Tape Vs HDD

Right, this has been a battle going on ever since the emergence of Hard Disk/Flash Disk cameras. Time for a pros and cons blog.

Right starting with tape. Bad things about tape is the whole capturing process. In order to get the footage onto the computer to edit you have to sit there and capture your footage, which takes as long as how much footage you got. Tapes also take up a lot of space, not memory space, but physical space.

However, good things about tape is that it is a physical form of your data, if you lose your footage on the computer, you at least have it on tape as a back up. Tapes are also relatively cheap these days, a box of ten panasonic tapes (equal to ten hours of recording) cost ten pounds. With tapes, you can record continually for the duration of the tape, a function that is not possible with flash disk cameras.

Moving on to hard disk. Good things about them is that they are quick to transfer, small in size, you can watch your footage back the moment you recorded it, and reliable as in they won’t get stuck in tape decks or cameras. However, cons on hard disk is that memory cards are quite expensive, a 32GB card (equal to two hours recording at full HD) costs forty two pounds. Hard drives, so that you can back up your work, for 1TB costs at least sixty pounds. Also, if you are to lose your footage, there is no way to get it back unless you back it up in the first place, whereas with tape, you have a back up the moment you buy the tape. Also, after twelve minutes of recording, the camera will stop recording in order to prevent over heating (something very common with DLSR cameras).

All in all, they both have their own functions. Tape is more suitable for recording long events, something that needs continuous recording, whereas hard disk is better for film making as you can look over the footage as you record, something that is vital with film making.

A New Age: Social Network

A few posts ago I did an article on Google+, this got me thinking about social networking in general and how it has affected our world and how we as humans interact.

Social network websites first surfaced in 1995. back then they were in the form of simple chat rooms and blog pages. However, the website classmates.com took a different approach. The idea behind this website was to reconnect people with old friends they went to school with (sounds familiar?). The site featured two types of members, those were free and paid (more on them later). The functionality of the site was basically that a user would have a profile page and was able to find their friends through the directory and they could read and post on the community message boards, much like a forum. However, free members were not able to send e-mails to other members or view their profile pages unless they upgraded to paid membership.

It wasn’t until the late 90s, early 2000s that the next big hitter appeared on the market and that was friendster.com. It had featured similar features to that of classmates.com however all membership was free. People could view their friends profiles and message then at their whim. Another feature was “fan profiles” which was a way for celebrates (big and small) and local bands and etc could make their mark on the internet and get a following/fan base.

With the great success of friendster.com, two more specialized social websites were released the year after, those where myspace.com (the music orientated website where you created profiles and people could message on them) and linkedin.com (more orientated to business links, allowing people to fine employers and employees). After them a rival site known as bebo.com came along to “fight” against friendster.com however it quickly lost it’s impact among the other social network giants.

However all of these sites did lack one thing which was quite crucial and that was exclusivity. With these sites, people could look at ANYONES profiles and gain access to their information without the users knowing, allowing online predators to lure young victims into meeting them without giving away their identity.

In 2004, a young Harvard undergrad, Mark Zuckerberg released Facebook.com a new social networking site that initially started out as a college only website but has branched out into so much more. It very rapidly gained popularity and what made it different to all of the other sites was it’s exclusivity, you could only add people on the site and before you can see their profile they had to confirm that they knew you, making the experience much safer. To this date, facebook.com is the largest social networking website in the world, but that didn’t stop other companies from releasing any others. In 2006 Jack Dorsey released twitter.com a social network more focused on users updating with short messages known as tweets. It’s a really effective way for celebrates and companies to keep their followers up to date with what was going on, in effect it’s a new feed more than anything.

A New Age: Computers

Technology, a very key element in our lives. Always rapidly changing. But with this rapid change and advancement in technology we also have those that are being outdated. One piece of tech is the personal computer. Yes, what was considered a revolution in the early 1970’s is now being removed from existence. With the increased popularity of Laptops and Netbooks, PCs are losing their place in the market.

Back in the 1980s, PCs became the norm in many establishments including schools, police stations and offices whilst having programmes being developed for domestic use. It wasn’t until the late 80s and early 90s that it was the norm at homes. During the 90s at each household had at least one personal computer which was used by everyone in the family. As technology and demand increased throughout the 90s, more and more were being bought. However this did bring about the issue about space and where to put the PCs. This was answered with the Laptop.

Now the first laptop actually came out in 1981, however they weren’t really commonly used due to their lack of performance compared to their PC counterpart. But in the early 90s, their popularity increased vastly as their usefulness improved. They were compact, graphically their improved vastly and can be taken anywhere. Their performance were still inferior to that of the PCs, however this drawback was answered with efficiency. As time passed by and technology improved, the Laptop became more popular than the PC and by 2007, the Netbook appeared on the market, which was a compact version of the Laptop.

As time went on, the Laptop eventually got bigger, some even ranging to a 17” screen, and in effect they were more common than the PC. So requests for a compact version appeared, and the Netbook was the answer. The Netbook is a laptop back without the disc drive and are typically less than 12” in screen size. This is when it became clear that PCs are being written out of the market. With Laptops becoming on par with PCs in terms of performance and overtaking it on convenience, there is little that the PC is useful for. Even doing things like video editing, which takes a lot of processing power, the Apple Macbook Pro is a fine tool for this and does it exceptionally well, where as the Mac Pro may do the job better, it is targeted more at a higher level in the industry, hence the Macbook Pro being the more popular computer.

Even gaming, with range of Alienware Laptops out there that all perform quite highly, it takes the opportunity to take gaming with you. Plus with console gaming taking over the market, there is little genres of games that remain exclusive on the PC, those only being Real Time Strategy and First Person Shoot.

With all of this advancement, I predict that very soon we will see the PC slowly disappear and become an antique.

Looking at: Google+

Right I’ve been putting this one off for a while but here it is, the Google+ “review”.

I say review but it’s gonna end up as a Facebook vs Google+ battle.

Right, Google+ as a website, is it good? It’s pretty good. The circle feature I quite like, a nice and easy way to organise your friend lists which gives the ability to only view new feeds from people in certain circles. Very useful. It has a stronger webcam chat feature than Facebook has plus you can have group convos with it. The fact that it’s integrated with Google mail and all the other attachments is quite useful, it kind of combines everything into one.

However, if you take away the integration with other Google products and the circles feature, it’s basically a carbon copy of Facebook. The news feed layout is exactly the same, you can put photos up (just like Facebook), you can chat to people (just like Facebook), and you can play games, just like Facebook! Even the circles feature is a copy of Facebook to an extent, now on Facebook you can arrange your friends into different groups.

Google+ on it’s own merits is a good social networking site, however because Facebook already exists and has over 750 million members world wide, I don’t think many people will transfer over to Google+, mainly because they are already on Facebook and all of their friends are on Facebook. Now some of you are probably saying “what about Twitter, that’s doing pretty well”, yes well Twitter is very different to Facebook, yes it has a news feed and you can put photos up, but it’s much more focused at making quick updates and a good tool for marketing events on a wider scale, something that Facebook was lacking. Hence why they were able to co-exist. Google+ aims to REPLACE Facebook, something that I think they are really gonna fail at.

Put it this is, Google+ just turned up to the party too late. By the time Google+ showed up, Facebook already got the attention of everyone and everyone is happy. Granted if Google+ came to the scene just as Facebook first got it’s angel investment, then yes, there would be more of a competition, but now is too late.

In my views, the only people that would actually use Google+ are people who just got into social networking (ie. the next generation of kids) or business to expand their marketing.