OSNews

To create stills I need to grab frames and store them on this server. While these creators surely won't have a problem, it's not very legal to do so without authorization, as in USA, work is copyrighted by default.

Anyways, maybe you could also install a 32bit kernel and boot via it to have temporarily Flash support?

Understood on the legality concerns.

I can reconfigure chroot on Debian to get it to work. It's more a matter of defiance than compliance.

Surely you've heard of nspluginwrapper. I've had Flash 9 on a 64-bit kernel for nearly a year. No need for chroot.

The last upgrade broke the one in Debian Sid. After purging my system and reinstalling it it broke between 9.0.48 and 9.0.115.

Fedora 8 and Sabayon support Flash on AMD64. The 32 bit version uses NDISwrapper and works normally. Gnash works on some Flash videos too.

I am using kubuntu gutsy 64 and I use flash all you need is nspluginwrapper
http://gwenole.beauchesne.info/projects/nspluginwrapper/
in ubuntu it is all done automatically whne I install the flash non free it install the nspluginwrapper and flash

Not exactly coral reefs, but similar theme, on the first video shown here: http://www.osnews.com/story.php/18870

Here's a coral reef video, but unfortunately it's not in HD, although the original higher quality VGA version is offered for a download: http://vimeo.com/44844

It's pretty close, but I guess I'm more talking about the stuff you see on IMAX about coral reefs, etc.

Not necessarily. You don't have to always tell a story. Video is not just about stories, but also about "moving pictures", about imagery, about visual stimulation. Having a plot is only one of the usages of video.

A few days ago we were at Reno, NV, inside the Peppermill casino. Peppermill has employed some professional people to shoot video for the casino's multiple 42" HDTVs. One particular scene stroke me. It was a slow-moving river with lots of fallen leaves on it. If this was a picture, it would have been a dull picture (and my prosumer photographer husband agreed to this observation too). But the element of movement, just made it apparent that this scene was meant to be shot as video, not as a picture.

Beautiful, simple imagery is the first thing a videographer will try to go for. Having a plot requires one or more subjects, and most videographers don't have that luxury. It's not necessary anyway.

>Beautiful, simple imagery is the first thing a videographer will try to go for. Having a plot requires one or more subjects, and most videographers don't have that luxury. It's not necessary anyway.

well, permit me to disagree :-)
as you wrote: beautiful images are the FIRST thing you will try.

It's like photography: first you learn the tech things (light, aperture, speed, DOF etc.).
In about two months you can manage the tecnique and produce formally perfect images.
Then comes the hard part: use that tech notions to shoot something that communicates, to tell a story.
In definitive: trying to produce a small form of art.

This last part is creativity, and you cannot learn it in two months. I've been shooting for years and I don't have a bit of the vision of the masters like Bresson or Salgado or Berengo Gardin or Adams etc.

Filming is really hard: to produce something that matters you need a lot of talent.

> to produce something that matters you need a lot of talent.

That's true, but what "matters" is a subjective issue. Visual stimulation and artsy editing can matter to a lot of people. Not everyone wants to have their brains working in full power to figure out what happens on a short movie that has a plot or a "deeper" meaning that makes you think. Many just want to see relaxing imagery, or disturbing imagery.

Just like dance doesn't always tell a story, compared to theater. It could tell a story (e.g. the swan lake ballet or Chinese theater), but it's not necessary. Greek traditional line-dancing don't tell a story usually for example. And it doesn't lose value because of that. People still enjoy it.

Besides, there's not much of a story you can put together on macro video shots with slugs as your stars, or flowers, or snow. And yet, it looks beautiful.

Edited 2007-12-27 10:31

I understand your point of view, Eugenia.
Still, I think that today it's TOO EASY to just produce perfect images or perfect short films, anybody can do that.

Obviuosly there's nothing bad in doing that, but I think is a poor use of the great tech devices we have today.

BTW:
>Greek traditional line-dancing don't tell a story usually for example

I'm not an expert in dancing, expecially in Greek dances, but I know that italian popular dances HAVE a meaning, even if the majority of the people who dance don't care.
Dances come from the traditions, are related to the seasons, to the work or to the erotism of the men and women, for example.

I agree with this. A single well shot photo can tell so many different stories depending on who is looking at it.

Let me add an example.
Look at these shoots of a simple and common subject: a dog.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3323495
this is a technically perfect photo. Great light, great detail, perfect DOF etc.
Yet, it's a "normal" photo. Anybody can do this. It doesen't give you a bit of emotion.

now look at this one:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4098221
still a dog, but what a difference!
Is the dog sleeping? Is he tired? Who is the man down there? Why are the man and the dog far away?
So: this image makes you think. This is the difference.

the main difference is that the two photos have completely different "intentions"...

I agree 100% with you that the 2nd one at first sight communicates more "interest" because it exploits the "context"; the first one concentrates on the subject, trying to catch and explore expression, depth, intensity... So the 2nd one lets you imagine a "story", while the other focuses on th subject.

In any case expressiveness of an artwork relies always on two roles, the artist being able to communicate a message and the observer, being able to get messages (can be different ones with different observers, even getting emotions beyond artist's intentions)

Edited 2007-12-27 11:08

>In any case expressiveness of an artwork relies always on two roles, the artist being able to communicate a message and the observer, being able to get messages


totally agree with you.

Anyway, I was just trying to say that today being so easy and cheap to produce formally perfect films or photo, I appreciate those who try to put some artistic quality to their hobbist work even if they fail.

I understand this is totally off topic, so excuse me.

Anyway, thanks Eugenia for your great info and tutorial on video editing: if I ever want to switch from photo to video, I will remember to re-read all your material.

I'm not sure what site you've been visiting, but this subject was covered MULTIPLE times... OSNews is NOT an os-related ONLY website. Everything that is remotely related can, and is, covered here.

Edited 2007-12-27 20:42

Remotely? You can prove that everything is directly or indirectly related to OSes topic, but is it really? Don't let propaganda fool You.

> how some of them was made

Usually with a tripod and an HV20.

Baderman, please read the forum rules before you reply again.

Beware baderman, there's a TOTALITARIAN clause(VIII) in the TERMS http://www.osnews.com/rules.php for posting comments :

Foresee your comment to be moderated down soon...

>Nearly every one has a nature theme,

Well yes. We are talking about people who don't have studios or actors. The only thing you can shoot "for free", is nature, so that's normal.

Remember, we are not talking about indie filmmakers here, who in reality they are semi-pro, we are talking about amateurs, and so what they shoot is limited by light and live subjects.

The only thing you can shoot "for free", is nature, so that's normal

So you can't film people you don't know for free? Of course, you can.

Not without image release, no. You can not do that in USA and many other countries. If the people in the video are identifiable and they didn't sign an image release, you are in deep legal trouble.

The AppleTV can playback 720/24p, which is what most files encoded on vimeo are at, or can be easily re-encoded as such without much quality loss.