shutter repair.
- Adjustment layers (like After Effects).
- Flexible audio tracks (yay!).
- Many new marker features.
- Easily change sequence settings to match a new clip.
- Quicker method of applying effects.
- Enhanced 64-bit Mercury Playback Engine.
- Perform more functions in real time without interrupting video playback.
- Improved Media Encoder, with flexible render queues and improved presets.
- Improved ingest with Adobe Prelude (available separately).
- Improved color grading with Speedgrade (available separately, this is Adobe's answer to Apple's Color).

Premiere Pro CS5 concentrated on performance improvements more than the interface itself. PPRO CS6 seems to have gone the other way, picking up some slack on the interface and making it all easier and quicker to use. Although Adobe is still promising significant performance boosts, it looks like it's mostly about the interface.

Below: The new default interface, which I love because it's much more how I prefer to set things up anyway:


Download a PDF summary of Premiere Pro CS6:
http://success.adobe.com/assets/en/d..._WN_Reveal.pdf

Check out the Production Premium lineup:
http://success.adobe.com/en/na/progr...16108_nab.html ]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?76-Premiere-Pro-CS6 http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?76-Premiere-Pro-CS6 http://feeds.mediacollege.com/~r/mc-blog/~3/LN7kb9SCIfw/entry.php Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:58:15 GMT Almost a year ago, Conan O'Brien's editing team made a funny and rather "cutting" video about Apple Final Cut X. If you haven't seen that video watch it here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxKYuF9pENQ

Now those same guys have made a follow-up. Where did they go after becoming disillusioned with Final Cut? To Premiere Pro, and it seems they're surprisingly happy with it. Be cynical if you like but I think they speak for quite a few editors. There's one thing in this video that stands out for me, and that's when one of them recalls his last attempt at using Premiere. If, like him, you haven't used Premiere for many years then please do yourself a favor and at least give it a serious look. It's not the same program any more and it does deliver at a professional level.

Note that there's supposedly a sneak preview of the next version of Premiere Pro in this video. Technically that's true but don't get excited, it doesn't show or tell anything very useful.

Here's the new video:
]]> Dave http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?75-Conan-O-Brien-s-Editors-Back-Premiere-Pro http://www.mediacollege.com/forum/entry.php?75-Conan-O-Brien-s-Editors-Back-Premiere-Pro