Weird Cow mail arrived.

[Richard Harrington]

Can’t expect entire world to sync up all the time.

Richard M. Harrington, PMP

Author: Video Made on a Mac, Photoshop for Video, Understanding Adobe Photoshop, Final Cut Studio On the Spot and ATS:iWork

[Noah Kadner]

Hey you’re talking about it so that’s not a total fail.

Noah

Check out my book: RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera!
Unlock the secrets of 24p, HD and Final Cut Studio with Call Box Training. Featuring the Sony EX1 Guidebook, Panasonic HVX200, Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Canon 7D.
Watch Formosa- My indie movie shot with the SDX900 and finished with Final Cut Studio.

[Stephen Smith]

The article was written for Creative COW magazine which came to my mail box three weeks ago. It has been available to read online for a while. That being said, there is still great info in that article and more importantly it shows that the COW understands that these camera are all the buzz right now.

Utah Video Productions

Check out my Motion Training DVD

Check out my Motion Tutorials

[Bill Davis]

My intent was not to critique the article. Only to point out that in today’s rapidly changing world of information, it’s more and more necessary to audit what we send out to insure that we’re not propagating out of date information.

I understand that it’s hard to put a “kill date” on content when we don’t know what a company like Canon plans for future updates. However, the act of sending out a promotional piece DOES imply that the sending organization be mindful of the continued accuracy of that information.

The article in question states somewhat obsolete “facts” about the camera’s capabilities – particularly with regard to essential elements like audio capabilities – which might cause someone to dismiss it as a choice, not knowing that those capabilities have been revised.

Again, I’m NOT taking the COW to task for being “imperfect” We’re ALL imperfect. Just pointing out that the new realities of internet information distribution unfortunately puts a HIGHER burden on those who wish to be considered RELIABLE CONTENT to look at the older ways of doing thing (e.g. simply emailing an article written a month or more prior without vetting the content) and thinking about what this means in the new era.

Again, no snap intended on Bessie. Just pointing out a harsh reality of the new “instant information” mode we all have to live in.

Put another way – the requirements of article vetting are one thing when you put out a paper magazine with a 3 month lead time. But quite another when you have a business plan that includes instant “e-mail blasts” of the same re-purposed content.

It’s impossible to be perfect. But it’s also OK in my view to point out the pitfalls in a workflow in order to help others avoid things they likely don’t actually wish to do.

FWIW.