God damn bad friend.

How odd is it that one post about my ramblings has thirty views? You're out there. I know you are.

Forest fire

There is a lot going on in the real world internet. Everything was on fire and it fucking burned to the ground. Holy fuck was it a blaze. But here I am sitting at my desk smiling because I know out of those ashes something better will grow. I know this because it already is. Goodbye toxic shit, hello new day. I won't miss you at all, I'll never think of you again, I'd love to say I wish you the best, but I don't care what happens to you. Enjoy your life because I know I will. Love you internet.

Again with the bad friend.

Earlier this week I was told that again I am a bad friend. This time it was someone that doesn't even know me. I'd seen that his wife was trying to lose weight and a photo post that was about her feeling comfortable in her own skin. He'd told me that the private message I'd sent his wife about his wife receiving a five year gift of her favorite things (Flamin' hot Cheetos, Oreo, Diet Coke, Little Debbie cupcakes, and M&M's) were filled with things that would work against her losing weight. Not the calories, fat, blah blah blah, but the actual ingredients that people don't know about. Soy oil, cotton seed oil, fake sugars and whatever is in the filling of those cupcakes. I never said that I didn't eat them, but he went on to tell me not to lecture them on how to eat because they're both grown adults. He told me how disrespectful I was to him and his family, and how I consume Red bull and large amounts of alcohol in their presence.

Let's get one thing clear, he doesn't know me. He has no basis for trying to think he knows me. If you want to pass judgement "friend", try to know where that person comes from first. If he knew me at all, those things that I wrote to his wife were not malicious, nor were they intended to make her feel bad or that the gift she so kindly received should be tarnished. I'd never presume to tell someone how to live their life because it is their own choice. If I see a friend that is trying to lose weight and have a big ass diet soda in front of them I am going to say something. Not because I want to save them from the dangers of the fucking soda, but because if you ingest something that you think will make it easier for you to lose weight and it's actually working against you it can hurt and be depressing. Thus starting a cycle of weight gain, "diet", depression, weight gain, etc. A cycle I've seen happen with my own eyes. Why wouldn't I try to save a friend from that? Oh yea, he doesn't know my experiences with that. I guess that makes me an asshole.

Disrespect. Let's talk about that a little bit. When was the last time you came to chill at my place? Never. When was the last time we hung when you needed friends? Whenever. Your daughter's birthday? I was there. Your birthday? Yep. You've never come out to chill will me, to chat about my problems, offered a kind word when I needed one. Don't talk about disrespect when you get friendship and don't give it in return. You attack me on my habits? What do you know about me? I like Red bull and drinking? Wow, maybe you should know that as a kid my Dad used to give me alcohol because he thought it was funny. I process a lot of alcohol pretty fast since childhood. Those sugars get broken down and metabolized in a few hours as well so I don't stay that drunk for long. So please judge me some more on things that I had no control over.

As a side note, I think it's funny that you're out there reading this. All you're doing is giving me page views. Be happy I didn't call YOU out in a public forum. You think that this little piece of internet is viewed at all? It isn't. It's good to see how classy you aren't. I also didn't read what you wrote because if you've got hard feelings you know where I live... oh wait... no. You don't. If you think that telling me what I can and can't write on my own blog is going to deter me from doing it, you've got another thing coming. I have plenty more to write about you, your family, and everyone else.

The rise and fall of DSLR video

September 2008 the rise of the DSLR video revolution. The Canon 5d mark II is the arguable tipping point at which DSLRs took the world by storm. It was the first affordable, full frame, 1080p video recording device with interchangeable lenses. About a year later Canon patched the firmware to allow for 29.97 fps and 23.97 fps video recording as well as it's native 30 fps. That meant For about $3,500 you could get a video camera that was in the "prosumer" price range but had the look of fully professional gear. The large 35mm-style sensor on the 5d mk II allows you to shoot with very shallow depth of field and the high quality interchangeable lenses means that you can push that even further with wider f-stops. This means that the blurry backgrounds and razor sharp subjects people see in the movies are right there in our hands, but that isn't where things stop. The dynamic range of the 5d mark II was also much wider than that of it's camcorder cousins, in the same price range, and so black and white clipping happened less often. For Canon cameras there is also a firmware hack that allows you to control other various functions of the camera while in video mode... one of which is the ability to shoot raw video. The raw video function doesn't work well on most of the EOS line except the 5D mark III but the option is out there. The Magic Lantern functions work beautifully for live view video recording, and I use it personally; though I did have some initial problems loading it, and it does void your warranty should anything happen to it so please do so at your own risk.

Newer cameras have come out since the debut of the 5dmkII such as the Rebel line. With Magic Lantern they too can capture video to an impressive degree. I have my T3i, that I love and cherish, all the time. It lets me get my focus right, adjust my audio, focus from the back of the camera, I absolutely love it. Also it was cheap! There is the problem though; the flood of cheap high resolution cameras went into the masses. Everyone has a DSLR and is instantly a photographer/videographer. Even with high resolution camera phones people think this way. With so many people in the market it pushes around pro and growing amateurs into nearly giving away their product, which is an interesting time for consumers. Do you go with dirt cheap A, or really expensive B? Well honestly that's a hard decision to make. Even an idiot with enough money can have pro gear so that's not an indication of ability. Looking at their online or even physical portfolio can be misleading because people steal images for their own portfolio now. I would subscribe to the school of thought that you're not paying a guy for a job, you're getting someone you can trust to capture a once in a lifetime moment for you. That's the job of an artist. Any artist. Be it music, food, visual, etc. They capture something for you and deliver it for your enjoyment. We still have McDonald's because we want something quick, cheap and easy but does that mean it's any good? Arguable. But what would you RATHER have? Grainy, blurry, out of focus, or sharp, clear and in focus? That's what you get when you hire an artist. That person cares about their art, and takes time to master it for YOU, but all these shooters out there, wanting to make it in "the business", cut corners and are just using you as much as you might be using them. They don't care about the art, of crafting a shot, capturing the moment. This is what's killing DSLRs.

Take a look at any stock photography site. shutterstock.com, stockphoto.com, istock.com etc. They're filled with crappy photos and it gets more and more difficult to find amazing things. If you do find a great shot, and about a half dozen copies aren't on the same page, come back in a few days and it will be copied, and listed for next to nothing. I understand that when you first start out as an artist you want to make it big like your heroes, but that doesn't come by ripping off other people. It comes by studying what they did and trying to replicate the techniques to incorporate them into our tool box. Adding those skills that we glean from them and other artists, how-to tutorials, books, magazines and videos make us into completely separate individual artists. Learn, shoot, screw-up, rinse and repeat. Let's step forward out of the insane grubby nature of what has been created into a new future full of possibilities. Will we get 4k, raw DSLR video from Canon or Nikon? Will mirrorless reign supreme? Will we move onto the Hasselblad, Red, or Black Magic? Maybe it will be into the movies or TV, but all that matters is that we label ourselves artists first, and do this as a passion; not money. Once we start doing it well, we never do it for free. Keep on clickin' my friends.

Sorry for the late post... these are just some videos we made.

My first video project in class. A little bit shot by everyone in the film. Edited together by me.

Second video project.

Do I really like Star Wars?

This isn't a Star Wars vs. whatever rant, as a kid I loved Star Wars but this is a true hard look at the trilogy as an adult. When I was a kid I thought that these movies were the coolest things I'd ever see in my life. No doubt the light sabers were one of the best things about the movie, not to mention the gigantic space battles. As I watch them now the sophistication I've gotten as I watched more and more CGI intense movies has worn down the luster of the original Star Wars. The question popped into my mind as I saw a posting on Facebook that quoted "Clerks 2" ...there is only one Return and it's of the Jedi.

"Which one came first?" Thought popped into my head. Well Jedi did... in theaters. The book predates the movie by about thirty years so... there's that. Return of the King came out in 1955 and looking at Lucas in the 80's? Come on, you know that guy read LotR. The LotR movies came out later, so the CGI and practical effects are much better. Does that make LotR better? No way. I love the way Star Wars looks. Practical sets and extras, use of miniatures, sound everything is great in the original print. The added CGI in Star Wars is rough. As time goes on our eyes only get better at detecting CGI imperfections and pull us out of suspended disbelief and that, more than anything, disappoints me as a fan. Let's not get into The Hobbit. LotR has great effects and blends them really well into the practical shots in the scenes. Weta made great use of miniatures and creative green screens to create beautiful, and believable composites. None of those would have happened without Star Wars.

Industrial, Light and Magic was created for Star Wars, and is still one of the leading visual effects houses in the industry. Without something as visually intense as Star Wars, I don't think that we would be in such a great position of effects based films that we are in today. No Avatar, no Life of Pi, or Pirates of the Caribbean. I'm sure we'd still have sci-fi movies, but does anyone remember those movies before Star Wars? They were almost all practical effects with a few that had miniatures. Star Wars changed all of that.

Back to school

I'm going back to school. I've been for animation and illustration at SJSU. It was rough. Currently I'm at West Valley. I'm taking a film making class, acting, script writing and photography, as well as signed up for a late session intro to fx class. That's right. I want to start making films. My posts might not be on time but I'll do my best to get them up. They might just be homework that I've done. I hope to make some cool shit and post it on here! If you too are wondering about going back to school, you should! It's always a great time to invest into yourself, just make sure it's something you love!

Nerd Rage! Man of Steel. Part 2.

Casting aside; I really didn't like the story. For the most part Superman is well known and people know of his history. There is no reason to reboot the franchise all the way back to Krypton. In a movie about one guy, there are too many supporting characters competing for screen time. The New 52 look is not for me either. I mean I get the decision to make the New 52 costume, but it's supposed to be Kryptonian armor... not weirdly textured stretch fabric. The story is full of terrible decisions that make a mockery of true fans.

The first thing wrong here is that for some reason Jor-El and Krypton are a huge part of the movie. The time they used in the movie to show us Superman's biological father and his struggle on Krypton could have been used to develop other characters like Martha, Lois, or even Superman himself! Looking through DC comic book lore Krypton, Jor-El and Lara are tiny blips of the Superman mythos. The movie jumps from Superman's ship to him as a fully grown man on a boat a full twenty minutes after the film starts. In that twenty minutes there is very little that adds to the story other than making Jor-El look like some sort of white knight/scientist hybrid who is an engineer capable of creating a ship that can travel through space, and keep a baby alive AND in stasis, a biologist capable of determining the effects of yellow sun's radiation on Kryptonian cells as well as being able to deduce the intelligence of a species based on a glance at the skull and brain, and an astrophysicist capable of finding a habitable planet within his son's reach, as well as a bad ass hand to hand combatant being able to take out up to three armed assailants, marksman AND stunt man who is capable of jumping off a building after a small explosion, extensive breath holding, and riding a flying mount through a massive dog fight. None of the action sequences were important to the story and they take up the bulk of the time used in the opening of the movie. It is just action for the sake of action, and it's one of the biggest storytelling sins because impossible plot holes are created and never addressed.

Jor-El, Lara, Perry, the two army guys, Dr. Emil Hamilton, and Pete Rose are all unnecessary characters for the story to move forward and be about Superman. The only reason I can tell that Jor-El was even in this movie was because they wanted to homage to when Marlon Brando played him in the first movie. Why else would such a small character be played by Russell Crowe? I think Brando playing Jor-El is equally stupid, but I digress. Gouging out such a large role in Man of Steel for Crowe is just a mistake. In most adaptations of Superman's back story Lara is only mentioned in passing as his father's wife or as his birth mother, but since Jor-El plays such a large role in the movie Lara becomes a necessary character. Perry White is a bit more necessary to verbally spare with Lois; Laurence Fishburne is too heavy of a hitter for the role. His presence dominates over Amy Adams in their scenes. Another problem is the scene we first meet Perry, at the end of his chiding (which was underplayed) should have been a moment to humanize him in a fatherly way to Lois. This would have made me feel worried for him at the climax of the movie instead of indifferent. Hamilton and Rose could have just been anyone else. Pete Rose is Clark Kent's boyhood friend and knows of Superman's powers... but he brings nothing to the table. Hamilton I assume they'll use for something down the line, but in this movie his role is pointless. It just as well could have been a no name character saying those lines. 

Jonathan and Martha Kent have gone through various stages of being alive or dead in Superman's back-story, but Clark just watching his father die is bull. He should have had a heart attack like in the comics and television show. The hand up stopping his son? Come on! That's so cliche! Besides that we haven't seen Jonathan Kent enough to actually care about him dying much less see what kind of impact the time he'd spent with Clark made.When Jonathan dies of a heart attack it was after he was established as a huge role model for Clark and the fact that it was a cause that Clark had no way of preventing, thus making a character with so many powers powerless and easier to identify with emotionally.

The two fight scenes with Superman and the Kryptonians are full of action, but there is still a problem. If at all possible Superman takes his biggest fights away from people. He at least tries to minimize property damage as well. In the movie his first big fight is through downtown Smallville wreaking most of it with untold casualties inside the buildings! The fight was contained within that downtown area so what should have happened was Superman fighting them in the fields around Smallville reducing the risk of bystanders getting harmed and being able to cut loose and focus on the fight. The Metropolis fight is just a bag full of nope. There's no way Superman would fight IN the city. It's too much damage, too heavily populated, too many people to save during the fight. Zod is too intent on fighting Superman. Zod chases Superman around the city fighting, throwing, and destroying nearly everything they touch. As a side note, every time someone gets thrown through a building an explosion doesn't happen. Zod doesn't go out of his way to harm random bystanders so it should be easy to lure the fight to a more remote location.

Lois Lane finding out Superman and Clark are one in the same. One of the great comic book reveals is 50 minutes into the movie. Thirty if you exclude the super long prologue. He's barely even Superman at this point. Hell... he's hardly even Clark Kent! Yet some how Clark who knows about his powers, and to keep them secret, has left a trail of stories and myth right back to his hometown. He was smart enough to create a fake persona, but a snooping reporter easily just finds his father's grave. I think I find it easier to believe that he wears glasses and a suit and no one recognizes him. 

Finally at the end. The New 52 sucks. Sorry. The art direction and story blow. Enough about that. This movie was all about over the top action because it could happen, but no other reason. The rhythm of the action is terrible. The pacing of the story is to tell the audience only what they need to know when they need to know. There is too much wasted time on superfluous action and having a chopped up time line that is completely unnecessary. That time should have been used to make connections with fewer characters to the audience. Unnecessary telling of pointless detail that given half a thought makes no sense. The "S" shield stands for hope. He says it all smug like he didn't just find that out. No thanks I'll pass on swallowing that tripe. In the end the movie comes down to being about the "super" part of Superman and it becomes difficult to connect with him. Goyer has said that the major theme of the movie is "first-contact" and about him being an alien. That makes it difficult to connect to if you're human, and Man of Steel fails at this task.

Nerd Rage! Man of Steel. Part 1.

This is about many of the things that are wrong with Man of Steel. It sucked. The movie net something like $300 million dollars and I hate the film. I had reservations about Amy Adams playing tough talkin', big city livin', woman-in-a-man's-world Lois Lane, Russell Crowe playing fatherly scientist Jor-El, and Diane Lane playing motherly, heart of America, salt of the Earth, Martha "Ma" Kent. There were so many things that I didn't like about the movie it's gonna be a long post.

Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Let's get to it.

First of all I really, really like Amy Adams. Enchanted was awesome, she was great in The Fighter, I really liked Julie & Julia, and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby is one of my favorite movies. In each of the characters Amy Adams plays in those movies feel like either small town, or very naive, or both. Her acting as Lois Lane feels like a small town girl trying to make it in the big city. To describe each: Lois is dark, sensual, alluring, cunning, hardened, and untrusting. Amy Adams looks sweet, beautiful, open, trusting, light and honest. The two feel as opposite as can be, but Adams does her best to cover the distance, but she falls short. Adams doesn't feel like Lois Lane. Lois has to be quicker and more cunning than any man in the field of journalism. Lois has had to use every tool in her arsenal to scoop the men, and prove her self with every story she writes. To the world and to herself. With Adams even her voice doesn't fit the character. Her voice reminds me of beautiful music, or soft wind chimes, even at her most intense moments in the movie. To me Amy Adams is just too pure to play someone who's used her sexuality to get a scoop, or has blurred the lines of right and wrong to get ahead. None of these things is Amy Adams fault of course, the role is just not right for her, and that's the fault of the directors.

The things that should have been changed are the amount of times Amy Adams uses passive tense. It is quite noticeable in the first scene in the Daily Planet building. Multiple times Perry attacks Lois's article and she backs herself up with "What about the civilian contractors who corroborated my story?" which should have been a active statement than a passive question such as "I have (x amount of) civilian contractors who corroborated this story!" She then tries to plead with Perry with "Perry, come on, it's me we're talking about. I'm a Pulitzer prize winning reporter." Lois Lane does NOT plead. She makes bold statements and spits in the face of authority. The line should have read more like "Perry it's ME you're talking to. A Pulitzer prize winning reporter, not some gossip columnist!" She gets shut down again and retorts meekly with "Print it or I walk." It seemed more like a desperate ploy than an actual threat, much like a child threatening to hold their breath or run away. The delivery of the line should have been much more angry. Everyone has been so angry at their job they have wanted to quit at some point, and many people have believed in something so passionately they'd put their reputations on the line, so the line should have been delivered: "Print it or I walk!" Perry then reminds her that she can't and that she's under contract. She then just sighs as Perry lays into her about aliens and how he'll never run the story. She passive-aggressively smiles and that's the end of the scene. My experience with strong willed, direct, and stubborn people, like Lois might be, they will NEVER let you have the last word. Casual disagreements get pretty heated, and when you don't believe them after a bit that person gets seriously pissed off. Forget about two shots fired and no retort.

There are several other things that might go unnoticed like when you first see Lois in the chopper she fumbles around trying to get down and Superman casually lifts her out and she meekly thanks him. First, the drop looks to be about 3-4 feet off the ground. It seems like a journalist who would be "...imbedded with the First Division" wouldn't be afraid of such a drop, nor be unfamiliar with jumping out of a grounded helicopter. In all honesty to fix this bit would be to have her directly tell Superman to help a lady out, and instead of the thanks she should have complemented him setting up a slight attraction to him. The shot of her finding out where she's staying and asking about tinkling? The story just set up that she was with the First Division, so the cot in a storage room with a space heater would look like a resort in comparison.

Next up is Russell Crowe as Jor-El.

Ok. The Gladiator as one of the foremost scientists on a more technologically advanced alien planet? It would have been easier to swallow Crowe as a scientist had they not clad him in armor with such ridiculous bulk.

What scientist wears this?

Shoulder pads? A freakin' cape? Robes? I don't get it, is this supposed to be some fusion of the 16th century and some weird future? For some reason I can't imagine spaulders coming into style, nor can I see them being used for ANY kind of science. Science is about logic and facts, spill a bit of acid on your exposed forearm unitard? I guess you're losing an arm because it'll be too late for you to take off all those clothes. Oh it's an alien material you say? Then what's the deal with the cape? Oh that's for the meeting with the council of scientists? So Jor-El is planning on shoulder checking someone? Also the house of El's crest is the "S"? It stands for "hope"? That's cool, the diamond crest with a character that means "hope" just happens to look like an "S" and that he happens to send his son to a planet that uses that same symbol as a letter. Come on. That's terrible writing. While we're at it the portrayal of Jor-El is much too aggressive for my taste. He takes out three armed guards, then one shot one kills two back-up guards, runs outside and jumps onto his flying mount. I mean come on! Why make Jor-El out to be a knight?

I'd rather have A Beautiful Mind Crowe. The genius mind but less paranoid-schizophrenia type of acting. In my mind Jor-El was the greatest scientist of all Krypton. His mind went up against Braniac's and tried to expose the machine's true intentions, but was shut down by the bureaucracy of the council, so he developed a vessel for keeping his new born son alive, as well as plotting trajectory of said vessel to not only a viable planet, but one to which his son would blend in with his surroundings and potentially find those that would care for him. If that doesn't scream super genius then I don't know what does.

To wrap up the side characters, Diane Lane as Martha "Ma" Kent.

This is from the last paragraph of her IMDb page:

Her immense talent at playing human and real characters, her "drop dead gorgeous" beauty and down-to-earth grittiness...

She is great at gritty characters, characters that have real depth, and those that get down and dirty to do the right thing. Ma Kent is not one of those characters. Lane would have been great at Lois, but as Martha it was like Diane Lane was struggling to grasp the character. Lane looks tough, she feels like a big city woman, and most of all she's much too beautiful. Ma Kent is small town, motherly, and completely non sexual. I remember thinking while watching the scenes with Diane Lane that there are only so many emotions that she's feeling and that she didn't quite feel right as Martha. It never felt like she made the connection with Clark. Martha is always the one to hold onto her son, to keep him close, and to worry for him. I never got that feeling in the movie. It felt like Ms. Lane was trying to find some dynamic tortured soul but was also being told to hold back. Martha says motherhood to me, but not the motherhood she dreamed of. In my mind Martha was a popular girl in Smallville, and she married Jonathan soon after high school. She dreamed of the children she'd have since she was a little girl, and those dreams were dashed when she found out she couldn't have children. She had her husband and she thought that it would be enough. When Clark's ship crashed and they found him as a baby Martha knew she'd gotten her wish at a child and this was her chance to have her perfect family. She'd be over-protective, but lovingly supportive. Unnecessary risks are out, and she'd worry over her son's aimless wandering, but when there is something that needs to be done she'll be the first to tell him to do it; knowing that her son has the strength to pull through. Martha Kent is much deeper than what we got to see in this portrayal by Ms. Lane in Man of Steel.

Nerd Rage! DC vs Marvel

I wouldn't call myself a DC fanboy, but something that irritates me to no end is when Marvel fans hate on DC and cite how over powered Superman is, and how his weaknesses are terrible. I agree that most things about Superman are quite ridiculous and his powers and abilities are quite inconsistent, but that's what happens when there are a bunch of different writers of different abilities writing different books at different times with different artist. Things are not always going to line up perfectly. Superman has been around forever, and everyone has a different idea about his powers and abilities; just like every other comic book hero. Even Deadpool has varying degrees of violence, paranoia, regenerative powers, and he even looks less ugly from time to time.

Next is how impossible it is for an alien to live among us and do good. This is hard to believe, or just so impossible that it would never be one of us? I'm sorry to burst the bubble here and say that no one is ever going to clench their fist and have three blades pop out between their knuckles. A spider bite and a life time of guilt isn't going to make me a superhero. Ever. Doing good is in all of us. The choice to do what is right and taking the hard road. Being raised properly goes a long way in deciding what is right and making the decision to do so. Who is to say Clark didn't do what Peter did and try to use his powers selfishly? They both had strong father figures to help them sort out right and wrong, but Jonathan Kent lived longer than Uncle Ben, and would have helped Clark become a more responsible man than Peter.

Are stories are more compelling? I think not. There are compelling arcs, but none as successful as the death of Superman. That made it onto the news! One of the most recognizable characters on Earth died and everyone knew about it. I haven't heard of another arc that has been in the news. Has Jean Grey made the news ANY of the times she died? Professor X? Captain America? None of the heroes that have passed were more recognized than Superman.

A lot of the hate Superman gets are from people that know him from the movies. The movies blow. I get that. Superman Returns? Terrible. Man of Steel? Don't get me started. The villains he had to fight are also terrible. Everyone knows Lex Luthor, but he's a mastermind, not a movie villain. His plans happen over arcs and he plays the long game and that's something movie writers can't grasp. Why would the end game be an island created out of kryptonite? Why would Superman take it upon himself to lift that out of the ocean? My point is that movie Superman sucks.

I agree that Superman is not the best superhero, and his powers are inconsistent and over the top, but those things are also true of every other hero. Sometimes superheroes get powers that serve them for one arc and never use them again, or they use their powers like normal when they should be altered in some way. Cyclops can shoot beams from his eyes that can level mountains, but often times it's difficult for him to blast something like a wall or heavy door. Cyclops also doesn't have an unlimited source of those beams. His body converts solar energy into optic blasts, so he should at least be cautious of the amount of energy he uses at night and inside, but he isn't and he uses his blasts as well regardless of the amount of light he can use. This is but one character out of thousands in any universe. There are no perfect characters because there are no perfect writers. Let go of the faults you see in these creations and enjoy them for what they are. Except for the Superman movies. I won't let go of that...

Nerd Rage! Vibranium

Ok I have some beef with Vibranium. I know that Vibranium is a fictional metal with large ore deposits in the fictional African nation of Wakanda. Great. Why do I have a problem with that? It's a huge writers crutch. Especially when it comes to none other than Captain America. His shield specifically. Either adamantium/vibranium alloy, or proto-adamantium (vibranium/iron alloy) makes no difference because both are Wakandan vibranium; which possesses the unique nature of absorbing all vibrations as well as kinetic energy.

"The more energy vibranium absorbs the tougher it becomes." Right from the wiki. It is impossible for the shield to absorb something and become stronger, but for the sake of the argument if the shield could absorb the kinetic energy of an impact things like Captain America throwing his shield and having it bounce and harm multiple assailants then return to him is impossible. Regardless of how many times he has thrown his shield the properties of vibranium would inhibit a single bounce. There is only a certain amount of potential kinetic energy in a thrown object, and when that object hits its target a percent of that energy is expelled into the target, but the entire time the object is in the air it is also losing energy from wind resistance.

Vibranium in the Marvel universe is the source of near infinite energy. The shield as shown that it can absorb more kinetic energy than it imparts on impact AND loses from wind resistance. In a vacuum  the shield might bounce forever. Cap's shield is one of the most bogus writing holes in all of comic-dom, and people go along with it because he's America's hero, or a fan favorite, or for whatever reason. That's not what we should expect from comics and that's not what we should swallow either.

I grew up reading comic books, and I love all the heroes. That's why I decided on this subject. Writing holes are not what I want to see in my childhood. These people are paid to write comics, and make movies (Joss Whedon). If I can see these things shouldn't they? Suspended disbelief works until you snap the viewer out of the experience and then you see actors on screen, writing mistakes, wardrobe and setting goofs, all those things can happen, and for me and vibranium it was in the Avengers. Captain America blocks a blow from the mighty Thor (who goes blow for blow with the Hulk) unscathed, but a grenade blows Cap out a window? Momentum of the blast carries Cap out of the window? Oh, so where does he go when Thor hits the shield? Nowhere. That's the mystery to me.

Photography and Film

I have always been a sort of shutter bug. In high school I frequently hung out in the photography classes. I enjoyed the developing process of black and white photography, but I preferred my pencil and paper. After high school I really enjoyed taking snapshots with my digital point and shoot, but never really took it any further. That all changed with dslrs with hd video recording. I could finally combine multiple passions in a single, (relatively) inexpensive platform.

Capturing motion had captured me from early on in life. My uncle had the first home video camera I had ever touched. I was enthralled from the beginning. Zoom was my all time favorite function. If I remember correctly the footage looked bizarre, like a person on land, but also on a boat, and wildly flying in and out at a guy. To look at it now, it might give me some sort of seasickness or something. Fast forward a few years later and I got my own video camera for Christmas; I think it was a Sharp Viewcam...

Oddly enough people are STILL selling this on Amazon.

I loved it. It shot standard square video onto tape, a big ass lcd screen (3 inches!?!? whaaaat?), 300 degree swivel and all the controls right at your thumbs! The only thing was... I had no way of editing the videos that I took, so pretty much I only used it for family functions... bummer.

Since the introduction of dslr hd video recording a few years ago I have kept an eye out on entry level cameras. It takes me forever to decide what I should buy, I ended up deciding on getting a Canon t4i. Then they discontinued the model in favor of the not much changed t5i. I figured since I'd waited that long I'd just wait a bit more and get the t4i once it dropped in price. It didn't. People bought up the t4i since it was essentially the same as the t5i only slightly cheaper. So then this was my choice, t5i or t3i?

T3i

T5i

I opted for the t3i since I am new to digital photography and video and if I fail miserably I'll have saved a few hundred bucks. See the difference? Yea, me either. You have to look at the spec sheets to find the real difference, and it's a touch screen, all cross type auto-focus points, hybrid CMOS sensor and the new STM motor system. What do all these things mean?

The reason I was going for the t4i was that the touch screen would make changing settings a snap, just touch and change. A hybrid CMOS system means that you can use continuous auto-focus while shooting video; which is important for making sure your video is in focus. The new STM lenses have a new super quiet focusing motor that makes almost no noise to interfere with capturing audio. The t4i also does better with higher ISO settings than the t3i, and has on camera stereo microphones. With all these great things, why didn't I spring for the t5i?

The t5i with the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 is stm lens is currently selling for $850 while I bought the t3i for $400. I ended up spending about $500 for the camera, kit lens and a 50mm f1.8 prime lens. Here is the question, does the t5i's benefits out weigh $450? For me they do not because with that money I can purchase the Shure VP83 for ~$200 (record to camera version [if I'm patient...]).

VP 83 and VP 83f. The 83f records it's own audio onto SD cards.

One of the biggest things in visual media, be it theater, movies, television, internet or gaming is audio. Audio is king in making a professional level video. Good audio separates home movies into something much more real and immersive. Poor audio snaps the viewer into disbelief and the video might as well be a slide show.

The nifty-fifty, or the Canon 50mm f1.8 mark 2 is a lens I purchased right away. I picked it up with the body and kit lens, and cost $100 from Canon, but can be purchased second hand for about $80.

The 50 1.8 mk 2 is just about as cheap as in-production Canon lenses go. It's sharp all through the aperture/f-stop range and produces wonderful bokeh. What does that really mean? Unlike some lenses, this particular lens can be opened to it's widest setting without fear of haziness that other lenses get, so when you take photos the lens won't give you a weird ethereal look that you weren't going for. Also the smaller the f-stop is, the smaller the focal range is. This means that if you wanted to you could photograph a person's head at 3/4 view and have one eye in focus and the other eye a bit blurry and the background completely blurry. This lens will give you that great shallow focus depth of field in video as well. At f1.8 this lens will let in a lot of light onto the sensor, so it's great for low light/indoor photography. There are cons to this lens though. It is completely plastic, even the mount is plastic, so if you're not careful you can easily break it. The motor in the auto-focus is nothing special so in a quiet setting like a wedding ceremony it might be distracting, and the auto-focus sometimes struggles to lock onto the target you intend. The build quality of the 50mm f1.8 mk I is better with a metal mount, and a distance scale on the lens for about $150 used, if you can find it. The next step above the production 1.8 is the 1.4.

At ~$350 the f1.4 is a bit faster with the construction properties of the mark 1 1.8 with the added benefit of the ultrasonic motor which knocks down the amount of noise the auto-focus system makes.

By buying a good quality mic, and a nice learning lens you save about $150 over the single kit lens and the t5i which is why I decided on this route. The kit lens from the t3i is useful for it's IS and 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 covers the most basic shot distances at 22mm, 31mm, and 53mm which are 35mm, 50mm and 85mm equivalent on full frame/35mm film. The kit lens is reasonably sharp but with a maximum aperture of just 4.5mm at the wide end it doesn't work well in low light conditions. This is why I have the 50mm 1.8. The 50 is great for low light situations, portrait photos and blurring backgrounds, as well as pulling actors into focus and really giving them some weight in a scene.

Hunter Zolomon

Growing up reading comics my generation of DC characters dropped Hal Jordan and Barry Allen for Kyle Rayner and Wally West. These two were my Green Lantern and Flash. In my opinion, Wally's greatest foe is Hunter Zolomon.

 Zolomon is Zoom 2.0, he's faster, meaner and has a vendetta against Wally. How can you defeat someone that has broken past the speed of sound, light, time, dimensions and the speed force? You slow down time in relation to yourself. Now the physics are iffy at best, but honestly slowing time to beat a super speedster is awesome. Wally has a direct link to the positive end of the speed force and thus can siphon speed force from other users so if Zoom were to use the same force that Wally does, Zoom would always have a disadvantage. Since Zoom has time manipulation powers Zoom has the upper hand. If he can slow time down but not stop it, Zoom can move faster than anything. He can defeat Flash at any time, making him one of the most dangerous meta humans in the DC universe.