Saturday, February 26, 2011

Technology Changes - Again

Sometimes tech stuff is a long slow process of incremental change and sometimes it's just a big jump from one technology to another - over night. Apple seems to be doing a combo of both right now. There's a new version of Final Cut Pro soon to be released. It's supposed to be a big jump over the current version, but only a handful of people have actually seen it and all current speculation is just hot air. The blogs say it maybe more of an iMovie-like interface, but only the insiders really know and because of those non-disclosure agreements they can't say. I guess we're all waiting for NAB to find out. Tick, tick, tick.

In addition there's a new kid on the block for data transfer: Thunderbolt. I've been feeling left out of the rise of USB 3 and it's dramatically faster data rate over FireWire. BlackMagic Design has a video capture device that uses USB 3 that I've been coveting, but alas Apple has not chosen to add USB 3 ports to their computers. In the past I've used eSATA connections to external RAID drives for size and speed, but you need a card in a tower computer to do that and we now have quite a number of iMacs that can't play in that pond. Now that's all changed. Thunderbolt blows all other data connections out of the water. Wow. Of course that's only in new computers, which means all the computers we own now are obsolete. Great. Thanks so much.

Finally in OS-land people are starting to talk about Lion. Who knows what the heck that brings. Maybe this one is more the slow evolving process than the big jump. The problem always is what's it do now and what does it no longer do that we weren't even thinking about. Ouch.

So, it's always a reminder that change is the landscape that we all live in (on) and much like weather and climate, change moves at differing rates as well. Welcome to yesterday.

gunther

The New Hunting Season

The cycle has come around again and tour groups are massing on the horizon. It's sort of like an academic hunting season. I love to talk to tour groups of prospective students and their parents. They're all people with high hopes and the best of dreams for the future and their family. Promise and excitement flow all around them. They're a fun group, interested and eager to listen and learn, though often a little fearful or reluctant to speak out.

My only problem with the number of them is in repeating myself over and over. I feel like an idiot. Two groups in a row isn't so bad, but after three I start forgetting what I've said, lose my train of thought and head off in tangents. OK, I usually head off in tangents anyway; it's really my style. It takes much longer to approach a topic obliquely, but once you finally arrive you've got more background and depth of understanding - it builds contextualization. Well, at least I try to convince myself that's true.

This last Monday I finally gave up talking about the film/photo program to the fourth group and said, hey, let's talk about education. "Where do you think learning comes from", I asked a mother. She stammered, "you're asking me?" "Yes, what's your idea of that." She thought a moment and said, "asking questions." Bingo! Wow, that's just the answer I wanted. Yes, it's all about asking questions - back and forth much like a ping pong game.

The ball is the question or answer, the table is the range of topics appropriate to the discussion and the net is to judge the clarity of the question or response. It's the exchange that's the most beneficial - a flow of talking back and forth. Sure you could hit the ball off the table with a wild question, but then the exchange stops and after a few of those in a row no one wants to play with you. You're off topic, too erratic or seem incoherent.

So to play the game to learn you need to know the topic area - what's the appropriate range of discussion. That comes from doing the reading that's assigned and maybe a bit more than that too. It's also useful to know the history of the topic or even the history of the discussion of the topic. That, again, comes from doing the reading, but for sure this time reading more broadly than just what was assigned.

Finally and more personally you need to be self examining about your own clarity of understanding. Do you get it? Or maybe not so much. I often find that what I thought I knew well, when I go to explain it to someone else it's much foggier in my mind than I realized. I don't really understand it after all, though I thought I did. That social or public opportunity to talk allowed me to find out just how well I grasped the topic or surprisingly didn't.

We're all so clever in our own minds, but much less so once those thoughts get "published" and can be examined by others or even, by developing professional distance, hear ourselves talk.

I always tell students it's important to show work in class. Not because the other students are going to give you good advise. They may, but usually they're no better a filmmaker than you are. The real reason to show work is to discover how you feel about it when you show it publicly. Often we find that what we thought was so hot yesterday in the edit room makes no sense on the big screen after all and we cringe and slide down in our seat mumbling, what was I thinking of, gotta change that fast. That's what's helpful.

So thanks mom for the great answer. You do know a lot about education and you were brave enough to speak up. That's one of the debilitating problems at the start of any inquiry - fear. Managing fear, professionally, is a fundamental part of the learning process. At the beginning we all feel lost and unsure of what questions we even have, let alone how to ask them. With a little time and knowledge under our belt that passes. We discover the lay of the land, grasp what we've come to know and become equally aware of what we still don't know. This all falls, I think, under the heading of learning to learn, maybe the most valuable skill of all.

gunther

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Better Off TEDing



So what's it take to do a TED? No, not me presenting, but a bunch of real research people and hip academics. I just participated in a large "group-think" Future Search workshop on Friday and one of the best proposals was for Hampshire to put on a TED. I thought, wow, what a great idea and I started shouting TED, TED. It's just the kind of internal communication that we all would love to see. It would show us, in a fun and easily understandable form, what people, both faculty and students, on campus are really working on and have produced.

However. It's really hard work to get a presentation into such a compact and polished form. It's a little alien to the standard academic presentation no matter how hot the professor. It's a rehearsed intersection of content and performance, with enough popping exotic visuals to pull the thing along and develop as many "ah-hah" moments as possible and still keep it to 15 minutes. As I said, it's hard work, though it would "up-the-game" for everyone and that's always a good thing.

OK, maybe it's possible you don't know what TED is. Really? It's a conference of smart people, started in Long Beach (I actually thought it was in Malibu), but now in several places, too, that presents insightful, cutting-edge research work in quite a broad range of disciplines. It stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design - all my favorite topics. How could you go wrong? Here's their blurb about them. Their web site has tons of past presentations on-line to watch. It's a great way to spend a little time - you're well rewarded. All it costs is 15 minutes of your time.

Now all we have to do is set up guidelines, ask for presenters, audition them, cherry pick the best, re-tool the worst and try it. One of the side benefits of all of this would be that everyone notices, or gets told, their level of sophistication in "presentation-land"; something that makes any class or lecture more enjoyable regardless of the level of content. Even that part, all by its self, would be a benefit to the community. What could go wrong? TED, TED, TED, TED...

gunther

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

A Reasoned Approach part 1

With this much time behind us we should stop, turn around, and look back at our rush to embrace the HDSLR concept (more useful here). Where did it come from, what was pushing it, where will it go and is it a big deal or not - or what.
In the recent past (the time of the miniDV camcorders) we were all thrilled that semi-good-looking footage was finally possible in an equally semi-robust format that didn’t cost an arm and a leg and another leg. We did, however, still envy the film folk for, well, their filminess. Many were the tirades about how great film was and that video could never (that’s never) equal that quality - yack, yack, yack. The video people would all sigh and walk away, thinking, you know, that’s a bunch of crap, but video did look like video.
Then somehow that vague future-concept high definition thing kind of oozed out of the woodwork behind us and suddenly there was a new format on the block. Mostly the new students showed up with those HD camcorders and we all went, whoa, what’s that. The image was really big and crisp and well - big and crisp. I had seen HD way back in the 1980’s at an NAB trade show and it was great, but amazingly expensive and not really on the market. Now it was and it didn’t cost any more than the miniDV camcorders we were still buying.
You’ve got to remember that miniDV replaced Hi8mm and that Hi8mm replaced regular 8mm, and regular 8mm replaced 3/4” and that had replaced 1/2” and that had replaced both 1” and quad (really 2” tape) and, oh yes, somewhere in there was VHS and S-VHS, but the common thread here is tape. It’s always going to be on tape, right?
Oops. Then HD (I’m not ever going to talk about HDV - just forget it) got really clever and you could record to tape, or a little hard drive, or a DVD-ish disk, or a flash card (a really, really expensive flash card: P2), and then a cheap flash card and wow, here we are. (Hey, are you going to eat the rest of that sandwich? This is making me hungry.)
So that’s just the history of the people who hold the cameras. On the other side, the manufacturers loved all the "Ezekiel begot Herinedies" upgrades and thought - man are we on the gravy train or what. Then HD hit them and they lost their nerve and all the ideas they ever had. (That and the fact that Broadcasting is going down the tube or rather over to the tubes.) It went dark on the factory floor. No one was buying equipment. We were just waiting to see what would happen and where it would all go. We all said, “I’m going to sit this one out.”
Then came Red.
OK, you either love or hate Red, but you do have to admit it was a game changer. People who made sunglasses are now going to design and build high-end digital cinematography cameras and what’s digital cinematography anyway - never heard of it. Once you stopped laughing and thought about it and then finally saw some footage - hey, that looks really, really good and that’s video?
Then we all did the math. Sure it’s 10 times the cost of a good miniDV camera, but look at those women, and the color, and the grain, and OMG look at the background all soft and well - filmy. So people bought them like VW’s (That’s Volkswagens to you young folks, you know like a car - the people’s car. OK, forget it.)
So we spent a whole year looking at footage online and checking the updates at Red’s web site trying to figure out if you really need rods and a matt box or more specialty cables. We kept track of how many shows were shot with a Red this month and what’s their workflow. Ah, the workflow.
Then one day a photographer posts some footage he’s shot with a Canon still camera. Yea, so what, my little still camera shoots video too. It’s great for the web. Want to see some party shots I took over the weekend? This dog is so amazing, you’ve gotta see it.
Then we all finally looked at the clips. Say, that’s nice. Wait a minute, that looks like the Red footage. Hey, come here and look at this. This is shot on a goddamn Canon still camera - WTF.
You’d look at the “milkgirls” footage from Red, then back to Vincent Laforet’s video, then back again and pause and think - gosh, this is shot on a $2,500 still camera. Whoa - the buzzer goes off - game changer. Red stops production and re-tools.
Then 6 months of looking at Canon movies online and yes, you can shoot with a Nikon (hmm, not as nice) or look over there, Panasonic has one too (OK, a little different). Now, do I really need a matt box and rods on this thing?
If you get your hands on one it’s quite a surprise that you can’t see a *&$# thing on the LCD screen outside in the sun. So now you absolutely need a clip-on viewer and magnifier for the screen.
No, I don’t have any Zeiss-Vistavision lens in my bag to pop on for those razor sharp, zero depth of field shots, but I do have an old Nikon lens so I guess I need a lens adaptor for that.
OK, now I can finally shoot. Hey, focusing sucks. Maybe I do need one of those matt boxes with the follow focus knobs (so cool), so then, yea, I do need the rods. Now what does that all price out at? Ouch!
Oh no, wait, I forgot about the audio. Camera audio is lousy so I’ll get a Zoom (save a little money over the Edirol hah, hah, ha). etc, etc. Notice no one is talking tape in audio land. Wearing a Nagra around your neck was like wearing a lunch basket. No more, no more. It all fits in your pocket, but we are back to the start line again shooting with dual system sound. Forward into the past.
So here we are: the big hand on February and the little hand on 2011.
End of part 1.
Hmm, I wonder, do I really, really need those rods?
Are you going to eat that sandwich or not?
gunther