This movie was one I anticipated for some time. I’m a Sci-Fi geek, a movie freak, and a Cameron disciple (ever since Terminator 2). Most important to me today however: seeing whether the world of cinema was about to change forever… or not. My review will *not* be about the story, but about a number of themes it addresses, namely the 3D experience, motion capture, and (some spoilers) it’s environmental message.

First, the 3D experience. I’m afraid I didn’t like it very much from where I was sitting. And that I learned is one of the keys to watching a 3D flick, you have to experience it just right.

A couple of thoughts on the human experience: You have to wear glasses, you have to sit in the right place, and no one can pass the screen to go to the bathroom or else all is destroyed.

• The glasses: there are generally 2 types of glasses used in 3D cinema, active ones with shutter technology, and passive ones, which are just like regular, slightly over-sized sunglasses. I used the latter. Having biked for 30 min. at full speed just to get to the cinema on time (that’s how geeky I am about this), I found that sweat really didn’t agree with these glasses. The cinema provided me with one of those alcohol drenched tissues, but that definitely didn’t last me through the two+ hour movie. For the rest, I found them a little dark and the image without them was a lot clearer, though of course not meant for regular 2D viewing.
• Sitting just right: so I arrived to a packed cinema, meaning that I had to sit bottom-center-right and also that I have to try to see the movie again in a more empty cinema. To me the viewing experience definitely seemed sub-par and I will have to research optimal placement prior to seeing my next 3D movie.
• Other people’s bladders: so a couple of things disrupted the experience: my seating position, the subtitles, and people passing the 3D screen to go to the bathroom. The latter seemed to disrupt the image physically with the light of the entire image actually changing, and my thought is that they must have disrupted the beamer in some way. And while the subtitles seemed to float as much as the rest of the objects (see next paragraphs), they took away from the illusion of staring into a wonderful 3D world at times.

Generally, I think that Avatar should actually be viewed in an IMAX theater, which has a far larger screen and is designed for 3D, and not a regular cinema converted to 3D, which seems to be all the rage these days. And while dubbed movies kind of suck, I think it may be a better choice for people like me residing in a non-English country.

THE BIG QUESTION: So how was the actual 3D? Apart from the qualms I mentioned, actually pretty interesting! A few years ago, I watched Superman Returns at an IMAX, which required me to put and take my 3D glasses on and off as a green or red symbol appeared on screen and that sucked. But for Avatar, I could keep the glasses on all the time.

The 3D itself wasn’t the pop-out kind either, rather it was like you were looking into a window at 3D objects. In one scene, Sam Worthington’s character was exploring the alien jungle and looking at some exquisite flowers and it felt to me like I was standing opposite him looking at the same objects, which was nothing short of amazing!

I liked 3D a lot in slow scenes like this, but fast scenes such as battles were a little harder to follow. Cameron tells one hell of a story though, which drew you into the picture regardless.

Topic 2: Motion capture
The actual revolution that this movie is supposed to herald is the new kind of motion capture used, called performance capture. As far as I understand it, it allows for a few innovations in film making: accurately capturing face movement, having real characters interact realistically with virtual ones, and, for the camera person, seeing in realtime the result of the performance capture through the camera’s viewfinder.

THE BIG QUESTION: did it work? Hell yes!!! You notice it first with the female antagonist, Neytiri played by Zoe Saldaña (I had no idea!), who is completely “performance captured,” and whom you fall in love with within a few minutes. Her face shows an amazing range of emotions, from anger to joy, that demands an emotional response from the viewer. The last time I found myself infatuated with a virtual character was in King Kong, where I felt real sympathy with this fantastical character that Peter Jackson brought to screen.

Topic 3: the environmental message (limited spoilers ahead!)
Yes, one of the strongest themes of this movie was preserving a planet, respecting it’s inhabitants, both plant and creature. It was very powerful, I thought, but some people may consider it as preachy.

The problem with this message is that following it would require us to abandon 99% of our technology and return to a lifestyle more connected with nature and I’m very sceptical that this could ever happen, certainly not in time for this century’s crisis.

What Avatar manages to show is that the human race, through it’s relentless need for progress and profit, will always end up destroying that which exists in order to create something new. Avatar condemns our race to a “dying planet” and it can’t send a sadder message than that.

In Conclusion:
Above all, Avatar is an Action and Sci-Fi flick, and a good one at that, but it also makes you think, which many of Cameron’s movie seem to do. Definitely a re-watch for me, both on the silver and the small screen.

Rating: 7/10

Vincent
(p.s. minus the added formatting and picture just now, this post was written on an iPod Touch, forever dispelling my notion that typing on a touch screen is impossible. It did lead to some typos & grammar errors, mostly caused by it’s 95% useful predictive spelling engine.)

Like

Unlike

I think I’ve just discovered a new hero of mine in the area of blogging. Her name is Penelope Trunk and I really like her writing style as well as the focus of her blog/site/company, called The Brazen Careerist. Previous heroes include Fred Wilson, whom I also like for his style of writing, and, I’m a little ashamed to say, Robert Scoble.

The way that heroism works for me is that I start writing like these people. Scoble has this habit of asking himself questions like “Why do I like Friendfeed? Here’s 120 reasons..” Somewhat banal, when you think about it, because it’s like you’re saying “Why am I so right? Here’s 1 million reasons…” I actually adopted it for a few blog-posts, then I dropped it. Fred Wilson writes essays, shorter than Paul Graham’s (thank god), but still I like the flow of the text. And for a while, I’m sure, I tried to sound like Fred Wilson. And Penelope Trunk just has a very personable style, for lack of a better word.

That’s not to say that I will now try to write like Ms. Trunk, or that I even do it intentionally. Back when I was a kid and tried to write fiction, I always remember that it read like Stephen King, J.R.R. Tolkien, or Isaac Asimov, depending on who I was reading at the time. It wasn’t on purpose, it was more like my brain adopted the writing style more easily than say, if I spent time with an accountant and tried to replicate what he/she did.

I think each of us have brain-patterns that fit a certain craft best and for me it happens to be writing. Which is interesting, because I also read and talk to a lot of entrepreneurs, yet I am not one right now and wondering if I ever will be. Food for thought.

Have you experienced the same thing in your craft? How do you take in information from your heroes, though conversations, reading, observation, interaction, or other means? How effective has it been for you? And is it something that stays with you always or just in the beginning of your life? And, the most important question of them all… Who are Your Heroes?

Vincent

Like

Unlike

It’s funny how our thoughts evolve from one day to the next. Which reminds me that we need to adapt our About page to reflect that a little more, as it’s about 2 years old. My thinking about Always-On Devices comes from a simple pain that I feel when I miss “a moment.” Sometimes I wish that I could… well Andy Warhol in Miraclemen phrases it much better than me.

In Alan Moore’s & Neil Gaiman’s graphic novel, Warhol’s existence is not painted in a very colourful light (pun intended). He has been resurrected as a machine into a society where money no longer plays a role and is very depressed. So his ability to record everything is really not very meaningful to him. Having only read this part of the comic last night, already my sentiments about Always-On are changing towards… and what would it accomplish?

I recently visited an Art Exhibition of independent artists in Maastricht and tested out a little what an Always-On Device would look like to me. I used my camera, a Canon 870 IS, as a recording device, which I held in front of me while walking through the crowd.

I managed to capture the people experiencing an exhibition, a piano player who was adding atmosphere to a room full of art, just hypnotically playing a few notes over and over. What actually intrigued me the most, I captured maybe two dozen miniature sets for the Maastricht Opera house. It was very surreal, the sets which were made out of cardboard and wood mostly, were 3-dimensional, and I was floating with my camera device around it and through it even, capturing it all at angles never deemed possible to me before. As if I was my own film-director.

Of course, apart from the disappointing battery-life on my camera, clearly not designed for video-recording, and the occasionally funny looks that I got, the real challenge is to make that data actionable—a big priority in everything I do. It is a matter of transforming the raw footage into a tight package that can be consumed by others, and the question is really, should this be the responsibility of the creator or of the consumer…?

With us having reached and surpassed the age of the mashup, it makes less and less sense to continue to try and re-invent the wheel, rather delegating that task across far more… interested people (in the area of video-editing at least), of which there is no shortage, as long as the tools and the specific community exists. Clearly, that kind of methodology requires a lax attitude about copyright.

To recap, so that it doesn’t seem like I’m entirely floating in thoughts, an Always-On Device would need:

1. A willing human recorder
2. A recording device designed for capturing experiences
3. A way to process that information into “usable bits”
4. A favourable legal environment
5. And a willing consumer

I’ll leave the question of “do we even want it?” for smarter people than me to decide. In the mean time, I will continue my search for point 2 and 3 on that list (more on this blog, if successful).

Until after Paris,
Vincent

Like

Unlike

As someone entirely new to the world of finance (apart from the theory of course), I get a lot of beginner tasks to do. One of these, I found, has had a dramatic effect on my writing (in the positive sense), and basically consists of transcribing a 40-page legal document from (tree-)paper to Word.

This simple repetitive action of typing I don’t know how many words per minute for several hours a day, along with the entire (for lack of a better word) boringness of the subject-matter, means that, pretty soon, your fingers-muscles become as strong as Arnie in his hay day (picture), allowing you to write up your thoughts that much faster. I imagine a similar effect arises from coding and would think that the coders on this blog would find more time to write.. but hey.

The greater point to all of this is that there are no short-cuts to getting better in any craft, apart from more and more and more practice. There are plenty of books on grammar and how to write a novel, which are probably useful to read in regards to the structure of sentences and longer texts. But in the end, the most pleasurable thing of it all is to not have to spend too much time thinking about where the keys are located on your keyboard and instead be able to focus on the greater point of your writing: what you are trying to say!

Vincent

P.S. One negative thing to add: I don’t particularly think that typing all day is very good for the fingers. Can anyone suggest an RSI-preventative keyboard or is any extensive physical finger-labour bound to end up in walking around with the claw all day?

Like

Unlike

Background: This is an advice that I am giving to someone, who is a traditional artist. She paints and tries to sell her paintings. By writing this down for you, the public, I don’t think I am revealing critical information, in that it is a common sense approach to building a sustainable business. It does not address two critical factors: the intellectual property (which is the art) and the marketing (which comes in part from quality and in other part from choosing the right sales channels).

Here is the situation: I like (her) paintings, but they are very work-intensive. Each painting can take anything from 2 weeks or more to produce and the end-price reflects this as well. In today’s economy, in any economy, this means that there is a segment of the population that will not be able to afford it it. Museums, who display art worth millions, have overcome this problem quite elegantly, by selling posters and postcards of these art-pieces. Countless other art-industries are based on turning a singular piece of art into mass-produced widgets. Similarly, I think it is much more efficient, for more reasons than the work alone, to do something similar for the independent painter. Again, I don’t think this is a trade-secret or anything; the quality of the art and the sales channels are most critical aspects.

In any business, there are two types of cost. These are fixed and variable. Fixed costs are often significant costs and difficult to remove. A workplace is a fixed cost, so is some of the material used to produce a painting. Variable costs are smaller, often more flexible costs, incurred regularly. Paint would be such a cost and you can affect the cost of producing a painting by using different paint. It’s not quite as easy to change the workshop you work in from painting to painting.

Following is the action-plan:

1. Find out what the total fixed and variable costs are for producing a painting and x amount of reproductions (e.g. 100 posters). In other words, list all the costs in a nice Excel-sheet or piece of paper and add them up.
2. Divide the total costs by the number of posters you want to sell. Those are the costs per product.
3. Decide how much you want to charge per poster. If you or the market decides that this price is below your cost, then there is something wrong with your formula and you are making a loss. If, on the other hand, your price is above your costs, you are doing well.
4. Now… find out how you plan to sell the amount of posters you decided on…

Some … pause in that last point because how can a business man or woman really know that these are the sales they will make? My advice is therefore to keep costs as minimal as possible at the start, focussing a lot on developing the actual sales process.

That’s it really! And it reflects how hard it really is to go from having an idea (and preferably also the skill) to a profitable business. From a right-brained creative approach, you have to do some left-brained accounting, and from a product-focussed, perhaps introversive approach, you now have to become outgoing, market-focussed, and sell. Not easy!

As with all big projects, from writing a thesis to climbing a mountain, it’s my opinion and what I have learned so far, that it is always better to break it down into simple steps, see the relationships between different processes, and understand how the whole project is put together.

I always welcome discussion, so if there is an error in my logic somewhere, please, please contribute through a comment!
Vincent

Like

Unlike

This is one the hardest things ever. While I was blogging daily it was easy; you somehow get into this rhythm of pumping out text everyday and, at some point, you’ve hit your groove. Taking my break really made little sense to my brain whatsoever, as day-after-day, I kept on writing draft-after-draft, while I was meant to take a break!!!

Luckily-unluckily I eventually gave that up…

Now, I don’t actually thing there is any great secret to starting up again. It’s going to be a bitch, we all know that, and we can all remember that first workout in the gym / at home, after taking much-too-long-a break. Muscle Ache!!! Which in blogging-terms, translates to brain-ache or have-I written-sh*t-today?-ache. I know that, writing this, I will check back over and over and over again to see if it made any sense.

No, the real secret to starting up again is just… to never stop! Or, to continue like you never stopped and have faith in the imagined fact that someday that brain-ache is going to pass… even if it doesn’t feel like that right now.

See you tomorrow, Tech IT Easians!
Vincent

Like

Unlike

There’s a law in art, which is that to be creative, you must go out and smell the flowers. With that in mind, I’ll take a breather from Tech IT Easy and will look for some adventures that will automatically translate into more and better content… when the time is right.

I hope you enjoyed these last few weeks and until soon, I hope!

Vincent

P.S. I’ll continue to share links and write 140 letter haiku on Twitter.

Like

Unlike

The point of this mini-series is to vocalise some of my thoughts about the creative writing process, which is something I only think about when I write every day, but not when I only write sporadically. I wrote this post last week Thursday, which illustrate its point perfectly. Another key to prolific writing is scheduling & bundling related tasks. Why?

• For one, blogging isn’t a job, and if it is, it usually isn’t a good job. You blog when you find the time.
• Second, bundling similar tasks is easier than interrupting other ones. When I write, I’m “in the zone,” so why not write multiple posts instead of one.
• Three, ideas come and go when they please. I sometimes wake up at 3 a.m. with an idea and just need to write it down. I don’t go, “oh I’ll just write it tomorrow,” because by that time my creative influx has usually gone.
• Four, researching complex posts can be time-intensive and sometimes happens weeks in advance.

Incidentally, a good book to read (part 1) about the idea of getting into the zone, is Neil Fiore’s “The Now Habit.”

On the note of research, I drew the below graphic about a year ago, trying to visualise how I research and write for a blog (in this case, Food ‘n’ Retail). I personally think it only works when you take research very, very seriously (which you should, but which also takes time). And yes, it’s also the way I visualise innovation in firms, very much inspired by portfolio management, which I wrote about before.

Three horizons, obviously, the first being where its all still one big mess which you run into (or which is where you purposefully direct your energy at). Second, comes the processing phase where you’re trying to organise all that raw data into something useful. Third, comes the moment when the world sees your stuff and responds to it. That essentially feeds back into the organisation to produce future goods that are better. In a blogging context, that is the main reason why I value comments so much, though I’m also conflicted about them—a topic for a future post perhaps.

I think I’ve gone a little beyond the intended scope of this post. But it also illustrates that any project, be it prolific writing, or the prolific creation of any kind of art of product, requires some serious planning behind it, i.e. the timing and combining of activities for a consistent outcome.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

Hi ! it’s Cecil here. (A copy of this post is also available on heavy mental)

I’ve been quite upset lately by a few essays from every blogger’s darling : Paul Graham. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any problem with Paul Graham writings about start-up (there or there or there) or Lisp : his background speaks for itself, and one will hardly find any blogger offering more insight regarding these topics.

How art can be good (ouch !)

The problem appears when he leaves his area of expertise. At that point his peremptory voice, fed by his success in IT business, starts to sound a bit annoying. I already have been quite surprised when I read the one about art. Our relationship to art in all its forms has been one of the main subjects of my thoughts for the last 20 years. The bottom line is rather hard to swallow “listen boys and girls, I’ve studied art in Florence and I found out, so I’m gonna tell you How Art Can Be Good and when it just cant“. I really felt uncomfortable about it : the essay was rather childish and narrow-minded, at time to some embarassing extent. Same with philosophy : just by reading the title you dont feel like reading any further.

I was just as uncomfortable reading lies and kids : it reads as if he doesn’t have any, or they just are abstract incarnations of the child concept. Then there is this essay on school and teenage popularity concerns, where basically junior high school is presented as the worst place on earth, and it is compared to prison and, worse, Manhattan society wives .

Paul just jumped the shark with the last one on Cities.

As of this writing, Cambridge seems to be the intellectual capital of the world. I realize that seems a preposterous claim. What makes it true is that it’s more preposterous to claim about anywhere else

Thinking about a intellectual capital of the world is useless. Especially if the conclusion is the place where the author lives. The bits on London or Paris are terribly naïve and missing the point. Whoever is using the word hip for London or art for Paris can only have a vague understanding of what he is talking about. In addition, big blocks of human culture are completely overlooked here : how about Tokyo ? Shanghaï ?

Hackers are not Painters (thanks God!)

So far I didn’t really feel like blogging anything about that since Paul still is referenced on a regular basis on some of my favorite blogs. But the above is just preposterous indeed. So I have been looking around and via Coding Horror I found this brilliant and sooooooooooo funny post on Idle Words about the famous Hackers and Painters essay. Best parts :

To which I’d add, what hackers and painters don’t have in common is everything else. The fatuousness of the parallel becomes obvious if you think for five seconds about what computer programmers and painters actually do. Computer programmers cause a machine to perform a sequence of transformations on electronically stored data. Painters apply colored goo to cloth using animal hairs tied to a stick.

The reason Graham’s essay isn’t entitled “Hackers and Pastry Chefs” is not because there is something that unites painters and programmers into a secret brotherhood, but because Paul Graham likes to cultivate the arty aura that comes from working in the visual arts

Also remark that in painting, many of the women whose pants you are trying to get into aren’t even wearing pants to begin with. Your job as a painter consists of staring at naked women, for as long as you wish, and this day in and day out through the course of a many-decades-long career. Not even rock musicians have been as successful in reducing the process to its fundamental, exhilirating essence.

But after a while, you begin to notice that all the essays are an elaborate set of mirrors set up to reflect different facets of the author, in a big distributed act of participatory narcissism.

Looking into Paul’s ferocious defiance towards school and corporate culture, it is easy to imagine Paul being a rather shy person, who would rather jump in the ocean than being part of anything looking like a team. I believe that his study of Art and Philosophy probably have been for him an attempt to gain back some of the popularity he has not been enjoying as a nerd in junior high school. Whatever the reason behind these choice, it still proves an amazing strive to learn such strict disciplines.

Writing a blog post ranting about something is one thing. Writing essays and coming up with theories engraved in marble is another one.

Great mind drowning

Computer science (including the related business) is a rather young discipline ; as such, a discipline you can embrace within a lifetime. Which is not the case of art and philosophy. I believe this is why his pattern of thoughts fall flat when he tries to tackle these disciplines.

Reason is surely not the main engine behind artistic creation, who, besides, has no functional purpose whatsoever. There is no way you can cover in a comprehensive manner a Philosophy topic, like you would a programming language or an operating system. This is quite embarassing to see Paul’s great mind whenever it comes to produce valuable sense and unwavering reasoning in IT business, drowning like it does in other areas.

Hackers definitely are neither artist nor philosopher. And reading these essays on the topic, I have the feeling this is not such bad news.

Like

Unlike