3 ms·

Getting a bit of hyperbole out of this (shocking, I know). Stabilization is not something that costs $15k, at least at this quality. Yes, it's interesting on

by nkozyra 12y ago

Getting a bit of hyperbole out of this (shocking, I know). Stabilization is not something that costs $15k, at least at this quality. Yes, it's interesting on a technical level (both with Instagram and MS), but there are low-tech solutions that handle this aptly. So in essence we're talking about a video accelerator (and presumably decelerator)? This doesn't exactly wow me, but then again Instagram was founded on applying filters to photos, so I should recognize the value of hype (and subsequent audience size).

theworst 12y ago
I think the $15k references a gyro stabilized camera rig. The stabilization is the hard/novel/neat part, not the playback speed. Playback speed is the UI feature people notice, but it wouldn't be interesting if the image weren't stabilized.
- nkozyra 12y ago
  Um, that's what I was saying. Stabilization (at least at this level) is still not a $15,000 investment. Prosumer ones start in the $500 range. Software stabilization obviously also supplants hardware cost, which makes even that # moot. Then there's the acceleration, which can be done by low-level video prod software already. I'm seriously not trying to just poo-poo this, it's just very underwhelming as a total package.
  - anentropic 12y ago
    but with this you don't have to fit your phone into a rig, you can just keep it in your pocket
    - nkozyra 12y ago
      Sure, but this is sort of like saying adaptive blurring replaces a $2,000 SLR lens.
dang 12y ago
Ok, we changed "$15,000" to "stabilizing". Let us know if something else would be more accurate.
- clarky07 12y ago
  wait, now we are changing titles AWAY from what the source uses because people want it to be different?
  - nkozyra 12y ago
    Honestly at first this did seem odd, but if someone can remove some level of marketeering at any point down the social aggregation line, it feels like a win. Otherwise it's just an echo chamber of P.R.
  - dang 12y ago
    We do this all the time, and the guidelines are as they have always been: the original title is preferred except when it is misleading or linkbait. There are also a few more detailed rules, one of which is that we take out arbitrary numbers from titles. The "$15,000" in the original title arguably trips all three of those criteria. When users complain about titles being misleading or linkbait, we particularly listen.
    - clarky07 12y ago
      The arbitrary number rule very specifically calls out list type posts: If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids." The $15,000 doesn't seem to qualify. That being said, you could certainly qualify it as linkbait, but why just take out the number? The simile is ruined, and the title just sounds stupid now. If you're going to edit it to make it not linkbait, change it to something like: Hyperlapse, Instagram's new video stabilization app Certainly you can moderate how you see fit, just thought I'd offer my 2 cents. I get annoyed when I come back to the same article I've already read with a different title so the inconsistency is frustrating sometimes. Sometimes arguably better titles get changed to match the source, and then when (someone else decides) the source has a bad title we change that too...

by nkozyra 12y ago

theworst 12y ago

I think the $15k references a gyro stabilized camera rig. The stabilization is the hard/novel/neat part, not the playback speed. Playback speed is the UI feature people notice, but it wouldn't be interesting if the image weren't stabilized.

nkozyra 12y ago
Um, that's what I was saying. Stabilization (at least at this level) is still not a $15,000 investment. Prosumer ones start in the $500 range. Software stabilization obviously also supplants hardware cost, which makes even that # moot. Then there's the acceleration, which can be done by low-level video prod software already. I'm seriously not trying to just poo-poo this, it's just very underwhelming as a total package.
- anentropic 12y ago
  but with this you don't have to fit your phone into a rig, you can just keep it in your pocket
  - nkozyra 12y ago
    Sure, but this is sort of like saying adaptive blurring replaces a $2,000 SLR lens.

dang 12y ago

Ok, we changed "$15,000" to "stabilizing". Let us know if something else would be more accurate.

clarky07 12y ago
wait, now we are changing titles AWAY from what the source uses because people want it to be different?
- nkozyra 12y ago
  Honestly at first this did seem odd, but if someone can remove some level of marketeering at any point down the social aggregation line, it feels like a win. Otherwise it's just an echo chamber of P.R.
- dang 12y ago
  We do this all the time, and the guidelines are as they have always been: the original title is preferred except when it is misleading or linkbait. There are also a few more detailed rules, one of which is that we take out arbitrary numbers from titles. The "$15,000" in the original title arguably trips all three of those criteria. When users complain about titles being misleading or linkbait, we particularly listen.
  - clarky07 12y ago
    The arbitrary number rule very specifically calls out list type posts: If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids." The $15,000 doesn't seem to qualify. That being said, you could certainly qualify it as linkbait, but why just take out the number? The simile is ruined, and the title just sounds stupid now. If you're going to edit it to make it not linkbait, change it to something like: Hyperlapse, Instagram's new video stabilization app Certainly you can moderate how you see fit, just thought I'd offer my 2 cents. I get annoyed when I come back to the same article I've already read with a different title so the inconsistency is frustrating sometimes. Sometimes arguably better titles get changed to match the source, and then when (someone else decides) the source has a bad title we change that too...