![]() ![]() The Review: The actual review portion would be 10-12 minutes (average) and would be an actual discussion of the film with overlays.Parody Intro: The first 1-2 minutes would be a parody intro of a scene from the movie, either one that was ridiculous or one we thought we could “improve” with our zero-budget filmmaking.Seeking to avoid that, or at least reduce the likelihood of it, we decided on a two-part format for the episodes. This has lead to at least one copyright controversy over their reviews. The two were related considering that the review shows we enjoy typically follow a long review format that rely on showing clips from the film, describing the whole plot and making fun of the movie the entire time. First, we wanted to do something different and, second, we wanted to respect the copyright of the filmmakers we were reviewing. When we first started drafting the show format, we knew two things. It wasn’t an easy road, but so far it’s been one well worth taking. With that in mind, here is some of the copyright challenges we faced and how we overcame them. The change in medium brought a slew of new copyright challenges and overcoming them, in many ways, helped to define what our show would become and what we could do with it. However, I quickly learned that I was very, very wrong. Neither of us had done any significant video work (no video editing experience at all) and we had no idea what the format and general structure of the show would be like.īut one area I didn’t expect any problems was the area of copyright. It was going to be a steep learning curve for us. Since we were also long-time fans of other review series like The Angry Video Game Nerd, the Nostalgia Critic and The Cinema Snob, the idea began to float toward doing our own review series, targeting these specific movies. While at a restaurant, my significant other, Crystal, and I began talking about our mutual love for horror movies, in particular low-budget ones, and wishing that we could do something more with it, whether for fun or as a whole new project. We discuss how these techniques can translate into instrumentation systems that improve real-world health IT deployments.Like most really crazy ideas, it started as a conversation over dinner. Using a corpus of EMR screenshots, we present empirical measurements of redaction effectiveness and processing latency to demonstrate system performances. KVM-based capture makes our system both application-independent and OS-independent because it eliminates software-interface dependencies on capture targets. In this paper, we present a tool to help solve this problem: a system that combines keyboard video mouse (KVM) capture with automatic text redaction (and interactively selectable unredaction) to produce precise technical content that can enrich stakeholder communications and improve end-user influence on system evolution. Furthermore, real-world health IT systems are typically composed of modules from many sources, mission-critical and often closed-source any instrumentation for screen capture can rely neither on access to structured output nor access to software internals. However, real-world health IT systems are typically replete with privacy-sensitive data regarding patients, diagnoses, clinicians, and EMR user interface details instrumentation for screen capture (capturing and recording the scenario depicted on the screen) needs to respect these privacy constraints. As information technology permeates healthcare (particularly provider-facing systems), maximizing system effectiveness requires the ability to document and analyze tricky or troublesome usage scenarios.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |