In one paragraph:

"...20-year-old technique..."

In the next paragraph:

"...his advisors insisted he include a chapter documenting prior research and there wasn't any."

The article suggests that he was able succeed thanks in part to a "20-year-old technique" while there is no prior research?

Somewhat reminds me of an Oracle consultant claiming Oracle is responsible for most of the academic resarch on RDBMSs.

If the article is accurate on Stephen then "it takes one to know one (BSer)" applies.

that told me absolutely nothing.

Honestly, what is the point of this article?

Did only half of it get posted, and the insightful and news worthy section forgotten?

So... what does this article tell us about the future of video? Or even the past of video? Or about codecs or video editing? He goes on about "frame accurate video editing" as if that's some amazing achievement. We've had frame-accurate video editing pretty much since video was invented.

Is he trying to get some visibility so he can sell his (unknown and irrelevant) company to someone else, now that Lara Croft has been thoroughly milked?

And what is this kind of "article" doing in the Inq? Did he also give you half price on something in exchange for you saying that he is "very clever"...?