From the category archives:

Technology & Art

The iPad: Where’s the objectivity?

by Alex on April 3, 2010

in Featured Posts,Technology & Art

Post image for The iPad: Where’s the objectivity?

I came across an article by New York Times’ David Pogue about the polarizing aspect of the iPad.
He writes:

The haters tend to be techies; the fans tend to be regular people.
Therefore, no single write-up can serve both readerships adequately. There’s but one solution: Write separate reviews for these two audiences.
Read the first one if you’re a techie. (How do you know? Take this simple test. Do you use BitTorrent? Do you run Linux? Do you have more e-mail addresses than pants? You’re a techie.)
Read the second review if you’re anyone else.

Besides the fact that this article is stuck in a 1999 cliché of what a “techie” is, my problem with this is Pogue gives a false sense of objectivity (showing both sides of the coin).
The thing is, not only is the so-called “anti” review comprised of just a basic spec list, but the whole article is overwhelmingly biased towards the iPad.
The “pro” review (three times the size of its counterpart), praises the same aspects of the tablet that, well, everyone else seems to praise (regardless of if they’re actually good/relevant/comparable, or not).

As I was reading through the review, it became clear that the author was enamored with the device – and so was the rest of the press corps.
Save for those few “techie” websites, every news outlet raves about the iPad, totally disregarding its many flaws.
Everyone is saying how “revolutionary” is is. And both Newsweek and Time have made iPad their covers.

The problem is that they’re buying their own hype.

Apple declares the product “magical”, and then on the other end the press emphasizes it to the point where you don’t know if some massive brainwash has occurred.

It’s as if people are more than happy to jump on the Apple bandwagon instead of taking a step back, and provide reasonable critical thinking.

The press is duping the public in thinking that a severely limited $500 tablet is better than a versatile $300 computer.
We all know people love to touch their stuff, but come on.
You can’t throw away all your other devices (laptop, home-computer, phone), and just use the iPad (that kinda looks like a clunky iPhoto Frame).

Apple knows their niche and exploited it to the max.

Wall Street Journal’s Walter Mossberg says:

After spending hours and hours with it, I believe this beautiful new touch-screen device from Apple has the potential to change portable computing profoundly, and to challenge the primacy of the laptop.

If I understand this right, a tablet with a 4:3 screen and the same processor as my phone will replace my computer that has ten times the specs and power.
I’m sorry but intuitiveness is not the only thing that should make or break a technological device. Especially one that is positioning itself as a laptop-killer.

Going back to the New York Times article:

The iPad’s killer app, though, is killer apps. Apple says that 150,000 existing iPhone apps run on the iPad.

How are phone apps working on a fake laptop supposed to be a “killer app”?
For that matter, how is a laptop having apps anything new?
Ever heard of something called “software”? You know that your netbook can run programs too, right?
And they’re not limited by the iTunes store.
I can understand why having exclusive apps for the iPhone that no other phone can do might be interesting, but if your laptop-killer can’t even run laptop-level apps (Photoshop?) , you’ve got a problem.

And no, it can’t handle Adobe Flash.
What’s the reasoning? Steve Jobs says it’s “buggy.”
Nice personal vendetta.
Again, I can understand why the iPod Touch might not be able to handle Flash, especially seeing that web-surfing is not its primary component.
On the other hand, the iPad is marketed as a device made for web-surfing. And yet it can’t fully access it.
Steve Jobs called the iPad “the best web experience you’ve ever had,” though why shell out $500+ to only access a tenth of web content?

There’s also no multitasking, or more specifically app concurrency.
This is not hyped to be a one-app device, and yet you cannot run two apps at the same time (despite the size and speed).

Regarding its e-book capabilities, and the fact that the iPad is not an e-Reader, we’ve already covered that part in full detail.
Though I do get annoyed when the iPad’s e-reading function is praised for details like:

When you turn a page, the animated page edge actually follows your finger’s position and speed as it curls, just like a paper page.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that an animation of a page turning was more important than the actual book page.
When you read a book, do you spend much time looking at how cool the page turning is, or more time reading the actual thing?

This ode to the iPad has even reached television, with Modern Family dedicating this week an episode to the device.
I don’t know what is scarier: the fact that an entire storyline was crafted around the iPad, or that Apple didn’t have to pay for it.

Time Magazine’s review does have an interesting point towards its very end:

The iPad shifts the emphasis from creating content to merely absorbing and manipulating it. It mutes you, turns you back into a passive consumer of other people’s masterpieces. In that sense, it’s a step backward.

The iPad is a media consumption device, but it’s too damn limited.

Which brings me to Final Draft.
You’ve probably heard by now that the company is developing an app for the iPad.
The Final Draft app will primarily be designed to make small edits here and there, but I get the feeling that, even with a great screenwriting app, the iPad isn’t comfy enough for script edits.
Typing pages of text on a virtual keyboard? You must be joking. You can’t even write on your lap.
Except for short e-mails or messages, not much will be able to be done it feels like.
I’m still waiting to see how this one plays out though.

I think Engadget’s Ross Miller nailed it when he described the iPad as:

A jack of some trades, a master of none.

The press felt bummed out they didn’t call the iPod or the iPhone as the game-changer they were, so this time around they’re all too keen to declare the iPad as the greatest gadget that ever was.
I’m not saying the iPad will bomb (it probably won’t), I’m just expecting a little more neutrality from a medium that is supposed to be unbiased and shouldn’t get “all tingly inside” when reporting about a flawed device.

And as for why ABC and CBS putting their TV shows on the iPad for free is a dangerous thing, that’s a story for another time.


Email This Post Print This Post

1 comment

The Future of eBook Readers

by Alex on March 28, 2010

in Featured Posts,Technology & Art

Post image for The Future of eBook Readers

Today I went to the 2010 French Book Fair in Paris which usually has great debates dedicated to new problems relating to e-publishing and eBooks.
This year was no exception with an incredible array of talks on the future of publishing (one even about Augmented Reality).
I went to a few, though the one that caught my eye and found most interesting was the last:
E-Readers, where are we now?
The panel was comprised of Jacques Angelé (Nemoptic Vice-President), Pierre Geslot (Head of E-paper and Digitization projects at Orange), Alex Henzen (R&D Vice-President at iRex Technologies), and Anthony Slack (Commercial Development Vice-President at Liquavista).
As you’d expect, it was mainly about the future of e-Readers, and as a matter of fact, not only were we able to see with our very eyes amazing prototypes (pictures below), but a couple of announcements were made.
I will go over what was discussed in a minute, but first, let’s check up on some basics.

What is not an eBook E-Reader?
I’m sorry to break it to you, but first and foremost, the iPad, and all other tablets of its kind, are not e-Readers (more on that later).
Neither is your iPhone for that matter.
If they were, then your current computer, or even your TV, would be considered eBook Readers.
The truth is they do not contain the one key component to it all: e-paper.

What is e-paper?
As the name implies, it’s basically a display imitating to the fullest and ordinary piece of paper (with ink).
That also means it does not use backlight (unlike, say, LCD/LED screens). Given that, it doesn’t strain the eye.
E-papers actually act like a normal piece of paper, meaning they reflect ambient light.
In addition, once an e-page has been set, it remains static and can’t be changed, simply because it does not at this point need any electricity to sustain (it’s in stasis).
You could set your e-Reader on a specific book page and theoretically leave it like this for months (years?), and it wouldn’t switch off.
This of course sharply contrasts with any other battery-based devices that barely can stand a day without a charge.
The only time a Reader needs electricity is when it needs to change the screen (like when you turn the page), but even then, you’d have to do about two weeks of continuous change for the battery to drain.

It might shock you to learn that not all e-papers are using E Ink (yes, it’s a brand).
Different technologies are used, each with their advantages, and disadvantages.
In fact, although last year it controlled about 90% of all sold e-Readers, it is expected that, by the end of 2011, E Ink will only be carried on 50% of displays.
As for the actual technology involved, I won’t bore you with how this stuff works, as it has been detailed much better elsewhere.


Suffice it to say that E Ink is part of a bigger group named Electrophoretic Display, or EPD. Such displays use charged pigment particles (pixels) that get rearranged based on an electric field: black or white.
The two main problems with E Ink are its response time, and its lack of color.
Ironically, E Ink was originally tested using other bi-colored pigments:

Constant R&D is able to increase each year the E Ink refresh rate by about 30%.
As for the color, that’s a different problem entirely.
iRex’s Hanzen did however announce that colored E Ink would be arriving later this year (albeit at a different company).
For now, it’s not in their priority as colors on E Ink are simply not that efficient at the moment.
At best, you would get a sombre screen, since brightness would be limited. RGB additive color uses a third of the available pixel space, so you would only get a ninth of available brightness for “true white”.
Reflectivity would also be pretty limited.

Nemoptic presented prototypes of its BiNem (Bistable Nematic) Displays (manufacturing starts at around end of 2011):


Display size: 6.1 inches (73 x 107 mm)
Resolution: 300 x 400 x RGBW (QSVGA), 100 ppi
Color depth: From top to bottom, 16 colors, and 32,768 colors (32K for real)
Contrast: 12:1

Perhaps the most promising new tech are what’s called Electrowetting Displays (EWD), represented at the panel by Liquavista.
Like E Ink, it works via electric fields. However, instead of pigment particles, it uses colored oil and water. The liquid therefore becomes wettable.
EWD has been described as “the most versatile,” with multiple use going from reflective applications to transmissive and transflective ones.
The tech can also go from low refresh rates (less than one frame per second) to super-high ones like 200 frames per second!

Liquavista presented three of these EWDs.
One was B&W:


Display size: 6 inches (92 x 123 mm)
Resolution: 800 x 600, 166 ppi
Grey levels: 16
Brightness: 60% higher than standard EPD
Contrast ratio: 2 times higher than standard EPD

The other was color:


Display size: 6 inches (92 x 123 mm)
Resolution: 800 x 600, 166 ppi
Color levels: 4,096; 30% more reflective than standard EPD

They were both announced as being released in Late May/Early June of this year (no price tag yet), and named Liquavista Pebble.

We also did get to see a prototype of a functioning touch-screen colored EWD, with such a high-refresh rate it could do video (let alone be able to handle an iPod Touch-type interface).
Although still a prototype, Liquavista’s Anthony Slack did say the touchscreen could be compatible to both Projected Capacitive Touch (fingers) and Resistive Touch (stylus).
By June, the prototype should achieve at least a 24-bit color depth.
Later this year, manufacturing will be announced, with a release date slated around mid-2011.
The presentation on the touchscreen e-Reader was not unlike the one used here (right-side; the one on the left is Sony’s PRS-600BC).

When talking about the (currently) sole competitor in the color e-Reader market (Fujitsu’s newly-released FLEPia), all the panel guests unanimously bashed the Reader, stating it was “too slow” and had “washed colors.”

The panel then shifted to the iPad, discussing if it was going to be a big e-Reader competitor.
This is when Orange’s Geslot stepped in.
He talked a bit about several focus groups his company had recently made around the iPad.
The tablet had been pitted against major e-Readers (Kindle, Nook, etc.), not for a spec comparison, rather to see which one the various users (of all ages) would feel more comfortable reading books on.
He disclosed the results which were, as he puts it, “surprising.“
The focus groups revealed that two core opposing sides were emerging:
– Half the people loved the idea of a multimedia platform that could also let you read while still being connected (therefore preferring the iPad)
– The other half, in total opposition, considered that reading was sacred and a private journey that shouldn’t be interrupted by ringtones, pop-ups, or IMs (therefore preferring a dedicated e-Reader)
Geslot was keen to point out that the latter group actually wasn’t made up of only seniors but actually youngsters too.

At the end of it all, the panel agreed that there would probably be two kinds of usage that would call for two different devices.
A dedicated e-Reader, that has perfected its sole function, will be preferred for heavy-reading. Multimedia tablets (with or without e-paper), will offer more flexible use than their counterpart, but will only be used for quick reads here and there.

The moderator concluded by asking the guests what they thought an e-Reader will be like in ten years.
One jokingly replied: “I’m betting on a flexible 3-D e-paper display that can play Avatar.“
James Cameron would be so proud.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Post image for The latest about Marvel and DC Movies

The latest about Marvel and DC Movies

by Alex on March 25, 2010

in Entertainment Talk,News,Technology & Art

From the recent weeks, it looks like we’re going to get a Marvel vs. DC movies war in the next few years at the box-office. Development news are quick and can be confusing, so here are all the latest wrapped in a neat little article, along with my two cents.

Red
We start small (franchise-wise) with this an upcoming film based on a limited series created by Warren Ellis and Cully Hamner.
The movie, directed by The Time Traveler’s Wife’s Robert Schwentke and written by Whiteout’s Jon & Erich Hoeber is slated for a an October 22 release.
It stars Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, John Malovickh, Karl Urban, Brian Cox, Richard Dreyfuss, Julian McMahon, James Remar, and Ernest Borgnine.
Now that’s a cast.

Red is the story of Frank Moses (Willis), a former black-ops CIA agent, who is now living a quiet life. That is, until the day a hi-tech assassin shows up intent on killing him. With his identity compromised and the life of the woman he cares for, Sarah (Parker), endangered, Frank reassembles his old team (Freeman, Malkovich and Mirren) in a last ditch effort to survive.

The Losers
Based on Andy Diggle’s comic book series of the same name, the Sylvan White-helmed pic was written by Peter Berg and Zodiac’s James Vanderbilt.
The film comes out next month (April 23), and stars Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Idris Elba and Chris Evans.

Five members of an elite United States Special Forces team are sent into the Bolivian jungle. The men find themselves the target of a betrayal instigated from inside by a powerful enemy known only as Max. Believed to be dead, the group makes plans to even the score when they’re joined by the mysterious Aisha, a beautiful operative with her own agenda.

This sounds like opposite–A-Team.

Moving on to actual DC Entertainment-related movies…

Green Lantern
The Martin Campbell pic has begun shooting with Ryan Reynolds as the lead. Co-stars include Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Mark Strong, Angela Bassett, and Tim Robbins.
The script was written by Everwood/Eli Stone’s Greg Berlanti, as well as comic-book writers Michael Green & Marc Guggenheim. Contact’s Michael Goldenberg subsequently rewrote the draft.
The film will feature Hal Jordan as the main character and Sinestro as the villain. It is expected to come out on June 17, 2011.

The Flash
Apparently, Lantern–writer Greg Berlanti is the leading contender to direct the cinematic adaptation of The Flash, based on a script by Jonny Quest’s Dan Mazeau. Nothing is really known at this point as the script was still being written back in October.

Shazam! (aka Captain Marvel)
You should Google him if you dont know who he is.
Although at one time a hot movie, it has now kind of fallen out of grace altogether.
The whole behind-the-scene fiasco was greatly detailed last year in a blog post by John August.
Bottom line is:

The project [is] dead.
By “dead,” I mean that it won’t be happening. I don’t think it’s on the studio’s radar at all. It may come back in another incarnation, with another writer, but I can say with considerable certainty that it won’t be the version I developed.

Batman 3/The Caped Crusader
Apparently, the Nolan Bros. are setting this Batman movie as the last one in their trilogy.

Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film an great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story. And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story … I’m very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we’ve done with the characters. My brother has come up with some pretty exciting stuff. Unlike the comics, these thing don’t go on forever in film and viewing it as a story with an end is useful. Viewing it as an ending, that sets you very much on the right track about the appropriate conclusion and the essence of what tale we’re telling. And it hearkens back to that priority of trying to find the reality in these fantastic stories. That’s what we do.

Dr. Freeze won’t be part of it, but besides that, as you can expect for a Nolan movie, nothing else is known at this point.

Superman Reboot/The Man of Steel
Again, not much (if anything) is known about what this third reboot will be about, only that David Goyer mused with a Superman idea that Nolan…

…immediately got it, loved it, and thought: That is a way of approaching the story I’ve never seen before that makes it incredibly exciting.
[…]
A lot of people have approached Superman in a lot of different ways. I only know the way that has worked for us that’s what I know how to do.

Translation: Superman will be set in a bleak environment with creepy mindfucks and an omniscient Lex Luthor.
You know what, I’m not really anticipating this one…

A studio has been keen on pursuing Marvel properties: Tom Rothman’s 20th Century Fox.

Wolverine made Fox loads of cash, so what does it mean for the rest of the franchise?

X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2
Probably one of the top priorities for Fox and its comic-related films.
The sequel will start shooting sometime next year and will focus on the Wolverine/Mariko relationship in Japan.
The fighting style will also be different.
Although they’re using the already-written arc by Chris Claremont & Frank Miller, they called in Chris McQuarrie to “tighten the story”.

X-Men Origins: Deadpool
Don’t worry about continuity, the Deadpool in this movie won’t be the same as the idiotic version you saw in Wolverine.
Says X-Men producer Lauren Shuler Donner:

I want to ignore the version of Deadpool that we saw in Wolverine and just start over again. Reboot it. Because this guy talks, obviously, and to muzzle him would be insane.

And for you guys doubting as to whether or not Reynolds will indeed play the lead rest assured that Ryan Reynolds has been for years the driving force behind the Deadpool stand-alone movie.
Donner herself declared:

I don’t see it as a problem that Ryan [Reynolds] is also playing Green Lantern. I mean, look at Harrison Ford — he was in Stars Wars and Indiana Jones at the same time and everyone was fine with that. Green Lantern could not be more different to Wade Wilson.

The writers behind the project are none other than Zombieland’s own Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick.
Contents of the film are still yet to be fully developed:

We’re outlining it pretty seriously right now. We’re in the early stages. We just absolutely adore the character and the comic. And tonally, it’s right up our alley. He’s the unstable, smart-ass, self deprecating guy — and they say write what you know, so [we’re perfect for it].

What is getting me excited about this is the character will definitely have its same comics attributes, including breaking the fourth wall (not something you usually see in a blockbuster-type film).

X-Men Origins: First Class
Who is writing this? Well our good friend Joss Schwartz. You can feel the “young hype vibe” already.
Okay I’m kidding, the writer has changed: it is Street Kings’ Jamie Moss.
Although at first a surething for Bryan Singer, it now looks like he won’t be directing the movie after all.
Reported HitFix:

Fox is actively searching for directors to step in and helm the film, with discussions with at least two other filmmakers as recently as last week.
The filmmakers that they’re approaching now about directing “X-Men: First Class” are good names, guys who either have real experience in the comic book movie medium or who have heavy credibility with fan audiences. Names that would make fanboys happy from the first moment they’re announced.

The studio probably doesn’t want to wait long until it gets this thing going.

X-Men Origins: Magneto
That’s one heck of a movie that’s been on the studio’s backburner for some time.
Problem is that it’s really been too long in the making.
The technology used in X-Men 3 to “de-age” Ian McKellen has a prohibitive cost that would financially block the movie. And casting a younger McKellen is proving more than difficult.
In addition, the Magneto storyline is probably the least of the studio’s concerns at the moment.

Sony is also looking at its own slate…

The Amazing Spider-Man
Well by now you’re probably aware of the whole Sam Raimi debacle.
Marc Webb is currently set to direct a James Vanderbilt-penned adaptation of Spidey.
Yes, it’s another reboot.
What’s more apalling however is that Sony already announced its intention to release the movie in 3-D (on July 3, 2012).
If you’ve been following this blog for some time now, then you know that I’m a 3-D supporter, but only when put to good use and with good reasons.
When a studio forces down your throat a technology even before a single word has been written, this is not art, it’s pure business.

Venom
No real new info at this point on this spin-off, though Topher Grace is still expected to return. The character would be changed to more of an anti-hero, with Carnage as the antagonist.
Seabiscuit’s Gary Ross has been signed to direct a script by Reese & Wernick.

Besides Iron Man 2, the Marvel Studio is behind some of the most anticipated superhero movies in history.

Thor
Okay, bad choice to start us off. It certainly is not the most anticipated movie on this list, though the cast and crew does look pretty good.
Chris Hemsworth has the lead while Tom Hiddleston plays the film’s villain, Loki. Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Jaimie Alexander and Idris Elba are also present.
The movie is currently being directed by Oscar-Nominated Kenneth Branagh (certainly not someone you’d expect for a superhero movie). The script however was made by Poseidon/I Am Legend’s Mark Protosevich.
I somehow don’t see the two of them mixing together…
Who knows how this is going to turn out.
In the meantime, here’s the official description:

The Mighty Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior whose reckless actions reignite an ancient war. Thor is cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as punishment. Once here, Thor learns what it takes to be a true hero when the most dangerous villain of his world sends the darkest forces of Asgard to invade Earth.

The First Avenger: Captain America
The movie will be helmed by Joe Johnston (from Jumanji and Jurassic Park 3 fame) while Chris ‘Human Torch’ Evans was just announced as the one carrying the shield.
Like Lautner in his time, Evans will surely need to bulk-up for the role, and make the sharp contrast between the 98-pound weakling that is (was?) Steve Rogers and the muscular alter ego.
I’m not entirely psyched about the casting, especially since this is a period piece (the movie starts in WW2 and should end with him being frozen in ice and discovered by S.H.I.E.L.D.).

Ant-Man
This one is very uncertain, though Scott Pilgrim’s Edwar Wright & Joe Cornish have already penned the script.

[The movie is] about Henry Pym and Scott Lang, so you actually do a prologue where you see Pym as Ant-Man in action in the 60’s, in sort of “Tales to Astonish” mode basically, and then the contemporary, sort of flash-forward, is Scott Lang’s story, and how he comes to acquire the suit, how he crosses paths with Henry Pym, and then, in an interesting sort of Machiavellian way, teams up with him. So it’s like an interesting thing, like the “Marvel Premiere” one that I read which is Scott Lang’s origin, it’s very brief like a lot of those origin comics are, and in a way, the details that are skipped through in the panels and the kind of thing we’d spend half an hour on.
[…]
Because that character isn’t one of their biggest properties, it’s not like a tentpole deadline. It’s more like me and Kevin Feige saying, ‘Let’s make a really good script.’ We’ve always agreed on that — ‘Lets make a good script that works, that’s all about a great genre film, and that isn’t necessarily relying on anything else.

The Avengers
We finish this round-up with the superhero movie to end them all.
Will Hulk make an appearance (albeit as a baddie)?
One massive thing’s for sure though: Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes/War Machine), Scarlett Johansson (Natalia Romanova/Black Widow), Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Evans (Steve Rogers/Captain America), and Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), will all reprise their role in this über-pic.
Although there are some issues about mixing the techno-world that is Iron Man with Thor’s more supernatural outlook,
Zak Penn finished a few weeks ago a draft. Whether it is finalized is still to be decided, especially given that there is still no director on board (Favreau is only exec producing).
A few other questions have still not found any answers: Will Hawkeye, Wasp, or even Ant-Man, be part of the team? What about Ed Norton reprising his Bruce Banner role?
I’d say yes to all, if only as cameos.

The plan is for Marvel to release one of the Avengers at a time. First Iron Man 2 on May 7, 2010, then Thor on May 6, 2011 followed by Captain American in July of the same year, and then again in May 2012 with The Avengers.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Post image for Put down the remote (Emmys 2009)

Put down the remote (Emmys 2009)

by Alex on September 21, 2009

in Entertainment Talk,TV Analysis,Technology & Art

The Emmys still fail.
There, I said it.
Despite Neil Patrick Harris doing an incredible job (obviously way superior to last year’s abysmal opening), most of the results did suck.

Obviously, there were no major surprises regarding who won the major awards.
Overhyped much?

On a completely random subject, I was surprised to see Elisabeth Moss kissing Fred Armisen.

Turns out, they’re engaged.
(Yeah, I’m not one to peruse the E! Online pages)

And was that a dig from Glenn Close at the poor writing from Damages’ Second Season?
Said Close:

I wanna begin by thanking Todd, Glenn and Daniel for giving me, probably, maybe, the character of my lifetime — depending on what they do this season. (awkward laugh)

Anyways, Little Dorrit garnered the most Emmy wins of the night with a total of seven, closely followed by Grey Gardens.
I was pretty disappointed that Generation Kill didn’t win best mini-series. Poor Flight of the Conchords never had a chance either.
30 Rock is at five, one more than…Pushing Daisies, the second TV show on the list!
Kristin Chenoweth winning was both surprising and well-deserved.
HBO dominated the Emmys with 21 awards (NBC comes in second with 16, ABC third with 11, and FOX fifth with 10).

It’s funny seeing how the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences categorizes the web-based wins.
For instance, the network (yes) for Dr. Horrible Sing-Along Blog (which won “Outstanding Special Class – Short-Format Live-Action Entertainment Program”) is actually drhorrible.com.
For you Lost fans out there, in case you didn’t know, the show did win something else: “Outstanding Creative Achievement in Interactive Media (Fiction)”, thanks to the latest Dharma Initiative ARG.
As you might have guessed, the same thing applies here; dharmawantsyou.com is listed instead of ABC or some other studio.
Ironically, this was the worst received of all Lost ARGs.
That, and the website is now dead.

Even the NBC web-based content (such as The Late Night with Jimmy Fallon Digital Experience) is not filed under NBC but NBC.com.
It’s certainly an interesting shift to note, especially given the fact that this year’s broadcast seemed to be under the theme of network failure.

Moving on to the other wins, I was very happy for both Bryan Cranston and Michael Emerson and was even more ecstatic to see Kristin Chenoweth win.
Cherry Jones is a great actress but her 24 material was pretty weak compared to the extraordinary In Treatment.
Sadly, Colbert didn’t win anything. I’m awaiting the fallout next Tuesday.
There was a bit of an emphasis this year on Battlestar Galactica (probably since it was its last season).
First, a few clips were shown in the “One Year of Drama” section. Pretty late in the game for that, especially given the quality of the final season.
Also, Bear McCreary’s fantastic score for the series was used for the same section.
Pretty neat.

However, perhaps the most talked-about moment from last night’s show was the “surprise” appearance of Dr. Horrible.

Now that was great.

On the polar opposite, we have CBS advertising in the middle of an acceptance speech the In Memoriam!

What the hell?!

Despite this little mishap, and a few skits that bombed (like that “greatest TV fan badly seated” one), these 61st Primetime Emmy Awards were definitely enjoyable, if only for Neil Patrick Harris.
Certainly not for their results though.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Why the hell do you have an iPhone?

by Alex on September 5, 2009

in Featured Posts,Technology & Art

Post image for Why the hell do you have an iPhone?

Nifty, the second post in a row starting with a “why.“
I wonder…

Anyways, this was a provocative question for a provocative post as, today, I will try to challenge some misconceptions about what makes the iPhone so great.

Spoiler alert: it sucks.

The iPhone, like any other Apple product, is extremely expensive. You’re also tied down to that AT&T contract. This amounts to almost a thousand dollars a year.
Don’t you have better things to invest your money in?

It’s sleek, it looks cool, it’s gorgeous, but what does this mean exactly?
A beautifully-carved stick isn’t a knife.
A beautifully-designed iPod isn’t a phone.

And because a picture is worth a thousand words, take a look at the following chart:


3G compatibility wasn’t introduced to the iPhone until earlier last year. Prior to that, it was EDGE-based.
The (literally) 4-year old phone I owned (Samsung Z-500) before my current one (Samsung i900) already had 3G speed, and it’s from 2005, not 2009.
It also had a whole lot of functions that even the current iPhone still does not have as you can see in the chart, including video call capability thanks to a second camera situated on the front of the mobile phone.

All of this begs the question:
With such a hefty price tag and such low technological assets tied to it, why do you have an iPhone?

The first answer that pops into your mind will probably be linked to its incredible touchscreen.
Granted, it’s hands-down one of the best currently on the market. That said, its only superiority to other touchscreen phones is the multi-touch function. And not for long. The Palm Pre for instance already has multi-touch technology.
Also, think about it, are you really using actual multi-touch rather than standard touchscreen on a day-to-day basis? Double-tapping is more widely used for Web surfing or Google Maps. And I think that the primary appeal of the multi-touch technology when it was introduced, because it was so brand new, was that it’s cool to “show off.” But now that everyone has either seen, touched, or owns an iPhone, it’s getting pretty old.
There’s also the fact that the screen is far from the only thing that matters in a phone, especially on a smartphone.

And with that, let’s see what other important features you might need.
I’ll try not being too technical.

First, the hardware.
Save for the screen, it’s almost a decade old.

The iPhone camera is extremely limited with only 3 Megapixels (today’s phones can easily attain the 8MP).
Also, you couldn’t even make videos with the iPhone until a few months ago!
I mean, come on, even the most basic camera phones can do that but you’re telling me that for a few hundred dollars more I must have less?

As stated above, another 3G advancement was the ability to make video calls via a mobile phone.
Problem is, you need a camera at the front of your handheld device (let alone it having a decent quality). This little bonus has now widely spread throughout the smartphone landscape.
Not to the iPhone though.

You don’t really own the phone either, certainly not its hardware since you can’t do anything with it.
Try changing the battery.
Sorry, you can’t, the back is sealed shut.
Oops?

Now on to the software.

Regarding the iPhone’s, it’s also pretty weak.
Customizability is virtually nonexistent compared to its competitors, starting with the most used feature on there, web browsing.
Safari is far from being the best mobile browser. I suggest you compare it to one of the many others available such as Opera Mobile.
That’s right, I said “one of the many,” as elsewhere you can select which one you want to use.
You can’t pick and choose on the iPhone. And Safari can’t even handle Flash content. Sorry about that.

Hey, but good news, MMS is finally coming to the iPhone later this month!
Oh, but wait, it will only be available to 3G users.

Technically, this is only a software limitation, not a hardware problem. An EDGE phone can send an MMS given the opportunity. It just takes two lines of code to fix this (hell, there even have been several apps allowing MMS available for months).
Yet this seems to be way too complicated for Apple.
I wonder why.

It would take way too long to list all the basic functions lacking.
What’s more revolting is that the iPhone is considered by many as a “smartphone,” similar to a Blackberry. More and more businesses have actually started using the iPhone. And yet, there’s so much missing.
You can’t even do data tethering (use your phone as a modem for your laptop)!
A phone from the last decade could do it, why not one introduced only three months ago?

But you can read movies you say?
Did you check if you could read non-MP3/MP4 files, such as DivX AVIs or Lossless FLAC?
The answer is no, you cannot read those on the iPhone (or any iPod for that matter).

Regarding third-party applications, that’s a whole other story.
They were not even officially supported until the release of the second iPhone OS last year!
At the end of the day though, unless you “jailbreak” your iPhone, you’re entirely dependent on Apple’s goodwill via iTunes.
Case in point with Google Voice. Sadly, it’s not coming to the store.

With other phones, like Windows Mobile-based ones, you don’t have to “jailbreak” them since you’re not dependent on the one store to get your apps.
And, unlike with Apple, no one is looking over the developer’s shoulder to check if the app is “good enough” for the phone (read: doesn’t compromise the manufacturer’s evil master plan).
Sure, the World Wide Web is less “cool-looking” than iTunes, and it takes more time to find the perfect app, but they’re usually cheaper, do a better job, and can even be, wait for it, open-source.

The worst part in all of this is that if you look at the iPhone objectively, it doesn’t suit anyone’s needs.
If you’re a professional businessman that can afford such an expensive contract, then in that case you’re better off looking at other, more professional, phones (Blackberry-types).
You might also be a technogeek, and, if you really are one, then chances are you either don’t own an iPhone, or if you do, don’t know what you’re missing.
And in the rare case that you’re an average customer, then, again, go check out the competition.
Compare.

The iPhone is not only overhyped and expensive; it is also very limited and limiting.
Sure, it’s probably the best iPod player there is, but since it’s supposed to be a smartphone, it’s far from being enough.
I suggest you either look into an iPod Touch if you’re only interested in the iPhone’s multimedia capabilities. And if you want a true multi-task phone, go take a look over at some of Sony Ericson’s, or better yet Samsung’s, most recent mobile phones.

Unfortunately though, you’ll have to trade your cool “pinch to zoom out” feature…


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Avatar Day or how I tasted the 3-D revolution

by Alex on August 21, 2009

in Entertainment Talk,Featured Posts,My Life 101,Technology & Art

Post image for Avatar Day or how I tasted the 3-D revolution

I’m just back from seeing the 15-minute preview of James Cameron’s Avatar and one word comes to mind: gorgeous.


Wiggle your big toe!
We were able to see six very intense scenes in 3-D from the movie’s first half.
A quick note regarding the story: I didn’t expect much beforehand so I wasn’t disappointed on that part. It looks like a “green futuristic Pocahontas.“
Nothing more, nothing else.

Yesterday, I said I was going to wait until after Avatar Day to see the 2-D version of the teaser trailer, thinking the teaser would look pale in comparison to the true result. Looks like I was correct.
Indeed, the 2-D version is, dare I say, awful. Too flat, too unrealstic, too CGI. A video-game of sorts, like Crysis but on screen.
However, the 3-D end-product transcends everything you might expect.

Here it is folks: the most immersive movie in History.

Yes, that’s what over 120 years of technology have led up to.
I’ll refer you back to my November post about how “3-D will be introduced in 2009.“
If you think about what all those technological advancements in the entertainment industry were for, the answer is simple: realism.
With the use of sound, color, and now 3-D, mimicking the real was always the main goal of cinema.
And this is real enough, folks.
The CGI is so advanced that its uncanny valley equivalent has been skipped. Sure, we’re not talking about fake-humans here, this is no Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, but the Na’vi skin and eyes are more than convincing. There’s no dead-eye syndrome either.
The movie seems to have completely immersive CGI aesthetics that perfectly blend in with the raw footage. Though you can obviously guess what was added (answer: everything non-human), it is still extremely realistic.
The night scenes are absolutely amazing, same goes for the fauna. Colors were vivid, despite the use of darkening glasses.

I might seem overly enthusiastic about the movie but I had two problems with the footage (hey, there had to be some):
The first scene we got to see was one only involving humans, and presented to us the world we were about to enter. As the camera was dollying in, the depth of field created by the 3-D camera felt too…forced. It was almost problematic. Basically, it looked to me like the technology seems to work great with CGI-based sceneries and scenes with some human/CGI interaction (like above), but seemingly not that well with “semi-raw” footage (or rather scenes only involving human interaction in normal surroundings).
Given that about 40% of the movie should be live-action, I’m still waiting to make up my mind regarding Cameron’s use of 3-D in non-VFX scenes.
Probably the main disappointment however came from the main action sequence featured in the preview (a chase between Jake Sully and an alien creature through a forest). The camera and editing were way too quick. The scene was almost all a blur. With 3-D, eyesight cannot really adapt to the various depths.
Also another minor quarrel: Given that I saw the preview in Paris, the movie was subtitled (fortunately not dubbed). You might have noticed the use of subtitles yourself during the native Na’vi language as well as its Papyrus font. They were pretty distracting overall. The eye has to deal with the subs in the forefront, plus the whole movie behind with its own depth of field.

Anyway, in case you’re wondering, theatres aren’t being equipped with Avatar-only technology. It’s your standard run-of-the-mill modern 3-D tech, including XpanD glasses (the ones you might have used on Up).


Incidentally, Cameron has just inked a deal with Panasonic to help promote 3-D TV and 3-D Blu-Ray players. The home video business plan for Avatar will be extremely interesting to see…
That said, what separates Avatar from previous movies is its use of the revolutionary Fusion/Reality Camera System 1 developed by James Cameron and Vince Pace allowing groundbreaking stereoscopic imaging.

Remember when I said:

If [typical 2-D movies were meant for 3-D], something huge would have been missing from the first time we laid eyes on them.

Avatar is exactly that.
Seeing the 2-D trailer just shows how great the gap between the two “dimensions” is.
Even on a big screen, I doubt Avatar 2-D would visually work, or at the very least if it would be as immersive as 3-D.
James Cameron clearly revolutionizes 3-D not by the way it is made but by the way it is used.
We’re far from Journey to the Center of the Earth or My Bloody Valentine with their “gimmicky” use of the tech.

We’ll just have to see the 2-hour result on December 18th.


Email This Post Print This Post

1 comment

Interview with CSI:NY’s Hill Harper

by Alex on August 13, 2009

in Featured Posts,Interviews,Technology & Art,Writing

Post image for Interview with CSI:NY’s Hill Harper

A month and a half after my interview with CSI:NY’s actor Hill Harper, here it finally is online.
Why would you care you ask?
Well, for one, he talks about online technology, and especially Twitter, in relation to TV and his show. And as you’ll see, the guy loves Twitter.
There’s also that part about the future of TV and how budgets are getting sliced.
And I don’t watch CSI.

Interview conducted on July 2nd
(Thanks to Toutelatele.com)

Can you talk a little about your atypical journey to acting?

Hill Harper (HH): When I went to college, to Brown University, I studied theatre, but I didn’t know if I was going to make a career out of it. I certainly wanted to go to grad school, so I decided to do a joint degree at the Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School. That is where I met President Obama, he and I were classmates. I just really felt at the time that I loved acting, and I loved being an artist. I think all of us come to a realization, maybe sometimes earlier in life, maybe sometimes later in life, that nothing else matters except following your heart. I really do believe that you’ve got to do what you love. That was reinforced when my uncle passed away when I was very young. He was 45 years old, and I was in law school. I realized that in life, nothing’s promised. Too many people I know put off saying I’m going to do this when, etc. And I’m the type of person who said: “you know what, what’s in my heart I’m going to follow.”

How do you feel about your CSI:NY character?

HH: I love that my character, Dr. Sheldon Hawkes, breaks many stereotypes. He’s the most intelligent character on the show. All the other characters have to come to my character for answers. It’s not the typical portrayal of the African American male on television and in the media in general. I like breaking stereotypes.

What do you think of the two other CSI shows?

HH: I think it’s better acted; I’m going to be honest. Not to take anything away from their shows, but I know our actors are the best, in my opinion.

In what ways did CSY:NY succeed in differentiating itself from other shows?

HH: If you look at the stories, they’re unique and interesting, and that starts with your writing. I don’t care how good your actors are, if you don’t have great writing, there’s no way you can have a good show. Really, television is all about the scripts. We’re in a wonderful time right now for American television. I call it the golden age of television. The best TV shows in the world at the moment are coming out of the US. I think that’s all about the cultivation of really good writing talent. They’ve been doing a great job. At the same time, you see the quality of American films decreasing. So it’s interesting in a time where the quality of American television is going up, the quality of American films is going down in comparison to the filmmaking around the world. I really do think the big difference has to do with the writing talent.

A lot of directors, writers, and even some actors, are moving to web-based content. Would you be interested in working on a creatively-strong web-series, even if it would mean a pay cut and reaching only a tenth of your current CSI audience?

HH: A lot of that depends on the content. I’m more of an artist who wants to do great content. If it’s great content, it doesn’t matter. I mean, I do theatre too and that’s a very small audience. That’s only the actual number of people that can actually fit in the actual seats. So, it’s not about reaching. Certainly doing a show like CSI:NY, where we reach millions and millions of people worldwide every week, that’s wonderful. But, it’s still to me about the content.

I know you use Twitter a lot, and we’re seeing a lot of celebrities now using it. What do you think is its primary appeal?

HH: Unlike Facebook and MySpace where it’s just so long, it takes time, Twitter is short-hand. With Twitter, I could literally within 30 seconds, in the middle of this interview, tweet and have responses. That’s the quickness of it. Technology is supposed to enhance your life, not detract it. You can get to a point where you feel chained to Facebook, where you have to go on, read it all. It’s just too much. With Twitter, it’s instantaneous. I’m going to be the first actor that I know of, certainly on my show, that is going to be tweeting from the set. I’m even tweeting live, asking questions to the audience: “Do you want me to wear glasses?”, or, “this is what this scene is about, do you want me to drink coffee?” I’m going to allow the audience to interact. It’s going to be three levels: my character Dr. Hawkes, me, Hill Harper, and the audience relating to both through Twitter. I’m excited about this. I want that feedback worldwide. The audience will feel they have an impact on the show, and when they see the scene, they’re like “I remember when he was tweeting about that!” I’m really interested in using technology in all ways.

Isn’t that becoming too dependent on reaction and feedback though?

HH: I think that you can pick and choose. As an artist, you need your own point of view or you’re not interesting. But we don’t do art in a vacuum. It’s meant to be seen, or else you’re masturbating. There’s always this tension. I have friends that don’t read critics or reviews, because they say, well, if I read the good reviews and I believe them, then I have to believe the bad reviews too. I think that everyone can figure out for themselves how much interaction they can have versus not. Certainly, if it s
tarts taking away from who you are, like if you’re reading reviews and it starts to change your work in a negative way, then stop. If you’re tweeting and you’re having an interaction with your audience, and it starts making yourself too self-conscious, and it’s affecting the way you do things, then stop. I think we can all find our own way. The more people you can welcome in, to who you are and the work you do, and allow them to be part of it in whatever way, can heighten the experience. Because everything that we do, I believe, should cause an experience.

Would you be interested in writing an episode for your show?

HH: The writers are so good at what they do so specifically, and it would just take me so long to write an episode, I wouldn’t be interested in that. I’d be more interested in directing an episode. I may get that opportunity to do it later on this year. I’m hoping to, but it’s very political when it comes to actors directing. Every actor wants to direct an episode and thinks they can, so it’s very political getting the opportunity. This is the last year of my contract, so we’ll see what happens.

How do you see the show’s future?

HH: I would like to stay with CSI and do a couple more seasons. But, you know, Without a Trace just got cancelled. It’s a good example of a top show that they decided was just too expensive to continue. You just don’t know what’s going to happen. The entertainment business is changing very quickly, and I think if you’re smart in the business, you have to think about other things. The days of sitting back on a show, thinking that you’re character is not getting killed off, are over. Just look at how they did the last episode of our fifth season: the entire cast was in a bar and they shot up the entire bar. You don’t know who’s going to live or die. And they’re negotiating with people. The creative and the business side are getting much more linked in a way that I don’t think is necessarily good. It’s a little manipulative. It gets negotiation advantage in a way, but at the same time that’s the reality of the business. Its called show-business not show-art, they have to make money or they can’t produce the show. And if the advertising revenues are dropping, we have to make changes. This year we’re making changes like special effects. I know we’re going to be shooting on HD digital format rather than film for the first time. They’re definitely making certain changes that are going to affect different things. But, at the end of the day, what I think has made CSI:NY so good is the writing. All television begins with the writing, period. We have the best writers in my opinion.

What other projects do you have?

HH: My third book, called The Conversation, is coming out in September. It’s my first book directed towards adults. The previous two were motivational books for teens and this book is about relationships. It’s from a single man’s perspective. It’s going to be interesting to see how it’s received. I purposely push buttons in it. It’s all about the idea of sparking conversation and communication between men and women, hopefully to make for successful relationships. I have a non-profit foundation, the Manifest Your Destiny Foundation, where I give scholarships to low-income young men and women. I also do a lot of speaking around the country, so I’ll continue doing that. The state department has sent me on two missions to speak to young people; they sent me to Italy and to Turkey. All of this because of my relationship with President Obama and because they know what I do with young people. It’s really great. That’s why I love doing a show such as CSI, it has such an international reach that it offers me a platform to speak to young people around the world that I otherwise wouldn’t have. I think that that can be a positive benefit. Any celebrities can use their platform for positive or for not so positive in a way. I personally believe that what’s the use of having a platform if you’re not going to do something good or positive with it.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Page 1 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
...
8
</