Author Archives: Michael Korican

About Michael Korican

A long-time media artist, Michael’s filmmaking stretches back to 1978. Michael graduated from York University film school with Special Honours, winning the Famous Players Scholarship in his final year. The Rolling Stone Book of Rock Video called Michael's first feature 'Recorded: Live!' "the first film about rock video". Michael served on the board of L.I.F.T. when he lived in Toronto during the eighties and managed the Bloor Cinema for Tom and Jerry. He has been prolific over his past eight years in Victoria, having made over thirty-five shorts, won numerous awards, produced two works for BravoFACT! and received development funding for 'Begbie’s Ghost' through the CIFVF and BC Film.

OPA chips may one day replace optical lenses

Posted on by
Reply

Caltech researchers have created an optical phased array chip that can capture images.

The technological breakthrough has the potential to revolutionize photography.

Ali Hajimiri, Bren Professor of Electrical Engineering and Medical Engineering in the Division of Engineering and Applied Science at Caltech, claims:

We’ve created a single thin layer of integrated silicon photonics that emulates the lens and sensor of a digital camera, reducing the thickness and cost of digital cameras. It can mimic a regular lens, but can switch from a fish-eye to a telephoto lens instantaneously — with just a simple adjustment in the way the array receives light.

He continues:

“The ability to control all the optical properties of a camera electronically using a paper-thin layer of low-cost silicon photonics without any mechanical movement, lenses, or mirrors, opens a new world of imagers that could look like wallpaper, blinds, or even wearable fabric.”

Read the PDF.

My take: This is the perhaps unseen conclusion of digitization. First film. Soon lenses. Both usurped by ones and zeroes. I wonder what the future of visual storytelling will look like when almost anything flat — walls, windows, ceilings — can become image capturing tools.

“TV” shows coming to social media platforms

Posted on by
Reply

Harold Stark, writing on Forbes, believes that Snapchat and Facebook are Going to Change Television Forever.

He’s wondering about the data social networks gather on their users and how it could inform media programming:

“Social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and Vimeo already invest billions of dollars each year in order to gather data on their users. Just imagine what would happen if all these social media organizations were to implement their stacks of user-sensitive data to create the perfect television shows that users loved?”

And it’s already happening.

Facebook has begun Watch for shows “made up of episodes — live or recorded — [that] follow a theme or storyline.” They envision that:

“Over time, creators will be able to monetize their shows through Ad Breaks. We’ve been testing Ad Breaks over the past few months, and we will be slowly opening up availability to more creators to ensure we’re providing a good experience for the community. Creators can also create sponsored shows using our branded content tag.”

Sounds like TV and TV commercials, no?

In the wings are Instagram, Snap and Vimeo. Plus, Apple.

My take: Television, be scared, be very scared.

Snap Spectacles

Posted on by
Reply

Snap Inc. has sold more than 100,000 of its funky retro Spectacles.

Formerly Snapchat Inc., the social multimedia firm now considers itself…

“…a camera company. We believe that reinventing the camera represents our greatest opportunity to improve the way people live and communicate. Our products empower people to express themselves, live in the moment, learn about the world, and have fun together.”

In related news, a judge has ruled against a trademark infringement case brought against Snap by Eyebobs of Minnesota. They…

“…felt the similarity of the eyeball logos would lead a Spectacles user or Eyebobs customer to think the two companies were partners, or had collaborated.”

However, Snap…

“…denied these claims, adding that a crucial flaw in Eyebobs’s argument was the trademark in question. While Snap held a trademark on its eyeball logo, Eyebobs only had a trademark on its name, not its logo.”

Ouch!

You be the judge:

My take: I’m intrigued by the POV angle of the camera in these smartglasses but a negative is the circular 1088 resolution. And getting your video out of Snap and into something you can edit might take some finagling.

Hunger Games and Twilight Theme Park to Open

Posted on by
Reply

Lionsgate is partnering to open a South Korean theme park based on its film properties.

“Lionsgate Movie World, spanning approximately 1.3 million square feet (approximately 122,000 square meters) and centered around multiple renowned Lionsgate film properties, is Lionsgate’s first branded outdoor theme park and the latest milestone in the continued ramp up of Lionsgate’s location-based entertainment business around the world. The project will be developed into seven movie zones, each themed around blockbuster Lionsgate properties which have collectively grossed nearly $9 billion at the global box office. These include ‘The Hunger Games’, ‘The Twilight Saga’ and ‘Now You See Me’ as well as the eagerly-anticipated March 2018 release ‘Robin Hood’.”

This joins their project in Dubai.

According to The Economist:

“Newfound enthusiasm for theme parks partly reflects upheaval in the media industry. As it has become harder to reap riches in television and film, companies are eager to spin gold from both their vast content libraries and to attract attention to their new offerings. Disney and Comcast have enjoyed considerable success doing this through their parks businesses, which have chugged along as reliable profit engines. Universal Studios has contributed more to Comcast’s profits over the past five years than either the broadcast network NBC or the Universal Pictures film studio, its corporate siblings. At Disney, the company’s theme-park division has generated a better return on assets than its film studio in four of the past five years.”

My take: I believe Disneyland was the first media-related theme park, and I’ve been there! Not quite transmedia, media-related theme parks are an experiential form of IP merchandizing and a way to extend film franchises into the real world.

Brand Programming

Posted on by
Reply

In a new series of videos, Zacuto Producer/Director Steve Weiss looks into the future and sees a new funding model emerging (skip ahead to 3:00 if you’re short on time):

“I think that when cable dies, which is going to happen in the next five or six years, that companies—Ford will have their own shows, Target will have their own shows. Amazon has their own shows!”

I think he’s on to something.

We can all agree making movies costs money. The question is, “Who’s paying?”

There are really only two ways to pay for the media you watch. Either you pay directly (through ticket purchases or Cable TV subscriptions, etc.), or someone else pays. And that someone else is usually Advertisers.

The problem is that Google and Facebook have disrupted the Ad Business and now take the lion’s share of the global ad spend.

The recent, pre-Internet televison model was that TV Networks (the Gatekeepers) would contract producers to make shows. How did the Gatekeepers get paid? By selling ads. This situation supported Ad Agencies and lots of Professionals to make and place those ads.

The Brand’s message was intermediated by the Ad Agency and then the TV Networks. And the shows were somewhat entertaining, if you just ignored the commercials.

The Digital Revolution (which lowered production costs and correspondingly increased content) now allows the direct delivery of both content and advertising to viewers, bypassing the Gatekeepers.

I think the real problem remains: people hate commercials that too often interrupt or otherwise annoy them.

So what if Brands worked directly with Professionals on Programming, not Advertising?

This is what Weiss is getting at, I think.

Cases in point: Red Bull TV and BMW Films. The key is to align the brand with the content: for Red Bull it’s youth and adrenaline, for BMW it’s cars, class and action.

I think this is a new frontier: local businesses working with local filmmakers to produce mutually thematic content. Shout out to Justus Lowry who is doing something very similar in a documentary vein for culinary culture here in Victoria, BC.

I hate to call this Sponsored Content. Even Brand TV misses out on the synergy I envision. Brand Programming? Can you think of a better label?

My take: This kinda harkens back to the days of the TV Soaps, you know.

IMAX to show less 3D

Posted on by
Reply

As reported on The Wrap, IMAX Entertainment CEO Greg Foster said on a recent conference call that they will be cutting back on 3D releases in order to boost profits.

“We’re looking forward to playing fewer 3-D versions of films and more 2-D versions.”

He added:

“It’s worth noting ‘Dunkirk’ was showing exclusively in 2-D, which consumers have shown a strong preference for.”

For instance, Blade Runner 2049 will be shown in 2D, even though a 3D version will be available elsewhere.

My take: it’s smart for a large company like IMAX to mine their big data to gauge consumer interest in 3D versus 2D. The conclusion seems to be that more and more moviegoers would rather not wear 3D glasses when watching large-scale movies. Nevertheless, I still believe when it comes to small-scale individual VR watching, people will choose 3D180 over 360.

Google and Facebook take lion’s share of global advertising

Posted on by
Reply

CC BY-SA 3.0 Nick Youngson

Sara Fischer reports on Axios that Google and Facebook are booking “83% of every new ad dollar,” at $80.8B and $36.3B this year respectively.

These are huge percentages of the global advertising spend:

“Google’s ad revenue is roughly the same as all print ad revenue globally and Facebook’s ad revenue nearly topples all radio ad revenue globally.”

Related: the world’s biggest advertisers with country and category breakdowns.

My take: I was curious if this is a case of growing the market or of dominating the existing market. I think it’s a bit of both. Certainly mobile is where it’s at right now.

Streaming strengthens

Posted on by
Reply

As Netflix releases the first trailer for its most expensive movie to date at San Diego’s Comic Con ($90 Million USD for Bright, starring Will Smith), CMF Trends explores the flourishing streaming world:

They claim one out of three homes are watching Netflix every night; one out of six are watching Youtube; and one out of 25 is watching Amazon.

“In 2016, the consumption of audio and video content amounted to 71% of evening online traffic on fixed broadband networks in North America according to Sandvine. This proportion has doubled in the past five years…. The spending shift towards streaming services can also be observed in Canada, where spending on Internet access has been higher than spending on cable TV subscription since 2015.”

The cost of all that content is exploding on an upward curve as well:

For instance, prices paid for comedy specials have doubled:

My take: I’ll tell you what drove us to Netflx: TV commercials. We didn’t mind appointment viewing for the new shows we liked but the commercials became too intrusive for all but live events (like sports and award shows). And on Netflix, if the story really grabs you, you can binge watch multiple episodes.

How to encode movies in cells using DNA

Posted on by
Reply

As reported widely last week, Seth Shipman, from Harvard Medical School, has used CRISPR-Cas technology to encode a 36 x 26 pixel movie into the DNA of living E. coli bacteria.

“The mini-movie, really a GIF, is a five-frame animation of a galloping thoroughbred mare named Annie G. The images were taken by the pioneering photographer Eadweard Muybridge in the late 1800s for his photo series titled ‘Human and Animal Locomotion.'”

They explain it all in a bigger movie:

They hope to turn cells into living recorders to store information from the immediate environment.

Curiously, the scientists who did this in March of this year don’t seem to have received much coverage. And they accomplished much more: encoding, among other things, a gift card and a computer virus. Obviously, the Harvard brand has better publicists.

And similar feats have been done before. IBM spelled out its name in atoms in 1989.

My take: this is just a stunt to prove we can encode information in DNA, something Mother Nature has been doing for billions of years. But of course, let’s not forget the unintended consequences. When you mess around with Mother Nature, things don’t always go as planned. Imagine encoding ‘Godzilla‘ — and then the DNA mutates!

Interactive video comes to Netflix

Posted on by
Reply

Casey Newton reports on The Verge that Netflix is testing interactive video with half its audience — kids.

The first title is Puss in Book: Trapped in an Epic Tale.

Carla Engelbrecht Fisher, Netflix’s director of product innovation, says:

“Kids are already talking to the screen. They’re touching every screen. They think everything is interactive.”

The result is a branching story that results in varying viewing lengths of 18 to 39 minutes.

A second title will have a simpler structure with four endings:

Note that Netflix has not invented branching stories — Choose Your Own Adventure published 250 million gamebooks over two decades in the previous millennium.

My take: it’s interesting that Netflix only has the technology working on half of their platforms. Nevertheless the potential is seductive. Think of the dramatic possibilities: “Feeling lucky, punk?” or “You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill — you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” One thing writers will have to get used to is the cavalier ease at which the audience will be able change the narrative — kind of like print designers had to let go of exact specificity when the web came along.