Archive for February 2007

Incomprehensible Medical Bills

February 28, 2007

Reforming health insurance, once seen as the third rail in American politics, is back in vogue again. John Edwards described his plan in detail recently, something few other politicians have been willing to do, and Paul Krugman reviewed it quite positively in a recent column.

One thing that is rarely mentioned, though, by Democrats or Republicans, is much less expensive and much more pervasive — the fact that medical bills are darn near incomprehensible. And that makes it impossible for the consumer to exercise any kind of reasonable control.

There’s the “list price,” which nobody actually pays, the negotiated price, the provider discount, the plan discount. There’s the doctor fee, the lab fee, the hospital charge, equipment charges and various extras, mostly listed in the most generic language possible. There are multiple bills, each with their own subset of these costs, some of which overlap. “Explanation of benefit” forms often don’t even mention the doctor’s name.

Bottom line? Medical services are the only thing we buy for which we don’t understand the bill and for which we don’t know the price in advance. Can you imagine buying a TV that way? You’re browsing at Circuit City and the salesman says, “This HD model is fantastic. Great picture! We’ll be happy to load it into your car — and once you get it home and installed we’ll tell you how much it costs! All you have to do is sign this little piece of paper indicating that you are legally responsible for payment. Do we have a deal?”

But, imagine if it was different. Imagine that every doctor was required to tell you what a service or test was going to cost — before it was performed. Or imagine an even simpler change: a requirement that all medical bills and explanation of benefit forms forms itemize in plain English what services were performed and by whom.

Either or both of these things would give consumers all kinds of power. You’d be able to compare diagnoses, services and prices. And you’d be able to check the bill and the insurance payments and catch mistakes.

We’ve certainly got the computer power in place to make this happen. So what’s stopping it? I don’t know, but my intuition is that both the doctor and the insurance company, each for their own reasons, wants us to remain in the dark. Nobody’s pushing for clarity so clarity doesn’t happen.

What’s Wrong With the Title Tool?

February 25, 2007

new_title.jpgActually, it’d be much easier to talk about what’s right with it, because the list would be so much shorter: it makes titles that can be supered over picture. Wow. That was an exciting thing a decade ago. Today, we see the same bugs, the same quirks, the same limitations that have been there all along, namely:

  • Titles play in realtime, but they’re not realtime. The title master clip must be rendered.
  • Changing a title always means creating a new render file and these files tend to proliferate and end up all over the place.
  • You can’t matchframe on a title in order to modify it. (The error message says “Precomputes can’t be loaded into monitors.” Of course, that isn’t true — you can load a title into a monitor.)
  • Unlike every other kind of clip, modifying an existing title means modifying only that single instance of it, not the title master clip.
  • Unlike every other kind of clip, modifying the name of a title master clip doesn’t change the name of the title when it’s edited into a sequence.
  • Change the text in a title and you often change the dimensions of the title’s bounding box and cause line breaks to change unpredictably.
  • Typography is a mess. Letter spacing is inconsistent and individual letter pairs often have to be kerned by hand. Type can look crude and rough.
  • Leading can only be changed for an entire title block, not line by line.
  • No lighting effects are possible.
  • It’s hard to precisely control title color.
  • Animation is crude and difficult to control.
  • Soft drop shadows are now possible, but are difficult to control.

And don’t get me started on Marquee, which is, if anything, even worse. Marquee’s typography is much better, but it’s got plenty of quirks of it’s own. For example, you can easily create multiple instances of Marquee, where two copies of the program are running independently — a total no-no in the Mac world. And I challenge anyone reading this, who doesn’t already know the trick, to tell me how to change the leading in a Marquee title. Or modify a Marquis-created title (hint — make your change and then quit Marquee!) Or figure out how to do simple character animation with it, which is supposedly what it’s for.

When are we finally going to get titles that don’t have to be rendered? When are we going to get real title styles, so we can simply change a style and have all the titles that use that style change together? So you could change the font, say, for an entire main title sequence in one step? When are we going to get soft drop shadows that are easy to apply, control and change? When are we going to get easy-to-use character animation?

I suspect that some of the folks in Tewksbury are painfully aware of all this. At one time I had hopes that we might see something new at this year’s NAB, but my intuition is that the challenge of getting the Media Composer onto the Intel-Mac platform has consumed a lot of engineering man-hours.

And so Media Composer users wait. Meanwhile, Final Cut and Motion get more capable, more responsive and more intuitive.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

One Laptop Per Child

February 23, 2007

One-LaptopI’ve been listening to a fascinating episode of Chris Lydon’s terrific radio show “Open Source,” talking about the “One Laptop Per Child” project (OLPC). This was founded by the former head of MIT’s Media Lab, Nicholas Negroponte, and promises to provide a modern laptop to kids for about $150. The machine is unique in many ways. Chief among them: a reflective screen, so it works all day long on a single charge, open source, Linux-based software that can be updated by anyone, mesh networking, so individual machines work together to get on the net, camera, browser, email, VoIP, chat, word processing, spreadsheet and more, all built in. The plan is to sell them in lots of a million to developing nations. They are working on orders from several countries.

This is the next step in the democratization of computer technology — a path that we started on with the first mini-computers and which accelerated with the Apple II, the IBM PC and the Mac. It’s also the same path we’re on in post-production, as the “big iron” of the studios and facilities gets displaced by inexpensive desktop software.

This isn’t just about technology, of course, it’s about people. In Hollywood, the old world of post-production was very closed. Most of the people who got in had relatives who were already in. The ’60s and ’70s changed that, as 16mm equipment got into the hands of educators, film schools took off, and a series of court decisions opened up the IATSE.

But opening the doors can be awfully scary to the folks inside. Today, as editing equipment moves into high schools and post-production becomes sexier, we’re seeing the beginning of a new wave of young editors starting to knock on our doors. Is this a threat or an opportunity — or both? Does it hurt us, or bring new ideas?

Look at it this way: Microsoft, via Windows, owns the desktop, right? And for a long time, Microsoft represented the democratization of technology. The whole idea was to change society by putting a computer on every desk and thus shift power away from centralized mainframe computing.

But now, if this OLPC project takes off, a lot of kids in developing countries are going to learn about computers and the internet via Linux — with no Microsoft software in sight. Is that a long term threat to Microsoft? You bet it is.

Maybe this business of democratization is perpetual. And whoever is on the inside resists it, no matter how big they are. But if there’s any lesson in the past, it’s this: trying to keep new ideas and new people out is futile and self-destructive. Embracing the new is the only hope. The question for us, as editors, is not whether we do that, but how.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

The Wave Returns

February 22, 2007

Post-production was the first Hollywood craft to face the digital revolution. It felt crazy and chaotic at the time, but in hindsight, we did pretty well with it. Just about everybody was able to make the jump to lightspeed, as it were. We worked hard to learn the new tools and, as a result, we were able to continue to do the work we love.

That first big wave of change has now spread out into the rest of the production chain and, today, camera seems to be going through a process similar to what we experienced a decade ago.

The wave has also moved out into the society at large. Not only does every teenager have access to post-production tools that are more sophisticated than what we had access to just a few years ago, but every couch potato can record shows with a DVR that would put our old Avids to shame. And everybody with a bit of internet savvy can get their short videos distributed free via YouTube.

In short, all audiovisual media is becoming digital and everybody can control it in unprecedented ways. Which means the changes have just begun — again.

We’ve been looking one way, at the tools, but the wave is coming from a different direction now, from the society at large. These are some of the issues:

  • The first digital editing rooms were based on monolithic software/hardware combinations that did everything you needed. More and more, today’s cutting rooms rely on a wider range of inexpensive, software-only applications.
  • In the past, entry into our field was limited via an apprenticeship program. Today, the barriers to entrance are much lower. You can learn a great deal not just in college, but in high school.
  • Editing used to mean lots of heavy gear. Now you can set up an adequate cutting room in your spare bedroom.
  • Getting film from one place to another used to mean driving or flying it there. Now it means moving it around on the internet.

How is all this going to affect us? What do we do to prepare for it? How do we shape these forces so they work for us? As I said at the Eddie awards, we have to put our heads together, come up with a picture of the post-production landscape of the future, and start thinking about solutions. And we have to put renewed emphasis on education, not just about the tools, but about that dreaded subject, workflow.

This 2nd wave is coming. When it hits, we need to be prepared.

Technorati Tags: , ,

The Robert Wise Award

February 19, 2007

Robert Wise AwardLast night I received the Robert Wise Award for “Journalistic Illumination of the Art of Editing,” at the American Cinema Editors’ 57th annual Eddie Awards banquet. It was a wonderful night for me, the culmination of nearly 20 years of work in this community. This morning, I’m still basking in the glow of the support I felt from so many friends and colleagues.

ACE president Alan Heim presented me with the award and mentioned this site, so I expect that at least of few of you will be here today for the first time. Welcome!

I encourage you to browse around and get a sense of what’s here. The content is bit more perennial than on some blogs. There are Avid tips, discussions of Avid problems, talk about the changing world of editing, and notes about the growing influence of media in society. Your way into this material is through the links in the right hand column: “top posts,” “recent posts” and “categories.” If you want to read it all you can do that via the archives.

I hope you’ll add your ideas via the comment links at the end of each post. A blog is a conversation, and I’m eager to hear your thoughts.

My acceptance speech took off from some of the recent postings here. The editing revolution of the ’90s was about tools. We saw our Moviolas and KEMs replaced with computers and hard drives. Things seem to have settled down in the last few years, but my contention is that there’s another revolution brewing, one that is stealthier because a lot of it is taking place outside our editing rooms, but in the long run, no less disruptive. That’s the workflow revolution, the many changes that together will soon result in all the materials of our work, from camera to screen, turning into zeros and ones. The effects of that transformation: inexpensive, desktop software, internet based post-production, portable editing rooms and increasing competition, are going to rock our world just as much or more than the first phase did.

We did a lot of things right in the 1990s. In particular, we focused on two things: education and community support. Today, I think we need to take another hard look at the changes around us and push our educational programs aggressively to cover these new issues. I know we can handle it. Our strength as a community served us so well in the first phase, and we’re wiser now, but we’ve gotta get moving.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Easier Searches

February 16, 2007

I make some pretty large bins in the Media Composer and when they become unmanageable, I move my latest version to a new one and keep going from there. The old bin becomes an archive of all the work I’ve done over a particular period of time. That works okay — until I want to find an old version. Then I have some searching to do.

There are two problems with this. The first is an Avid quirk. If you open a bin, and do just about anything, when you close it you’re going to be forced to wait while it saves. If I don’t know where something is, I may have to open many bins. And if I’m not careful, every one of them is going to save before closing.

Those bins are archives, reference materials for things done months earlier, and I don’t want to change them at all. What I want is the ability to close a bin without saving it. That would be safer and a whole lot faster. I have to believe this represents a trivial engineering assignment and I often wonder why it’s never been done. It sure would save me a lot of time.

Looking deeper, this really points to a problem with bins themselves. I just don’t want to be forced to search through a series of bins, one at a time, to find something. It wouldn’t exactly be easy, but it seems like it ought to be possible to create a unified find function that would create and search a master index of all text in all bins. That would save me a lot of time, too.

Technorati Tags: , , ,