Steve Kerr: Keanon Lowe showed “a remarkable act of courage”

first_imgPORTLAND, Ore. — The moment usually causes Warriors coach Steve Kerr to express empathy for the victims and frustration with the United States’ current gun laws. Beyond mentioning this points, Kerr also praised former Oregon football player Keanon Lowe for stopping a potential school shooting at nearby Parkrose High School on Friday.“Keanon Lowe, a remarkable act of courage,” Kerr said before the Warriors played the Trail Blazers in Game 3 of the Western Conference Finals.”My hats off to …last_img

Will Raiders’ Vontaze Burfict have season-long suspension shortened?

first_imgRaiders linebacker Vontaze Burfict will find out next week whether his season is truly over or not when his appeal of a season-long suspension for another illegal hit is heard on Tuesday.Burfict won’t play Sunday in London, but the fate of the rest of his season lies in the hands of Hall of Fame linebacker Derrick Brooks, the appeals officer appointed by the league and the players’ association to adjudicate the appeal.The NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport first reported Burfict’s case will be …last_img

Martin’s Energy Quiz — Third Edition

first_img This article is only available to GBA Prime Members Sign up for a free trial and get instant access to this article as well as GBA’s complete library of premium articles and construction details. GBA published an energy quiz in 2009, and another one in 2011. It looks like we’re overdue for another installment.Answers are provided at the bottom of this column; don’t peek until you’ve finished the quiz.1. True or false: In freezing climates, a drainback solar hot water system circulates ordinary water (without any antifreeze) through its solar collectors.(a) True.(b) False.2. Which of the following statements best describes the “cold OSB problem”?(a) OSB sheathing is more at risk when stud cavities are filled with thick insulation than thin insulation.(b) When OSB gets very cold, the adhesive that binds the wood flakes may fail.(c) OSB can fail if it is covered on the exterior with a thick layer of rigid foam.(d) Researchers have not succeeded in developing an OSB sleeping bag.3. The International Residential Code includes a table listing prescriptive requirements for insulation and windows. The column labeled “fenestration U-factor” shows:(a) Minimum U-factors for windows.(b) Maximum U-factors for windows.(c) The confusion rate for readers with low Understanding Factors (i.e., low U-factors) who are forced to decipher code documents.4. Which of these statements is true?(a) No roof assembly can dry to the exterior.(b) All roof assemblies can dry to the exterior.(c) Some roof assemblies can dry to the exterior.(d) Roofs in Seattle are always wet.5. Which of these statements is most likely to be true for a certified Passivhaus?(a) The house has Zehnder windows, a Siga heat-recovery ventilator, and Intus tape.(b) The house has Intus windows, a Zehnder heat-recovery ventilator, and Siga tape.(c) The house has Siga windows, an Intus heat-recovery ventilator, and Zehnder tape.(d) The windows cost too much.6. Compared to exhaust-only ventilation systems, heat-recovery ventilation (HRV) systems have several advantages. Which… center_img Start Free Trial Already a member? Log inlast_img read more

The Greed-Heads At Facebook Just Keep Making Life Easier For Google’s Vic Gundotra

first_imgA Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification Related Posts A friend of mine who worked at Microsoft during its glory days once confided to me that Microsoft’s success in the 1990s came in part because Microsoft had been blessed with such wonderful enemies. It’s not that Microsoft was so brilliant, he said, but that everyone else was just so incredibly awful.Same goes today for Vic Gundotra and his team at Google+. Here they are, building a social network that gets bigger and better every day, while their biggest rivals, Facebook and Instagram, keep planting land mines around themselves and then stepping on them.The latest example is this uproar over changes Instagram made to its terms of service, which maybe gives Instagram permission to use your photos in ads, or maybe not, but anyway, everyone panic, it’s a trap!Instagram BackpedalsEveryone freaked out, so yesterday Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom issued a backpedaling blog post that said, basically, Um, no, you guys all misunderstood what we’re planning to do, and we need to fix the language in our statement, and we’re totally not going to sell your photos to advertisers, we’re just saying that we have a license to license them to advertisers, which is not the same as selling them, so we’re totally not lying, right? Although yeah, maybe, like, we might, um, someday use your photos in some new kind of advertising or brand promotion that we’re hoping to experiment with or something, but as of right now we don’t have any intention to do whatever it is you’re afraid that we might do, at least as far as we know at this very minute as I am sitting here writing these words, though that could change in the future. So, we good?This is a classic Facebook-style response, the non-apology apology combined with non-admission admission, where you try to sound contrite and you fire out a lot of words and hope that everybody just gets more confused and nobody notices that you didn’t actually say that you’re not going to do the thing that people are worried you might do. My sense is that Systrom sold his company to Facebook and now is waking up realizing the kind of people he’s actually leapt into bed with, and maybe it is also dawning on him that these guys now own him and can tell him what to do, and maybe he even regrets this turn of events, but several hundred million dollars has a way of assuaging that pain.The Anti-Backlash BacklashThe anti-Instagram backlash of course prompted an anti-backlash backlash, as the usual lineup of Silicon Valley apologist bloggers (apolo-bloggers?) rushed out to defend Systrom and Instagram, arguing that everyone was just being ridiculous and freaking out for no reason because Instagram isn’t doing anything bad here, and the new terms aren’t any different from the old terms, and everybody just needs to sit down and read the legal documents, or just trust Instagram and Facebook, because why not? Look at their track record. Good people.But if the new terms aren’t any different from the old terms, why did Instagram and its lawyers feel the need to create new terms? Does anyone believe that big publicly traded companies suddenly start adding new wording to their terms of service just for no reason? Just for giggles? Just to piss people off and send users into a panic? Who knows. I am not a lawyer, as folks online like to say. What I do know is that I’m not going to pore through the legalese of the new document and compare it to the wording of the old document and then try to parse the meaning of the different wording, because frankly I don’t have time to wade through legal forms, and I don’t think I should need a law degree to stay on top of the constantly changing terms of service of an app that lets me share photos with kooky old-timey filters on them, especially since I’m married and I have kids and a job and a mortgage and loads of things that are far more central to my existence than worrying about (or using) Instagram.The takeaway for most people will be that Instagram made some changes, and the changes seemed skeevy, and not just to the unwashed masses but even to companies like National Geographic, which has stopped posting photos on Instagram and presumably did so on the advice of its own lawyers, who no doubt understand terms of service statements better than the average tech blogger.Whatever Facebook does or doesn’t plan to do with people’s photos, the damage is done. If you needed another reason not to bother with Instagram, Facebook just gave it to you.What’s more surprising is the fact that people seem so surprised and disappointed — and even kind of hurt — to discover that Instagram isn’t some well-meaning charity organization but is in fact just another grubby Internet business. How does anyone not know, at this point, that the people who are offering all these “free services” on the Internet are not a pack of heroic, idealistic entrepreneurs but are in fact just a bunch of icky businesskids whose idea of “changing the world” means tricking people into parting with data that can be turned into money?It’s 2012, people. Time to let the scales fall from your eyes.The Exodus BeginsNow people are bailing out of Instagram, among them my colleague Jon Mitchell, an avid Instagrammer who says he’s quitting because “it’s not inspiring anymore.” Our writer John Paul Titlow points out that Instagram also is alienating professional photographers.How great is this for Google+? Photographers are one of the key consituencies and were among the service’s earliest and most avid adopters. Photographer Thomas Hawk touted the virtues of Flickr and Google+ in his blog post expressing his dismay over the Instagram debacle. Some photographers love Google+ so much they even organized an “Unofficial Google+ Photographers Conference” earlier this year. Now even more of them have a reason to switch to Google+. And what can Instagram do to lure them back?Facebook and Instagram are in a tough position. The only way they can make money is by doing things that members don’t want them to do, things that, in ways big and small, diminish the experience of being on Facebook and Instagram.So they must choose between advertisers and members, and so far — I know this is shocking — they keep siding with the ones who give them money.The problem is that this strategy seems guaranteed to drive away members, which in turn drives away advertisers, which means it all ends in a blackened pit of fire and smoke, but by then, if you’re clever, you’ve dumped your shares onto the suckers, made your millions (or billions) and moved on.Google Doesn’t Need To Put Ads On Google+Google+ has no such issues. Gundotra and his team don’t need to place ads next to, or inside, the news feed of Google+. They don’t need to run sponsored stories and promoted posts and all the other garbage that increasingly clutters up Facebook. They also don’t need to grab your photos and make money off them by using them in ads.Google makes money from Google+ by using social results in its core search business. Who knows how much money, and really, who cares? Google could run Google+ as a charity, and whatever the whole things costs it would still be a rounding error to a company that will do $40 billion in sales this year and throw off $10 billion in net profit. I’d guess Larry Page would do it just for giggles, let alone for the chance to hurt Facebook, which has talked so much smack about unseating Google.So what does this mean? It means Google+ guys can take the high road.It means Vic Gundotra can wait for Facebook and Instagram to keep doing dumb things, then put out a high-minded statement like the one I got from Google: “As our Terms of Service make clear, ‘what belongs to you stays yours.’ You own your files and control their sharing, plain and simple. Some of our services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In addition, on Google+ you can export your photos and other data whenever you’d like.”It means Bradley Horowitz can get up on stage at the unofficial photographers conference and strike a Jesus Christ pose (seriously, check out the photo on that link) and say that Google’s goal is simply “building a product for humanity.”It means Google can just keep its head down, keep adding features, keep not running ads, and watch in glee as Facebook and Instagram keep pissing off people by trying to make money off their personal information and photos. Vic Gundotra would never say this, but I’m sure he’s happy today. Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro…center_img The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos Tags:#Facebook#Google#Instagram#Vic Gundotra dan lyonslast_img read more

352 Free Letterbox Templates for Video Editing (8K, 4K, HD & More)

first_imgThe templates (seen above) can be used to convert footage into the following aspect ratios:1:1 Square4:3 Silent Film/NTSC1.37:1 Academy Ratio1.43:1 IMAX3:2 Classic 35mm7:4 Metroscope1.85:1 Vistavision2:1 Panascope & RED2.2:1 Todd AI2.35:1 Cinemascope2.39:1 Theatrical & Blu-ray2.55:1 Vintage Cinemascope2.75:1 Ultra Panavision2.76:1 MGM Camera 653:1 Extreme Scope4:1 PolyVisionAll of the templates are available in both black and white letterbox formats.Using the Free Letterbox TemplatesThese free letterbox templates are incredibly easy to use and manipulate. All of the files are PNG images with alpha channels. To use the templates, simply drag and drop the appropriate resolution letterbox above your sequence in your video editing application of choice.DOWNLOAD FREE LETTERBOX TEMPLATES Easily give your videos the cinematic cropping they deserve with these free high-res letterbox templates for video editing.Despite having the ability to export footage in virtually any resolution, filmmakers and video producers are still limited to showing their work on screens with a very specific aspect ratios. Because of this, you need to export your footage with letterboxes if you want to view your footage in an aspect ratio that’s different than 16:9.What Are Letterbox Templates?Simply put, letterboxes are small bars that can be applied to your footage to give them an irregular aspect ratio while still retaining their 16:9 size. Letterboxes can be used to crop footage shot in 16:9 to a more cinematic 2.35:1. They can also be a great tool for pre-visualizing how your video will be cropped on an irregularly sized screen.In the past if you wanted to drop letterboxes into your project, you had to either download a limited free template or create your own. These options aren’t ideal — so we created a future-proof pack full of letterbox templates for virtually every format in the world.What’s in the Free Letterbox Template Pack?Our free pack of 352 letterbox templates includes templates for every popular video resolution in the world, including:HD 720HD 10802K2.5K3K3K HD4K4K UHD5K6K8Klast_img read more

$10K vs. $100K vs. $500K: Feature Film Budgets Compared

first_imgThat’s the breakdown for these different feature film budgets. I hope you’ll be making one in the very near future.Cover image via Janelle Lugge.Looking for more on the film and video industry? Check out these articles.The History and Power of Sound Design in the Film IndustryFilmmaking Fads and Trends: Don’t Let Them Bother YouThese Tribeca Docs Will Renew Your Faith In The Power of The CameraThe Cameras and Lenses Behind the Marvel Cinematic UniverseBreakout Director Kat Candler on the Best Festivals for First-Time Filmmakers Making a Film on a $10,000 BudgetSo let’s start with $10K. I’m going to say $10K, but it’s really anywhere between $10-$25K. This is as much as most people have in savings or could put on a credit card (I don’t recommend the latter).It’s probably not going to be a SAG (Screen Actors Guild) project, so your actors will be non-union. Your film is certainly not going to be union for other departments, including cinematography, electrical, sound, grip, catering, etc. — these will all be way over your budget.You’re probably not going to pay anyone very much money, maybe around $50 a day. You’re going to shoot in under two weeks, and most of your money is going toward one main location and feeding everyone.You’ll have to choose a script that’s very contained (that only takes place in a couple of locations), and you’re going to have to know a lot of other filmmakers.At $10K, you won’t be able to afford to pay $700-1,500 a day for a professional sound person.You’re going to be working on your own script, or a script that someone has given to you (because you can’t afford to buy one).You’re going to be getting locations of friends, family, yourself, or shooting outside in a park or on the street, if your city allows you to shoot publicly without a permit.Generally, you’re going to have to cut every corner you can and only use your budget to bail you out of an emergency.So the money will go toward whatever your network can’t supply.Hiring a camera or lenses (but probably not both).Lights and grip (some you’ll probably borrow or get for free — either the DP or gaffer will have them).Post-production. If you’re not a colorist or sound editor or mixer or musician, you’re going to have to pay one of those people (but hopefully not all).You can make a movie for zero dollars; it just means that you’re going to be asking for favors from everyone, all the time, which can take longer than if you just worked to save up the money and paid for whatever you couldn’t get as a favor.The budget of a $10K movie isn’t that complicated because (basically) you set out to get everything for free, and then when something falls through, or when you just can’t find it no matter how hard you look, you have to dip into your limited resources.A lot of people do this every year. Some of them break out and find wider acceptance. It’s basically a film school. You get to spend a month preparing, a week shooting, and then 3-6 months in post. After that, you try to find an audience for your film.It’s a great training ground for filmmakers of all kinds.Making a Film on a $100,000 BudgetImage via 9387388673.At $100K, you have some money, but you don’t have enough money to pay full price for everything.You’re probably going to move up to SAG actors because you want a couple of recognizable faces (or names) in your film. These are people at the end or beginning of their careers — actors transitioning from TV or Broadway into movies.At this budget level, you’re going to pay everyone something.You’re going to shoot for 18 days or three weeks, taking Sunday off.You’re going to be able to hire camera, lenses, and a grip, but not at full rate.You’re going to have to find people who believe in the vision of the film in order to make it.You’re still going to be directing the movie yourself because you still can’t pay the $100K it costs to get someone from the DGA (Director’s Guild of America).Hopefully, you’ve made a $10K movie already, and you know the process. You’re aware of your blind spots from the first film, so you’re going into the second film with your eyes more open.You can probably afford a professional colorist, professional sound mix, and professional musicians — all at a reduced price. You can afford to pay $2K for a mix, not $20K, and generally you still need to beg, borrow, and steal everything. By the time you write the script, cast it, find all the locations, shoot it, post-produce it, and find a buyer for the film, a year will have gone by. $100K is real money. People expect a return. You need to sell that movie and get that money back, which can take a lot of time. That’s time that you’re not working at a regular job.$100k will allow you to give yourself a small wage, but you’re probably still going to need to work part-time in order to avoid dipping into the budget to support yourself while you make the film.Making a Film on a $500,000 BudgetImage via 9387388673.This really could be anywhere from $500K to $1 million. This is the first time you’re paying union rates for your sound mixers, transportation, union members, AC (Assistant Camera), post, etc. You simply find the people you want to work with and ask them what their rate is. You’re not going to pay them their TV commercial rate of $8K a day; you’ll pay their feature rate of maybe $800 dollars a day.You’re going to pay for a casting director who will handle all the SAG elements for you.You’ll probably give yourself a wage of about $50K, depending on your living expenses, and you’re probably going to have a producer (as well) at the same price, which needs to cover your costs so you can work on your film and sell it. Remember, it takes 18 months to get a feature film from inception to sale.Having said that, there is very little money in a $500K budget for any of the things that you see in major Hollywood movies.There’s very little money for visual effects.You can’t fix things in post.You’re probably going to get one “name actor” at Schedule F, which is $60-$70K. Everyone else is going to be a bit player or a favor.You’re certainly not going to get Brad Pitt or Charlize Theron. You’re just going to try and find a rising star who really wants to be in your film.You’re still going to have to work with the new, hungry post-production houses. You’re not going to walk into Industrial Light & Magic and say, “I want a CGI character.”You’re going to really have to keep it very bare bones, but at $500K-$1 million, you’re going to at least be able to pay for most of what you need.center_img These budget breakdowns demonstrate the wild difference money makes when shooting a feature film. Here’s what you can expect.$10K, $100K, and $500K — they all sound like a lot of money. And they are. But they are also not as much as you might think when it comes to producing a feature film — especially a feature that will be compared to projects with budgets of millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars.Here’s what you can expect from these three sample budgets.last_img read more