Well, people say this all the time: "be careful what you put on social media because it can come back to haunt you." Do we listen? Depends.
For now, let's put some numbers behind this proposition
Friday, August 27, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
A Semiotics of the News
Warning: Video contains profanity
If John Stewart and Stephen Colbert viewers actually are politically sophisticated--as a Pew research report indicates, then perhaps we should teach news production using comedy as well. Hmmm. That might be a bad idea considering that I'm not actually funny. However, Charlie Brooker is:
If John Stewart and Stephen Colbert viewers actually are politically sophisticated--as a Pew research report indicates, then perhaps we should teach news production using comedy as well. Hmmm. That might be a bad idea considering that I'm not actually funny. However, Charlie Brooker is:
3D TV
"I want my 3D TV!"
Why isn't this the battle cry for a new era in home entertainment? After all, a similar cry brought M(usic) TV into our homes in the early 80's.
Ogg's article makes a valid point. A gimmick is merely a gimmick: We just bought new plasma and LCD TV's. I still have not invested in BlueRay because I don't want to repurchase my DVD collection (and I know I will, unless the threat of divorce is real...and it may be). While waiting for the whole shebang to be iTunes, Amazon and Netflix (not a bad bet), thus getting rid of the physical thing in favor of code, I do want to see Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs in 3D--just for the fun of it.
However, Ogg's right: We need more. Just as surround sound is underused for content (I read a dissertation that suggested the multiple personalities in Fight Club were rendered opaque throughout the film if one paid attention to the surround sound (how cool is that?), so too is 3D. I want to see plot points revealed in the depth-layer of the 3D experience. At the same time, polarized 3D is really great, much better than red-blue. It's a good thing when done right (watch Shark Boy and Lava Girl...no really).
If people, like myself, cannot afford to buy new surround systems or televisions with every technological development (imagine, I only have 5.1, DVD, and plamsa..so yesterday), the technology may die a premature death in accordance with the theory of diffusion of new technologies.
I [do] want my 3D TV." I just can't buy a N(ew) TV.
Why isn't this the battle cry for a new era in home entertainment? After all, a similar cry brought M(usic) TV into our homes in the early 80's.
Ogg's article makes a valid point. A gimmick is merely a gimmick: We just bought new plasma and LCD TV's. I still have not invested in BlueRay because I don't want to repurchase my DVD collection (and I know I will, unless the threat of divorce is real...and it may be). While waiting for the whole shebang to be iTunes, Amazon and Netflix (not a bad bet), thus getting rid of the physical thing in favor of code, I do want to see Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs in 3D--just for the fun of it.
However, Ogg's right: We need more. Just as surround sound is underused for content (I read a dissertation that suggested the multiple personalities in Fight Club were rendered opaque throughout the film if one paid attention to the surround sound (how cool is that?), so too is 3D. I want to see plot points revealed in the depth-layer of the 3D experience. At the same time, polarized 3D is really great, much better than red-blue. It's a good thing when done right (watch Shark Boy and Lava Girl...no really).
If people, like myself, cannot afford to buy new surround systems or televisions with every technological development (imagine, I only have 5.1, DVD, and plamsa..so yesterday), the technology may die a premature death in accordance with the theory of diffusion of new technologies.
I [do] want my 3D TV." I just can't buy a N(ew) TV.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Interlacing vs Deinterlacing
What constitutes a good video image? Of course there are many factors: focus, frame and focal length...composition, rule of thirds, 180 degree rule...content...and, as well, the technological make-up--or drawing-of the screen image itself. While interlacing served a purpose in the early days of TV, it is no longer needed, and is probably better let go all together.
Here's a very well executed test. It's hard to see the difference when you put two images of the same thing side by side. What Mark Empry does is show us the same image focusing on a small moving object. That moving object clearly reveals the difference in the two types of images.
Take a look...
Deinterlacing test from Mark Empey on Vimeo.
Here's a very well executed test. It's hard to see the difference when you put two images of the same thing side by side. What Mark Empry does is show us the same image focusing on a small moving object. That moving object clearly reveals the difference in the two types of images.
Take a look...
Deinterlacing test from Mark Empey on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)