[Glen Hurd]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner – went through a busy spell.

Again, for the record, I’d like you to show me where I’ve accused anyone of being anything negative – “lazy stupid or malicious.”
I’ve stated, repeatedly, that there is no indication that everyone approached this alleged “test” with the same goals, therefore it is not a real test.
I’ll state it again, very simply, and then stop beating this horribly disfigured dead horse.

Each operator was told they could approach this first test “creatively.” That sends up red flags for me because when I evaluate the footage, I have no idea what the intent of each operator was. I simply don’t know.

If an operator spends 1 1/2 hours on lighting, is it because he’s trying to get skin tones in the foreground to match those of someone outside? Is it to bring out more detail in a coffee table he’s fallen in love with? I don’t know.
If an operator spends no time in lighting is it because he’s more interested in just capturing the 10 stops inside the “room,” and is happy to have blown highlights for exteriors – ’cause he feels they’re more natural that way – and because he feels lights that are losing detail are less distracting, and don’t contribute enough to a scene to make their inclusion important?
I don’t know.

And, unless each operator states what their goals are, neither do you.
To assume they all had the same goals appears naive to me.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand where you keep coming up with these negative assertions about me, however. Anyone else reading what I’ve said, perhaps they could confirm what you are saying (if anyone has the grit to still be reading this thread). I certainly have felt nothing but respect for the operators. In fact – again, here’s the irony – it’s that respect that had me questioning the whole test to start with. With such luminaries operating this gear, there had to be a reason why the results weren’t as clear cut as they could be. I still don’t buy the “better cameras are for faster lighting” argument. Yes, that’s a clear advantage, but it’s certainly not the only one. Nor do I think it’s the most important one. You might save on your budget, but if no-one’s impressed with the photography, you’re not making money with it either. It’s not as cut and dried as you’re trying to make it out to be.

To be honest, I’ve been researching this off site, and am relieved to have confirmation regarding my misgivings. Here’s a hint. What does an artist want to do more than anything else – once given the freedom to do it? And each of these operators is not only an individual but a very experienced artist. With only one mandate – be ‘creative.’
Different goals for different roles – I say.

If anyone is still interested in how I analyzed the footage, I’ll be happy to explain – it’s a long process, however, and will require me to upload a bunch of photoshopped stuff – so I don’t really want to do it.

And at this point, this thread feels pretty parched to me – parched and buried.

Adieu, ol’ boy . . . adieu.

[Glen Hurd]

Hi, Gary.
I didn’t think my comments were derogatory – I was simply describing a scenario wherein an imaginary photographer shows up to shoot something, and somehow finds he can’t commit to studying the scene long enough to do anything before shooting. Yet, because that had happened in this test, I felt that there was a flaw in the setup, and then drew some observations that I thought would explain how this could happen.
But before you try and convince me that Charters gaffer had set up the scene for him before he arrived to shoot, could you do me a favor? It feels like you’ve been trying to read my mind more than my words, and I was wondering if you could actually quote something I’ve written that fits the description of the “derogatory phrases insinuating people have mental disorders” and “belittling others.”
You’re now accusing me of actually insulting someone, and I would like to clear that up. But I need a quote. No mind reading, OK? And I’d ask you not to respond to my post until you have that quote – I’m going to need it.

And while I’m on the “bullying” aspect of my post, maybe a different context may help you see how some people – outside your collection of friends and family – actually communicate.
On Master Chef recently, (yes, this is national TV) I heard one of the judging chefs, while looking at a messed up meal that was presented to him, say, “This looks like it was assembled by a chef suffering from ADD!”
Now, from your perspective, was he insinuating the chef in question actually had ADD? No.
Was he insinuating that all people who have ADD are idiots? No.
Could he have simply been drawing a parallel between a non-serious, easily managed disorder – that exhibits itself with a lack of focus – to the result he was holding in his hand?
See, in some parts of the Americas, people with ADD don’t consider themselves “victims” or in need of special consideration. I have a friend who works as an aircraft mechanic for a very large airline. He’s convinced that his ADD is an asset. I know what he’d say about your comments on this post. See, he sees this sort of speech as hyperbole and is accepted as humor. Perhaps we haven’t submitted to the righteous ascension of the sensitivity crusaders yet – perhaps we value expression and debate and spontaneity over “correctness” – allowing for friction to be a part of every relationship instead of insisting that it all be made of teflon (and usually to someone else’s definition of what that teflon standard should be).
And the reason why I won’t let this go is because many times, in debates particularly, when the weak-minded find themselves fumbling for a defense, they suddenly assign themselves savior-status and attack their opponents for various deeds of insensitive improprieties, while completely ignoring the thread of logic in their opponents presentation. Not because they care about those whom they suddenly represent, but because a smoke screen of accusations makes for a wonderful distraction while they try and gather a more successful defense. I must confess, for a moment or two, I thought you might be doing that.
But now I believe you are a truly compassionate being, who would feel remorse if anyone were to be hurt in a discussion. Unless you judged them to be a bully of sorts. Then you’d let them have it – right between the eyes – but just to save the innocent.
I’m right there with you.

Now, back to the real topic, if you have the time.

I want to start by asking basic questions (anyone can answer – this is a forum after all).

Do you think the operators of the higher end cameras were as devoted to getting a great picture as the GH2 operators were? Yes or no?
Do you think it was possible that the higher end camera operators took the word “shootout” to mean “demonstrate maximum exposure latitude” instead of “Get the best damn picture you can”? Yes or No?
Do you really believe that a camera limited to 9 stops and a 4:2:0 signal should be capable of competing with the Alexa and F65 if all operators were truly focused on getting the best possible picture from a scene over which they have the same lighting controls – and assuming the operators are relatively equal in skill? Yes or No?
Do you think it was possible the higher end camera operators took the word “shootout” to mean “demonstrate how fast you can work to get an acceptable image”? Yes or No?
Do you think the operators in this shootout could possibly have had different goals in this shootout, thus making the visual assessment of the graded images an erroneous response to the camera operators’ goals? Yes or No?

I’m trying to contact some of them privately, because I’m intensely curious. But in the mean time, I’ve read many comments on the web, from some in Holland, some in Australia, many in the US, that the GH2 did very well compared to the other cameras. It’s been reported that a famous “yet-to-be-named” cinematographer actually preferred the GH2 to the Alexa and F65 at the Skywalker Ranch showing.

So I wasn’t just shooting in the dark when I made my observations about what I thought had happened. I’ve screen-captured the footage, exported stills, measured brightness values, watched shadows under the coffee table appear and disappear, watch the lighting ratios on the faces in the foreground change from clip to clip, all as indicators that help me evaluate which cameras I’m looking at, while studying the lighting charts. None of my observations relied on resolution, but on contrast, shadow placement, and relative brightness values for light sources that are constants in the scene – that sort of thing.

And from those observations, I realized that a couple of the cheaper cameras had performed so well that the more expensive cameras, despite their price tags, could hardly claim to offer better picture performance (ignoring time for setup and all that – which is another point I’ll get to).

Yes, I understand that reaching the same look as the cheap camera in 1/3 the time, has production value. But it better offer more than that! I can’t imagine Rodney Charters saying “With a normal subject, this Alexa can barely exceed the quality of a 9-stop DSLR camera, that shoots 4:2:0 color on a 150mb/sec stream, but I can do it in 1/3 the lighting time and 1/2 the grading time, which is pretty damn exciting.”
OK. That just made me laugh. Ridiculous.

Yet I read a quote where Illya Friedman said the total quality difference between cameras, excluding iPhones, was 15%.
I would expect that kind of difference if they were shooting grey cards where no camera has to really perform – but not on this set.

Apparently, you were quite satisfied with the results, which I find amazing.

Now, you’ve pointed out that gaffers set up lights in advance of the camera operators – in my experience the final decisions are only made once the camera’s in position and the DP is making final decisions, but regardless, I thought this scene was set up without regard for any particular camera – from what I understand anyway. Perhaps you could address that if you have insider knowledge. Did they light specifically for the F65 or the Alexa? If so, I understand why you’re confused by my comments. I thought it was a testing ground, not a starting point for Sony.

However, if I’m correct in understanding that it was set up simply as a test scenario, then I still wonder why they didn’t do more tweaking – just out of pure control. As you accurately pointed out, many prefer to get as close to the needed picture in camera – instead of relying on another person to control the “look” so with the film community, especially, there is a tendency to get as close to the final look as possible. Here, I don’t see that behavior. If you saw this behavior on a production set – no gaffers, no crew, just an operator who simply shows up to shoot, you’d think that operator had been burning too many nights on Modalert! (Phew) Another way to put it is, if they were told they were competing with a $300,000 wondercam with 20 stops latitude, do you think they would have still been happy with doing nothing to the set? Yes or No?
This is strictly a question of psychology. We have a test. We have certain motivations. If I can change the conditions of the test, do the motivations change?

What I have learned is that you are satisfied by how closely all these cameras performed, despite their price tag.

You know what’s funny? I own 2 of the cameras featured here, and according to this shoot-out, they both did wonderfully. Now all I need is to design a faster method of setting and adjusting lights.

How’s that for irony.

‘nite all.

[Glen Hurd]

Geesh, Gary. I really did hit a nerve!
My whole point was that this test encouraged topdogs to do less than they might normally do. It was not a situation where the F65 crew, for instance, walked in and lit for their camera and everyone else were then asked to make adjustments. Was it? And for the record, the F65 did have the shortest setup time IF I’m to go by the charts they released on their website. No time lighting. The Alexa took 33 minutes.
Therefore, I conclude, that the topdogs weren’t approaching this with the same mindset as the GH2 operators did, for instance, where they spent so much more time on lighting.
You’re being beligerent by completely ignoring what I’m trying to say, and instead reacting to what you imagined I said. Which, simply is not fair.

If you were to disagree with my assessment of the camera operators’ mentality, you’d say, “No, I talked to all the operators, and all they could focus on was creating as much beauty as they could. When I asked the F65 operator why he made no adjustments to the lights, he told me that he tried, but that the currrent set up for the shootout was already perfect for his camera, and he could do absolutely NOTHING to improve the image for his camera!”

See, if you said that, I’d be illuminated by information I didn’t have access to anywhere else.

If you went on to say that you had similar conversations with the other topdogs, I’d be even more impressed with the underdogs. Because your comments would point out that an extra hour of lighting with a $700 camera will allow me to match or exceed the cameras that rent for over $1500/day because those cameras were just as focused on beauty as the underdogs were, yet failed to pull out in front by a significant margin – if at all!

So, Gary, while you go on about how offensive and arrogant I am, I am still sitting here in comparitive darkness because you won’t tell me that the topdogs were just as focused on beauty as the underdogs. And since you are silent on that, I’m left to conclude that the topdogs weren’t focused on beauty at all – but on proving their camera superiority by underlighting – by doing the least necessary – to get a good picture. Opposite motivations, which yield results that – if misunderstood – would give a false value for shooting with inferior gear.

You point to 4 conclusions.

a)The better the camera, the faster the work. – I think everyone would agree that was obvious, I would add that if the faster work yields inferior results to a slower effort with a significanlty cheaper camera, is that an advantage? If concensus is that the GH2 outperformed the Epic, for instance, was the time saved setting up for the Epic of any value? Would anyone running an Epic – in a real production – approach their lighting requirements the same as if they were in a shootout with a GH2, where they want to demonstrate the superiority of the Epic vs simply going for the prettiest shot they can wrangle? My guess/assertion is no. People don’t bring top gear to a shoot JUST so they can skimp on lighting. They may not have to work as hard as with inferior gear, that’s more than obvious, but they will still want to do what’s necessary – if they have the time. Yet these operators had time, but they were motivated, in my opinion, to underlight. And I think that needs to be acknowledged.
However, apparently you were there, so most will assume you should know. I will be the minority opinion that psychology plays a part in every competition, and this – at the end of the day – was a competition.

b) A real pro can make art with Stone knives and bearskins – My response is no doubt. But this was a shootout, where the stone knives appeared to do as well or better than the scroll-saws, chainsaws, and sawzalls. So I wanted to figure out what may have contributed to this – other than the implied suggestion that the underdogs were simply more talented than the topdogs – which I don’t believe.

c) No one will agree on the outcome. – My response is that many will agree on their top 1 or 2 favorites, and if they misunderstand why they are seeing the results they are, they may never consider the better equipment for their own needs – thinking that an extra hour of lighting will allow them to exceed the quality of a $1800/day camera rental with their sub-$1000 purchased DSLR – which I think would be a mistake. Yet this test tends to imply that, not just on my observations, but also on the opinions of many others following the test.

d) The loudest complaints from the people with the most to loose from the results. – I don’t know what that’s in reference to, but if that helps you ignore me, then have at it. Whatever method you need to hide from my logic is OK with me.

If you found my ADD references offensive, they were intended to explain the only scenario I could imagine where someone shows up to a real production shoot, given at least 2 hours to do whatever they want to light the set to accomodate their camera, and do nothing, while someone with a veritable toy spends the time to enhance the lighting well enough to compete with that much superior camera. That scenario doesn’t make sense, so I made fun of that scenario to make a point. That’s called exaggeration. Look it up sometime.

And after all that, you still think I’m knocking the better cameras – which I am really supporting.

You may be reading my posts, but you certainly don’t understand them. At least you’ve made this personal, which is helping me get to know you a little better. And that is reason enough for me to look forward to your next response.

[Glen Hurd]

All right. How did I step into this mess? Did I hit a nerve or did I really fail so terribly to communicate? I try for brevity, but that obviously wasn’t worth it. 🙁

For convenience, I’d like to use the term “underdog” to refer to those operating less expensive, less capable cameras and “topdog” to reference those using the more capable, more expensive cameras. My intent is not to offend, to make any political or socially-oriented statements or opinions about anyone who uses any type of gear – I wish to use those terms simply for purposes of brevity. And if I need to use more disclaimers in future posts, I will try to remember to do so.

Jeremy, one of the problems I had with the shootout was the fact that some of the topdogs did so little to try and improve the lighting in this “extreme” situation. I couldn’t imagine bringing an F65, an Alexa, an Epic to this situation, and not wanting to put some work into the lighting. Sure, it had lights already set up. But that was the “scenario.” Who walks into a scenario, adds a bounce card and says, “I’m done?” (I don’t think anyone actually added a bounce card and said, “I’m done.” I just wrote that as an example of someone arriving at a scene, and putting very little work into it.)
I ate a sandwich and thought about it, and came to the conclusion that the reason why the topdogs didn’t do much in the way of lighting was because, in their minds, they weren’t engaged in production but in a shootout. But why did the underdogs go through so much effort? Because they were the underdogs – they had nothing to lose by adding lights – they’re already the guys with inferior gear. So, after another sandwich, I surmised that this test wasn’t fair because it didn’t encourage everyone to approach this as real production but as a camera shootout! By the nature of competition, the underdogs will light to prove they can capture a scene, and the topdogs will underlight to prove their cameras are more powerful -it’s a shootout! In a real production environment, I think it’s safe to say, that each operator would have spent at least an hour setting up lights and checking the shot, so something strange had happened here. That’s the “psychology” part I was discussing. Shootout vs real production. Not – the – same – thing.
To sum up, I see 2 different sets of goals being pursued. One group, the underdogs, were pursing the goal of making the most beautiful scene they could capture. The other group, the topdogs, pursued a different goal: they wanted to demonstrate how awesome their camera was at capturing a scene under extreme lighting conditions.
That’s what I’m saying happened here.
Based on looking at the footage.
Based on seeing what kind of cameras I’m seeing, based on relative exposure values by constants in that scene.
As I said, Camera B had inferior exposure latitude to the other cameras, but came out with some of the prettiest footage. Why? Because of the split focus of the competitors, not because the topdogs couldn’t have easily beaten it.
I’ll bet I’m still not making any sense here to anyone, but do I get points for trying?

So my comment on the psychology of this test was an effort to DEFEND the inherent value of using the more expensive cameras, and why this test failed to show that.

So Gary, (and those that followed Gary) you gotta back off a little. If I come across arrogant it’s because you completely, utterly misunderstand me. I don’t know how – I thought I was perfectly clear – but it doesn’t matter, I’m going to try again. I’ll use more words, at the risk of boring you to tears.

I was trying to show that after analyzing the footage and looking at the lighting setups, that the more expensive cameras weren’t really shot with the same focus on beauty as the lesser cameras. My explanation was that the operators had a different purpose. The F65 operator, for instance, was obviously not trying to improve the scene – but wanted, rather, to prove what his camera could handle. The same with some of the other topdogs, though to a lesser extent. As a result, in this test, did he do as well as he could have? I don’t think so. Why not? Why didn’t he try harder? Please, don’t accuse me now of suggesting that he was a bad operator. I’m not saying that. And if you still don’t understand, then I must simply give up trying.
But before you respond, read the rest of what I have to say. It might help.

I had concluded that it’s not a great test because it didn’t encourage the topdogs to push beauty as hard as the underdogs would push. The topdogs were distracted by the nature of a shoot-out and didn’t think it would demonstrate their camera’s prowress if they spent the same time lighting and improving the scene for their cameras as they would have during a real production. I make that statement because I believe that bring an F65, an Alexa, an Epic would always be a better choice than bringing a GH2 to a shoot (unless space or danger were an issue), and yet you would still WANT to light your scene to improve produciton value, wouldn’t you? No-one brings an Alexa to a shoot because they see the camera simply as a shortcut to getting work done! That’s where I made the comparison to a rich guy (read “uncommitted”) who brought his toy (F65, Alexa, Epic, etc) to a shoot so he didn’t have to work (ie. can’t stay focused on the rigors of lighting, or suffering from ADD – as an example). That’s what I was trying to say, in 1,000 words or less.

So . . . newsflash . . . I’m not degrading the use of great equipment. I’m not degrading those who prefer to bring their best game to a shoot – even if it’s overkill.

I’m simply trying to illustrate an inherent weakness to their test. On the surface it looks fair and intriguing. With a little analysis, it has weaknesses that are borne out once the footage is evaluated.

Again, my problem was that this scenario showed someone coming in with a top-end camera, and doing nothing to improve their lighting -it’s as if they suffered ADD. I explain that as being the nature of the shoot – it was a shootout! Of course the topdogs are tempted not to do as much! Do you get it??!! Is it really that hard to see this?! But that’s not real life. In real life, you bring a camera – whether GH2 or F65, and you still work your butt off to get the best picture that fits your story – and that usually means lighting like a mad man. Who wouldn’t? What a waste if you didn’t. Right? Are you with me? We don’t go to work to save time but to preserve quality! Yet this test shows people saving time!! Why??!! ‘Cause it’s SHOOTOUT!! That, by it’s nature, ruined the test! It’s as if the guy with the GH2 is competing with an uncommitted cameraman with a top-of-the-line camera, who has ADD!!!! Not a real-world scenario! Not a good test!

This “test,” therefore, failed to show what the topdogs could really do.

I thought pointing this out would add some insight to the test, and help those studying the footage understand why the results were nothing like what was expected.

I liked the concept of the test, but in my opinion it backfired. The footage with the greyest table lamp shades are some of the prettiest – showing that hard work in lighting is a definite asset to production – but we already know that!

Showing up with an F65 and doing nothing isn’t realistic. Is it Gary? Is it Jeremy? Is it anyone else?
So why did they do it?
It’s as if a rich guy showed up with ADD – read that part again – it’s AS IF a rich guy (read, uncommitted – has access to gear because it’s easy, not because it’s a calculated decision/risk) showed up with his toy (F65) and shot without any focus on beauty (ADD).

And let me carefully restate that I’m not saying the topdog operators were bad or uncommitted or suffering from ADD. I haven’t implied it. I haven’t thought it. I have nothing but respect for all of them. Rather, I’m trying to explain why they did what they did. They went out to prove what the worst-case scenario their cameras could handle – while competing with underdogs who were doing everything they could to flatten out the scene to make it easier for their cameras to handle. And according to quite a few reports, some of the underdogs did better than the topdogs. The previous post was intended to explain how this can happen.

So, I didn’t think the test was realistic, because not everyone was shooting as if they were on a production but in a shootout.

Do you get what I’m saying?

Obviously there’s been a failure to communicate.
I’ll bet I still failed.

Come back to this post, once it’s revealed which cameras were which, and maybe you’ll see why I wrote what I wrote.

Or not.

[Glen Hurd]

I’ve been following it, too. I thought it would be fun to try and decipher which camera was which, based on the lighting changes that they reveal for each camera. The more I studied each shot – watching the shadows on the coffee-table legs, the brightness of the table lamp shade’s glow (a constant value in each scene), the amount of highlight detail in the “exterior” and the lighting ratio on the girl’s arm/face (at the end of the shot), it made me wonder if the results aren’t more about psychology than dynamic range.

Let me explain.

You have cameras ranging in price from $100 to $65,000.
So I ask you – if you have the $100 or $700 or $3,000 camera, are you going to want to add lights or do nothing?
Likely, you’ll want to add lights! Why? You’re the underdog trying to make your little POS compete with the big boys. (One cinematographer spent 1:24 hours setting up additional lights, and then used 27 layers in a BaseLight grade that lasted 1.5 hours on a 30 sec clip. That mentality is one of doing your best to catch up.)

Now, if you have the $65,000 camera (naked) what’s your motivation? Anyone can add lights – whoop-de-doo.
Likely, you’re there to prove how much this camera kicks a$$, so you add no lights (which is what happened with the Sony F65.) Confident that you will still capture every detail without lifting even your pinkie, you pass on the lighting changes. I mean, this is a “shootout,” and it’s time to stomp that iPhone into the dirt. So you log 0 hours on lights, use 4 layers of BaseLight correction – only 1/2 hour in session – and head out to celebrate the time you saved.

So, while all cinematographers are given creative freedom here, I think basic psychology intervenes and biases this test toward – the weaker cameras! Counterintuitive? Yes.

So take a look at the footage.
We can tell which cameras have the greatest dynamic range by studying the constants.
The background reads f/22, and the table lamp shade reads f/8. That’s 3 stops difference. If a camera had 3 stops dynamic range, the background would be white and the table lamp shade would be black. If a camera has 6 stops dynamic range, the lamp shade would be grey. You see where I’m going with this.

So I’m studying how much “glow” I see in the table lamp and how much highlight detail I’m maintaining in the “exterior.” The brighter the lamp glow – while retaining exterior details – the greater the range of the camera (regardless of other lighting changes).
This achievement goes to shots A and H.
These cameras are likely the ones with the greatest exposure latitude

Are they as pretty as B? In my opinion, no. B is a complete cheat. And it’s the prettiest.

In shot B, the table lamp is practically grey. This is one of the most heavily front-lit shots of them all (if I remember correctly) and probably one of the most pleasing to look at (from a Vimeo perspective, anyway). But what does that mean? If it was the GH2 – with its underdog status (compared to everything in there except the iPhone), I can see the cinematographer pumping light into the scene to make it competitive. (Interesting that the “exterior” is still barely holding highlight detail).

However, the cinematographers running the F65, the Alexa, the F3, and the FS100, apparently wanted to “prove” how much dynamic range their cameras can handle, and added no or few additional lighting changes to the scene at all, and may have ended up with something lacking the saturation and modeled contrast that the weaker cameras enjoyed because their operators were more driven to “catch up.”

So what can I learn from these tests? That if I spend hours massaging something with inferior characteristics, I can compete with wealthier operators who suffer from ADD? Not exactly a real-world scenario, is it?

Great entertainment, though.

[Glen Hurd]

I thought it pointed to a bigger picture. It’s not just doing battle with Google, but the way that battle will open their eyes to new terrain. It’s one thing to build apps that circumvent the need for macro search engines, it’s another to build an entire ecosystem that could end up replacing whole economic systems. Some of the world’s greatest inventions are discovered while doing something else – like fighting. Meanwhile, we sit wondering why Apple’s moves don’t reflect a lot of energy for our camp. The reality is, we’re paddling in canoes and they’re off dreaming about space ships.

[Glen Hurd]

Hmm . . . how about . . . instead of “hackintosh forum” go with a “RDF Refugee” forum, and we’ll develop our own dictionary for discussing anything related to running 10* next to 7 on 12c with anything over 24g.

A thread might start, “I need to jog 2013 Exhuast next to a Concert 6 in one case, with Purpose 8.2.1 and it’s Slope Crest hardware on a 2nd, with full option for bi-boot for LW3D. Need advice on the best flavor of barraCuda – not talking fast trips but a vivid sheet – for each. Going with 2 on the 2nd. And none of that TB infection – don’t need to feed the beast for a slower feast on a grind that’s greased. Capiche?”

Actually, that would be more fun to decode than another Pogue intervention for a company that spends so much effort creating secrecy while trying to bff the surface-skimming-status-seeking “Sages with Solutions” crowd.

footnote:
*That 10 has nothing to do with FCP X (FCP Ten – really? Really?). In fact, to eliminate any possible confusion, FCP X would just have to be banned from said forum . . . as a matter of general decorum and good taste. Let FCP X and the iMac form that perfect union, foretold in other forums and media conventions, such as Bride of Macenstein, EyeMacs without a Face, I Married a Macs Murderer, The Final Cut Sacrifice, and Merlin’s Shop of Double Secret Wonders.

PS. I do enjoy my room next to the kazoo player.

[Glen Hurd]

If a Titan doubles down on secrecy, and nobody even cares, is it really a secret?

[Glen Hurd]

A common approach? You mean there are standards? What standards? You mean people have been doing this before? Were they smart? Does it matter? This is art, after all. I should be able to put up a black screen with a blinking green cursor in one corner, add a voice-over about the apocalypse, and get instant fame, shouldn’t I?
(I just came up with that idea, by the way – what’s your “approach?”)

Celebrate the democratization of one of the most expensive methods of self-expression, and stop whining over your loss of importance in the world. Sure, once you were a virtuoso violinist, celebrated by millionaires and billionaires for your artful representation of their messages to the world. But now . . . well, now you’ve been joined by 1 billion other editors, filling the earth with their own messages to the world.

“Down with the 1%!”
“Up with the 1%!”
“Here’s how to join the 1%!”
“Why you should love the 33-66%!”

It’s all very meaningful and exciting.

My son watches hours of video-game replays with voice-over – everyday. DayZ, COD, Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress, MineCraft, etc. That’s as entertaining to him as Gilligan’s Island was for me when I was 10. $100,000’s spent advertising with content that takes less time to assemble than it does to play the game.

It’s a new world, Aindreas. They don’t need you any more. No need for writers – we can all text. No need for cameramen – everyone’s got an iPhone. No need for directors – photographers can yell “action.” Actors don’t need to act – with enough takes we just get lucky. Lights are increasingly unnecessary, and editing is really a simple process of just killing the boring stuff. I mean, if the footage beats another lolcat video, yu’re goldn dewd.
Just . . . whatever you do, don’t lose sync. ‘Cause that’s not professional.

Tape is dead. TV is dead. Hollywood is almost dead. Facebook and the MacPro could be dead. If you feel like your “common approach” is dead . . . well, you’re catching on.

I know you suffer from some psychological trauma at being reduced to just another hand-in-the-air clamoring for attention. Grow up, Aindreas. It’s a new world, and no one is listening. So just assemble clips as quick as you can, hit the submit button, and thank God that Apple had the forsight to see all this and make it easier for you to get out the door. What used to take days, can now be completed in 31 minutes. Frankly, if you do take longer, no one’s going to see the difference anyway. You don’t think they’re watching that closely, do you? Sorry to burst your bubble, but I can’t bear to see you struggling over this any longer. It’s like you expect your passion for editing to be respected and understood or something? Just let it go, Aindreas, . . . let it go.

If you want to take up a meaningful art, try the kazoo, in a small white room, with a single window looking out over the grounds. It’ll be a step up.
I’ll be in the next room over, trying my hand at satire.

[Glen Hurd]

As for “the next big thing is always beneath contempt,” let’s not forget the way Jobs said the Segway would be as big a deal as the PC (in spite of his disgust for its overall appearance when he first saw the prototype). Remember the rumors flying before the release of Ginger. It would be awesome, it would be amazing, even an announced cure for cancer (if there was one) would have to wait on the day the Segway was announced. Heck. If the Segway had been announced at NAB, it probably would have disrupted whatever was going on there too. But last I checked, it’s still a somewhat contemptible piece of mall-cop gear, unless you need to play polo, and find horses just a little too complicated and old fashioned.

Most people will recognize that you can make a better living with a truck than with a compact, if you can find the work that needs that truck.

I can imagine, before long, we’ll be editing for laser projectors with holographic projection using content acquired from 3 laser-scanned sources and 6 synced cameras, using computers that can reconstruct geometry and texture the live action in realtime for a 180 degree holographic display.

I doubt the systems used to help assemble that content will be pitched based on your ability to “create on the go.” Whatever that’s for . . .