Low Budget Stereoscopic FilmMaking - The Race is On!

Back in late 2009, early 2010 I was digging around a bit in the film industry analyzing numbers for a few different reasons. I shared my ideas with a few people but it didn't seem to click with anybody. Rather then pursuing any of my ideas further I shelved them as I couldn't afford at the time to do anything about any of it. Things just weren't working out well for me personally at the time.

In my research at the time I had found that since 1999 there had been five key films that were popular for their low production budget and handheld camera tactics. The budget for all 5 films in total is estimated to be around $56 million. The cheapest of which only weighed in at an estimated $15 thousand for production and bringing in over $100 million in domestic gross alone. To date, the total of all these films are estimated to have brought in over $783 million in worldwide box office gross. These films include "The Blair Witch Project", "Open Water", "Cloverfield", "District 9", and "Paranormal Activity".

I was doing this research in comparative terms of what was soon to be known as the highest grossing film of all time, "Avatar". In fact, the day I watched that film for the 1st time I went on a local forum and stated that it would soon be known as the highest or second highest grossing film of all time and was attacked for making such silly claims. Regardless of that and back on topic... comparatively to the prior films mentioned, this film had a production budget rumored to be over 400 Million.

It was my belief at that point that the race was on. The world was not only just ready for stereoscopic but it was also becoming foolish to excuse the gross/budget ratio's of low budget film-making with handheld camera tactics. The time has come to blend the two and whatever films are 1st to successfully do so will reap LARGE bennifits. While many might bash this strategy as almost backwards film-making progression, it's irrelevant. The numbers do the talking. Film goers are growing tired of Hollywoods predictable offerings. They want movies that can connect with them on a mental level. Something that's different and can plug them into another world for them to explore (3D) or give them something that questions their intelligence into believing something is real or not (hand-held tactics).

Does it take $400 million to make such a thing? No! Heck no... Although it does take more then just 3D and low budget, it takes a solid film idea. 3D movies are declining in interest the more needlessly 3D movies are released. Since last year I've watched numerous 3D films and the only ones to have really benefitted from 3D have been "Avatar" and "How to Train your Dragon". Not to strip "Up" from it's worthy position of being a solid 1st candidate for the idea. But folks, my solid plea is to "not just make a movie 3D because you can and it's popular". In doing so it's only going to alienate people from this amazing new tool. Use this technology sparingly and when appropriate. Ask yourself, "is this just gonna look cool or does it really add to the storytelling and experience of the film". 90% will just "look cool" and in doing so will add to the "gimmicky" title that many give stereoscopic.

But there you have it. I've been on record for the past 10 months, trying to get people to listed to me in regards to these investment and business strategies. After just reading that "Paranormal Activity's" new 3 million budget film has pulled almost 42 Million in just 3 days in comparison to "Red", a 58 million dollar film that has brought in only 44 Million in 10 days; I felt compelled to run my mouth a little.

As film-makers catch onto this idea you should be ready for a slew of sub-par low budget stereoscopic films coming our way but lets just hope that one of them... gets it right. You will know who holds the title when you see a low budget movie that can honestly claim that seeing it in 3D doesn't "just look neat" but was necessary to add to the story and experience.

What is my own plan? Well, personally I believe that there is a non-stereoscopic low budget film technique and strategy that has been overlooked. One that is less complicated, a lower risk, and much higher pay-off. When I can afford to pursue it I will do so or if a studio/invester would ever like to explore my thoughts then I am available via email. Until then, lets see if someone can get stereoscopic low budget film making done right.

D-BOX Motion Code Experience! Review.

Our new movie theater at the new Palladio Mall in Folsom has now added 2 rows of D-BOX seats to one of the mid sized theaters. For weeks I've walked by the demo seats in the main auditorium but never had a chance to try them. If you are un-familiar with what D-BOX is then here is the link:

http://d-box.com

My wife and I had just seen the movie Inception. Needless to say it was a spectacular film that is very deep, and one that you would want to see twice to catch all the details. Now, when purchasing our second set of tickets to the film I finally caved to my curiosity impulse and paid the extra $5-$10 or so to finally discover the D-BOX Motion Code Experience. I figured the movie would be perfect for it due to all the spinning cameras, explosive sounds, and edge of your seat music. It was late, the grandma's were sitting our baby girls, so why not?

When we arrived at the nine or ten o'clock showing we were handing over our tickets at the same time Jean-Martin Lizotte the Technical Director of D-BOX was speaking with the attendant. At some point I mentioned that this was our 1st D-BOX experience and 2nd time to see Inception so we were looking forward to the comparison. Jean was interested to hear our thoughts on this, gave me his card, and met us in the theater to chat a bit. Because it was such a late showing there was pretty much nobody at the movie and we were the only ones in the D-BOX seats. This gave us lots of time for Jean to be kind enough to explain all the D-BOX technologies, history, etc. It was amazing to hear how those seats are controlled and even a bit spooky to hear how much info the can access about the person using the seat each time. Really cool! Mr. Lizotte was such an awesome character and really represented the D-BOX company extremely well. Nothing makes an experience better then knowing that the people behind it are not only extremely kind but are also really into their own technology!

Here is my thoughts on my D-BOX experience:

For the 1st 30 minutes or so of the movie you can't help but concentrate fully on the actual seats. Thinking how cool and fun they are. How it actually gives you the feeling of dropping, turning, etc. The seats are extremely advanced and there is no doubt that the technology is there. Period. Technology is nailed. It's a roller coaster ride!

However, I'd say at about the part where Leo and the girl are sitting outside a cafe and the windows start exploding is when I noticed something. There is not 1 specific perspective that the seats follow successfully. They kind of move around to whatever motion is going on around them. When this happens and you realize it, there is suddenly a glitch in your experience. You lose focus just like when your looking at a stereogram and loose your attention. Once this happens it takes a few mins to get back into focus and during that time you have lost out on the story and part of the details.

Another glitch example was when they shot a rocket launcher and your looking at the man from the side perspective. The seat throws you from right to left to match the gun fire. Again my body seems to notice that although this is correct when watching a movie, I would expect to be blown backwards if I was really standing beside a guy at the side profile when he shoots a rocket launcher. I know it's kind of minor and sounds like I'm being a wanna-be critic but I'm really not. The body and mind notice things like this automatically and it causes a glitch in your focus on the movie.

Several years back I read a book called the Five C's of Cinematography where the author explained when it is appropriate for an actor to look directly into the camera and in most cases why it's not. Reason being if an actor in the movie looks directly into the camera it suddenly causes a glitch to the audiance and makes them loose focus. You feel as though the character has suddenly looked at you. It's uncomfortable and I've noticed that in films after reading it. Every once in a while you get a director trying to break the rule without the proper warrant and it always fails.

When looking at a stereogram, reading a book, or watching a movie you become completely submerged into the artist, author, or directors vision. We all want minimal interruption to enjoy these medias experience at their fullest potential.

Anyways, I returned to my deep involvement with the movie and thrilling van chase scenes until I realized something else. This time it's at the part when the van is slowly falling off the bridge. I noticed that when I watched the regular version, although I was looking at the van falling from the front window perspective... I still felt as though I was holding me breath and falling backwards. With the D-BOX seats it feels as though you are falling forwards on-top of the van. Don't get me wrong... this feels fun and right if you hadn't seen the film in the regular version but at that point I noticed that the D-BOX seats can actually change the way the director may have wanted you to view the film. For better or worse... it changes the directors planned experience. Even if it isn't a big deal for this particular scene... when looking at the technology you can see how this is possible to happen in other films.

Again I was uncomfortable when it came to the scene of the young girl killing herself by jumping out the window. In the normal version of the movie the camera follows her down to the ground. In D-BOX this same thing happens but because your in these seats it gives you the feeling that your actually falling on her and land on her. Fun, not a big deal, but you think about it and it pulls you out of submersion for a moment.

There was 1 more part in the snow lands where the camera is panning a building from afar and the seat moves with the pan. The next scene requires the seat to be back in the original position so it kind of resets and is very noticeable.

Now that it may seem as though I'm picking on D-BOX, let's compare it to other technologies.

When surround sound came into our lives it worked because you were always at the dead center of what was going on. Everything could happen around you. You were always grounded and had a natural sense for what perspective you were watching.

Stereoscopic movies. This is an improving technology but one that is very do-able. For some movies it just works, for some it doesn't. There are scenes in movies including Avatar where your submersion is interrupted for a second. Heck even little things like a smudge on your glasses can unplug you for a moment.

Although primarily, what seems to make the difference in the movies that work and the movies that don't? The director. When a director like James Cameron has filmed the movie with 3D in mind the entire time... it works. If your directing a movie for 3D you can control the way a scene works so that it keeps the 2D and 3D viewers submerged the entire time. When movies are just converted to work on 3D it stands out greatly and ruins the experience in almost every case. Only exception to me is 3D cartoons because they are designed from a 3D perspective. They can get away with more because it is already 3D. Just not stereoscopic yet.

D-BOX Motion Coding. This is certainly a white knuckle and fun way to watch an action movie! Worth every penny of the upgraded and assigned seat. They have done an absolute fantastic job with the technology and hardware. It's all there and it undoubtably works great for video games, theme park rides, etc.

Is this something that you want to watch a movie for the 1st time in? In my opinion no. You will likely miss some of the story. You won't see the movie from the way the director meant for you to experience it.

Will I see another movie in D-BOX? Heck yes! 1st on my list is TRON! I will watch it the second time at the D-BOX to be sure that I focus on the movie as it was meant to be seen the 1st time. D-BOX seats are a great and fun way to enjoy a movie and have a night out with some friends. It really was fun with no regrets. The TRON previews in the D-BOX seats seemed un-missable. Those motorcycle scenes... Yeah!

How could D-BOX be improved? Well, I believe they are already working on this but they need to get in at the director level. If they can manage to get a major director to support their technology and film with it in mind... it can make for a seamless experience and from a proper perspective. This would be the ULTIMATE MOVIE EXPERIENCE! If this was to happen they have a long course ahead of them as did 3D movies coming to the theaters but with time and a supportive director this has finally been achieved and is not going anywhere. Don't get me wrong... I'm sure that a director won't film a movie "for" D-BOX. He wouldn't have a reason to as there is very little theaters out there that support it. A director just needs to film with D-BOX in "mind". Rethink a couple pans. Rethink a couple camera perspectives to include Surround Sound, 3D, and D-BOX. It is very achievable and would pay off huge!

Well, that's all I got for you. A big thanks to D-BOX for an enjoyable experience and thanks to Jean-Martin for really representing well! We look forward to and support the future of D-BOX entertainment, improvement, and technologies!

Thoughts on Job's letter towards Adobe

While I agree with alot of points Jobs makes about Flash for the iPhone I would also like to call his bluff on one comment a little bit.

Here is the latest open letter from Mr. Jobs:

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

Now, in this article he states:

"Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."

At the WWDC in June 2007 was when Apple just finally spilled the beans that they would be dropping all support for Carbon 64 in their next OS. Prior to that I believe it was even advertised on Apples site or in a keynote that Carbon 64 WOULD be included and Adobe had full plans on shipping CS4 Creative Suite in 64. Adobe had to rewrite MILLIONS of lines of code at that point making one of the biggest transitions ever for a software company.

I do believe they dragged their feet a bit on this but in reality... we should be pointing a finger at Apple for blindsiding developers on this whole Carbon/Cocoa issue.

Now, Apples bigger bluff. Lets look at this part again:

"Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.""

Well, now what about Apple? Is Apples own Final Cut Studio solid Cocoa yet? Unless I missed an update Final Cut Studio is still riddled with Carbon, restraining the unvailing of a FCS 64 bit advantage via Snow Leopard. I believe all this came down to Apples Quicktime not being Cocoa until Quicktime X. So correct me in places I'm wrong people but I believe Apple is actually just as slow IF NOT SLOWER then ANYBODY at adopting and embracing OS X "fully".

Now, I am all for the pushing of H.264, HTML 5, and Java as I think Flash is garbage. Flash lite has got HORRIBLE reviews for consuming battery life and being lame. So I'm not pro flash for the iPhone but I do believe Apple finally has an upper hand on Adobe and playing the "injured bird" routine. Apple could allow Flash and the world wouldn't implode. This is a long war between the two companies and consumers are just stuck in the middle.

One last point. In the letter he mentions "mouse over hovers" not existing in iPhone land. I agree that on such a small device as the iphone implementing such a feature would cause a little bit of a headache. BUT, I think we developers should be able to test their sites and choose their own OS, Browser, and Device compatibilities. On the ipad and iphone all they would have to do is simply put a little button by the bookmarks button in Safari that's called a "rollover state button" or something. When it's activated it locks the current web screen so your finger can glide across a navbar menu and view any drop downs or roll overs... Just a thought. I admit it would overall be best to not include such things when developing a website for devices but alot of us want our site to take advantage of normal PC browser/mouse technologies still without having to write 2 completely separate websites.

Microsoft Bing Boom. Are you ready for it?

As the tensions continue to peak between Apple & Google you need to take advantage of time and stake your claim in advance. Are you ready for Bing? People are well aware of Yahoo's offerings so their market share will stay consistent but rumor is that Apple is batting their eyes at Bing as the new alternative for iPhone and iPad. I realize that mobile browsers aren't the biggest opportunity compared to PC browsers but it is true that people will be introduced and familiarized with Bings offerings via iPhone and iPads, from that point forward the halo effect begins. Don't be fooled, Bing is actually a good Microsoft product for once that has some excellent offerings. Main problem with it is the results suck since their aren't alot of websites optimized for it.

Sign up for an account & get your sites as optimized for it as possible. The more solid history you have with a search engine the better for your sites placement. Best part is... it's cake right now. A fresh new search engine like that is so easy to get solid results on since it's so unnoticed. My sites are getting a VERY healthy amount of traffic in-turn from Bing. I won't go as far as to say that Bing will be able to compete with Google's marketshare but still, be prepared for the Bing Gold Rush!

http://www.bing.com/toolbox/webmasters/

Redbox Marketing 101

People who know me personally or follow me on twitter much would know how much a fan I am of the REDBOX. Although I understand the industry controversy over cheap distribution as much as I did the locked iTunes Store pricing… it is here to stay! Consumers have caught on to it strongly and frankly, they demand it. Any studios unwilling to work with the company are just getting left in the dust, losing money, and fighting against the inevitable. As a consumer, if I don't see your video at the Redbox… I'm not going to rent it anywhere. It's not a matter of hunting it down at a local Hollywood video store and the studio still winning my money and proving any points to RedBox, I just simply won't rent it. It's out of my way and not how I plan on renting. I'll wait until its cheap enough to purchase at the store, download, etc.

A little off topic but I'd also like to add that any independent film makers not rushing to a RedBox distributer to attempt to make some sort of distribution deal is simply not a smart one in my opinion. That is the absolute first step I'd take to get my film seen at a National level.

Back on topic, the ease of use that RedBox has created for consumers is above all the main reason its been so widely adopted. It's not necessarily about the cheap $1 rental but about being so quick, easy, available at grocery stores, no contracts, you name it. There are so many wonderful qualities of the RedBox. Not to mention being able to hunt a film down in advance and see which store that host the RedBox and movie of your choosing. Then being able to reserve that flick online with a couple clicks or on your iPhone app just makes things even easier!

So, we have an amazing product with a GIANT user-base. So much in fact that every-time I go to the grocery store at about 5pm, I have to cross through the congested dvd rental line just to exit the store with my groceries. The RedBox is that busy and they have 2 of them side by side! So, RedBox is great… can't get much better aside from selection. So what's the point of this blog post other then fanboyism over a revamped Coke machine? MARKETING! And not on the RedBox side…

Convenience store marketing 101 would teach you to put your most popular products towards the back of the store or position in such a way that a customer would need to walk past a series of popular impulse buying products. Now, I wouldn't say to put a RedBox machine all the way in the back of your store making it inconvenient for those in a hurry to rent or return a dvd as that could lose your stores battle to other local stores with the easy RedBox rentals. However, the grocery stores are positioning these machines right beside the entry door to the store surrounded by Rug Doctor rentals and change-to-cash machines. How many people are renting a Rug Doctor or doing change-to-cash on IMPULSE??? None! There is no sense in wasting the space surrounding the machine with such products. The RedBox is a destination AND a impulse experience meaning that people are traveling to the store ONLY for that purpose or renting off impulse when they see it. Grocery stores are loosing serious money off of all these people traveling to this destination product. Not only that but they make it a turn-off to impulse buy due to the fact that it's at the front of the store and if your in a hurry returning or renting a dvd then you don't want to grab a candy-bar on your way past because you know that you will have to walk all the way around to the checkout counters just to buy 1 silly candy-bar and thats not worth it. Grocery stores need to re-arrange their layouts to make these distribution boxes within a quick walking distance to the doors… but also ON THE WAY to the checkout counter and having their best impulse products displayed along the way.

As it stands right now, the grocery store loses my money as a consumer daily because they position that machine right beside the door and I run in and out of their in a hurry. Great! I'm happy with that and I'm sure RedBox is thrilled with this as well because it makes their product easier and faster to get too. But why is the grocery store so willing to only make a few cents off each rental when they could convince me to drop a few bucks on the way to that machine? With a dying economy like the one we live in now I'd expect a grocery store that is housing local jobs (and laying off a bunch) to be smarter then this. They have a golden product that is so incredibly versatile that it gives them a huge opportunity to impulse purchases. The increased sales from repositioning a few items could easily help budget in another 1-2 local jobs based off the profits alone! But they don't. Their corporate marketing specialists don't see to have a clue in how to treat their most popular product. What a waste…

Comments always welcomed. As long as they agree with mine : p

Avatar. The IMAX 3D Experience VS Real D.

Avatar was my 1st live action movie to see in stereoscopic 3D. Before seeing the film I asked around just about everywhere to find out which would be the best 3D format to see it it. Real D or The IMAX 3D Experience of which I prefer to call mini IMAX. Now if you aren't aware of the differences between the mini IMAX vs the Classic (giant screen) IMAX its that the mini IMAX is actually Digital whereas the Classic is not. Mini is widescreen and Classic is more square.

Now, in making my selection 2D was obviously out as I don't feel you can even claim to have seen the movie if you haven't seen it in 3D. Only exception are those with eyes that don't allow them. IMAX Classic was out because I had no interest in the square chopped representation of the film and it wasn't digital. So I went with Real D being my first choice as the glasses looked alot better, easier on the eyes, and I heard there was less ghosting. I watched Avatar 4 times in this format as I kept getting re-invited. It was such an amazing film and I'm a VFX junkie so why not!?! I must say, each of the 4 times the movie actually got better to me. I was completely satisfied and didn't bother to critique anything as it just didn't matter to me.

Then my wife and I decided that since we had seen it so many times in Real D that it was the perfect movie to go check out at the mini-IMAX to compare for future movies. Especially since stereoscopic is going to be the next big thing, we better prepare for the mass amounts of 3D films to follow. Only lame part is the world better embrace to see a whole lot of films that should have never made it to 3D!!!

Back to Avatar... WOW! What a difference! It was as if we had never seen Avatar before. It was a completely different experience! Here is a few reasons why:

Possible spoilers follow

First off, the difference of IMAX vs Real D 3D is that IMAX submerges you into the 3D experience while Real D kind of sinks back into the screen to create the 3D effect. It does submerge you some but nothing like the IMAX. Both are subtle enough to not be "cheesy" as if you were at Terminator 3D in Universal Studios with things popping at your face. I do appreciate that at theme parks but not for a full length movie! One thing that was really stupid to me when viewing in both formats was that there were adults reaching out to grab objects. Sure, I buy it as fun at the theme parks where these stereoscopic objects are practically touching your face but in feature film 3D... you just look like an idiot doing that! The objects don't appear that freaking close.

Now, the human scenes. In Real D the human (live action) scenes seemed a little uncomfortable. It didn't ruin the movie enough for me to critique in any way but it was a little bothersome as if those scenes just shouldn't have been 3D. Even the curved holographic displays seemed a little odd. In IMAX all those scenes felt alot more natural and un-noticable.

Skin, glass, & reflective objects in Real D really looked really silver and stood out oddly. I'm guessing this is due to the silver screen but I'm not sure. Either-way in IMAX it still had that silver look but was alot more tamed and didn't stand out.

Fast action scenes like the first time Jake was being chased by that crazy animal in the forest. On Real D it got a bit jittery and you couldn't see what was going on unless in a top rowed seat that was more centered. In IMAX it appeared smoother and from a seat that wasn't dead centered. The scene was lit better also.

Real D scenes were alot darker. Noticeably when Sergeant Slaughter gets into his mecha suite for the first time. In IMAX it wasn't.

Colors, FAR move vivid in IMAX.

Fire Flies, and all those other little glowing floating effects were better in IMAX.

One major thing to me was that in Real D and 2D Previews the matte paintings stand out as being totally flat paintings behind the 3D floating islands and such. In IMAX it submerges into the 3D so the mattes didn't stand out at all really. That made alot of difference when trying to stay submerged in the world of Pandora!

Sound. Sound. Sound. I didn't think the sound could possibly be that different. Boy was I wrong! The battle scene at the end alone was a reason to go see that movie at the IMAX just to hear the difference. With the mixture of IMAX's curved larger screen, stereoscopic submersion, and that completely redesigned heart thumping IMAX soundtrack... you can't beat it!

Titles. Real D they pop out at you completely as if they are always the focal point and floating in the first layer towards the audience. In IMAX they integrated more with the scenes. Personally I preferred them in Real D so I could read them better but I think alot of people would prefer the IMAX.

Blurred foremost objects. This is something that really stands out in the Real D. For instance when Jake is first sitting at his desk and asking if he's journaling correctly to his partner. There is an foremost object blurred on the bottom right corner I believe. If I remember correctly this wasn't bothersome in IMAX but I could be wrong. Either-way... those type of DOF's or whatever you want to call it just shouldn't be utilized in movies that will be shown in 3D. Find a work around so it doesn't bother anybody in either format.

Glasses. The Real D glasses look better, are stronger, handled alot more professionally, and sanitized. They get used and then sent out for cleaning and repackaging. Downfall is they tend to slide down your nose a little, get more noticeable debris, and the fat shinny black frames allow for a reflection to occur on the lens edge frame of the glasses. This seems to be caused from the screen reflections if sitting in the wrong place in the theater. This reflection can make the film blurry in one eye or both and drive you nuts! Only solution is to move, totally ignore it for 30 mins like you would if there is a window reflecting behind your couch while watching tv, or cupping your hands on the sides of the glasses forcing away the reflections. The IMAX glasses are stupid looking, less durable, and slightly uncomfortable to wear... but they don't seem to have the problems that plagued the Real D glasses.

IMAX is slightly harder on your eyes but tolerable. Ghosting really is a non-issue. Although it might happen once or twice, its not something that stood out or interfered with the experience. Typically your facing the giant screen anyways!

So bottom line, if you haven't seen Avatar in the Mini IMAX then I strongly suggest that you go check it out in comparison. So far anybody I've told this about and recommended to go see it again agreed that its an entirely different experience. If you don't have a mini IMAX then you'll live without it and the Real D is still mind blowing but if you do have the option... go with the IMAX! I think Real D was mainly created because it was simple for theaters to convert their existing systems to include 3D in cheap, quick way. It wasn't fully dedicated to making the "best" 3D experience and it shows. Basically a way for theaters to charge more $$$ without paying alot more themselves and re-constructing which is all understandable really. But if you want the best experience, its not the way to go.

Apple Warranty Issues

On 11/28/2008 I purchased my late 2008 15 inch glossy Macbook Pro from Best Buy. After maybe a month or two after owning it the computer started buzzing like crazy. I looked to the Apple Support Forums to see if others had reported this issue and found that there was quite a few with this problem who had the exact same computer. Several of them had contacted Apple regarding the issue and reported Apple's various attempts to fix the problem by replacing hard drives and several other things. Most of them reported unsuccessful and most people were waiting for Apple to officially find the solution. I put my posts regarding my irritations with it back in March but decided to wait for word that Apple has officially recognized the problem and found a solution because I work on this laptop and really can't lose it for days for Apple to replace drives etc as they had done for others and then fail.

At this time I also noticed that my battery would only hold a charge for maybe an hour or so when surfing the web with no video or sound. At this time I decided not to call Apple until I take the time to call them over my buzzing issue when I hear word that they found an official solution. In the meantime I would just fully charge my battery and use it till it dies causing my to do this constantly.

Now I opted for this paticular model because it has the 2 graphics cards. Well, because of how little charge it holds with the lower end graphics card I never even dreamed of bothering with the better one. I'd also like to note at this time that we purchased another one of these exact same computers during this time period and it has never shown signs of buzzing or a bad battery.

I'm a very busy person so time went by and I ignored these issues until Thursday, November 26th. My 1 year warranty was due to run out on the 27th so I thought I better get on the phone with Apple. Closed for Thanksgiving. So then I called on the evening of the 27th at around 5pm and got a message again that they were closed (although later learned that they just closed early). At that point my only option of recording my complaint within my warranty coverage was to schedule a call back for the 28th, so I did.

After arguing with them about whether or not I am within my warranty rights it finally came down to the supervisor telling me:

1. The buzzing sound is pretty much unheard of by Apple even though their forums are flooding with complaints regarding it. I understand it may only be a couple hundred people out of thousands but still, I shouldn't have a buzzing computer should I? Problem unsolved and thats the end of it. I later found the article below which was interesting but whatever.

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1823

2. My computer is out of warranty. Even if it IS in warranty they will do nothing for me. Reason why is because I have over 500 charge cycles and they will not warranty a battery that has that many charge cycles. Well, my entire complaint is over charge cycles. After 2 months of buying the thing it required WAY to many charges! This is either do to a defective battery or their software of some kind but I can guarantee that its ALWAYS been this problem.

So I told the Apple Supervisor that by him stating that it wouldn't be covered even though its within the 1 year warranty makes me more mad. I asked him to point out in the 1 year warranty coverage agreement that I really don't have 1 year but only xx amount of charge cycles to call in. Where does it state that I have to call within 1 month or so of having an issue? 1 Year warranty should be 1 year should it not? I understand if I am abusing my battery in some way but the first Apple tech I talked with told me he'd never seen so many charge cycles matched to my capacity numbers and that something has got to be wrong in the software.

I finalized the call by agreeing with the Supervisor that its nothing personal but unless they can point out to me in the agreement where it states that I only have XXX amount of charge cycles OR 1 year then I'll have to get my lawyer involved. Here is their statement on the website he pointed me too:

"Notebook Owners"

"Your one-year warranty includes replacement coverage for a defective battery. You can extend your replacement coverage for a defective battery to three years from the date of your notebook purchase with the AppleCare Protection Plan. However, the AppleCare Protection Plan for notebook computers does not cover batteries that have failed or are exhibiting diminished capacity except when the failure or diminished capacity is the result of a manufacturing defect. Apple offers a battery replacement service for MacBook Air and all MacBook Pro notebooks with built-in batteries. You can purchase replacement batteries for late models of Apple notebooks directly from the Apple Store."

Before hanging up I also stated that even though I respect that the employees deserve a day off for Thanksgiving and Black Friday I don't think that my 1 year warranty should suffer for it. 1 year is 1 year. I shouldn't lose that because of them getting the day off, I should easily be granted that extension especially since it is recorded that I called within my 1 year. Opinions, thoughts or advise?