OC Entertainment

Last week, the Nexus One was announced. The newest Android phone, this one was given to developers and spawned a legion of rumors that Google was set to “revolutionize” the market. They said Google would give the phone away, or offer it without a contract for $200 (or free), or that it would use Google Voice to bypass the carriers completely. I think some of these rumors are things that Google would eventually like to do, but not in ways that we see them now. And not any time soon. Ultimately, most of these rumors fell on their face. Others, we’re still waiting on.

But there’s one that came up that keeps coming up. Every time a new Android phone comes out (as well as the Pre):

It’s going to be an iPhone-killer.

Now, a disclaimer: I am an Android fan. I bought a G1 a few months after it came out and have been with Android since 1.1. I have seen it grow into a stable, usable, and with the coming of 2.1, pretty dang beautiful platform. I love my G1. And I will say, with no hesitation, there will be no “iPhone killer”. Not the Droid, not the Nexus One, not any Android phone. For a few reasons:

Apple Has Mindshare

Simply put, Apple has an incredible fan following. If that sounds like a dig, then you really need to come to terms with your identity as a fanboy. And it’s ok. For the rest of us, it’s actually a testament to the success of Apple’s branding. You see, Apple isn’t a tech company. They’re a religion. Steve Jobs isn’t a CEO, he’s a rock star. And Apple product releases aren’t announcements, they’re concerts. Because Apple knows how to make their products exciting, thrilling, and moreso than anything else, they know how to make their products feel elite.

And for good reason. I like my G1, but the iPhone is a powerful phone. More powerful than mine. And it shook up the mindset of people to believe that maybe their phones could do more. Way more. Buying an iPhone is not a bad decision.

If Apple tried to make such a fuss over their product and didn’t have the goods to deliver, they’d end up looking like….well, like most other companies that hold extravagant events with stages and lasers releasing mediocre products. Apple has the goods and knows exactly how to make you want them. Apple has had an incredibly slow year, what with Snow Leopard introducing mostly invisible updates, and the iPhone 3.0 software consisting primarily of “It’s about time!” new features like MMS and copy and paste. Despite this fact, and flying in the face of Android’s super-accelerated climb, Apple maintains a luxury position in the mindshare of users. This is largely due to marketing and creating an environment of anticipation and excitement among their loyal fans (and to be fair, those fans are loyal for good reason). This is not something Google or any other company is going to break or duplicate any time soon.

An iPhone Killer Is Unnecessary (And Unhelpful)

In the smartphone market right now you have the iPhone, Android, the Palm Pre/Pixi, Symbian, Maemo, Windows Mobile, and Samsung’s upcoming Bada OS. The competition here is fierce, the market is diverse, and there is no sign of this calming down any time soon. Not to mention that smartphones are still a relatively small part of the market. Worldwide, smartphones are (according to analysts) set to reach 37% of all cellphones by 2014. Yes. Two thousand fourteen. Here in the U.S., smartphone marketshare only reached 23% of all handsets sold at the end of the fourth quarter of 2008. While that number is likely higher now, it’s safe to say that there is a huge part of the population that has yet to even consider a smartphone. And while many may never, the field is still ripe for harvesting. Simply put, there is no need to displace the iPhone. There are still plenty of people who don’t have a smartphone. Plenty enough for both camps.

The real issue at hand is whether it will ever be said that anything besides the iPhone is acceptable. Up until recently, you either had an iPhone or you had….something else. Windows Mobile is a comparitively terrible platform. Personally, I’m not sure how Blackberries count as smartphones aside from their email capabilities. And the Palm Pre, while a powerful phone, is simply too closed off. Android (and more to the point, the recent Droid) is the first major competitor. With the backing of a company like Google, Android is solid enough and supported enough to really make waves.

It’s unnecessary to destroy the iPhone. But if Android can convince people that other phones can be just as capable, then suddenly that market gets cracked wide open. Buying a smartphone becomes less about getting an iPhone and more about picking the phone that’s right for you. That’s when competition really heats up. A couple months ago, Apple’s COO said ” people are still just trying to catch up with the first iPhone 2 years ago.” While a little trash talky, this almost implies that Apple is unconcerned with making major advances with their phone. If there’s no challenger, then why does it matter? Android has mostly failed to issue a challenge that’s substantial enough to warrant Apple’s attention. That is, until the Droid. 2010 will likely be the year that we really see things get fierce. And that competition is vastly more important than killing the iPhone. In fact, it almost requires that the iPhone stay in the game.

Strength Through Numbers

In the U.S., Blackberries still hold a significant marketshare, even if their mindshare isn’t that great. Why? Because there are numerous Blackberry phones on each carrier. Blackberry Bold, Blackberry Storm, Blackberry Pearl, Blackberry Curve….the list goes on. You can get a Blackberry without worrying about switching carriers or ETFs like you would with an iPhone (or a Pre). It is a simple hardware upgrade instead of a major carrier switch. Of course, the fact that Blackberries are well-established and common in the business world doesn’t hurt. Still, the barrier to entry is very low.

As of right now, Android has handsets (plural) available on three of the four major carriers (T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint), with one or two rumored to be coming to AT&T by the middle of next year. The options are out there for most people. More than that, there is diversity in the handsets. Want a physical keyboard? Most carriers have one with one of those. Prefer something that’s a little prettier than the standard Android interface? HTC has the Sense interface, and the X10 (one of the rumored AT&T phones) has the positively gorgeous Rachael interface. Options, options, options. Cheap, expensive, basic, beautiful. It’s all there.

And none of them will be iPhone-killing hits. Even the Droid, with it’s major push by Verizon and incredibly capable 2.0 software will not displace the iPhone. The number of units sold by the Droid has often been compared to the Palm Pre which also failed to displace the iPhone. The difference, though, is that the Droid is not the only Android handset. And what’s good for one phone is good for them all.

Not to mention that if there are dozens of Android handsets (and there will be literally plural dozens), why put all your marketing strength behind one handset? There will be flagship Android sets, no doubt. The Droid is one, I think the Nexus One has the potential to be another. But outside the mainstream buzz, there will still be multiple handsets on every major carrier to choose from. No single handset needs to “kill” the iPhone. Android can push ahead by spreading out and diversifying, letting phones like the Droid and the Nexus One take the lead, leaving the Heroes, Erises, and MyTouch3G’s to flesh out their ranks.

In Software, Ubiquity is King

None of the other stuff matters, though, unless the platform can become a household name. When it comes to a software platform, you want ubiquity. You want it everywhere, well-known, well-supported. Java, the cross-platform software wouldn’t mean squat unless all platforms supported it. The iPhone enjoys a large App Store because iPhones (and iPod Touches) are everywhere. If there weren’t literally millions of users out there, the platform wouldn’t be nearly as attractive for app developers (which is part of the Pre’s problem), nor would it enjoy as much brand recognition.

And brand recognition is the prize of ubiquity. People buy Coke not because it tastes better, but because they know it better than Sam’s Choice Cola. And, as Pepsi demonstrates, ubiquity is not a prize that only one can have.

Simply put, more units sold means more developers, more ideas, more innovation. What Google needs to do to make Android successful is get their phones and their platform into as many hands, both consumers and developers, as possible. One option is to make one really killer phone and put all your marketing behind that one phone on one network. Another option is to make a bunch of killer phones for as many networks as you can and divide your marketing among them. Both can still get your name in front of a bunch of people.

But most importantly of all:

We’ve Been Down This Road Before

The year was 1984. Apple computers released the very first Macintosh. This computer was revolutionary in one very astounding way above all the others: you could use a mouse to manipulate overlapping windowed applications. At the time, this was legendary. This was stuff of the future. Who could’ve possible imagined that a box that displays text was capable of doing so much more? Truly, Apple was here to revolutionize the computing industry.

Microsoft released Windows 1.0 in November 1985, nearly two years after the release of the Mac, which was released in January of the previous year. Windows 1.0 was not wildly successful. Nor was Windows 2.0 which was released in October of ‘87. It wasn’t until May of 1990, a full six and a half years after the first Mac was introduced that Windows 3.0 was released and became a booming success and…well, as they say. The rest is history.

I doubt Android will spread as quickly as Windows did. It’s possible, but unlikely. And this is an entirely different market. But the principles stay the same. Tech changes fast. Just a few years ago, the RAZR was the most popular luxury phone. And in fact, it’s still an incredibly popular phone. For some reason. It won’t take much to change the entire cell phone industry. Apple has done a fantastic job of shaking things up on the hardware and software front. There’s some who believe Google may be making efforts to change things on the carrier front. I think in five to ten years the cell phone market will look almost nothing like it does now. And while Apple will be one of the key innovators, it won’t be an Apple World. They simply don’t have the flexibility and freedom of licenses to become anything more than a luxury status phone.

The Short Version (Too Late)

Apple has a hot product on their hands. And they’ve enjoyed a lot of well-earned success for it. And like they did in the 90s, they will survive no matter what the tech industry throws their way. No one will kill Apple, no one will kill the iPhone. There will come a time, I think, when the iPhone is not “the only phone worth buying”. In fact, it has already begun. 2010 will see that idea become common. The Droid is one killer Android phone. The Nexus One is another. And there will be more (like the near-legendary Xperia X10). There’s not going to be a shortage of great Android phones. And any good phone will sell.

But for all the fanboys of any platform, be it Android, WebOS, WinMo, or Symbian: the iPhone’s not going anywhere. And that’s ok.

Dearest Firefox,

I want to start by saying that I have enjoyed the time we’ve spent together. You showed me a web without limits. It started as just tabbed browsing. Back when I was using Internet Explorer (oh, how I was shrouded in darkness when you found me), I would have eight different windows open. You came in and cleaned up my life. You made it simple. You made it clean.

Then, you introduced me to ad blocking software. With your AdBlock Plus plugin, you made it possible to go to MySpace without feeling like I was entering a strip club. You protected me from drive-by spyware and kept me safe in all the darkest corners of the internet.

And let’s not forget the AwesomeBar. When Firefox 3 came around, you introduced me to intelligent address bars. I don’t think I’ve typed the full URL of a website in ages, you know me so well. “F” is for Facebook, “G” is for Gizmodo, “L” is for Lifehacker, “H” is for hulu. Do I even need to say it anymore? You already know.

….The thing is, though….lately I feel like we’ve been drifting apart. You keep getting bogged down lately. I know the add-ons I’ve installed are partly to blame but what’s up with the increasing memory usage all the time? When I start you in the beginning of the day, you’re using maybe 60-70MB of RAM. By lunch you’re using 300? I know I open a lot of tabs, but I close nearly as many. Where is this coming from?

Yeah, I know, it’s not like my machine can’t handle it. One of the machines I use you on frequently has 6GB of RAM on a 64-bit operating system. You’ve got plenty of room to spread out. Which leads me to my next question: why do you lag? Is it an add-on I’ve installed, is it the sites I’m going to? I mean, I know Gizmodo has never been known to be lightweight, but you grind nearly to a halt repeatedly. This behavior is unacceptable. I remain consistently confused by this behavior. I’ve been willing, though, to accept your shortcomings because of the wide array of options you give me. You’ve been very generous with what you allow me to do with my browsing experience, and no one else can match that.

Until now.

I’m sure it’s no surprise to you that I’ve been hanging out with Chrome lately. It all started when I started playing around with Google Wave. As you know, Google Wave is incredibly javascript heavy and…well, you’re not exactly the best on that front. So, Chrome decided to help me out. One thing led to another and…well, I started checking Gizmodo and Facebook on Chrome and found that it was fast. Crazy fast. Maybe part of that is psychological, maybe I just expect you to be slower after all the jams we’ve had, but one way or another, Chrome felt really zippy.

And then it happened. Chrome opened up their extensions gallery. It seemed I needed to have the beta build for it, but you know I don’t have an issue with that. Heck I’ve run several beta versions of you before. So no problem. And as I explored the extension gallery, I saw it.

AdThwart.

Not just another ad-blocker, but actually derived from the very AdBlock Plus plugin you introduced me to. Same ad block list, same clutter-free internet. And that was just the beginning. A unified notifier for Gmail/Reader/Wave? A collapsible Google Tasks bar? A QR-code generator for URLS?

And get this. The YouTube HTML5-ifier. It replaces Flash-based YouTube videos with HTML5 compliant versions. Aside from being able to see a possible Flash-free future of YouTube, I can simply right-click to download a video. Even your Download Helper extension, though it is useful for sites besides YouTube, can’t do this.

And it doesn’t hurt that it’s a zero-restart install for extensions. One of the most annoying things about installing an extension with you is that I have to close and reopen you just to get or remove a new extension. Heck, even to disable one! If I’m in the middle of something else (and I usually am), I have to pause, save, close up whatever I’m doing to give you a chance to restart. Not so with Chrome.

It’s become clear that Chrome has what it takes to become a powerhouse. Great extensions, easy installs, and it’s got speed to boot. Chrome has offered me all the features I came to love from you, and added so much more. If I were to dare to be so bold, I’d say I could actually find myself happy with Chrome. Though it would be a bittersweet transition.

That’s not to say you’re not without advantages, by the way. I have yet to find a comparable extension for Ubiquity. More than a few times, I’ve tried to Ctrl-Space to bring up my favorite quick-task powertool. But it’s not here. I do miss that about you.

Except that’s not even about you, is it? There could just as easily be an extension to come out for Chrome that would be just as good. And I think that’s the heart of the problem. I think it’s high time you stopped relying on the success of others through you as though it were your own success. There’s a lot of potential for improvement in your core system. Both in improving the internals and cleaning up the externals. The sandboxed process approach isn’t bad either.

I don’t want to say this is good-bye. As you know, the browser wars (indeed, all tech wars) are for fair-weather fans. As Linus Torvalds said, “Use the best tool for the job.” I eagerly look forward to the day that I can call you the best tool once again. But it’s becoming increasingly difficult to do that. You used to be the obvious choice. Now, I have a hard time pointing out which of your features stands out above the rest.

For now, I will be using both Chrome and Firefox. You each currently have your place, and there’s really no clear-cut winner between the two of you. There’s no one feature making one of you indisputably better than the other. There used to be. But not anymore.

Chrome is certainly shiny and new. Slick, clean and fast. But Firefox….you and I have a history together. You’ve been my browser for five years. And I don’t want to leave you.

So, please. Give me a reason to stay.

Last year, I discovered the Atlanta Underground Film Fest. Held in back rooms of bars and attics of renovated old theaters, this gathering of independent artists had more surprises in five nights of movies than I I’d seen in years at my local AMC. An apparently ironic piece about punk rockers at Altamont, a 120-minute film made up of 12 ten minute shorts made by twelve filmmakers, and of course, More Shoes, the story of a man who walked three thousand miles across Europe, from Madrid to Kiev, to learn about what makes a good movie. Not to mention Animation Attack, Cuba Libre, and a bunch more. Yes, it was definitely an experience that opened my eyes to the culture going on right beneath my nose.

Given that, I think The Last American Freak Show couldn’t have been a more perfect opening film for my experience at AUFF 2009.

The Last American Freak Show

The Last American Freak Show is a documentary that follows a touring group of self-proclaimed freaks, all with various physical deformities or quirks. They’re cruising along the western United States, from Washington state to Texas, going through three different vehicles (including, but not limited to, a school bus modified to run on used cooking oil).

The group finds a sense of community in their common ailment: a disconnect from “normal” society, folks who can’t see past their physical malformations. The cast of characters include “The Elephant Man”, so called because of outbreaks of lesions all over his face and body. He is also missing one leg and requires a prosthetic limb. Then there’s Lobster Girl and Lobster Man/Scorpion Man. The girl with a hand deformity leaving her with one thumb and a single deformed finger on one hand. The guy, well, he has a grand total of three fingers on each hand. Then there’s the Half Woman, midget-sized and missing one leg. Oh, and of course, your standard issue midget lady, Dame Demure.

There is an element, in this movie, of exploring the difficulties of being a physically handicapped person living in America. But it’s more a simple tale of survival. The crew has car troubles and relational drama and…all the problems of any normal community. It just takes on a different image. Whereas a “normal” person might take a job at Wal-Mart because it’s what they have to do to get by, in one scene we see one of the ladies dumpster diving for food. Other times scouting the backs of restaurants for cooking oil. Just to make it through the day.

I think one of the most telling scenes, though, came when the man that plays the Elephant Man was in the mall trying on hats, and several people would stare at the lesions on his face, scowl with disgust when he wasn’t looking, and turn away. Another scene, we see the midget lady, Dame Demure on stage telling the story of a woman obsessing over her stature, asking questions like “Where do you get your clothes? Do you have to shop in the children’s section?” to which she cleverly replied “Lady, what children’s clothing have you seen that can cover my breasts?” “Well, what about the fat kids’ section?” “Lady, I have never seen a ‘fat kids’ section.”

What’s odd and outlandish to the common person is normal for this traveling troupe. They’ve not only come to accept their oddities, but have accepted themselves. Something many average Americans still struggle with. In that sense, they’re ahead of the curve.

I think my favorite part though, is when the one they call the Lobster Girl is trying on her outfit for a show, and comments that she needs to lose weight. Since I have no photos, let me just tell you, this girl was beautiful. According to her, she was having trouble fitting into her costumes, so she should lose some weight. Having seen this scene or similar with many of my own friends, I couldn’t help but smile.

Though they have their share of troubles, the troupe eventually ends up in Austin, where they set up a more permanent shop together, keeping in touch with the friends they left behind in various states.

Where they have community, though, the centerpiece of the next movie was built firmly on being alone.

Rocaterrenia

If the story of J.R.R. Tolkien and Middle Earth’s creation had been a tragedy, it would’ve been Rocaterrenia.

Renaldo Kuhler (born Ronald Kuhler) is a 76-year-old man who has worked for the last few decades creating illustrations for history museum, scientific journals and other reference materials. The lesser known story, though, is the secret imagined world he created over the course of his life called Rocaterrania.

A tiny country straddling the U.S. and Canadian border, Rocaterrania was a country heavily influenced buy Russian and Jewish culture. During its history, it was was even split into Rocaterrania proper and New Serbia. Rocaterrania had its own movie industry, industrial economy, and went through several political revolutions in just a few decades.

The history of Rocaterrania, though, was a mirror into the life of young then-Ronald Kuhler. Growing up on a ranch, isolated and an outsider, Renaldo would lose himself in his imagined world. “The ability to fantasize is the ability to survive,” he had written in one of his many journals.

Rocaterrania was far and above any average childhood fantasy, though. Where the average child would simply have an imaginary friend and a secret hiding place, Renaldo took it several steps further, illustrating his friends, giving them backstories. He had documents detailing their language customs (which were influenced by Spanish, Jewish, and Russian among others), and pictures, so many pictures showing the lifestyles and political history of this imagined world.

When Renaldo moved out of his home to find a job on his own, taking whatever job he could find, rarely holding one for long, Rocaterrania similarly suffered periods of poverty and strife. When Renaldo was challenged with breaking off from his parental authority, Rocaterrania was in civil unrest as it worked to overthrow their authoritarian rulers.

The story emphasizes a sizable amount of Renaldo’s childhood troubles. One of the most striking moments is when Renaldo describes playing a piece on the violin for his parents and their guests at a dinner party. At the finish, his mother, in front of the many guests, replies “That was bad.” The movie relays many such encounters of Renaldo vying for parental approval, while they simply require conformity. Renaldo’s message, however, is one if individuality and creativity.

For myself, I walked away a little heartbroken for Renaldo. I wished I could somehow improve his relationship he had with his family, but that story is no more current or tangible than Rocaterrania itself. In the end, though, Renaldo found himself as a scientific illustrator, while simultaneously keeping his substantial body of work on Rocaterrania, for his own personal collection.

So, though there’s plenty of pain to be had, I suppose it wasn’t really a tragedy after all.

Day Two….

That was just the first day of AUFF, and only at one of the venues, at that. Tonight, I’ll be going back to see Rachel Is and Shooting Beauty, and looking forward to writing about them later as well.

If you’re in the Atlanta area, AUFF is going on all weekend. Check out their schedule and find a show you’d like to see.

The internet has changed how media is handled to a large degree. Videos, music, and books can all be transmitted from one place to another near instantly and with little practical loss to either end. Some optimistic souls have seen the new potential and capitalized on these new technologies to bring free music to the public, while still finding ways to pay artists.

Note: This post is not about where to get free downloads of the band that you don’t want to pay for at iTunes or Amazon or wherever, but rather, we’re exploring music that is genuinely free to begin with through alternative methods.

Jamendo

Jamendo is my personal favorite site for free music. There are many high quality bands that I found through this site. Including, but not limited to Brad Sucks, Try^d, Silence is Sexy, and Josh Woodward. All songs on Jamendo are available for download. The artists offer their music free of any required charge. Each artist’s page, however, has a “Support this Artist” button, where you can make donation of your choosing to the artist. Jamendo supports PayPal, so it’s not too difficult. And all donations go directly to the artists (minus a few cents transaction fee for using PayPal). Additionally, Jamendo splits ad revenue with the artists based on page hits. Jamendo has some other really great features regarding licenses for derivative works, but I’ll get to those later.

Noise Trade

This site offers an interesting platform. While Jamendo relies on implied word of mouth/donations to help support artists, Noise Trade gives you a more firm nudge in that direction, offering their albums for download for a trade. Either you can send an e-mail to 5 friends suggesting the album, or alternatively, you can make a donation of your choice to the artist, with a minimum donation of one dollar. The price is low, if a bit forced. The search functions seem to be a bit restrictive on this site, though if you’re coming up empty on things to listen to, Noise Trade provides a decent platform for discovering random new artists.

Last.fm

Last.fm is a bit more mainstream than the other sites. As such, you’ll find a lot more closed music on the site. It gets an honorable mention, though, because of its great ability to get new artists in front of you. When I first signed up for the site, I added a few of my favorite Jamendo artists to my Library. After that, most of the artists that would be generated that last.fm thought I would like would also be artists featured on Jamendo. As an example, I found No, Really (she has an amazing voice) via a last.fm suggestion, and then downloaded her music from Jamendo.

For the Musicians

In the internet age, there’s never been more methods of distribution for up-and-coming musicians. For starters, the sites listed above all include semi-easy sign-ups for bands/artists to upload their music. Since most of the sites include ways of paying artists, you’ll probably need more than just a username. If you don’t already have a PayPal account, I’d suggest you get one before beginning this sign-up process.

In addition the above, though, here’s a few more sites:

Bandcamp

Most music sites allow you your own profile on their site, but no matter which one you go with, be it last.fm, Jamendo, or MySpace (or all of them), you still only have a profile on their site. Their site. Not your own.

Bandcamp gives you a little bit more personalization of your hosted site. As an example, take a look at the bandcamp site for Silence is Sexy. Aside from a small bar at the bottom of the page (and the very obvious yourbandname.bandcamp.com URL), there’s very little on the site besides your own band’s banners/music. If you’re looking for a home front for your band, but aren’t quite ready to make a site or hire a web designer, bandcamp is the perfect middle-ground.

bandcamp does offer support for custom domains, though they admit the process can get a little technical, so if you’re not technically inclined, you may want to find a nerdy friend to help out with this one-time setup process.

Oh, and as a sidenote, bandcamp has the single most hilarious FAQ page I have ever read.

Audio Portal, Garage Band, and more…

If your goal is to get your music heard, you can’t have enough methods of distribution. Each site has its own community of listeners and downloaders. I personally frequent Jamendo, and occasionally dash over to last.fm. Others may use Pandora and frequent MySpace music. It’s not uncommon, though, to find the same band on all of these sites. So feel free to explore. Some more options include the Audio Portal at Newgrounds, Garage Band, or CD Freedom. All of these sites offer various methods for free or paid distribution.

Your Rights (And Responsibilities)

A lot of the sites listed above offer methods to distribute music freely. For consumers, especially those with no money, this sounds great, and fantastic, and wonderful and….

But what about the artists? The internet is notorious for being a scary place for musicians. Much like walking down a street in New York City sounds fun, so long as you make sure not to get mugged, a musician wants to put their music online to be heard, without having it stolen. Interestingly, both of these ideas aren’t necessarily based in reality. New York has a much lower crime rate than it once did, and the Internet isn’t just a breeding ground for movie and music pirates.

Generally, your right is to control where and how your music is distributed. Unfortunately, the decision isn’t as easy as it used to be. Some of the methods listed here will mean you lose some control. Many sites are governed by what’s called Creative Commons licenses. Using one of these licenses will give your listeners permission, not just to download, but also to cipy and redistribute your music. This can be good or bad for you, the musician. On the one hand, you’re not getting compensated for every copy downloaded. On the other, sometimes exposure is more important than sales. The decision has to be up to you.

A Note About Creative Commons

If you’ve decided to look into alternative methods of music distribution, it would be beneficial to learn about CC, so you know what you’re getting into.

The short version is, Creative Commons allows you to say to your listeners “You are allowed to download this album/song and pass it on to your friends. We promise, we won’t sue you.” There’s several different types of licenses, some that don’t permit any kind of modifying or remixing, and don’t permit commercial use of the song. There are other more free licenses (and you can read about all the different combinations on the Creative Commons website). Though, generally, you’re at least permitting the people who download to pass your music on to other people.

Each site is different in how they handle your rights. As an example, all music on Jamendo is governed by some form of Creative Commons license or another, while bandcamp does allow you to enable paid downloads or free downloads. Be sure to check each site’s rules on download before uploading (or downloading).

Good Luck!

There’s a ton of options. Having options gives you a lot of opportunity, so make the best of them.

*Disclaimer — I am not a musician. I made one song using Garage Band a couple years ago and promptyl forgot about it. I’m more a video kind of guy. I don’t have any kind of expertise in music distribution. I’d just encourage any artists (in music, video, or any other medium) to explore all possibilities. And have fun!

Here’s the thing: video is complicated. All you want is a picture that shows detail, moves smoothly, and doesn’t fill up your entire (quite large) hard drive in one go. Is that so much to ask? Well, apparently it is. Open up any export manager and you’ll find about a hundred different possible options, including bitrate, resolution, frame size, aspect ratio, pixel aspect ratio, codec, container, format….the list goes on. Worse yet, not everyone agrees on which term means what half the time.

Furthermore, you’ll be told that such-and-such is the standard format for something. That may be true in some arenas, like a television station. Though, if you work in a television station, you’re probably not gonna get much new information from me. For the rest of us, there’s not a standard. We can say there is, but no matter how hard you try, you’re always gonna get a black bar somewhere. So you’re gonna have to take it for what it is: a bunch of info that you have to filter through and determine what you need for each project.

I’m gonna try and keep this as layman as possible, but there’s a lot of info to go over, so I wouldn’t dare promise brevity.

Resolution

This is one of the confusing terms whose definition depends on who you’re talking to, what you’re talking about, where you’re talking about it, what the weather’s like, and whether your left shoe is tied. In the realm of image editing, resolution can refer to the number of pixels per inch in an image (the higher the number, the more detailed the image). In video, resolution has a similar meaning, in that a higher resolution video display will give you a greater level of detail. However, while in image editing this is usually a single number (72dpi, 300dpi, etc.), video regularly refers to this as a dimension. 720×540, 1024×768, or 1920×1200 as examples.

Lines of Resolution

A video resolution will refer to vertical lines by horizontal lines (vertical x horizontal). Standard definition televisions in the U.S. use a standard called NTSC (remember that acronym). For practical purposes, TVs that conform to this standard (read: any old, non-HDTV) have 486 horizontal lines of resolution. Any video resolution you choose whose second number is at or above 486 will display on a standard television at a reasonable quality. Barring all the other things we’re gonna discuss.

HDTV

Naturally, a good thing couldn’t be left well enough alone, so when HDTV came along, you suddenly got a bunch of new formats to deal with. 480i/p (avoid at all costs, you’re getting ripped off), 720i/p and 1080i/p. The i/p refers to interlaced and progressive respectively. We’ll get to that in a bit. In the category of resolution, this introduces a couple new standards. First, there’s the lowest of the low-end HD standards: 480. If that number sounds familiar, it’s because I just mentioned a similar number in the previous paragraph. You know, the one talking about standard definition sets. While there are some vague improvements to this standard (hint: it has to do with progressive scans), I don’t care what you say. 480 is not High Definition video. The other two are 720 and 1080. These both refer to the number of horizontal lines in a video frame.

Note: It has come to my attention that some people like to refer to this number as “vertical lines” meaning that you would count the 720 or 1,080 lines vertically. However, the lines themselves are horizontal. The 720 refers to the number of lines that go longways across the screen. K. We good? Let’s move on.

Aspect Ratio

Aspect ratio refers to the ratio of width to height, usually represented as two numbers separated by a colon, such as 4:3 or 16:9. For most situations you deal with, these two will be the primary aspect ratios you use. Sometimes people like to refer to these aspect ratios in relation to a number 1. In that case 4:3 would become 1.33:1 and 16:9 would become 1.78:1. Annoying, I know. I prefer to deal with whole numbers, but apparently some folks don’t. P.S. These aspect ratios are frequently referred to as Fullscreen (4:3) and Widescreen (16:9)

Another thing I’ve recently discovered, slightly to my dismay, is that there are actually more than one kind of “widescreen” aspect ratios. Films in movie theaters are often shown in either 1.85:1 or a whopping 2.39:1. We’re talking ultra-wide screen. Sometimes your editor or other program will help you by including an aspect ratio next to a choice of resolution, but if not, there’s no shortage of tools online to help you get in the area you need to be.

Frame Rate

Frame rate refers to the number of frames that are shown per second. As you (should) know, video is basically nothing more than a series of still images played really fast in succession. The frame rate is usually pretty standard depending on where you live. In the U.S. the standard NTSC (standard definition) frame rate is 30 fps (frames per second), and PAL, which is the standard for regular definition video in Europe, uses 25 fps.

Note: Technically, NTSC runs at 29.97 fps. As with much of this information, this matters to a lot of engineers, but not too frequently with us average folks. In most situations, you won’t have to figure out which one to use. If you do, though, always go with the more specific choice.

Progressive v. Interlaced

The difference between progressive and interlaced tends to screw up the argument for which resolution is better, but here’s the short of it: for some reason known only to engineers, some display methods will show every other line of a frame at a time, but display them twice as fast. So with a framerate of 30 fps, you’ll see lines 1,3,5, etc. for 1/60th of a second, and then see lines 2,4,6,etc. for the next 1/60th of a second. These sets of lines are called “fields”. In one second you’ll see 30 full frames, but on a very technical level, they’re cut up into two fields which are displayed twice as fast. This method is called “interlaced” scanning. The reason for it has something to do with a technical limitation of video mediums in their early stages.

Of course, as time goes by, we get over limitations. This leads us into progressive scans. In a progressive scan, each frame is displayed in its entirety at a time. At a frame rate of 30 frames per second, you’ll see 30 entire frames, each one displayed for 1/30th of a second.

This concept is sometimes referred to as “temporal resolution” in forum arguments where a bunch of geeks argue about stuff that no one but other geeks care about.

*Incredibly Helpful Note: If you’ve ever been working with a video that gets jagged lines, or a “stairstep” effect, particularly when your subject is moving, this is typically due to an interlace problem. Computer screens handle video differently than televisions do. Playing an obviously interlaced video on a computer will look horrific, but output that same video to a standard DVD and play it on your old TV, it will look great.

If, however, your going to be showing it on a computer or an HDTV, you need to fix it. Most video editors have some form of de-interlace special effects filter. Simply drop that filter on your jagged video and your problem will clear right up. Problem solved.

Bitrate

Oh, bitrate. You’ve managed to elude me for so long, quietly screwing up my videos’ file size. But not anymore. Now I shall expose you and your file size altering mutant powers for all the world to see!

A video’s bitrate refers, surprisingly simply, to the number of bits that the video will process in a given period of time (usually seconds). In a bit of a twist, bitrate is pretty straight-forward. More bits per second means more information, means more resolution, means better looking picture. It also means bigger file size. Generally. But surely it can’t be so simple, can it? I mean, increase the bitrate, increase the quality and the file size sounds too good to be true.

That’s because it is. Well, kind of. While picking a frame rate or screen size/resolution or framerate, you generally have a strong hint to go by. Going to an HDTV? 1080 (or possibly 720). Showing this in America? 30 fps. Bitrate gets a bit more relative. You can have two different videos that conform to the same frame rate, resolution and other blah de bloo. But two different bitrates will yield two completely different file sizes, and two completely different qualities. You can also have subtle differences in bitrates, all other aspects of the video being equal, without screwing up playability.

As an example, where I work, I have to edit a bunch of videos of wildly varying lengths. Some are 2 minutes, some could be two hours. They all get output as video files to a CD, though. I generally export the videos at a pretty crappy resolution, at a constant bitrate of 1800 kbps (kilobits per second). Now, on a 700 megabyte CD, this will give me room for about 53 minutes of video. For a video that’s an hour and a half, splitting it into two discs makes sense. But what about a video that’s 53 and a half minutes? Splitting the video up because of 30 seconds of footage is entirely lame.

By dropping the bitrate down just a bit, to say 1600, or maybe even 1700, I can fit more video into the same amount of storage space. And to the human eye, the difference between 1800 kbps and 1600 kbps is negligible. But do be careful when changing bitrates, and never assume that dropping a bitrate won’t affect quality unless you really don’t care who sees it.

While there’s not exactly a “standard” for bitrates, there are some adequate guidelines that’ll put you about where you wanna be. From Wikipedia, here’s a basic chart listing bitrate figures for various video mediums:

16 kbit/s – videophone quality (minimum necessary for a consumer-acceptable “talking head” picture)

128 – 384 kbit/s – business-oriented videoconferencing system quality

1.25 Mbit/s – VCD quality

5 Mbit/s – DVD quality

15 Mbit/s – HDTV quality

36 Mbit/s – HD DVD quality

54 Mbit/s – Blu-ray Disc quality

As you can see, the 1800 kbps (or, roughly 1.8 Mbit/s) is slightly higher than VCD quality, but well below DVD quality. On the scale between the two, a drop from 1800 to 1700 isn’t that big, so given the circumstances, the drop is acceptable. Again, though, the above numbers should be used as a guide, not canon. For casual bitrate tweaking, this is acceptable, though if you’re looking for serious optimization for your specific project, you should probably set aside at least a couple hours to experiment with various settings.

Constant vs. Variable Bitrate

Another reason that bitrate isn’t as simple as it sounds is the difference between constant and variable bitrates. To put it simply, a constant bitrate is exactly what it sounds. Set at 1800 kbps, you will have exactly 1800 kilobits being processed every second.

A variable bitrate, on the other hand, is also what it sounds, but harder to understand. Through some crazy complex math that only (…who? Can you guess? ….yep) engineers care about, the video is encoded at a different bitrate at different times, depending on the needs of the current frame of the video.

Think of it like this. If you have a human being on the screen, or a complex 3D model, you want a ton of detail. Higher bitrate/resolution means higher quality and level of detail, right? But let’s say that during your video, there’s a part where the screen fades to black (as it almost certainly will at some point). For this particular moment in time, you don’t need a killer bitrate. I mean, what detail is there? There’s no lines, no shadows, no curves, no varying colors. Just solid black.

What a variable bitrate can do is determine what parts of the video need what level of complexity and adjust accordingly. So you’d have a high bitrate during the epic battle scene with 10,000 individual CG models, and a low bitrate when you’re on black, to conserve space.

Sounds great, right? Just toss it on variable bit rate and let the computer do the rest. Well….not exactly. Don’t get me wrong, in situations where you’re concerned with minimizing file size, variable bit rate is probably the way to go. But variable bit rate can also become highly subjective. And unfortunately, it’s not entirely automatic.

Perhaps the most interesting/annoying thing about a variable bitrate is that, often when you select “Variable” in whatever drop-down box you get, you don’t lose the option to choose a bitrate. “Wait. I thought the computer was supposed to be figuring this out for me?” Well, not so lucky. Because the computer still doesn’t know where you’re putting this to or what your optimal filesize is gonna be. While there’s always variations with any video, when using a variable bitrate, a single five minute video could range anywhere from ten megs to ten gigs of file space if you let it. Either by tossing out a bunch of data, or by including way too much.

So you have to set a guide. And therein lies the rub. With a constant bitrate you can almost always count on your filesize to be in the ballpark that you’re looking for. Variable, you’re not so lucky.

Short version: if you’re looking for a reliable output size for any given length of video (and especially if you don’t care about quality), go constant. If quality is important, and you’re concerned about minimizing disk space use, play with variable.

*Another Really Helpful Tip: Gizmodo has an excellent article with more detail on the subject, but simply put, a lower bitrate is the reason why, if you stream/download High Definition content from an online source, you may still end up with something that is a lower (often noticeably) quality than regular ol’ DVD video. It’s all about the bitrate.

Format/Filetype/Extension/Whatthecrap?

As if all of the above weren’t confusing enough, now we enter into the category I will here-to-fore refer to as Format. Video formats are a messed up category unto themselves, with too many choice. You don’t care about the practical differences between H.264 and VC-1. You just want the dang video to play! Well, that has the potential to get complicated. Don’t panic, though. Once you find your format, usually you don’t have to change until you change jobs.

Ok, yeah, not very comforting. Moving on.

To get started, we need to define a couple of terms here. To start with: codec. A codec is simply a type of standard used to code and decode video signals (get it?). Once again, the Giz has a great article on the subject of codecs, and you should really go read it now. But then come back.

As the article points out, though, codecs are only half the problem.

Containers/Wrappers

You’re probably more familiar with containers (sometimes called wrappers) than you are with actual codecs, as these are where movie files get their extensions. Things like .mov, .avi, .flv. These are packages that contain not just video, but audio, and other extra info, compiled into a single file. In order to play a video, your player needs to support both the codec and the container. Can’t make it easy, can they?

I’m not gonna repeat a lot of what the Giz article says, but I will mention, for those who can’t be bothered to read three gigantic articles today, that H.264 is generally gonna wanna be your codec for super high-quality videos. This codec is also known as MPEG-4 Part 10. You probably won’t hear it called that. Other than that, MPEG-2 part 2 (or just MPEG-2) is gonna put you in the DVD-quality range, and is also extremely widely supported.

Once you’ve got that, you start facing the major choices of format. You should be asking yourself by this point (and really, before this point), where you’re gonna show this video. If you’re going to burn it to DVD, it would probably be best to go with MPEG-2 and an MPEG container. If you’re looking to play this through Quicktime, or use it in one of the programs from the Final Cut Studio suite a .mov would be the best idea. Honestly, there’s really very little end to trying to figure out what format is best to use. I’ve personally found that .movs, and .mpgs are widely supported enough that I don’t have to worry about running into support issues. However, .oggs, though OGG is an open standard (which I like), I haven’t tried it out, so I’d be hesitant to use it. And .avis feel bloated to me, but that’s completely me, and not based on a lick of evidence. (Side note: .avis are also very widely supported.)

I’ve had situations where I carefully pick my resoltion, bitrate, framerate, codec and container to all be the most easy-to-get-along-with group of folks and still send it off to someone and get a call: “It won’t play. WHAT DO I DEEWWW?!” You’re not gonna get it right all of the time.

*Most important helpful hint of them all: Get VLC Media Player. VLC is a video playback program that supports every single video codec and container under the sun. Ok, probably not literally, but nevertheless, you will be hard pressed to find a time that you cannot simply open this application and run any video, no matter where in the bowels of the internet you got it. Carry it with you, install it on all of your comptuers. If you’re going to go show a video on someone else’s computer, bring an installer on a USB stick. I cannot stress enough how helpful VLC can be. As many times as I’ve had a project go awry (read: every project) I have a situation where some form of media will not play, I download VLC, and it works. It’s that simple.

In Closing….

Honestly, there’s a ton more info out there. I didn’t even touch on pixel aspect ratio, because quite frankly I’m still trying to figure that out for myself. But this should at least get you started in figuring out what the heck your video editor is asking you when you try to output your videos.

If I got anything wrong, or if something doesn’t make sense (as some of my analogies are apt to do), let me know.

I started reading Lifehacker about half a year ago, after several searches for solutions to problems led me to an article on Lifehacker. Naturally, after subscribing to Lifehacker, Gizmodo wasn’t far behind, as they’re both part of the Gawker Media Network. I’ve read them regularly for months, and love the content.

And now they’re officially licensed under Creative Commons.

Hey, I’m happy to announce that we’re being published under a Creative Commons license now. Although it’s a non-commercial license, remixes and quotes are fine by blogs commercial or otherwise, with attribution/links……This has always been our policy, but it’s nice to have the license right there on the bottom.

Among other things, this means that things like what I just did, in that paragraph up there, are not only legal, but I have (indirect) permission from Gizmodo to do so.

Generally, you don’t find too many instances of a blog suing another blog for a quote if there’s a link, but now, if I want to, say, print out copies of the article and pass them out, I can. So long as I don’t make money doing that. You know, like standing on the street corner passing out Giz articles and then asking for a quarter. Or whatever.

Honestly, the practical upshot of this is almost nothing. Especially considering this Creative Commons move is just a formality, as Gizmodo (or Lifehacker, or any part of the Gawker Media network that I’ve heard of) have never actively sued someone for using their content anyways. But it is nice to see a company embracing the idea of sharing, instead of clinging to your rights.

Copyrights are just one example of a right that we all have (well, those who make content anyways), but that we all exercise differently. The point of CC is that we’re better off when we don’t get consumed by the money-making aspect, but rather do it for the love of the medium.

So, good on you, Gizmodo, Lifehacker. Good on you.

Also, while I’m not sure if it’s actually written anywhere on this website, you’re also free to copy or redistribute whatever you find here (including project files and videos). Just, a linkback would be nice. Thanks.

Full Gizmodo article found here.

Experiments with shape layers led to this little doodad:

The rings use a wiggle expression to rotate independently on the x, y, and z. Those axes are local rotations, not global, in other words, they rotate in reference to their own center point, not necessarily the composition window. Basically, rotating the layers on the z axis doesn’t yield much visually. As an example, the purple dots rotate only along their z axis. You notice this because it’s not solid, however with the other rings, you would barely be able to tell. If they were perfectly symmetrical (which they are not), the z rotation would be invisible.

The other difference on the outer ring of dots, it uses time*5 to rotate, as opposed to a wiggle, so it’s steady movement instead of chaotic.

The scrambling nucleus is a pair of solids using the Generate > Circle effect. Yet another wiggle expression on their position gives them their chaotic motion. An Echo filter is used to make the trails, and Hue and Saturation filter gives it color, and of course, Glow.

Interestingly, I created the first nuclei completely, then duplicated it, and the wiggle expression gave it unique coordinates, so no modification was required to move it to a new position, as each wiggle expression generates its random numbers individually. The only thing that needed changing was the color.

And for the background, I used a solid with a 4-Color Gradient.

This project was inspired after watching Aharon Rhabinowitz’ tutorials on shape layers. To be perfectly honest, I thought that I’d rarely if ever use Shape Layers when I first looked at the features, but after watching these tutorials, I’m convinced they’re a necessity. A lot more helpful than they look. Like most things in After Effects. So, check these tuts out:

For Starters:

An Introduction to Shape Layers — Learn the basics about creating shape layers and adding modifiers to create new, interesting shapes.

Shape Layer Tip #1 - Custom Shapes — Aharon creates some new shapes, beyond the regular old Rectangle, Rounded Rectangle and Star, and demonstrates how to use them.

Shape Layer Tip #2 - Complex Shapes — Probably my favorite, Aharon uses multiple shapes to create a simple cog entirely in After Effects.

Best of all, Shape Layers are entirely vector-based, which means you can scale them ad infinitum. Awesome.

As always, my project file is available for download here:

Gyro Project File

I haven’thad much time for blogging recently. But things are finally starting to slow down, so I figured it’s time for an update.

It’s done. The basement. I’ve spent the last three or four months saving up, constructing and setting up and media rig. A 100″ projector screen is the centerpiece, with a few other fun surprises lurking about down here. Unfortunately, I’m not exactly swimming in picture-taking options. Believe me, my webcam does it no justice.

I like movies, though. The whole movie-going experience is such a fun one for me. I love theaters. I feel like movie-watching is a social experience. It’s totally not supposed to be, but my friends and I are total movie-talkers. And movies should be something you share. One of the most fun experiences is seeing a movie you love (or hate) and spending hours talking about it at a restaurant after.

Building this thing was one of the most fun experiences for me. About five months ago, I was setting up a set in my basement for a skit that we actually ended up never making (another one on indefinite hold). I looked across my very, very cluttered basement, and saw the potential for a media room. From then on, it was a flurry. An often frustrating, stressful flurry, but an exciting one, that led to this thing as it is now.

Unfortunately, it’s more than a little hard to get to. So, I’m sure this won’t be the end of it. But it is pretty sweet.

I’ve got some more ideas, some more plans that I’d like to bring out into the real world over time. I have no idea how to. But God-willing, we’ll see.

I know what I’m aiming for over the next year. We’ll see how that goes.

In the meantime, I’m gonna aim to get back into blogging again. I’ve got a few pieces of tech, and some fun animation stuff I’d like to talk about.

In the words of Tony Stark, I’m working on something big. Now, as much as I wish it were a rocket-powered super suit, as it turns out, I don’t have a Mega Degree in Engineering, Computer Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Awesome Weapons. All of which Tony Stark had at age six, apparently.

So, I’ll have to settle for this project. Except, I’m not quite ready to post about it yet. So, in lieu of an actual update, I thought I’d share something that has absolutely nothing to do with movies, animation, technology, and only a little to do with software.

Joe’s Goals.

The short version, Joe’s Goals is a simple, no-install, point and click and free method for keeping track of long term goals. And being web-based, you can keep up with it from anywhere. The only thing I’d add is some more options for keeping track of things on the go, from say you’re mobile phone. However, Joe’s Goals is aiming for simplicity and ease of use, so this works well.

For the record, I am one of the most unmotivated, unorganized guys you’ve met. Probably. I have this nasty habit of meaning to do things, but then forgetting about them. For one-off, do ‘em and done projects, a simple to-do list (like the one in Gmail) works great as a reminder. But what about something more regular?

For example, a couple months ago, I found out about a site that helps you learn Spanish. Well, a bunch of languages, really, but Spanish for one. It’s great and I could tell you more about it, but one site at a time. I decided to give it a shot, but it will certainly take a while. In the meantime, I’m still trying to develop myself in the area of animation. Which is a bit more important to what I want to do in life. Not to mention, I’m subscribed to over 30 blogs, so I’m not short on distractions. Eventually, something’s gonna want my attention, and before you know it, learning spanish is just another one of those lost causes.

Joe’s Goals serves as a reminder, a way to visually track, quickly and simply, the things I need to do regularly. And the interface is simple. The home page has a (mostly) working example to get a feel for how it goes. Once you set up your account, simply select “Add Goal” in the top corner of your page, name it, select what days you’re supposed to do this task, and away you go!

Another feature I’ve just recently discovered is the Logbook, which honestly, was one of the other things I wanted in this tracker. The Logbook feature allows you to add categories for notes. For example, one of my goals is to add a new Spanish word to a list of vocabulary I have to test myself (taken from LearnitLists.com). Adding a logbook to the bottom helps me keep track of which word I picked to focus on.

Overall, Joe’s Goals is really handy in helping you stay accountable to yourself. But it’s just a tool. In real life, if you had a serious problem, you’d go to a friend because a friend can be invasive, ask you questions without letting you take the initiative. For Joe’s Goals to be any kind of effective, you need to make it invasive. Keep Joe in your face.

I’ve set up Joe’s Goals to be one of three tabs I always keep open. Facebook is one (mostly for the chat), Gmail for another (with everything that entails). And thirdly, Joe’s Goals. I keep Joe’s Goals right between the two others, so it’s always in the way. If you’re not online as much as I am (and really, it would be good for you), try setting Joe’s Goals as your (or one of your) homepage(s).

If you’re not the type of person to get online frequently, I have found in the past that sometimes, this same setup written on a piece of paper helps. Maybe take a post-it note and stick it on your bedroom door, with a hand-drawn grid.

The point is reminders. And for the regularly online-types, Joe’s Goals is a great reminder.

I’m working on a tutorial right now. Taking a while in coming. So, in the meantime, here’s a tip for you Firefox users out there.

If you’d like to set up your browser to open multiple tabs when you start the program (for example, a page for Facebook, Gmail, and Twitter), simply insert a vertical line (”|”, located on the “\” key on your keyboard) between homepages in the homepage preference. Like so:

www.facebook.com|www.gmail.com|www.twitter.com

Save this in your preferences, and then the next time you open your browser, all of the pages will open instead of just the one. Neat, eh?