View Comments Following the explosion and fire in the East Village, the off-Broadway production of Stomp has canceled the March 26 performance. The long-running show performs at the Orpheum Theatre, which sits across the street from the site of the collapse on 2nd Avenue.Stomp is an energetic revue in which matchboxes, brooms, garbage cans and more are transformed into percussion instruments. The daily objects weave together a performance featuring dance, music and improvisation.The cast of Stomp currently features Jesse Armerding, Alan Asuncion, Marivaldo dos Santos, Dustin Elsea, Fritzlyn Hector, Brad Holland, Aaron Marcellus, Jason Mills, Manny Osoria, Krystal Renée, Indigo Smith and Carlos Thomas.
After shockingly few people had purchased tickets to next week’s Raiders “home game” in Winnipeg next week, there’s finally been a rash of sales for the preseason game against the Packers.And we sense it had nothing to do with both the Raiders and Green Bay notching impressive victories in their openers last week. More likely it’s because the promoter slashed prices in half for many seats for the game at IG Field, according to CBC.ca.The exorbitant prices — some prime seats cost nearly $450 …
(Visited 24 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Worries and debates emerge from supporters of human-caused global warming – not just skeptics. How does this resemble the creation-evolution debate?Disclaimer: This is not an entry about whether human-caused global warming is true or not, since the issue is off-topic for this site. Instead, it takes a look at how “scientific consensus” is manufactured and publicized in the climate debate. Something as complex as a global phenomenon is a good test case in philosophy of science. The global warming debate has some similarities with evolutionism (hear discussion on ID the Future podcast). It is overlain with huge political and economic ramifications, fraught with large uncertainties and contradictions, and maintained as scientific fact by the consensus yet fiercely criticized by a relentless group of skeptics. Both show a rough fit with political views: the liberals tend to advocate evolution and global warming, but the conservatives tend to be skeptical of both. Both issues have extremists calling the other extreme crazy. Here, we will look at a few news reports from inside the consensus that reveal a strange mix of dogmatic certainty and empirical worries – another trait characteristic of the evolutionary consensus.The official word: The IPCC issued its latest report on climate change in late September, but it didn’t seem to change the political climate. Supporters still support the IPCC, and skeptics still criticize it. Various reactions appeared in the press: Live Science asserted in an Op-Ed piece, “With IPCC report, climate change is settled science.” Two authors appearing on PhysOrg asked a very different question: “Is it time to ditch the climate ‘bible’?” They see the IPCC monstrosity in need of reforms and a break-up. The IPCC authors claim they are 95% certain that humans are causing global warming, but how can such a subjective judgment be quantified without bias? It really should hinge on the strength of the evidence itself, not the feelings of leaders of an organization whose jobs arguably depend on keeping the previous conclusions intact. (Imagine the horror if they concluded, “Our previous conclusions were all wrong; humans are innocent. There is no irreversible warming trend. We can all stop worrying and go home now.”) News of the IPCC report seemed less momentous this time – perhaps because of the IPCC’s history of scandal and the lack of cooperation by many governments to submit themselves to draconian carbon limits.Appeals to evidence: In a PNAS Commentary, Gerald R. North wrote about “More evidence for anthropogenic influence on climate change.” He dissected a study by Santer et al. who estimated air temperatures at three layers during the satellite era. (This citation can be considered a within-consensus example of how observations are gathered and interpreted as evidence.) North’s conclusion that Santer’s group provided empirical evidence was moderated by acknowledgement of the complexities involved:The dynamics of climate in the Arctic are very complex, and our present climate models may need significant adjustments in both the large-scale atmospheric dynamics and the air sea/sea ice, and of course the old nemesis: clouds. This last notwithstanding, the recent studies of Santer et al. show that there is a statistically significant anthropogenic signal that can be detected in the system over the last several decades. Of course, all statistical studies are dependent on a statistical-model construct or framework, but this one seems rather well tested and has been exposed to public scrutiny over several decades. The study by Santer et al. in PNAS joins the many other independent ones that have recently accumulated, all pointing to the significant role of human influences on climate change.In short, the article is all about North’s personal feelings. The complexities and uncertainties “notwithstanding” (showing his value judgment on what evidence to keep and what to throw out), North believes Santer’s statistical model construct or framework “seems rather well tested” – another value judgment. Should a public worried about economic costs just trust North’s feelings, or hear another side? Where is the other side in PNAS? It’s not there. We might compare this offer of evidence with studies alleging support for Darwinian evolution, such as claiming to find a signature of natural selection among lizards on Caribbean islands. An evolutionist might appeal to “many other independent” studies “all pointing” to the consensus view (an example of a glittering generality statement), supporting the grander position that humans evolved from bacteria. Who would have the time to inquire into the reliability of all the other studies, even if they were listed?Untestable models: “Without plants, earth would cook under billions of tons of additional carbon,” Science Daily said, based on a study at Princeton on the effectiveness of plants as carbon sinks. That may help us all appreciate plants more, but how could such a statement be tested? We can’t strip all the greenery off the planet to see what happens. Even if studies show significance in local areas (such as deforested areas), how can one extrapolate the findings to the globe, without knowing all the feedbacks and compensating factors? And isn’t global carbon roughly a constant? Again, the conclusions were based on models – but models are simulations of reality, not reality itself, which is often much more complex than any model humans can devise. It would seem the headline accomplishes in emotion what it fails to achieve in evidence.Causes or correlations? Are moose deaths in northern American forests tied to global warming? New Scientist teased with that puzzle. Like an article on PhysOrg about microbes under the seafloor, many studies offered as evidence for global warming seem very difficult to prove. Another PhysOrg article shows strong debate about whether global warming is increasing wildfires, but ends with a UN climate chief using scare tactics to argue we’re running out of time to take drastic action. Matt McGrath noted on the BBC News that this lady, Christiana Figueres shed tears over how lack of action is condemning future generations, calling government inaction “completely unfair and immoral.” Emotional outbursts are no substitute for convincing evidence. Would it dry her tears to read a new report in Geology about carbon dioxide emissions from undersea volcanoes? It says, “Thus, the contribution to the carbon cycle on Earth of the large amounts of CO2 that have been emitted from the deep-sea floor by petit-spot volcanism has not previously been recognized.” Maybe she should vent her emotion on volcanoes instead of humans.Shifting evidence: “Cows’ carbon hoofprint is smaller than thought” reads a headline on PhysOrg. This is but one example of evolving weights given to factors affecting climate models. It wasn’t long ago that cow methane emissions (essentially, cow farts) were viewed as a major factor affecting the climate. Recall another uncertainty, too: Gerald North’s reference to “that old nemesis: clouds.” Cloud effects on climate are very difficult to incorporate into models, but must certainly account for a lot.The uncooperative pause: There’s trouble in the consensus camp. Everyone acknowledges that global temperatures hit a plateau around 1998, and have not shown a warming trend for about 15 years now. In addition, warming over the last 50 years has been lower than current models predict. What does it mean? Is it a temporary hiatus (a “speed bump” on the way to a warmer world) or a falsification of the consensus view? PhysOrg acknowledged that the pause has occasioned thought for alarmists and skeptics, but gave pride of place to supporters of global warming, who criticize the “denialists” of using the data for political motives. On September 19, Nature News sought to explain “The cause of the pause” as a normal decade-long oscillation within a long-term warming trend. The BBC News, on the other hand, noted that skeptics are using the pause as support for their view. In another BBC News article, Matt McGrath noted serious errors the IPCC made in previous reports. He listed 5 key questions the IPCC needs to address to reinforce its credibility – number one being the 15-year pause.Information or manipulation: Believers in human-caused global warming are often so concerned about the future of the planet, they are frustrated at the skeptics who don’t see things their way. Like Science Daily says, “People don’t put a high value on climate protection,” even after more than a decade of information and warnings. How can consensus scientists convince them? One would hope they would present convincing evidence logically, considering criticisms fairly. Instead, some are thinking of ways to manipulate the other side, controlling the conversation in strategic ways that deflate the skepticism. Nature just favorably reviewed a book that was “strong on strategy” but light on evidence. Another example of strategizing appeared on Science Daily: “How Do We Talk About Climate Change? The Need for Strategic Conversations.” A look inside the short article reveals a bias toward winning the skeptics over to the warmist side. Given that the advice comes from the journal “Environmental Education Research,” the conclusions are predictable:Arguing for the need to focus on “solutions rather than on catastrophic consequences of climate change,” Wibeck suggests effective methods for moving forward with climate change communication, emphasising a need for strategic interaction between communicators and educators, arguing that it is necessary if the public role in challenging global climate change is going to increase.This is a form of the “nudge” strategy Cass Sunstein made famous. Don’t alarm or provoke your enemies; nudge them with gentle talk about solutions everyone can agree on (as long as “the public role in challenging global climate change is going to increase” in the end). Like “Evolution for Everyone” (11/01/2005), this is manipulation, not education. If a position is true, it ought to be able to withstand vigorous civil debate about the evidence.Forcing compliance: As with evolution, the government sometimes wants to mandate compliance with one position. It’s instructive that, worldwide, government investment in carbon reduction is lagging, according to PhysOrg, in spite of all the consensus warnings. But in the US, the Supreme Court will be hearing a case about whether the EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant – a role the unelected EPA has arrogated to itself, causing grief to businesses. Will they relent on news reported in Live Science that US carbon emissions have decreased by 3.8 percent? Critics note that humans breathe out this “pollutant” and plants use it to grow and produce food. Even so, the relative number of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere is so low, it could be compared to 4 seats in a 10,000-seat stadium (0.035%). On Mars, it would be 9,600 seats (96%), but Mars is freezing. In Current Biology, Michael Gross shows more of the anti-business, anti-growth mentality of the left by fighting fracking in terms of global warming, with the scare title, “Dash for gas leaves Earth to fry.” Scaring or nudging – neither is a substitute for convincing evidence.Let’s model the IPCC: Jeff Tollefson at Nature News discussed something different: an initiative by social scientists to analyze how the IPCC arrives at its conclusions. In a study reminiscent of the 1990-era social-constructivist investigations of science, a Princeton group wants to put the IPCC under a lens and study its processes of information manufacture. The social scientists become the experimenters, and the IPCC experts the lab rats. How ratty they behave remains to be seen, but the sociologists feel the public deserves to know what goes on inside the “black box” that formulates such sweeping conclusions. Transparency will be healthy, they believe; for instance, they want to know why the IPCC decides to ignore large chunks of data to focus attention on other factors. What goes into the sausage behind the kitchen doors before it is served? Most outsiders have no idea. “Clarifying the process might make the IPCC’s assessments seem a little less like magic — and a little more like sausage-making,” Tollefson ended. Yes, real science is often like sausage-making. The public deserves to read the label and give it a taste test.Who’s denying science? In old-fashioned warfare mode, Stephan Lewandowsky aimed his guns at the science “deniers” (a handy loaded word, conjuring up a holocaust denier or other undesirable image; see how some Darwinists use it on Evolution News & Views). Writing for The Conversation (posted also on PhysOrg), he said, “You’d be forgiven for thinking science is under attack.” His first example: “Climate science has been challenged by deniers and sceptics” – implying that denying human-caused global warming is the same as attacking science itself. A similar tactic is used by evolutionists who view anyone skeptical of Darwinism as a “science denier.” Lewandowsky briefly considered the possibility that political leftists can be science deniers, but his verdict came down on right-wingers allegedly because of their worldview bias. Using another tactic of lumping skepticism of evolution with “weird” beliefs (flat-earth, unicorns or whatever – the association fallacy), he ended by saying, “When worldviews and conspiracies determine people’s attitude towards science, it is perhaps unsurprising that simply providing more evidence isn’t enough to alert people to the risks they are facing—be it from smoking, HIV, or climate change.” His propaganda tactics apparently didn’t nudge anyone. The article was followed by dozens of hot-headed comments.You are welcome to argue whatever position on climate change you find best supported by the evidence, but we hope this look into an unrelated battle between supporters of a scientific consensus and its skeptics has been instructive on several levels: the manufacture of evidence and judgment of its validity, logical fallacies and propaganda tactics employed, political ramifications, educational strategies, the role of consensus (12/27/03), the sociology of science, and worldview effects on how issues are perceived. It should be clear that the origins debate is not the only issue with non-empirical baggage. Baggage is necessary, even unavoidable, but let’s leave as much unnecessary baggage behind as we can when evaluating evidence. Why did the vulture have to drop one of its dead squirrels when boarding the plane? It was only allowed one carrion. Let’s all carry on our scientific reasoning as logically and evidence-guided as possible.
The assumption of universal common ancestry can lead to absurd scientific reasoning.Humans have culture. Insects show cooperative behavior. Therefore, human culture evolved from insect behavior. Does that make sense? Can any scientist really compare those two things, and derive one from the other? They do it, but that doesn’t make it rational. Extrapolation is a logical fallacy, and so is the non-sequitur.Animal Behaviour: Conformity and the Beginnings of Culture in an Insect (Current Biology). After making excuses for studying the “evolution of culture” in fruit flies, (e.g., “it might be misguided to suspect that the learning mechanisms that support culture are inherently complex or difficult to evolve, or that these might exist only in our closest relatives“), these authors make some absurd statements that could never be proved. Here’s an example:Female flies, like many adolescent humans, seem to acquire their partner preferences from the majority choices that can be observed around them.Well, then, the writing of scientific papers was a behavior derived from fruit flies. The authors have to work themselves out of a trap, though. There’s no basis in animal evolution for things we do that should have been easy for natural selection to invent. Here comes a whopper of a just-so story:Why, then, are animal cultures not more common in the wild, especially the cumulative variety seen in humans, where new innovations build on previous ones? Why don’t flies build vehicles to travel over land, why do bees not construct walls around their territory to keep competitors away from their flower patches? The conventional way of answering such questions is that they do not have the required brain power. Behavioural experimental studies on multiple invertebrates, however, indicate that the basic problem-solving skills required, and the capacity to learn from observation, are present in a number of invertebrates. Many seemingly advanced cognitive capacities have recently been shown to be computationally trivial, and the required neural circuits could certainly be implemented in some of the smallest brains. So, the reason why culture, or cumulative culture, is so rarely seen in nature, might simply be that the conditions that favour its emergence are quite rare. It is easy to see how an animal might benefit, for example to cope with rapid man-made global change, if it were given the benefit of a fully-fledged cumulative culture tomorrow. But one would have to develop a scenario by which the first tiny steps in the direction of such a culture would already be beneficial and maintained in a population — and in such a manner that such variation could not be more beneficially just cemented into genes. A laboratory setting under which culture emerges in a free-flowing experiment (i.e. without significant experimenter intervention) is actually quite hard to conceive for any animal. Even if you gave insects all the tools and parts to build a bicycle, there would be little incentive for them to begin building anything in the right direction. Another potential answer to this question may lie with conformity itself. Conformist biases are a useful way to maintain traditions. However, if these biases are so strong that they result in discrimination against new phenotypes, whether brought about by mutation or individual innovation, such novelty may be discriminated against even if it could be of adaptive benefit. This would prevent the accumulation of improvements characteristic of cumulative culture.Nonetheless, fruit flies are an interesting choice of model for cultural processes due to the feasibility of selection experiments in relatively short time spans, and thus the potential of exploring interactions between cultural and genetic evolution. In addition, the expansive molecular-genetic toolkit that is available in Drosophila should make it possible to explore the neural mechanisms underpinning social learning, as well as the processes mediating evolutionary change under conditions in which certain forms of social learning and culture are selectively advantageous.If you endured that long quote without falling asleep, you saw nothing but extrapolation, assumption, waffling, rationalization, and storytelling (“develop a scenario” they call it). Nothing natural selection cannot handle!Human roars communicate upper-body strength more effectively than do screams or aggressive and distressed speech (PLoS One). Evolutionists were not sufficiently embarrassed last time they told a story about the evolution of screaming (2 July 2018). They did it again. While a scientist might be able to gather data on whether a man with a good roar has good upper-body strength, what does that have to do with the price of natural selection in China?In competitive contests, evolutionary selection processes favour vocal communication of resource holding potential to settle disputes without engaging in potentially costly combat. For example, many terrestrial mammalian species, including giant pandas, sea lions, fallow and red deer, and domestic dogs use acoustic cues to body size or dominance rank in aggressive vocalizations to mediate agonistic interactions, particularly during male-male competition.Among humans, the nonverbal components of speech also allow listeners to assess body size from the voice, including height and weight…How stupid can Darwine-drunk scientists get? Ask Cyrano de Bergerac if he had better success winning his love by roaring or by serenading. To evolutionists, they justify such absurdity because of their belief that humans are mere animals. If dogs howl and sea lions say “Ork! ork!” to each other, then humans must have gained this ability because of the Stuff Happens Law, too. This is the fallacy of extrapolation: thinking that humans are nothing but evolved pandas, and so animal behavior can be extrapolated into human behavior. The illustration above says it all. Roar at a woman, and you are not likely to gain love, regardless of your upper-body strength. You are likely to get charged for harassment.You may now LOL.Evolutionists continue to carry out their silly game of applying natural selection to everything, including human behavior, because nobody feels safe to laugh. That must change. Go ahead: roar at an evolutionist, and explain you are just trying to win their love. Then laugh hilariously. If they get huffy about it, then engage them in a little logic. Tell them, “If human culture is nothing but evolved fruit-fly behavior, then so is the behavior of writing scientific papers. Therefore, everything you say was predetermined in your genes, and signifies nothing.” (Visited 462 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The removal of alien plant species such as the Australian black wattle improves the health of the ecosystem and prevents the loss of water to the thirsty invaders. WWF-SA’s Enkangala Grasslands project coordinator Angus Burns works closely with farmers in the area to clear away black wattle. Nedbank has facilitated the distribution of over 1 000 Hippo rollers to communities in Mpumalanga and the Eastern Cape. South Africa’s national bird, the blue crane, breeds in the Enkangala grasslands.(Images: Janine Erasmus) MEDIA CONTACTS • Sindiswa Nobula Communication officer, Biodiversity Unit, WWF-SA +27 021 657 6644 RELATED ARTICLES • New solutions for water conservation • A water-wise Lesotho adventure • Going underground for water • Nedbank invests in water project • Bank, WWF get R100m for green cause Janine ErasmusSouth Africa is one of many countries that face challenges in maintaining and preserving its freshwater supply. In its 2012 Global Risk Report, the World Economic Forum names a water supply crisis as the risk, out of 50 analysed, which would have the second greatest impact globally. Top of the list was a major failure of the world’s financial system.However, the likelihood of a water crisis is greater than that of a financial systems failure – 3.79 as opposed to 3.14, on a scale of one to five.The World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa (WWF-SA) has estimated that, based on the current water usage and population growth, the country will have a water shortfall of 1.7% by 2025 – unless we act now.But that action must balance conservation with industry, because while the former is unquestionably important for the future preservation of the planet, industry too plays a vital role as a driver of economic growth.Water security is no longer a matter of building more dams, because the country is already running out of suitable locations. Rather, the key factor is the conservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of South Africa’s natural water sources. This is the responsibility of all water users in the country.Industry is not the only problem. Conservationists are fighting a constant battle against invasion by alien plant species. One of the most destructive is the black wattle (Acacia mearnsii), an Australian native. It was introduced to South Africa in the late 19th century, and since then has become one of the most widespread invaders.WWF-SA’S water balance programme seeks to address these challenges by getting landowners and businesses alike to commit to the preservation of water resources. Not just by signing on a line, though – by active stewardship, accountability and forward thinking, while keeping their businesses and incomes intact.Irreplaceable resource“12% of our country’s land area generates half of our river flow,” says Angus Burns, coordinator for WWF-SA’s Enkangala Grasslands project.Spanning the Mpumalanga, Free State and KwaZulu-Natal provinces, Enkangala lies within the grasslands biome, the country’s largest biome according to WWF-SA.Enkangala covers 1.6-million hectares and with an average annual rainfall of twice that of the rest of the country, is a vital water catchment area that supplies the whole of Gauteng province as well as several coal power stations in the east of the country. It’s also the source of four of South Africa’s major rivers – the Vaal, Thukela, Usutu and Pongola and as such, is a priority area under the WWF-SA water balance programme. The other priority nodes are the Berg and Breede catchments in the Western Cape; the Garden Route in the Western Cape; and the Umgeni in KwaZulu Natal.Sitting at 1 700 metres above sea level, Enkangala (isiZulu, meaning “high place without trees”) is a sensitive ecological grassland which also provides employment through agriculture and, to a more limited extent, mining and timber.While much of the area has been irreversibly transformed through these activities, there is still a chance of preserving the rest through responsible farming, removal of alien vegetation and community education.The Enkangala Grassland Project launched about 11 years ago in Wakkerstroom, a small Mpumalanga town world-renowned for its birding. The area is also dotted with wetlands which need special management.The project focuses on reducing water loss through removal of alien plants, reviving and preserving aquatic ecosystems, and creating jobs. The removal of alien plants has many benefits, including an increase in water flow for rivers, a decrease in fire hazard and soil erosion, the normalisation of the natural ecosystem, and more water for indigenous plants.The project also has a stewardship component which works with land reform communities to responsibly manage their newly-regained land.“We work hard to build a relationship of trust with the communities, and teach them to live in harmony with nature,” says Ayanda Nzimande, WWF-SA’s biodiversity stewardship officer for land reform and emerging farmers. “We also help them to deal with small mining companies who are interested in prospecting on their land.”The three current participants in the water balance programme are Nedbank, chipboard manufacturer Sonae Novobord, and retailer Woolworths, with support from the Department of Water Affairs, while the Green Trust, Birdlife South Africa and the South African National Biodiversity Institute are involved in the Enkangala initiative.“We also work with the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency,” says Burns, “who have been incredibly helpful. It’s completely in their interest to support our project, as it contributes to their target for conserved land, which they could never afford to buy – and this way they don’t have to pay for land management either. It’s the best solution.”Landowners in the area are reportedly queuing up to be part of the programme, but, says Burns, the organisation can only work with the top properties.Within Enkangala, the 30 000-hectare KwaMandlangampisi (isiZulu, meaning “place of the hyena”) Protected Environment extends from Wakkerstroom to the farming community of Luneberg. It is the breeding place of South Africa’s national bird, the elegant but vulnerable blue crane (Anthropoides paradiseus), and is home to numerous endemic species of fauna and flora, one of which, an aloe, is found nowhere else.KwaMandlangampisi was declared in 2010 as the country’s first protected environment, which means that it can’t be threatened by activities such as mining. According to WWF-SA, a protected environment is one level below a national or provincial nature reserve.The green bankNedbank has supported the water balance programme since August 2011, and will invest in it to the tune of R9-million (US$1-million) over a five-year period. In Enkangala, 131 hectares have been cleared of black wattle in the last year alone, as a result of the bank’s investment, meaning that 271 000 kilolitres of water have been saved from consumption by the thirsty alien.The bank’s involvement has created over 12 350 person-days of work, produced 298 tons of charcoal and 345 tons of wood pulp, and supported the work of five dedicated farmers.Elsewhere, there is more progress. In the Keurbooms catchment area of the Garden Route, farmers are preparing to clear 76 hectares of alien plants.In the Umgeni area, Nedbank has partnered with the US-based Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund to raise an investment of R1.6-million ($185 000) for the water balance programme.“This project demonstrates our increased focus on water as a key part of our climate change response strategy,” says Brigitte Burnett, Nedbank’s head of sustainability. The bank aims to offset its annual water consumption of some 550 000 kilolitres by helping with the removal of alien vegetation in these sensitive areas.Nedbank’s other water-related projects include the Riparian Rehabilitation Project in the Kouga River catchment area and the flood simulation project for the Pongola floodplain.The Nedbank Foundation has also come to the aid of rural communities who have no access to clean tap water, by providing R4.6-million ($531 000) for the distribution of over 1 000 90-litre Hippo water rollers in Mpumalanga and the Eastern Cape. The Hippo roller is a South African invention that makes it easier for people who get their water from a river to transport it over a distance.
SharePrint RelatedFeatured Geocacher of the Month Award WinnersAugust 25, 2011In “Community”Become Trackable on Geocaching.com – Tattoos to Travel BugsSeptember 13, 2011In “Community”Geocaching.com Presents: FavoritesOctober 20, 2011In “Learn” Each of the more than 1.3 million geocaches around the world share an adventure and tell a story. We call it the “Language of Location.” A Geocaching.com video crew tracked three stories from Larry Yuzuki (NakoTacoPatrol) and friends in Los Angeles, California, Trez Moore (Trez*) at Lake Lanier, Georgia and Molly Shock (mshock) in Hollywood, California. Each geocacher shares the story of what makes the location of their favorite cache so captivating, and what that location says to them.Trez revisits his very first find in Georgia which hooked him on geocaching in 2002. This location, deep in the woods, has a personal and sentimental history.NakoTacoPatrol along with geocaching friends visit a string a caches he placed along a breathtaking look out. He’d lived next to the hiking path for almost half a decade and never knew it existed. He decided the location had to be shared with other geocachers and placed a cache series called, “The Queen’s Necklace.” You’ll have to watch the video to find out how the cache series got its name.Mshock shows us a rare view of the Hollywood sign that she might never have found were there not a cache in the area. She loves caching for its historical significance, specifically related to films that she loves.Watch the video and learn the “Language of Location.” Now tell us, where does your favorite cache take you?Share with your Friends:More
Even if your viewers aren’t watching your content in 4K, there are still benefits to shooting at this resolution. Here are five things to keep in mind.Sure, not everybody watches your work in 4K, even if that’s how you intend viewers to see it. But that’s no reason to stop recording in 4K. Here are five reasons why.1. Reframe the ShotThe first and most obvious reason to use 4K footage in your 1080p projects is that you can reframe your shot. With 4K you have more than double the working space. This gives you room to scale up and move your shot around to fine-tune the composition. Use this to get your eye-line in the upper third, get rid of any unwanted headroom, or turn a medium shot into a close-up.2. Use One Take Multiple TimesBeing able to change the framing of your shot from a medium to a close-up is like having two cameras. This means you can use one take multiple times. Naturally, this gives you added versatility in the editing room, allowing you to create a sequence of shots from one angle. Simply cut the clip and then reframe one of the shots. You can also use this method to avoid jump cuts in interview shots.3. Create Camera MovesWhile you can reframe your shot with the scale, rotation, and position properties, remember that all of these attributes are also keyframable. So not only can you change the composition of your shot, you can also create zoom and pedestal moves. I recommend that you keep these moves subtle — if you push it too far, it will start to look fake.4. Stabilize Your FootageWhen you use the Warp Stabilizer effect, it will automatically stabilize, crop, and scale your clip. It scales the footage up so that you can’t see the cropped edges of the frame. The beauty of the 4K to 1080p workflow is that you can stabilize your footage inside a native 4K sequence and then nest it inside a 1080p sequence. This will keep those pesky cropped edges from showing up. (At the time of publication, you can only stabilize footage in Premiere Pro if the resolution of the clip matches the sequence.)5. Perfectly Position GraphicsWhen you’re adding text to a video, it can be quite difficult to make the text stand out. Graphics can easily blend into certain parts of a shot or just look out of place due to the framing. Working with a 4K high-resolution clip allows you to scale and reposition, giving you total control over the positioning of the background. Having such tight control over the background will make working with text and other graphic elements easier. Looking for more video production tutorials? Check these out.What Else Can You Do with Your 360° and VR Video Footage?Everything to Know About Layer Styles in After Effects7 Reasons Why You Should Be Using Blackmagic’s URSA Mini ProFree Practical Lighting Techniques for a Cinematic LookVideo Tutorial: What Does “Dirtying the Frame” Mean?