I dig what you're saying, but one word in there is actually very common, just not in your neck of the woods - "Teff."
Teff is a cereal grain, and a very important one in Africa, specifically in Ethiopia, where it is a common grain in the making of injera, or Ethiopian bread. You can buy teff flour at any natural foods store.
I agree with just about everything this article says. My ideal Zelda starts you off in the middle of a massive GTA sandbox-like Hyrule with no equipment, no direction, and a bunch of monsters closing in on you.
I always thought Will Wright's Spore model could be used in a good Zelda. Like, the game would have no plot, be procedurally generated so that the layout is different with every game you play, and be based more on the experience of the player in a world that never seems to end.
But that Aonuma quote makes me sad. What a small imagination.
My friend Matt who is a sysadmin instituted this rule amongst his family and friends asking for tech support - he refused to give anyone any tech/virus/my computer is really slow support if they were running Internet Explorer (this was like 5 years ago). He needed them to demonstrate at least a basic attention to internet safety and security if they wanted to get his help.
It's not a terrible policy, but what would be the equivalent now? Obviously you don't want to insist that your mom run Linux, but even so.
That's one of the things I loved about the original b&w iPod, the way it used the old System font but still had all sorts of futurist cool. When they went to the iPod Photo/Color and updated the look I was a bit sad. I understood why though.
If it just registers as a BT keyboard it should be android ready.
Also, it's not technically ALL stills. There's one shot of the girl in bed that is actual moving film. There's a very specific thematic reason why Marker did that. The use of still frames vs. moving film and the pacing of those frames tells us how the main character is experiencing time - Somewhere between rewind and fast forward, a series of moments without context or meaning, beautiful on their own. And by extension Marker is saying something about life and time separate from the film, that reality is but a series of moments, and memory, time, moment, and thought are in some way connected. If film captures reality, then still frames might be the most realistic interpretation of time possible.
The whole point of the still frames is that in the film time is a series of moments, and each still frame, especially when he's with the girl, are still moments of time, waves of time flashing over him. That's what makes it such a brilliant movie. The form is part of the theme.
That's what also makes the stills so pretty. They're not posed, they're all little pieces of momentary life happening, wind blowing hair in the face, people speaking mid sentence, mid motion. The French New Wave movement had a belief that film wasn't just about storytelling, it was also about the film medium, and how that medium captures reality. In this case the form of the film defines for the viewer the reality that the main character experiences.
Also, La Jetee has one of the finest musical scores of its time. Just beautiful and bittersweet and heartbreaking.
Thumb Keyboard, a keyboard on Android, does this as well, but you can see the extra buttons. It's not like this is unique to Apple.
If you have to throw down OMF's for post sound outside of FCP then it is definitely not for you. In my line of work (I teach filmmaking to middle schoolers for a nonprofit) we do everything in FCP, from importing to editing to titles to sound. And we export out to a single video file that goes up to Youtube. As an all-in-one solution it is flawless.
As I think about it I wonder. When I worked as a sound editor at Universal Studios (link to my IMDB here: [www.imdb.com] ) our effects editors barely used the OMF. They used a bounced down guide track based on the picture edit, which FCPX is more than capable of doing. Ditto for the music and foley depts. The only people who used the OMF seriously were the asst sound editor to check things like sync, and the dialogue editor (me) for cleaning up production tracks. So if you're only sending out material to be sweetened in post with effects, if you can do all your dialogue levels in FCPX, then you should be good to go. Maybe not ready for Hollywood post workflows but if you're an internal production team for a company and you're recording your own VO or whatever anyway and not using any production sound, it'd be perfect.
Exactly what I was thinking. Including the quote.
Pretty much. I also have a bunch of movie files on my hard drive that I copied to my phone's SD card, then plugged my phone back into my comp, DB sensed them and is uploading them now to give me more space.
Thanks. The gizmodo review by the dude who makes surfing videos is a good reference as well. I think it'll be interesting to see how many people end up adopting FCPX as filmmaking continues to democratize and going through Hollywood becomes increasingly unnecessary. Making your own pro-level videos is getting easier and easier and easier and FCPX is a part of that trend. The question isn't whether Hollywood will adopt it, the question is whether Hollywood will still be relevant enough to catch on after everyone else has adopted it.
If you're working more or less by yourself and exporting from FCPX to a final HD video file for uploading somewhere, then yes, totally, get FCPX. Not only is the render time ridiculously faster, but the new interface really makes it easier and faster to edit. The whole philosophy of the interface is changed in such a way that you can focus on your editing decisions and not on track management and organization.
In addition, while FCPX doesn't support some types of legacy video, it does support newer DSLR-based video types that FCP7 used to hate. So I guess instead of having to redigitize your DSLR footage you now have to redigitize your old legacy tapes (it plays fine with DVCAM and MiniDV though). If you're shooting on a DSLR FCPX is a huge plus for you.
I edit on FCPX now, and while I don't do pro work, I know what pro work looks like (I'm a hollywood refugee) and I used to rock FCP7 really hard. But I can't go back anymore. FCP7 feels quaint and crufty now. FCPX feels light, clean, easy to use, and fun. I can put rough assemblies together in no time. Fine tuning is easy and fast. The interface, while it looks like iMovie, is most definitely not iMovie-esque.
Sound editing is a total pain, I'm sure, because FCPX does away with conventional audio tracking and I bet those OMFs look completely stupid when they go into Pro Tools. Title design is also a problem. But if you're not in that market - and no matter what Hollywood pros tell you there IS A MARKET of professionals outside of the HWood system who don't need all of Hollywood's tools - and you're finishing to an internet distribution situation, FCPX could be a big improvement for you. It was for me, and I was initially skeptical.
So my answer is nuanced. It doesn't outright suck. But it's not fully there if you need the things FCP7 provides the pros, like OMF support. It is, however, very exciting for those of us who have self-contained workflows that require quick turnaround and easy HD-level online distribution. It's not iMovie X or iMovie Pro or whatever. That undercuts a lot of what they've done here that's valuable.
They said the same thing about digital projection, 35 mm film cameras and analog mixing consoles at various points. What I think Apple is doing is projecting way ahead into the future, when tapeless workflows are the norm, when data storage is ubiquitous and when the definition of a "pro" is a lot murkier and not necessarily based in Hollywood. Instead of helping HWood get better tech, Apple is empowering everyone outside of HWood to embrace new tools, hopefully to the point where the HWood workflow is no longer necessary for a "pro" level of filmmaking.
That's sort of how digital video got its in. It worked for hobbyists and amateur filmmakers and eventually someone made a successful feature with it. On DV even! Remember those awful DV-to-film indie movies? Then a few 24p cameras showed up, then a few more, then HD cameras, and now we have the Red and DSLRS and suddenly you don't need a Panavision 35mm rig to make a movie that looks like something out of Hollywood. Hollywood resisted that change, but it came to them from the bottom up. Perhaps something similar will happen with FCPX.
It's not necessarily a "consumer toy," there are plenty of pro-level filmmakers and editors out there who aren't working in a Hollywood ecosystem who could make use of it. Not everyone needs to work with tape, not everyone needs to drive a console or sync timecode with a million other devices.
That is to say, iMovie is a consumer toy. FCP7 is a pro solution. FCPX is currently somewhere in between.
I don't think it ever sucked that badly. I used to be a pro sound editor before I left LA, and I could see the problems with FCPX being unable to export to an OMF for Pro Tools. As a truly pro solution it was not tenable. I'm not sure if that's still the case now, but it really was impossible to use in a real pro setting. Plus the whole thing where you work from tape.
Now I teach filmmaking to middle schoolers - we shoot on a DSLR (which FCP7 had a terrible time with, you had to use a 3rd party program to transcode the video into something FCP7 would like). Footage imports from our DLSR straight into FCPX with no problems, runs flawlessly. The editing process is faster, cleaner, and easier. The exporting and rendering is at least ten times faster. And the entire flow of the program is streamlined and meant to make sure you spend your time actually making creative decisions, not doing a ton of little busywork things to keep your session in sync or whatever. The final exporting is fantastic for me since we export to H.264 and go to YouTube from there, if people need more specific exports they can send to Compressor, but I don't use it.
There are still a lot of flaws. Audio editing could be more robust, and without dedicated audio tracks it can get crowded down there if you have a lot of effects and are editing in FCPX instead of a 3rd party program. I wish there was support for a physical mixer like a HUI. Titles are atrocious. Even simple text cards are a pain in the ass and better done using photoshop and importing the psd file. You can use Motion, but that's a whole other step.
But no, it doesn't suck. For people whose needs are such that they are shooting footage on a modern flash-memory based camera, are editing and finishing in FCPX for digital distribution via the web, it's a FAR superior solution to FCP7. Like by leaps and bounds. It's cut my editing time by 30% at least.
I imagine as the software matures it'll either a) take on a lot of the things pros need or b) those things (like working from tape) will become obsolete. It's decently future-proof in this regard. I think it was released a few years too early, but I wouldn't be surprised if people were using it ten years from now as the standard. Especially if the non-Hollywood filmmakers who don't need massive workflows continue to surge as a creative presence.
I love how their casting people can literally get anyone at this point. It makes sense, considering it really only takes about 20 minutes or so to record a few lines for a cameo. It reminds me of this amazing story about ultra-recluse Thomas Pynchon being on the show: [techland.time.com]
Just don't get one. You can buy a car without one - not a new car, but who wants one of those, the way they lose value? Far better to save 5K and buy a decent car than finance a 20K thing that will saddle you with payments. Homes are more complicated but again, good saving and a large down payment will do most of the work for you.
The myth that you need to borrow to build the capacity to borrow is part of the problem. You don't. ESPECIALLY with a credit card, which is the worst kind of debt to have. This poster is lucky enough to be well-settled after college when most people are drowning in all sorts of debt they can't afford. Best to stay above water and save real money instead of spending borrowed money.
"You're not supposed to give your password out to anyone as adult so teaching that its ok as a teen will make its seem ok in the future."
To add to your thoughtful post, teaching them bad privacy skills is not only bad for them when someone wants to invade their privacy, it's bad for them if they're the one in the position of power. If your parents weren't willing to respect your privacy, what makes anyone think you'll respect someone else's when you're in a position of power over them? It's a breeding ground for unhealthy behaviors from coporate snooping to relationship abuse.
"Of course, if you do that and honestly think "Dad will never check up on me," you're probably only 11 years old..."
...or Dad could keep his promise and validate his kid's trust in him. With the piggy bank method it's on parents to keep their promises not to snoop unless there's an emergency. The problem in your scenario isn't that the kid is naive, the problem is that Dad is lying to him.
