<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>MarylandFilms.com &#187; reviews</title>
	<atom:link href="http://marylandfilms.com/category/motion-picture/reviews/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://marylandfilms.com</link>
	<description>Photography &#38; Cinematography Blog for Maryland, DC, VA, WV, PA (Mid-Atlantic)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:42:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Doctor Who: Amy&#8217;s Choice</title>
		<link>http://marylandfilms.com/2010/06/doctor-who-amys-choice/</link>
		<comments>http://marylandfilms.com/2010/06/doctor-who-amys-choice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[other]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amy's choice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doctor who]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matt smith]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marylandfilms.com/?p=769</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Are any of you good folks Doctor Who fans? I&#8217;ve been enjoying Doctor Who for many years (we won&#8217;t say how many) and I&#8217;m glad BBC America (and sometimes the SyFy channel) bring Doctor Who to those of us on this side of the Atlantic. Since Doctor Who was brought back in 2005, we&#8217;ve been through 3 different faces of the Doctor with Christopher Eccleston in 2005, David Tennant from 2005-2010, and most recently Matt Smith.
If you&#8217;ve been watching the latest season, with Matt Smith, you may have been waiting for that one episode to &#8220;bring you back in&#8221; to the Doctor. For me, that episode was &#8220;Amy&#8217;s Choice&#8221;. I thought Amy&#8217;s Choice had some exceptionally good writing; very &#8220;Doctor Who&#8221; in style. Introducing the Dream Lord was a great way to get the Doctor to figure things out in his very own Doctor fashion (which is similar to Sherlock Holmes). I enjoyed the well-written humor, including ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://marylandfilms.com/2010/06/doctor-who-amys-choice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Best Quicktime Codec For Web-Streaming? (Part 2)</title>
		<link>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/best-quicktime-codec-for-web-streaming-part-2/</link>
		<comments>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/best-quicktime-codec-for-web-streaming-part-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:25:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Post Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/post-production/best-quicktime-codec-for-web-streaming-part-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you missed out on the first half of this discussion, check out the Best Quicktime Codec For Web-Streaming? (Part 1) article, posted last week, where I talked about the best quicktime codec for webstreaming and compared MP4 to both H.264 and DiVX.
You can export MP4 out of Quicktime Pro (or FCP, Compressor, Adobe Premiere, Avid, etc) &#8211; with usually the same results (unless I miss a setting). I don&#8217;t use the newer Sorenson or other codecs that aren&#8217;t a standard inside Quicktime 6 (see the first half of this post for more info there). The older sorenson codecs seem to be more widespread, but are not optimal. The newer stuff is more optimal, but not widespread. Either way, I don&#8217;t use Sorenson codecs. Btw, 3ivx, which seems to be faster at exporting, but also results in a much smaller file, costs $99.95 and has to be purchased separate of ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/best-quicktime-codec-for-web-streaming-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Best Quicktime Codec For Web-Streaming? (Part 1)</title>
		<link>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/best-codec-for-web-streaming/</link>
		<comments>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/best-codec-for-web-streaming/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:31:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[producer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/reviews/best-codec-for-web-streaming/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The best Quicktime codec I&#8217;ve found for both compression and general usage seems to be Quicktime&#8217;s MP4. Sure there are others, but MP4 has been supported since QT6 (released in 2002). As long as someone has a version of Quicktime newer than 5 years old (which most people do), they can watch your video.
H.264 is a really nice codec and it compresses better than MP4, but it takes a LOT of processor power to encode. It&#8217;ll make a dual 2.0Ghz G5 seem like it locked up. My old G5 would take several hours for one 3 minute clip. Luckily, the new 4-core and 8-core Intels can chew it up without any real issue, so if you have some power under your hood, you should be good to go.
Even more, for all the work, many viewers still don&#8217;t have QT7, which is needed to play H.264 files. It was released in ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/best-codec-for-web-streaming/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Several 3D Applications Compared (head to head)</title>
		<link>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/several-3d-applications-compared-head-to-head/</link>
		<comments>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/several-3d-applications-compared-head-to-head/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:29:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Post Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/post-production/several-3d-applications-compared-head-to-head/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I found a very good write-up (via Slashdot) that took the top 3D applications and compared them. This is one of the most comprehensive comparisons that I&#8217;ve found to date.
Of course, the top 3D apps are: Autodesk 3ds max 9 SP2, Autodesk Maya complete 8.5, Maxon Cinema4D R 10.1, Newtek Lightwave 9.2, Softimage XSI Foundation 6.2, and Blender 3D 2.45
For those that haven&#8217;t heard of Blender 3D, you are seriously missing out, as this is the best FREE 3D app you can get your hands on. Of course, you&#8217;ll have to read the article, because it explains the pros and cons of not only each 3D application, but of the individual places the 3D apps shine and need more improvement&#8230;
The article is titled &#8220;3D applications 2007 comparisons table.&#8221;
  Convert this post to pdf]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/10/several-3d-applications-compared-head-to-head/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thinking About The iPhone? You Should Definitely Take A Look.</title>
		<link>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/07/thinking-about-the-iphone-you-should-definitely-take-a-look/</link>
		<comments>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/07/thinking-about-the-iphone-you-should-definitely-take-a-look/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[other]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marylandfilms.com/2007/07/other/thinking-about-the-iphone-you-should-definitely-take-a-look/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Okay, here&#8217;s the deal. If you haven&#8217;t looked at the iPhone yet, go do so. Even if it&#8217;s just a look.
With a base price of $499, it&#8217;s definitely expensive, but with the gadgetry, it may be worth it for you. You can talk on the phone, text, email, visit websites, look at maps (and google earth), watch youtube, listen to podcasts, watch movies, and listen to your mp3 collection, and so much more &#8211; all from one device.
So why is it important to you, the video professional? For starters, film makers are putting their films and demo reels on their iPhones and are able to show them to clients whenever the need arises. You don&#8217;t need to carry around a laptop or portable DVD player (although most portable DVD players have bigger screens) anymore. If during the conversation, the client talks about a funny YouTube clip, you can easily find ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/07/thinking-about-the-iphone-you-should-definitely-take-a-look/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Carbon Fiber Rods Tough Enough For Film Work? Heck Yeah!</title>
		<link>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/07/carbon-fiber-rods-tough-enough-for-film-work-heck-yeah/</link>
		<comments>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/07/carbon-fiber-rods-tough-enough-for-film-work-heck-yeah/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:07:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marylandfilms.com/2007/07/production/carbon-fiber-rods-tough-enough-for-film-work-heck-yeah/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The news yesterday morning had something that really intrigued me; the new Boeing 787 was shown yesterday to a lot of hoopla.
It didn&#8217;t catch my attention so much because it was Boeing&#8217;s newest airplane in 10 years, but because this one was made almost entirely of plastic composites (on the news, they described it as &#8220;plastic composites&#8221; &#8211; but they probably should have said &#8220;carbon fiber reinforced plastic composites&#8220;). They said that the lighter weight composites will help it save on fuel consumption, add strength, etc., etc.
I know they&#8217;ve been using carbon fiber for a while on airplanes with wings and such, but the truth is that plastic &#8211; namely carbon fiber has become so durable and strong that it can support all the duties of a massive jumbo jet&#8217;s fuselage! Okay, why talk about a jumbo jet on a film news site? I&#8217;m glad you asked. 
My 15mm rods ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://marylandfilms.com/2007/07/carbon-fiber-rods-tough-enough-for-film-work-heck-yeah/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

