OC Entertainment

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:

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?

I’ve been doing some fiddling with After Effects and came up with this little number:

I can’t remember what inspired this, but I had fun making it. I borrowed more than a couple techniques from VideoCopilot.net . Not comprehensively, the bump-mapping on the wall and floor (barely noticeable without the light moving, but trust me it’s there), and the displacement map over the whole thing, giving it a watery look.

Then there’s the bubble particle system overlaying the whole thing. The bubbles don’t really look real, and I wasn’t going for realism either.

Another thing I played around with on this one was the graph editor.

For the panning motion, I had to animate a null object (which the camera was parented to), and the Bubbles Comp. The image above shows the speed of the motion (in pixels/sec). As you can see, at first, it moves just under 150 px/sec, but as it nears the end, it makes a not-so-sudden drop down to under 50 px/sec. The default behavior of two keyframes in an animation is to move at a constant rate. But if you want to modify the speed of movement, without messing with a ton of keyframes, the graph editor is a great way to do that.

I then had to do the same with the Bubble layers. With the regular animation, the bubbles seemed to suddenly change direction, as the camera controller reached the point where it was moving slower than the bubbles.

I’m making the project file available, if you’d like to take a closer look at what I did. Also, feel free to use it for any project, commercial or otherwise.

This project was done almost entirely in After Effects. I did make use of one texture, that I shot myself. Feel free to use that texture for any of your projects as well.

Ocean Project File
Yellow Concrete Texture

Bonus: While waiting for the upload to finish, I was playing around with After Effects. I’m not really sure what this is, but you can have this, too:

Project File here:

Wavey Thing

As a warning, for this thing, I didn’t really care about keeping this thing clean, so there’s probably a way more efficient way to do this. Which means this thing is gonna take longer to render than necessary. Now you know.

With the new year fast approaching, I figured it would be a good time to sit back and reflect on where we’ve been and what new horizons the future has in store for us. What lessons I’ve learned, what heartaches have taught me, who I need to strengthen my relationships with, and who to let go, remembering fondly the past, but acknowledging it as just that. The past.

Not that you’re gonna hear about any of that here. Instead, you get the 2009 movie schedule! If there’s one thing I can’t seem to get enough of, it’s big movies coming out, especially in the summer. Midnight showings are my absolute favorite, of all time, forever.. The energy is high, and all the hardcore fans are there. Naturally excited, I started poking around for release dates to look forward to in 2009. Here’s some of the pickin’s:

Inkheart – January 23rd

A man who can bring characters out of the pages of the books he reads must fight a villian he released. I have mixed feelings about Brendan Fraser a lot of the time, but generally, I think he can be pretty ok. This story looks fun, too. Not a bad opener for 2009.

Push — February 6th

A movie about super-powered psychics and such. Also, Dakota Fanning with pink highlights in her hair? If there’s one movie I won’t be broken up about missing in this list, this is probably it. But it looks like at least a semi-decent way to pass the time until….

Watchmen — March 6th

I was never really interested in 300. But I always enjoy a production team with a style that makes people go, “Wha-?!” I’ve seen trailers for Watchmen and it looks just fantastic. I can’t wait to marvel at the special effects in this movie, if nothing else. It really just feels……massive, I think, would be a good word for it.

Note: This release date is pending the result of some actually pretty annoying legal crap between 20th Century Fox, who claims they have the legal right to distribute the Watchmen movie, and Warner Bros. who, you know, *made* it.

Dragonball : Evolution — April 8th

I’m not a huge animé fan. I like some stuff, but generally, I’m geared more towards either American or, in the event I’m feeling more experimental, European movies. But Dragonball looks to be an interesting case study, if nothing else. There were rumors that, after a terrible reception of the trailer, the studio decided to reshoot a lot of footage. It turns out only a single scene was reshot apparently.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine — May 1st

And the real fun begins. Wolverine is pretty much at the top of my Must-See 2009 movies. I will always be a sucker for a superhero movie, and this one is no exception. Not to mention all the potential for the work-ins for the Avengers. And also, at least one other surprise. I won’t spoil it, but check out the trailer if you want to see why I’m so excited.

Star Trek — May 8th

Yes. I admit it. I’m going to see Star Trek. And I’m not ashamed of it, either. This movie is actually looking to be pretty big. Not to mention, my main man Sylar in the role of Spock. Well. I’ve *gotta* see how that’s gonna turn out.

Night at the Museum: Escape from the Smithsonian — May 22nd

I like the first Night at the Museum. However, I could see this one suffering from Home Alone syndrome*. Much like National Treasure did recently. But as funny as I found the last one, I’m willing to at least give it a chance. But it will have to wait until the daytime. The midnight showing on May 22nd is strictly reserved for…

Terminator Salvation – May 22nd

Even though this movie breaks the Terminator pattern of one movie per decade, I’m looking forward to seeing Christian Bale rail on some truly massive and ugly pieces of machinery. It certainly has potential, I’ll give you that right now.

Up — May 29th

May is the month for movies. Starting with a superhero movie and ending on Pixar? I could think of no better way to run the month. You can’t really infer much from the trailer, but Up is a Pixar movie. That’s all I need to know. Note to self: watch Ratatoullie before that happens.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen — June 26th

Alright, let’s get one thing straight right off the bat. The first Transformers was not great. I don’t really like Michael Bay as a director. I think that if we knew each other in high school, he would’ve made mean jokes about how being a nerd is lame, and I would have made snide jokes about how he’s not smart, but he wouldn’t get them. That’s just my completely unfounded perception. Nonetheless, giant robots beating the crap out of each other is good at least once. And you simply cannot argue with the effects in the first movie. 38 hours per frame goes a long way. Not to mention Transformers is part of my childhood. So there’s really no getting around it. I have to see this movie. I hope that girl isn’t in it, though. Shia LaBoof can stay.

G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra – August 7th

First off, I’m one movie away from banning the use of “Rise of the Blank”. I would even take “Cobra Ascending”. In any case, this one is more for my brother than me. Growing up, he was the G.I. Joe guy, I was the Power Rangers kid. Naturally, he will want to see this movie, and I, being the supportive brother I am, will go with him.

There will probably be others I’ll take an interest in as I hear more about them (and some on here that I may kick off the list). But for the most part, there it is. May is going to be one fun month.

As a bonus, here’s a list of movies coming out in 2009 I do NOT plan on seeing, thankyouverymuch:

– My Bloody Valentine 3D
I know nothing about this movie. But the title could not sound worse. Especially the “3D” part. Ugh. Some things should not be 3D.

– Friday the 13th
By an AMAZING coincidence, this comes out February, Friday the 13th. Oh, my GOSH. *What* are the odds?

– Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li
I thought fighting-game movies died a long time ago?

– Land of the Lost
Yes. That one. I had to look it up to be sure.

– Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
Scrat can only carry so much mediocre movie on his tiny little back before it’s just not enough anymore.

– Final Destination 4
It’s over, ok? Let it go.

– Saw VI
I think it should say something about a horror movie series when it suffers the same over-abundance as The Land Before Time

– Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel
I wish I were kidding.

So, that being said, what do you think? Any movies didn’t make the list that should have? Can you see in this list a horrible, ten-dollar mistake in my future? What does 2009 look like for you in movies?

******

* - ‘Home Alone’ syndrome is defined as the condition a sequel suffers when it bears far too much resemblance to the original movie, including the most, if not all of the same jokes. Ironically, Home Alone 2 is generally considered one of the few acceptable instances of this phenomenon.

It’s Christmas Eve, so why wouldn’t this be a good time to give you, my reader, a present. Not one, but *two* videos.

Numero Uno: Cowbell Hero

This one is the result of our Christmas Skit Blitz. Roxy vs. The Dancing Santa Claus.

Next up: Rubik.

This one was actually shot over a year ago and remained unfinished until earlier this week. You actually have The Annie Kim to thank for that one. Not only did she do most of the editing on this one, but she reminded me it exists earlier this month and asked me to button it up and load ‘em up. So now it’s online.

Interestingly, this video, titled ‘Rubik’, actually predates my *other* Rubik’s cube related video, Unraveling the Cube. Which, by the way, remains one of my favorite videos that I’ve worked on. Not sure why, but I’m just satisfied with it.

Aww, what the heck. It’s Christmas. Here you go:

It’s been an interesting year. I haven’t finished nearly all the projects I set out to do. But I’ve had fun. We’ve had fun.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

I use to use Yahoo! mail back in the day. It was available and wasn’t terrible. At the time. But this year, I’ve switched over to Gmail. And I have not looked back since.

This guide is for those who have started using Gmail but may be unaware of some of the other more powerful features Gmail has to offer. Such as…

Tasks

This is a newly released feature that gives you a simple To-Do list that lives on top of your window much the same way the chat windows do. (If you haven’t used Gchat….start using Gchat. It outweighs Facebook chat in all arenas.) It’s a very simple to use interface, and sitting on top of a page you use frequently helps as a reminder.

What’s that? You don’t use Gmail that often? You will, don’t worry. I’m just getting started.

To enable Tasks, go to your Gmail account settings, under the Labs section. You will find Tasks (as well as a lot of the other features I’ll be going over) in this menu. Select ‘Enable’, then scroll to the bottom and select “Save Changes”. These instructions will be the same for the other features, unless otherwise noted.

Google Docs Gadget

The GoogleDocs Gadget gives you quick links to your most recently opened GoogleDocs, as well as a quick-search box for the rest.

I don’t use GoogleDocs for too much, but what I do use, it comes in handy for. For example, I frequently forget some of the keyboard shortcuts to Blender (anyone who has used Blender is free to give me a hearty ‘amen’). So I made a list of the ones I frequently forget and put them in a GoogleDoc so I can access them from anywhere with an internet connection. The GoogleDocs gadget (found in the Labs) makes this even easier. Especially since nearly every click in GoogleDocs opens a new window, which is rather annoying.

Filters

Anyone who has Facebook has had their Inbox thoroughly taken over. Not that we clean out our Inboxes anyways, that’s too much work. But that does leave a bunch of pesky notifications waiting around, claiming they haven’t been read. We could turn off e-mail notifications but…..well, I’m an archive hog. I can’t stand to turn off a notification if I don’t have to.

Enter filters. Filters give you the flexibility to dictate what to filter and what Gmail does with your e-mails. For example, I have a filter set up to find any incoming e-mail from the domain ‘facebook.com’. I then have it apply the label “Facebook Notifications”, mark it as read, and then archive it.

Trust me, filters are magic and will change your life. Poke around with them.

Twitter

There is little explaining the Twitter phenomenon. When I describe micro-blogging to people, everyone agrees; it sounds stupid. Who wants constant updates to your life, limited to 140 characters? And who wants their life to be known that well. Well, apparently we humans do love to talk about our lives because it works.

The only problem I find with Twitter, is frequently, it’s annoying to get to. I don’t want to have to open up a whole ‘nother tab, and do a whole ‘nother login just so I can give a 140-character-or-less update on what’s going on *right now* which is, by this point, not *right now* anymore.

Enter the Twitter Gmail gadget. To enable this, go to the Labs section and enable “Gadgets by URL…”. This allows you to use external gadgets not developed by Google. You get a new section in your settings called “Gadgets”. Go there, add new, and enter the following URL:

http://www.twittergadget.com/gadget_gmail.xml

This will enable your Twitter gadget. I measure the usefulness of a Twitter client, usually, by how often it makes me sign-in. This one seems to be pretty good about staying signed in. Again, though, that may be because I never close this tab.

With all these gadgets filling up your sidebar, this may be a good time to introduce:

Navbar Drag and Drop

With all the left-side modules flying around, scrolling down to see them all can be a bit of a pain. Especially if the one you use the most is on the bottom. With this Labs add-on, you can rearrange your gadgets by simply dragging them around. Convenient, eh?

Right-Side Chat & Labels

If you did everything I’ve mentioned here, even with Navbar Drag and Drop, you’ve still got a bunch of stuff to go through. If you have a wide screen, and don’t much care for the last few words of the preview you get on your e-mails, you may consider enabling Right-Side Chat and Right-Side Labels. This Labs feature will move those modules to the right side of your screeen (who’da thunk, right?). This may not look so good on a cramped monitor, but if you’ve got one of those new, fancy, wide-screen monitors, it definitely helps.

POP Mail From Other Accounts

Gmail also supports POP (sf: Post Office Protocol). Think of it as an RSS feed for e-mail, if that helps. It allows you to retrieve your e-mails from one account using a different service. So, if your other e-mail supports POP transfer, you can set your Gmail account to receive e-mail from more than one address.

I will say this, much to my disappointment, Yahoo! is not one of the services that supports POP transfer. At least, not without paying. Proceeding with my plans to abandon them are a little harder now, but no matter.

You can set up multiple accounts to receive from under Settings > Accounts tab. This is also where you can set up….

Send Mail As…

Collecting all of your accounts into one place can be more than a little convenient. But what about when you want to reply to all those e-mails? All of a sudden, they’re getting replies from people they don’t recognize, or worse, you get blocked by their obnoxiously strict Spam filter.

Enter “Send Mail As…”. Here you can set up multiple e-mail addresses that you can choose from when sending an e-mail.

Mail Goggles

Perhaps the funniest of all add-ons for regular old Gmail, this Labs feature will require you to solve a simple math problem (you get to define what “simple” means) before you are permitted to send an e-mail late at night. This feature ensures that you are in a right state of mind while writing it. Or at least sober.

Bonus for Firefox Users:

Integrated Gmail

For the Google power user, who is not satisfied with just Gmail, but also uses Google Reader for their RSS feeds, Google Calendar to plan their life, or any of the other Google services including Picasa, Maps, Groups, or News, the Integrated Gmail plugin is for you.

This plugin makes your Inbox collapsable (like all the other gadgets on your Gmail page), and adds in Google Reader and Calendar by default, with options to add in panes for several other of Google’s services.

This is an experimental plugin, which means you’ll need to sign up for an account with Mozilla to be able to use it. Being an experimental plugin, it may be subject to bugs, but I’ve been using it for a while now with minimal difficulty.

Experiment!

Google is not short on shiny new features that, in any other service, you’d have to pay to get. So, I encourage you to poke around. For myself, I use most of the above-mentioned tricks. While it hasn’t necessarily reduced the amount of time I spend online, it has at least helped make some of it a bit more productive.

The most important thing, though, is to try out different tools and see which one works best for you. I’ve used several calendar and to-do list programs (and real-life paper ones) in my life. It just so happens that integrating with my e-mail, that I check frequently, works best for me.

Hope you find this guide useful. And have fun!