Brad Spinoza
Forum Replies Created
-
If I had releases, I would upload the footage from my recent surgical training show just to see what sort of “highlights” Magisto chooses!
-
Great post, Walter. The article you are referring to is very thought-provoking. Unfortunately, the link in your post leads to a hacked site in Arabic. Don’t know if this hacking was to the site itself, or something that happened here on the Cow.
But for those who are looking to find the original article, I hope this link helps: https://www.inspirationandchai.com/Regrets-of-the-Dying.html
-
So what was the determining factor in how much you would pay for a given clip?
No one factor: Sometimes an ad agency would come to us insisting on a particular clip because they did the search themselves. Sometimes, we needed search services. Often, the calculation was the cost of the footage vs. adding a shoot to the production. Generally speaking, the more common the footage/theme, the less we’d pay. For example, beauty shots of Manhattan were easy to find and could be licensed nationally for as little as $100 per second. (probably less now with the proliferation of royalty-free collections). More rare shots such as a particular type of weather in a specific location (i.e. sunrise over Nepal) could command ten times that.
-
If a commercial has a $500k production budget does it make sense for someone who contributes 10% of the content to be paid 1% of the budget?
No, it doesn’t… sorry. The idea of licensing anything based on the budget an agency or sponsor spends on production is so far outside of the mainstream licensing conventions that proposing such a thing may reflect quite poorly on you. Consider this: If there were weather delays or some sort of other factor that caused a cost overrun on the shoot, would that entitle you to even more money? Is that same exact footage worth 10 times less if an agency does a re-version or some other national spot with a $50K production budget?
As one who has bought footage for regional and national commercials, I would strongly urge you to follow Mark’s advice above. Take a long look at the rights-managed licensing structure on iStockphoto, Getty, or some of the other major houses. Price in line with them or better and build a long-term relationship.
On the few rare occasions when people priced their footage far beyond the average, we would just call one of the stock houses: They were always willing to find us alternative footage in line with our expectations. BTW, we paid more for some footage that we used on a regional spot with a <$40K budget than we paid for other footage we used on a national with a $150K budget.
-
My experience is anecdotal and somewhat limited, I admit. I have not seen the Adobe workflow deployed in a news environment. It sounds like a very compelling solution integrated with InDesign.
I have seen the NewsCutter and Active Content Manager deployed in two print newsrooms. The speed and workflow are very impressive. For organizations that want to get from camera to finished as quickly as possible, it’s a battle-tested end-to-end solution.
If Adobe is as entrenched in print newsrooms as Avid is in TV newsrooms, my guess is that they’ll come up with an equally appealing workflow. The main point I was trying to make is that workflow is a huge factor in news production. That’s the main reason I think Apple and Final Cut may not be as poised to dominate the news market as some may think.
-
I think FCX is a great choice for taking in DSLR footage, syncing audio, and cutting a basic news package in a hurry. For backpack journalism and one-man banding with a DSLR, FCX is a strong offering. The competing Avid product for this market is not Media Composer, it’s NewsCutter.
As newspapers get more sophisticated about video, they’ll probably adopt a workflow similar to television news organizations: Avid is firmly entreanched in this market. I have not seen the version of NewsCutter that Avid just released. But they apear to be continuing to build a very appealing product tailored to professional newsgathering workflow.
-
The EOL of the MacPro towers has been anticipated on this forum for quite some time. Like many folks, I’ve given up on trying to read Apple’s tea leaves and waiting for press releases to announce press conferences months in the future.
Apple’s decade in the pro market was a nice ride while it lasted. I personally enjoy using Final Cut X, particularly to edit my DSLR “fun stuff.” I can see how it has the potential to become a staple for “backpack journalists,” event videographers, or photographers. In the hands of a skilled storyteller, a MacBook or iMac plus FCP X could be used to do great things.
But as somebody who owns a business, I just cannot afford to let my inner Apple fanboy rule. Several of the customers who pay me actual money for my editing require my work product to play nicely in their Avid workflows.
So when it comes to upgrading my workhorse hardware and entering the 64 bit world at least for the next three years, it pays to stay platform agnostic. I’ll miss my aging MacPro. But I won’t miss playing the guessing game with Apple.
-
I’m going to respectfully disagree with those who say the full-time job is “more secure” than freelancing. Stability at a car dealership?? Are you kidding? When times get even leaner and the co-op ad dollars get smaller, what overhead would be high on the cut list?
When you’re the house video guy anywhere, you’re overhead. Expendable. Your survival is tied to one company, one boss. Freelancing can be considerably more secure, particularly if you’re versatile. You can control your own future. Better to have a handful of customers who love you than a weekly paycheck that could vanish on a whim.
With all due respect to the “grow up and take the job” crowd… Being overhead is not secure. If you don’t sell cars or fix them, you are overhead in a car dealership.