Showing posts with label Other. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Other. Show all posts

Saturday, 28 February 2009

A Klingon Challenge

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0f-IzaOUro&hl=en]

When I woke today I had the geekiest urge I’ve had in a long long time. 

In my younger days I’ve been a keen trek fan, and as adulthood and a lack of new series has set in over the last few years that part of me has become much more of a footnote of my overall personality. 
I’m not sure if it’s because of the new upcoming Start Trek film, or because of the later to come games, including the MMORPG Star Trek Online, but I’ve felt that part of my geeche (it’s like a psyche but for geeks) flicker with the spark of fresh life.

My nephew has also apparently taken an instant liking to Star Trek, and has stolen my old Star Trek TNG VHS tapes.  He’s 4… I think, so he’s starting way earlier than me on that but it’s just as well – I saw started watching Star Trek at about 14 and by the time he’s 14 I’m sure we’ll be onto ‘WhiteBeam’ discs or something, which will be like… full surround 3D atmosphere video shizzle or something, and the thought of watching media designed for a flat screen 520 pixels across will seem as odd to him as playing with a flickbook for more than 10 seconds would seem to me.  Ok.. maybe we wont be quite that far from flat media but still…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdSfIZRURPg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1&hl=en]
I’ve also been moving boxes and possessions to the new flat from my rents house and amongst the board games box I chuckled to myself when I saw the ‘Star Trek: The Interactive Video Board Game: A Klingon Challenge’, which is one of those games from the 90’s where you played a VHS tape along side playing the board game and the VHS character would interrupt you at set times and shake it all up. It’s also from the category of ‘So bad it’s funny’ sort of fun, and not only do I own it but I might be guilty of having played it more than once.  With Kai occasionally coming round for the day and a desire to think of a means to occupy him other than slaughtering countless men in various shoot ‘em up games on the x-box, (and he being an excellent excuse to play this shameful game yet another time), I found myself wondering if I could find the video element on YouTube, as I doubt I’ll ever have the means to play a VHS again.

It’s not really on YouTube.  There’s clips but you can’t just play the thing as it needs to be played for the game.  I checked a wider web search and found some torrent sites that claimed in search results to have it but in fact didn’t, and not having any torrent software on my PC I wasn’t sure if I’d be bothered enough to fiddle with all that to get an AVI of the video anyway (which is basically what I’m after), so as a last attempt, I searched for official sites to do with the game (funny how the official sites are the last ditch places I’d go to) to see if other people had shared my desire and complained, resulting in readily available solutions.  Turns out people share my desire but there’s no solutions already available, but I did come across the information that a sequel had always been planned too.  Swap out the VHS with a different one and use the same board and pieces to have a totally different game.  That was always the point of Interactive Video Board games, and I started thinking if they did it on DVD they would have also been able to have interactive selection in the footage like DVD menus (which can be inserted between chapters of video easily enough).  I wondered what the next one would be like, if they’d have an extension to the board that you put on the side, if there were a few new pieces, and what the story might be.  Then I realised, ‘why wonder what it might be?’  I could make one.  Get a small cast together, write a short script and play with the games mechanics a bit.  Any video camera, PC, and video editing software is more than sufficient to produce something of the same quality with which the board game video was made (well… except they had the actual sets to use but… we can do something for that problem with easy to use CGI commonly available to plebes like me in this wonderful age)… I wondered which of my friends would be in on such a project and how we could put it up on a website for anyone with the original board game to use with a download and a few printouts to extend the board with.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atWnjWvF2jg&hl=en&fs=1&hl=en]

Then I looked at the list of things I should have been doing this whole time instead of playing with possible story lines and decided I probably wouldn't have time to see a project of this scale through properly. :-(  And it’d be utterly embarrassingly bad even if we did it I’m sure… still… maybe one day when I have more time and less concern about how cheesy it’d be :)  Until then, I’ll just share the thought with you, and sign off.

Be good,
__
Phil
Read. Comment. Subscribe.

Wednesday, 28 May 2008

Cam-Op

I'm helping a friend cover a gig next week and I'll be operating a camera.  To be honest, I haven't logged that many hours behind a camera in my time.  Lots behind the visual control desk, but not so many on the camera itself - so I'm no expert really.  But I have done it, and having been on control desk often, I do know what shots I'd want to be receiving, so there is some reverse insight.  Would that be outsight..?  Hmmm... well, you know what I mean.

In any case, it's been a while, so I'm trying to refresh my memory on the basics of what I used to tell people who were fresh to cam-op'ing.  While I'm churning it over I may as well share my basic top tips with you all.  These tips have been formed over a few years, mostly from the legends Simon Graham and Matt Smith, with  some... indeed more than I'd like, learnt the hard way from mistakes.

Scene and Positions
Fairly obvious - but make sure there's good camera positions reserved for you, some nice backdrops to use, make sure nothing is in the backdrops you're going to use that shouldn't be, etc etc.  Don't interview someone with the sun behind them, be aware of wind direction on microphones and on the subjects themselves - spend some good time weighing up the setting and the angles well before the event and it will pay of a thousand fold when you come to shoot.

Shot Types
Firstly, let's talk about the basic kinds of shots we use.  When you're on camera, the person mixing the feed in post or live production will be lifting segments from you.  Not everything you point your lens at is going to be used, so you spend your time moving from one 'shot' to another to give the mixer a variety to pick from, taking instruction where possible.  While a shot is live, you tend not to move from it, but many a cam-op have watched the big screens confused as to why their feed is not being used at all - so try to think about what it is you're actually providing and where it fits into a mix of the other cameras on the team.
You might find it helpful to ask yourself how your view fits into one of these categories, and to look at what the mixer already has available.
Long
When mixing, I always liked to have one cam on long.  This is a view that carries little detail - it's an 'audience eye view' if you like, and will likely cover the entire stage or setting of activity.  I sometimes call this the safe shot - because if the closer zoomed cams are missing some sudden and key action, flicking to long will capture it at least in a wide setting.  You can always fade back to a closer cam once the op's on the ground have picked up on the action.  Generally because of the nature of the shot - you only need one long per setting/stage, because it's saying everything there is to be said.
Ambiance
This is a variation on the long - it's just even wider and your subject is not the main subjects of the piece.  In a concert situation, this would be a crowd shot, or extreme long of the stage from the very back of the audience.  There's no detail at all in fact - it's an establishing shot, a super safe shot, and something you should be hardly ever using beyond that.
Mid
Focus on a person or group, capturing their waist to their heads with a little space around them.  This is a nice shot for getting some detail closer than a live audience can make out on the ground, but giving you some margin to follow smoothly should the subject move about.  Especially useful on speakers who pace, sporting events, drama groups.  The majority of shots will tend to be mid shots - it carries with it some context, some subject detail - it's just nicely balanced for the viewer.
Close
So the band's doing that bit of the song where all the instruments have built up to a very loud very intense noisy sound and the singer is about to go into that really long emotional wailing that started as a word but just carries on as an undefined emotional drone and then there's a sustained series of similar effects.  The guy always looks hilarious when he's doing this - like he's constipated or something, and that amuses you and the team, meanwhile the audience and the band think it conveys a depth of emotion or something... point is - we all want to see they guys' face, tightly shot on the big screens so we can see the wrinkles and the sweat beads and everything.  The close is the most detailed, the most intense shot, but if that guy moves the camera will lose him instantly. 
Do use this shot - it's well worth it but don't over use - it will lose potency for the bit in the song you really want it for.  Don't use when they're likely to move a lot, and if they do move out the shot - don't try and follow them - either smoothly zoom out until your range is broad enough enough to catch them in it or stay still, and the mixer will change camera.  Following a moving target on close will just make the audience dizzy.
Craftsman
A very special close up.  Just like the above but specifically this is a close shot not of the subject, but of the subject of the subject.  Using our band example, this is the lead guitarists hand on the strings of the guitar during an impressive solo.  Another example is where we get the name - a craftsmans hands as he's working on a wooden carving. 
Partial/Merged Shots
When in doubt, go to the shots listed above.  But where you are one of several cameras, some more advanced shots might be acquired.  Remember you are one part of several, and where the technology allows, a number of views might be combined to make a more unique effect.  These shots will be sprinkled in amongst stretches of the above basic shots to just keep interest fresh and liven things up periodically.  There's lots to do, but a simple example I often use is to have on person get a mid shot, but hanging the subject to the very left side of the view, leaving loads of empty space on the right.  A second camera should get a close up but only using the right of the screen.  The desk will fade them together with a soft transparency and hey - funky shot.

Bringing it together then...
We start with an ambiance shot, looking down on an old industrial shed like building.  We cut to a view inside the building - a mid shot of the man working a block of wood, perhaps mix in a long shot of the internal of the workshop for better context.  Back to mid, and then fade to a close up of the mans face - see his concentration as the voice over will talk about his years of experience.  As the narrator moves from that to talking of the techniques the man uses, we merge to the shot of the mans hands as he carves, stay for a moment, then back to our mid.  Yes - using that formula alone, over and over, you could produce any program on the BBC's education hour.  And they do.
If you're looking for a homework assignment - try thinking of what merged shot you could use in this little example if you wanted to really shake things up with the education production team.

Head Space
Let's talk about space.  The space is the area of the shot that is not a subject, and getting the right balance of space and subject is what makes the quality.  As the viewer you get engrossed in the subject - so much that your brain filters out the space around them and you don't much notice, but this is where we separate the men from the boys.  It is your job to not let your brain filter it out, and to keep the space in your thoughts.  There some common sense to be had on this whether the subject is a person or an object or whatever, but I'm going to just talk about people subjects because it's what I see wrongly done most often.  
Back and Front
When dealing with people, there should be little to no space that is directly behind the subjects head.  Best illustrated by side shots - the back of the persons head should be close to or touching the frame of the shot, even if this leaves you with more space in front of the subjects head.  If it looks wrong - you need to zoom in a bit, but space in front of a person will look good - you're including a bit of space the person is looking into and that pleases the viewers brain - makes you feel like you yourself have space to occupy - that there's a wider area - less 'squashed up with the subject'.
Top and Bottom
Too much space above and below the subject isn't often helpful.  Again - you need to zoom in a bit if you're in this situation.  Back, top, and bottom space is 'dead space', and I think top space is the easiest to creep in on you.  A small margin might work nicely, but too much and you're making your subject look short and insignificant.  In some cases, you might actually be going for this - perhaps a contrast in a drama, but in general camera work you want to be conscious of top space and try to keep it trim.  Bottom space isn't so bad if it's adding context - the stage floor can provide an interesting angle effect but be critical and conscious of what the space below the subject is doing to your over all picture.

Motion
The word is smooth.  I usually tell green op's if they're on screen, just don't move - it's easier and I'll cut to another view when I want change.  This removes a huge amount of effects though and isn't always possible, so when you move, try and be smooth about it.  Remember the audience isn't controlling the camera - similar to a driver in a car, you don't quite feel how sharp that swerve you just made was because you were expecting it.  The passenger didn't know it was coming, and don't know when you were going to swerve back, and so will have been much more disturbed by it.  Keep the audience in mind and try not to make them sick.
Zooming
Again - smooth.  Zoom at an even pace, and here's a gotcha for any human subject when zooming from mid (waist to head) to close (head) - the centre of a mid shot is the breast plate.  If you zoom, you will be looking at their breasts, so you need to slowly tilt up as you zoom in equal proportion.  Practice this a little to get it smooth because I can't tell you the number of times I've seen a zoom into boobs, then a sharp tilt up to face.

Exceptions
All the above guidelines may well be suspended or deliberately broken to achieve a particular effect.  Perhaps you want jerky zooms in and out to match a crashing sound effect, perhaps you're emphasising that the person is facing the wrong way, or that you are anticipating and event to occur in the top space.  Camera Op'ing is about instinct and intuition more than strict rules, and your director should help guide you in specifics.

Well... hope that's been helpful.  There's tonnes more but this is about all I mention to monkeys who get landed with me.
__
Phil
Read. Comment. Subscribe

Tuesday, 28 November 2006

Blood Brothers

Purple lined velvet capes, a fondness for formal wear and bow ties, Eye-liner, and Super slick hair - And despite all these obvious similarities between gay men and vampires - the National Blood Service in the UK have always given the homosexual community a very wide birth.


The Count


There's a campaign going on to have the blood donor regulations changed, to remove the discrimination of homosexuals and bisexuals. As it stands, in the UK, any man who's engaged in homosexual relations, or any woman who's had sex with a man who has, can not give blood. The reason being, these people are more likely to be HIV positive, which would infect others with the virus.


Italy, South Africa, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Russia and France all used to have the same law, but in each of those countries, the law has been repealed.


But just because other nations think the reasons are invalid, should we believe them and follow suit? As a spokesperson from the NBS (National Blood Service) said:






“We have had these policies in place for many years in order to maximise blood safety. All our blood is tested for HIV but no test is 100 per cent. This isn’t about discrimination, our policies are constantly reviewed to ensure blood supply is maintained and kept safe.”

Is this true? It is the official policy, but that was a policy set a long time ago, when people thought AIDS was a gay disease. Most of us know better now - and because of the intense education in the gay media about HIV & AIDS, the rate of infection in the gay community has been significantly reduced, a trend which has only in recent years followed for heterosexuals as stigma of the disease has dropped too.


Let's take a quick look around the world and examine some stats...

From the US:






Women now account for 43% of all HIV infected people over the age of 15

[1]

In Korea, where AIDS is a serious problem (if it can ever said to be not one at all):






...the reasons for disease contraction were found for 3,222 of all patients. Among them, 1,377 contracted HIV through sexual intercourse with the same sex while 1,801 contracted the disease through heterosexual relations.

[2]

And in the UK:






The number of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK has risen hugely over the last 15 years. In 1999, for the first time, the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses overtook the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men. During 2005, there were 3,839 reports of heterosexually acquired HIV, and a total of 32,361 had been reported by the end of June 2006.

Many of the new diagnoses are in people who probably acquired HIV in other countries. However, the number of infections probably acquired from heterosexual sex within the UK has soared from 180 in 1998 to 521 in 2005.

[3]


Surprised about that last one? The disease is indiscriminate. Anyone can and do carry it, there are many ways to contract it, including just about every form of sexual intimacy.
Many cases of HIV go undiagnosed for a long time, as the disease may not present symptoms and heterosexual men are unlikely to have themselves tested for it without very obvious signs they have it.



To be honest - I don't care much about blood donor laws. I'm not scared of needles but I'm not there greatest fan and if you say I can't give blood selflessly then well... of all the prejudices, I think I'll be ok with that one if you really have to. But it's not about any of that. It comes down to the same thing for me as for the NBS Spokesperson there. It's about HIV, and this law serves to reinforce the inaccurate and dangerous views that 'homosexuality is the cause of AIDS - if you're not gay, you never need worry; if you are, serves you right'. That kind of opinion encourages the persecution of the suffering, and to be blunt, it kills people.



If the law really was made as a protective measure for this very issue, and gay men have vastly reduced their infections by education and responsibility while heterosexuals have not... the law should now flip shouldn't it? Seriously... why are straight men allowed to give blood? In the US - why allow women to give blood? In Korea, should they allow any men to donate? I think I heard a while ago the rate of heterosexual infections had declined also, but even now, the truth is there isn’t much of a difference in percentage, and while the situation was reversed, the lack of change in the law showed that the law was little based on safety. These days, all blood is screened for any problems, and while no test is 100% accurate, they’re not far off, and we run the risk whoevers' blood it is. My blood, specifically, has a much less chance of having any infections than the vast majority of donors - so where's the sense?



There are more quantifiable differences on HIV infection rates between rich and poor, geographical areas, age, sex, and social interests – none of these factors are worried about when taking blood donations because it will all be screened anyway – but if HIV was the concern despite testing, there’s no excuse for ignoring these issues.

In fact, if we're targeting sexual activity in the screening process... and that's not an unreasonable thing to do, there is only one line of questioning we really need, and it's not sexuality. The questions need to be aimed at asking what kind of sex life this person has – is it careful or not? With whom do they have sex? As for the ban on gay men giving blood? It does a lot more harm than good, if any good at all.


We've learnt a lot more about HIV, so let’s bring the laws into the right century, and take effective measures to prevent it's spread. While we're at it, it wouldn't hurt if we all individually learnt a little more about HIV and AIDS, especially at this time as we fast approach World AIDS day. It's time to lift the prejudice of HIV.


To sign the petition on the blood ban, go to: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/bloodban/


To learn more about AIDS and World AIDS day, I'll pass you on to: http://www.worldaidsday.org/
__
Phil


[1] New York Times, 11/98
[2] The Korea Times: Based on data collected by the Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC)
[3] Avert: UK Summary

Wednesday, 15 November 2006

Cartoon Musings


Looking for something to blog

I didn't find anything. So instead, I'll just tell you about that comic. For those people who follow all the links on blogs, to see that bloggers friends blogs, and then click through that bloggers links to see their friends blogs too... and you know who you are - you may find this blog entry little more than a reminder of something you've found already. For the rest of you - let me draw your attention to a link on Carl Baker's Blog, to the 'We Blog Cartoons' site.

They're worth a look - here's a few I found spoke to me:

How bad Weight of the world

Nothing to say