dangit, y'know i specifically waited like an hour or two after the moxcast to post the comment i ended up leaving in the previous post to see if you'd post a followup to the moxcast!. . . now i've got nothing to say. . . of course some might argue i didn't have much to say before. . .

well, so that this comment isn't a total waste of space, i thought i'd give my 2 cents about steve h.'s question to dale about whether the quality of movies will go up since it's getting cheaper and cheaper to make movies. . . one thing i've noticed with still photos is that since photography is so much cheaper than it was back in the day when each roll of film cost like $10 to develop and, consequently, made the average joe much less inclined to experiment, it's made the quality of all photography crank up several notches and force some professionals to tweak their workflows or be left behind. . .

i mean sure, more digital cameras out there mean more crappy photos, but it also substantially cranks up the number of good-to-great photographers. . .

with video/film i'm thinking a similar ramping up will occur, but maybe not nearly as noticable, the reason being the amount of post-production that has to occur with video. . . like, with photography you might see a great shot, frame it, shoot it, d/l it to your computer, and maybe that's it. . . or if you don't think it's "cheating" (note: i don't think it's cheating) you might do some cropping/rotating/color correcting/other photochopping. . . i know i'm oversimplifying but i'd say with the majority of, say, flickr users, unless they're really doing some tweaking, that's about the end of it. . .

with video/film, on the other hand, after getting the shots and x-ferring your footage to the computer, you then have to review it all by watching it in real time, edit it, adjust the sound levels, maybe find some music to sync it to, maybe do some color correction, wait for your computer to render and export it, view it, maybe go back and tweak a transition here, a cut there, and before you know it, this 3-minute short has taken 10 hours to put together (or maybe 10 minutes if you're lip-synching barbie girls and throwing it up onto youtube). . . and that's assuming you're not shooting a vid that has a plot, which would require a script and maybe some basic storyboarding. . .

which is something that your average joe with a videocamera may not be all that into. . . so while more people will be getting good at shooting footage, i'm thinking it won't be to the same extent as people who get into photography (think of all the new parents who buy a videocamera and leave it in a drawer while using their still camera all the time). . .

and while i see that i'm rambling like a motherfuck, i guess my point is that, and again, i'm oversimplifying so i don't mean to insult anyone, being a hobbyist photographer is like being the director, dp/cinematographer, and gaffer in a film, but being someone who shoots video as a hobby is like being a writer, director, dp/cinematographer, gaffer, sound guy, editor, effects person, and dvd mastering company all in one. . .

which means it's more of a pain in the ass and may mean it'll have less of an effect on mainstream media. . . and now that i think about it, i suppose a good way to see how much of an effect cheap video will have on mainstream media is to look at how much blogging has changed the landscape of writing. . . have bloggers had a positive, negative, or any effect on the world of writing (not just news)?. .. are there more good books out on the shelves 'cuz people got their start as bloggers?. . . and fyi, that wasn't a rhetorical question - i actually don't know. . .

oh, and on a kinda related but kinda not topic, whether or not it would increase the number of good movies is kind of a weird question 'cuz what constitutes a "good movie" is pretty damn subjective. . . as a kid i would've chosen the crappiest jean-claude van damme movie over, say, "reds" (hell i would even today, i fucking *hated* reds - all three fucking hours of it), but i'm sure most people would say that reds was a better movie than lionheart. . . hell, there are people who thought "farenheit 9/11" and "supersize me" were awesome documentaries and i thought the first pandered waaaay too much to the left (and i'm a berkeley liberal!) and and the second had bad science all throughout. ..

okay, sorry for rambling. . . i'll shut up now. . .

Moxie,

I listened to the recording of your webcast - quite an enlightening interview with Mr. Launer. I fell asleep early yesterday evening and missed not only your webcast but also the Spurs winning their fourth NBA championship.

FYI: a troll has been posting insulting comments about Cathy Seipp at Luke Ford's blog and Nancy Rommelmann's blog. Several of us have retaliated in kind and I thought I'd let you know in case you want to beat up on the loser yourself.

Moxie,

I listened to the recording of your webcast - quite an enlightening interview with Mr. Launer. I fell asleep early yesterday evening and missed not only your webcast but also the Spurs winning their fourth NBA championship.

FYI: a troll has been posting insulting comments about Cathy Seipp at Luke Ford's blog and Nancy Rommelmann's blog. Several of us have retaliated in kind and I thought I'd let you know in case you want to beat up on the loser yourself.

I'm glad you guys enjoyed the show, I wish we had another hour, we didn't even have time to talk about waterboarding!

Re: the troll -- if he turns up here -- I'll help him say what he really means. Thanks for the heads-up.

Hi pretty Moxie, and fyi: I closed the comments for my post. Enough.