Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…

  • Geotagging in Windows Live Photo Gallery–Part 2

    Last month, I wrote about my findings on the experience in using the Beta of Windows Live Photo Gallery to geotag my photos. I wasn’t too impressed with the experience.

    This week, a second beta of WLPG was released by Microsoft so I’ve been revisiting the experience of geotagging.

    And today, it’s been borne in upon me just what a disaster geotagging in WLPG has proved to be.

    You see, I made an assumption. That was that WLPG would not alter any metadata in a photo without my explicit permission and knowledge. Wrong

    I was naive enough to think that WLPG would only write out GPS coordinates to the Exif metadata in a photo when I explicitly added a Geotag using WLPG. Wrong

    I realised that WLPG was reading in IPTC Core Location metadata from my photos and using that to create a geotag in WLPG’s internal database. I also realised that it was copying the metadata into the “Location Created” section of the newly specified IPTC Extension metadata. Since these are a set of text fields that reflect what already existed in the original IPTC Core Location fields, that didn’t bother me unduly.

    What I hadn’t also appreciated is that WLPG not only constructs a geotag in its internal database and creates Location Created metadata in the IPTC Extension section, but that it then proceeds to write out a set of GPS coordinates into the photo’s Exif metadata of where it thinks that the photo was taken.

    This is an unmitigated disaster!

    As I said last month, WLPG makes false assumptions about what the GPS coordinates are. If it doesn’t recognise the contents of the Sublocation field, it uses a GPS position derived from the contents of the City field. If it doesn’t recognise the contents of the City field, it uses a GPS position derived from the contents of the State field, and if it doesn’t recognise the contents of the State field, it uses a GPS position derived from the Country field.

    I have a collection of over 40,000 photos. The majority of these have IPTC Core Location metadata that I have catalogued over time. Only a very small percentage of these had GPS coordinates that I had carefully added myself.

    Now, WLPG has gone through my collection reading the Location metadata and has written out GPS coordinates to all of the photos containing Location metadata. And, of course, in a lot of cases, it doesn’t recognise the terms I’ve used for a particular location field, so it’s plucked a GPS value out that bears no relation to where the photo was taken.

    Worse still, I now have lost the needles of those photos which have accurate GPS positions in a haystack of huge proportions, which consists of photos with false GPS positions.

    Aargghh!

    Update 23 August 2010

    1. I’ve now looked at a backup of my photo collection taken on the 1st June 2010 (i.e. before the WLPG beta was installed). No photos had false GPS values inserted in the Exif at that time. Therefore I conclude that WLPG is the culprit.
    2. Contrary to what I first thought, not all photos with IPTC Location metadata get GPS values inserted into them by WLPG – there may be a pattern, but it’s not obvious to me why some files are hit, but not others.
    3. However, even though all files are not affected, I have still found over 7,000 photos with GPS values, and of these, only 2,359 of these photos have genuine GPS values that I have explicitly inserted. The rest have GPS values inserted by WLPG itself and which are also inaccurate (false).
    4. Some false values come from WLPG ignoring a sublocation, and inserting a central GPS value for the City.
    5. Some false values come from WLPG misinterpreting a sublocation and inserting a completely wrong GPS value for another location altogether; e.g. Sublocation: Voortman Bos, City: Heelweg gets interpreted as Voortmanweg in Deventer, 37 kilometres away…
    6. Some false values make no sense whatever; e.g. some photos I have of St. Pancras station in London have a GPS value assigned to them of Cuxham, a very small village in Oxfordshire…

    All together now: Aaaarrrggghhh!!!

    Update 8 September 2010

    I posted about this issue on the WLPG Help Forum. Now, Analy Otero, who works in the WLPG team, has posted a response  to confirm that WLPG does indeed write out what it thinks are correct GPS coordinates to image files based on the content of the IPTC Location fields. As she says:

    “The behavior you’re experiencing is the design of the feature and we’re working to improve both reliability of the process (to ensure all photos get proper geotags) and to improve the accuracy of the places.”

    Unfortunately, I don’t believe that Microsoft can ever sufficiently improve both the reliability of the process and improve the accuracy of the places to the extent where I can trust that accurate GPS information will be included in my images. My experience thus far has been an eye-opener of just how bad it currently is. I see that in the current release notes, Microsoft themselves say:

    “Landmarks (such as the Eiffel Tower) are not supported in the current implementation of geotagging”.

    The problem is that the textual IPTC sub-location field, in particular, will always be down to what the user decides, e.g. “the stern of HMS Ark Royal in dry dock”. I’d like to see Microsoft be able to give an accurate GPS for that. Of course, they can’t, and so the chances that rubbish GPS coordinates will be introduced by WLPG into an image remain very high.

    A further twist is that, apparently, once WLPG has introduced a GPS value (false or accurate) into a file, it can’t ever be subsequently changed by WLPG. Elsewhere in the release notes it states:

    If a photo or video contains no GPS data, coordinates will be added when the item is geotagged. However, updating or deleting a geotag string won’t modify the GPS coordinates. Any additional updates to the geotag field don’t change the original coordinates written to the file. (my emphasis)

    It seems to me that the way to cut this Gordian knot is for Microsoft to give us a proper mapping interface in WLPG itself (such as Picasa, IDimager, or Geosetter do) so that we can check locations prior to allowing GPS coordinates being written, and to use the map to modify or delete GPS coordinates. That is, writing of GPS coordinates is under the explicit control of the user, instead of something that WLPG does by itself in the background as a write-only operation.

    The current implementation of WLPG writing out what it thinks the GPS coordinates should be is dreadful and appalling. I simply cannot afford to have WLPG installed on my PCs as it is. It has already introduced garbage information into thousands of my images.

    Update 30 September 2010: Well, the final version of WLPG 2011 is now released, and as far as I can see it is still screwing up my GPS metadata.

    I’ve just found some photos taken this month in the Netherlands which now have GPS info for Wimereux in France inserted into them by the final release of WLPG.

    I am definitely not impressed.

    Update 2 December 2010

    There’s an update to WLPG 2011 that addresses the geotagging issue. See here for more information.

    3 responses to “Geotagging in Windows Live Photo Gallery–Part 2”

    1. […] photographer who uses IPTC metadata to record information about where your photos were taken, then WLPG 2011 will write false GPS data into your photos without telling you that it is doing […]

    2. […] members to edit photos, since the original files get preserved. It’s a major step forwards from the geotag disaster that hit me back in August. My thanks to the WLPG team for their work in addressing the […]

    3. […] of you may recall that, when it was first released in 2010, Windows Live Photo Gallery had a major problem with geotags.  It was writing out GPS coordinate data into photos that was often completely wrong. […]

    Leave a comment

  • Carpe Diem

    We had a telephone call last night that underlined the importance of carpe diem – seizing the day and living life while you can. The daughter of a friend of ours rang to give us the news that Maaike had died of a heart attack while on holiday visiting relatives in Portugal. She was only 52. She and her family visited us just over five weeks ago. She was full of life then, and now she’s gone. She is missed.

    Leave a comment

  • A Message That’s Missing A Word

    Someone with more time on his hands than sense decided to use a GPS logger to spell out the message “Read Ayn Rand” in letters that cover the whole of the USA. As someone else comments on the story, we just need someone with more sense to spell out the word “Don’t” in Canada.

    My favourite quote about Rand is the one coined by John Rogers:

    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”

    Leave a comment

  • Murphy’s Law

    Last Thursday night was the peak of the annual Perseid meteor shower. The sky was reasonably clear, so I stayed out for about ninety minutes at around midnight. I saw a number of Perseids, but nowhere near the 60 per hour that had been forecast. I did see an Iridium flare, which was rather satisfying.

    I was also trying to photograph the meteors. This involved having the camera on a tripod, pointing the camera at the sky and taking a succession of 30 second exposures. By Murphy’s Law, the camera was never pointing at a part of the sky where a meteor happened to appear during an exposure…

    Not everyone was as unlucky. Here’s a great shot from reway2007:

    13 - August - 2010 -- Shooting Star

    Leave a comment

  • A Day Out

    Yesterday I left Martin in charge of the dogs while I travelled to Rotterdam for a day out with a couple of old colleagues. I arrived at midday, and the original plan was to stroll from Central Station down to the Veerhaven, catch a water taxi there and cross the Maas river to the Hotel New York for lunch.

    Alas, we had hardly started walking when the heavens opened, and what can only be described as a tropical downpour commenced. As a result, we abandoned that plan, and took shelter in the museum Boijmans van Beuningen instead. We had intended visiting it after lunch anyway, so we thought that we would switch to having lunch in the museum. It has a roomy restaurant overlooking a park, thus plan B was looking good.

    We should have been alerted to the fact that yesterday was Friday the thirteenth by the downpour…

    We bought our museum tickets, and announced to the cashier that we would go straight to the restaurant first for lunch before strolling around the exhibits. “Ah”, she said, “sorry, but the restaurant is closed for renovation; only the coffee bar is open”. She pointed to the coffee bar next to the museum entrance and our hearts sank. The coffee bar was small, crowded, and with very little in the way of choice of food. Still, we decided to have coffee while we ruminated on the date.

    We enjoyed the Notion Motion installation by Olafur Eliasson. A very effective visual experience using very simple means. I was personally less impressed by the work of Thomas Demand, although I can appreciate the work that went into constructing it.

    One thing that we all wanted to see was the exhibition of the work of Han van Meegeren, who became (in)famous in the 1940s as the man who faked Vermeers. It’s definitely an exhibition worth seeing. It captures the scandal that rocked the art world very well. The museum itself was at the centre of the storm, since, in 1937, the ambitious director of the museum, Dirk Hannema, wanted to purchase The Supper at Emmaus by Vermeer which had just been discovered. Of course, this was actually a forgery by van Meegeren. Hannema managed to raise 520,000 guilders – a huge amount for the time – and purchased the painting. Ironically, one of the first things that the museum did was to have the painting restored. Ironic, since it wasn’t a 17th Century painting, but something that had been painted the year before on a 17th Century canvas.

    The thing that struck me, looking at these paintings, was how bad they are. I know I’m no expert, but I would never have said that these were genuine Vermeers in a million years. And yet, the art historians at the time, notably one Dr. Abraham Bredius, fell over themselves in praise. There’s a book in the exhibition, a compendium of great works of art with texts by prominent art critics. It is open at the page depicting The Supper at Emmaus, and the text is by Bredius. It is no exaggeration to say that Bredius is fulsome in his praise, embarrassingly so. It is hard to read it today without bursting into laughter mixed with pity at poor Bredius’ total misjudgement.

    Was this a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes syndrome or mass hysteria? Clearly, someone must have planted the idea that these were genuine Vermeers at the start. Was he mistaken, or was he in on the game? Whoever it was, I don’t think it was Bredius, as he seems to have been a target of van Meegeren. But Bredius certainly fell for the forgeries; hook, line, and sinker.

    The video of the story on the museum’s page is worth watching, and the English Wikipedia entry is definitely worth reading for the full sordid story of greed on all sides. Strangely, the Dutch Wikipedia entry is less revealing… Perhaps the Dutch are still embarrassed by the affair, or they don’t want to view van Meegeren as anything other than a hero, when in fact he was a criminal and a Nazi sympathiser.

    After the museum, we strolled down to the Oude Haven, passing the Erasmus Bridge, and there, in the shadow of the Kubuswoningen, finished off our jaunt with a few beers and bitterballen.

    20100813-1506-26 Stitch

    20100813-1525-52 Stitch

    20100813-1530-02

    20100813-1525-52

    Leave a comment

  • An Unmitigated Disaster?

    Apparently, there may be a further beta of Wave 4 of the Windows Live Essentials suite released next week. I’m beginning not to care any more, since Microsoft appear to have damaged the brand with what has already been released.

    Today, for example, I went to my Windows Live Home page (if you have a Windows Live ID, you’ll find yours at http://home.live.com ). Since I last visited it, Microsoft have done a redesign, and in keeping with what they’ve done with the rest of Wave 4, functions have been mysteriously airbrushed out of the picture.

    I used to be able to see upcoming events in my Calendar, my local weather, and if I had private message in my Windows Live messaging inbox. That has all gone. The red outline in the following screenshot shows where they used to be…

    Windows Live Home 1

    I spent a long while trying to find out where my Windows Live Message inbox and sent messages have gone. I eventually discovered that the only way to access the system was to fake a message by clicking on the “Send a private message” button in my Windows Live Space (see below).

    Windows Live Home 2

    This then gave me a error (since I was trying to send a message to myself), but it also gave me links to my inbox and my sent messages folder.

    Windows Live Home 3

    This is appalling user interface design, and a real step backwards. Microsoft should be ashamed of this crap.

    Update: since posting this, Microsoft have announced that they are pulling the plug on Windows Live Spaces, so I can’t now use the workaround shown above to get to my messages. The only way I’ve found to get there is to type in the URL into my browser directly. Hardly intuitive, and error-prone to boot.

    Leave a comment

  • Sherlock – A Triumph

    After last week’s dog’s dinner, last night’s final episode of Sherlock was a triumph in every way. Razor-sharp writing from Mark Gatiss and terrific performances from the cast. And typical of Gatiss’ audacity to leave us with a cliffhanger ending in the form of a standoff between Holmes and Moriarty.

    As written by Gatiss and Moffat, Moriarty is the evil twin of Holmes – anti-matter and matter, with the very real danger of an annihilating explosion in the final moments of the episode when they meet face to face.

    In a nice touch, Gatiss sprinkled references to the original Conan Doyle stories throughout the episode. And yes, the plot required suspension of disbelief a number of times – for example, I know the night sky over London is not deep black and filled with stars, more a yellow sodium glare with occasional appearances by the moon – but it didn’t matter. The energy of the production propelled the whole thing along with great verve and excitement. I can’t wait for the next series – and to see how Gatiss resolves the final standoff.

    Leave a comment

  • A Monstrous Carbuncle

    I see that BBC Four have set aside two hours tonight to transmit a twopart televisual biography of Bruce Chatwin, done by Nicholas Shakespeare. This should be worth watching. Shakespeare wrote what must surely be the definitive biography of Bruce Chatwin, who, it must be said, was something of a monster.

    I thought Shakespeare’s biography of Chatwin was masterful and said so:

    I recently purchased this biography of Bruce Chatwin written by Nicholas Shakespeare. I probably did it to confirm my own prejudices (the sneaking suspicion that Chatwin was ‘not a nice man’) and on that level it delivered in spades. Shakespeare gives a magnificent warts-and-all portrait. Chatwin’s friends and his apparently long-suffering wife could obviously see beyond the warts – all I saw was a monstrous egotistical carbuncle called Bruce Chatwin. I am pleased to have made his acquaintance via this biography; I would never have wanted to meet him in real life. I would have viewed him as a black hole – always taking, never giving.

    I am very much looking forward to seeing Shakespeare’s TV program tonight – all the more so because some of the real people that Chatwin interacted with are going to be featured. I am curious to hear what they have to say.

    Leave a comment

  • Polygyny Is Bad For You

    Tom Rees, over at Epiphenom, draws our attention to some fascinating research:

    Polygamy is pretty popular. Most pre-industrial societies were polygamous in some way, and there are increasing pressures in the west for polygamy to be legalised. After all, it’s surely just a matter of personal freedom of expression. If homosexuality and other forms of sexual expression are legal, then why not polygamy. Polygamy never hurt anyone, right?

    Well flat wrong, actually, if the evidence presented by Joe Heinrich, at the University of British Columbia, is anything to go by.

    Rees’ blog entry is worth reading, as is Heinrich’s brief to the Canadian Court.

    Leave a comment

  • Through A Glass, Darkly

    A web site that I often visit is Golden Age Comic Book Stories. The curator (Mr. Door Tree) often amazes me with visual treasures from comic book art and book illustrations. Today, I see that he has another serving of the seemingly inexhaustible, and brilliant, illustrations from N. C. Wyeth. However, there is also an entry showing the work of an artist called Blom. He is new to me. This is, as it turns out, Gerald Blom, and his images. made me want to find out more.

    I found his web site, and almost immediately found an image of Peter Pan that is closer to the darkness of J. M. Barrie’s novel than Disney’s saccharine cuteness could ever be. I remember seeing the National Theatre’s production of Peter Pan in 1999 that, for the first time, brought home to me how dark the tale is. I sat shaking in my seat at the final moments. Barrie’s tale had a similar effect on Blom:

    Here is a quote from the original Peter Pan:    “The boys on the island vary, of course, in numbers, according as they get killed and so on; and when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins them out; but at this time there were six of them, counting the twins as two.”

    Thins them out? Huh? What does that mean? Does Peter kill them, like culling a herd? Does he send them away somewhere? If so, where? Or does Peter just put them in such peril that the crop is in need of constant replenishing?

    That one paragraph forever changed my perception of Peter Pan from that of a high-spirited rascal to something far more sinister. “Thins them out,” the words kept repeating in my head. How many children had Peter stolen, how many had died, how many had been thinned out? Peter himself said, “To die will be an awfully big adventure.”

    The Child Thief, indeed.

    Leave a comment

  • Science Fiction – Double Feature

    A wonderfully evocative tribute using a song from Rocky Horror. Ah, it brings back memories…

    Leave a comment

  • Hitchens: No Deathbed Conversion

    And in yet another post on Christopher Hitchens, here’s an interview with him. The lion still has a roar, but not for much longer, I fear. He is deep into the land of malady. Nevertheless, it’s good to hear direct from his lips that any future rumours of deathbed conversions should be treated with the contempt that they deserve.

    Hat tip to Jerry Coyne, over at Why Evolution Is True.

    Leave a comment

  • RIP, Tony Judt

    Tony Judt has died. I have read very little of his work, but what little I have, makes me think that I should seek out more. Sample:

    “History can show you that it was one pile of bad stuff after another,” he once declared. “It can also show you that there’s been tremendous progress in knowledge, behaviour, laws, civilisation. It cannot show you that there was a meaning behind it.
    “And if you can’t find a meaning behind history, what would be the meaning of any single life? I was born accidentally. I lived accidentally in London. We nearly migrated to New Zealand. So much of my life has been a product of chance, I can’t see a meaning in it at all.”

    So it goes. And that can, accidentally, add up to a great deal.

    P.S. here’s a video of Judt talking about the appalling disease that killed him

    Leave a comment

  • How Do Atheists Face Death?

    Yesterday, I mentioned the article by Christopher Hitchens about his entry into the land of malady. It’s an article that has been picked up by many people in the blogosphere, including PZ Myers, over at Pharyngula. But what caught my eye was the comment made by “Cuttlefish” on that entry concerning how atheists face death. It’s a short, but beautifully written, statement about the subject. A taste, but do go and read it in its entirety:

    How does an atheist face death? By facing it, not by denying or diminishing it. Not by turning it into a transition to some other reality. Not by making up a story to make themselves feel better. It hurts because it’s real, it’s permanent, it’s the end. It should hurt.

    And now he lives on only in our memory, and in our changed lives. That is his legacy; that is the good he continues to do. He’s not looking down and guiding; he doesn’t wait for us to join him. If we love him, we can do our best to fight for his causes, to continue his work.

    In the real world. The only one we have.

    Amen.

    One response to “How Do Atheists Face Death?”

    Leave a comment

  • Engaging the Enemy

    Christopher Hitchens writes like an angel as he describes his entry into the land of malady. Sobering stuff.

    One response to “Engaging the Enemy”

    1. […] Wand" Skip to content HomeAboutGardensWedding AlbumWines I Have Known ← Engaging the Enemy RIP, Tony Judt […]

    Leave a comment

  • Begging The Question

    The Guardian’s Comment is Free section runs a feature called “The Question” Each week a question is posed and a series of writers offer their thoughts (usually both pro and con) on it. This week, the question is: Can we choose what we believe? Or, to put it another way: How do you believe the things you do, and are they things you can change?

    Julian Baggini gets things off to a good start, but as is so often in CiF, we lurch from the sublime to the ridiculous with the next response from Usama Hasan. His opening sentence is a perfect illustration of the begging the question fallacy:

    God exists, obviously.

    Erm, no, it ain’t obvious. His piece pretty much goes downhill from there. As Baggini concludes in his piece:

    The capacity to make free choices is not something we either have entirely or not at all. Rather, choices become freer the more they are the result of our own capacity to reflect on and assess facts and arguments. Beliefs based on ignorance or whim are thus less freely chosen than those held in full knowledge and on reflection. So to take one of the biggest belief choices of all, we do not choose to believe in God or not, but we can choose how much we attend to inconvenient facts, distorting self-motivations, and the rationality of arguments. In that sense, we are responsible for what we freely believe.

    There’s been a number of items recently on whether free will is itself an illusion or not. For example, the philosopher Dr. Galen Strawson had a good article in the New York Times recently. His position is that free will is definitely an illusion. Bradley Voytek, over at his Oscillatory Thoughts blog, has some comments to counter the argument. And Jerry Coyne had an item on his Why Evolution Is True blog outlining the surprising results of an experiment to test “free will”. As Coyne writes:

    Here’s the surprising result: the brain activity that predicted which button would be pressed began a full seven seconds before the subject was conscious of his decision to press the left or right button. The authors note, too, that there is a delay of three seconds before the MRI records neural activity since the machine detects blood oxygenation.  Taking this into account, neuronal activity predicting which button would be pressed began about ten seconds before a conscious decision was made.

    Food for thought, and a good deal more interesting than “God exists, obviously”.

    Leave a comment

  • The iPad is Not a PC

    Peter Bright has a very good article in Ars Technica on why Steve Ballmer and Microsoft still don’t understand why the iPad has been so successful. After all, Microsoft’s partners have been trying to sell Tablet PCs running Microsoft operating systems for years, but the number of sales have been like a drop in the ocean compared to the dominance of traditional PCs. On the other hand, sales of the iPad in its first three months of availability have already outstripped total sales of Tablet PCs for the whole of last year.

    Bright’s argument – and I think he has got it spot-on – is that the Windows operating system with its multiple miniature icons used for control is just not suitable for the human finger. I have a Tablet PC myself – the now obsolete HP TX2000. It came installed with Windows Vista, but I have replaced that with Windows 7. And although some of the touch aspects of Windows 7 are good – the handwriting recognition is almost frighteningly good – for the most part I find myself using the keyboard and trackpad in place of the touchscreen. When I do use the touchscreen, it is usually with the stylus – I very rarely just use my finger, for the very reasons that Bright points out.

    It’s odd that Ballmer appears to be insisting that Tablet and Slates are just another PC form factor – they are not, and they need something other than simply loading them up with bog-standard Windows 7. A way forward may be to adopt the approach of the forthcoming Windows Phone user interface, which is designed from the ground up to be driven by the human finger. After all, the iPad owes more to its roots in the iPhone than it does to the traditional Mac. If Ballmer can’t see that as an analogy for the next generation of Tablets and Slates, then it seems likely that sales will continue to languish.

    2 responses to “The iPad is Not a PC”

    1. […] the demo really drives home the point that a Windows Tablet just isn’t designed for fingers. If Microsoft still haven’t grasped that fundamental point, and continue to insist that Windows Tab…, in their current form, can compete against Android and iPad tablets, then they will fail […]

    2. […] a year ago, I blogged about Peter Bright’s article in Ars Technica on why Steve Ballmer and Microsoft didn’t understand on why Apple’s iPad has […]

    Leave a comment

  • Sherlock, Shit, No…

    My way of saying that I was rather disappointed in last night’s episode of Sherlock. While the first episode was a real cracker, I thought that, by comparison, last night’s was a bit of a mess. Cumberbatch and Freeman were still very good, but the standard of the writing (this week by Stephen Thompson) was nowhere near as sharp or as deep as last week’s opener by Steven Moffat.

    There were some flashes of brilliance, though, so it wasn’t all bad; but they were just that: flashes. I liked the scene between the mortuary assistant and Sherlock; that really did build on last week’s business between the two, with Sherlock beginning to understand the power of compliments in social interactions, even if he was using it shamelessly to gain access to a particular body in the mortuary.

    And there were some nice visual touches, the use of tilt-shift focus in some of the shots of London to make it look like a model of the city instead of the real thing.

    But overall, a bit of a disappointment, I’m sorry to say. I see that Sam Wollaston, the Guardian’s TV critic, thought that last night’s episode was even better than the first, so I suppose it’s all just a matter of personal opinion. However, as Mark Kermode would say: I’m right and he’s wrong

    Leave a comment

  • Aisha

    Photographer Jodi Bieber talks about the experience of photographing Aisha – a young woman disfigured by men in the Taliban. What I found the most affecting statement was Bieber’s wish not to make Aisha a victim. I would say that she has succeeded. Aisha stares out at us, to challenge us, and ask how can we sit back and let this happen?

    http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/42806370001?isVid=1

    Leave a comment

  • This Too Shall Pass

    An amazing video done in one take…
    http://www.youtube.com/v/qybUFnY7Y8w&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
    I wonder how many attempts they had before it all worked? – Thanks to this, I’ve answered my own question: it took 85 takes before everything worked together.

    Leave a comment