Archive for the 'Technology' Category

A whole lot of TV… in the new

Published
by
Anthony Thompson
on July 6, 2008
in Interesting, Media, Movies, Technology and Television
. Comments

Recently, I’ve been watching a lot of TV shows.  Shows like 30 Rock, Eureka, The Office.  A whole heaping helping of shows that I’ve been told are good, but just haven’t watched for one reason or another.

Turns out that I really like them.  So, I decided that instead of watching them on a TV or getting the DVDs from Netflix, I would just watch them on my HTPC.  The first three seasons of The Office, I watched on Netflix’s Instant Player and the fourth, I watched on Hulu.com.  The first season of 30 Rock, I watched on Netflix and bought and downloaded the second season from Amazon Unbox.  I got the first season of Eureka from Amazon Unbox and am working on it as I type.

So, how many of you are slowly or even quickly moving to an Internet-based television experience?

If you could pay $2 per episode for all of the shows that you watch on a regular basis, would it be more expensive or cheaper than what you are paying now for cable or satellite service?  What would you think about a system like that?  Would HD be a must?  Should HD content be more expensive or the same?

Personally, I would love a system like that and I think that it would be less expensive than what we are paying now for satellite, but truthishly, I haven’t crunched the numbers.  I think that HD content should be the same price as standard def content.  Nowadays, every major TV show is shot in HD and then conformed to the old SD standards, so there isn’t any extra work needed to produce HD.  I think there is just this feeling of “privilege” that is surrounding and staining the true, blu potential of HD content.

Yep, that missing ‘e’ was intentional.  That’s for you, Kody.  ;)

My Passion. The Second Surge.

Published
by
Anthony Thompson
on June 5, 2008
in Media, Movies, Rambling, Technology and future
. Comments

Ok, so that title is a bit… suggestive.  Get over it.

Last night, I attended another meeting of the Independent Film Makers Coalition, aka IFC.  This is the organization that hosted the One Night Stand 10 Hour Film competition.  There was some drama the competition screening and last night seemed to be “talk shit about people behind their back” night.  I wasn’t impressed with the lack of professionalism of many of the IFC Board members.  The guy resigned, let it go.

Anyway, the big piece of awesome I got to hang out with last night was a RED One.  This is a 4K camera.  That means it has an active resolution of 4520 x 2540 pixels.  Compare that to the highest HD signal you can get on your TV at 1920 x 1080.  I think I just saw some of your eyes glaze over.  Here, look at this:

Screen resolution size comparison.

That 4k there?  That is where the RED One sits compared to 1080p.  Look how much bigger that image is, it is absolutely astounding!  I actually got to stand next to this machine and talk to the guy who owns TWO of them.  He is currently in the process of shooting a feature this is about to become the only two RED shoot in the Midwest.  That is just too cool.  He said that just the body runs $17,500 and when you get all the  lenses, power, and storage accessories, you are looking at a total setup camera of around $40,000.  Now, I understand that is a LOT of money, but look at it another way.  Other cameras that aren’t even capable of what the RED can do, run around $250,000.

Then, at NAB this year, RED introduced the RED Scarlet.  A 3k camera that will run around $3,000.  It will include a lot of stuff that will allow it to come out of the box ready.  The Scarlet doesn’t have as big of a sensor in it, but it does have a damn big one.

The RED One has a sensor in it the same size as a piece of Super 35mm film.  That means you get image characteristics that are extremely similar to film.  This is awesome because you get the same depth of field as you are used to with million dollar film cameras and the image quality is astounding.  The monitor that comes as an accessory for the RED One is a little 8″ LCD that outputs 720p.  At screen sizes that small you cannot tell the difference between 720p and the higher resolutions, so it gives you a damn fine example of what your footage looks like.

The guy, Steve Pruet (sp?), is such an amazing guy.  He is shooting and funding a feature out of his own pocket.  He has dropped over $250,000 on just equipment for the project and that includes two RED Ones.  He showed some of his footage last night and even on a standard definition DVD outputted to a crappy projector, the footage was absolutely gorgeous.  The amount of detail capable of a 4k image will just blow your mind.

Really, the thing that is grabbing me is that 3k Scarlet.  Once you are done getting all the accessories for it, you will be out around $7-8,000.  That is NOT at all bad.  That is a similar price to a Canon or Sony HD prosumer camera by itself and those aren’t capable of a 3k image.  The Scarlet will completely change independent film, I have no doubt of that.

I know that I threw a lot of jargon around and many of you are lost.  A 4k image is huge, but when you output your project, you are most likely going to output to a 2k master.  This means that you are throwing away a lot of pixels, but this also means that you can digitally, on a computer, zoom in and not loose and detail.  Taking a 4k image and mastering to 2k gives you so many options when it comes to editing, that you can do things on computer that wouldn’t be able to do in the field.  That is the real beauty of a large image camera like the RED, aside from the crystal clear image and the jaw-dropping depth of field.

Enough film geek for ya?

Sony and Blu-Ray Sittin’ in a Tree

Published
by
Anthony Thompson
on May 15, 2008
in Media, Movies, Technology and future
. Comments

I’m not sure that title joke is actually appropriate seeing as Sony is the parent of Blu-Ray… meh.

So, Sony is sitting pretty with Blu-Ray being the one HD format to rule them all.  Until THIS! (dun-dun-dun)  Pretty much saying that Blu-Ray players aren’t moving and most consumers who didn’t get in during “the war”, still won’t get in on Blu-Ray.  Really, I’m not surprised.  Blu-Ray (BR) players are still up around $300.  DVD didn’t REALLY become popular until you could get a player for around $100.  I think those 35% with HDTVs are waiting for the prices to come down.  Sony or other BR manufacturers, however, don’t feel the need to bring those prices on players or media down because, dammit, they won and they are going to milk this tit as long as they can.

BR is a fantastic format, don’t get me wrong.  I love the crap out of it and my PS3 is a great DVD/BR player.  Though, the interesting thing is that the PS3 is adhering to more of the BR standards than the standalone players are, without being the best BR player available.  You are hard-pressed to find a BD player that supports BD 2.0 or BD Live.  Then when you do, you are looking to shell out $3-400 on it.  Not appetizing when you look at the actual movies running around $35 at BestBuy.  Though, admittedly, if you shop around, you can get new BR discs for close to the same price as new DVDs.

Sony is shooting itself in the foot and bleeding all over the consumer.  They are grossed out and kind of confused.  If the media becomes cheaper, more accessible to the consumer, I think Sony will start putting some gauze on that ugly bullet wound.  BR will eventually explode and replace DVD, but right now the consumer is confused, doesn’t really know the difference between BR and DVD, and is scared off by the high prices of all things BR.  HD specs are full of numbers and letters they never had to deal with before.  1080p through HDMI and all that.  Those of us who can follow and understand the jumble are okay and loving our BR players.

Once prices come down, if they come down, BR will start moving.  The first hurdle for the format is HDTVs.  The second, the format war, which is still scaring consumers for some reason.  The final is price.  Once all three of these are leaped, BR will become a giant and we will look at DVD the same we do VHS now.

Lets not talk about digital downloads.  Let’s suffice to say that the majority of consumers still want to hold a piece of plastic in their hands to show they bought something.  Also, the HD quality on downloads doesn’t come close to that on BR.  That may change, but I think the tangible product will keep winning for several years to come.

I’ve had my piece.  Now, you, Disqus.  Heh.  Reference to the new comment system I re-implemented.

The Future of Television

Published
by
Anthony Thompson
on May 8, 2008
in Computers, Media, Opinion, Technology, Television and future
. Comments

As some of you may know, I am a Broadcasting major at University of Central Missouri in mid-west Missouri.  That’s right, I’m in the mid-west of the Mid-West.  Well, you should also know that I am a geek.  I mean… look at that list of social networks.  What that geekiness really means is, I like the Internet.  I’ve always liked it, but when I started working for Niche Productions, Inc. in Jefferson City, MO, I fell in love with media.  I changed my life around, dropped Computer Engineering at UMR (now Missouri S&T), and moved to Warrensburg to start an undergrad degree in Broadcast Media. Then, I found out there were these things called podcasts.  I love them.  This got me thinking.  A lot of thinking.  Where is this podcasting thing going to go?

This is when I developed my theory of the future of television.  The Internet is becoming such an increasingly important part of our lives.  The content available on the ‘net is astounding.  There is a lot of it.  A LOT.  User generated content, the ability to produce your own series, is more and more available, thanks to sites like YouTube, Vimeo, Viddler, Revver, and the like.  A lot of that content is bad, but also, a lot is good.  Once we start moving to a more ‘net based viewer, I feel that the production values on a lot of shows will skyrocket along with their budgets.  Never before were we at such an opportunity for a Media Revolution.

The future of television?  I think it will have to change or die.  In the next ten years, the current model of television will be gone or at least severely crippled.  We are already seeing this in the structure of a season for many shows.  Viewable media will have changed into something we can’t exactly know, but I do know that it will involve the Internet and be at least somewhat interactive.  The ability to download and watch a show whenever you want.  Sounds a lot like a DVR, I know, but an Internet-based model will not restrict you to time slots.  The show will be sitting there, waiting for you to decide to watch it.

Some of you may be saying, “But I hate watching stuff on my computer monitor.”  I say back to you that you will be watching your content on a television.  Soon, there will be a blurring of monitor and television into the same entity.  You will sit down on your couch, check your email and watch a couple of your favorite shows.  Some of us do this already, but I will admit, the current system is… annoying.  The traditional keyboard/mouse system will have to change into something smaller, compact, capable of controlling several devices at once, and is easy to type and navigate on a computer interface.  Perhaps something like a haptic touch screen universal remote combined with the pointer capability of the Wii Remote.  Something you point at the screen to point and click, but also type on when necessary.

Regardless, the current broadcasting model will change.  I believe that instead of broadcasting shows, we will be receive Internet access.  Maybe not from the broadcasters, but wireless nonetheless.  Gone will be the days of tethered Internet.  Take your notebook or cellphone anywhere and access the web just as if you were at home.  Your computer attached to your TV will use that same wireless connection.  This way, the sets of eyes on your content isn’t restricted to the home, those eyes can be anywhere.  Able to reach anyone, anywhere, whenever they want.  Having access to all eyes all the time is a broadcaster’s dream.

Once we break down the current broadcasting model and broadcasters stop looking at the Internet as a rival, but rather a resource for distribution, we may see a Media Revolution that will take the bubble off Web 2.0 and move us past into waters unknown.

Are we mired in the current broadcast model forever, will there be a change, or will something completely different happen?

Comcast to limit customers

Published
by
Anthony Thompson
on May 7, 2008
in Computers and Technology
. Comments

FriendFeed and SocialThing! are extremely helpful for finding crap that pisses me off.  Dave Winer twittered a story about Comcast considering a transfer cap system.  The system would limit users to 250Gb per month, while as of right now, uploads would remain unaffected.  If you go over your 250Gb, you get charged $15 per 10Gb over.  This would probably mean they will define 10Gb as you go a megabyte over your 250Gb, you get charged $15.  Apparently, Comcast is seriously considering this as they are “currently evaluating this service and pricing model to ensure [they] deliver a great online experience to [their] customers.”

Personally, I think this is bullshit to the highest degree.  I can understand Comcast wanting to limit the amount of data travelling through their system, it can be taxing.  I understand that.  What I don’t understand is the want to go backwards in time.  Transfer limits are a thing of the past.  Other countries do it for broadband, but the US never has.  Nobody likes transfer limits and this move by Comcast harks back to the days of limited “minutes” on a dial-up Internet connection.  Just knowing that you have a monthly limit is going to make a lot of (pardon the term) uneducated people very nervous.  A lot of people don’t know the size of a webpage or a YouTube video.  Granted that a lot of people probably won’t even come close to the 250Gb mark, but what about increasing connection speeds.  If you have a 20Mbps (2.5 megabytes per second) down connection, you want to be able to use it and not worry about how much data you retrieved in a day.  Limiting the amount you can use your connection and increasing the speed of that connection seems counterproductive to me.

No, I certainly don’t agree with this move by Comcast and think it should not go into effect.  Comcast may be overlooking the wants of its customers, not to mention the ability of expanding technology.  Internet-based technology is growing at such a rate that limiting the consumer like Comcast plans, is a couple of steps backward.  Regardless of whether you think Web 2.0 is another growing bubble waiting to pop, moves like transfer limits from Comcast and (undoubtedly eventually) all the other cable companies, will shrink the bubble back to Web 1.0.

Download transfer limits are dead and a thing of the past.  What do you think?

3G Rumors Afloat

Published
by
Anthony Thompson
on April 29, 2008
in Apple, Cell Phones, Opinion and Technology
. Comments

Broken iPhoneSo, I just got home from a harrowing day of tutoring math.  A lot of people.  Ok, so I sit down in my comfy chair and at my trusty PC and start going through Google Reader and my RSS feeds to see what happened since I checked earlier today.

Well.  Apparently AT&T is going to subsidize the cost of the new 3G version of the iPhone down to $199.  I was at first very happy.  I’ve been waiting for the 3G iPhone since its launch several months ago.  I kept telling myself, “Just wait.  3G is gonna blow your mind.  Stick with that crappy HTC 8125 for a while longer and get a good 3G phone.”  In fact, I even got my wife into getting an iPhone.  So, our plan is to get the new 3G iPhones when they are released and all will end in happiness.

Then, I thought about the move AT&T is (pseudo) announcing.  If you sign a new two-year contract, you can take advantage of the new subsidy.  Ok.  Sounds good on paper, but think about it.  What is one of the big things everyone is worried about with the 3G iPhone?  Data transfer.  I read somewhere (and for the life of me, I can’t find out or remember where) that the average data usage on the iPhone is 100MB per month compared to 10MB of usage on average for Blackberry users.  If you bump the transfer speeds to 3G levels (~1.5Mbps), those numbers are going to exponentially skyrocket.

Undoubtedly, AT&T is worried.  They are afraid that their brand-spanking new 3G network will crush and dieAT&T Peeing on iPhone a horrible death under the power of the iPhone and its users.  I don’t blame them.  So, this brings me back again.  Why would they subsidize the iPhone, even if the offer is only for new contracts?  Because they are planning on cutting back the iPhone plans.  I have no proof of this, but it is just a prediction.  I present to you that the 3G iPhone will have no unlimited data option or if it does, it will be in the higher end “business” plans.  They will limit talk time, data, and probably even text messages, but truthishly, I can’t really see that last one, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Why would AT&T cut the iPhone at the knees?  To recoup the loss of cutting around $200 per iPhone.  If you get data-happy iPhoners (iPhoneys?) blowing past their monthly “limit,” you can make a fortune.  Especially on a phone that automatically calls to several places, using data you didn’t actively tell it to.  Naturally, I know that other phones do this too, but I’ve heard the iPhone does it a LOT comparitively, though I could be wrong, not being an iPhone user.  This seems like something a big company like AT&T would do, but it also seems like something that will make a lot of people VERY unhappy.  If this does happen, if we can’t use the 3G data network to our iPhone heart’s content, what is the point?  If we can’t browse and download new apps through the App Store on the 2.0 firmware or do anything we feel like doing on the net, why buy something like the iPhone?  If AT&T is going to kick its iPhone customers in the balls as hard as it kicks its regular customers, I’m not sure I want any part of it.

Maybe it won’t happen and I can get a 3G iPhone and go to town on a sea of free, unlimited data access.

Now.  We wait.

I will keep trying

Published
by
Anthony Thompson
on April 9, 2008
in Opinion, School, Self Realization, Technology and Television
. Comments

On March 14, 2008, I posted something in the Facebook’s UCM Network discussion forums about the lack of technological opportunities on the University of Central Missouri’s campus.  Now, my ideas have evolved since then and I am currently scheduled to meet with a member of the IT department on campus tomorrow.  There I will discuss what new tech-based programs are being implemented or about to be implemented on campus and possible future projects.  Well, the Facebook discussion has gone from blah to blah.  My latest post, I will quote here.

Wifi is great all around campus. However, the Help Desk does not officially support Windows Vista and has no instructions on connecting Vista machines to the wifi network. This I see as a mistake as more students adopt it with newer computers. There is also no support for Windows Mobile devices, a rapidly increasing market share in mobile devices, including cell phones.

Tuition at UCM increased by about 10% over the last financial aid reward year. You are telling me that about another $1200 per student covered installing wifi in the dorms? That comes out to about 10 million extra dollars over the next financial aid reward year. Yes, I realize this is a drastically simplistic POV, presuming all students pay out-of-pocket for tuition. Regardless, where is that money going?

If you can give me a detailed list of where every single dollar is going on this campus, then fine, I will shut my mouth about the piss poor technology opportunities this campus affords its students. Until then, I will keep on trying to get this campus into the 21st century.

To be completely honest, I am surprised at the lack of motivation or desire in this field. I would figure that most of the students would see and embrace new technologies and their possible applications in education.

No matter what your degree field is, the Internet, converging media, emerging technologies, along with a shrinking world is part of our future. Students at this institution need to realize that so many of the business models that are around today will either be gone or completely changed in our lifetime. Not to mention incoming freshman’s lifetime. It shouldn’t matter how much you pay for tuition, if you are being prepared for the future, you aren’t getting your money’s worth.

My goal is merely to help guide students into a changing and evolving world. If my fellow student doesn’t want that, I’m going to keep trying anyway.

I will NOT get discouraged.  For the love of god, I can’t.  This is IMPORTANT.  I just know it is.  I refuse to accept the fact that I am going to an institution that lulls its students into a false sense of security that things aren’t changing because they pay a low tuition rate.  There have to be other students on campus that feel the same way.  There has to be students who see the future in much the same way I do.  There are so many changes that are just around the corner and many of the previous education and business models will be completely changed by them.  Students who are there to live and breath on that cusp will come out the other side ready and more willing to embrace and understand that change.

My personal degree field is about to be changed forever in a way that so many people aren’t going to see coming until it is too late to do anything about it.  Broadcasting is shifting in such a way that conventional television is look nothing like it once did.  We can already see some of these changes happening.  All of the major networks have their popular programming online.  Hulu.com, YouTube, Vimeo, Viddler, et cetera are just the beginning of a digital revolution.  The turnkey moment is about to happen on February 17, 2009.  The switch to digital over-the-air broadcasts will go down as a defining moment in broadcasting history.  When the change happens, it won’t actually change a whole lot, but at the same time it will and has been changing everything.  Most broadcasters already send out a digital signal as it is, but before the 02/17/09 changeover, the public as a mass whole wasn’t that aware of what was going on.  Now, they are forced to be thrown into the thick of it.  This will, VERY slowly, bring an awareness of change into the mind of the average viewer.  Once this happens, things will change and change in ways that will only be foreseeable to those right there on the edge and ready to jump.

Now, I admit.  I could be wrong.  Conventional businesses could be around for another hundred years without drastically changing.  I could be wasting my efforts and maybe I should be focusing on something more conventional.

I just don’t think so.

Good People Day

Published
by
Anthony Thompson
on April 2, 2008
in Interesting, Media, Social Networking and Technology
. Comments

Starting on April 3, 2008, Gary Vaynerchuk wants to start Good People Day.

Let’s get this started. I don’t know a lot of people, but those good people that I do know who are not on Twitter, Pownce, or Facebook, you guys better be prepared for an awesome shout-out. It is getting done and I am jumping on this train.

Ok

Published
by
Anthony Thompson
on April 1, 2008
in Opinion, School and Technology
. Comments

People, I will beseech you.  You need to do one of two things.

  1. You need to register with Twitter and follow garyvee, OR
  2. You need to subscribe to the RSS feed of garyvaynerchuk.com.

This man is amazing and has been totally motivating me.  Usually, I’m not the kind of person to gush about another human being, but Mr. Vaynerchuk has been cranking out a WL.TV and a GV.com video damn-near every day.  His message is one that, I think, really speaks to a person in the modern world.  Messages like establishing your personal brand and the like.

It is really becoming more and more obvious to me that personal barriers are breaking down and the Internet, social networks, online distribution of media is changing everything.  Perhaps not immediately, but there are a lot of business models that are in trouble and need to either change or die in the next ten to fifteen years.  The music, movie, news, and education industries need to change.  We can’t sit back and watch things flow by us anymore.  We need to be in the thick of it.  At the very least, we need to float along and immerse ourselves in the vast ocean that is the future.  I would rather swim ahead and be at the mouth of the river, but that is for another time.

Some of you may know that I have been trying (slowly and unsuccessfully) to get the neo-Luddites at the University of Central Missouri to listen to some ideas I have to help bring the university into the modern age.  I have many ideas that I would love to share with the university and see them implemented, but it seems that change is something that the faculty and students are afraid of.  A university should be the LAST place afraid of expanding technologically.  I really think that the fear is a result of the past.  That feeling of security that en-wraps you when you have something that works and are too afraid to implement that newer system that works better and provides more options.

Being technologically behind must be true at many other universities and we must do something about it.  University tuition is rising every semester by at least 5 percent, and for what?  I have seen nary a change on campus to warrant such flagrant rape of the student.  If I am going to be paying more for less, then why shouldn’t the campus release a detailed list, every semester, of where that money is going and why it is going there.  I would lay money down that this would make students think twice about just giving their money away to an institution that doesn’t think the ideas of its students is worth a damn.

Then again, perhaps I should try harder.  Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.

I believe I have been kicked

Published
by
Anthony Thompson
on March 21, 2008
in Media, Podcasts, Self Realization and Technology
. Comments

Gary Vaynerchuk has just kicked me in the pants of my brain. Does that make any sense? Nah, but the visualization works, right? Well, watch this video and we shall discuss.

Ok, so what did you think? Not bad, eh? It is a great philosophy if not a little… self-sacrificing? I don’t know. Maybe because I have been so me-centric that I see all of the ways that people could take advantage of you using the 80/20 Rule. Then again, if you do that with most everyone you have a relationship with, it would probably balance itself out. Some would give you back that 20 (maybe less), but others would give back upwards of 80 right back to you. Then you have about an overall 50/50 return on your relationships. Makes sense to my fancy brain.

As I watch/listen to more and more podcasts, my creative side starts yelling at me to do something. Creating and distributing a podcast would be a great experience and I think a fantastic opportunity to really reveal my view on a lot of issues. I’m not talking political-type stuff, but how I feel about video game companies, tech companies, whatever, and their moves into the market. The problem is that my interests lie in so many different areas that condensing them all into one show would be difficult. Then that begs the idea. Should I create a network like TWiT or Revision3? Have many shows that are each about their own little thing? Then if I decide to go ahead and produce a podcast, where do I get the money for bandwidth and production? Though, I could definitely host it on sites like YouTube, Viddler, or Revver until the show gets popular enough (ha) that advertising can pay for the bandwidth for a site.

Then again. Why don’t I just do it? Of course, I need to evaluate why I would be doing this. Am I doing it for me? Just to see if I can? Shouldn’t I be producing a show more for those people who would be watching it than for myself? In that case, what could I give to the internet community? Of course, I would be giving myself to them, but there needs to be more than that. There needs to be something about the show that provides the viewers or listeners with something they either can’t or wouldn’t want to get any where else. Gary is right, the fact that there are people that visit your blog out of the billions of awesome minds, ideas, and content on the web is pretty dope.

If I decide to go into the podcast producing arena, I will need partners. Some of you have already expressed interest in this, but I am getting closer and closer to an actual want and desire to get this project started. Who wants to be on this train?