1FPS|by David Chartier

YouTube - “I’m Gonna Git You Spamma!” - Official Trailer

Instant classic.

Fucking awesome.

My Infinite Loop co-writer Jeff Smykil asked on Twitter whether it was possible to turn movie files ripped from a DVD to iTunes into a TV show, which would have the advantage of season metadata and all the other organizational benefits iTunes has to offer. iTunes indeed allows you to do this manually on a file-by-file basis via the File > Get Info command (check the Video tab). But if you have just a few episodes—never mind entire seasons, or multiple seasons—this is an incredibly tedious process.

A while ago I had the same question and was sure there was a better way to batch edit a bunch of movie files into a TV show and season. Turns out there is, in the form of a script from Doug’s AppleScripts (sorry Windows users, though there’s gotta be something out there for y’all). Selecting a bunch of movie files in iTunes and running Doug’s Set Video Kind of Selected script presents the simple dialog you see above. You can set only the info you want (i.e., you don’t have to specify an episode or season if you don’t want to), then click Done and wait as the script works its magic on iTunes. This has worked really well for me ever since I’ve been using it on Tiger and now Leopard, and I believe I’ve used it at least once in the latest iTunes 7.6.

The script certainly has its drawbacks though. If you have multiple seasons of movie files you need to turn into TV shows, you’ll need to do them in individual batches as you can only set this data and use the script on one batch/season at a time.

Still, this script is great for automating this terrible process (which iTunes really should have made easier by now). However, folks who often have multiple seasons of movie files to convert may find even this to be tedious (and I wouldn’t blame them). There may be more powerful, full-blown utilities out there to do this kind of thing, but I stopped looking after I found Doug’s script as it suits my casual needs.

Speaking of Doug, don’t forget to drop the guy a few bucks if you find his scripts useful.

Video has played an increasingly important role in iTunes as a piece of software and the iTunes Store as a distribution outlet for digital media. Apple introduced video features, as well as movies, TV shows, and music videos to the iTunes Store in October 2005, and yet the iTunes software itself is still terrible at letting users organize their own video files. For example, there is no option for turning a number of movies into a TV show and specifying things like season and episode range; you need to seek out a utility or AppleScript like Doug’s Set Video Kind of Selected.

Another example of iTunes’ failings as a video organization app is the screenshot above (click it for a larger view). It’s the Get Info window for an episode of South Park, and yet the language used here is “album” and “track number” and “artist.”

As I now have roughly 32GB of music but nearly 140GB of TV shows and movies (about 60-70 percent purchased from the iTunes Store), I’m getting more and more anxious for a major iTunes overhaul that incorporates the needs of those who are using it for both music and video. With the success of TV shows and movies in the iTunes Store, I know I’m not alone.

Perhaps a future iTunes v8 update will address these glaring issues.

When it comes to capturing video from my Mac’s display for a screencast or simply to demo how to do something for a family member, shinywhitebox’s iShowU is my only choice. Ambrosia’s Snapz Pro X always bothered me as a product because it runs all the time in the background, constantly munching on its fair share of CPU cycles and RAM. I can understand if some people do nothing but capture screen video for a living, but this design choice for Snapz Pro X feels fundamentally flawed. I want to start up a screen capture application on the periodic occasions that I need it; I don’t want a background process lingering over everything I do. Also, Snapz Pro X’s UI looks and feels like a mutant stepchild born from a drunken one-night stand that OS 9 and Mac OS X undoubtedly now regret, and never speak of.

Getting to the actual point of this post, however, shinywhitebox updated iShowU recently with a typical round of bug fixes and one very important change to its default presets. Before this new 1.56 version, iShowU’s presets were an arbitrary collection of different recording formats and quality settings to try and hit the gamut of what people might actually need.

Now, iShowU contains a lot of specialized presets that are primed for various web services, such as Blip.TV’s multiple and HD-friendly formats, or the household standard YouTube. This is a brilliant idea that should help users get up and running with the complicated world of video even faster.

If you’ll be upgrading to this version from a previous one, however, do know that you’ll need to use iShowU’s Edit > Reset Presets command to get these new presets. As you might imagine, this will blow away any custom presets you’ve created, and as far as I can tell, there’s no way to export and re-import presets.

If you’ve never used this excellent application, I highly recommend it. A demo is available, and a 30 second iShowU video tour is a good crash course for some of its core features. A license costs just $20, and Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger or 10.5 Leopard running on at least a G4, 1.4 Ghz machine are required.

I’ve been thinking a bit about the ongoing writer’s strike and came to a new theory as to what’s going on and why. What if the writer’s strike is actually a strategic play by the studios to move more video into unscripted production and the online space?

Think about it: writers and real actors get paid a lot more than your average reality TV twerp participant. If anything, the strike could be playing directly into the studios’ hands by opening the doors for more reality TV that features nothing but nobody, wanna-be stars who get paid a fraction of their acting predecessors. By tossing out the script and dramatically slashing production costs, the studios can keep filling the (sadly) increasing demand for reality shows with silly premises and cheap participants.

Then there’s the broadcast angle which the studios can slowly begin removing. By moving their efforts online to their own video sites (Exhibit A: NBC’s Hulu) and community sites like YouTube, the difficulties, politics, and expenses of getting broadcast deals through traditional TV stations are all thrown out the window. Serving video over the web has to be cheaper than traditional channels, especially since the vastly popular YouTube and its competitors help out a lot with the hosting and serving costs. The other major benefit of internet-based video is that it is infinitely more trackable. Studios and community sites like YouTube can track every click, every view, whether the viewer finished the video, exactly how long the video is watched‚Äîalmost everything. Internet video also seems to be a lot more profitable, or at least it could be soon. Showing a few commercials in the middle of a TV show is one thing, but being able to display banner ads above, below, and beside video embedded in a website in addition to pre-run, mid-run, and post-run ads sounds like a virtual gold mine for advertisers and the studios.

I know, that last possibility makes me want to vomit a little too.

Of course, there are still plenty of shows that need writers, but even those might slowly be going extinct. Dave Letterman cut a deal with the WGA to get writers back to work, but the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, as well as Daily Show with John Stewart and Colbert Report are back without writers and seem to be doing just fine. There’s no doubt in my mind that the studios are watching those experiments closely to see whether they can continue producing and writing themselves, and whether that success could be duplicated with future offerings in the same space as those shows. Movies also seem to remain in the realm of written story, and a few other truly successful TV dramas could stand to retain writers. But aside from that, “reality” TV and other fly-by-the-seat-of-one’s-pants formats appear to be flourishing just fine without them.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that these ideas more or less terrify me, as I hate about 95 percent of reality TV and would jump at the chance to send a collective kick-in-the-pants to most of its viewers. I also am not entirely sold on the possibly of being required to get more of my TV from some shoddy living room internet/TV appliance, and I say that as a thoroughly satisfied Apple TV owner. While the potential for better tracking and accurate ratings that would yield better TV shows is appealing, I’m too afraid of the studios’ ability to warp these technologies to their overtly-controlling whim. After all, the music industry is all alone in its collective shedding of DRM. Video houses aren’t showing any sign of dropping the consumer-unfriendly technology; if anything, they’re using even more of it, as the new Blu-ray and its seemingly fallen HD-DVD competitor both have far more durable, restrictive capabilities.

So am I nuts here? The conspiracy theory certainly makes sense from where I’m sitting, but then again, that’s all it is: a theory based on not much more than observations of the industry’s moves over the past couple years, as well as this strike. I certainly do hope I’m wrong, and that talented writers and actors (and all other unfortunate persons caught in the crossfire) can soon get back to weaving their tales both on the TV and internet.

Apple adds Xvid to QT Components site - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

“Apple has added Xvid to its online QuickTime Components list. The Xvid-for-QuickTime component, which you can download here, allows you to play and encode Xvid video.”

Hooray! Now we all can play the codec of choice for pirates everywhere in QuickTime and any other apps that require it. Possibly even iTunes (I haven’t downloaded to test yet). Why $30 is too much for pirates to pay (or pirate, har har) for the ability to encode in true H264, the codec chosen for both new competing high definition DVD formats, escapes me to this day.

Honestly I’m kind of surprised here; usually the POS infomercials that are invading every hour of commercial time on TV pick up on trends, especially web trends, years after they’re played out. Since Thanksgiving break has already kicked in, I’m just relaxing at home for the day getting some writing done, and I happened upon the X-Files marathon on Sci-Fi for some background noise. On a commercial break, my ears perked up when I heard someone almost-shouting at me about “viral video marketing!”, complete with a John Doe testimony about how well his video did at some non-existent site, and how “they’re going to put it on TV!”

Now, *you too* can get everything you need to know about how to make viral video marketing work *for you!” Act now!

everyday on Vimeo

I saw another similar movie posted somewhere, probably Boing Boing, but even so - these are incredible. Not only because of the sheer amount of work involved, but because of this unique attitude towards documenting the passage, effects and other contexts of time.

There’s also the added benefit that it’s kind of hard to spontaneously rip off the idea - not like all sorts of copycats are going to run out and create something similar. I’m sure this is an idea that made the rounds a few years back (hence the appearance of more than one similar video), but it’s not like the hordes of MySpace and YouTube goons can run out and pile on the noise.

[via kottke]

This is an absolutely brilliant commercial on Coke’s part, and I mean: absolutely. First thing I’ve found that warrants a new ‘brilliant’ tag.

[tags]video, commercials, advertising, brilliant[/tags]