[Roger Van duyn]

For anyone interested in seeing how far HYPE and FEAR can go with medical technologies, just start reading up on all the people suckered in by the Theranos “magic box” to do all the laboratory testing from their itty, bitty special fingerstick sampling device. I’m sure that not all the PhD’s and MD’s that were involved in that scandal were fooled because the MD’s at least, have to do some real laboratory work during their education. The founder of the company was afraid of needles, having all those tubes of blood drawn. Then she and the other main guy at Theranos started hyping a better way. They took in Walgreens, and many venture capitalists along the way.

People want magic. Technology isn’t magic.

The Theranos scandal makes for very interesting reading. I followed it for quite a while. Couldn’t believe how easily people fell for it. I don’t really think robots will ever get to the point they work like magic.

Roger

[Roger Van duyn]

Ron, these quotes from the articles you posted are “marketing spin”. The Newsweek article especially doesn’t mention all the failures the researchers encountered. That would mess up the thrust of the article, to generate buzz for potential investors, which also includes government agencies that dole out the grants, and the news media’s own tendencies to generate fear to increase the number of reads and views (advertising dollars). The companies want to hype their stuff. The media both hypes and generates fear. Anything to get more views and reads.

Researchers market their work and ideas to get the grants and the funding from investors and the government. I spent thirty years in the medical laboratories, and watched the steady increase of automation. NOTHING EVER WORKED AS WELL as claimed in the publications. NOTHING!!!

With every system, the more complex it becomes, the more potential points of failure. Human expertise will always be indispensable to keep technology going. Don’t fall for the HYPE or the FEAR. All of our technology is just about always on the verge of failure, but for the dedicated human beings expending so much effort to keep everything working. Really. Our culture is treating science and technology like it’s some kind of magic to worship. Nothing could be further than the truth. It’s tools. And yes, I’ve always derived great pleasure when the tools my coworkers and I were using worked well. When they went down, and they ALL WENT DOWN from time to time, it was always a nightmare if we didn’t have a backup analyzer ready to go.

Roger

[Roger Van duyn]

It depends upon what you mean by “robots are already doing surgery.” Like Mike said previously, a surgeon is operating the controls of the “robot” that’s making the incisions etc.

It’s much like the guy in the booth controlling the switcher and joystick camera controls while the PTZ cameras film the event. In one sense, the cameras are filming the event. In another, it’s the guy in the booth. It’s the same way with robotic surgery.

Is the robot that’s physically making the incisions etc. doing the surgery, or is the surgeon controlling the robot doing the surgery? The robot isn’t making the decisions. The surgeon is.

Not sure how long it will be, if ever, before AI advances enough to have a completely autonomous device doing surgery all by itself. Driverless cars still have a lot of problems to solve. A surgical robot isn’t like a driverless car. Rather, it’s more like a device that augments the human surgeon. Perhaps that would be a better approach for cars too. Design systems that help the driver drive better.

I don’t like the term Artificial Intelligence. In reality, it’s a simulation of intelligence. It’s still human intelligence designing the algorhithms that the automation follows that appears to be an artificial intelligence in operation. The only creative thought in the field of artificial intelligence still comes from human beings.

But, your overall point is correct. What will all us human beings do without meaningful work? And the pay for meaningful work?

Roger

[Roger Van duyn]

“What type of hard drive…”

No raid. Usually just copy camera card contents to a 7200 rpm sata drive. Occasionally, copy to a USB 3.0 external drive.

Roger

[Roger Van duyn]

I’ve been using AVCHD from my JVC without converting. I just drag and drop the clips. Make sure you set Resolve project settings to same frame rate your clips are in from your camera or you’ll get a message asking if you want to convert…

Longest timeline I’ve had so far is one hour fifty minutes. I’m still pretty new to editing with Resolve. Had been using Avid Media Composer Version 6 on my old 2009 vintage I-7 PC with only 6 gigs of ram.

Although Resolve says it needs 8 gigs, it’s running fine on my old PC. Have had the deliver module time out rendering a couple of times. Seems a recent Windows 10 update screwed with the power settings and had hard drives shutting down after 20 minutes. Changed that windows setting. So far, no more problems.

My old PC renders out the timeline at about 2/3 real time! Much faster than going from Avid QT reference and then importing into Squeeze. Saves me hours and hours.

Again, the AVCHD clips from my JVC just drag and drop. Can’t speak for 4K.

By the way, I’m not using the v15 beta, but using version 14.

Hope this helps.

Roger

[Roger Van duyn]

I don’t deliver the finished video of the depositions on the same day. When I’ve needed to add exhibits such as emails, maps, photos, diagrams etc., I just use my NLE software to do it. I use Avid, but Premiere, FC, Lightworks, Edius all have robust Picture in Picture capabilities. In fact most recent consumer programs do as well. Chances are the NLE you are using will handle it fine.

Of course, most of my depos the witnesses are physicians and they just pick up a model of the spine and point to the area. Ditto the knee.

I haven’t run into a need for any specialized hardware for picture in picture, unless you are streaming the deposition. I haven’t had to do that yet. But I did have a recent depo where the plaintiff attorney questioned the witness over Skype.

Roger

[Roger Van duyn]

Greg,

This is a very high profile case and I’d be mighty uneasy if I were in your shoes. I’d definitely consult my own attorney how to proceed. Right now it’s a civil matter, but the possibility might exist for it to become a criminal matter. As Bob Z. mentioned, I saw John Morgan’s son on TV saying their firm is already involved. I’m sure you’ve already made backups. I’d probably make some more. Wouldn’t want anything to happen to the footage.

Roger

[Roger Van duyn]

Hi Bill,

My experience is similar to what Greg and Todd said. I’ve done them. It’s a very sporadic source of work in my area. I’ve done more actual recordings of funeral services and even streamed one than legacy videos. Way more, in fact.

I’ve done two, “sort of.” One legacy video I’ve done was for a local celebrity (professional athlete whose name you’d recognize) whose father died. The funeral home called me saying he wanted a memorial video where his dad’s friends reminisced about their times together. So, I interviewed about a dozen friends in a side room at the funeral home after the memorial service.

The “sort of” legacy video was an actual memorial service held several months after another local celebrity died. The family arranged a special legacy-memorial service and several hundred people attended. I did a multicam job of the event, but it was a number of friends, family members, and former co-workers individually giving their “speeches” regarding the guy. They set up an endowment, erected a memorial, funded scholarship etc.

These kinds of jobs aren’t really something I feel I can target in my area. Like Greg said, getting clients is the problem. It’s like doing weddings for family members of corporate clients. I do ’em when I can get ’em. Getting them is unpredictable, at least for me.

Roger

[Roger Van duyn]

Hello Jen,

I avoid panning and zooming while the camera is rolling because of the same issues you’ve mentioned. Whenever possible, I pause the camera whenever I reframe. Of course, that’s not possible when shooting a live performance. So, there are two different approaches that have proven helpful to me.

The first approach depends upon having the funds. I always shoot performances with a matched pair of cameras, and I move from camera to camera. That works really well, especially when shooting from a balcony. That way, I can leave both cameras rolling. If the pan, tilt, or zoom looks crappy, I switch to the other camera during the edit. It helps having an editing program that does multicam.

The second approach, that works with even a single camera, is “faux pans, zooms, and tilts.” A lot of people are familiar with the “Ken Burns effect”, where you pan, zoom, etc. across still images in your video edit. But many people don’t realize those same effects can be done on moving video too, depending upon which editing program you use. Many programs have this capability. Some of the professional programs I’ve used that can do this are Avid Media Composer, and even the old discontinued Avid Liquid (formerly Pinnacle Edition). A consumer program I’ve personally used that can do it is Pinnacle Studio, but probably not the basic version.

Other programs that I haven’t used, but KNOW have the capability are Edius, Lightroom, and Adobe Premiere. Several consumer programs advertise having the capability as well. But as consumer programs go, I haven’t used many of them. I do most of my work in Avid Media Composer, with occasional jobs I use Pinnacle Studio when I don’t need all the media management, timecode overlays etc. that Media Composer offer.

So, don’t feel bad about having difficulties with tripod technique. I do too. So I fake those smooth moves, and hide my own not so smooth moves. The main thing I am careful to do is maintain sharp focus while shooting wide. That allows a certain amount of zooming in without sacrificing much image quality.

Hope this helps.

Roger

[Roger Van duyn]

It was a rather small building with a transmitter tower beside it.

I believe this is the link for the station: https://radio-locator.com/info/W274BR-FX

The location link that opens up in Google maps looks right, judging by the other businesses that it shows on the map.

Interesting, the link says the transmitter is only 80 watts, but I’m pretty sure the sign outside said 100,000 watts. There are references to a parent station in Altamonte Springs and at least one other satellite station in Clermont. I have a friend at church who is a service engineer for radio transmission companies. If I remember (the old grey matter ain’t what it used to be…) I’ll try to pick his brain.

Wireless systems are so very convenient for the client, so I always start with them. But there are a number of potential points of failure, so I always have backup available. Sometimes switch to cabled microphones. Other times, have standalone audio recorder strategically placed, depending on the situation. Most of my work is in conference rooms now. Occasionally an auditorium. Not many gigs at construction sites. No more assembling scaffolding to shoot sports either. Too old for that…

Roger