How to Fly

  Found this interesting site and article on how to fly.  Sadly, it was the only link available on google (near the top anyways) that was actually related to flying flying - not flying with some giant overpriced piece of metal carrying you.  Definitely sounds like fun - I’ll be trying that soon hehe.

  I suppose it’s another thing to add to the list of Things to Do.  At some point, I do hope to get 42 of them.

  Been trying to figure out how to embed Flash the “perfect way” for a while.  The conventional way, using both object and embed tags, is not actually compliant or “legal” so to speak.  If you validate your site (validator.w3.org), you will run into many errors.

   So for a while, everything on my site except the Flash embedding was W3C-compliant.  I honestly don’t know why I care, but it just bugged me that one problem was keeping my site from being fully XHTML.

  Out of all my searches, I have to say this one is most useful: In Search of… the Perfect Plugin Technique.  Not only does it list all the ways to embed Flash and stay within the standards, it lists all the pros and cons of each method.

  From what I’ve tried, it would appear the nested-object method is the best way to go if you want to have the most compatibility across browsers.  Javascript is out of the question because, sadly, I still have people who disable javascript on their browsers.  It’s also just way too much hassle to create a new SWF in order to load other Flash files; I’d have to break and redo many of the links I’ve already created (rather than just changing a few key elements of the site).

  I guess really the only thing now is to see and wait.  If anyone knows of issues with the nested-object technique, please do say.  I’d hate to have it set up across all the sites and rely on it so blindly if it turns out not to work.

  Sometimes you feel unstoppable, great, as if the world is only beginning, and you are at the center of it all.  You get ideas, schemes that you never dared consider before, and now that you have, you feel obligated to pursue them, to drive them as far as you possibly can.  At first you're not sure if you're up to the task; the first step looks hard and difficult.  Then you toss in the first challenge, the first dream, and then the second, and then the third.

  Pretty soon, you're not only tossing and catching all three, you are actually juggling.  You can juggle two at a time, worry about the third later.  Or you can juggle all three at once, perhaps without even breaking a sweat.  Over time, you get better; you've gone far beyond anything you ever hoped to do, juggling three when at first you dared not even juggle one.  You're ready for more; you want a challenge.

  And so you throw in the…[More]

Sony VCL-HGE07A Lens at Amazon. 

  Been looking for a wide angle lens for my camcorder for the longest time.  The recommended one (VCL-HG0737C) from Sony can cost upwards from $150 to $200.  Recently, I noticed the VCL-HGE07A, a more compact wide-lens available for $230 from the Sony site, but only $80 from Amazon.

  I guess really - you do get what you pay for.  However, I couldn’t figure if Amazon was just mispricing the item or if it’s really worth only $80.  Sony afterall priced it at $230 on their site, well above the $200 of the recommended lens.

  On opening the package, it seems a fine-quality lens.  Very strongly built.  However, there are details that just won’t do - at least for me.  First, there are no lens caps available.  The pouch is nice, but remember it’s a large lens.  Getting it out and avoiding touching the lens is a pain.  Next is using the lens on the camcorder - the quality is nice but you cannot zoom whatsoever.  I did not see this mentioned in any description of the product.  It only states this on the manual - which you have to open the product to read.  So in other words, I must snap off the wide lens every time I want to zoom in on something.

  I guess if you want only to have wide angle - it’s an okay lens.  But really, for $80 to not ever zoom, to have to snap off the lens but not have a lens cap to protect it - I’d rather save up for the $150 lens.

From Amoverus by Plasmatic

  Strangely enough, I only just recently started noticing flicker when I slowed clips down in Adobe Premiere.  This is with interlaced video clips.  Generally you don’t notice them until after exporting to DVD and playing back.

  Did a bit of research online, and from what I gather, it’s due to the fact the interlacing is affected by the change in speed.  To solve this issue, you’ll want to make sure you de-interlace the clip you are slowing down.

  1) Right-click the clip in the timeline.

  2) Select Field Options

  3) Choose Always Deinterlace.

  This should solve the flickering problem; sadly however, deinterlacing also leads to a slight degrade in quality.  Some other sources say that the flickering is minimal if you slow the speed down by even numbers, like 50% or 25%.  It makes sense because interlacing is done between two frames, so if you go by multiples of 1/2, it should be able to distribute the frames better.  You can try that first and see if the flickering is still there; if it is, then go for deinterlacing.

  Of course, it’s also important to make sure you have the correct field order.  If you don’t, you’ll always end up with flickering.  Simple way to check in Premiere is to right-click the clip and choose Field Options > Reverse Field Dominance.  If reversing the fields leads to better video quality (less blur which you should be able to see easily), then you obviously have the wrong field order.  To fix this, you’d create a new sequence and make sure you choose the opposite field order (upper/lower).  You should be able to just copy-paste the timeline clips between sequences so no work is lost.