This Repub field and the results from Iowa just prove that it’s still much too early for politics. Lots of educational work still to do…

It was an echo of a comment expressed by Ayn Rand shortly after the failure of the Goldwater campaign in the 1964 presidential election, and that sentiment got a few nods from the fanpage’s presumably Objectivist fans. That is not unexpected: many Objectivists, on the basis of what Rand wrote, and on the basis of what they think she meant by it, routinely state that “it’s too early” for participation in politics, or that “it’s earlier than you think”.

As I see it, Rand did not intend that Objectivists vacate participation in electoral or party politics, and I find it a galling cop-out when Objectivists poo poo any invitation to get involved in electoral politics. The usual response is that now is the time for education, as though education and electoral politics were mutually exclusive exercises, and as though most Objectivists are actually involving themselves in teaching in lieu of political action. The truth, for perhaps 99% of Objectivists, is that they are not involved in either. Too many, in a manner not unlike the libertarians, are in practice just curling up in a ball, navel gazing about ideal societies, re-reading Atlas Shrugged, and moaning “what a pity”. Well, something’s a pity, alright.

When time permits, I intend to write a more detailed piece about what Rand wrote, and what she meant by it, in context. In the interim, I below reproduce my response to the Objectivist gentleman’s recent facebook comment. I’ll just add that his comment was no more qualified or detailed than the quotation of it I make above. Accordingly, I cannot know, from that comment alone, whether or not he was implying that Objectivists should not participate in electoral politics. My response is less a response to his views on the subject, and more a response to those Objectivists who would take his statement to be confirmation that they can and should continue to remain uninvolved in electoral politics. And now, without further ado, my reply:

I disagree. Contrary to popular belief, most people do not vote for candidates they like: they vote instead for whoever is most likely to beat a front-runner they are told they shouldn’t like. What we’re all witnessing is not the popularity of any candidate’s policies or morality, but a prevalence of strategic voting based upon perceptions of who is “leading” or “out in front” in a “race”. Consequently: election results are *not* an indicator of the explicitly identified political or moral positions of the public. They are, instead, an indicator of the majority’s political/economic incompetence and of low self-esteem: a voter follows the crowd, figuring that the crowd must understand and know something that he does not.

Knowing that, the principal tools in any election – prior to voting day – are: push polls and journalistic spin. Policies, talent, insight etc. are not what wins an election (or, as former Prime Minister of Canada Kim Campbell once insightfully quipped: “An election is no time to talk about policies”). On voting day, the principle tool is: an army of people, on the ground, getting people off of their butts and into the voting booth/process (aka, “Get Out The Vote” or GOTV).

Experts run – and win – elections not by crafting clever policy, but by conjuring up worries and doubts…much like filling the public’s minds with fears that Reardon metal “could” crack under strain, or that “it cannot be ruled out” that it will twist or warp, etc.. Similarly, one needed merely state that Goldwater “might” start an atomic war, or that it cannot be ruled out. One airing of one commercial might even suffice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExjDzDsgbww

The role of a candidate or political party is not to educate that public – that much is true. But – as Yaron Brook (head of the Ayn Rand Institute) himself indicated in his interview with Amy Peikoff – Objectivists should not leave elections to non-Objectivists; they should not vacate the field. They should acknowledge the nature of the customers we call voters, acknowledge the way they vote, stay honest but not off-putting, and – as a defence of their own life, liberty, and property and for the defence of that of those they value – they should attempt to win seats. The alternative – leaving political activity to the evil – is akin to handing ones would-be murderer ones own gun, similar to offering up ones wrists and ankles to a slave master’s chains, and tantamount to unlocking ones own home to assist would-be thieves.

Fight, god damn it.

Liberals have socked us with the two biggest tax hikes in the history of the province — the health care levy and the HST. And now they’re crying poor? They created this mess. We’re just paying their bills.

Given her message, the column’s headline (which Blizzard probably did not write) is a knee-slapper of hypocrisy: “Stop blaming and start restraining“. I agree with the sentiment of the headline, but it sure as heck is not the case that the PCs are somehow any better than the Liberals with respect to Ontario’s health care system. In fact, pinning the blame on the Liberals smacks of revisionist history. So I got to work writing a comment to the column on the newspaper’s web site. Of course, my comment has to pass Sun “moderation”, so there is a chance it will not get posted. So, for the record, here is the comment I submitted:

In point of fact, the Progressive Conservatives “created this mess” in 1969. They banned private health insurance, instituted a provincial health care monopoly, and imposed a new tax – the provincial income tax – to pay for it. Within the very first year, the system was in crisis, because patients were no longer required to pay their physicians for the services they received. The system made doctors care not about satisfying patients, but about satisfying bureaucrats. Today, as a result, we have a system that is by far the single largest provincial cost…so large that the provincial income tax doesn’t bring in enough to pay for it. So, now, we have health care payroll taxes, a health care “premium” (that one WAS McGuinty’s – a tax founded on a 2003 broken election promise not to raise taxes one penny – yet Hudak’s PCs are unwilling to repeal it). Socialized health care is THE biggest reason why we are $16B in the hole, annually, and that number will continue to skyrocket as the population ages, works/earns less, and consumes more health care. Yet the PCs stand side by side with the Liberals and NDP in defence of keeping the government health care monopoly in place, without any competition from private health insurance or patient-pay alternatives.

It gets worse. In an effort to reduce use of health care resources, PC, then Liberal, then NDP, then PC, then Liberal governments have imposed a growing number of restrictions on anything that increases the likelihood of using the system: crackdowns on riding without a helmet, on fast food in schools, massive intrusion of alleged health inspection armies into farming and health food production (i.e., government agents killing the family farm/business, in the name of health, so as to benefit large agricultural companies and pharmaceutical companies with patents that are worthless so long as one can grow homegrown medicines, almost for free, in ones garden), smoking bans, any number of restrictions on sports…etc.

It gets even worse. By making health care a tax-funded business, it has been made possible to fund political activism through the health care system. Check out the little known “CHCs“: clinics, spread across the province, that exclude all except some key demographic. Don’t speak French: you’re not permitted to use the Cornwall CHC. Not “a black woman from the islands”: you can’t use one of the CHCs in Toronto. Not a “native Canadian”?: your not permitted to use a Natives-only CHC. There are 10s of these units across the province. How do they spend their money? I’ll tell you:

- movie nights for the poor.
- campaigns against violence against women.
- outreach on the basis of sexual orientation.
- campaigns for social justice.

Get the picture? All of this stuff gets called “health care” and is funded, by the taxpayer, as a CHC health clinic that serves people defined exclusively by their race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

Get this: I investigated a CHC in London a few years back. Unlike some of the other CHCs, it wasn’t clear which “at risk” (or whatever was their Orwellian terminology) group that CHC was exclusive to, but it *was* saying that it was for only that “at risk” group. I called the CHC and asked who the clinic was for. The answer? “Which organization are you with?”. I told her, honestly, that I am the leader of Freedom Party of Ontario. Her answer: click. So I called the Ministry of Health, and ultimately got to the political/policy strategist/rep: someone with direct access to McGuinty. I asked her who that clinic was for. Her frank answer: “illegal aliens”. Shocked, I asked her to clarify, and she repeated that it was for people who are in the country illegally.

The simple fact is that, by socializing health care, the government was able to create a system in chronic fiscal crisis. That crisis – combined with historical revisionism about socialist health care being the major part of the Canadian identity – has made it politically possible to continue pouring billions of additional dollars, and possible to raise existing taxes and impose new ones, without the voter kicking the Liberals, PCs, or NDP out of office.

The saddest part is: relatively few people realize how bad the service is, until it’s too late. But the pro-socialist health care politicians don’t worry about those people: the dead don’t speak, and the dead don’t vote.

In closing: don’t take my word for it. Watch this 4.5 minute video, featuring none other than the socialist health care poster child, Rev. Tommy Douglas…and pay particular attention to the last thing he says, about health care costs soaring unless health care’s mission was switched from making the sick well, to keeping the well well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp3bk4QQt54

To those prepared to read what I’ve written above, and to understand that the government health care monopoly must end, I wish you a Merry Christmas, and a happy and prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Paul McKeever
Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario

e-mail: pmckeeverfreedomparty.on.ca
web: http://www.freedomparty.on.ca
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/fpontario
twitter: http://www.twitter.com/fpontario

I know that nobody knows nothing and somebody might not know anything.

The smile earned is effortless and innocent.

Kill without murdering. Command without enslaving. Seize without stealing.

According to the AG, when the LCBO decides to stock a new product, it puts out a “needs letter” to suppliers. For each type of product, the needs letter tells suppliers the range of prices at which the LCBO would like to sell the product. That price is not based upon supply and demand. It is based on pure whim (which might explain, at least in part, why the Lagavulin I used to be able to buy for forty some odd dollars now costs well over $100 per bottle, only a few years later). Don’t stop reading: it gets worse. Much worse.

According to the AG, the LCBO has a “fixed markup structure”:

Markup rates vary by product category. However, within each category, the markup is the same for all products (examples are shown in Figure 3).

According to Figure three, the “vodka, whisky, rum” class of products has fixed markups of 141% (domestic products), 148.1% (imported products from the USA), and 148.0% (other imports). For “table wine” the markups are 65.5% (Ontario wines) and 71.5% (other domestic and imported wines).

Because the markups are fixed, the more a supplier charges the LCBO for its product, the higher the revenues of the LCBO for that product. For example, were a U.S. whisky company to sell a bottle of whisky to the LCBO for $15 (including federal excise tax, federal import duty, and freight), the LCBO markup would be $15 x 148.1= $22.212. However, if the LCBO has the same company charge $20 for the same bottle, the LCBO’s revenues from the sale of that bottle increase: $20 x 148.1 = $29.62. Those markups are not the total price charged to the consumer: they are the profits gained from the sale of a bottle of whisky.

According to the AG:

“If a supplier’s cost quote results in an amount that does not match the agreed-up retail price, the LCBO will ask it to raise or lower the wholesale cost of the product. We found examples both where the supllier’s intial cost quote had been raised and where it had been lowered…”

Get that? The LCBO literally has been telling its suppliers, in some cases, to charge the LCBO more for its product. The reason: the LCBO will reap a higher per bottle profit, as a result.

Hence the AG’s statement:

The LCBO’s fixed-pricing structure gives it no incentive to negotiate lower wholesale costs – doing so would result in lower retail prices and, in turn, lower profits…

The AG’s first recommendation is that the LCBO do a better job of telling the public how it sets prices:

“Although some of this information is disclosed on the LCBO website under the “Contact Us” section, it would not be easy for the public to find this information or use it to fully understand how beverage alcohol prices are set.”

That, most certainly, is to say the least. The public should be outraged that not only does the LCBO not seek the lowest price from suppliers, but that it actually colludes with them to raise the wholesale price, so that the LCBO can reap higher revenues. There is only one word for what the LCBO is doing: scandalous.

The implications for the AG’s findings in respect of LCBO pricing cannot be understated. No longer can public sector unions (see here) and academics (see here and here) oppose private liquor sales on the basis that the LCBO’s monopoly allows it to benefit from “economies of scale”. Clearly, it is utterly false that the LCBO is using its monopoly to get the lowest possible price from suppliers, so as to “pass the savings along to you, the consumer” (as the popular phrasing of that notion goes).

The finding also raises an important question. Specifically, there is no obvious reason why the LCBO must limit its margin by specifying a fixed margin (e.g., 148% on imported spirits). If the LCBO wants to sell a bottle for $42, it can do so whether it paid the producer $16.94 for the bottle, or paid the producer much less (e.g. $10.00 for the bottle). The only party that obviously benefits from fixing the margin is: suppliers. If the LCBO cannot raise a price without paying suppliers more for the product, this policy is essentially a gift to producers/suppliers. Now, ask yourself: what supplier would be opposed to a government monopoly that required suppliers to increase prices (hence profit margins)? What hooch-maker would not oppose competition for the LCBO? As ever, there is a corrupt private sector motive to oppose exposing the LCBO to private sector competition: private buyers would never pay suppliers the above-market prices that the LCBO pays suppliers.

In closing, I can only repeat what I, as Freedom Party of Ontario leader, proposed during the October 6, 2011 election: get rid of the pricing structures and make the LCBO compete with private sector stores.

[Paul McKeever can be reached for comment at 905-721-9772; or via e-mail: pmckeever@freedomparty.on.ca]

“They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.” – Ayn Rand, “The Age of Envy”, in her book Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

To those who really want to understand that mentality, I recommend a full reading of Rand’s essay.

In the meantime: within the last 24 hours or so, funny man Adam Carolla has gotten a lot of ink over a rant in which he – in a relatively unpolished, expletive-filled, but passionate and moving way – expressed a similar summation about the Occupiers. I was unable to find a complete transcript of it on the web, so I have prepared one for you, below. The original audio appears in a youtube video that appears immediately below

[NOTE: There are mixed reports about when and where Carolla engaged in the rant. Slate reported that the rant was on Adam Carolla's October 11, 2011 podcast, available on iTunes. Several mainstream news media didn't bother to verify that claim, which is false. Other reports have claimed that the rant happened during an interview by the Media Research Centre (that claim was apparently made because the MRC recently posted the rant as a youtube video - a still of Carolla combined with audio of his rant). Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, Slate, etc. seem not to have done any fact checking...not that I'm surprised. However (you heard it hear first!): McKeever blog reader Jeremy has located the source: it's the November 18, 2011 episode of the Adam Carolla show, and the rant starts at about the 41 min, 38 second point. Thanks Jeremy!]

Anyway, enjoy. And, for those who want to listen to more of Carolla’s show, it is available on iTunes in the podcast category, for free: just the right price for “ass douches”.

Transcript:

Adam Carolla: I just heard today that, in California – before the economy fell apart – I think it was the top 1% of taxpayers paid for 50% of the taxes that came in here, in California. That’s 1% paying for 50%. Not good enough? Not good enough?

I understand some people have more than others. That’s always gonna be there. Even…Y’know, we started off, this evening, talking about the auto show and about how the crazy competition just led to these crazy crazy cars. And I know, sometimes, it goes astray but, for the most part, it’s the best system we have. And, trying to get the top 1% to pay for the top…bottom 55% – or to pay-in 55% – that’s not the angle that’s used. The angle’s: worrying about what the fuck the other 50% are doing, not what the top – who is already paying *way* more than their fair share – is doing.

There’s something that’s come up in this country, that didn’t used to exist, which is: envy. And it’s a big issue. And it *was* understood, back in the day, and we are empowering…we now are now dealing with the first wave of participation trophy – “my own fecal matter doesn’t stink”, “empowered”, “I feel so fucking good about myself”, “everybody’s a winner, there’s no losers” – we’re dealing with the first wave of those fucking assholes. That’s who we’re dealing with now. ‘Cause this has been going on for about 25 years, and we’re just starting to get – maybe 20 years – and those kids were 8 or 9 years old, and we’re getting the first…

Alison Rosen: Is that the “millennials”. I think that’s the name to be used…

Carolla: I call them the ass douches.

Rosen: Colloquially, they’re known as the ass douches?

Carolla: No, I *saw* that on…on the news.

Rosen: Oh, okay. I stand corrected.

Carolla (joking): Yeah, Brian Williams called them the ass douches.

Rosen: [unintelligible]

Carolla: [unintelligible]

Carolla: So what we have – I haven’t really broken this down but I’m going to try now – we created a bunch of fuckin’ self-entitled monsters. And this has become the pursuit of my life, where people are so far out of it, and what they expect, and what they think’realistic’ is, and what…the set of rules that pertains to them versus the other guys, cause *that’s* what the bottom line is.

“*I* want my most valuable player trophy.”

“Well, you’re the slowest, fattest guy on the team.”

“Why should he get one and I don’t get one?”

“Cause he busts his ass and runs a 4.4 forty. That’s why he gets one.”

“Well, this is bullshit.”

And then everyone gets involved and then everyone gives everyone a participation trophy, and then everyone feels good about themselves. But not *based* on anything. You should feel good about yourself *because* of your *accomplishments*. Not because somebody yelled at you to feel good about yourself and you got a fuckin’ fake piece of plastic that was sprayed gold and had your name on a plaque at the bottom of it. And, when these folks become adults, and enter the work force, and we – they’ve done stories about this. How you can’t treat ‘em, you know the boss can’t yell:

“Hey! Let’s go! Let’s get back to work now!”

Then:

“Oh, oh, you raised your voice to me. You better watch your tone buddy. My dad’s a lawyer. He’ll sue your ass. I’ll *take* this company.”

Self-entitled pricks who think the world owes them a living. And now we’re getting the first wave of these douchebags. And, now…they grew up – and it’s fine if you grow up in this little snow-globe of a life, where everything is awesome, and everyone gets a participation trophy, and there’s no losers…

Rosen: And it’s always snowing.

Carolla: Well, when you get shaken up. And, everything’s awesome. But then you get out into the real world and you realize: “I’m a fuckin’ loser”. You’re *not* doin’ that well. You’re *not* makin’ that much money. There’s no more participation trophies. This is the fuckin’ L.A. Auto Show. You don’t get to sit around and go:

“Hey, here’s my piece of shit I worked on, everyone. Why aren’t you guys buying it?”

And then, instead of finding a fuckin’ mirror, and finding the reason why no one’s buying your car, you just want to run around and yell at everyone else who’s *selling* cars. And, now, you wanna take shit and throw it at the cars, ’cause you wanna fuck *their* cars up. ‘Cause *that’s* what’s goin’ on. It’s like, instead of lookin’ in the mirror and go, “Why the fuck am I not doin’ better?”, you just find some guy who’s got more shit than you and go “Hey man, what do you need all that shit for?” It’s the same version of:

“Hey man, what do you need an MVP trophy for?”.

“‘Cause I bust my ass. That’s why. Or maybe I’m just genetically better than you. Either way, buddy. I got the trophy, so shut the fuck up and get the fuck back to work, or better yet: on the bench, where you belong.”

This is what’s going on. So.

They’re feeling shame. They’ve been shamed by life, because they haven’t been *prepared* for life. They’ve been told…they’ve had so much smoke blown up their fucking collective asses, by the time they get out in the *real* world – and then realize the real world doesn’t give a fuck where you’re from, or what your mommy said you were, or how pretty you are, or what you do…they don’t give a fuck what anyone…and all of those lies that were told to you, to your parents, about how special you are, and how no one was created like you, and all this bullshit advertisements – Nike, and all this “There’s just one you”, and “You take it all”, and “It’s your world”, and all that Reebok shit – doesn’t mean shit when you get to the real world and you’re just looked at as peon number 27 who’s putting in an application and guess what?:

“I don’t like your attitude, douche. Fuck douche.”

Rosen: Ass douche.

Carolla:

“Ass douche. Get your fuckin’ feet off my desk and hit the bricks. I’m not hiring you.”

Then, now, *you’re* plan is to come back and throw a brick at my window. *That’s* your plan. This is what’s going on. It’s this envy and shame, and there’s gonna be a lot more of it, ’cause it *used* to be – back in the day – father’d be walkin’ his son down the sideblock and he’d see a guy go by in his Rolls Royce, and the father would say:

“There goes Mr. Jenkins. Look up to him. That guy works hard. That guy built a company. That guy built an empire. Now look at him. He’s got his Rolls Royce. He’s drivin’ up the hill.”

But what do we do *now*? Now it’s like:

“Oh, look at him. Look at him. Does he need that car? Why’s he need that car? I’m drivin’ a fuckin’ Chevette! Why’s *he* get to drive that fuckin’ car, you know? Let’s go up there and throw a rock at it.”

“That ain’t gonna help you get out of the Chevette, ass douche.”

Rosen: That’s right.

Carolla: “Get the fuck to work.” And, by the way: Parents! Society! We are creating a group of self-entitled monsters. Knock it off.

Rosen: Right. And, I’m wondering – all the parents that created this culture of ass douchery – were they…like, are they the ones who are feeling like “Well, I was never told I was special enough.” Are they overcompsensating for *their* childhood? ‘Cause now there’s been like sort of a few generations that are aware of Dr. Spock and aware that kids have special emotional needs and et cetera.

Carolla: We started, you know, we have these weird swings in raising kids, and they’re not very good. I mean, I grew up in the sort of 70′s, “just free to be me, you and me”, “Hey man, if he doesn’t want to learn to read he doesn’t have to learn to read”…yeah, just “run wild”, you know, “free range”, “do your own thing, man” – that whole hippee “do your own thing” – never fuckin’ panned out. And – the super self-esteem building, and just all this bullshit where we have to knock down a Christmas celebration and call it a “Holiday Celebration” so we don’t offend the one kid whose parents are litigious, or whatever – we fucked our society up royally; basically, take that one kid and empowered him, and we’ve gotta stop, ’cause that’s what all this is.

It used to be that you’d look – I’m not saying you took random rich guys and worshipped at their alter – but you took guys who built something, and you said “There’s a guy who’s accomplished something”, not “Well why isn’t he paying his fair share?”. I mean, when did that ever fuckin’ come about? “That guy paid-in millions of dollars last year. You paid in shit, and you’re pissed at *him*?”. Obviously it doesn’t make sense. Obviously it’s not a *rational* thought. It’s *shame* driven.

And – you want to extrapolate this – this is essentially what the terrorists do with us. They see us over here in our hot tubs, driving our big cars around, havin’ our parties, turnin’ on…

(“Bald”) Bryan Bishop: Big cars *with* hot tubs.

Carolla: Yeah! Stretch limos with hot tubs, or chicks lookin’ hot – fake boobies and bikinis and all that – and they’re like “Fuck it. Allah’s gonna take care of *these* guys.” And then Allah doesn’t take care of shit, and then *they* come down and blow our buildings up. It’s this weird…it’s not…we think it’s about religion, or we think it’s about, you know, cultures…it’s *one* culture can’t live next to another culture that’s thriving…

Rosen: Yeah.

Carolla: …without getting pissed-off, envious, resentful. You then get shamed. And, when you get shamed, there’s two things you can do with shame. You can be shamed and go “I better get my shit together”, or you can be shamed and go “I’m gonna tear that guy’s shit down”. And *that’s* where we’re at now. When you feel that shame, get your shit together. Leave my shit alone.

Rosen: Yeah, it’s like global sibling rivalry.

Carolla: Thank you. That’s what it is. It’s old. It’s as old as the bible.

The Issues: Low Light Conditions & A Desire for Film-like Video

Most consumer-level video cameras have trouble with low amounts of light. I do not have formal training in lighting for a video shoot, and I have often shot video in low light conditions. It is possible to boost the brightness after the fact in a video editor, but the result is a grainy image (here is how bad it has gotten). Moreover, in low light, the auto-focus features of consumer video cameras often have a lot of trouble focusing properly. So I have a long-standing desire for a camera that handles low-light conditions better.

Accordingly, a few months back, I started researching consumer-grade video cameras, looking in particular for a camera that could better handle low light situations. The answer was clear: Panasonic’s high definition TM700. It had 3 MOS sensors in it which allowed that camera to provide quality images even in scenes with little light. The TM700 has been replaced by the TM900 (a very similar camera of equal or better quality). It sells for about $900 at present. It was priced at $1,100 a few months ago, when I decided I’d wait for the price to come down.

A few weeks ago, I was interviewed on camera by a documentarian. Knowing I was interested in doing more documentaries (my first effort was The Principle of Pot), he recommended I buy a camera like his: a Sony NEX VG-10. He said it had “a big sensor” and a removable/changeable lens, like professional video cameras, but that it sells for about $2,000.00 instead of many times that. I thought it might still be more than I was willing to pay, but I thought I’d look into it after the October 6, 2011 election. Last week, I did so.

I discovered that the Sony NEX VG-10 is still available, but it’s on sale (currently, for about $1,500) because it has been replaced with the VG-20 (which is selling for about $2,200). The salesman at my local Henry’s camera story told me that the VG-20 indeed has a big sensor – it is the same sensor used in a Sony digital SLR camera, which is used for taking still photographs. The big sensor, he explained, makes the VG-10 and VG-20 even better in low light than the Panasonic TM900.

This left me with the question: what are the differences between the Panasonic TM900 that make it less expensive than the Sony VG-10 or VG-20, and should I pay the extra to get a Sony? That question led to a host of discoveries, which I’ll now tell you about (trust me, it’s worth knowing).

1. Big Sensor: Not for Only for Low Light and High Definition, but Especially for Film-like Depth of Field

I had been led to believe that the only reason one wants a big sensor is to have a camera that handles low light conditions well. Not so. The main reason big sensors are desired is because they allow you to do what cannot be done with the relatively small sensors found in most consumer-level video cameras: big sensors allow you to have shallow depth of field.

In case you’re wondering “what is depth of field?” let me tell you in over-simplified layman terms. You will sometimes see a photo (or a scene in a film) in which something (e.g., a flower) is in-focus, but things in front of it and behind it are out-of-focus. The area (i.e., the range of distances from the camera) that is in focus is the “field”. The “depth” of that field is the range of distances from the camera that are in-focus. Now, let’s take two examples.

Example 1: If you set your camera so that you have an eight inch (i.e., 8″) depth of field, and you focus on a flower ten feet away from you, then things 4″ in front of the flower, and 4″ behind the flower will be more-or-less in-focus. Things closer than 9′ 8″ from the camera, and things further than 10′ 4″ from the camera, will be more-or-less out-of-focus.

Example 2: If you set your camera so that you have a four foot (4′) depth of field, and you focus on the same flower ten feet away, then things closer than 8′ from the camera will be out of focus, and things further than 12′ from the camera will be out of focus.

The point of depth of field: it allows the videographer to direct the audience’s attention to the thing that is in focus, by blurring out everything else. You will see this done in films, and in still photography all of the time. However – and this is key – you will almost never see shallow depth of field in consumer-level video recorders. The reason: small sensors do not facilitate depth of field, and most consumer-level video recorders use small sensors. That means that, with most consumer-level video cameras, everything is in focus, whether it is close or far away. This is one of the reasons that the videos made with most consumer-level camcorders don’t look like films or still photographs.

You can buy video cameras with bigger sensors that allow you to create shallow depth of field effects, but most of them cost over $5,000 and range into the tens of thousands. So, what is most innovative about Sony’s VG-10 and VG-20 is not that they handle low light conditions well, but that they give you the ability to have film-like, professional-looking depth-of-field effects for as little as $1,500 (i.e., the current price of the VG-10). So, the answer seems clear, right? I should fork out the extra dough for a Sony VG-10 or VG-20 and get professional-looking video, instead of buying the Panasonic TM900 (which has a small sensor and cannot give you shallow depth of field), right? Wrong. It turns out that the whole ‘big sensor’ thing has an interesting history and several draw-backs.

2. History

It turns out that the idea of giving consumers a big sensor to work with has its origin in news photography (stills, not video). As news media are faltering, they are requiring their photographers also to gather video for online and TV uses. So, perhaps among others, Canon a few years ago introduced their Canon 5D: a digital SLR (“DSLR”) camera for high-quality still photos (it has a full-sized sensor, about the size of a frame of 35 mm camera film), but it allows about 12 minutes of video to be taken with the camera.

Why 12 minutes? Not for any technical reason. It turns out that when event organizers sell exclusive rights to various events (e.g., a rock concert or hockey game), separate contracts are sold for still photography and for video photography. For whatever reason, a camera designed for shooting stills can be used to take up to 12 minutes of video by a person having only the contract for still photography. Go above that, and you’re expected to use a camera designed not for stills, but for videos.

Having a 12 minute limit isn’t necessarily the end of the world. All you have to do is hit record again to resume video recording. But, if you are videoing something that continues uninterrupted for more than 12 minutes (think something along the lines of a 60 minute speech, or a concert in which Rush is performing side 1 of their album “Hemispheres”), even a momentary interruption every 12 minutes could ruin your video project.

Now, understand this: even the high quality professional video cameras do not use the big sensors used in high quality cameras used primarily for stills. So, some videographers have purchased cameras designed for stills, having 12 minutes of video capability, because they produce very high-quality images, and offer stunningly shallow depth of field (for those video artists wanting very tiny depths to be in-focus, and everything else to be out-of-focus), as compared even to high-quality professional video cameras.

Seeing that the 5D was proving to be a popular camera, and that the idea of a still/video hybrid camera in the $3000 and under range was proving to have a market, Canon more recently introduced the Canon 7D. The 7D has a slightly smaller sensor than the 5D, but which provides awesome, film-quality video, 12 minutes at a time, and it has several features that make it much better-suited to video production…plus, it costs about $2,000 (about $,1000 less than the 5D). The 7D proved so popular, that Canon thereafter released the Rebel T2i. For shooting video, the T2i is pretty much the same camera as the 7D, but it sells for about $800 (yep, less than the Panasonic TM 900). But don’t get all excited just yet. If you also want the camera to shoot stunning stills, the 7D is a significantly better camera (and it is much more durable, in terms of its build).

The Rebel T2i has been slightly more refined by its recent successor, the T3i. So, should a person who doesn’t care about stills just buy a Rebel T3i instead of the Panasonic TM900?

3. Moire: a Visual Distortion Problem with the Big Sensor Still/Video Hybrid DSLRs

It turns out that there are some drawbacks to using a still photography big sensor as a video sensor. First of all, these hybrids tend all to have problems with various forms of distortions that are better handled by cameras designed primarily for video. The one I’ve seen the most complaints about is: Moire.

If you’ve ever looked at a tight-nit, or checkered pattern while looking through the screen on a screen door, you’ll see a neat visual effect called Moire. Moire is like big curved or squiggly bands of light. Those bands look ugly, amateur, and un-film-like. Cameras designed first and foremost for video have been designed, in many cases, to minimize moire. The Panasonic TM900 reportedly does an excellent job of controlling Moire. The big-sensor hybrid cameras: nope. In fact, even the Sony VG-10 and VG-20 have horrible Moire problems (Moire is one of the things most commonly complained about when it comes to the VG-10 and VG-20, though Moire is not unique to the Sonys…it’s common to almost all videoing done with big sensor cameras design primarily for still photography).

4. Zebra and Peaking: Overexposure and Focus

If ever you have shot video near a bright point of light – for example, if you have shot video in the bright mid-day sun – you will be familiar with the problem that, sometimes, part of your image will be so over-saturated with light that that part looks like a plain, bright-white area, devoid of shape or detail. Unfortunately, such overexposure can be difficult to see by just looking at the image in your viewfinder, so some cameras use “zebra” technology to tell you if lighting is a problem. I have not yet used zebra but, from what I understand, the it overlays an overexposed part of the image (in your viewfinder) with zebra-like stripes. See an example here. By evening-out your light in the actual place you are videoing, and then adjusting the light intake on your camera, you can eliminate the overexposure. You’ll know that the overexposure has been dealt with, because excessive zebra striping will disappear in your viewfinder.

If you would like manually to focus your image, it can be difficult – in the little viewfinder on most cameras – to be sure what is in focus and what is not. Peaking technology to the rescue. In your viewfinder, peaking basically highlights the edges of things that are in focus. Here is an example.

5. A Pox on All Their Houses: Shutter Roll Warping on Most MOS Sensors

Most of the newer sensors used in cameras use a sensor called a MOS, rather than another type called a CCD. From what I gather, the industry is moving away from CCDs and toward MOSs. One of the reasons may be that MOSs are more sensitive than the CCDs (e.g., better in low-light conditions). See the video below for one comparison.

Most (note: not all) MOS sensors record an image by scanning gradually (well, very quickly, but gradually nonetheless) across the scene, line by line. This method of obtaining the image is called “shutter roll”. In comparison, CCD sensors use a technique that grabs all of the image at the same time (a technique called “global shutter”).

Shutter roll does not cope well with things that move across the scene quickly. If your camera uses shutter roll, quickly moving objects within your scene (or fast pans from side to side) will warp your image. See two examples below.

So, we have a bit of a problem. First, it will be increasingly difficult to find any consumer-level CCD cameras as time goes on and things move toward using only MOS sensors. Second, although CCD sensors use a global shutter, which does not suffer from the warping found on cameras using shutter roll, the MOS sensors are more sensitive (e.g., better in low-light conditions). All of the cameras I describe above – the Canons, the Sonys, and the Panasonic – use MOS sensors. All of them, use shutter roll. All of them will demonstrate the warping found with quickly-moving objects or fast panning from side to side. So: shutter roll probably is not something that should enter into your decision-making. Just sigh, and hope they soon introduce a consumer-grade MOS sensor that uses a global shutter.

Conclusion:

As I see it – based upon my research so far – here is what you should ask yourself if buying a high-end consumer-grade camera capable of recording video:

Q1. Do I mind it if my video recording cannot continue for more than 12 minutes at a time? If you do mind, don’t buy a camera designed primarily for stills, such as the Canons mentioned above.

Q2. Do I want a camera that can give me film-like, shallow depth of field, or the possibility of using a variety of lenses. If so, do not buy the Panasonic TM900. If you don’t mind video recording that cannot go for more than 12 minutes at a time, the best options for stunning sharpness and shallow depth of field are the Canon 7D (if you want to do excellent stills with it as well), or the Canon Rebel T3i (which is less than half the price of the 7D). If you want pretty respectable depth of field effects, but you do not want a camera that prohibits video segments greater than 12 minutes in length, your best options (among those I’ve researched) are the Sony NEX VG-10 or VG-20. NOTE: The VG-20 has several improvements over the VG-10, not the least of which is that the VG-10 used interlaced images and had limited options for frame rates, whereas the VG-10 uses progressive scan and has a better complement of frame rates.

Q3. Do a want a camera solely for video uses, that is good in low light (almost as good as the big-sensor Sonys), that controls Moire better than the big sensor cameras, but that does not allow me to have film-like, professional-looking depth-of-field controls, and does not allow me to use different lenses? If so, then the answer is the Panasonic TM900. Don’t bother forking out money for the big-sensor DSLRs.

Q4: Do I want my camera to have zebra and peaking technology? If yes, then don’t buy the Canons or the Sonys (unless you want to get into after-market hacks of the firmware on your camera). Get the Panasonic TM900, which comes with both of those technologies.

Well, that’s it for now. I hope that helps. And, please, if you have insights that would help me or those reading this blog entry, please post them in the comments section below. Happy video recording, everyone!

During the Q&A segment, an audience member asked Rand:

Q. “By any chance have you heard of Roger McBride of the Libertarian Party? Can you tell us what you think of him?”

A. “My proper answer should be: ‘I don’t’. But I’d like to elaborate. To begin with [in my speech] I mentioned the candidates which were mentioned as the particulars…article. They didn’t hear of McBride, which is just as well: there’s nothing to hear there. Now, why would I be opposed to him? Because I have been saying – look, if you know nothing about me except the lecture today – but I have been saying the same thing in everything I’ve spoken or written: that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. And here is a party which plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite – with religionists, with anarchists, with just about every intellectual misfit and scum that they can find – and they call themselves ‘libertarian’ and run for office.

“Just let me add: I dislike Mr. Reagan. I dislike Mr. Carter. And I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. I would say the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt anything so unphilosophical, so low, and so pragmatic, as this libertarian party because it’s the last insult to the idea of ideas, and to philosophical consistency.”

NOTE: You can listen to Ayn Rand giving this answer by signing up (it’s free) to be a Registered user of the aynrand.org website and visiting the Rand audio library there. Those who would like to read the various essays I’ve written about libertarianism can find most of them by using the search tool on this blog. You can also find my videos on libertarianism by visiting my YouTube channel.

UPDATE

The above blog entry was cross-posted to my facebook wall and to solopassion.com. Some interesting discussions ensued.

On facebook, S wrote:

…libertarianism is a broad term used to describe people who politically support (A) little to no government (B) free markets and property rights and (C) personal liberty. Under this definition, Rand would certainly qualify as a libertarian, her own distaste for the label notwithstanding.

I replied to S as follows:

As to “libertarianism” being a “broad term”: of course it’s broad – it’s deliberately, and intentionally, and strategically broad, and it is that strategy that lies at the heart of libertarianism. Specifically, by trying to bring together anyone who claims to like a floating conception of “liberty”, it attempts to attract even people holding opposing, mutually exclusive metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and even political philosophical commitments. “libertarian” necessarily implies a collective entity (i.e., the libertarian movement or Libertarian Party) that demands of its constituents that they agree to disagree about everything that makes liberty right for man. That willingness is a willingness of the movement – of libertarianism – to be, by design and intention, indifferent to philosophical beliefs that, in fact, undermine the case for liberty.

As one case in point: take Ron Paul – widely recognized and championed as a libertarian – who felt it very important to say, during a presidential debate in Nevada, that rights are god-given. Were a proponent of reality, reason, and rational selfishness to stand shoulder to shoulder with that clown saying both Ron Paul and he are “libertarians”, what theist cannot make the same claim? If rights are god-given, they are Allah given too, and one is left debating what rights man has by way of debating whose imaginary friend is the REAL omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent rights-giver. Sharia – Allah’s law, including the rights Allah says man has – is not pro-liberty (by most “libertarians’ ” conception of liberty), but if libertarians accept that (a) belief in the supernatural is a foundation for liberty; (b) that faith in the alleged words of alleged gods are a valid source of knowledge in defence of liberty, (c) that obedience to a god is a defence of liberty; etc. then forget about trying to win an argument with a Islamic theocrat about whether or not it is right for man to have liberty: you’ve conceded to him everything he needs – the supernatural, faith, obedience as a virtue, etc. Stand by Ron Paul; call yourself a fellow “libertarian”; and thereby serve the cause of defeating the prospect for liberty.

Also on facebook, A wrote:

Paul, while I share your distaste for anarcho-capitalism (which is basically the belief that you can have meaningful laws without enforcement), I don’t understand your distaste for the more sensible varieties of libertarian. If someone has the same politics as you, why not work together in the political sphere? Sure, you may disagree on philosophy, but debates about philosophy can happen after you’ve gotten what you both want out of the political process, they don’t need to happen before.

I replied to A as follows:

Nobody will achieve, from the political process, freedom unless ones policies and electoral platforms – and ones arguments – are founded on a commitment to reality, reason, and the virtue of every individual’s rationally selfish pursuit of his own happiness. Governance involves not just political considerations, but metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical considerations. To govern in a way that is pro-freedom is to govern solely according to the physically provable facts of reality, by way solely of reason, never failing to remember the purpose of the law (which is to ensure that no man is prevented by any other from rationally pursuing his own happiness). To come up with a party whose policies are indifferent to metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical concerns is to come up with a party that will not – if it wins – be committed to the the things that make rational, pro-freedom governance possible.

Philosophy is not academic. Everyone has, and operates upon, a conscious or subconscious philosophy. Governing for freedom requires an unswerving philosophical dedication to rational decision making, and that precludes decisions founded on such things as the possibility of an afterlife, the impossibility of certainty, the virtue of duty, etc..

To another of A’s comments – about suggesting Objectivists should collaborate with libertarians – I replied:

When it comes to the issue of philosophical advocacy (as opposed to advocating certain concrete changes to laws, taxes etc) one simply cannot align oneself with a person whose philosophy is contrary to ones own metaphysically, epistemologically, ethically, or politically, if one wants ones philosophy – and all of the benefits that result from its prevalence – to gain prevalence.

A responded:

If your political end is, for example, lower taxes, then Objectivism and a hippie’s distaste for The Man actually are interchangeable means to the same end. You may disagree on other issues, but on that one you’re allies, full-stop (unless, as you say, someone is so loathsome that accepting their help actually makes progress less likely). And if the set of “issues you agree on” encompasses everything related to government, then the disagreements are by definition apolitical. I’m not saying that you need to pretend apolitical differences don’t exist, but you seem far too intent on bringing them into the political sphere unnecessarily.

I replied:

It’s not an uncommon belief, but it’s an incorrect one, that only issues of political philosophy have anything to do with governance. That’s not so. Let me give you an example.

A few years back, a teacher in an Ontario school had a young student (I think her name was Victoria) who is autistic. Apparently, it is not uncommon with autism such as hers to be associated with children masturbating and doing so at inappropriate times and locations. Such, as I understand it, was the case with Victoria. Anyway, the teacher went to see a fortune teller one night. The fortune teller asked the teacher if she had a girl in her class having a first name starting with the letter V. The teacher responded yes. The fortune teller told her that V was being sexually abused by a man in V’s house. Presumably, the masturbation, combined with the fortune teller’s story and the teacher’s willingness to believe in the supernatural led the teacher to worry. The next day, she told the principle. The principle was, apparently, equally nutty. The principle called the Board. It was apparently equally nutty. The Board called the Children’s Aid Society. Being equally nutty, the CAS attended V’s house and inspected (no warrant needed, of course). V’s mother was shocked and outraged. The CAS discovered no man lives in the house. V’s mom was single.

So, here’s the question: ignoring the anarchist answer (“Smash the state to ensure that doesn’t happen”), what other libertarian answer is there to this situation? What is the answer that is based upon the alleged political “philosophy” of the libertarian movement? Forgive me for not holding my breath, because the issue is *not* political (and the libertarian movement does not have *a* political philosophy). The issue is not one of politics, but of metaphysics and epistemology. Everyone in this utterly wrongful chain of events was operating on the false metaphysical belief that the supernatural/mystical exists, and that reading crystal balls, tarot cards, or the wrinkles on ones hands, etc. are ways of obtaining knowledge. The correct answer, for the government observing that this BS went on, is to make laws that (a) exclude any consideration of the allegedly supernatural, and that (b) exclude any consideration of claims founded on mind-reading, fortune-telling, speaking with the dead, palm readings etc.. Yet there is NO libertarian objection to the supernatural (it is to be regarded, by the libertarian movement, as no less valid than claims that can be proven true with physical evidence), and there is NO libertarian objection to treating the alleged mystical insights of a “psychic” to be worthy of consideration by the government. Libertarians will disagree as to what should or should not have been done, as a result, because there answers will not be based upon libertarianism, but upon any of a wide and differing variety of metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, or political beliefs they hold. There *IS NO* libertarian answer to this situation, largely because even if there was a single libertarian political philosophy that all libertarians agreed with, a political philosophy would have nothing to say about the root problems in this case (which were matters of the GOVERNMENT’S metaphysics and epistemology).

Finally, it’s not a matter of bringing metaphysical, epistemological, or ethical issues into the “political sphere”. It is a willingness to *acknowledge* that metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical philosophy determines GOVERNMENTAL decisions and actions every day, and more fundamentally than political philosophy. To say metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics (and, for that matter, the need for a particular political philosophy) doesn’t matter, so long as we all agree to a few floating political abstractions is utterly false and naive, and that utterly false and naive belief is why libertarianism cannot possibly achieve anything at all. They are trying to drive a car merely by operating the brake pedal, hands off of the wheel, feet off of the gas pedal, and eyes on their navels.

Meanwhile, over at solopassion.com, debate roared over whether Objectivism was just another form of libertarianism. I there decided to do what I rarely like to do (provide an analogy):

By way of concretes: the libertarian movement set up a factory to make knock-offs of Barbie-doll heads, which, on a doll-by-doll basis, it attached to a randomly-grabbed assortment of defective GI Joe, Robbie the Robot, or Swamp Thing arms; rejected Hulk, Rubber Man, or dildo torsos; discarded licorice whip, wooden stick, or dried up worm legs; dressed the resulting Frankensteins in potato sacks, garbage bags, or dominatrix clothing; packaged the resulting Frankensteins into boxes labeled “Beauty Doll”; and then claimed that the integrated beautiful womanesque invention called Barbie was “just another Beauty Doll, because they all have the same head”.

Not many daughters would buy that argument. No Objectivist should accept the argument that Objectivism is just another exemplar of libertarianism.

The movie is based on the novel, “Atlas Shrugged”, published in 1957 by author/philosopher Ayn Rand. Over the course of her life and writings, Rand discovered what no philosopher before her had thought possible. Specifically, she discovered and explained that a truly ethical philosophy (which she called “rational egoism”) can be proven by the facts of reality as discovered by man’s only method of obtaining knowledge of those facts: a logical process of thought solely about that for which, ultimately, there exists physical evidence. Rand argued that rational egoism logically implies a political philosophy pursuant to which government ensures that no person’s life, liberty, or property is taken without his consent. Rand argued that capitalism – which she defined as the separation of economics and state – is the only socio-economic system compatible with the moral and political position she advocated.

Starting as it does with the question “Who is John Galt?”, Rand’s purpose in writing the novel was to portray the ideal man. “Who is John Galt?” is really a re-statement of the question to which “Atlas Shrugged” – the novel – provides the answer: “What is the nature of the ideal Man?”. Rand was concerned not with the alleged heroes determined by alleged divine revelation or by a popularity contest, but with the hero dictated by the facts of reality (in particular, the facts of reality that disclose the essential nature of Man).

Rand’s hero – her ideal Man – is not a mindless brute. Being a hero by her standards, he necessarily is a rational being. Accordingly, to tell the reader only that a hero did something would not have served her purpose. To know the nature of a hero by Rand’s standards, it was also necessary to communicate why the hero did what he did, and what purpose the hero intended to serve by his decisions and actions. That being the case, Rand’s novel could not take the form of a melodrama; it could not limit itself to communicating to the reader conflicts between the book’s characters. To achieve her purpose, Rand’s novel also had to communicate to the reader what was going on inside the minds of her characters: what each character relied upon as knowledge; how each character made (or avoided making) decisions; what (if anything) each character considered a value; what each character hoped to achieve by their decisions or indecision, or by their action or inaction; and the emotions experienced by each of the characters, owing to their differing ways of viewing the world and choosing, and owing to their different views of what is a value, what is a virtue, and what is the purpose of ones own life. In other words, in addition to communicating the conflicts between characters, Rand had to communicate the conflicts within characters.

Had Rand discarded her purpose, she most certainly could have written a much shorter novel in the form of a melodrama. Indeed, much of the unwarranted criticism directed at Rand’s novel over the decades has essentially taken the form of complaining that Rand did not do just that; that she didn’t just write a short melodrama about the “competing interests” of individualistic and wealthy industrialists on the one hand, and collectivist looters and moochers on the other. Worse still have been the critics who entirely miss the purpose both of Rand’s novel and of communicating conflicts within the characters; who are unable to comprehend anything but the inter-personal conflicts in a drama and who, as a result, come away from the novel “Atlas Shrugged” thinking that Rand has merely written a needlessly repetitive and wordy melodrama.

In case you think I have forgotten that this is a movie review: I haven’t. But the preceding serves to explain the overall feeling I experienced watching the movie, “Atlas Shrugged Part 1″. The movie’s creators were faced with a daunting task: taking Rand’s 1164 page epic drama, and recreating it in movie form. Prior to the production of “Atlas Shrugged Part 1″, nobody had found a way to do it. Having now viewed the movie, my conclusion is that that remains the case.

The movie depicts, in a reasonably faithful way, the series of events in the early part of the novel. The economy is in trouble. The government reacts by passing wage and price controls, anti-trust laws etc.. A railway company called Taggart Transcontinental is in financial trouble. One of the main movers and shakers within the company, Dagny Taggart, intends to try to save the company by going it alone, for a time, to rebuild a length of track in an increasingly industrialized Colorado using a new metal. The fellow who invented the metal, Hank Reardon, doesn’t want to sell it to the government. Hank’s wife doesn’t like the Reardon-metal bracelet that Hank gave to her. Hank has sex with Dagny after she succeeds in building the train line in Colorado. And, of course, some shadowy figure is encouraging a number of industrialists and railway employees to close shop and disappear. Part 1 of the movie ends with a torching of which the novel’s readers will know the significance. In short, the movie stays respectably faithful to the progression of the events in the novel.

However, whereas the movie depicts, to some extent, conflicts between individuals, it does not sufficiently communicate to the viewer the philosophic natures of the characters and the internal conflicts faced by each of them. We see what is decided, and what is done, but there is little if any indication that the characters experienced any internal conflict when making the decisions they make. We know that Hank thinks it is important for the government to acknowledge that his metal is good, but we have no idea why he thinks it so important. We know that Hank is attracted to Dagny, but we have no idea why, and no idea why he and she had sex only after Dagny’s Colorado rail line is built. We know that Dagny’s brother dislikes big “monopolies” and likes smaller companies that “need” business, but it is anyone’s guess as to why he holds those views. We are left with a story but, without a communication of the “why” and “what for”, the movie cuts off the viewer from causes and purposes.

As Rand explained in her most excellent essay, “The Missing Link”, the questions “why” and “what for” are “the prime movers of a human mind”:

“The absense of concern for the ‘Why?’ eliminates causality and cuts off the past. The absense of concern for the ‘What for?’ eliminates long-range purpose and cuts off the future. Thus, only the present is fully real to the anti-conceptual mentality.”

Rand once told Playboy Magazine, “a man without a purpose is lost in chaos”, and such a man “drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil”. By refraining from communicating to the movie’s viewer the philosophical causes and purposes of the decisions made by the movie’s characters, the viewer is left in a similar state of chaos (which is not to imply that such chaos itself inspires excitement), unable to distinguish between a character who is drifting whimsically, and another who has a purpose.

The best word I can use to describe the resulting effect is: flat. Not engaging sufficiently in the ‘whys’ and ‘what fors’ of the characters’ actions, the story’s characters – its villains and its heroes – are much less polarized, morally, in the movie than they are in the novel. The movie’s Reardon is a good enough guy, but he is simultaneously nowhere near as admirable, in material matters, as the novel’s Reardon, and nowhere near as corrupt, in spiritual matters, as the novel’s Reardon is at the beginning of the story. The movie’s James Taggart is a bit of a useless boob, but he is hardly the calculating anti-Man (the sneaky, lying, influential, conniving snake) he is in the novel. In the movie, both the heroism and the villainy are, as I’ve said, flattened, leaving characters whose purpose is to play parts in a sequence of events and inter-personal conflicts, rather than to communicate to the viewer almost anything about Rand’s views on the essential nature of heroism and villainy. The viewer ends up knowing what happened and who won each inter-personal conflict, but will be left without any guidance as to why one side or the other, in reality, deserved to win or lose.

The same flattening – with the same cause – happens with respect to the film’s ability to invoke strong emotions. For example, having entirely excluded any history of the romantic relationship between Dagny and Francisco D’Anconia, Francisco’s apparent (yet entirely unexplained) inner-conflict over refusing to help Dagny fund her Colorado rail project leaves the viewer not intrigued, but puzzled and perhaps indifferent.

Much of what I am pointing out, above, arguably is owing to the widely-recognized difficulty in delivering sufficient character development in the short time provided in a movie. For example, one of the audio book versions of “Atlas Shrugged” that I own runs for about 52 hours. In comparison, “Atlas Shrugged Part 1″ covers a considerable chunk of the story line in about 90 minutes (why the film’s run time was so limited, in an age when most mainstream movies run much longer, is a mystery to me given the obvious character development opportunities that a longer run time would have facilitated). It may have been decided by the movie’s creators that it was not possible for a relatively short film version of “Atlas Shrugged” to serve the purpose Rand’s novel serves; that it was not possible to create a movie version of “Atlas Shrugged” as a drama; that it was not possible to spend time on the characters’ inner conflicts without abridging the series of events so severely that the story would become unrecognizable. In short, it may have been decided that the movie must first and foremost tell the “Atlas Shrugged” story in a relatively short time, and that that could be achieved only in melodramatic form, at the cost of sacrificing the novel’s purpose.

So, what is my take home message to the would-be viewer? That depends upon the nature of the viewer. If you have condemned Rand’s novel on the erroneous belief that Rand was wordy and repetitive, but you end up disliking the movie, understand that if Rand had done with her novel what you claim Rand could and should have done with it – i.e., tell the same story in a fraction of the pages – the resulting novel quite likely would have been the fast-moving melodrama that is “Atlas Shrugged Part 1″, rather than the weighty drama that is the novel. If you never have read the novel and you decide to watch the movie, you might very well like the movie, but – even if you dislike the movie – you quite probably will love the novel. If you have read novel, watching the movie will definitely demonstrate to you the utter magnificence of Rand’s effort and achievement in the novel, which you will, as a consequence, love even more, and it will provide you with an opportunity to sit with others who – more likely than not – share your sense of life. That alone may very well be worth more than the price of admission.

“Atlas Shrugged Part 1″ begins screenings this Friday, October 28, 2011 at Toronto’s AMC Yonge & Dundas 24 theatre. You can buy your tickets online, right now, by clicking here.