In my opinion, of course.

10. Avatar
9. The Terminator
8. X-Men
7. Equilibrium
6. Blade Runner
5. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
4. Inception
3. District 9
2. Star Wars: A New Hope
1. The Matrix

Runner ups: “Contact, “Iron Man”, “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back”, “Serenity”, and “Star Trek: First Contact”. Biggest disappointments: The Matrix 2 & 3.

The interesting about this movie list was that I had a real big problem trying to figure out my top-10. There were at least 30 movies that were competing in almost equal grounds. The twist here is that when I put together my sci-fi TV show top-10 list last night, I had trouble filling it up. After the initial top-5, I just couldn’t easily find enough good shows to make it on that list. Which means one thing and one thing only: that for the science fiction genre on TV, there is a lot of latitude on making it better. Easily.

In my opinion, of course.

Originally, I thought I should rate shows based on what they represented when they were first broadcasted. This way, shows like the original Star Trek would have made the list below. But then, I thought that there are shows that are old but still remain timeless, both in spirit and regarding their filmmaking, so I decided to not give these older shows the benefit of the doubt, and instead judge all of them on the same grounds. So here’s my list:

10. The 4400 (mostly the 1st season)
9. Fringe (just few parts of it)
8. Star Trek: Deep Space 9 (some parts of it)

The 3 above are not really that much of favorites for me, it’s just that I can’t find anything better. My truly favorite shows are the following:

7. Babylon 5 (seasons 2-4 only)
6. X-Files (alien mytharc only)
5. Stargate: Universe (most of it)
4. BattleStar Galactica (Re-imagined series, seasons 1-2 mostly)
3. Firefly (all of it, inc. the movie)
2. LOST (seasons 1-2, most of 3-4-5, I hated season 6)
1. Star Trek: The Next Generation (seasons 3-6, hated seasons 1-2, blah season 7)

Here’s why I regard ST:TNG to be the best show ever. LOST would have been #1 if it hadn’t f’ed up in the last couple of seasons.

“V” and “No ordinary family” must be among the most cliche scifi shows on TV right now. On V I can’t go passed through the over-explanations of the situation. Which is unfortunately unexplainable, since the plot is illogical. And then they try to explore human emotions and what is the human soul. Subjects that have been discussed 20 years ago on Star Trek, and as far as soul goes, it’s a subject that doesn’t attract most modern scifi viewers. Eventually, we then get an “alien mother” who says that the human soul is somewhere on… her cleavage (as io9 correctly noted).

Sorry, I know, I don’t make much sense right now. But if you’ve actually watched “V”, you know what I’m talking about. This is one show in disarray. It’s uninteresting, stupid, over the top, cliche, old style, you name it. It’s like it has no direction at all.

Of course it’s not going to see a third season, and we should all be happy for that. Unfortunately, everything else also sucks on TV right now, a lot of boring, unimaginative shit. At least we ditched cable, so we don’t have to pay for these terrible shows we’re getting served. It’s funny how only 5-6 really good shows end up happening every decade.

And don’t get me started about “The Cape” on NBC.

Update: EXCELLENT analysis of the situation.

I watched this documentary on Netflix tonight, “The Art of Steal”. It’s a documentary describing the history of Dr Barnes‘ post-impressionist art collection, and the eventual demise of the Barnes Foundation, with the city of Philadelphia taking control of that art (that is now estimated at over $25 billion). The documentary is trying to convince us of the travesty of the art ending up on a museum in the central Philadelphia, while Barnes’ will was for it to stay at its original building forever (in a residential neighborhood), be closed to the public, never be loaned, and only be opened to students. The documentary is pretty one-sided, and it mostly shows the opinions of members of the “Friends of Barnes” organization, that want to continue Dr Barnes’ wishes, and avoid the financial exploitation of his art.

After watching the documentary, I felt completely appalled by the various speakers, who I can only call “elitists”. They genuinely think that the right thing to do is to continue Dr Barnes’ wishes. That this was Barnes’ art. Well, I don’t hold the same opinion, and I’m in fact glad that the City of Philadelphia got hold of the art, even if it might have been via not so clean legal methods.

Art belongs to the people. End of story. According to Wikipedia: “Among its collection are 181 works by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 69 by Paul Cézanne, 59 by Henri Matisse, 46 by Pablo Picasso, 21 by Chaim Soutine, 18 by Henri Rousseau, 16 by Amedeo Modigliani, 11 by Edgar Degas, 7 by Vincent Van Gogh, 6 by Georges Seurat, as well as numerous other masters, including Giorgio de Chirico, Peter Paul Rubens, Titian, Paul Gauguin, El Greco, Francisco Goya, Edouard Manet, Jean Hugo, Claude Monet, Maurice Utrillo, William Glackens, Charles Demuth, Maurice Prendergast, and a variety of African artworks, ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman art, and American and European decorative arts and metalwork.” Under no circumstances this major inheritance of human culture should be kept away from the public. Doing so, it’s a crime against the very fabric of humanity. It’s elitism. It’s censorship even.

According to the documentary, the reason why Dr Barnes didn’t want his art shown to the public was because he had thin skin. At the beginning of his collection hobby, he loaned it to the Philly Art Museum for an exhibition, and art critics said that it sucked. He did get really bad reviews in the newspapers of 1922. So he got pissed off, and since then he didn’t want to do anything with the commercial art establishment. He kept his paintings behind closed doors, and only showed them to students. Just because the people at large did not realize YET these painters as great artists.

But, but… isn’t the same for any new art? Every time a new kind of art emerged, in any artistic field, it has always been met with skepticism, even hatred. But people “get it” sooner or later, and eventually that art becomes classic. As it did a few short years after the incident. But Mr Barnes was still pissed off, and nothing would cool him off. And even today, 60 years after his death, his disciples would still speak about Barnes’ wishes. Who the fuck cares about Barnes’ wishes? The guy owned the art, then he died, then this art MUST become public domain. As ALL art should after a period of time. Art is human history in the making, and belongs to no one. Artists and collectors should benefit from them for a time, so they can sustain themselves financially, but after a while, art must be given back to the world. That’s why I’m also advocating that copyright shouldn’t last more than 20-25 years either. And if the copyright holder dies, the art becomes immediately free. Any children of the artist/collector should create their own legacy and not piggyback and live off their parents’ money and fame. At least not when it comes to art, literature etc.

Another point discussed in the film was about the disagreement on moving the museum from the original Barnes building to downtown Philly. Again, I’m with the city here, because the downtown will allow more people to see the art. The Foundation needed permission to build a parking lot in the area, they didn’t get it because the neighbors fought it in court (remember that the building is in a residential area), and it was for 52 cars only anyway. 52 cars is simply not enough to hold large crowds, and the building itself is very small.

Now, regarding the money-grabbing politics behind the scenes between the various foundations and politicians, it might very well be a good point that the art was “stolen” by these foundations. But honestly, this is besides the point. As long as the art is not sold back to private collectors, and instead is remained on museums (even on tour), I’d be happy with that. The more people see the art, the better it is. I’m pretty sure the artists themselves would rather see their art enjoyed by the masses, rather than by a few collectors who feel that they’re above all, and they don’t want to share with anyone else. It’s like someone has the answer to renewable clean energy but not sharing the invention with the world, just because “New Scientist” said the claimed technology is science fiction. Keeping such a grudge is a bad thing.

The Guardian has an informative article on the state of rock as a popular music genre. Basically, they say that it’s dead, with the lowest number of songs in the top-100 in the last 50 years. And the artists that still sell well, are 50 year old classic rock musicians who are about to retire soon.

I do agree with the article, it seems that popular genres usually last about 60 years, it was the same for Jazz, and even Baroque, Classical, and Early and Late Romantic. Which probably means that Hip-Hop has another ~25 years to live on too…

I feel that the future of popular music will use even more electronic influences and instruments, and it will split into two categories: one that has a super-distinct beat, like the crap that The Black Eyed Peas do, and one that’s more fluid and ethereal, like Washed Out.

But enough with the futurology. I believe that the reason Rock is dead, is two fold:

One, as mentioned above, its time has come. It’s a genre that has been studied, and explored to its fullest. Musically-speaking, there is nothing more to see there. Even when we listen to “alternative” rock music these days, even that sounds “old”. I found it very telling myself when 2 years ago iTunes moved all “adult alternative rock” bands (e.g. The Killers, Red Hot Chili Peppers etc) from the Alternative genre to Rock (as in, classic rock). As for the best new rock bands, like Wavves, Tame Impala, Surfer Blood, Deerhunter, Ariel Pink’s Haunted Graffiti, and Best Coast, their sound is just a rehash of old ’60s and ’70s styles.

The second reason is more important though: Rock is dead because no one has anything useful to say. When the musicians and the listeners don’t talk about socio-political problems anymore, that’s the real death of rock, a genre that goes hand in hand with rebellion, and fight for a better future. These past few years have been pretty tremulous, with wars, and civil liberties that have been slashed away, and yet, most rock bands prefer to sing about love, and the suburbs, instead. Technology has raised a lot of new issues too, but so far, no genre is tackling them. Hip-Hop does a poor job talking for anything apart race issues, and how to get rich.

So no wonder rock is dead. There is no market to sell true rock, as the Western countries are full of citizens who don’t care about fighting for their rights anymore, as long as they have a plate of food, and a TV in front of them. Much like the Romans, who lost their republic into an empire after their stomach was full of free, government-provided bread, and the Colosseum was open for business.

It’s been a month since we canceled Comcast cable TV. And we’re not missing it at all. Not even just 5%. There is so little quality programming on TV anyway.

We bought two interior antennas in order to get access to the TV networks, and I’m using Hulu via my laptop’s HDMI to watch shows I can’t get via an aerial antenna (e.g. SyFy Channel). Hulu/Flash is slow on my DELL Vostro V130 when setting the TV resolution to 1920×1080, but it’s smooth at 720p.

The rest of the cable shows (e.g. Dexter) I can get via Netflix when they’re out on DVD (or via its streaming service). Then there’s all the content we get via Vimeo, Youtube & Blip.tv on the Roku, and the various video podcasts.

So overall, there is absolutely no reason to ever go back to cable (or satellite for that matter). I bought the two antennas for less than $40 each, and we pay just $12 per month for Netflix (compared to $90+ we used to pay for Comcast TV). No reason to pay for Hulu PLUS either, since PLUS has fewer shows in its roster than the desktop/web version of Hulu.

When a LOST season DVD would come out, I usually would immediately put it on the player and watch it all again. For the first time, this was not a case with the 6th and final LOST season, which was of course a huge cop-out.

After not having watched, or even thought of the show for many months, I got a clearer perspective about its real nature, while I was having lunch today:

– The Others are the easily-misdirected disciples.
– Ben is their High Priest, who’s never actually have had any direct contact with a deity.
– Richard is a prophet, who was touched by a deity.
– Jacob is an angel, created by God.
– MIB is the devil, created by God.
– The Island is the God.
– The survivors are representing change in an already old establishment.

Originally, we see the struggle of half of the survivors following science (Jack), and the other half following faith (Locke). But eventually, faith wins: Jack becomes a disciple himself, and he never gets any answers. All that happens at the end is simply the succession of the old religious establishment to the new one. But science LOSES. We never got the kind of finale that there was supposed to be there.

Of course, it was obvious that LOST was always a very religious-related show, but I never thought of it as deeply connected to religion as I described above, because the writers misdirected us into science fiction plots instead. Up to season 5, all the ingredients were there for a science fiction-based finale, but we got the religious one at the end. After the writers’ bait & switch disgraceful 6th season, it became clear to me that LOST was all about giving the finger to progressives and the thumbs up to conservatives.

The only thing that would save Lindelof and Cuse from despising them for the rest of my life, is if they would come clean and acknowledge their error, or speak of a TV network mandate to go religious in order to appeal to Middle America.

Sure, there are plenty of video features one could ask, like XLRs, bigger screens, RAW codec, full HDMI-out, 4k resolution, etc etc, but in my opinion, it’s these 3 features below that would make the biggest difference of all:

1. Rolling shutter
In my opinion, this is the No1 problem with these cams. There are many times that I see some scenes in TV shows (e.g. Hawaii 5-0), or even short movies, and I suddenly notice some rolling shutter. The first thing I do after that is get my laptop, and search online on what camera was used. Soon enough, I usually find that there was a dSLR involved. By the moment the viewer “recognizes” the camera used because of a certain look in the footage, then there’s a FAIL right there.

2. Continuous autofocus
The most difficult thing to do with these dSLRs is to focus properly while the camera or the subject is moving. It’s just too damn hard, and the camera doesn’t help much with third party focus assists.

3. Better image resizer
It is said that Canon dSLR footage is not true 1080p, but a somewhat smaller resolution which is then upscaled internally to 1080p. Add to this the moire problem too. Both problems exist because of the Digic 4 signal processor not being fast-enough to do resizing using a better algorithm (e.g. Lanczos, bilinear, or bicubic resampling). Here’s hope that the new Digic 5 processor, rumored to be announced in April, will fix that.

Now that the world can have a 24p camera for one hundred bucks, it’s time to revisit my video hardware suggestions with this new blog post about how to put together the necessary equipment to shoot a short movie, or music video, for very cheap, without sacrificing quality in any substantial way. So, there are three main aspects to on-set filmmaking: video, audio, and lighting. Here’s how to properly shoot with a small P&S Canon camera. Here’s what to buy with your weekend money:

– Video equipment
1. A 24p video camera with at least exposure compensation, exposure locking, and some color control. That would be the brand new Canon A1200, for $110, capable of 720/24p. If you have the ability to pay more, get the S100 ($430), which offers 1080/24p and adequate shallow depth of field when zoomed in. First thing to do after you acquire any camera: set custom colors to minimum contrast/saturation/sharpness, so you can shoot “flat”. While shooting, always set and lock exposure (usually it’s best to set it to -1 outdoors). If your camera supports continuous autofocus (e.g. the S100), you will have to lock focus too before recording.

2. A tripod. I would suggest the Velbon VideoMate-607/F ($70), because it has a smooth-pan head. If you’re not planning to pan while recording, ever, you can get pretty much any tripod, as long as it has leveling indications.

3. A charger for rechargeable AA batteries for your camera. This Sony one, that comes with four batteries too, costs $16. You don’t need this item if you’re going for the S100 instead.

4. Four 8 GB SDHC cards, Class 6, like this one (4×13=$52). Whatever you buy, make sure they’re Class 6 or faster.

Optional, but highly recommended:
5. You don’t need this item if you’re going for the S100 instead. A filter tube, like the Zeikos Universal Lens Adapter ($20), which allows you to connect…

6. …ND filters. Digicams tend to shoot at very higher shutter speeds outdoors, so adding a filter can help out control the effect. Get an 0.9 ND filter, like this 37mm Tiffen one. As I write this, it sells on Amazon for $14. Please read here, on how to estimate your shutter speed at 1/48th by using [stacked] ND filters. Shooting at 1/48th or 1/50th shutter speed is important for movie’s “motion look”. Alternatively, you can buy a variable strength ND filter, which allows to use many different strengths, all-in-one filter. You don’t need this item if you’re going for the S100 instead (the S100 has a built-in ND filter in it).

7. An action stabilizer, like the Opteca X-Grip Pro ($35), so you can go mobile while shooting action. Alternatively, this one is a good option too.

– Audio equipment
1. The AudioTechnica ATR-6550 microphone ($50) which has a tele-mode in addition to its normal mode. The tele-mode will be able to pick up single-directional audio from your actors from further away other microphones and your camera can.

2. The Olympus WS-600S audio recorder ($60), which is able to record from an external 3.5mm microphone, both in stereo and in mono modes, and has 192 kbps MP3 recording support. Which is fine-enough quality for your first steps.

3. Some over-the-head headphones to monitor captured audio, like the Sony MDR-V150 ($16).

4. Some PVC pipes, to strap your microphone onto with some tape, and use them as a boom stick ($20). Ask a friend to operate the audio recording while you’re shooting.

5. A clap, so you can sync your audio with video later in post processing. They can cost as low as $10, but you don’t need to buy any: use two stones, or two old tapes/cassette cases and bang them together.

– Lighting
1. This Smith Victor KT500U $99 continuous lighting kit. Never underestimate the importance of good lighting. When its light bulbs die (usually they’re good for many hours though), you can buy even stronger bulbs.

For 24p short movies, and 24p music videos:
Try to buy all of the above, but if you’re really short on money, lose the lighting kit, action stabilizer, and the filter tube/ND filters.
Basic setup: $400
Full setup: $560
For music videos, you can lose the audio recording equipment too.

For artistic videos and slow-down’ed music videos:
If you’re trying to shoot artistic videos, I’d suggest the Canon A2200 instead, which shoots in 30p. This way, you can slow-down to 24p (0.800x in Sony Vegas), which makes everything look ethereal. Discard your camera’s audio, add music instead. For artistic videos, you only need the video equipment, and without the action stabilizer. Lighting kit is optional (depending on the style and subject of your video).

For music videos with A2200’s 30p, you shoot as described here. The slow-down to 24p will make the video look very cinematic and film-like. As for the equipment needed, it’s the same as what I mentioned for 24p music videos above. The following excerpt video sample is one such music video I shot with a similar small camera for a local artist:

And here are some very useful tutorials on how to shoot proper video.

Canon today announced their new consumer line up at CES. Thankfully, they stayed away from gimmicks, like 3D camcorders and the like. Instead, they brought us what I was asking in 2007 already. They’re four years too late for my own personal needs, but hey, it’s now here. But let’s start with their digicam line up instead, because that’s where most non-pro video-enthusiast readers of this blog could find some real value.

The HD digicams

So, Canon today announced their new A-series cams, and the two cameras of interest are the A2200 ($139) and the A1200 ($109). Video-wise, both cameras are the same, except the frame rate. The A2200 records in 30p at 24mbps (exactly 29.97 fps!), while the A1200 records 24p (exactly 23.976 fps!) at 21 mbps VBR (I assume, same as in the popular S95 model). There is also the highest A-series model, the A3300 IS (16 MP, 720/30p, $180), which apart its optical image stabilization (rather than digital in the other two cameras), offers nothing additional to the video side of things.

These A-series cams are truly a marvel! Think about it: 24p for less than a hundred bucks (eventual street price). Both of these cameras have exposure compensation and locking (very important to get a professional look), and both support custom “color” settings, so you can increase dynamic range, and emulate the movie look by shooting “flat” (just lower to minimum contrast/saturation/sharpness).

Both cameras, video-wise, seem amazing for their price! I used to suggest the SD1400 IS or the SD780 IS for cheap-but-good 720p video, but now the A-series have come to offer us the same, for cheaper. As to which model you should buy, it depends on the frame rate! If you live in a PAL country, or you’re interested in amateur short movies, get the 24p model. Get the 30p model if you’re interested in sports, family, travel, and artistic videos (for non-speaking art videos, slow down 30p to 24p and export at 24p).

However, remember that the fewer megapixel in a sensor, the better the low light is. So for the 24p A1200 model, it’s 12MP rather than A2200’s 14 MP, which is better in low light. Personally, I would have preferred all models to not be more than 10 MP. 10 MP is enough for a big print, and it’s a lot better in low light.

The HD camcorders

Now, let’s come to the camcorder line-up, which has been updated substantially with various models. The best all-around model is the HF-G10, which is basically a kind of model with features that you would normally find on a $3000 camcorder just a few short years ago. It now costs just $1500 (I’d expect a $1300 street price). It has support for native 24p, PF24, PF30, 60i, focus ring, and the biggest new feature for me: full manual control! This is the first consumer Canon camcorder with full manual exposure!

Thankfully, Canon stopped the madness with the high megapixel sensors, and so low light is going to kick ass on this baby! The sensor is a bit of a disappointment at just 1/3 though, although that’s the [wedding/TV] industry standard for such cameras. Other than that, the only other problem I see there is the fact that Canon still uses the mini-advanced shoe rather than a full shoe — there are virtually no third party gadgets for the mini variety. I don’t understand why Canon insists with this stupid standard. Also, there is no mention of zebra support, but I will take it on faith that it does have it.

At this point I should also mention the prosumer XA10, which is like the big brother of the HF-G10. It has XLRs, among other pro features, and it costs just $2000.

The third best new model is HF-S30, which has a bigger sensor at 1/2.6, but it’s one of these megapixel cams, so low light it’s going to suck, as it did in the older similar models. Also, it has no full manual control.

One very interesting model is the cheapest of the new crop, the HF-R200. At $379 (possibly at around $350 street price), is the cheapest 24p camcorder. Of course it’s not native 24p, it’s PF24, so you will need Cineform NeoSCENE to remove pulldown from it. But if you consider that we used to pay $1000 for such a camera just 2 years ago, it’s its own kind of miracle too.

Conclusion

So, what to buy? Easy:
– If you hate dSLRs for some reason, or don’t have the money for all the lenses that a dSLR requires, and you need continuous autofocus, lots of zoom, ports, interlaced 50i/60i, progressive 24p, “semi”-progressive 24p/25p/30p (PF), and the form-factor of a camcorder, get the HF-G10.

– If you need a real big sensor, very shallow focus, more movie-look potential, true progressive 24p/25p/30p/50p/60p, get the T2i/550D or the 60D dSLRs.

– If you’re a newbie, and you simply need good 720p support with just the minimum controls needed to make your video look good-enough, get any of the two mentioned A-series cameras. Under no circumstances go for a Flip, or a Kodak, or any these piece of crap “digirecorders”. Canon beats all of them with a big stick in terms of both control and quality, despite it being just 720p and have limited frame rate options.