[Bob Cole]

[Jeffrey Gould] “So what does everyone else use when the only location you have is the back of a warehouse?”

Answer: the back of a warehouse. Sounds pretty interesting.

Center Stage in Baltimore, a quite decent regional theater, often makes an interesting set by putting minimal elements in front of their weird, oft-patched back brick wall.

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

[Terrence Dunlop] “He doesn’t want pillarboxes on his 4:3 stuff.”

I’d try to talk him into pillarboxes. What is there to lose? Isn’t that the way all 4:3 appears on any new, HD-compatible tv?

Don’t have the Mac workflow for you, but on the PC side there is at least one utility which will allow you to reset the aspect ratio flags. (I think it’s “Restream.”)

Bob C

MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650

[Bob Cole]

[Michael Sacci] “but it doesn’t play correctly” what exactly is it not doing or doing. I do not accept vague statements like this, this in no way to can troubleshot, “not playing correctly””

I agree; when someone asks for help he/she should be as specific as possible. But that’s the best I can do right now; I’m hearing this from a very non-technical person who’s a coast away from me, and I thought the experts here might already be familiar with this situation. If/when I obtain a more detailed report I’ll provide it.

Thanks for the report about WMP. That makes life interesting. I will try to make sure we have enough time in the schedule to do testing before the label is printed, so we can provide a “compatible with” list for computer playback.

Bob c

MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650

[Bob Cole]

[eric pautsch] “I have a permanent disclaimer on my invoices that explains their responsibility in finding a suitable playback platform”
MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650

[Bob Cole]

eDVD will work with Mac or PC.

re: BOV’s in DVDSP — Does that have the 1GB limit?

MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650

[Bob Cole]

[George Wing] “how many short clips are you talking about, and what is the total duration/playing time?”

No more than 15 clips, about 40 minutes total.

I googled “Buttons Over Video” for DVD SP, and found that it does exist. This may be my motivation to learn that program.

How does BOV in DVD SP differ from Motion Menus in Encore? I’m a little reluctant to jump to DVD SP for this project just because I also need to program using eDVD, which seems easier on the PC side.

And, if anyone has advice on good intro tutorials for DVD SP, I’d be most appreciative.

Thanks!

bob C

MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650

[Bob Cole]

[David Roth Weiss] “I’m not certain I need full body armour for the keyboard”

dvid jst put a pice og cnvas ofer th kybsrd – ut wrks fr m.

[Bob Cole]

[David Roth Weiss] “[walter biscardi] “I honestly hope Wal-Mart wins some sort of a tremendous settlement against these morons.”

Well, that won’t ever happen.”

Just to get this out of the way: I’m not defending Flagler.

Now forget that whole “Flagler is evil” issue for just a minute, take a deep breath, and try to step back and lose the production-studio perspective, because I think we’re so close to the situation that we may be missing the point. That narrow focus is natural on this forum, but imho, we should be using a much broader perspective than our own, even to understand how this relates to us as production people.

Flagler’s talk about the “historic value” of the archive seems like a fig leaf — imho it’s all about blackmail. The primary value is evidence that could be used (essentially for free) in class-action litigation against Walmart (for stakes that truly do represent a potentially “tremendous settlement”).

But the idea of Flagler holding up Walmart for blackmail is absurd. It can’t happen. Given any amount of sanity on the part of Walmart, it never could have happened, because trying to suppress evidence is illegal and exposes Walmart to even more liability. This footage only had value if it had been kept secret — and that was probably never possible. (To give one example of how difficult it is to keep recordings a secret: the exposure of the Nixon Tapes, we now know, was not an accident, but a carefully orchestrated and inevitable event.)

By law, it doesn’t matter who shot the footage — an internal crew or independent. As soon as a plaintiff becomes aware of the existence of relevant evidence, he or she has the absolute right to demand that footage. “Mr. Smith, were those training sessions videotaped?” “Yes sir.” “And who shot those videotapes?” “So and So Company [or] The Corporate Video Department.” BANG! off goes the subpoena for footage. The law doesn’t care what address the subpoena has on it.

No matter who possesses the videotapes, he/she/it must supply them. If Walmart had control and burned them, there is some legal principle which says “Jury — you may assume the WORST about this evidence which has been illegally destroyed. Let your imagination run wild.”

This thread has focussed on a lot of other issues, all of which have a point: Yes, the production company acted unethically. Yes, that hurts the overall production business. Yes, clients will probably bring a greater percentage of production in-house. Yes, contracts should be specific about what happens to footage.

But the important thing here has NOTHING to do with that.

Because it doesn’t matter WHO shot the footage, but only THAT the footage was shot. As soon as people find out about evidence, a plaintiff can require it to be supplied to them, for no more than reasonable costs of research and copying. It was never worth 150 million. If Walmart had paid 250 million, it wouldn’t have mattered. If Flagler had shipped it to Walmart for the cost of the UPS bill, it wouldn’t have mattered. Walmart would still have to supply it to their worst enemies.

So what is the takeaway about this episode, which is relevant to most of us?

Here is how I imagine some business website will be putting it: “Message to Corporate America — Don’t Videotape ANYTHING that you don’t want to see in a court of law, a tv special, or on YouTube. It will very likely get out. And jurors, customers, potential employees and business partners will see it, and judge you by it.”

It isn’t just Flagler v Walmart that is driving this message home. It’s “Macaca,” it’s every Michael Moore doc, it’s the flub on the presidential campaign trail that you see next week.

But it does have an impact on our business, and that impact is the phone call that goes like this: “Hi, Mr. Jones of Jones Productions, this is Mr. Big Client, and I’m calling to cancel that videotaping of the corporate conference next week.”

I agree with the posters in this thread who advocate handing footage to the clients ASAP. They are absolutely correct in advocating this policy, not just because of “morality,” but because corporations will only deal with suppliers whom they can trust.

But the biggest point is: corporations with anything at stake are going to be a lot more circumspect about videotaping than they have been.

There are genuine issues that this new “YouTube world” raises for production people. For example, are there instances when we should advise the client, “I think we need to stop filming?”

note to self: Those “blooper reels” may not go over as well with clients as they did in the past….

I’ll add this: “I may be wrong.” I am not a lawyer. So if any of the above is off the mark, my apologies for wasting your time.

This thread has been running wild, imho, with overwrought (and legally irrelevant) rantings about the character flaws of the production company. There have been some doozies in this thread, e.g. the one about putting out the fire. (I won’t try urging a little more civility — first time I did that I was accused of asking people to be saints. I’m not asking anyone to be a saint — I think sainthood requires you to die first, and I wouldn’t want anyone even to get sick over this.)

Speaking of being wrong, this case has made me realize that my automatic reaction was too black and white. At first I thought, “Definitely, the corporation has to be given the footage.” But there are cases where this wouldn’t be true. Take this hypothetical example. You’ve been working for years on a documentary about how evil XYZ Corp is, bankrolled by your own meager earnings, because you really believe it hurts Americans. This corporate footage, which dramatically proves some of the points you’ve been trying to make, lands in your lap. Do you use it? Michael Moore used footage from all sorts of sources (without permission) and most Americans said it was okay, because he had a higher purpose. Flagler clearly had no higher purpose, but what if you did? Would you be so noble as to ignore this footage? Oh, by the way: it’s now 1970, XYZ Corp is really a tobacco company, it’s still publicly denying that tobacco is bad for people, and the footage reveals that it has known for years that it was killing people. It would probably be immoral NOT to use it.

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Hi Ron,

When I said “esteemed leader,” I meant it. I am a big admirer of what you’ve done with the COW. In my travels around the country I’ve told dozens of video folks about how much I’ve learned from and enjoyed your forum. I even called a company whose products were mentioned to urge them to advertise (and he has, but he was going to anyway).

There is nothing as bad as feeling sick, and I hope you feel better soon.

Best,

Bob C

MacPro 2 x 3GHz dualcore; 10 GB 667MHz
Kona LHe
Sony HDV Z1
Sony HDV M25U
HD-Connect MI
Betacam UVW1800
DVCPro AJ-D650

[Bob Cole]

I’m sorry to see this happen. I’ve always prided myself on discretion and loyalty to clients — and to anyone I’m taping, for that matter. Despite the success and entertainment value of the Michael Moore doc’s and “Borat,” they make me uncomfortable for the people who are being held up to ridicule.

All the same, there are reasons to be cautious about overstating the importance of Flagler-Walmart. I suspect that the existence of YouTube, more than this case, has made companies much more cautious about videotaping.

There is a legal saying about unusual cases making bad law, and there are a lot of weird nuances here: Flagler selling his company just before it loses its main customer (coincidence??); Walmart urging Flagler to reuse tapes (=erase the old scenes from the tapes? or just more cheap-Walmartism?); the tapes’ legal status as evidence (even if Walmart bought the tapes, wouldn’t it be obliged to honor subpoenas for them?).

I’m sorry about one thing in this thread: a remark by our Esteemed Leader. I admire Ron tremendously for what he has accomplished with the COW, and for his morals and ethics. And I agree with the substance of his ideas in this thread; but I was disappointed by what I saw as overly personal remarks in one of his posts. Ron owns the store, and if people start getting attacked in this way by the “proprietor,” it is bound to have a chilling effect on the whole scene.

Although maybe a chilling effect is a good thing. It is good to remember, everybody, that google-bots are continually indexing what you write on the COW, and your potential clients can look up your posts when they are considering whether to hire you.

Fascinating thread. Thanks for bringing this to the forum’s attention.

bob C