You might want to consider batch capture, if your editing app supports it. You can speed through your tape, marking the i/o points, then capture it all in one batch while you're doing something else.
(This is also why a clapboard is useful, even if you're not doing double system sound; it makes finding the in and out points that much easier, and can also help with clip labeling. Also, I've noticed that clapboards are generally more accurate than camera reports, probably because there are more eyeballs to catch little mistakes).
I was actually thinking along these lines for laptops.
But if one were to RAID 3 of these, you wouldn't have three separate volumes. I guess it depends on the RAID scheme, but wouldn't one have either one big volume or a mirrored volume (if RAIDing for redundancy?)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'd think it would suck to edit video on a 4200 RPM drive on a device that was designed for the HD to be spun down the majority of the time.
Seriously, the iPod HD is not designed for that sort of constant use. It loads songs into the buffer, then spins down. Rinse and repeat.
If memory serves, the HD in the ibooks is not user upgradable without voiding the warranty (as opposed to the PBs, which is user upgradable). So for your purposes, you want one of those bus powered (for editing on the bus, right? =) FW drives, but god knows what that'll do to your battery time!
Well, most Inferno artists are fluent in Lustre, (and both products usually work together) which is the main editing tool, unless you don't consider colour correction part of the editing process. Avid is also used yes. Avid is an interesting company, they've been buying other products and killing them over the years (Matador, anyone?).
Btw, take your condescending tone and stick up your ass, asshole.
Excuse me? What condescending tone? You mean I hurt your widdle ego by pointing out that you didn't know the difference between editing and vfx?
Inferno artists might or might not be fluent in Lustre, but I can gurantee you that Lustre is not a common editing application in movies, since it is a tool for colorists!
No, color correction isn't anything an film editor does. It's what a colorist does. A director of photography is much more likely to sit in with the colorist than an editor. You are confusing the editorial process with all of post production. Why not just claim that Foley artists are film editors and vice versa?
If you're going to astroturf for Autodesk (parent company of discreet), at least have an understanding of the basic terms and concepts. If correcting your gross mistakes is condescending, then so be it.
Personally, I've been a proponent and user of FCP since about 1999. I'm extremely pleased with the progress that it has made against Avid, just as I'm pleased that Avid has responded to the competition with great products.
I used to have a 40mm 2.8 lens when I had a pentax MX. I think the focusing ring had a single of bumps, it was so small, and the camera was extremely small and light for a 35mm.
I agree with you somewhat about 28mm being a compromise. Alas, at the time I purchased it, I just didn't have enough for the 24mm. However, I've become much more used to it. Funny thing is that I really love the 105mm, and that's what normally lives on the camera.
If you want to take a portrait, you want to have your lens stopped down as much as possible so that you have a narrow depth of field and the background is left blurry, because the background isn't important anyway.
Ah, no. You want to open your lens to the widest aperture, not stop it down, if you want shallow depth of field. You probably already knew this, you just didn't engage your brain before typing.
Personally, I've always loathed 50mm lenses. I've much prefered either my 28mm and my 105mm. When I was starting out, sharpness of zoom lenses was no where near primes, but they've gotten a lot better. When I get around to getting a DSLR, I'll probably go with a wide angle zoom and a "portrait" prime lens (something in the 85mm to 105mm range).
Yes, the current generation finally does do away with ADC *Thank God*. I like the idea of a single cable but it did hurt Apple in terms of gfx card selection.
Amen, brother. I wonder who it was that talked Steve out of this particular implementation of his anti-clutter fetish?
If manfacturers could pop the same hardware in with just a software driver update for OS X, we would have seen more players in the Apple market today.
I wonder. NV and ATI make a nice dime charging a premium for Mac compatibility. Nor is either well known for their support of other non-windows OSes.
Of course, you're both right, but it should be pointed out that despite FCP's inroads (and I'm a huge FCP fan), the majority of features are still cut on an Avid. It's still the industry standard.
Besides which, if you go to USC film school, you're going for the connections that you'll make. You can hone your craft at any school.
I bought 3 19" professional video editing monitors for $50.00 each for my home editing suite when a local medium sized business went under. I also scored a betacamSP deck for $150.00 with less than 1000 hours on the heads so I can stop paying to have my video transferred to beta for the commercial clients to have aired.
Nice. It's really hard finding auctions like that in So. Cal because there are so many people here who have an idea what equipment is what. Also, some rental companies will sell their used equipment in other parts of the country, but not here, because the don't want the market oversaturated with equipment.
I know we have 5 avids 2 are new from that era and they kept promising the drivers but never released them.
You probably know all this better than I do, but wasn't that when commotion was bought by pinnacle? Or before?
Anyway, I'm far from certain, but the ice cards might also work with an older version of media cleaner pro. I'm trying to remember if they worked with AE as well, but I think it was only for specific filters.
Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicion that the video equipment at the acclaim sale is pretty much corporate video crap used for their internal communications.
Pro video equipment is pretty expensive new and it tends to hold its value, since it's meant to last. Still, there's not much anyone can tell you until they release a real list.
Still, keep in mind that there is a transition to new formats underway, so demand for VHS and 3/4" formats will be very low, since they're pretty much obsolete. I can't tell if any of that is beta SP or Digi-beta from the crappy low res pics, but it looks like 3/4 and VHS stuff to this semi-trained eye. The undetailed list says they've got beta SP decks, which might be nice if you've got a lot of material on that format already.
The question is, why do you want this stuff? It's not so much "cool toys" as it is "crap to clutter up your basement". You'll get better results for the same or less money if you went DV and edited on your computer.
The only things I would even consider bidding on are the monitors, since I could use a NTSC monitor to replace the TV (with S-Video input) that I'm using now. But it wouldn't surprise me if the monitors they're auctioning are composite only.
Apro+im writes "According to this article over at ZDNet: 'Linux
potentially infringes 283 patents, including 27 held by Microsoft but none that have been validated by court judgments, according to a group that sells insurance to protect those using or selling Linux against intellectual-property litigation.' Dan Ravicher, founder and executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, conducted the analysis for Open Source Risk Management. OSRM is like an insurance company, selling legal protection against Linux copyright-infringement claims. It plans to expand the program to patent protections."[emphasis mine]
I guess that's what slashdot is coming to. You not only didn't RTFA, you didn't even read the freaking blurb/story. It's unfortunate, but typical, that Slashdot used a misleading headline, but at least the story was more accurate. Whether this was the usual editorial sloppiness to which we've grown accustomed, or pimping for page views, I can't say.
I do think you make a fair criticism of OSRM, however. While conceptually they've got a great idea (providing the indemnification that OSS critics say that OSS lacks), the way they've gone about marketing it has done more harm than good. And PJ did not show good judgement in becoming involved, though she's shown better judgement by getting uninvolved.
Now from my armchair CEO perspective, OSRM should have worked with companies that releases distros and/or implement solutions for other companies. No need for hype or FUD. Just offer the service to those that need or want it. Alternately, direct market to legal departments of big companies that are deploying linux.
Apparently you're not that familiar with the case -- it has nothing to do with copyright (read the filings) and everything to do with contract law.
And apparently you're not familiar with the IBM counterclaims and motions for summary judgement. SCO management foolishly believed that they could keep the FUD campaign and the legal campaign separate, but that's come back to bite them on the ass. I can't imagine that either SCO legal or outside counsel didn't tell McBride and Sontag to STFU, so you have to wonder what they were thinking.*
Otherwise, you've got a firm grasp and a pretty cogent summary of the SCO claims.
*They were probably thinking along the lines of "How can we pump up share price to make Ralph Yarro happy?"
PS: YANAL, but you do display a greater understanding of the legal issues than most, so your opinion should carry greater weight than your garden variety slashdot ignoramus. Not only that, but you write coherently! This puts you in the top 1%! =)
Excellent example! You've made your point very well, but you've not won me over, and I highly doubt that I'll win you over.
I think our major stumbling block is this: You are not open to any interpretation other than what the artist ostensibly intends. This is not an uncommon view; indeed, it's often the means by which we judge artistic merit. How close did the artist come to fulfilling his intentions?
On the other hand, I hold the view that the viewer or reader may approach a work of art or text without regard for the artist's intention, and interpret as he or she will. You might argue that this will yield wildly inappropriate interpretations, and this will be so, in some cases. But it will also yield interesting valid interpretations that can be explained to and accepted by a reasonable person. This is a more modern view.
So, even if we assume that the artists' intentions were otherwise, I can interpret the comic as a parody of the wholesome pre-sexual world of Strawberry Shortcake.
See also what John Scalzi wrote about this. His argument is different from mine, and he is not a lawyer either.
It's been over 15 years since I really played, because one excellent DM ruined it for me. He was an excellent storyteller and an excellent actor. Our group actually played entire games without a roll of the dice, due to the DM's role-playing skill.
Ever since, RPGs have seemed boring and with too much emphasis on the game mechanics. I've tried a few times since then to join a game with reputedly good DMs, but they've all seemed flat and I quickly lost interest.
You've got a pretty one dimensional view of things if you don't think it can be both, or if you think art has to be about only one thing.
Frankly, the concept wouldn't work if it wasn't parodizing both at the same time. Try to imagine a parody of Alice that used Strawberry Shortcake without parodizing Strawberry Shortcake. In that case, you'd have a point, but I doubt it would be a very funny comic.
Still, your point about the context, i.e., the linked article (not accompanying, but linked), is a good argument for the plaintiff, and is one of the elements that stops this from being 100% clear cut.
Now, as far as your mis-characterization of my argument as a "sleaze-ball lawyer defense trick", I think you must have problems seeing other sides of an argument. Do you really need to attack my argument using emotional language to make your point?
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to consider batch capture, if your editing app supports it. You can speed through your tape, marking the i/o points, then capture it all in one batch while you're doing something else.
(This is also why a clapboard is useful, even if you're not doing double system sound; it makes finding the in and out points that much easier, and can also help with clip labeling. Also, I've noticed that clapboards are generally more accurate than camera reports, probably because there are more eyeballs to catch little mistakes).
Maybe Belkin, just don't give Iomega any stupid ideas.
Toshiba says it will ship an 80GB 1.8in hard drive in Q3 2005
=)
I was actually thinking along these lines for laptops.
But if one were to RAID 3 of these, you wouldn't have three separate volumes. I guess it depends on the RAID scheme, but wouldn't one have either one big volume or a mirrored volume (if RAIDing for redundancy?)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'd think it would suck to edit video on a 4200 RPM drive on a device that was designed for the HD to be spun down the majority of the time.
Seriously, the iPod HD is not designed for that sort of constant use. It loads songs into the buffer, then spins down. Rinse and repeat.
If memory serves, the HD in the ibooks is not user upgradable without voiding the warranty (as opposed to the PBs, which is user upgradable). So for your purposes, you want one of those bus powered (for editing on the bus, right? =) FW drives, but god knows what that'll do to your battery time!
Dude. Smell my iPod.
Well, most Inferno artists are fluent in Lustre, (and both products usually work together) which is the main editing tool, unless you don't consider colour correction part of the editing process. Avid is also used yes. Avid is an interesting company, they've been buying other products and killing them over the years (Matador, anyone?).
Btw, take your condescending tone and stick up your ass, asshole.
Excuse me? What condescending tone? You mean I hurt your widdle ego by pointing out that you didn't know the difference between editing and vfx?
Inferno artists might or might not be fluent in Lustre, but I can gurantee you that Lustre is not a common editing application in movies, since it is a tool for colorists!
No, color correction isn't anything an film editor does. It's what a colorist does. A director of photography is much more likely to sit in with the colorist than an editor. You are confusing the editorial process with all of post production. Why not just claim that Foley artists are film editors and vice versa?
If you're going to astroturf for Autodesk (parent company of discreet), at least have an understanding of the basic terms and concepts. If correcting your gross mistakes is condescending, then so be it.
Personally, I've been a proponent and user of FCP since about 1999. I'm extremely pleased with the progress that it has made against Avid, just as I'm pleased that Avid has responded to the competition with great products.
I used to have a 40mm 2.8 lens when I had a pentax MX. I think the focusing ring had a single of bumps, it was so small, and the camera was extremely small and light for a 35mm.
I agree with you somewhat about 28mm being a compromise. Alas, at the time I purchased it, I just didn't have enough for the 24mm. However, I've become much more used to it. Funny thing is that I really love the 105mm, and that's what normally lives on the camera.
If you want to take a portrait, you want to have your lens stopped down as much as possible so that you have a narrow depth of field and the background is left blurry, because the background isn't important anyway.
Ah, no. You want to open your lens to the widest aperture, not stop it down, if you want shallow depth of field. You probably already knew this, you just didn't engage your brain before typing.
Personally, I've always loathed 50mm lenses. I've much prefered either my 28mm and my 105mm. When I was starting out, sharpness of zoom lenses was no where near primes, but they've gotten a lot better. When I get around to getting a DSLR, I'll probably go with a wide angle zoom and a "portrait" prime lens (something in the 85mm to 105mm range).
I don't think you know the difference between editing and compositing for vfx (which is what inferno does).
Avid is still the standard editor in Hollywood, although FCP has been making major inroads.
Yes, the current generation finally does do away with ADC *Thank God*. I like the idea of a single cable but it did hurt Apple in terms of gfx card selection.
Amen, brother. I wonder who it was that talked Steve out of this particular implementation of his anti-clutter fetish?
If manfacturers could pop the same hardware in with just a software driver update for OS X, we would have seen more players in the Apple market today.
I wonder. NV and ATI make a nice dime charging a premium for Mac compatibility. Nor is either well known for their support of other non-windows OSes.
How pedantic! You should round up to 5.3
Of course, you're both right, but it should be pointed out that despite FCP's inroads (and I'm a huge FCP fan), the majority of features are still cut on an Avid. It's still the industry standard.
Besides which, if you go to USC film school, you're going for the connections that you'll make. You can hone your craft at any school.
I bought 3 19" professional video editing monitors for $50.00 each for my home editing suite when a local medium sized business went under. I also scored a betacamSP deck for $150.00 with less than 1000 hours on the heads so I can stop paying to have my video transferred to beta for the commercial clients to have aired.
Nice. It's really hard finding auctions like that in So. Cal because there are so many people here who have an idea what equipment is what. Also, some rental companies will sell their used equipment in other parts of the country, but not here, because the don't want the market oversaturated with equipment.
I know we have 5 avids 2 are new from that era and they kept promising the drivers but never released them.
You probably know all this better than I do, but wasn't that when commotion was bought by pinnacle? Or before?
Anyway, I'm far from certain, but the ice cards might also work with an older version of media cleaner pro. I'm trying to remember if they worked with AE as well, but I think it was only for specific filters.
Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicion that the video equipment at the acclaim sale is pretty much corporate video crap used for their internal communications.
Maybe they're 43,000 defective returned game cartridges? What a bargain!
Pro video equipment is pretty expensive new and it tends to hold its value, since it's meant to last. Still, there's not much anyone can tell you until they release a real list.
Still, keep in mind that there is a transition to new formats underway, so demand for VHS and 3/4" formats will be very low, since they're pretty much obsolete. I can't tell if any of that is beta SP or Digi-beta from the crappy low res pics, but it looks like 3/4 and VHS stuff to this semi-trained eye. The undetailed list says they've got beta SP decks, which might be nice if you've got a lot of material on that format already.
The question is, why do you want this stuff? It's not so much "cool toys" as it is "crap to clutter up your basement". You'll get better results for the same or less money if you went DV and edited on your computer.
The only things I would even consider bidding on are the monitors, since I could use a NTSC monitor to replace the TV (with S-Video input) that I'm using now. But it wouldn't surprise me if the monitors they're auctioning are composite only.
I guess that's what slashdot is coming to. You not only didn't RTFA, you didn't even read the freaking blurb/story. It's unfortunate, but typical, that Slashdot used a misleading headline, but at least the story was more accurate. Whether this was the usual editorial sloppiness to which we've grown accustomed, or pimping for page views, I can't say.
I do think you make a fair criticism of OSRM, however. While conceptually they've got a great idea (providing the indemnification that OSS critics say that OSS lacks), the way they've gone about marketing it has done more harm than good. And PJ did not show good judgement in becoming involved, though she's shown better judgement by getting uninvolved.
Now from my armchair CEO perspective, OSRM should have worked with companies that releases distros and/or implement solutions for other companies. No need for hype or FUD. Just offer the service to those that need or want it. Alternately, direct market to legal departments of big companies that are deploying linux.
I hate to break this to you, but SCO isn't a horse, either. =)
Yeah, I know, it's a metaphor.
IBM has also counter-sued SCO, so SCO is also a defendant in this case, in the counter-suit.
.
So, I'm not sure where the overlords joke fits in. Unless . .
In Soviet Russia, SCO overlords welcome Maureen O'Gara.
Apparently you're not that familiar with the case -- it has nothing to do with copyright (read the filings) and everything to do with contract law.
And apparently you're not familiar with the IBM counterclaims and motions for summary judgement. SCO management foolishly believed that they could keep the FUD campaign and the legal campaign separate, but that's come back to bite them on the ass. I can't imagine that either SCO legal or outside counsel didn't tell McBride and Sontag to STFU, so you have to wonder what they were thinking.*
Otherwise, you've got a firm grasp and a pretty cogent summary of the SCO claims.
*They were probably thinking along the lines of "How can we pump up share price to make Ralph Yarro happy?"
PS: YANAL, but you do display a greater understanding of the legal issues than most, so your opinion should carry greater weight than your garden variety slashdot ignoramus. Not only that, but you write coherently! This puts you in the top 1%! =)
So it's OK if he redacts all the, uh, nsfw sites? I think the public has a right to know! =)
Excellent example! You've made your point very well, but you've not won me over, and I highly doubt that I'll win you over.
I think our major stumbling block is this: You are not open to any interpretation other than what the artist ostensibly intends. This is not an uncommon view; indeed, it's often the means by which we judge artistic merit. How close did the artist come to fulfilling his intentions?
On the other hand, I hold the view that the viewer or reader may approach a work of art or text without regard for the artist's intention, and interpret as he or she will. You might argue that this will yield wildly inappropriate interpretations, and this will be so, in some cases. But it will also yield interesting valid interpretations that can be explained to and accepted by a reasonable person. This is a more modern view.
So, even if we assume that the artists' intentions were otherwise, I can interpret the comic as a parody of the wholesome pre-sexual world of Strawberry Shortcake.
See also what John Scalzi wrote about this. His argument is different from mine, and he is not a lawyer either.
It's been over 15 years since I really played, because one excellent DM ruined it for me. He was an excellent storyteller and an excellent actor. Our group actually played entire games without a roll of the dice, due to the DM's role-playing skill.
Ever since, RPGs have seemed boring and with too much emphasis on the game mechanics. I've tried a few times since then to join a game with reputedly good DMs, but they've all seemed flat and I quickly lost interest.
You've got a pretty one dimensional view of things if you don't think it can be both, or if you think art has to be about only one thing.
Frankly, the concept wouldn't work if it wasn't parodizing both at the same time. Try to imagine a parody of Alice that used Strawberry Shortcake without parodizing Strawberry Shortcake. In that case, you'd have a point, but I doubt it would be a very funny comic.
Still, your point about the context, i.e., the linked article (not accompanying, but linked), is a good argument for the plaintiff, and is one of the elements that stops this from being 100% clear cut.
Now, as far as your mis-characterization of my argument as a "sleaze-ball lawyer defense trick", I think you must have problems seeing other sides of an argument. Do you really need to attack my argument using emotional language to make your point?
If you ever have to borrow a pen or pencil from Josh, remember to wash your hands afterwards. =)