Jump to content


Binky

Member Since 26 Jul 2006
Offline Last Active Private
*****

Posts I've Made

In Topic: this week's visual piece ...

12 October 2014 - 02:56 AM

I really like the quality of the imagery. What sort of techniques are you using for the datamoshing?

 

I think you'd get a lot more mileage out of the images you're creating if you considered more what each image means in the context of those surrounding it. You know, creating a progression... a narrative, however loose. What you have now is really a sequence of random images of war and some stuff about worship in one section. But they don't really seem to mean much together. And the glitch is so evenly applied to everything, that everything tastes the same. And of course that's fine, it certainly works as background visual accompaniment for your live shows, but once it's played as a standalone short film or music video, presented as something to be seen start to finish, the viewer is going to require a little more out of the experience.


In Topic: Anyone ever successfully raised a rate with a client?

07 October 2014 - 03:02 AM

then again, that may just be how it works out here in SF.

 

It's the same everywhere. Or at least anywhere that a client can benefit from hiring someone with more skill. If it's worth it to them, they'll pay it. That said, there's kind of an average ceiling for most positions, where clients (especially studios, who hire lots of people for similar positions) stop seeing added value for higher rates. But that's a pretty mushy ceiling. The highest rates seem to be in staff positions for really fucking good designers in high demand. The kind of people who clearly elevate a studio.

 

You know for sure you can raise your rate with a client when you're not afraid to lose them. Otherwise, it's kind of a gut feeling and a gamble.


In Topic: AE World 2014

06 October 2014 - 11:31 PM

I'm probably opening a can of worms here but really, is Adobe that bad? They're not exactly funding Mexican cartels are they?

 

No. We talk about and treat businesses like they're singular people, with personalities and integrities and varying interests. But businesses are social structures, organized to create value in various ways. Sometimes they're valuable to a small select few, and sometimes to a huge number of people. Sometimes they steal value from one to give to another. Sometimes they take one resource to make another. Given that their purpose is to create more value, many times these tradeoffs get out of hand and result in bad externalities. Adobe isn't really a company that inherently generates externalities (it doesn't gain much by polluting or killing or overusing resources). Its value is generated mostly by labor, and the value it generates is mostly in helping other people generate more value (tools for making stuff). But it's still subject to its drive to shift more value (money) to its owners and shareholders, and in attempting to do so sometimes it's gonna try some shit that doesn't benefit everyone. The creative cloud solution has all kinds of benefits and drawbacks, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks for adobe. As a customer, for me it's the other way around, and I'm unwilling to drink that Kool-aid, but that doesn't make it a bad company. It's just self-interested and short-sighted, as almost all companies are, and it's extremely difficult under current corporate law for a corporation to be anything but. On the whole, Adobe has created a shit-ton of value for everyone without doing much damage. Photoshop is part of the cultural lexicon now, and no animal testing even had to be done.


In Topic: my latest music vid >

03 October 2014 - 07:42 AM

Wow, there's some really cool imagery up front. I watched it through a few times. Feels like you're teasing out some kind of oblique narrative that we'll be treated to. But that kind of fades somewhat from 1:00 to 2:00 and we never return to it, in favor of the drifting fractals. If you think about it like there's an A story and a B story, where A is the analog and B is the fractal stuff, we kind of go A A A A A A A AB AB AB AB B B B B B B B B B B and the effect is of switching gears for no particular reason. The A story never really goes anywhere, and kind of slides into the B story, which isn't a story so much as it's just camera passes over fractals. So it sorta feels like you forgot where you were headed. If that fractal stuff was a bridge to finding out what was going on in the analog/kinect stuff, like if you went A A A A AB AB AB B B B B B AB AB A, that might provide the kind of narrative satisfaction that a viewer's gonna be able to take away from the experience. Cuz there's definitely something valuable in the imagery, it just doesn't seem to be packaged coherently yet.


In Topic: this makes me sad...

01 October 2014 - 11:16 PM

There's always the possibility that someone got a job they shouldn't have, and it turned out underwhelming. Or maybe it was a bad client and the process was unnecessarily micromanaged with bad taste. But more than likely, yes, the budget didn't support a higher quality production. I mean, honestly, how big of an audience do you think this track has? It's not really in the moneymaking range that might make a significant marketing investment a good gamble. It ain't no Taylor Swift single. And the sales falloff from Taylor Swift to this is basically logarithmic. As I understand it, in the music biz these days, there's millionaires and there's kids eating packaged ramen, and there's not a whole lot who successfully fall in between. These guys may be known, but they're like the c-list celebrities of the music world. Ain't much of the lion's share left for them.