Daniel Sheehy

Yes, I had a good look through the website. That's how come I know who the accrediting body is. If it's working out for you, congratulations, you're one of a select few for whom it actually has. Please read the Forum Guidelines, full names required of members here.

Lost the opportunity to edit previous post.. You know you've got doubtful credentials when the major accrediting organisation, in this case the National Private Schools Accreditation Alliance (NPSAA), is offering to sell you their database! "..Our database will return the exact information for your mailing, telemarketing campaign, facsimile campaign or demographic research project). Why pay a base "low-ball" base price from the competition, then a have them charge you a fortune for add-on's. We at NPSAA Private School Database Managers offer our complete data file that at includes all available fields for one low price, period. That's right, No add-on's! NPSAA data is just 15 cents for all available fields for each unique record, not 50 to 60 cents each record for pricey add-on's from the competition!.." http://www.npsag.com/database.htm

Yawn...

My first reaction is that clip 2 looks better. Based on how the light filters through the clouds and the fact that the lightning is reflected in the water in clip 2, but not in clip 1.. I'd say clip 2 was the 'real' clip.

I'm very sorry to hear that. Paul was himself very well regarded by the community here. He will be missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Happy Birthday!

A proper safety harness has a quick release.

And to that end, they make a point of trying to keep the audience engaged. You will agree that audience perception of the events and characters in a film is an important consideration..? 'We want people to sympathise with so-and-so. We want the audience to sense the fear..' It is my personal opinion that the audience, knowing that film maker wants to keep them engaged in the story, has every reason to put their hand up and say 'I can't engage with your story when you shake the camera so much I can't see a damn thing.'

This is where we get into the impossible debate about to what degree art is made for the artist vs. the degree to which it is made for the audience. :) And film making is most definitely an art which is intended for an audience, so in a way, it ceases to be their own movie. Once they release a work into the public sphere, they are opening it up to interpretation, criticism or acclaim from anyone and everyone.

It is. I took great pride in being known as a steady pair of hands. The news cameraman who breaks into a run with a rolling camera is not trying to make the experience more authentic, he/she is trading off image quality to guarantee 'getting something' as opposed to not having an important shot. The really great guys (IMHO) are the ones who can guess what will happen next and are ready, eliminating (as much as possible) the need for compromised footage. So you can understand why I disagree with the idea that the shaky cam is somehow better at making you feel like you were there. If it's shaky enough to make me stop and think 'Hey, that'd be pretty poor hand-held technique if this was a news clip', then I think technique has compromised content. I don't believe technique should ever be allowed to compromise content in narrative work. It happens, but when directors have the budget, skills etc to avoid it, I think they should!

It can be a useful tool. But when it becomes disruptive to the viewing experience, it has obviously been abused. I personally feel that the current trend of trying to replicate the visual experience of actually being there, is counter-productive to the story telling.

I curious, what did that person perceive the problem to be?

Very sorry to hear. My thoughts go to his family and friends dealing with with his untimely passing.

One of the challenges with faking rain, is to get depth to it. You could try using a hose to add some rain further back in the shot as well. Edit: David beat me to it. :)

I enjoyed the movie, but found the 3D a bit distracting. Giving depth to the image generally didn't make it more life like. Generally, my eyes wanted to flit over the scene for a brief second, establishing and supporting the depth that I'm being told is there in the picture. But I couldn't. This constantly reminded me that I was viewing an illusion. However, the effect was awesome in some of the wide, scenery shots though, especially the scenes involving the trip up to the nesting grounds. (Maybe the limited conflicting depth cues in such a wide scene helped..?)

I know you make some reference to 'our website' but it might be appropriate to mention what company you are affiliated with at the top of your post. Just for the sake of clarity. :)

Studios make movies that will sell. If there is a mismatch between what the audience says it believes, and what the numbers show they are actually buying into... they obviously are buying into content that contradicts what they say they believe.

That's a bit broad Matt. A pollutant is any substance that causes harm, disorder or damage in an ecosystem, whether by its chemical composition, or through excessive concentrations. (eg, hot water from power stations is lethal to aquatic life and is considered a pollutant. Oxygen in excessive concentrations is lethal, as are excessive concentrations of CO2.) So it is absolutely possible for any substance, natural or man made, to become a pollutant. I don't think anyone is debating the measured increase in atmospheric CO2, and I don't think anyone is denying the link between human industrial activity and the increase in atmospheric CO2. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html There has always been much debate among scientists about linking the CO2 record, with the temperature records. The long time scale trends match quite well, but there are anomalies in the short time scale trends. It over the interpretation of these anomalies that the recent furore has has erupted. Regardless of that, we just cannot continue to release gases (even the 'staff of life' - CO2) into the air at levels well above their natural concentrations.

:) There is no subtext Chris. As far as I know, it's not a topic of current research, so I was using past tense. But if you can point me to current research I'll be happy to admit I got it wrong.

If you called being fired from a canon, controlled flight, then I will concede, riding an explosive shock wave meets that definition of 'controlled'. If you take control to mean 'having the ability to manage or direct' then no, it's not controlled.

LoL Riding an explosive shock wave on a pusher plate does not constitute controlled flight.

Uncontrolled as in once the bang starts, it can't be stopped. :) And the reactor line should have read: "A disposable nuclear reactor is just that, a nuclear reactor designed to harness a contained nuclear reaction in a controlled manner, not intended for multiple or re-use."

Ahh no. A disposable nuclear reactor is just that, a nuclear reactor designed to harness a contained nuclear reaction in a controlled manner, for a single time event. A nuclear bomb is a nuclear device designed to trigger a single uncontained, uncontrolled nuclear reaction. ...Dr Strangelove anyone? :D

The 'million times more powerful' refers to energy density of the fuels, not the resultant propellant efficiency. That is much lower. And the fact that the technology wasn't ready for flight testing by the time the program was cancelled in 1972 had nothing to do with it? ;) For anyone who is actually interested, here's NASA's final report into the Rover Nuclear Rocket Engine Program. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1992005899.pdf

Obviously the coppers didn't do their homework: http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm It's frustrating, because even if the Police are mistaken, you are rather foolish to argue with them.