Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
- I mainly blame Twitter. I've been using Twitter more and more for all the little things that occur to me during the day, and so I don't feel the urge to write huge blog posts nearly as often. Twitter's a sort of stream of consciousness view into my mind, covering everything from what I'm doing at work to what I'm cooking, what I'm reading, interesting Web sites I've found, and so on. To be honest, it's a hell of a lot easier than composing short pieces with coherent thoughts and logical structure, and a lot more inconsequential as a result.
- I blame Jeff. He's my new CEO and he's making me work really hard. As you can see from the photo on the right, he's either a member of the Yakuza or a Triad (or perhaps both), and he clearly enjoys a good dose of pain, so it pays to keep on his good side. In all seriousness, though, he is working us bloody hard, and I'm in a somewhat different role now to where I was over the last two years, so I have a lot less time to blog during working hours than I used to. David and I used to go in for competitive blogging; we'd talk about various issues relating to machinima or user-generated content or Web 2.0 and then blog about them, but Jeff doesn't work that way. I'm spending much of my time updating the company blogs and being active on the corporate social media sites, as well as creating marketing materials, and working on Secret Master Plans For Taking Over The Universe With Moviestorm (TM). In effect, I'm now beginning to put into practice many the things I've been musing about for two years, so it's time to stop talking and start doing.
- I blame Facebook. I always hated MySpace. Still do. But somehow Facebook seems to have become a lot more useful in the last few months, especially since it automatically picks up both my twitter feed and my blog. Much of my social time is now spent there, chatting to people or commenting on their stuff, rather than pontificating at length here, which is beginning to feel a little sterile and isolated.
- I blame Rhys. Yeah, yeah, I know he's only a kid, so it seems a little harsh to dump this on him, but he's rapidly turning into a man, so he can shoulder his share of the responsibility. Since he came to live with me at Christmas, things have been very different round here, and I'm still in the process of adjusting to being a single dad. Which, I have to say, I'm thoroughly enjoying, and coping with a lot better than I thought I would. It's great having him around the house, and he's made me see myself in a whole new light.
- I blame lawyers. After nearly a year, I'm nearing the final stages of my divorce, and dealing with all the crap that entails is beginning to sap my will to do anything at all most of the time. It hasn't been acrimonious, but neither has it been particularly amicable or co-operative, and I seem to be spending for ever dealing with paperwork, chasing up signatures on documents, disentangling our finances, and all that stuff. And quite frankly, it doesn't leave me feeling particularly creative or inspired afterwards, so the inclination to write anything or make a movie has been mostly absent for months. Still, it should all be over in a few weeks. The Decree Nisi is already through, and the Decree Absolute should happen in mid-March provided we can get all the final bits of lawyer crap out of the way. Again, in the interests of fairness, I should say that my lawyer, William, over at Cambridge Family Law Practice is damn good, and if you ever find yourself in my position, I highly recommend him.
- All of which is basically a smokescreen for the real reason I haven't been blogging much. I've been severely distracted, OK? I admit it. Anna (aka Blue Maiya, who helped me out at DragonCon last year) came over from Florida with her son for a three-month visit at the start of February, and so my evenings and weekends have been otherwise occupied. And they're probably likely to remain so until she goes back to the US in May, after which I will probably throw myself heavily into Empire: Total War for a few weeks, revert to living on Eastern Standard Time, and give thanks to Skype for providing us with free video chat. I've been pleasantly surprised to discover that I do have a romantic side after all, and I'm not actually the heartless bastard I'd begun to believe I had become. As LupeLaLoba so cutely put it, the two of us are "gayer than rainbow glitter kitten vomit", which is, I think, a compliment.
In all seriousness, though, everything's in the midst of big changes, and I'm still getting used to the way things are, but right now I'm happier than I've been for a very long time. I just wish I didn't miss my daughters so much. I'll see what I can do about getting back to writing again, because I do miss it, but it's likely to be sporadic at best for a while at least.
Monday, February 2, 2009
OK, I might as well 'fess up. I like long hair. A lot. I find it incredibly sensual. And it looks great when photographed too. Perhaps most importantly for the film-maker, it looks amazing when it moves.
It's not just the huge movements that make the difference, although those can be spectacular. It's the small shimmers as the hair blows in the wind, or as the actress turns her head. When hair drapes over the shoulders, it completely changes the shape of the face as the head moves, obscuring different parts of the face and the light catches the hair in different ways.
However, you try doing that in machinima. It won't work. It just won't.
For a start, most hairpieces in games are pretty low-poly. They're about as much like hair as the plastic hairpieces you get on Lego characters. They don't move like real hair, they don't shine like real hair, they don't have the translucency of real hair, and they don't have all the different colours of real hair. They're basically simple blocks of stuff that look like they've been attacked with several coats of varnish. That's basically because for games, it doesn't matter too much. The gamer's attention is focused elsewhere.
In a film, however, you're much more likely to want to go to close-up, and so there's much more emphasis on making humans look right. We're not bad at faces these days, but it so often looks wrong because of the hair.
Yeah, so what about Lara Croft's ponytail or the hair in Heavenly Sword, you ask. Surely they're good? Well, true, they do have a basic spring mesh in, and so they do actually move. But let's just mention the dread word "intersection". Machinima really isn't sophisticated enough to replicate how hair actually moves, and really isn't sophisticated enough to model how it drapes over the human body. Watch Heavenly Sword carefully, and you'll see her hair go through her clothes, her shoulder, her legs, her weapons, and itself. It looks pretty awesome in motion when you're in the middle of a battle sequence, but watch the extracts as a piece of film and they just look wrong. With less advanced engines, like Moviestorm, The Sims, or SL, they just don't care: hair will cut through anything. And that always bugs the hell out of me.
When machinima can give me hair like this, I'll be impressed. Until then, I'll always be wanting more than is technically possible. Like the shirts I mentioned earlier, it's even a real bastard to do with "traditional" CG animation. There are some things where actors and cameras win hands down.
Oh, and to save me writing another whole post on the subject of things you can't do with machinima: the same goes for long, flowing clothing. I like that too, and machinima just can't do it. Just replace the word "hair" with "cloth" and it's pretty much the same. Bah.
And no, I'm not having a downer on machinima. It's more that after four years working full-time in the medium, I'm getting a strong sense of where its true limitations are, and are always likely to be.
There are more on my Flickr site.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
I recently read two books about the way the Net is changing the world: The Cult of the Amateur, by Andrew Keen, and Wikinomics, by Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams. They represent two polarised views of the future.
The Cult of the Amateur is a polemic against non-professionals, and bemoans the advent of a world in which blogs, podcasts and home-made content replaces mainstream news and traditional music publishing. Keen predicts a world in which we’re all doomed to mediocrity, and in which true creatives are drowned in a sea of pirate-driven YouTube mashups and sub-Z-list celebrities who are famous for even less than 15 minutes. Worse than that, we’ll all get engulfed in a tide of filth as the Net gets filled with the verbal effluvia of a billion unrestrained proles, and as ordinary people feel the need to bombard us with too much information about their humdrum everyday lives.
On the other hand, Wikinomics enthuses wildly about a utopian world in which amateurs do everything, disparate, yet altruistic communities all pitch in to do pretty much anything that’s needed, and governments, corporations and individuals all benefit beyond our wildest dreams. Open source will become the de facto standard for everything, and we’ll all get used to having anything we need absolutely free and making donations for those things we consider worthwhile.
Keen manages to take a load of interesting facts and then turn them into an unsustainable argument. He has some fair points to make: as we start to read blogs over newspapers, news organisations are under threat. We may say good riddance to the big news media, but let’s not forget that ultimately they are the source that bloggers rely on, and if they disappear, all the bedroom journalists have nothing to draw on. And yes, it is easier than ever before for kids to get their hands on porn and all sorts of unsuitable material. And it’s true, the Long Tail theory doesn’t mean that anyone who fancies themselves as creator can make a living at it, because most people aren’t actually good enough to be worth paying for. But that doesn’t mean that all amateur content is worthless, or that there is no value in repurposed news.
Meanwhile, Tapscott & Williams do a great job of whisking you aloft on a magic carpet of rhetoric until you realise that their argument just doesn’t hang together in the real world. They give an example of an oil company who released all their survey data and then crowd-sourced the prospecting. They found they had a load more oil than they thought and got rich, and a few amateur prospectors got rich. Which all sounds great, but they don’t mention the many amateurs who worked for the oil company for free and got nothing. And while software designed and built by unpaid casual labour is fine, up to a point, would you really want to fly in an aircraft designed by a loose group of aircraft enthusiasts, each contributing to some little part of the blueprint, and released to the public as soon as there’s an early beta?
The absurdity of both positions is amply demonstrated by the recent announcements by Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. Wikipedia is, of course, the poster child of the devotees of the amateur. Keen derides Wikipedia, asking how ordinary people can compare with peer-reviewed Nobel prize-winners. We now know that Wikipedia not only has far more content than the Britannica, but also, incredibly, the same level of accuracy, and it’s free. But in the last couple of weeks, Wikipedia has started talking about wanting peer reviews, and going back on its policy of open editing. And meanwhile, the Britannica, long regarded as the ultimate authority on everything, is now moving towards the position of allowing readers to edit its hallowed entries.
In other words, neither extreme is right. Professional and amateurs need to live together in symbiosis, each professing to despise but completely dependent on the other. We need professionals to provide the core, to set the standards, and to provide the driving force and resources for projects that are too large to do any other way. And meanwhile amateurs, each contributing a little in their areas of interest and expertise, can mobilise a quantity of labour that would otherwise be inconceivable without slave labour or totalitarianism. In the creative world, the vast array of amateurs are the background from which professionals emerge, and in turn, those few professionals are the inspiration for thousands more amateurs.
Which, believe it or not, is the way it always has been, and the way it very probably always will be. Technology makes it easier for amateurs to connect with their audiences, but that’s not a sign that the professionals will be swept aside, because the same technology also makes it easier for professionals to connect with their audiences. What it does mean is that it’s now possible for people to be professional in new ways. Old business models may be changing, and some of the oldest companies may be threatened, but the basic concept that structures our society will remain the same.
There are some people who are good enough and dedicated enough to get paid for doing certain things, and others who just do it for the hell of it. Put those people together and you’ll be amazed what can be achieved.