Chris Blair
Forum Replies Created
-
RAM settings and disk cache are set to normal…Multiprocessor settings off…OpenGL plugin removed and don’t use OpenGL on this system…
Trying the “clean-up” utility and updating Install Shield are good suggestions. We just had to delete a bunch of stuff from Install Shield to upgrade our NLE editing application…so that could certainly be the culprit.
This is AE7…not CS3…but have done registry clean-ups with mutliple utilities (which often fixes issues with other software)
Have disabled preview…no luck on exit.
Again…we can work, save etc. Just a huge annoyance because we cannot exit normally and can’t save workspaces etc.
Will report back on the “clean-up and install shield” suggestions.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
I think that depends on the clipart/logo and how much “equity” there is in the name and look. I’ve seen logos that use clipart that look great. I’ve also seen logos using clipart that look cheesy. Kind of depends on the designer and how they incorporate it.
If the name and logo are known in the community and have a good “reputation” so to speak…then I see no compelling reason to change it. Conversely, if the logo and name don’t project the image you’re going for, then by all means, a fresh look would be in order.
But to me, unless it’s a really bad design and doesn’t project the kind of image you want, changing your logo isn’t going to magically bring more people your way.
My favorite story about logos involves a study done a number of years ago. A research firm took 25 well-known corporate logos and asked people to rate the logos (based on a series of questions) on their look and design. The second test asked people to rate the logos (and company) according to who they felt were the “best” companies.
American Express’ logo ranked dead-last in terms of it’s look. People literally hated the logo. They thought it was dated and stuffy looking.
Guess where American Express ranked (amoung the same group of people) among the “best” companies? Yup…numero uno.
So people may hate your logo, but I doubt it’s going to make or break your company (unless it’s REALLY bad).
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
I agree…to a point. We’ve done DVD’s for trade shows in Las Vegas, Orlando, etc. But we’re in Indiana…1000 miles away from both places. In those cases it’s impossible to go to the site and fix the problem. As I said in an earlier post, we give clients explicit instructions for reliable configuration and playback, tell them to test it well in advance, and tell them to call our cell numbers anytime day or night.
But we’ve had occasions where the AV companies simply declare that they have bad DVDs (we give clients two copies of everything), and they refuse to do anything to try to correct it…even after the client calls us in a panic. We’ve had instances where the AV company talks to us and refuses to admit there’s something wrong with the setup.
In each of these cases the problem was some setting either on the TV monitor or the DVD player….things like having the widescreen settings set incorrectly, having the black level set incorrectly on the DVD player, and our favorite, an AV company playing the DVD from a computer hooked up via VGA to the plasma monitor. They had the software DVD player “zoomed in” on the computer so everything was pixelated and blurry.
But you’re right that you HAVE to figure out the problem, communicate it to your client, and figure out ways to avoid in the future.
But I’ll give you an example of a similar situation that’s nearly impossible to fix. We do a ton of encoding for the web and we’ve gotten very good at it. We provide ready to use web video (typically flash), hand it off to either web designers or the on demand video companies, and they consistently screw it up. We call them and literally walk them through step by step how to get it to work, (with instructions often IDENTICAL to the web streaming companies own instructions on their websites)…and the streaming companies and the web designers STILL screw it up. We’ve called the clients and offerred to get their video posted and working for the same fee they’re being charged by the streaming company or their web designers. They consistently decline the offer! We’ve even offerred to do it for free for one very large client because they do so much other work with us. They STILL declined…saying they’d rather leave it in the hands of the “web” people.
This defies logic! We’re offerring to solve a clients’ ongoing problem for the same fee as they’re paying now, and they say “no.” So in this case, the client continues to “wonder” if we know what we’re doing, even though we’ve sat them down in our facility and shown them the 3 minutes worth of steps to uploading, then shown them the video working beautifully as it’s stored on the streaming companies server.
The streaming company tells them our videos aren’t encoded properly. So we set up a trial account with the streaming company and then loaded the videos through their service and again played them for the client. Yet the client STILL believes there’s something wrong with the videos. So we then tracked down the person that actually loaded the videos for them to the streaming server (an IT guy in their company). Turns out, he’s skipping the step of adding a SWF player, which you MUST do in order for the videos to play properly from this service. We inform the client of the problem, but the IT guy tells the marketing people you DON’T need a SWF player, and that we don’t know what we’re talking about.
So here’s a case of us sitting the client down, showing them the steps to get something to work, not once, but twice, and proving that it works. Yet…they’re still skeptical of what we’re doing.
The moral to the story is you have to do everything possible to make it right for the client….with the key words being…”everything possible.”
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
Some questions:
1. you say you shot using the EX1, did you shoot SD? Or was this originated and edited in HD, then downconverted to a standard definition, wide-screen DVD?
2. Do you know the native pixel resolution of the 50″ plasma TV used by the A/V company?
Some Plasma TV’s use 1366 x 768, some use 1024 x 768, and some use true HD pixel resolutions of 1920×1080. There may be other pixel resolutions, but those are the three that I found amoung the 25 or so models offerred on B&H Photo’w website
If the DVD was a standard definition widescreen DVD and the 50″ plasma used had a native resolution of 1920×1080, that’s some serious up-rezzing going on to convert it to fill the screen.
But that said, I’ve seen this done dozens of times and the video usually looks a little soft, but otherwise fine. Just slight pixelation, and surely no ghosting as you mention. It looks the same as an SD TV signal from cable.
My bet is that it has something to do with field interpolation and progressive frame issues. Many Plasma TV’s and DVD players have settings for how to display video in terms of frames and fields. If this is set wrong, it COULD cause an issue. Another area to examine would be 3:2 pulldown settings. If this is set wrong, it could cause an issue.
But that said…usually the default factory settings on both DVD players and Plasm TV’s make it nearly impossible to screw up how they playback DVD’s. But if you get to messing with them and don’t know what you’re doing or don’t know the specs of the video on the DVD, I’ve seen it occasionally cause a problem.
But I agree with you…. you cannot be responsible for ensuring a DVD plays back correctly when you’ve tested it on multiple DVD/TV setups prior to delivery and use in another state.
We give clients written instructions for how to ensure reliable, high-quality playback of the DVD’s we provide them and we ALWAYS tell them verbally and in writing to test it well in advance of their show, presentation etc. We give them our cell phone numbers to troubleshoot in case the AV people can’t figure it out.
Yet on more than one occasion, we’ve had similar scenarios. In EVERY case, it was operator error on the part of the people that setup and operated the DVD/TV combination. Usually they were too arrogant to call us for assistance.
What we do after the fact is take the questionable DVD and sit down and test it to figure out what went wrong. That way, we can tell our client…”here’s what happened and why.” We try not to get into blaming people, but most clients figure out where the error occurred simply from an explanation. We also get the problem DVD and SHOW the client (either at their place or ours), that the DVD does in fact play correctly on many other combinations of DVD/LCD, Plasmas etc.
There are occasions where testing and figuring out the issue isn’t possible because we don’t have access to the exact equipment. In this case, we again show the client that the DVD plays fine on multiple combinations.
I think that’s about all you can do from the client standpoint. And if you figure out what the issue was, be sure to WRITE IT DOWN so that you can note the possiblity on the next DVD project you do.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
We’ve produced some sample pilots and pitched them around in the past. One was a show about beer called “What’s On Tap.” We produced a 17 minute show (yes I know it was short on time), complete with a very experienced host with loads of credits..including parts in major motion pictures, voice work and hundreds of TV commercials.
It had 4 or 5 very entertaining segments. It was very highly produced and well written, had slick, composited opens, bumps, teasers etc…and had a very light, fun tone. We had many people watch it and give us feedback and suggestions for changes before we submitted it to anyone. We provided extensive budgets, production schedules, commitments from key production personnel (many with years of experience and some with existing network programming credits).
Yet…many networks wouldn’t even accept it for submission unless we had an agent…and the network you think it would’ve been perfect for, The Food Network, said and I quote: “the subject matter doesn’t fit our core goal of being a unique lifestyle network.”
Discovery Networks accepted it and liked the sample enough to assign an executive producer and producer (from TLC) to the project for us to work with. But they wanted us to deliver 20 episodes before they’d agree to anything financially…which was going to cost us between $500,000 and $1 million to produce (each show’s budget was between $25-$50,000 depending on the amount of travel. We didn’t have the money and banks laughed at us when we contacted them about a loan, even with letters of commitment from TLC.
What’s even MORE interesting; the programming chief at Discovery at the time told us he had 6 OTHER proposals on his desk for shows about beer, with FOUR of them also called “What’s on Tap.”
Obviously, they thought our show idea, formatting and sample was good enough to pursue, but getting a show on the air that appeals to a mass audience can be a very difficult road.
That said…with your shows produced and ready to go, it could be an attractive, niche type program for a second tier cable network. So it certainly couldn’t hurt shopping it around. Most networks have program submission guidelines that you can readily obtain by giving them a call. That’s all we did to networks like Bravo, Discovery (encompasses about a dozen networks), Food Channel, A&E, Playboy Channel, & Fine Living. I’d bet many have information online about it as well.
Good Luck to you!
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
It was a very helpful session. It looks like a well designed system that will fit our needs quite well. I have one other system to look at from Studio Network Solutions sometime the first week of the year, but I’m quite impressed with the vStor from Apace.
We have a 4TB vStor working with 3 VelocityQ and 1 Blackmagic Decklink HD with Premiere CS3/After Effects and it works great. We do almost all SD work and we get 3 and 4 streams of real-time DVCPro50 video on all 4 systems simultaneously. We’re able to capture uncompressed on two capture stations, and since the day we turned it on (February), the only issue we’ve had is that I couldn’t find the on/off button after we had a power failure! I called, got a live person and had my question answered in 5 minutes.
We’ve been very pleased with it in the nearly 10 months we’ve been using it and it makes you wonder how you ever got anything done before with all the time you save NOT having to transfer files. Not to mention the hundreds of gigs of storage we save by having just one centralized backup that backs up all project, video and audio files. Before, we had a ridiculous amount of duplication on dozens of hard drive backups across 4 edit suites.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
Mike Smith:
But for collaborative works like video, “authorship” can be a tricky issue. The advice I have been given is that the author and copyright owner in the event of a dispute is normally taken to be the person who made the arrangements for the work to be created – the producer (not the person who pushes the record button on the VT in studio, nor the person who pushes record on the camera / one of the cameras).Mike,
You bring up a good point on the collaboration issue. According to the joint authorship provision in copyright law, this really depends on how much the producer actually contributed to the production. If they came up with the idea, then hired the production company to shoot the project, and the production company made all the other decisions concerning producing the video, then the production co. owns the copyright to the footage AND the final production.
If the producer contributed more to the production, like collaborating on how it was shot and edited, then ownership is joint.
Here’s a link explaining it:
https://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/works-owned-one-or-more-creators
So in the absence of a “work for hire” agreement, the production company legally retains at least joint ownership regardless of whose idea it was, as long as they contribute substantially to the creative direction of the project.
All of this could be avoided by specifying up front in a contract who retains copyright. We include a line in our project contracts that explicitly states that we retain ownerhip of all footage as well as the completed project, including TV commercials, marketing videos, training videos etc (again, this provision is explicitly spelled out in copyright law and we’ve consulted with attorneys who confirm that we not only own the original footage, but also the completed work).
In the end, it’s really a non-issue until a client wants to take the work you’ve done and transfer it to a competitor to use in other projects or, revise the current project. Then in this case, they should pay some sort of a licensing or buyout fee. People continually discuss the “ethics” of this issue. I don’t believe ethics have anything to do with it. You’re not being unethical by following guidelines set down by a federal law!
The only real question is whether it’s always good for business to follow it. I think you have to look at it on a case by case basis and assess the intent of the client requesting the footage.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
Harry,
I’m not sure about copyright and intellectual property issues in the U.K., but in the U.S., under the scenario you describe, you would own the footage (whether it’s tapes, digital files, P2 cards etc.). She would own the performance and choreography rights since she designed and choreographed the project. So you couldn’t use the footage for anything without her consent, but likewise, without a written agreement stating otherwise, she cannot legally compel you to give her the raw footage.
As many have pointed out on this thread, just because it’s what’s legal doesn’t mean it’s always a good idea NOT to just hand the footage over. If this was a low-budget deal and there’s no real prospect for future work, I’d just give her the footage. I doubt she’d pay you a buyout even if you requested it.
In our experience, if a client is still using us for projects and is paying us on time, we’ll typically make duplicates of raw foortage or files if they request it. If however, they obviously want the footage to take their work elsewhere, then we ask for a reasonable buyout fee and we’ll either give them digital files or the raw tapes. Now what we consider reasonable might sound high or low to someone else, but we typically ask for around $150 per tape. We arrived at that by simply looking at what stock footage houses charge for DVD’s full of shots. Most charge $599 and up for 12-25 shots. So we don’t think asking $150 for a tape that typicaly has dozens of good takes on it is asking too much.
So if we have 50 client tapes, we’ll ask for $6000 as a buyout. If a client had to re-shoot all that footage, it would cost them 25 times that…so we don’t think it’s a bad deal.
Even so…not one client in 12 years has ever bought the footage when presented with the buyout fee. Some moved on, one stuck with us and our relationship is better today than it was then.
There are a LOT of different opinions on this issue and there are many threads that discuss it. There’s also a lot of misinformation about the legal aspects of it (as related to the United States). The law is very clear as it pertains to multi-media and motion picture production of ANY kind. In the absence of an agreement prior to production, and as long as you’re not doing “work for hire,” (meaning you’re not an employee of the producer) YOU own the footage.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
Let’s say I also have the wherewithal to get the ad made. Does anyone have any ideas about how I could get it seen by the types of companies I think might be interested in buying it?
I don’t think this sounds that difficult. Locate and list the companies you think are interested. Call and get contact information for their marketing people (there will be several at large companies). Then email a link to the video or mail them a DVD. We do work for a large health-care company and they’re always getting DVD’s and emails with video links of companies that produce medical TV commercials that can be customized for a particular market. Some are great…some suck. But guess what, the large healh-care company occasionally bites and runs one. We just tagged one for them from a company that makes a bariatric device (to help morbidly obese people lose weight).
If it’s good…someone will bite.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
Christopher Wright:
It is so funny to see this topic come up again and again on this forum (do a search and spend a few days reading), with the same people always espousing the same views.I agree with you Christopher (and not just because we have the same name). Copyright and intellectual property laws exist for the purpose of protecting the sort of work we do. It doesn’t matter if your raw tapes or project files have any other intrinsic marketable value. Most of what we do and most of the stuff we charge for is intangible. That $.50 plastic DVD, or the digital file on a website magically plays and tells a client’s story. It’s not like a car where you can see and feel what you bought. All the work that went into creating that video AND getting it in a deliverable form has value.
I’ve never understood why the same company that expects you to turn over a box of 100 tapes, is perfectly ok with having to pay for each and every use of a still photograph. Nor do I understand the willingness of people to turn over those boxes of tapes and project files, “no questions asked.”
Clients usually ask for footage because they want to save a crapload of time, effort and money by taking the work you’ve done and give it to another production house to create some deriviative work. So why do so many video and film professionals believe it’s such a bad thing to ask for reasonable compensation when a client asks for that footage, especially when they admit they want it for another project to be edited at another facility?
No one’s even brought up the issue of other facilities taking YOUR work, then taking credit for it. We’ve had this happen TWICE. On one project, we created an ad campaign for regional retailer, complete with a very high-end graphical look, animations and two days worth nicely shot video. When the client asked for the assets (tapes, photoshop files and after effects comps), we gave it to them. A month later, we see our creative campaign completely copied, (except with new text on the graphics) in a series of new spots. They had the audacity to enter the campaign in the addys…it won…and THEY ALL TOOK CREDIT.
I also posted earlier about two large clients that asked for ALL of their footage and graphic files. On both we asked for a reasonable sum that was barely more than the cost to dub the footage tape to tape. Both declined. One continues to use us to this day and our relationship is great. The other is headed for bankruptcy and their request was an attempt to avoid paying us.
So I don’t think anyone is arguing that corporate or even commercial footage has any real value or use to the post house, they’re arguing our creative works have intangible value. Those intangibles are worth something. And guess what…there’s a law in place to protect that value. You can read about here:
https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Academic_edu/CAF/law/multimedia-handbook
But even after all that…we don’t treat this issue as an “absolute.” We STILL give footage to other facilities as long as the client is doing projects with us. In fact, we did it today. WE copied hundreds of clips for one of our competitors to use on a project they’re editing for the same client. So we look at this issue on a client and project basis.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com