Re: [Frameworks] combining SD and HD

From: David Tetzlaff <>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:32:44 -0400

> David you are correct but please calm down

I am calm. I was 'woofing.'

> no need to be nasty

I'm sorry, Bart, but Mr. Ross was clearly referring to my posts on up-rezing in his opening remark. This is a snide, back-handed dig, pompous and condescending in faux-coyly not even addressing me. Not to mention wrong. The nasty started with the 'Sadly', and I at least had the decency to be specific and direct in my complaint. To Mr. Ross's face, as it were, rather than behind his back.

Now, I'm guessing that Mr. Ross's first sentence is badly composed, (the "basic principles of digital art" are aesthetic and do not necessarily call for technical understanding)... and he actually means to say something like "Posts to this list often display a notable lack of fundamental knowledge of digital media technology..." If so, I would actually agree with him, that this is both true, and in many ways lamentable.

There's certainly a marked contrast between the noob level of queries about digital tools that appear here, and the expertise evidenced in discussions of photochemical film technologies - e.g. films stocks, processing and so on.

I've answered a number of questions here that make me wonder if some list members know how to use The Google, and perhaps Mr. Ross and I have even shared similar exasperations. I do give a little interior sigh every time I read another post from someone who doesn't understand the difference between a codec and a container...

But, better to light a candle than curse the darkness, I try to be helpful, since I did figure out a lot of this stuff the hard way, and there's no need for everyone to re-invent the wheel.

And, to be fair, digital knowledge is a constantly moving target, and it IS very complicated. Furthermore, a lot of it is NOT that accessible, and not that user-friendly once you do find a resource. For example, there are no doubt people on this list distributing work on the web or as media files who have no idea what H264 is in general, even though they're using it, not to mention that there are different implementations of H264 encoding employed by different software manufacturers, that some are better than others, that the current state-of-the-art in affordable H264 software encoding is a variant called x264, or where to find a version of same that can be used with a Mac. That's a lot of stuff to know, some of it buried pretty deep in geekland, and that's only one little piece of the overall puzzle of making work and getting it out.

So it's actually pretty easy for people who DO know a lot to get a piece of it wrong, or to be holding concepts that became obsolete last week. So there's very justification for getting overly snippy or judgmental about specific knowledge gaps or fauxs pas. And it's a good idea to include a certain number of AFAIK-type qualifiers rather then pontificating, being as specific as possible rather than making sweeping categorical statements like "resampling resolutions is a really bad idea. You'll get fuzzy, crappy video."

Mr. Ross thinks he knows enough to make definitive pronouncements about how digital technology works. ("Don't do it.") Since he happens to be wrong by being so categorical, and since he sounds authoritative, he makes matters worse. We don't need that.

Here is a valid imperative utterance regarding the issue Mr. Ross sought to address: "Be careful when planning on 'up-rezing' (resampling resolutions). Quite a few factors influence the quality of the results, but in many cases, the result will be fuzzy, crappy video."

But clearly Mr. Ross has come into this playground with an attitude, and with cracks like "if you're stuck on the Mac platform" (absent any qualifying emoticons) he's provoking conflict. He asked for it. He got it.
FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Sat Jun 04 2011 - 18:32:58 CDT