#like not analogous but they are in the same ballpark of what they end up doing

[stealthrockdamage]

madoka actually reminds me a lot of shulk, weirdly, in how their character arcs end

[goldendiie]

My dream rn is to be to Sherdoc what you are to Sargemore

How did you get here

Like, other than the obvious, if you had to take your most comedic guess at how you got here, what would you say

i sold my soul to the devil so then i could have internet fame by writing sarge/fillmore fanfic. slash jay.

anyway, since i have a tendency to ramble, i’ll put a serious answer under the cut. i’m going to call this G’s Path to Accidental Internet Success.

1. i joined the fandom in 2016, when i was 14. as such, i bothered literally EVERYONE and tried to make as many friends as i could. i ended up with a pretty solid group of mutuals (most—if not all— of which are now deactivated. rip.) .

2. start asking for writing requests. the stuff i started out with was always in the 50-300 words ballpark (like drabbles). the main key here is to (a) have Exactly One Thing you write about (aka sargemore), and a handful of people that are willing to engage with you on that.

some cars fandom history for you: around this time (2018-ish), we had this anon “spam” (i hate to call them that, because we are now good friends) who would send many, many, many asks into my inbox about sarge and potatoes. i was able to turn some of their asks into legitimate oneshots, or take them a little farther than they likely expected. (see: wishes, as the sun sets, or anything else i posted in the summer of 2018). i guess what you can take away from this is that ANYTHING can be turned into writing if you are deranged enough.

it was also around this time that i bought the sargemore backstory comic off of ebay, and then spent an INCREDIBLE amount of time immersing myself in sixties history to write the third blink. i started posting that in june of 2019, and it went through the beginning of january of 2021 (covid fucked up my schedule). in that time, the fic gained a pretty decent following, a lot of whom usually still turns up for anything that i post on ao3.

so, number 3: if you put a lot of passion and time and effort into your work, people will notice! if you construct a good narrative arc for your characters, and do things that people aren’t expecting, they’ll stick around. a consistent posting schedule always helps too; think of it as tuning in to your favorite television show once a week, back in the old days of cable. i know i’m not one to talk about that (we all know i haven’t posted in like six months… yikes), but i’m telling you. it helps.

4. never shut the hell up about what you’re writing. i mean, seriously. you see the shit that i post about my AU. be obnoxious. have fun. start a discussion about your characters, or the narrative. in my case, i do this easily by creating a historical discussion through the use of sarge/fillmore as figures analogous to different political beliefs.

(actually. my ploy all along was to educate you guys. i can’t tell you how many comments i’ve gotten that are people saying “i wasn’t expecting to LEARN anything from a cars fanfic, but….”)

i think that’s all. i hate to say that a great deal of this is circumstantial, because i started in a height of the fandom in 2017, and the Potato Anon summer gave me a lot to work with, and i’ve been doing the same kind of thing for almost seven years now. but i think that you could still swing it. there’s enough people in the fandom that you could definitely attract the audience you want for your writing. i’ll be proud to be a part of it!

TLDR: have friends that want to engage with your writing, stay (mostly) consistent, and create a discussion about your “content.” and, most importantly— be passionate, be real, and HAVE FUN. none of this is worth it if you aren’t enjoying it.

[dustedmagazine]

Janel & Anthony — New Moon in the Evil Age (Cuneiform)

Washington DC based musicians Janel Leppin and Anthony Pirog have been working for a while, both as a duo and separately. Pirog’s part of the Messthetics and recently cut a record with James Brandon Lewis, while Leppin played with both Marissa Nadler and Oren Ambarchi, and leads the Ensemble Volcanic Ash. And together they released Where Is Home a little over a decade ago. Now they’re back with a new record: New Moon in the Evil Age. It’s split between two discrete halves: one is built around quiet moments and interplay, the other leans towards indie rock.

“New Moon” opens the first half with Leppin’s atmospheric bowed cello lines and Pirog layering guitar lines over top of each other. It builds up into a swirl of sound before quickly dissipating like a puff of smoke. It’s an approach they go back to on other pieces here: “Bells Ring In the Distance” adds a bit of echo to the mix to give them a wider sense of ambience and a slowly rising riff that’s played in unison slowly gives way to Leppin’s cello. The ideas are traded fast between them as they return to the theme for a quick ending.

Elsewhere the two play with a folksy feel. The gentle acoustic guitar on “Boom Boom” wouldn’t sound out of place on a fingerstyle record and Leppin’s cello comes in for a nice counterpart. But the piece takes a quick shift when Pirog enters with a clean, jazzy electric tone and some fluid lines up and down his fretboard. As it closes, there’s an interesting, mellotron-like sound that enters the mix, a nice wrinkle that draws back to 1970s progressive rock and gives listeners a bit of a curveball: what exactly is this record? It’s not the first such stylistic turn here.

A piano kicks off “Fog Curls Around the Cypress,” giving the piece a tonal shift from the string-led songs elsewhere. The slow riff pushes this piece forward as a guitar chimes in as the lead voice with gentle, precise playing. Leppin’s cello enters to finish off the piece and ends it on a darker feeling as her instrument buzzes and fills the space.

But the biggest chance finishes off the first half of this set: “Crystal Wish” dives full on into New Age territory. It opens with an analog-sounding synth riff and Pirog’s thin, piercing guitar tone. While the way he slides around and bends his notes harkens back to earlier on this record, the way it gives to a synth’s wide splash of sound catches one off guard. Suddenly we’re in a different ballpark. From the way his guitar pops in but has enough echo to make you think he’s playing deep in a cave somewhere to the outer space ambience of the keyboards, it feels like something Constance Demby might have whipped up, a kind of music it’s easy to imagine playing over footage of a spaceship cruising between planets. It's quite an effective way to end the first half and almost makes you wish there was more in this style before it, but then maybe it wouldn’t have the same power.   

Through the first half, the duo makes music that draws on several genres while never quite confining themselves to one. There are touches of New Age, American Primitive, Post Rock, and more, but they never quite confine themselves to just one at any given moment. Where similar duos like Mary Halvorson and Bill Frisell’s 2018 record The Maid with the Flaxen Hair kept closer to one style, this one sees Pirog and Leppin pushing at each other’s boundaries and keeps listeners off balance.

The second half, however, is a different beast completely: when “Surf the Dead” kicks off with a rock rhythm and Leppin’s singing New Moon in the Evil Age has stepped back from post rock to a quirky sort of indie. The grooves sound thin and wiry, propelled by tinny sounding drums, and the vocals give way to a squealing synth solo. Indeed, throughout the second half the group - at separate points they’re joined by bassist Dev Hoff and percussionist Dr. Ali Analouei - the group mines various styles of indie rock. Both “Sweet and Sour” and “Dream Come Alive” have slow, woozy synth patterns and an ethereal vibe that recalls dream pop; the sparse instrumentation, layered vocals and poppy rhythms on “Evil Age” sound a little like Tennis.

In some ways this second half feels like a mirror reflection of the first: where before the focus was on the instruments and the interplay, this one builds on the similar sounds and textures but instead puts the emphasis on rhythms and vocals. At the same time, it never feels like a fleshed out version of the first half, but more like a complimentary part that shows them exploring pop hooks and a shared interest in indie rock.

But its inclusion here is also a slight tell: the music on the second half feels like it couldn’t stand on its own. Constant slow tempos and heavy use of synths betray the music’s weightlessness: instead of being its own thing, it sounds like a collection of music inspired by the first half. The two halves work in conversation and show a duo that’s attempting to straddle a fine line. Still, it’s sequencing as two related but separate discs helps to play up the first side’s strengths while also showing the weaknesses of the second.

Those who enjoyed the recent Gastr del Sol compilation or the acoustic discs that Tzadik’s been releasing will find a fair amount on the first part to enjoy. And even if the second half does drag occasionally, it does showcase a different side of this duo.

Roz Milner

[goblinconceivable]

braindump: betty/daniel

I’ve been living with them for a while, notes taken, a few stories significantly started but there’s a gelling issue, which I’m hoping is at least partially down to a lack of proper braindumping.  So, in no particular order and certainly not comprehensive:

Frankly I also got too hooked on the last 2 eps, which is likely where I’m blocked.  It’s an abrupt emotional twist for them (esp Daniel), and in trying to make sense of that I’m losing focus on the 4 previous years.

- I’m a little bit obsessed in the scene where Betty tries to convince Matt she’s fearless by pointing out her bang-less-ness.  And then runs into Daniel, who is at that moment half brain-washed, but yet when she asks about her fearless quotient his response is immediate and natural and entirely lacking in irony: “no bangs.”  It’s a tiny little moment that shows how well he not only knows her, but understands her.  Without judgment, without fanfare.  Were I to have a husband, this is the sort of response that would confirm I’d married the absolute perfect guy for me.

- They’re too close for mirroring to be an important indicator, but there are two scenes that stand out in this vein: the first is when Betty thinks he may have pushed Christina down the stares and steals the video.  She’s backing out the door, and he follows, matching her step for step.  I love the direction choices because from her perspective there’s a sense of menace, Daniel as potential villain is stalking her.  But from his guileless perspective he’s talking to her and if she’s moving, so is he.  The second is from the penultimate, talking about Trista, where Betty’s rolling back and forth and he moves with her, rather than simply turning his head.  It signals his full engagement in the conversation, seeking her attention, and is why the scene plays as flirting rather than their normal banter.

- That bulletpoint was getting a bit long, so second point on the flirting is that it plays against Betty shutting down the conversation “none of my business,” leading to the fight over involvement in each other’s personal lives, leading to the revelation that they know each other at that deep personal level so very, very well.  Which was a very clumsy leadup to Daniel’s revelation during Hilda’s wedding speech, that could have been handled so much more deftly but those last two eps were quite rushed, I don’t know when they found out about the shortened season but it feels like they’d planned for more space and had to jab in exposition.

- Becaaaaause: they narratively broke his ‘aha’ moment onto “know you better than you do” while the strength of the message is really in the “do anything to protect them.”  Which is, I believe, where they cut to his softened expression.  Not coincidentally, this is precisely what a lot of fan-readings of the characters focus on: Daniel will do anything to protect Betty.  Bobby might have said he’d throw himself under a bus for Hilda, but Daniel HAS done that for Betty- in fact literally doing so would probably have been easier than publicly shouldering the blame for the Tornado cover and giving away the profits.  Due to the fact that he had time to consider the consequences and did it anyway.

- Which is tidy segue into an admission that I’m flying mostly blind on the Molly arc because I basically skipped all her scenes, but it’s my understanding that Daniel doing this was a pivotal moment for them.  Ie, she was impressed that he did this thing.  I mean, I really appreciate that he spent the whole press conference scene looking for Betty, so the show in no way undercut their relationship.  But then they very clearly built the Molly relationship on the foundation of not only the man Daniel had become due to Betty, but choices he was making in large measure for Betty: it’s not that he saw Betty beaten down and resolved the situation: he was upset but lost, she yelled at him, and THEN he resolved the situation by taking the bullet.  Did I break grammar by ending up with two colon’d clauses in the same sentence?  It’s a braindump, ain’t gotta be pretty.  XP

- Quick sidebar that the same thing happens with Alexis.  She was expecting to come back to one brother, but then listens in on his pep talk with Betty and finds she’s returned to a different brother.  This may be where I got the “an assistant” phrasing, if so, my bad.  But basically, she was impressed with Daniel’s actions, not understanding that it was Betty specifically inspiring his actions.

- Follow that a step further and did Molly ever acknowledge how important Betty is to him?  Legit question.  I think her line here was about him doing it “for an assistant” (?) rather than even “his assistant,” establishing Betty as a non-entity for her.  (Quoting a summary but I think I’m in the ballpark.)  And I’m sure I’d have read about it somewhere if she brought Betty up during their discussion on who he’d date when she was dead.

- Just one last note on Molly, (okay it’s a multi-part though it veers off her as a character) but a possibly incorrect beef is that I hate the Daniel/Molly relationship because there’s no interesting or even real conflict?  It’s perfect?  I’m supposed to think this is magical “true love”?  Molly has apparently been engaged for years to a man she doesn’t really love (and um... that’s lazy not strong), and helps inspire a vengeance filled betrayal by her ex because she’s so awesome everyone loves her?  But she comes out squeaky clean because any emotional cheating on her part is balanced and thus “justified” by Connor falling for Wilhemina.  And then the only “conflict” is that she’s dying, and is perfect throughout it?  That’s...  weak.

-That poem thing WOULD have been an interesting point of conflict but it was resolved by Betty’s intervention, rather than within the relationship.  Which actually is an incredibly interesting beat.  The problem with that being it’s so entirely consistent with the role Betty plays in Daniel’s life that it’s treated as just another beat, as if it doesn’t MATTER that a fundamental moment of intimacy and growth of vulnerability in Daniel’s very important romantic relationship is a door opened by a third party.  There’s a strong argument to be made for something but I broke off to write the next point and now can’t remember what that strong argument is.  I might remember later.  It may have had something to do with Molly being a stepping stone in Daniel’s arc, but the cult-thing was so long and dominating that it didn’t work, it tied him too tightly for too long and coinciding with a loosening of his relationship with Betty there was flailing.

- Quick one: Daniel’s fast-forwarded and time-bounded relationship with Molly is the analog to Betty’s time-limited relationship with Henry.  Which is a discussion I would like Daniel and Betty to have.  Esp. noting that Betty and Henry had issues they worked through together (ice cream foreplay being one.)

- Player!  So going back to a happy place, when Betty’s on the phone trying to fix the apartment situation and the camera pans onto Daniel just leaning against the doorway: this may be a legitimate little moment of “squee!”  There’s so much denial in his laid back attitude at Player, but I still love watching how the informality of the environment reflects in the informality with Betty.  He gives her free reign, and there’s many answers to “why,” and I (almost) don’t want to go into them because I totally adore how this Daniel is basically a College!Daniel only he’s latched onto Betty, who, meanwhile, is just being Betty.  OMG how different his life would have been if he’d met Betty in college...

- Okay I actually don’t feel like going into whys, it’s just an arc to enjoy.  With a small mention of how he TOTALLY was playing with the MODE book and handed it to Betty knowing she’d understand and use it to get them back in.  Such a crazy subtle manipulation, to the point where I’m not sure it wasn’t almost entirely subconscious on Daniel’s part.

- The YETI recommendation letter.  What I love is that this is another time when Daniel fvcks up, but fixes it, and more importantly displays competence and ingenuity alongside authentic caring and effort.  Here’s the thing: YETI wanted Betty, even if it was just a quota thing (which it wasn’t entirely, at least one of the board was generally enthused.)  So all that was necessary was to have them re-label her as from Player.  Daniel knew this and did this.  And told Betty that.  BUUUUT that point was purposefully (by script and character) overshadowed by the gesture of the lengthy rec letter he put significant time into.  Whose real audience was... wait for it...  Betty.  He even did a second draft!  Which is more time and effort and a cleaner product.

-  Also flaking on her practice run.  I also enjoy how he (finally...) bounced back into the office clearly having forgotten her schedule, but having mentally shifted from Molly-space into Betty-space.  He’s enthused, he’s engaged, he’s sort of bantering and I’d like to see where that scene would have gone if she hadn’t immediately gotten the acceptance call.

- So there’s this moment somewhat early on, pretty sure when Betty’s taking the writing class, and wants Daniel to give her feedback.  And he’s all “why?,” coming from his “I don’t actually know what I’m doing” place.  She responds that he’s her friend and wants to know what he thinks.  And he does a little double-take at that word.  Because until that point Daniel totally sees Betty as HIS Friend, and they’ve referred to each other as friends, with a little “f,” and he believes that.  But it wasn’t until this moment that he even considered that HE might be HER Friend.  Presumably because he doesn’t believe he has anything to offer her, beyond the power he holds as EIC and her boss - ie, “here run this show” and other such responsibilities.

- Which is a recurring theme.  Pronounced on relationship stuff especially.  When she asks him for input on the Henry vs Gio situation, when she’s trying to date the playwright.  His response is always “I’m in no position to offer relationship advice/judgment on relationships.”  He sorta dodges the first and is permissive on the second.  I don’t know where to go with that so I’ll leave it (for now).

- When  he was supposed to be in Rio, Betty wasn’t even at MODE, she was working for the “enemy,” and he was sending her regular postcards?  First, they’d have been postmarked in New York and presumably with local stamps, so I’m not 100% on Betty not cottoning on.  But it’s super cute that he was thinking of her when he was incommunicado with literally everyone else.  Did he want her to figure it out (subconsciously)?  It’s an act of reaching out, but also of convincing: he’s created a fictional narrative of being in Rio, fed and embellished by the media and swallowed by coworkers, but it’s through Betty that he’s establishing the fiction in a definitive way.  He wants HER to believe it, because if SHE believes he’s there and having a good time, then he can believe it too, with a small piece of his imagination.

- Same convincing as in Player.  BTW, how did all those messages on her phone work?  He was 99% totally hiding the situation from her.  a) why wouldn’t he just call her from his phone, as he always did in the past?  b) he was creating another fictional space.  Where her “number” was literally on a post-it on his temporary assistant’s monitor.  It’s all play: “call Betty” happens many times, and every one is the act of doing it while knowing that he’s not really doing it.  c) Betty does not point out that he should have been confused he never heard back, or more to the point, that he never heard her voicemail message.  d) he was in a state of limbo waiting for her to come back, nothing is real until she does.  At which point there’s lovely dramatic tension since he both wants her to fix it and get them out of there, and wants to draw her into this new reality and thus make it feel viable.

- 100th Anniversary edition.  I love the idea that he’s hep on her writing his bio because he needs her name, at least, to be next to his.  His identity as EIC is predicated on her being his partner, and needs that shown, even if it’s functionally an “in joke” because it’s not like she can be featured.  In musing over his thoughts while flipping through the book right before deciding to quit, I usually come back to a realization of the transience of the role, but I want it to be a gutpunch of how he assumed, without being aware, that Betty would be next to him in picture, and that’s what they were heading for.

- I’ve actually got through most of my notes, so just a couple more.  Daniel is super impressionable.  He did what Becks told him to in the pilot.  He did what Natalie told him in the cult-situation.  Both against his better judgment - his look after Betty when he kicked her out for being “drama he didn’t need” - that’s the same look when he told her to clock out and was dragged off by the not-16-year-old.  I’m too tired to go check the pilot, but assuming similar look there.  He does what he’s told by anyone telling him to do something, but he WANTS to be rescued from the bad influences, who are so often so forceful.

- Final scene: okay so it turns out quick a lot of my thoughts are trying to understand Daniel.  His growth is blatant and deep.  So a second round will be more Betty-focused.  ‘Cuz I identify strongly with her and don’t have a lot of surface questions about her motivations, but I’m LOST on side of the romantic coin.  And plus she deserves a close look regarding how she grows during the series.

- I watched at least part of the reunion and very much like how AF answered the question of the final scene versus what EM says.  Because I think they each, as actors, see it from the perspective of their characters, which means it was played authentically and grants insight.  AF basically says that she saw it as Daniel coming to say thank you, and how it came down to Betty teaching him that he was good enough.  Which came across a little funny because her phrasing implied they’d never talk or see each other again or something and that’s an alarming finality.  But also implies that Betty really did see moving to London as a significant parting of ways, something that started as soon as she became an editor and their relationship changed.  Probably before.

- She then challenged EM as to why Daniel didn’t say goodbye (as if she didn’t know and hadn’t thought about it?  I’m guessing this was panel performance: asking the question “in character” and throwing the question to the other relevant actor.)  But anyway, EM’s answer was “Because things were just starting.”  Which is blatantly a shippy answer, and he even explains Daniel’s “revelation” as when he “really saw Betty for the first time through and through.”

- At some point in these things you’re like: oh but I thought of something else, and only stop when your brain falls asleep.

- I thought of something else.  And then I forgot it.  My brain is failing!  But not yet failed.

- After Betty gets her braces off there’s this scene near the end, at the shoot.  Daniel sees her and crosses quite purposefully to talk with her.  He wants to banter and share this exciting moment with her.  And the scene goes a little strange when Betty kinda goes “yeah, going now bye.”  I expected more eye contact, a big smile, more conversation.  That’s Betty.  That’s them.  But instead it’s a little awkward so Something Is Happening Here.  Is she self-conscious?  Did she see and hear something in Daniel’s look and comment right after she was detached from the bra and isn’t at this moment comfortable with him?  Is this all fallout from her dream in which she and Daniel slept together/he thought she was a bad person/rejected her only they chose not to explicate this/cut a useful scene/thought I’d get that right away but I’m obtuse?  I don’t think it’s the last one because while I can be horribly obtuse, I don’t think it was coded.  But that’s what the obtuse would say.

- At any rate they don’t pick up on it again, next scene (next ep) they’re back to normal.

- But Daniel does immediately chase after Amanda and let go of her.  Which is payoff for his convo with Betty earlier where she sort of disdainfully asks if he WANTS a more serious relationship with Amanda.  I did sort of wonder if he actually does, but Betty’s judgmentalness is what convinces him he doesn’t.  Usually I’d say Betty understands him so well she knows he doesn’t, but they’re not as close at this point, Betty is living her own life much more, so I dunno.

- But I don’t actually think Daniel was falling for Amanda, or that the show wanted us to think that was ultimately a viable path.  Because of that moment when he’s in a car, calls Amanda, says “I really need to see  you” and she turns him down.  It parallels his text to Betty when Molly died.  One text and Betty came over.  This was an actual distressed voice convo and Amanda doesn’t care enough about him to be there, which is really great development for Amanda even though we don’t see her!  She previously went after Matt when he was in jail, she’s interested in Tyler here, she’s not totally pining for Daniel!

- Daniel of course was using Amanda and their earned if mild emotional intimacy as a crutch, trying to fill the space Betty left.  Also note when Amanda turned him down for sex and he stayed to “hang out,” - this is not supposed to be an analysis of Amanda but I wanna note I like that moment because it felt like she was pleased to think she wasn’t just sex to him, while still being over him romantically. Because she does care about him.

- Or for pete’s...  I have this bad habit of writing notes which I later look at and am like... “huh?”  This is a fic idea, from Daniel’s POV: “Betty had moulded him, often by sheer force of her iron will, into being a man who almost deserved Molly.  And he'd turned right around and become a man who would never deserve Betty.”  And I DON’T REMEMBER WHAT THE SECOND HALF MEANS.  Specifically.

- Wedding dancing.  Happens twice.  Hilda’s wedding, we know what that is.  But at Daniel’s wedding.  I like that he wasn’t 100% Molly focused, ‘cuz, shipper.  And I know why the show had Matt cut in, because gotta keep things moving.  But isn’t it a thing that you don’t cut in on the groom/bride?  It’s their day.  Daniel just sort of nonverbally asks Betty if it’s okay (to leave her with Matt), but can’t help a) thinking he was a bit put out and b) want Molly to see his expression looking at Betty and have some sort of “aha” moment where she - do Molly and Betty have any scenes together?  I don’t remember seeing any and I think I did skim through all the eps, but I need to do that again.

- Ooh, one of the things I forgot en route!  I like that Betty has revolving love interests, because that’s textual argument for Betty never having feelings (romantic) for Daniel.  Which is super, super important in this iteration of the story.  There’s a couple moments - pilot and the first bridge scene - where she arguably has a momentary crush, which quickly settles into a developing platonic relationship.  

- Jump back to Daniel finally seeing Betty as a true equal = romantic feelings.  It’s a thing.  Look my brain is deteriorting and wording is hard!  So there’s two sided imbalance throughout.  Daniel always saw Betty with this veneer of youth, and a great deal of his use for her is helping her “grow into the woman she’ll be.”  And that’s the roadblock in him seeing her as a romantic possibility.  Which was initially quite awesome because he was sleeping with people younger than her, even the “she’s actually 20″ girl was younger than Betty.  And yet always saw her as in many ways more mature and competent than her.  And double-yet he still saw how much further she could, and would, grow.  His belief in her knows no bounds.

- Meanwhile Betty sees him as...  someone who’s also becoming.  Who has great potential.  Bullying him into it if necessary.  And because he’s guided by her, she can’t crush on him, he’s like her pet.  Were she to have a crush, much less fall for him, it would have been horrifying.  She needs to have a moment when she sees him as a true equal, someone who - look, everyone is always still growing so it’s not like he needs to be fully formed, and it’s a little murkier what the moment would look like when she finally sees Daniel “for the first time.”

- ‘cuz as noted, Betty has been there for pretty much every important moment of growth and crossroads in every facet of Daniel’s life.  Whereas Betty consistently had many things and relationships in her life Daniel was not involved in.  She’s always been way more self-reliant (not the word I wanted, is there one that starts with c?)  It’s why they did sort of need to peel away through a chunk of S4, because Daniel needed to learn to cope without Betty propping him up, because it’s like a Miranda-thing:

- “I don’t need Gary.  But I want him.”

- Daniel has to be able to be find without Betty before Betty can see him as a viable romantic partner.  She has to see something she never has before.  Daniel saw that the seedling he’d been protecting was not only strong enough to survive on its own had grown up and bloomed (process begun early in the season when he was being overprotective and she shut that down).  For Betty...  I guess Daniel...  ...  .....  it didn’t happen in the show.  As EM noted, for Daniel, the ending was the beginning.  Because his moment isn’t leaving MODE, that’s just the corresponding moment to Betty shaking him off.  His moment is further down the road when he puts into practice everything he’s learned and ...  something answered in fanfic because it’s spec and I’m tuckered.

[thatonegirlwhodoesthings]

End Of Year Review

Last time I was here I was way more of a mess yet I had way too much hope and, thankfully, I was right in having hope. Now, here I am at the end of the year in December and so much has changed but that comes with graduating and transitioning into college. Here is my end of year review in which I express what I learned about the world and about others that has impacted what I know and thought I knew about myself. 

I spent half of my July unsure if I was even going to have the opportunity to actually go to college. I worked so hard and was so scared but when July 15th came and I paid my first bill to my school I knew that this was my opportunity. I also knew I needed to work really hard to be able to stay so, on top of this new pride in knowing I was actually, officially going to be going to college, I needed to take on more responsibility and got a second job. July is when I really started working my first job and it was new and exciting. Getting called in on my days off, having something to do and with this came a new sense of pride that I was working towards what I wanted. I became, to some extent, less reliant on my mother. Having two jobs allowed me to prove to myself, and other (but mostly me) that when I want something, I will work for it. 

August was eventful. As it was getting closer to move in day, closer to me finally achieving a goal that has been MONTHS in the making, life around me seemed to fall apart a little bit. I was so focused on my goals and did not have the time or energy to dwell on the domestic abuse my mother was facing, forcing us, just months before one big transition in my life, to make another one. My mother and I were forced to leave our home and move in with her friends because it was the only way she could feel safe in the face of her abusive substance abusing boyfriend. While it was not the easiest thing to go through or witness for a second time in my life in a minimal amount of years, staying focus and having something I was working towards and looking forward to was helpful. Halfway through the month, after finishing at both my jobs and learning so much not only about pushing myself but also about the usefulness of saying no, I packed my things and moved 3 hours away to NYC for school. I was 18, not too naive but eager to learn and experience new things. Orientation in itself was an experience. I met so many new people and some ending up having such an impact on my life, even if they no longer exist as a necessary part of it now. They were relevant when I needed them and aided me for the time being. 

September was when things started to pick up speed. If you told me in September that what happened would happen, I would tell you you were insane. I lost a friend, who even after only knowing a few weeks, was a person who was there for me, just turns out we were not meant to stay friends and that is okay.More importantly, I became closer with other people I had met and even met somebody knew who holds his own special place in my heart.  I also, to my pleasure, had my first sexual experience with a girl while I was drunk and I would never trade that experience for anything. Even if I could not remember her name after and can barely remember it now. This night was actually the first night I really talked to him. Yes, I met him. He, had my heart thumping in September, filled with joy after experiencing this new moment with somebody I had never had before. He caused plenty of useless confusion for me that I know cannot even remember but without it, probably would not be where we are today. 

October, my birth month, was nice in its own way. It was when I began getting close with her. Not only with her though, but I also got to know other people I had not known that well. I am forever grateful for these people as they created a community that I feel I could be apart of, while not having to always be apart of. Distance, I learned, is necessary for me. I need space from people in that being around the same ones constantly drives me crazy. This fact, is something I truly got comfortable with around this time. I also, against my free will, got closer with him but that's alright. I had a pleasant birthday and, came out to my longtime friend. She is great and I love her. I, being a little bitch, had to use ridiculous analogies to come out but it is difficult when somebody has known you a certain way for so long. You do not want to alter that image they have of you and possibly ruin the relationship. Her, being the bestest friend ever, was supportive and it unlocked this part of my life that I had been wanting to tell her. I finally had that chance. 

October was disappointing still, in some ways, in that I did not do as well as I would have liked on my midterms. I was at school to do well and succeed, to further my education. And here I was, blowing that aspect off. It manifested itself in my less than satisfactory grade on my psych midterm. However devastating that was, it encouraged me to study for my other midterms which, thankfully, I did much better on. It was a reminder that procrastination got me nowhere and I needed to focus. It lead to me taking more thorough notes the second half of the semester and studying more. 

While the first half of October leading up to my birthday was eventful in itself, Halloween was its own ballpark. You see, a week before I kissed her for the first time while I was tipsy and then went to him. It, for the first time, brought up a real issue I had to deal with. I like these two people and I do not want to hurt either of them. Halloween, I went to a party with her and, as a drunk dumbass, made out with her. I enjoyed it but it did nothing but confuse me. 

November was filled with me going back and forth between him and her. I did not know what or who I wanted and while that part has not changed, I am dealing with the situation in a healthier way, to some extent at least. It was also filled with me getting my first writing job and therefore, my first step in the door to working with authors in the future and possibly writing myself. Furthermore, it taught me, more than anything, the absolute necessity of communication but we are still working on that one. It was also the first time I went home since August and it was interesting to see how nothing really changes when you leave. I feel as if I could leave home for years and come home and be completely unfazed. Everything is a cycle here. It is nice to be somewhere and go places where everything is always new. I don’t think I want to be stuck watching these cycles anymore now that I know how much more interesting life can be. I went to a wedding too and it was so beautiful. It reminded me that even if for a moment, love does exist, no matter what it turns into. It is so tragic how we let bad experiences way more heavily upon us than the good. Anyway, the wedding was great and it made me excited for when I marry my wife. So many people were complaining but I thought it was beautiful anyway. Watching those little moments between the bride and groom, even if nobody was sober, was so impactful. That is what I want from my wife and I want to not be afraid to let myself have it. 

In December, I came back to campus a wreck. I spent a week long break barely talking to anybody and ignoring the two people who had the most impact in my life. The worst thing is me getting way too high my first night back and then having to have a serious conversation with her. I think she did not notice, but that night is blurry to me. A positive from that however, thanks to her, we were back on good terms after not speaking for two weeks and it brought us, to my displeasure, closer. That’ll be painful later but for now, all is good. Until I face the reality that there is a small possibility that I'll never see her again but that's neither here nor there and I have no right to be selfish and make that situation about me. I am concerned about her and hope she is okay or as okay as any college student can be. I just want to see her happy honestly. She deserves that at least. He I did not talk to for two weeks as well. Not talking to him until a week after I got back, I got drunk and was like alright I need to see him, after listening to Marvin's Room and crying which is my civil duty as an over-dramatic light skin. I then got more drunk and forced us to talk about our feelings. Now, we are in a better place we have been in awhile.

 I left for break in a really good mindset. I feel as if I am in a good spot with the relationships in my life. I am the best mentally I have been in a while and honestly, have little stress. I am going to soak in this place for as long as I can. 

So, how would I rate my year overall. As far as learning goes and accomplishments, I would give myself a ⅘ stars. I accomplished so much and have learned so much. I have done so much and experienced so much. I accomplished things that, if you told my bum ass a year ago, I would say no, I did not do that because I would have never tried. Mentally I would give this year a ⅖. I have had some of my lowest lows that I have had in a LONG time. I believe that comes with big changes and new experiences though. It was just me trying to figure things out and, hopefully, in the future I will be able to process and handle similar situations better. I appreciate this year for everything it gave. Everything it taught me. Everyone it brought in and took out of my life. This will be a year I look back at and call life changing and I am so thankful for that. 

Thank You 2019. 

[liskantope]

Back during my early days on Tumblr, around the time I started here actually, I started reading Questionable Content comics from the beginning, 10 per day, to catch up to the current ones (at the time the comics numbered just over 3000). The day I finished the first 1000 I blogged about it, and then after the 2000th and 3000th I reblogged to update my review. The final reblog, from December 15th, 2015, is here.

The 4000th QC comic came out on Friday, and I’ve decided that in keeping with tradition it’s time to write a review of the past 1000 (although I’m doing it in a fresh post and not reblogging because apparently back in 2015 I hadn’t discovered readmore links yet and the post would look annoyingly long). So let’s get right to it... under the readmore link which I now know is a thing.

This past thousand comics, more than the previous runs of 1000, happens to converge upon a few prominent themes and one very prominent new character: Bubbles. As Bubbles is introduced soon after comic #3000 and is then heavily developed through the next thousand comics, with many of the story arcs (including the longest one ever seen in QC) centering on her, I might call the period of this past thousand comics The Year of Bubbles or something like that if in fact it were only a year instead of almost four (The 200-Week-Period of Bubbles doesn’t roll off the keyboard quite as nicely).

More generally, this webcomic has taken the AI theme to a whole new level in the past thousand comics with Bubbles’ introduction and development only the most major component of this -- whereas the presence of AI was a very minor and almost awkward side-issue in the early days of QC, the comic has now gone full-on robot-themed. I’d estimate that something in the ballpark of one third of the content in the #3000′s was focused on robots’ interactions and relationships with each other -- I think for the first time one could say it passed the AI-rights analog of the Bechdel test. Some 1000 comics ago I remember being mildly impatient at how robot-themed the content was getting, perhaps out of a vague feeling that the human characters were the ones I identified with the most (perhaps in the QC universe, and possibly the real world before the end of my lifetime, this would be considered a semi-subconscious form of bigotry which I can’t call “human-ism” but would deserve some term). I particularly remember not being enthralled with Bubbles when she was first introduced and was slightly irritated that she was immediately taking center stage.

But Bubbles, as well as the story arcs involving AIs in general, grew on me a lot, not just as an allegory of real-life social justice issues but as stories which provoke ideas and questions that I find interesting in their own right. In the case of the comics involving Bubbles, I think they mainly show just how masterful the cartoonist Jeph Jacques’ writing and approach to character development has become. Every bit of dialog taking place between Bubbles and other characters (particularly Faye of course) is gold, often without a single word that could be changed. The sequence of scenes during the #3700′s through which Faye and Bubbles finally get together is the epitome of this and in my opinion the very best writing we’ve seen in QC.

The actual outcome of Faye and Bubbles winding up in a relationship with each other, along with all the constant hints and speculation and build-up leading up to it, now that I have much more mixed feelings about. It precisely puts its finger on one of the main ever-present aspects of the ethos of QC which I’ve complained about before more than once and wound up calling “sex-causality”. Part of me wishes I hadn’t spent as many words ranting about this issue and I’m still uncertain on exactly how I categorize it, as purely a personal distaste or something more objective that does happen in certain subcultures and is bad when pushed on members who are uncomfortable with it, or what. But I do think the slow development of Faye/Bubbles over the course of most of the past thousand comics deserves a brief discussion as an example. There are two prongs to this thing: the fact that Faye and Bubbles getting together was the outcome, and the intermittent banter of all of the other characters about that outcome through hundreds of comics in approaching it.

With regard to their getting together in a both romantic and sexual relationship, it would go against my principles to oppose something like this. That said, it’s a departure from what we knew about Faye (which, to QC’s credit, is openly acknowledged), I would imagine that in a universe with human-like still-made-of-metal AI such a thing would still be somewhat more unusual than it’s given credit for being in the comic. Then again, it’s almost impossible not to underestimate the variety and frequency of still-under-discussed sexualities that are out there (e.g. romantic love and sexual attraction towards metal objects is definitely a thing), and certainly it makes the story more interesting, which after all is part of the writer’s job. No, what I think bothers me here is what feels like an under-representation or under-recognition of profoundly intimate friendships that don’t at any point contain an element of one party wanting to sleep with the other -- does there have to be a sexual element to every relationship that’s deep? It was mainly for this reason, I guess, that once I saw a meaningful (platonic) relationship blossoming between Faye and Bubbles, and noticed how well it was written and how much good it was doing each of them, that I feel it was a really beautiful thing as it was and began actively rooting against the ship that most of the other characters were rooting for.

As for the speculation between the other characters, well, if you’ve been following QC and my posts on this issue like the one I linked to above (those of you who have even made it up to this point in this post!), then you might guess rightly that my main reaction was profound annoyance. I don’t like getting on my high horse about other mostly-inoffensive adults acting kind of immature because I’m trying to stay open to it possibly being a personal-taste thing and maybe mostly on my end, but, well, I thought a lot of the banter irritating in a way that perceived immaturity irritates me. These two comics epitomize what I find annoying, and the “You just... seem to care about her a lot, that’s all” line at the start of this one points to precisely my complaint about the existence of deep platonic friendships not being recognized. Anyway, by the time we got past the dinner conversation in the comics I just linked to, I was throwing up my hands and fully onboard with the Faye/Bubbles ship just to finally be done with all the excited speculative giggling. And as I said, when it finally did happen, the writing (including of the reactions of other characters) was fantastic.

To (finally) change the topic away from Bubbles, some of my emotional reaction to QC has shifted subtly while the last thousand comics were coming out. The period of publication from #3001 to #4000 happens to have spanned a segment of my life (which will hopefully be ending soon) in which I’ve felt quite lonely and isolated. And watching all the interactions going on in the QC world makes me feel... not nostalgic exactly because I was never really part of a social circle quite like Marten’s... but rather bittersweet because of how much I’d like to be in so many ways. QC presents a fictional environment that in the confines of my brain I often call a “social utopia” or, perhaps slightly less ridiculously, something like a “social circle / subcultural utopia”. It’s poor terminology because the QC universe on the whole isn’t a utopia in any sense of the word -- in fact there are plenty of social ills that form the backdrop of many storylines -- and even when confined to looking at how the particular social circle operates “utopia” doesn’t seem like an appropriate term. But the variety of people in the social group, the places, they meet, and the way they interact with each other all seems to click together and operate in what I would consider -- and I believe the artist Jeph Jacques would consider -- to be pretty close to idyllic. I like especially how much diversity there is among the characters, both in their backgrounds and interests as well as their quirks, and how completely at ease and accepting they are of each other in spite of or almost because of them. There’s this vibe of “We’re all a little weird but we share the same values about how to be decent human beings, so let’s all revel in our weirdness together and be there for each other through thick and thin!” (Of course there are some bad characters lying on the periphery and kinda-sorta-dicks like Sven who are mostly excluded from the group, but that’s not the core of the world.) With few exceptions, conflicts are resolved in a very systematic way and almost immediately (with only a couple of exceptions that did eventually end happily).

And as a matter of fact, even during times when I was fairly socially happy, I was never part of any group that was so exemplary in this particular way. But reading QC, which is hopefully at least somewhat drawn from the cartoonist’s own experiences, sort of gives me hope or at least a very concrete means of imagining such a crowd. And even if I did feel the need to gripe from time to time about what I call the “sex-casual” norms that permeate the group interactions, honestly in the grand scheme of things that’s just something I could live with or even enjoy if comes through in a non-pushy, non-conformist way, in order to be part of such a welcoming and healthy family.

[meta-shadowsong]

Some Thoughts on the Jedi/Jedi Doctrine

So, I’m sometimes hesitant to write meta about the this topic/set of topics, because I kind of feel like I have to make a huge disclaimer that the more critical of my points don’t mean I think that the Jedi were Really Evil/Wrong/what have you, because they weren’t. Like, there are clear Bad Guys in SW and the Jedi (overall/as an institution; obviously there are outliers like Krell running around) are not among them. Fortunately for me, Star Wars fandom is big and broad enough that it’s easier to curate my experience and avoid the Super Polarizing Debates than it has been in some other fandoms I’ve participated in, but the nature/relative Goodness of the Jedi Order is one of the ones that’s just...a fact of life in the PT-era/Clone Wars sections of the fandom that are my focus. And it’s basically Discourse™ bait.

(Which is not to say I don’t want discussion! If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be posting this in a public/semi-public forum, lol. Just that…IDK, there’s a difference between discussion and Discourse™, especially on topics like this.)

Anyway, all that aside, my stance can basically be summed up as: “The Jedi did far more good than harm and were, on the whole, well-intentioned people doing the best they could with the resources and information they had; however, I feel like there are some notable issues in their doctrine and practices which are worth discussing.” In other words, I generally lean more towards the Jedi Positive end of the spectrum – but, given the polarization in fandom on this particular topic, this occasionally makes me feel almost guilty when I make any kind of critical comment. Hence, massive disclaimers, to make up for that and attempt to be clear on where I’m coming from. But when my disclaimers start to feel almost as long as the actual essay I’m trying to write, that starts to take the fun out of it for me, hence my occasional hesitation.

That being said, for a variety of reasons, I decided to write up a few things that have been percolating in my head for a while, because why have a meta blog if I’m not going to use it, right? So, here we are.

This post is kind of a grab bag of three or four things, discussing both the Jedi themselves and how they’re sometimes portrayed, on varying levels of specificity. Being a grab bag, it’s not necessarily super coherent/a nice flowy essay, just some Thoughts. Oh, also, as a note – since, as far as I know, we lack a good canon catch-all, I use ‘Force adept’ as a general term for trained Force-users who may or may not be Jedi or Sith.

All right. Once again reiterating the massive disclaimer that I don’t think any of this makes the Jedi evil – here we go.

First, one of the things I have a problem with is more a perception/discussion thing than an in-universe thing – the idea that comes up sometimes in Jedi-positive discussions, that the Jedi path is The Right Way, or at least The Best Way to be an active Force adept without being Evil. Full stop. For all people, under all circumstances.

I think I’ve touched on this before, but my feelings on this particular issue really boil down to, “The Jedi aren’t wrong, but that doesn’t mean they have a monopoly on being right.” And I tend to come away from some Jedi-positive meta, even if I overall agree with the point the person in question is trying to make, with a bad taste in my mouth, feeling like it’s been framed as a One True Way type of thing. This is, admittedly, my problem, and not anyone else’s – which is why I’m discussing this in my own post, rather than derailing any of the ones I’ve seen that rubbed me in this particular wrong way. But it’s part of why I’m somewhat uncomfortable discussing my thoughts on Jedi practices and philosophy with anyone other than a select circle of fandom friends who I know for sure don’t skew that way. Even, as I said, when I lean more towards the Jedi-positive end of the spectrum.

Anyway, back on topic.

Practically speaking, there is a certain amount of truth to this idea by the time the PT rolls around, because of the relationship between the Order and the late Republic, and the overall sociopolitical setup of the main/focal portion of the galaxy. The Jedi have authority and reputation and presence in a way that other orders, if they’re out there, and/or independent Force adepts don’t. For example – off the top of my head, I believe the Guardians of the Whills, whether Force-adepts or not, whether Jedi-affiliated or not, seem to work in a pretty narrow geographic range; Dathomir (which, as I believe I’ve discussed previously, seems to be an entire planet/culture of people who are Force-sensitive to a perceptible degree, though not everyone necessarily reaches Jedi potential) also tends to mostly concern itself with its own affairs, apart from Mother Talzin and her ambitions. (There’s also the fact that they tend to read as/be grouped with Dark Side adepts, and I have some Thoughts on that/the Nightsisters as Dark Side adepts vs. Sith as Dark Side adepts as well, but that is a topic for a separate essay.)

But this isn’t about practicalities, it’s about philosophy/doctrine, and that’s where it starts getting sticky for me.

Okay. The Jedi basically have a core principle, and everything they do/believe comes from that – be more compassionate than you are selfish. And that’s great! That’s a good foundation for just about any philosophy/religion/culture. Quite a few IRL belief systems can be broken down to something similar, or even if it’s not a fundamental tenet, would still generally be considered a good/ideal way to live one’s life(1).

The problem is, when you break Jedi philosophy and doctrine down that far, it kind of loses a lot of its actual meaning? Which is to say, everything that makes it specifically Jedi philosophy – since, like I said, this is not an uncommon precept.

But the Order, like most belief systems, then takes the next step and says “okay, we’ve accepted this premise/goal, now here is our view on how to actually do that.” And at that point, when we start getting into the specifics, there are things that are not universal.

For example, considering the idea of avoiding attachment – not as it’s normally used in discussions about the Jedi, i.e., in the individual/interpersonal relationships sense, but in the broader/community sense.

The Jedi are more or less a closed community; while they do interact with the wider world when called upon, to provide aid, they’re pretty insular in their daily/personal lives outside of missions. And that is one way to achieve this core goal, to set the organization up as truly objective outsiders/advisors/judges/what have you.

But another would be to be fully integrated in a wider/outside community, either as individuals or as smaller groups/lineages, with connections to the overall Order that can be drawn on to share knowledge/resources/etc. as needed. Basically, trading outsider perspective for insider knowledge. Different ways of gaining the trust of the people you’re trying to help, with advantages and disadvantages to both. (For an IRL analogy, consider the way different orders of, say, Catholic monks and nuns operate, some more cloistered than others. Not a perfect comparison, necessarily, but something in the ballpark. Same goal, different approaches.)

My point here is not to imply or say that the Jedi path is a bad one, because it’s not. My point here is, as I said before, the idea that it’s the only correct path, or even the best path for all people (and/or Force adepts) in all circumstances, really sits wrong with me. Of course, this is all reflective my own personal beliefs, which tend to be pluralistic and avoid like the plague anything that claims to be the One True Way. Because that doesn’t even really hold up on Earth, which is a single planet with a single sentient species(2). If we expand that to an entire galaxy, with multiple species, it seems even shakier. And, yes, I know that Star Wars doesn’t actually do a whole lot with the idea of making alien species and their thought processes Different from humans beyond superficial details/attributes(3), but there’s still a point to be made here.

TL;DR: the galaxy, and, by extension, the Force, is far too big and complex for there to be only one right answer/path. Even building on the same baseline premise of “be more compassionate than you are selfish.”

Okay. Moving on to my next point, which is less about the way the Jedi are talked about and more about the Jedi themselves, and how they communicate with outsiders.

Short version: the Jedi are really, really bad at explaining who they are and how they think/operate to outsiders.

And, you know, I’m not saying they have to be good at it, or even necessarily that they should be. They don’t owe anyone those answers.

But it is something that can very much work against them, especially when they play a public role in galactic life. It’s easy for Palpatine to turn that on its head, especially when the Jedi don’t have the tools or the experience or the desire to play the propaganda game themselves. Again, not saying they should, just that they don’t, and there are downsides to it as well as advantages; and they’re up against someone whose primary wheelhouse is playing against exactly this kind of disadvantage.

That’s not the thing I want to focus on, actually, but it’s the most obvious thing so I felt like i should mention it. But that’s really more about the role of propaganda in the galaxy itself and other people, who are much smarter/more focused than I am and have put a lot of work into that topic have done it a lot better than I ever could.

But another way this comes into play is with their recruitment practices. For at least the past thousand years(4), the Jedi have only taken in infants/toddlers/very young children. Meaning, everyone that they do need to make understand Who They Are and How They Do grows up steeped in all of this, learning more or less by osmosis (because early-childhood neuroplasticity augmented by the Force) so there isn’t all that much need for overt explanations of How and Why the Jedi do things This Way, because it gets absorbed on a subconscious/instinctive level from the very beginning.

And, obviously this isn’t 100% successful – see, the Lost Twenty, not to mention any who left the Order as Padawans/before whatever marker makes them Count among the Twenty/as I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned before, I’m pretty sure we only have actual identifying information about like 1% of the Jedi Order (~100 out of ~10,000), so any broad statements should be taken with a grain of salt.

But what I’m trying to get at here is that this practice has put the Order in a position where they’ve basically lost the skills and reference points needed to teach people who come to it late. Converts, in other words.

And then it becomes sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy/a cycle which continually reinforces itself – older students have difficulty adapting to the lifestyle/culture, but is that because they’re past a set point where they can’t learn it/adapt, or because the Order’s approach has left it with a weak point when it comes to helping them through that transition? Which then leads to older students having difficulty adapting, which leads to the Order not taking in older students unless they Have To because they can’t adapt, which leads to further adjustment/integration issues for the few they do take, and on and on.

This is especially the case when it comes to older kids from…let’s call them complicated backgrounds, which we see with both Anakin and Ventress.

(Again interjecting a disclaimer – this is in no way saying that Anakin was justified in what he did, or that the Jedi Order deserved it, or anything like that. I have a meta buried somewhere that uses an elaborate road-building metaphor which I should probably post at some point about the various factors that go into Anakin making all the wrong choices; jumping off from that metaphor, this is probably one of the ways the Palpatine got his paving materials, but that doesn’t make the Order responsible for either what Palpatine did with them, or Anakin’s choice to walk on the road Palpatine built for him.)

Anyway.

With Ventress, Ky Narec keeps her away from the Order as a whole, so she’s deprived of the community aspects of the culture – but also insulated from the can’t-fit-in problems she probably would’ve faced with her peers (because, even without the additional communication issues I’m talking about, this is a thing that happens when outsiders/newcomers attempt to join tight-knit communities, even if no one is being overtly/deliberately exclusive). Assuming he’d have even been allowed to keep her if he’d brought her back (which is not at all a guarantee; look at what it took for the Order to accept Anakin). …y’know, on that note, I really wish there was more about the two of them and their relationship/how he taught her/why he decided to handle her this way/etc. But I digress.

Of course, in the end, Narec’s choice ends up being a negative – when he dies, she has no one else to turn to. As far as I know, we don’t have any information on whether she attempted to reach out to the Order and explain herself/hope for acceptance there before running to Dooku, so there’s maybe an additional story there. Either way, we know where she ended up. And this issue of how to handle/communicate effectively with candidates who got locked out of the loop because of when and how they were identified probably played a significant role in her story. If only because it almost certainly informed Ky Narec’s choices.

With Anakin, of course, he’s raised within the Order, and gets the full impact of the community – both the positives and the negatives, being essentially an outsider. We don’t have a lot of canon about his first couple years there, but given everything we do know about his early childhood and the culture he was trying to join, I think there were major cracks in the foundation from the start, despite probably everyone involved trying their best to make things work.

The background radiation of Anakin’s childhood, whether he experienced this directly or not, was that he has to prove he’s worth keeping, or he’ll be thrown away. So, bearing in mind that a lot of this is conjecture, my guess is he spent the first couple of years really trying to measure up, and hiding where he was having problems, because he doesn’t want to seem like a bad investment. Fake it til you make it, essentially(5). Especially given the way his induction was botched – and I’m not saying that the Jedi should have automatically accepted him, but the back and forth on the issue and the way initially refusing him was handled (he really should not have been in the room for that conversation) didn’t help matters/reinforced this issue/made him hyper-aware of how hard it had been for him to even get here, let alone keep his place(6).

Meanwhile, on the Order’s end of things, once they did accept him, I believe they genuinely tried to help him adjust. But, again, they’re making this up as they go along, too; so I feel like those first couple years was a lot of not-quite-meeting in the middle. They get close enough that the deeper issues are masked, but they still just slightly fall short of one another. Which, at least at this point(7), is not really anyone’s fault, just a difficult situation because of the conflicting backgrounds and expectations of the various parties involved, that didn’t necessarily actually get resolved, so much as compensated for. But those foundational cracks still present, leading to a complete collapse later.

Again, this doesn’t excuse the particular way Anakin handled that collapse at all. Also, IMO, none of these issues are necessarily insurmountable – without Palpatine actively working towards the worst possible outcome, my guess is that things would’ve come to a head in a much less destructive manner, and maybe earlier, as well. Whether the resulting course-correction/repair would’ve kept Anakin in the Order or not…IDK. Could go either way. The point is, between Anakin’s particular background and the Jedi Order’s general lack of facility in dealing with older students/kids from complicated backgrounds/outsiders in general (and some active reinforcement from Palpatine), there’s a not-insignificant gap in understanding/communication/trust right from the start, and it’s never entirely healed.

Insert clever segue here, and we move on to my third point, about the Chosen One prophecy.

As a note, I come at this mostly from a fanfic writing perspective, rather than a literary analysis perspective. And in my fic, I don’t actually deal with the prophecy all that much. But when I do, I really like the reading that the Chosen One is intended to be a catalyst for change. To put the Jedi Order/galaxy as a whole in a position for the final defeat of the Sith, whether by defeating the SIth with their own hands or by sparking a shift in the way the Order interacts with the threat/the galaxy as a whole.

Basically, per my reading of the situation, the Order has, over the past thousand years, become a little bit ossified/stagnant(4) in terms of its doctrine and practices. They’re pretty inwardly focused on their traditions and This Is How To Jedi (as an group/institution; as in most practices/cultures, this varies from individual to individual, with some being extremely flexible in their application of doctrine and some much less so), with intervention in the outside world in specific crises as they arise. This approach is at least in part a result of the way things were restructured following the Ruusan reformations, because that is what the Order needed to be at that point in time. But then they just sort of got…stuck there. This is, again, not necessarily a mark against them/proof they’re Really Not The Good Guys or any BS like that. Like I mentioned before, they still do way more good than harm, and are genuinely well-intentioned on the whole. It’s just a Thing that tends to happen. Institutions – and the Order is an Institution, in this sense – are slow to change on their own, and tend to just become The Same Thing But More So. Especially when they’re put in a position where they don’t necessarily need to change, and attempting to do so might cause a fair amount of short-term, maybe even long-term, damage, which could be either internal or external.

But this tendency, and the particular way they’ve become The Same Thing But More So, has left the Jedi Order woefully unprepared and unequipped to deal with the particular threat that Palpatine, and the generations of Sith legwork he’s building on, present.

Which brings us to the Chosen One.

Who is, in this reading(8), essentially a wakeup call from the Force, that the shit is about to hit the fan.

But Anakin and his induction/relationship with the Order were mishandled, as previously discussed. Once again, I feel a need to disclaim – I am not in any way blaming the Order for what happened. Anakin may have a Destiny, but he’s also a sentient being with free will and he actively chose to fulfill said Destiny in the worst possible way.

What I am saying is that the response to this warning was maybe not as thorough/helpful as it could have been. Both on a small scale, when dealing with the individual beings directly involved, and on a large scale, in terms of the questions Anakin and all that he is (with or without the full weight/text of the Prophecy as a factor) could have raised about Order doctrine and practices, which might have put them in a slightly better position when Palpatine initiated his endgame. It may still have been too little, too late – or it may have been enough to significantly change the outcome.

And, to be fair, I think that the Order – or, at the very least, Master Yoda – realized this over the course of the Clone War. That the Order had become stagnant/too attached to Tradition/not as dynamic as it needed to be, I mean. And, if Anakin had made better choices or if circumstances had fallen out differently, I genuinely believe that the Order would have seen some significant change, to adapt to the galaxy as it had become, not the one it was at their last major shift a thousand years ago. Which they do anyway – granted, we don’t know much about how Luke was running things in canon, but in Legends, he took a slightly different approach to the core philosophy and the doctrine built on it, adapting what he’d been taught to the galaxy that he’d grown up in. But, again, that’s as a result of Anakin serving as a catalyst for change in the worst possible way because he made all the wrong choices.

…yeah, that last section, in particular, I’ve been sitting on for a long, long time, trying to figure out how to word it without sounding creepy and victim-blamey. As I keep stressing, none of this changes the enormity of Anakin’s choice, because he had other options and he chose this one. And while the Order could have handled things better in the lead up to that final crossroads, which might have put all of them in a better position when they got there, they didn’t make that choice for him any more than Palpatine did.

So…yeah. There it is. Some of my more critical thoughts about the Jedi Order of the PT/Late Republic era. Like I said. I’m not sure how coherent this is, it’s just…sort of a grab bag of thoughts.

To sum up: The Jedi were well-intentioned and did more good than harm; they were not wrong, but that doesn’t mean they have a monopoly on being right; there are some flaws in their approaches to certain issues such as communication, particularly with outsiders, and change, which in no way mean they caused or deserved what happened to them; however, in the full knowledge that I am looking at this from an outside perspective/with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, there are better choices they could have made which might well have improved the situation.

(1)Disclaimer: it’s been at least ten years since I’ve done any serious comparative religions study, but this is broadly true to the best of my recollection.

(2)Debates about cetaceans, etc., aside.

(3)Which is actually one of the things I really liked about Alliances, and the way Timothy Zahn handles the Chiss in general – it’s a little closer to the CJ Cherryh style of sci-fi, where aliens may be similar to humans, but there are fundamental differences in the way they think and organize themselves; so the fact that Chiss Force adepts function very differently from Force adepts in the main part of the galaxy is pretty cool to me. Whether the two approaches could adapt and learn from each other in the long run is a fascinating question…

(4)Going by Legends canon here; current canon has yet to give me any deep backstory, so my approach to anything more than 100 years pre-TPM is ‘canon until proven otherwise,’ because there’s little to no historical context for things without that. And I feel like discussions on this topic are really hard to have/missing something significant without that historical context.

(5)I also think that this particular strategy – fake it til you make it, excel in specific areas which cover up the deep flaws in others/your foundation – is something that the Order is vulnerable to in general, even with children who did grow up in the culture. See, Barriss. …there’s probably a whole essay or three, talking about the ways Barriss and Anakin and Ventress and their stories parallel one another, but that is a topic for another day.

(6)Granted, he does get past this, at least to some extent, later (as we can see in the way he deals with his superiors in AOTC and ROTS; if nothing else, he’s identified how much wiggle room he has and is confident enough to go right up to the edge of what he can get away with, even risking going past it in certain contexts and on certain issues), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that this has actually been fixed, just that he’s found ways to get around it and function in his new environment.

(7)As sort of implied in the last footnote, there does more or less come a point where Anakin kind of stops trying with anyone other than a few close, trusted people – and, again, on the one hand this shows a remarkable success in rewriting some of the coping mechanisms he developed in childhood which are no longer helpful for him in his new life, in that he’s less focused on Being Worth Keeping apart from not wanting to disappoint, for example, Obi-Wan; but it also doesn’t necessarily address some of his root issues. And because of this gap in understanding, Anakin comes away with the impression, accurate or not, that he’s never really going to win the trust/approbation of his peers and superiors, which alienation Palpatine can prey on later. Again, none of this excuses the way Anakin eventually acts on that alienation. But it’s there.

(8)There’s another reading that I kind of like – though it leans a little harder into the Fate end of the scale rather than free will – which is that Anakin is at the nexus of both the Jedi Chosen One prophecy and the Sith’ari prophecy from Legends. I.e., some ancient Jedi and Sith did the same thing Ezra and Maul did, bashing a pair of holocrons together to seek some kind of Revelation, and came out with conflicting but not necessarily contradictory answers. But, again, that hits the Fate end of the scale a lot harder than I normally like, though the possibility of it is interesting to contemplate when I write stuff where ROTS happened as in canon (i.e., I referenced this idea in Sanctuary.)

[ashxpad]

Are Cameras Actually More Expensive Now Than Ever Before?

There is a purveying sentiment that cameras have only gotten more expensive over time. While there is certainly some validity in certain sectors of the market, the truth about camera prices over time is a bit more nuanced and complex than the average person makes it out to be. So, let’s take a look.

Please note that all prices are adjusted for 2021 inflation unless otherwise stated.

A Century of Film

While the first practical photographic process, the Daguerreotype, was invented nearly two centuries ago, for our purposes we are going to focus on commercially available cameras — cameras that were accessible and pragmatic for the average person to own. The first camera that falls into this category would be the original Kodak Brownie, released to the public by Eastman Kodak in 1900. Not much more than a cardboard box with a simple meniscus lens, the Brownie was heavily marketed to children, primarily as a method to sell rolls of Kodak film (117 film, originally). Its original price of $1 (equivalent to $32 today) made it both commercially and financially successful.

Creative Commons License via Wikimedia Commons

The following year, Kodak launched the Brownie No.2 — the first camera to use 120 film — which remains the medium-format standard to this day. Its price of $2, equivalent to about $63 in 2021, and appeal to both children and adults, might make it the vintage equivalent to today’s Fujifilm Instax cameras.

The introduction of 35mm film to the masses occurred in the 1930s and quickly took off as an incredibly popular, affordable, and portable alternative to the medium and large format cameras of the era. The Argus C3, released in 1939, became one of the most popular cameras of all time, selling over two million units — it was also widely used by American World War II photographers such as Robert Capa. Retailing for the 2021 equivalent of $675, the Argus C3 might be seen as an early, analog version of current cameras like the Olympus E-M10 Mark IV or Canon M50 Mark II.

Between 1930 and 1960, we saw a rise from one billion photos taken per year to three billion — a 200% increase. The following decade, from 1960 to 1970, saw a 233% increase to ten billion photos per year — the largest percent increase of the 20th century. This sharp increase came on the heels of the SLR revolution and a massive increase in the number of manufacturers which produced everything from entry-level cameras to professional-level ones. The Nikon F in 1959 was arguably the most notable spark of this fire, which retailed for an adjusted price of $3,350. Cheaper cameras of the same year — the Minolta SR-2 and Canon Canonflex — sold for an adjusted $2,300 and $2,775 respectively.

Creative Commons License via Wikimedia Commons

We would see prices drop a bit from the 1970s onward, at least for many camera bodies. In 1975, Canon’s flagship F1 sold for an adjusted price of $1,550 while the lower-end FTb was $850. The same year, a Pentax K2 would run $2,500 and the medium-format Pentax 6×7 with a 105mm lens would drain $5,475 from your pocket.

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, things had shifted somewhat — at least for certain segments of the marketplace. The autofocus-enabled, flagship Nikon F4 sported an adjusted price of $5,700 — significantly closer to modern Canon or Nikon DSLR flagships. By this point, however, compact cameras were exceedingly cheap — $150 for a Canon Sure Shot Max and $102.98 for a Minolta Freedom 50.

Unlike today, the vast majority of sales were at the low end — compacts and entry-level SLRs.

The Digital Revolution

While the first DSLR came to market in 1991, it wasn’t until about the year 2000 that digital cameras finally became semi-affordable and realistic alternatives to film. The Nikon D1 is generally considered the landmark camera that turned the tide from expensive Kodak DCS digital cameras to sub $6,000 offerings — the Fujifilm S1 Pro was also released in 2000 and was even more affordable.

The Nikon D1 debuted with a $5,999 price ($9,400 once adjusted for inflation) followed by the D1X and D1H in 2001 — the latter of which featured a $1,500 price drop for a total adjusted price of $6,800. The following year, Canon released its first full-frame camera, the Canon 1Ds, at a price of $7,999 ($11,969 adjusted). The 1Ds Mark II (2004) and 1Ds Mark III (2008) all premiered at the same $7,999 price, though of course, their inflation-adjusted prices diminished comparatively over those years.

Nikon’s flagship line saw a similar trend across the years: D1 ($9,400), D2X ($7,125), D3 ($6,500), D4 ($7,000), D5 ($7,300), and finally the D6 in 2020 at an adjusted $6,750. Canon’s competitor 1DX line saw an almost identical trend, concluding in 2020 at the exact same adjusted $6,750 price with the 1DX Mark III. If you consider these figures, the $6,498 price of the Sony Alpha 1 does not seem excessive at all — and we can probably assume the forthcoming Nikon Z9 to be in a similar ballpark (and perhaps also the Canon EOS R3).

While the prices for high-end Nikon and Canon models have either dropped or stayed quite steady, we have seen significant changes in other areas. Most notably, the highest end of the market — which historically has been medium format — has undergone significant downward shifts in the past decade.

Contrast 2002’s Hasselblad H1D at an adjusted $26,900 to the Pentax 645D eight years later — the first medium format camera to dip below the $10,000 (unadjusted) threshold. In 2014, the successor Pentax 645Z premiered at $8,500 and within just two years we saw the release of the Fujifilm GFX 50S at $6,500 and the Hasselblad X1D 50C at $8,999. Yet another two years later, the GFX 50R marked the first medium format digital camera to be released with an MSRP under $5,000 and the following year Hasselblad’s X1D 50C II debuted at $5,750 — $3,250 cheaper than its predecessor. And, most recently, we have seen the release of a 100-megapixel mirrorless medium format camera featuring IBIS and phase detection autofocus for less than the cost of the Sony Alpha 1 or flagship Nikon or Canon.

Full-frame digital saw the same phenomenon in the past decade — 2013’s Sony Alpha 7 was the first full-frame camera to be released under $2,000. Subsequently, 2019 saw the Canon EOS Rp dip below $1,500 followed by the Nikon Z5 in 2020. These figures are unadjusted for inflation, making the idea that cameras are more expensive now even more of an odd proposition.

What is true, however, is that we have seen a rise in more expensive lenses, like the Nikon Z 50 f/1.8 — or, even earlier, the Sony Zeiss 55 f/1.8 which was released alongside the Sony Alpha 7 and Alpha 7R.

I believe the same factor driving the prices of high-end cameras downward is also responsible for the absence of cheap, name-brand glass. After all, we do still have incredibly affordable (and excellent quality) lenses from companies that not too long ago were seen as significantly worse than first-party optics — Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, Rokinon/Samyang. Even lenses from companies like Yongnuo or Viltrox have recently become well-known for image quality and the ability to punch far above their price class.

As the maturation of the smartphone camera has decimated the bottom end of the camera market, manufacturers have been forced to pivot and focus resources on serious photographers, whether amateur or professional. And as technology has pressed forward, those photographers have sought more and more and more — more dynamic range, more resolution, more frames per second, and so on. Whether or not most people even need these improvements is irrelevant — it is what people want.

And along with that naturally comes the demand for lenses that can live up to the ever-increasing demands of modern sensors, even at ultra-fast f/1.2 apertures. To complicate matters, the mirrorless revolution has driven the desire for smaller and more compact glass. Gone is the time where massive f/1.4 prime lenses like the Sigma Art DSLR line are accepted with open arms. All of this necessitates significantly improved lens designs, superior glass and coatings, precision manufacturing, and increased quality control.

The upshot is, while a lens like the Nikon Z 50 f/1.8 is more expensive than its F-mount counterpart, it is also one of the sharpest, most finely corrected 50mm lenses ever made. This Nikon lens is only one example — the same remains true of Canon’s new RF lenses, Sony’s phenomenal G Master line, Fujifilm’s APS-C offerings, and others. We are consistently seeing mirrorless lenses that outperform their DSLR ancestors, often quite significantly.

What About Leica?

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned Leica at all. That is because Leica seems to be the only company to buck the trend exhibited by everyone else — not only are its digital cameras significantly more expensive than its cameras of the past, but its lenses are also selling for quite the premium.

In 1986, a Leica M6 sold for $1,695, equivalent to about $4,150 today. A Leica R4 cost an adjusted $2,150 and a Noctilux (50mm f/1.0 at that time) was a mere $2,775 adjusted for inflation.

Contrast that to the Leica M10 in 2017 ($7,250 adjusted) and the current price of a new Noctilux at a whopping $12,795. In fact, a brand new Noctilux 50mm f/1.0 purchased in 1986 would actually have significantly appreciated in value, even including inflation.

The reason for the disparity between Leica and virtually everyone else comes down to the difference between prestige pricing (Leica) and parity pricing (everyone else). The concept of parity pricing is one of competition — you price a product at or less than that of a rival to remain competitive. We have consistently seen manufacturers undercutting each other’s prices — a clear example of this was seen in the medium format arena once Fujifilm entered.

Premium (or prestige) pricing is built on an entirely different model — there are no competitors, so prices can be pushed as far desired, at least until diminished sales begin to outweigh the additional revenue.

So Why Do People Think Cameras Are More Expensive Now?

There are a few factors at work, I believe, that cause consumers to assume or believe that cameras are more expensive than they were five, ten, twenty, or fifty years ago.

Firstly, it is extremely difficult to account for inflation without actually looking at real figures. Most people do not realize that $2,000 from just five years ago is worth $2,250 today. The same figure ten years ago is equivalent to nearly $2,400. We do not generally consider the effects of inflation over such short-term periods, but it does put things in perspective.

Secondly, we have seen a contraction inward of prices — the highest end (medium format) has dropped significantly, while the lowest end has largely disappeared (and therefore appeared to move upward). While we once considered something like a Nikon D5600 to be an amateur level entry point, we now see cameras like the Nikon Z50 or Fujifilm X-S10 in the same way — both significantly more expensive, though also offering newer, more advanced technology.

Finally, with the rise of mirrorless technology and the significant decline of DSLR sales, many of the cameras and lenses we see on the market are quite new. Whereas previously you could have purchased a 24-70mm f/2.8 DSLR lens that may have been on the market for five or more years — and thus almost certainly cheaper than its launch price — most of the options now are comparatively very new. A good number of older Sony FE lenses are marked down from their original price, but we do not see that much with Nikon Z or Canon RF lenses, and even those mirrorless lenses that are five or more years old are not as desirable, either due to image quality or factors like inferior autofocus motors. The relative “newness” of everything, especially the most desirable products, alters consumer perception.

There is one thing that is impossible to deny: the value-based pricing of modern cameras. Camera technology has never been more capable or feature-packed than it is today. Perhaps there is no clearer example of this than the Fujifilm GFX 100S which launched with a price that was $500 less than the GFX 50S — yet it has twice the spatial resolution, includes in-body image stabilization, phase detection autofocus, and so on.

Photography has never been more accessible or more capable, and this year will see 1.44 trillion photos taken across the globe. In the year 2000, 86 billion were taken, making for an increase of 1,574% in the last 21 years. Whether it’s the phone in your pocket, a $500 Micro Four Thirds with a kit lens, or a $6,000 medium format camera, the potential has never been greater or more affordable.

Image credits: Aspects of header photo licensed via Depositphotos.

from PetaPixel https://ift.tt/2TScDTG

[dipulb3]

Vizio M-Series Quantum TV review: Lots of TV for less than you think

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/vizio-m-series-quantum-tv-review-lots-of-tv-for-less-than-you-think-2/

Vizio M-Series Quantum TV review: Lots of TV for less than you think

When you buy a new TV a crucial decision is how much you’re willing to pay for improved image quality. Just about any cheap TV these days delivers a “good enough” picture but if you want to realize the benefits of the best-quality sources — specifically 4K video with high dynamic range and gaming-friendly extras — you’ll need to spend more. The Vizio M-Series Quantum offers step-up features that let it outshine cheaper models, but it remains eminently affordable.

Like

Affordable

Excellent picture quality

Supports variable refresh rate

Don’t Like

Lackluster smart TV system

Mediocre remote

Worse performance than some more expensive TVs

In my side-by-side tests, the M7 couldn’t match the picture quality of my favorite TV for the money, TCL’s 6-Series, but it also costs a lot less. It’s bright enough to bring out highlights in HDR and still put out relatively deep black levels, resulting in an image with plenty of punch and contrast for the price. And it’s the cheapest TV on the market with Variable Refresh Rate, a gaming feature found on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X/S (and some video cards) designed to reduce tearing and other artifacts. The M-Series also comes in a wallet-friendly 50-inch size, while most good-performing TVs start at 55 inches. Add it all up and you have an appealing package for anyone who doesn’t want to spend up for the TCL.

Design

Externally there’s not much to differentiate the M-Series from other TVs on the market. Its color is all matte black, with a slim plastic border on the top and a thicker, metallic bottom edge above spindly stand legs. The look is decidedly middlebrow.

Vizio’s basic remote got a facelift this year, with more rounded keys and a prominent “WatchFree” button to join more recognizable streaming service shortcuts such as Netflix, Hulu and, uh, Redbox at the top. Otherwise it’s pedestrian-looking with too many buttons, and I prefer the simpler, more focused clickers of Roku or Samsung. 

The company has made more changes to its SmartCast system but again it falls short of Roku or Android TV, or even LG or Samsung’s proprietary systems. The main home page is packed with TV show, movie and channel suggestions you probably don’t care about, and the stuff you’ll probably use most — the streaming apps themselves — are denigrated to a single row.

Although the platform now has 64 apps, including most major names, it’s still missing heavy hitters like HBO and HBO Max, Sling TV and ESPN. And finding new apps is a pain: Instead of a simple channel or app store that lets you search for, add and delete apps, you have to scroll the row through to find what you want. You can arrange app tiles to taste but I was also annoyed that none of them can be deleted. 

The search function in the upper left of the home page only finds TV shows, movies and videos, not apps themselves — I searched “HBO,” for example, and the most relevant results were YouTube videos. In its favor, search results do span different apps including Apple TV, Disney Plus and Amazon Prime, but they don’t include Netflix. Roku’s search is much better in general.

To watch any of the hundreds of apps that aren’t part of Vizio’s on-screen system you can use the cast function on your phone to connect to the TV. The TV supports both Google’s Chromecast function and Apple’s AirPlay. The M-Series doesn’t have any voice capability built into its remote but the TV will work with Amazon Alexa and Google Home speakers.

Key TV features

Display technology LED LCD LED backlight Full-array with local dimming Resolution 4K HDR compatible HDR10 and Dolby Vision Smart TV SmartCast Remote Standard

The M-Series Quantum is one of the cheapest TVs with full-array local dimming — my favorite addition for LCD picture quality because it improves all-important contrast and black levels — but different models in the M-Series have different specs. In short, the M7 I reviewed is less impressive on paper than the M8.

The number of dimmable zones is an important specification because it controls how precise the dimming can be. More zones doesn’t necessarily mean better picture quality, but it usually helps. The M8 is also brighter than the M7, at 800 and 600 nits respectively. I didn’t review the M8 but based on these specs I’m guessing it performs a bit better than the M7, but not as good as something like the TCL 6-Series.

The rest of the M-Series specifications are the same on all models. Quantum dots allow the TV to achieve better HDR color, which was borne out in my measurements. 

The M-Series has a 60Hz refresh rate panel — Vizio’s “120 Dynamic Motion Rate” is bunk. It lacks a setting to engage motion estimation and motion compensation (also known as MEMC or the Soap Opera Effect) as found on the more expensive Vizio P- and PX-Series, as well as TCL’s 6 series. Vizio supports both major types of HDR, HDR10 and Dolby Vision, in the M-Series. So does every other major TV maker except Samsung, which lacks Dolby Vision support.

Here are the M-Series’ other specs:

4 HDMI inputs

1 analog composite video input

1 USB port

RF antenna tuner input

Ethernet port

Optical digital audio output

Stereo analog audio output

New for 2020, the M-Series supports eARC (on HDMI 3) as well as new gaming-centric features, namely Auto Game Mode/ALLM and Variable Refresh Rate. This is one the least expensive TVs we know about that can handle VRR, a graphics feature found on the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X/S (and some video cards) and designed to reduce tearing and other artifacts. It won’t be as effective as TVs with true 120Hz input capability like Vizio’s P series (the M-Series maxes out at 60Hz input), but it might be better than not having VRR. We’ll know more when we have the chance to test this TV with the new consoles.

Picture quality comparisons

Click the image above to see picture settings and HDR notes.

David Katzmaier/CNET

While certainly not at the same level as the TCL 6-Series or Sony X900H, both of which scored an 8 in my tests, the Vizio M-Series’ image quality earned a solid 7. That’s the same score I gave the Hisense R8 Roku TV, which is in the same price ballpark as the M7, but if I had to choose I’d take the Vizio’s superior contrast, processing and black levels over the R8’s brighter picture.

I spent most of my side-by-side time comparing it to the TCL and the Hisense H9G, both of which are more expensive. The Vizio fell short of the contrast and brightness of those two sets but in its favor showed an even-keeled, balanced image with good shadow detail and color accuracy. 

Click the image at the right to see the picture settings used in the review and to read more about how this TV’s picture controls worked during calibration.

Dim lighting: In late October The Invisible Man seems like an appropriate comparison movie, so I fired up the Blu-ray in my dark basement and tried to be brave. In dark scenes the Vizio was good but it couldn’t match the inky blackness, or overall contrast, of the more-expensive Hisense and TCL. Throughout Chapter 1, as Cecilia Kass (played by Elizabeth Moss) pads around and ultimately flees her darkened house, the shadows, letterbox bars and night sky appeared markedly lighter on the Vizio than the other two, leading to a less realistic picture. 

Details in shadows were very good on the Vizio, however, matching the TCL — I could make out more of the art and furniture in her bedroom (4:35) on both sets than on the Hisense. Blooming and stray illumination, for example in the pause icon and progress bar from my Blu-ray player, as well as the white-on-black “Two Weeks Later” lettering at the end of the chapter, was also minimal. 

Bright lighting: The M-Series was a decent if not spectacular performer in a bright room. With LCD TVs light output is one of the major things you pay extra for, so it’s not surprising that the affordable M-Series is dimmer than many of the more-expensive TVs I’ve tested. It’s still brighter than budget models like Vizio’s V-Series, but at least one like-priced TV I reviewed, the Hisense R8, is brighter than the M-Series.

Light output in nits

TV Brightest (SDR) Accurate color (SDR) Brightest (HDR) Accurate color (HDR) Hisense H9G 1,239 1,238 1,751 1,498 TCL 65R635 1,114 792 1,292 1,102 Sony XBR-65X900H 841 673 989 795 Hisense 65R8F 717 717 770 770 Vizio M65Q7-H1 595 424 588 480 Vizio V605-G3 200 178 225 193

Vizio’s Calibrated picture mode delivered the most-accurate bright-room picture, which is well worth the loss of nits compared to Vivid in my opinion. The M’s semi-matte screen finish reduced reflections better than the TCL albeit not as well as the Hisense, and was worse than either one at preserving black-level fidelity.

Color accuracy: In its best picture modes, namely Calibrated and Calibrated Dark, the Vizio was exceedingly accurate according to my measurements even before calibration. In the The Invisible Man its image did appear just a bit duller and less saturated than the TCL, however, an issue that could be due more to a black level disparity than anything. As Cecelia sits at the dinner table for example (16:55), her skin tone looked a bit paler than the TCL, and the wood and plants of the kitchen looked less rich. Again the Hisense trailed a bit in color accuracy. In the end all three were quite accurate with SDR and it would be tough to point out differences outside a side-by-side comparison.

Video processing: The Vizio M-Series behaved like I’d expect from a 60Hz TV in my motion tests, meaning it didn’t reduce blur as well as higher-end sets with a 120Hz refresh rate. I’m not particularly sensitive to motion blur, but if you are, a true 120Hz TV like the TCL 6-Series or Vizio’s P-Series might be worth a look.

The M registered proper 1080p/24 cadence but exhibited motion resolution of just 300 lines. Vizio does offer a Clear Action control that improves that number to a respectable 900, but as usual it introduced flicker and dimmed the image, so most viewers will want to avoid it (note that if you have VRR turned on, Clear Action can’t be activated). Unlike some 60Hz TVs there’s no option to turn on smoothing, aka the Soap Opera Effect.

Input lag for gaming was good in both 1080p and 4K HDR, with a result of about 27ms in the Game picture mode — that’s a bit worse than the TCL 6-Series at 19ms but still perfectly acceptable. As usual with Vizio I appreciated being able to reduce lag in other picture modes too, such as Calibrated Dark, by turning on the separate Gaming Low Latency toggle. That yielded the same 27ms result, a big improvement over the 52ms (in 1080p) and 68ms (in 4K HDR) of lag I measured without GLL engaged. 

Uniformity: The M-Series had no major issues in this category, with a nicely uniform image across the screen and little or no variation at different light levels with full-field test patterns. In mid-bright full-field test patterns it showed a bit more variation than the other two, but in program material differences were tough to discern. From off-angle — seats to either side of the sweet spot in front of the screen — the Vizio didn’t maintain black level fidelity quite as well as the other two, although it was roughly good at maintaining color.

HDR and 4K video: As usual the biggest differences between displays emerged when I fed them the highest-quality HDR video, first from the Spears and Munsil HDR Benchmark Blu-ray. The Vizio looked very good with the montage of footage but the TCL and Hisense performed better. Both displays beat the Vizio for contrast — with deeper, truer black areas and brighter whites. In the snowclad mountains, for example, the fields of white and cloudy skies were brighter on both, leading to better impact and pop, while in the night cityscapes and amusement park the TCL and Hisense delivered blacker shadows compared to the grayer Vizio.

In its favor the M-Series kept blooming in check, with minimal stray illumination in dark areas around the honey dripper for example (2:48). Color was also good, with saturation and vividness a tick higher than then TCL especially in reds like the flower (3:30) and significantly more accurate overall than the Hisense, which appeared too garish and unrealistic in comparison.

Turning back to The Invisible Man, this time on 4K Blu-ray, the Vizio again lagged the other two although as usual the differences weren’t as drastic with a standard movie as they were with test material. Dark areas in Chapter 1, for example the depths of the walk-in closet and the go-bag cozy, were again inkier on the TCL and Hisense, leading to better realism. The Vizio did preserve shadow details best but the others were still solid and more impressive overall. 

The biggest difference, however, was in the brilliance of highlights, for example the strip lighting and fluorescents in the tech lab (5:37) — compared to the other two, the Vizio looked much duller, without that characteristic HDR pop. In more balanced scenes, like the kitchen in Chapter 7 (25:38), the Vizio again seemed slightly duller than the others, with more muted highlights and washed-out dark areas like the cabinetry and shelving.

Geek Box

Test Result Score Black luminance (0%) 0.005 Good Peak white luminance (SDR) 595 Good Avg. gamma (10-100%) 2.22 Good Avg. grayscale error (10-100%) 0.73 Good Dark gray error (30%) 0.66 Good Bright gray error (80%) 0.58 Good Avg. color checker error 0.80 Good Avg. saturation sweeps error 0.75 Good Avg. color error 1.03 Good Red error 1.04 Good Green error 0.98 Good Blue error 2.56 Good Cyan error 0.65 Good Magenta error 0.77 Good Yellow error 0.21 Good 1080p/24 Cadence (IAL) Pass Good Motion resolution (max) 900.00 Good Motion resolution (dejudder off) 300.00 Poor Input lag (Game mode) 27.57 Good HDR10 Black luminance (0%) 0.006 Good Peak white luminance (10% win) 588 Poor Gamut % UHDA/P3 (CIE 1976) 97.63 Good ColorMatch HDR error 4.05 Average Avg. color checker error 2.74 Good Input lag (Game mode, 4K HDR) 27.47 Good

Vizio M65Q7-H1 CNET review calibration results by David Katzmaier on Scribd

[paninibrot]

Week 7 - Role of Museums

Key Concepts of Museology, ed. André Desvallées and François Mairesse, Armand Colin, 2010, articles Collection pp. 26-28, Exhibition pp. 34-38, Mediation pp. 46-48, Museum pp.56-60, Object pp.61-64.

Collection. Defined as “a set of material or intangible objects (works, arte- facts, mentefacts, specimens, archive documents, testimonies etc.) which an individual or an establishment has assembled, classified, selected, and preserved in a safe setting and usually displays to a smaller or larger audience, according to whether the collection is public or private”. Why is it limited to having to be preserved in a “safe setting”? The author claims that “To constitute a real collection, these sets of objects must form a (relatively) coherent and meaningful whole,” I guess, a curation of works or objects that have been thoughtfully selected to convey some sort of meaning as a whole (26). This is different from a fond, which refers to a collection from a single source, without selection or intention to build a coherent whole.

The “museum phenomenon” is then closely related to a collection, as it can be described as the “institutionalization of a private collection” (27). What does the assumed materiality of a collections’ objects have to do with how “the collection is identified by the place where it is located” (28)?  Are intangible collections not also identified by the places in which they were produced or are now located?

Exhibition. Defined as “the result of the action of displaying something, as well as the whole of that which is displayed, and the place where it is displayed“ (35), thus dependent on the collection, the place, and the performance/displayment.

The author argues that exhibition areas are defined not only by the “container and the contents but also by the users – visitors and museum professionals” and the resulting social interaction (35). Furthermore, exhibitions are an integral part of the museum’s general function of communication, including education and publication policies, as mediums for sensory perception by visualization, monstration, and ostention. Exhibits work as semiotics in the exhibition, which is presented as a communication process. Digital/cyber exhibition open up new possibilities of collection, ways of display, analysis, etc. but arguably hardly compete with exhibitions of real objects despite most likely having an effect on the methods currently used by museums.

Mediation. Defined as an action aimed at reconciling parties or bringing them to agreement, having the same general museum meaning as ‘interpretation’, which in the context of the museum is the mediation between the museum public and what the museum gives the public to see; “intercession, intermediate, mediator” (46).

Museum. May mean either the institution or the establishment or the place generally designed to select, study and display the material and intangible evidence of man and his environment, where the form and the functions vary over time (56). The definition given by the International Council of Museums (ICOM) is: “a museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.” (57). The ecomuseum, virtual museum, and cyber museum are both new types of museal institutions.

  The End of the Museum?, Nelson Goodman, Journal of Aesthetic Education, University of Illinois Press, Summer 1985, pp.53-62.

Goodman starts his paper with interesting analogies of what a museum likens, from a ballpark where what counts is how many people go through the gates to a hospital where it maters what happens to people while they are there to even a jailhouse with an elaborate intelligence network to capture the wanted and a security system to prevent their escape (53).

A remark that I found interesting was Goodmans explanation of why it would be impossible to run a museum like a library, one of the reasons being that “most of those who visit a museum don’t know how to see” (54) “or to see in terms of, the works there” (56). Furthermore, Goodman speaks of the effect of what we see in a museum on what we see after we leave, and in turn how what we see outside of the museum affects what we see when we return – a constant feedback loop that widens perspectives, sharpens perception, and brings out new connections and contrasts (56).

Goodman takes a critical approach in questioning the true purpose of museums, arguing that all past/present arguments for the prosperity, relaxation, and intellectualism that museums supposedly provide are “hollow” and “beside the point” (55). Yet, what then is the point? Goodman claims such arguments are “designed for those you must convince: foundations, politicians, chambers of commerce, trustees, and the public” and to “justify museums in terms of what they, on the contrary, help to justify” is a “specious challenge” (55). Who does Goodman mean with you? He continues to compare the library and the museum, claiming that the museum’s mission is most similar to the library, as fundamentally educational rather than recreational institutions.

Goodman then concludes the museum’s major mission as “making works work” (56), which is the feedback loop that happens that stimulates “inquisitive looking, sharpening perception, and raising visual intelligence” amongst other skills, in the “making and remaking of our worlds” (56). As such, ‘works work’ when they inform vision by forming or re-forming or transforming vision, not confined to visual perception but as understanding in general (57). Goodman argues that this is similar to science, and thus the differences between the arts and the sciences have been misunderstood as antagonisms when their common end is the “improvement in the comprehension and creation of the worlds we live in” (57), which I definitely agree with. Yet, the “worst imaginable conditions” under which the visitor sees works in a museum are difficult and pose three major challenges: The museum cannot instantly supply the needed experience and competence but must find ways of fostering [visitor’s] acquisition, the circumstances for viewing in a museum are at best abnormal and adverse, and the timelessness of works in a museum (58). Goodman offers suggestions to review these issues and elaborates on previous arguments.

Goodman notes that “Giving the impression that the only works worthwhile are those so rare a be confined to museums and great collections, that their works that people can own and live with – this is one of the worst effects a museum can have. And when works begin to be produced expressly for museums, we reach a stage of utter perversity” (60). I definitely agree, but how can we prevent this from happening? Is the exclusivity of works to museums not the inevitable side effect of curating great works? If museums are revered as the place of cultural and historical preservation, then is it not inevitable that people start to create art with the ultimate goal of one day seeing their work hanging in a museum?

The notion of a museum’s success being judged by its “cultural health” is also interesting (61). Goodman claims that signs that indicate “cultural health” may be “whether people are buying original works, whether commercial galleries are surviving and what they are handling, whether serious artists are becoming recognized by the public” (61).

 Museums in the Digital Age, Susanna Bautista, AltaMira Press, 2013, Framing A Changing Museology In The Digital Age, pp.7-30.

Bautista starts by explaining the four major constructs that are tightly interlinked in the digital age: place, community, culture, and technology, which she thoroughly discusses throughout the book using five case studies and various scholarly concepts.

Bautista focuses on the way space and place, as the social conditions within culture is created and transformed, since museums are institutions that “somehow encompasses place, space, culture, community, public, public sphere, and society” (8) and is “ever more concerned with inclusiveness and plurality regarding their visitors and local communities” whilst striving to place themselves within a global framework (9). As “place has regained its prominence in the digital age,” as it “becomes that indeterminate point of intersection within a global network of users“ referred to as “omnilocality” (9). A transference of place, similar to migrations from peripheries to centers, is happening in the digital age: “we are where our devices are,” which in turn creates “portable communities” that use transportable technologies of communication to facilitate interpersonal connections and to make and share collective identities and culture (10). Bautista claims that technology and primacy of experience result in why place has receded for the modern museum: new digital technologies allow for new kinds of experiences, a rather continuous cycle of dependence, and museums became about experiences — “process over stasis”— and therefore less connected to place (10). Unlike a place-based approach in museums that offer experiences within their physical spaces, modern museums are now increasingly defined by the individual and less by institutional intentions. As people are becoming more aware of places as “contact zones,” Bautista echoes scholars like David Gruenewald to demonstrate the need for the educational field, like museums, to pay more attention to places: for “place-conscious education” (12). As a public sphere museums are “critical places for individual development because they reflect societal norms and values; they are places where public opinions are formed and presented, and where participation and discourse are encouraged both by peers and authority figures” (13). It is interesting to see how they have embraced the idea of the public sphere today: offering free days to ensure accessibility, free WiFi that facilitates connectedness, lectures to encourage dialogue, creating social groups for members to interact onsite and online, and soliciting comments from visitors to share publicly à rather than a public sphere it has embraced the idea of “public space”

On the topic of community, Bautista comments on the modern populist museum’s increasing concern for community as reflective of sociocultural changes, particularly in the Western world. This has happened parallel to sociopolitical developments, such as a strengthening civic engagement amongst governmental bodies, academia, and foundations for the active participation of its members and dialogue and social interaction. As “discourse is critical to place, to the public sphere, to public space” and the “approach to culture begins when the ordinary man becomes the narrator” place and community are closely related and are also both affected by changing technological means. “The ability of technology to support individual identity while concomitantly supporting communities by creating new and improved means for communication on a one-to-one basis as well as a one-to-many basis” builds “social capital and community as an active form of participation” on a global and local scale (14). Bautista names different types of communities: physical, virtual, hybrid, interpretive, ones of inquiry, ones of practice, and ones of interest. What exactly does Bautista mean by interpretive communities – is it a target audience that is differentiated through the process of interpreting work that results in differing opinions?

Bautista argues that notions of culture, the public sphere, and community overlap because they both engage discourse, conflict, and convergence on a social level. In doing so she raises interesting questions on the complexities of culture, the diverging theories (relativist vs. universalist), and the effect on the discussion of museums as cultural institutions: “If museums are cultural (and subsequently social) institutions, then how much must they reflect society’s values and concerns? Or, which culture must a museum represent, that of the nation or the community or certain subcultural groups (counterpublics) as defined by race, ethnicity, and religion?” (25). Thus, to understand museums as cultural institutions in the digital age is to critically consider how they use technologies to reflect and maintain their status, legitimacy, and authority, the “extent to which technologies support difference and dialogue, and how technology allows museums to reflect cultural norms and values in the pluralist sense” (27).

In her section on Technology and its Implications, Bautista discusses how technological advancements within museums have led to a change in community engagement, communication, and participation and an experience that is more personalized than ever.  Why is it that museums have historically been more resistant to changing their practices? Bautista concludes that museums in the digital age must resolve their position on what constitutes “museum culture” and how that culture determines their usage of technology (29).

[cardinalstar]

Voltron Headcanons - Galra Biology

So somehow I ended up falling into the Voltron fandom and so far I’ve really been enjoying it!  Aside from all the fantastic character-building with Shiro, my favorite thing about the new season was definitely confirmed part-Galra Keith???  A few days ago @xerospark and I ended up doing a massive ramble about Galra biology and how it might relate to Keith’s Galra ancestry, and we decided to post some of our favorite headcanons.  

xerospark’s post about Galra Keith specifically is over here, but I had a lot of thoughts about Galra biology in general, so I decided to post those under the cut.  I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on these, and feel free to add on your own headcanons if you have them!   

Lifespan-wise, we don’t know much about the Galra but we do know that at one point the Alteans and the Galra were allies, or at least that they got along well enough to have concurrent Paladins of Voltron.  @xerospark pointed out that it wouldn’t make much since for them to have an alliance with a comparatively mayfly-like lifespan.  They’re almost certainly much longer-lived than humans and probably in the same ballpark as the Alteans.

I personally don’t think that the planetoid we saw in “Space Mall,” where the Black Lion originated, was the Galra homeworld or even a particular stronghold of theirs.  There’s never been any mention of their home planet, not even asides like Coran’s mention of Deadly Pebble Rain on Altea.  So basically we know jack about where these guys came from.  

Physically, the Galra we’ve seen on the show have been relatively diverse, but there have been some common denominators.  Large ears, purple skin, body hair/fur, and prominent canine teeth have come up time and time again, which to me suggests that A) the Galra trend more in the direction of obligate carnivory and B) that their homeworld might be a colder planet with short days, low light levels, or other conditions that might allow better hearing to serve an evolutionary function.  They might even be nocturnal.  

The named Galra we’ve seen on the show so far have also all been male??  Since Hagar is an Altean it also begs the question of who and what the Druids are, exactly...  The females might look completely different from the males and we just wouldn’t know yet.  *waits patiently for Keith’s mom*

@xerospark also pointed out that the Galra tend to heavily favor their purple-and-red color scheme, but they also don’t use the same lighting everywhere.  In some of the prison bays the lighting is brighter, almost green, which led me to think that Galra eyes might be optimized for lower-light settings as well.  In humans, color vision relies on three different types of cones that are optimized for short, middle, and long wavelengths of the visible spectrum; there’s some overlap, but dropping a few of those middle-wavelength cones could mean that the Galra would see purples and reds better and have comparative issues with yellows and greens.

It’s possible that the appearance of Galra eyes (flat, yellow, and pupil-less) might have something to do with the presence of tapetum lucidum.  They’re a common adaptation in nocturnal carnivores that help improve visibility in low-light conditions; a side effect is that the tissue’s light-reflecting properties make eyes with tapetum lucidum “glow,” like a cat’s eye-shine.  

And then there’s the whole “sensing quintessence” thing because IDK how that even works.  Alteans and Galra can both do it, but humans can’t.  We don’t even know if all Galra can detect quintessence - maybe some of them are better at it than others.  

Anyway, since it’s a type of energy, quintessence has got to have a wavelength, like other forms of energy (visible light, thermal radiation, sound waves, etc).  Unless they have some sort of “sixth sense” that lets them detect quintessence (which is entirely possible since it’s basically Space Life Magic), it would make the most sense to me for the Galra to be able to hear quintessence, maybe as a high- or low-pitched humming.  In her headcanon post, @xerospark talks some about Keith can sense quintessence in the same way that humans can hear infrasound - he can detect it, but he isn’t really sure what he’s perceiving.  To me, this suggests that whatever sense the Galra use to detect quintessence is something that’s analogous to one of our human senses.   

[junker-town]

The future of using public money to build new, unnecessary ballparks

Have we seen the end of new ballparks replacing old ballparks that are just a couple of decades old? I’d like to think so.

I used to believe that cities needed public money for ballparks. My analogies were reasonable — the opera house, the civic center — and they came out of a desperation that you might not understand if you didn’t grow up with Candlestick Park. That was a stadium that made the team base its advertising campaign around how awful it was. It was a park that was so horrible, their All-Star Game promotion was a pin that announced, “Nothing this stupid would happen at another ballpark, right?”

“Gimme a new ballpark,” I screamed back then. “It’s basically the same thing as a museum.”

And there’s something to that argument. If you dig into the benefits of a publically funded museum, you’ll find similarities to the benefits of a publically funded ballpark. Both are cultural boons, and they allow for a shared community experience that’s extraordinarily important.

That argument falls apart, though, when you realize that the money flowing into a publically funded museum is mostly concerned with keeping the museum open, whereas any money flowing into SunTrust Park will be funnelled to Liberty Media Corporation (Traded as NASDAQ: BATRA, NASDAQ: BATRK, NASDAQ: FWONA, NASDAQ: FWONK, NASDAQ: LSXMA, NASDAQ: LSXMB, NASDAQ: LSXMK, OTCQB: BATRB, OTCQB: FWONB). The CEO of Liberty Media makes somewhere in the tens of millions, and Cobb County had to cut $1.1 million worth of grants to help pay for SunTrust Park. There isn’t a direct correlation between the two, but you can sure see who’s benefiting from this arrangement.

It would appear that museums and ballparks aren’t the same after all.

VOICE FROM THE BACK: Nationalize the baseball teams, then.

What? Who said that? That’s not the argument I was making, ha ha, please don’t put me on a secret government list. But I will say that the Smithsonian doesn’t charge admission for any of its museums, and it’s incredibly great. Imagine that, but for baseball.

Sorry, we’re off track.

No, this comes up now because this is a current headline:

Arizona Diamondbacks can start looking for a new stadium

And it’s a bad headline. Chase Field was built in 1996. Let’s look at some other things that came into this world in 1996:

Which is to say, 1996 wasn’t that long ago. Chase Field is as old as, uh, RiceGum, who is still relatively new to the world.

This is the logical conclusion to a current trend that began with SunTrust Park. Baseball has, with the exception of Oakland, Tampa, and maaaybe, Toronto, Kansas City or Anaheim, run out of cities that want new ballparks. This is the biggest testament to Bud Selig’s legacy. He was able to put the fear of the Expos into different cities around the country, and it’s led to a reality where Camden Yards is one of the oldest ballparks in Major League Baseball. So what happens when the demand lessens?

Demand is manufactured, that’s what happens. Turner Field was an Olympic venue that wasn’t a perfect fit for a ballpark, but it sure was already built and functional. There was still a push for a new ballpark in a different location, one that forced the Braves to pay the equivalent of a fourth-outfielder’s salary in debt service, but forced the bulk of the burden on the taxpayers. Globe Life Park still looks fantastic, with a unique design that’s both aesthetically pleasing and fan friendly, but they’re getting a new ballpark because Texas is hot.

Now Chase Field is endangered because the Diamondbacks’ paid-for ballpark has problems that were the problems of the landlord (Maricopa County), not the tenants. Well, that, and because the tenants want to be in a hipper, more vibrant part of the area. It’s possible that Ken Kendrick and company will privately finance a new ballpark, or at least most of the costs. If he does that, though, it will break with baseball’s most important civic tradition: Never pay for anything the taxpayers will just give you.

The Diamondbacks — whose value has increased by nearly a billion dollars since Kendrick bought the team in 2004 — probably won’t pay for a majority of the ballpark. I would love to be proved wrong, but I’ve seen this rerun before.

So with these three ballparks — one open, one under construction, and one in the earliest stages of planning, let’s take a look at the future of public money for new ballparks. We know that Rob Manfred wants to get to 32 teams for logistical reasons and that sweet, sweet expansion fee, and MLB will probably choose the city that either already has a ballpark in place or has plans to donate a ballpark to the extremely wealthy people who want one. But without speculating too much (and it sure would be irresponsible to casually mention how Las Vegas sure flipped for the Golden Knights), we’ll focus on the teams that already exist.

Who’s getting a new ballpark next? And will they usher in a new era of publicly financed boondoggles? My best guesses:

1. Oakland (2022)

The Coliseum really is past its prime, and with the Warriors and Raiders leaving, it would be nearly impossible to imagine a thriving city like Oakland losing their last franchise. After the Mt. Davis fiasco, it’s also impossible to imagine the city and county ponying up any money. There will be tax breaks and other accommodations that will prevent it from being entirely privately financed, but it will still be primarily financed with private money.

This isn’t a problem, considering the Giants are a proof-of-concept that investing in Bay Area real estate isn’t such a bad thing.

Chances of public boondoggle: Relatively low

2. Tampa (2023)

The site has been chosen, and it’s about time. Never forget that Tampa built Tropicana Field before they had a baseball team, and people were able to overlook its inherently gross Tropicana Fieldishness for years and considered it a viable solution for the Giants and White Sox if they didn’t get a new park. The Rays were there for about three innings before realizing that it was a gnarly ballpark in an unfortunate location.

Chances of public boondoggle: Medium to high

3. Atlanta (2024)

Advances in ballpark technology will allow the Braves to benefit from concessions that are 30 percent more efficient. The deal makes itself, really.

Chances of public boondoggle: Oh, hell yeah

4. Kansas City (2027)

Talks have quietly started for a new downtown ballpark, though they’re not serious right now. Still, expect this to be the newest front in the build-this wars after Oakland and Tampa.

Chances of public boondoggle: Low to medium. The difference with Kauffman Stadium is that it’s pretty nice, so the threats of relocation won’t be taken as seriously, especially if baseball has plans to add two more teams (which removes two possible threats).

5. Anaheim (2033)

The Angels play in the fourth-oldest ballpark in baseball, which is remarkable, and they’ve spent a lot of money renovating it. That’s still the plan going forward, and their lease runs through 2029. After that, there are a trio of three-year options, and I’m guessing Arte Moreno (or the current owners) will be ready to leave.

Chances of public boondoggle: Low to medium for the same reasons as Kansas City. It’s nice enough, which is going to lessen the demand for something completely new on the taxpayers’ dime.

6. Chicago (2034)

If you’re looking for a great read, check out Dayn Perry on the ballpark that almost was. Guaranteed Rate Field is the C-minus student of ballparks, and there’s nothing that’s going to push it into a B. At some point, the rich people involved will get tired of it.

Chances of public boondoggle: High. Never underestimate the potential for grift in the biggest of cities.

7. Toronto (2045)

The Blue Jays want to renovate Rogers Centre, going as far as to say, “I just can’t see a scenario where it would be advantageous for us to go somewhere else.” It’s hard to believe that something that was considered a marvel of a ballpark as recently as the ‘90s — and is in a vibrant part of Toronto — would be replaced.

We’ll have to wait a long time. I’m thinking 2045 is too soon, even.

Chances of public boondoggle: Low. Canada isn’t immune to an ol’-fashioned stadium boondoggle, but Rogers Communications isn’t the kind of owner that can cry poor. Well, none of them are, but Rogers would get the most emphatic middle finger, give or take.

That ... that should be it. Maybe Dodger Stadium is underwater, or Fenway Park literally starts to crumble, but I keep looking over the 30 teams, and I don’t see an obvious fit for a new boondoggle. It was hard enough to get places like Great American Ball Park and PNC Park built, so it’s nearly impossible to imagine a team with a satisfactory ballpark. picking that fight again.

The Diamondbacks’ or Rays’ new stadium might be the last of the boondoggles, then, depending on how much public money is used. And they all lived happily ever after, quietly paying regressive taxes on trivial things like “food” and “gas.”

Except Chase Field being replaced makes me realize this is all far, far too optimistic. Demand will always be manufactured. I don’t know if we’ll see plans for a new ballpark in Washington, Detroit, or New York in the next decade, but we’ll be slapped upside the head again by someone, and we’ll be incredulous that a team could possibly be arrogant enough to pull this stunt again.

The era of publicly financed boondoggle stadiums looks like it’s over, but never underestimate baseball’s desire to get those wax wings a little closer to the sun. Now that we know the Braves, Rangers, and Diamondbacks are willing to ditch relatively new ballparks, a precedent has been set. This isn’t over.

It should be, but baseball has perfected the art of stadium blackmail, and that’s a power that’s just too great to keep in its pocket, apparently. Don’t act so surprised by the next Chase Field.

[sailorrrvenus]

Does 900 DPI Make Better Prints?

900 dpi prints?! That’s kinda crazy, right? You just need to print at 300 or 240 or 200 because somebody on the Internet told me no one can tell the difference.

For a long time, we’ve been stuck with printing at about 300 dpi because that’s what the highest end print devices could handle, and that resolution was often fixed by physical and mechanical limitations of our print devices.

For 16×20 and larger fine art prints, it’s worked really well. But for 11×14 and smaller, there’s always been something lacking for me.

If you’ve ever seen an original print made by Ansel Adams, it’s hard to miss the sheer amount of detail captured. Minute blades of grass, caterpillar holes in aspen leaves, the many textures of Yosemite’s granite and trees. And no wonder because a large number of Ansel’s photographs used 8×10 film, which is roughly equivalent to 1,000 megapixels (yes, one thousand — a gigapixel!)

Film’s resolution varies depending on lenses, aperture, and diffraction, but 3500 dpi is a good ballpark for an 8×10 original. So when you look at an 8×10 inch print from 8×10 inch film by Ansel, you are looking at about 35,000 x 28,000 pixels, which is over ten times the amount of information in an 8×10 print made at 300 dpi (3000 x 2400 pixels). All those extra pixels make a difference, and that analog 8×10 film print quality is something I’ve longed for in my digital prints.

So I tried some things on my Canon PRO-4000 printer on a hunch and curiosity. I made a print from a very high dpi file. The result was something I never expected to see. It was significantly sharper than the prints I had been making at 300 dpi, the resolution everyone said was correct.

I wasn’t sure if what I was seeing was true, so I compared it to my library of test prints. And sure enough, what I was seeing was real.

This wasn’t a simple comparison. I’ve made fine art digital prints for clients for over twenty years, owned two $100,000 Chromira printers, as well as about every generation of inkjet printer since 2000. My high-end clients have high expectations…some of them even worked for Ansel Adams. That keeps me on my toes.

In the process of evaluating printers to meet these expectations, I’ve created a library of test prints on printers from Canon, Epson, as well as LighJets, and Chromiras, and on all kinds of papers with prints made at 300 dpi. Throw in a couple prints from other labs and it’s a snapshot of what professional fine art printing has produced in the last 20 years. This library, along with a couple Ansel Adams Special Edition Prints, gives me a point of comparison for evaluating any printer, paper, or process.

When I compared these test prints to my library, they far exceeded what has been the accepted “standard.” But this isn’t about some technical achievement. What grabbed me is they were more beautiful.

For the first time, an 8×10 digital print grabbed me the way the 8×10 Ansel Adams prints I studied while working in Yosemite grabbed me.

I wanted to understand how the printer handled different resolutions, so I devised a test. I took a very high-resolution file of about 100 megapixels and made copies that I then downsampled to various dpi settings from 150 dpi to 900 dpi at 8×10 inches, as well as an unresampled file at 959.556 dpi. Then I printed each of these files.

I wanted to see what was the limit of the Canon printer, how much dpi I could give it, and if I any resolutions would cause any problems. What I found was game-changing.

The more resolution I gave the printer, the better the prints got. It could handle everything I could give it.

More resolution led to sharper edges, more detail, more delicate features resolved. Fine branches moved from mushy to crisp and clear. But most amazing was how everything became more dimensional, more 3-D, more like I could reach in and grab it. It because more like those Ansel Adams prints that defined my expectations of what a photograph could be.

It makes me giddy just to think about it because it brings such a magical quality to my prints. I never expected digital printing would achieve this, and it is letting me make prints that are closer to my vision than ever before.

What makes things even better is, it’s a “free” upgrade. Giving your printer more dpi doesn’t cost you anything other than making a couple changes in your workflow, and at least with the Canon PRO 1000 and 4000 it seems to print just as fast as when I give it a 300 dpi file.

Application

Let’s talk about putting this into use. In most workflows when it’s time to prepare a file for print, you resample or resize the file to a recommended dpi. This step actually changes the file and either reduces the number of pixels or uses computer algorithms to increase the number of pixels in an attempt to replicate the original detail.

We don’t want to resample. We want to give the printer all the original resolution the camera captured, whatever that is. If you have 24 megapixels, give it 24. If you have 45 megapixels, give it 45. It requires us to change the way we think at this step. Instead of thinking about what dpi our file should be, we just give the printer everything the file has, and that will give us the best print for whatever size sensor you use.

Photoshop

In Adobe Photoshop, uncheck “Resample”, then enter the height and width you want to print at. The resolution in pixels will stay the same, but how they are spread out, which is a fancy way of explaining dpi, will change based on the height and width you enter.

Lightroom

In Adobe Lightroom, turn on “Show Guides” under the menu View>Show Guides. This will show you the height, width, and resolution of your file in a little box in the upper left-hand corner of your image. Then uncheck “Print Resolution”. Now, if you change the height and width of the image, the number of pixels will stay the same, but how far they are spread out will change based on height and width.

Other Editing Software

What about ON1, Alien Skin, and other editors? I don’t own them, so you’ll have to figure it out based on my examples above. They should let you do the same thing, but they might have different names for it.

My test prints were made through the Canon Print Studio Pro plugin, but I’m suspecting that it will work through the basic Mac or Windows printer driver.

Just be sure to set the “Print Quality” to the highest setting available as shown in figure 3. This setting controls how the printer hardware works, and choosing the highest setting is essential to getting the most out of the printer.

I started this article by talking about 900 dpi prints to grab your attention, but now that I’ve explained it further, I hope you understand that I’m not telling you to print at 900 dpi. I’ll reiterate that with this process, we’re not trying to hit a specific dpi or file size. We’re just trying to give the printer everything we have. If you have 450 dpi, give it 450, or 625 dpi or whatever your file and print size turns out to. Because whenever your resolution exceeds the 300 dpi “standard”, our prints will have more detail and become more dimensional.

A couple of final details before we wrap up. As I’ve noted, my tests were done on a Canon PRO-4000 printer. I’ve also tested it on the PRO-1000 printer, and I’m assuming it will work on the current 24” and 60” versions of the Canon ProRO Printers. How, and if, it works with other models or brands will require you to do some testing. Changing any setting (variable) from my workflow may produce different results.

The other thing is that decimal numbers don’t seem to matter. For a long time, it’s been the belief that decimal numbers like 299.58 would cause rounding errors and affect quality, and therefore we should give inkjet printers whole numbers. I don’t see this as being an issue with the Canon PRO printers after using this workflow in production for myself and for my clients.

Lastly, the effect does follow a curve. The most noticeable gain in quality happens in the 400/500/600 dpi range. At higher dpis, it requires a little more squinting to see the increase at each step, but after looking closely with the naked eye and a loupe, as well as showing the prints to other knowledgeable viewers, the effect is there. I’ve printed up to 1200 dpi and it’s given me sharp definition on details that are hair thin in the print. There is a point of diminishing returns, but since there is no downside to using more dpi, I don’t worry about where that point is.

So now you have the secret to making your best prints ever. You just have to fire up your printer and put this process into action!

About the author: Rich Seiling is a photographer, master printmaker, and teacher who has worked with thousands of photographers to produce prints for museums and galleries. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. Seiling shares his printing knowledge at MakeBetterPrints.com through articles, videos, workshops, and coaching sessions.

source https://petapixel.com/2019/02/21/does-900-dpi-make-better-prints/

[pauldeckerus]

Does 900 DPI Make Better Prints?

900 dpi prints?! That’s kinda crazy, right? You just need to print at 300 or 240 or 200 because somebody on the Internet told me no one can tell the difference.

For a long time, we’ve been stuck with printing at about 300 dpi because that’s what the highest end print devices could handle, and that resolution was often fixed by physical and mechanical limitations of our print devices.

For 16×20 and larger fine art prints, it’s worked really well. But for 11×14 and smaller, there’s always been something lacking for me.

If you’ve ever seen an original print made by Ansel Adams, it’s hard to miss the sheer amount of detail captured. Minute blades of grass, caterpillar holes in aspen leaves, the many textures of Yosemite’s granite and trees. And no wonder because a large number of Ansel’s photographs used 8×10 film, which is roughly equivalent to 1,000 megapixels (yes, one thousand — a gigapixel!)

Film’s resolution varies depending on lenses, aperture, and diffraction, but 3500 dpi is a good ballpark for an 8×10 original. So when you look at an 8×10 inch print from 8×10 inch film by Ansel, you are looking at about 35,000 x 28,000 pixels, which is over ten times the amount of information in an 8×10 print made at 300 dpi (3000 x 2400 pixels). All those extra pixels make a difference, and that analog 8×10 film print quality is something I’ve longed for in my digital prints.

So I tried some things on my Canon PRO-4000 printer on a hunch and curiosity. I made a print from a very high dpi file. The result was something I never expected to see. It was significantly sharper than the prints I had been making at 300 dpi, the resolution everyone said was correct.

I wasn’t sure if what I was seeing was true, so I compared it to my library of test prints. And sure enough, what I was seeing was real.

This wasn’t a simple comparison. I’ve made fine art digital prints for clients for over twenty years, owned two $100,000 Chromira printers, as well as about every generation of inkjet printer since 2000. My high-end clients have high expectations…some of them even worked for Ansel Adams. That keeps me on my toes.

In the process of evaluating printers to meet these expectations, I’ve created a library of test prints on printers from Canon, Epson, as well as LighJets, and Chromiras, and on all kinds of papers with prints made at 300 dpi. Throw in a couple prints from other labs and it’s a snapshot of what professional fine art printing has produced in the last 20 years. This library, along with a couple Ansel Adams Special Edition Prints, gives me a point of comparison for evaluating any printer, paper, or process.

When I compared these test prints to my library, they far exceeded what has been the accepted “standard.” But this isn’t about some technical achievement. What grabbed me is they were more beautiful.

For the first time, an 8×10 digital print grabbed me the way the 8×10 Ansel Adams prints I studied while working in Yosemite grabbed me.

I wanted to understand how the printer handled different resolutions, so I devised a test. I took a very high-resolution file of about 100 megapixels and made copies that I then downsampled to various dpi settings from 150 dpi to 900 dpi at 8×10 inches, as well as an unresampled file at 959.556 dpi. Then I printed each of these files.

I wanted to see what was the limit of the Canon printer, how much dpi I could give it, and if I any resolutions would cause any problems. What I found was game-changing.

The more resolution I gave the printer, the better the prints got. It could handle everything I could give it.

More resolution led to sharper edges, more detail, more delicate features resolved. Fine branches moved from mushy to crisp and clear. But most amazing was how everything became more dimensional, more 3-D, more like I could reach in and grab it. It because more like those Ansel Adams prints that defined my expectations of what a photograph could be.

It makes me giddy just to think about it because it brings such a magical quality to my prints. I never expected digital printing would achieve this, and it is letting me make prints that are closer to my vision than ever before.

What makes things even better is, it’s a “free” upgrade. Giving your printer more dpi doesn’t cost you anything other than making a couple changes in your workflow, and at least with the Canon PRO 1000 and 4000 it seems to print just as fast as when I give it a 300 dpi file.

Application

Let’s talk about putting this into use. In most workflows when it’s time to prepare a file for print, you resample or resize the file to a recommended dpi. This step actually changes the file and either reduces the number of pixels or uses computer algorithms to increase the number of pixels in an attempt to replicate the original detail.

We don’t want to resample. We want to give the printer all the original resolution the camera captured, whatever that is. If you have 24 megapixels, give it 24. If you have 45 megapixels, give it 45. It requires us to change the way we think at this step. Instead of thinking about what dpi our file should be, we just give the printer everything the file has, and that will give us the best print for whatever size sensor you use.

Photoshop

In Adobe Photoshop, uncheck “Resample”, then enter the height and width you want to print at. The resolution in pixels will stay the same, but how they are spread out, which is a fancy way of explaining dpi, will change based on the height and width you enter.

Lightroom

In Adobe Lightroom, turn on “Show Guides” under the menu View>Show Guides. This will show you the height, width, and resolution of your file in a little box in the upper left-hand corner of your image. Then uncheck “Print Resolution”. Now, if you change the height and width of the image, the number of pixels will stay the same, but how far they are spread out will change based on height and width.

Other Editing Software

What about ON1, Alien Skin, and other editors? I don’t own them, so you’ll have to figure it out based on my examples above. They should let you do the same thing, but they might have different names for it.

My test prints were made through the Canon Print Studio Pro plugin, but I’m suspecting that it will work through the basic Mac or Windows printer driver.

Just be sure to set the “Print Quality” to the highest setting available as shown in figure 3. This setting controls how the printer hardware works, and choosing the highest setting is essential to getting the most out of the printer.

I started this article by talking about 900 dpi prints to grab your attention, but now that I’ve explained it further, I hope you understand that I’m not telling you to print at 900 dpi. I’ll reiterate that with this process, we’re not trying to hit a specific dpi or file size. We’re just trying to give the printer everything we have. If you have 450 dpi, give it 450, or 625 dpi or whatever your file and print size turns out to. Because whenever your resolution exceeds the 300 dpi “standard”, our prints will have more detail and become more dimensional.

A couple of final details before we wrap up. As I’ve noted, my tests were done on a Canon PRO-4000 printer. I’ve also tested it on the PRO-1000 printer, and I’m assuming it will work on the current 24” and 60” versions of the Canon ProRO Printers. How, and if, it works with other models or brands will require you to do some testing. Changing any setting (variable) from my workflow may produce different results.

The other thing is that decimal numbers don’t seem to matter. For a long time, it’s been the belief that decimal numbers like 299.58 would cause rounding errors and affect quality, and therefore we should give inkjet printers whole numbers. I don’t see this as being an issue with the Canon PRO printers after using this workflow in production for myself and for my clients.

Lastly, the effect does follow a curve. The most noticeable gain in quality happens in the 400/500/600 dpi range. At higher dpis, it requires a little more squinting to see the increase at each step, but after looking closely with the naked eye and a loupe, as well as showing the prints to other knowledgeable viewers, the effect is there. I’ve printed up to 1200 dpi and it’s given me sharp definition on details that are hair thin in the print. There is a point of diminishing returns, but since there is no downside to using more dpi, I don’t worry about where that point is.

So now you have the secret to making your best prints ever. You just have to fire up your printer and put this process into action!

About the author: Rich Seiling is a photographer, master printmaker, and teacher who has worked with thousands of photographers to produce prints for museums and galleries. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. Seiling shares his printing knowledge at MakeBetterPrints.com through articles, videos, workshops, and coaching sessions.

from Photography News https://petapixel.com/2019/02/21/does-900-dpi-make-better-prints/

[jessicakmatt]

Mixing an Album: 10 Tips For Keeping Your Sound Consistent

Mixing an Album: 10 Tips For Keeping Your Sound Consistent: via LANDR Blog

The most important element of any finished album, EP or mixtape is consistent sound.

We all want that polished consistency that draws listeners in when we’re producing an album. It’s why LANDR now does album mastering—to give you true mastered sound across your whole project.

But getting a good album master with consistent sound starts with your album mixing. Mixing several songs while staying true to your album’s overall feel is a big challenge…

Wondering how to mix an album? In this article you’ll learn 10 mix tips that will help you get a more cohesive sound across all your mixes.

1. Use concepts, not copies

Don’t just copy your channel strips, remember your process and repeat it instead.

You might be tempted to dial in the drums on the first track and then simply copy and paste each plugin over to the next song… But don’t do it! It may get you into some trouble.

Even if your source was tracked in the same session with the same microphones, audio can vary a lot between performances.

Even if your source was tracked in the same session with the same microphones, audio can vary a lot between performances.

You’ll likely have to readjust the threshold and attack/release of your compression anyways.

So remember what you’ve been doing with your processing conceptually rather than specific parameter settings. Use the same general concepts between tracks, but experiment with different colours of compression/EQ.

This approach will allow you to keep your album cohesive overall and create subtle variation between your songs at the same time.

if (!window.AdButler) { (function () { var s = document.createElement(“script”); s.async = true; s.type = “text/javascript”; s.src = ‘https://servedbyadbutler.com/app.js’; var n = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; n.parentNode.insertBefore(s, n); }()); } var AdButler = AdButler || {}; AdButler.ads = AdButler.ads || []; var abkw = window.abkw || “; var plc291816 = window.plc291816 || 0; document.write(” + 'div>’); AdButler.ads.push({ handler: function (opt) { AdButler.register(171487,291816, [300,250], 'placement_291816_’ + opt.place, opt); }, opt: { place: plc291816++, keywords: abkw , domain: 'servedbyadbutler.com’ } });

2. Focus on your main elements

Decide what the focal points of your mixes are and keep them consistent.

Things like the overall level of the lead vocal or the amount of sub bass are upfront for the listener. Keeping them in the same ballpark is a major factor for consistency.

Decide what the major elements of your mix will be before you even start the process.

For instance, knowing that your lead vocal needs to command the most attention in the mix will allow you to make decisions that create space for it as you go.

Keeping the main elements in mind will make it easier for you to make decisions when you start each mix on your album. Decide early and mix accordingly.

3. Mix with headroom in mind

Develop good and consistent headroom habits—I can’t stress this enough.

Leaving the appropriate amount of headroom gives you more clarity and better separation between the elements of each mix.

If you want consistency, you’re gonna need that separation across your whole album.

Healthy headroom guarantees that all your tracks will be ready for mastering once your mix is complete. All your mixing decisions lead to mastering, so it’s important.

Not sure how to leave headroom? Read our headroom guide and start giving your mixes the right space.

Plus, good headroom across all your songs will give you a huge advantage when it comes time to…

4. Use a mix reference

Reference! Reference! Reference!

The more you compare your tracks against each other, the more you’ll understand which ones need to be pulled into the overall album feel that you’re aiming for.

If all the songs are a similar level (healthy headroom), you’ll be able to easily compare them to the other tracks on the album without getting misled by level differences.

Get some reference tracks to use for your the whole project as well. They will form a baseline you can refer to as you mix from track to track.

Compare your mix to commercially released music, quick masters, or other versions of your mix throughout your process.

Learn more about putting mix referencing into your own workflow with our mix referencing guide.

5. Repeat techniques only when it makes sense

Re-use certain techniques only when it’s appropriate.

Just because you used gated reverb on the snare in one track doesn’t mean every snare track on your album needs it. Consistency doesn’t necessarily mean repetition.

Consistency doesn’t necessarily mean repetition.

Keep a handful of go-to tricks up your sleeve, but your whole album will sound more cohesive if you use them tastefully and in context of each mix.

Don’t squeeze something in just for the sake of consistency. Mix for cohesion, but do it smart. Remember, your tracks still have to sound good on their own.

6. Use buses

Bussing is the process of routing multiple tracks to the same aux channel in your DAW.

Be smart about your busses and apply processing to multiple tracks at once where you can.

Bussing is great for situations where you have multiple microphones capturing the same source. Engineers in the analog era didn’t have to put seven different compressors on each individual mic and neither should you.

Engineers in the analog era didn’t have to put seven different compressors on each individual mic and neither should you.

Applying compression or EQ to multiple tracks on a bus allows you to keep the bigger picture in mind as you go. See how much you can accomplish using just one processor.

If you have fewer processors to deal with, making changes across all the mixes on your album is more manageable.

Which brings me to my next point…

7. Make a master bus plan

If you decide to do any master bus processing, make sure you have a plan.

Master bus (sometimes called 2-bus) processing applies effects to the whole mix via the master fader channel.

Remember, it’s incredibly easy to make big sweeping changes to the sound of your mix when you’re affecting it globally.

if (!window.AdButler) { (function () { var s = document.createElement(“script”); s.async = true; s.type = “text/javascript”; s.src = 'https://servedbyadbutler.com/app.js’; var n = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; n.parentNode.insertBefore(s, n); }()); } var AdButler = AdButler || {}; AdButler.ads = AdButler.ads || []; var abkw = window.abkw || “; var plc291816 = window.plc291816 || 0; document.write(” + 'div>’); AdButler.ads.push({ handler: function (opt) { AdButler.register(171487,291816, [300,250], 'placement_291816_’ + opt.place, opt); }, opt: { place: plc291816++, keywords: abkw , domain: 'servedbyadbutler.com’ } });

For example: deciding on 2-bus chain that suits the vision of your project and tweaking it to fit each mix on your album is a good way to achieve consistency at the master bus.

Avoid compression applied to the master bus for the sake of loudness… Your mastering will take care of all that. But compression for glueing, character and dynamics control is fine.

If you don’t have a well-thought-out plan that includes a clear idea of what you’re trying to accomplish with processing at the master bus, consider leaving it out altogether.

8. Take breaks

Ear fatigue is a real issue for audio engineers—That means you!

A mix you do at the end of a marathon session can be surprisingly different from one you do at the start.

Consistency can suffer if you work on some tracks with fresh ears and others with tired ears. You might start making certain decisions when you’re tired that you wouldn’t make otherwise.

Be extra careful about spending too long working on headphones, or monitoring too loud in general.

Be extra careful about spending too long working on headphones, or monitoring too loud in general.

As a rule of thumb, for every 2 hours of mixing your ears needs about 15-30 minutes quiet to stay fresh.

Your ears are your most valuable tool in the studio, so treat them accordingly.

9. Keep your tracks in check

Be careful with extra tracks. If you’re anything like me, you’ve probably gotten carried away in the studio and recorded a bunch of tracks of experimentation.

But If you throw in everything and the kitchen sink, you may find yourself struggling.

Keep your extra tracks in check and include them based on your overall plan that I mentioned above. If they don’t fit the roadmap, consider getting rid of them completely.

Don’t change your main elements just to make a throwaway track fit. Your cohesion will end up suffering in the long run.

10. Master with your album in mind

Mixing for consistency doesn’t end after the mixing is done. Mastering needs to preserve the sound you’ve worked hard to achieve for your album.

Mastering should preserve the consistency you’ve worked hard for in your mixes.

But If you’re mastering track-by-track, keeping that cohesion can be tough.

LANDR album mastering takes your whole album into account during the mastering phase to preserve your hard work.

Simply select your tracks and master them as an album in your LANDR library. It’s the last piece of the puzzle to make your album work as a whole.

All together now

In the end, your mix should disappear into the background as the listener experiences the music. Consistency is how you get there.

We all want to avoid drawing someone out of the flow to think about the mix!

Make these 10 mix tips part of your routine and you’ll be well on your way to keeping people hooked all the way through your album, mixtape or EP.

The post Mixing an Album: 10 Tips For Keeping Your Sound Consistent appeared first on LANDR Blog.

from LANDR Blog https://blog.landr.com/album-mixing-10-tips/ via https://www.youtube.com/user/corporatethief/playlists from Steve Hart https://stevehartcom.tumblr.com/post/174602887809

[bluebookweb]

Hospitality’s $2.5 Billion Brawl

Ask any hotel industry executive to describe the biggest misstep in their industry over the past 20 years and it’s a safe bet you’ll get the same answer: Hotel brands didn’t understand the significance OTA’s would play quickly enough, and once they did see the big picture, they didn’t act forcefully enough to take control of the situation.

Will history repeat itself in the restaurant industry? Not if brands take control now.

Yes, we’re talking about hotels. Why? Because it’s hugely relevant and the table is set for the restaurant industry to end up in the same situation.

Let’s start with the basics. OTA is an acronym for “Online Travel Agent”. You’ve likely used one to book a room or airfare by using sites like Expedia, Orbitz, or Booking.com — all popular OTA’s (there are dozens more).

The OTA’s got their start in the mid-1990’s by marketing, mostly, what was considered surplus hotel room inventory. They charged brands a hefty 10-20 percent commission for each booking, and since the bookings were considered largely incremental, the hotels were happy to pay. After all, an empty hotel room is the purest expression of perishable inventory. So far, so good… right?

In 2004, things began to change. After Google OK’d the use of trademarks as advertising keywords, even if the advertiser didn’t own the trademark, the OTA’s pounced. By quickly taking advantage of these new guidelines, OTA’s launched expansive digital advertising campaigns using the hotel brand’s own trademarks and amassed huge consumer bases. Their market share skyrocketed. Then, commissions increased. Then, commissions increased again. And, again.

Think it can’t happen to the restaurant industry? Think again.

A Google search for “order Denny’s” displays a Seamless (Grubhub) ad ahead of Denny’s own digital ordering site.

By 2010, OTA’s were booking in the ballpark of 20 percent of all hotel rooms in the US, and the brands (now, fully enlightened) began taking steps to reclaim consumers. OTA’s and hoteliers had become, in the truest sense of the expression, “frenemies” — frustrated with one another’s tactics, but increasingly reliant on each other to meet their respective goals. Brands launched comprehensive (read: expensive) campaigns to recapture consumers by stepping up their in-house e-commerce capabilities, and by offering loyalty programs and discounts only available directly. They also took their tensions to courtrooms and the corridors of government, arguing and maneuvering to restrict one another via rules and regulations.

Fast forward to 2017 and the song remains the same. OTA’s control, in the ballpark of, 30 percent of hotel bookings (that’s nearly 70 percent of bookings made digitally!). And, when all is said and done, OTA commissions cost the industry in excess of $2.5 billion annually. The advertising, courtroom, and regulatory battles continue, and most experts predict that despite the brands’ efforts to rebalance the equation, OTA’s will gain even more share over the coming years.

So, does any of this sound familiar yet? If not, let’s complete the analogy:

Restaurant marketplaces, like Grubhub, Postmates, and DoorDash are the food equivalent of an OTA. Most use inexpensive delivery as a consumer acquisition tool and charge commissions of 20-30 percent to the restaurants. They already control significant portions of the small chain and independent landscape (especially in the ‘NFL cities’). And, like the OTA’s, they position themselves as bringing incremental sales to a brand by promoting a brand’s offerings to their (the marketplace’s) loyal consumers. At the foundation, this all holds up, many consumers visit marketplace sites first when they’re hungry. Today, a cheeseburger, tomorrow ramen, the next day a burrito — marketplaces have many choices on display for every craving.

But, without control and wisely structured agreements, the marketplaces have ample opportunity to take advantage of the industry, just as the OTA’s did in 2004. Here’s the short list of smart steps every brand should take to gain the most, and lose the least, while employing marketplaces as a sales channel:

Make sure your own, branded, e-commerce sites and apps are world class so that your most loyal consumers love ordering directly and won’t be tempted to order elsewhere because of a better, faster, or more accurate user experience. Utilize a service like Olo’s Dispatch to offer delivery via your own sites and apps. Make sure that the marketplaces that are delivering your food when someone orders from their apps and sites are equally willing to deliver for you when a guest comes to your sites and apps.

Be tough but fair in your agreements with marketplaces. Prohibit them from using your trademarks in any advertising (after all, it’s not an incremental consumer that goes looking for how to order food from your brand). Demand lower commissions for any sale that is demonstrably a prior customer or began their search on your site.

Demand marketplaces fully integrate to your in-store systems and operations so that you have the ability to understand throughput from the marketplaces by geography, by day-part and by food type. This is also important in franchise systems where marketplace orders that are received on ‘out-of-band’ tablets can be ‘forgotten’ and not entered into POS.

So, that’s the $2.5 billion conundrum. Where it goes from here depends on each restaurant’s commitment to furnish great e-commerce sites to its customers, offer delivery as an option to its existing customers through its own e-commerce channels, and demand even-handed and tightly integrated partnerships with every marketplace.

Hospitality’s $2.5 Billion Brawl posted first on happyhourspecialsyum.blogspot.com