Nick Griffin
Forum Replies Created
-
I just want to know why Ron gave me the hard and square edges while everyone else is feathered. Hidden message?
-
No. But thanks for the question.
-
Uh, no. But thanx anyway for the input. See new posting above.
-
Been there and done that — with both options.
A couple of years ago I moved from our aging Media 100i version 7.x system to a fully tricked out Quad tower Final Cut Pro System. Then this past summer I had the chance to try Media 100 Producer (see story here in Cow articles). Producer allowed me to open all of the older and existing M100 shows AND open and use all of the digitized files.
What I concluded was that I really love the Media 100 interface and find it much simpler and faster to use than FCP. Mostly this is something as simple as fewer keystrokes / actions to accomplish the same thing. I still have FCP and use it for some things but mostly I prefer working in the M100 environment. (I will say that when serious color correction is needed FCP beats M100 HANDS DOWN and that to me is the biggest difference in terms of my requirements.)
As I have stated here in an earlier post, I was so delighted with M100 Producer that I upgraded to the full M100 hardware-based version. The biggest motivation for this was the need to use the Beta deck. By using different boot drives and being careful with the differing preference and extention files, I’m able to have both M100 and FCP on the same machine and switch between as needed.
Which brings me to what I feel is an obvious point: hey folks, the software is so dirt cheap and such a small part of the overall cost of an edit system, why NOT have more than one NLE? For me it’s not been an either/or situation because even if I never used FCP, the other stuff in FC Studio is certainly worth the $1,300 price tag. I may do most of my editing in the preferred M100 environment but I love DVD Studio Pro and Compressor. Live Type and Motion are a welcome change from After Effects, too.
Hope this is of some help in making your decision.
-
Craig –
Out of curiosity, what are you using to create the multi-cam dubs? Assuming that you’re doing that in an NLE and not a switcher, doesn’t that eat a lot of time on the edit system? Do you charge full boat for that or is it a dub rate? Thanx. -
I couldn’t agree more with Rich. It’s all about the dialogue whether before, during or after the job. I think just about everytime I’ve had a problem with an estimate versus the final product it’s come down to the fact that the client and I weren’t talking enough. Sometimes it’s been their fault or their “process” (way of doing business), but more often than not it’s been my fault.
As to contracts — which I almost NEVER call them and instead use the term “letter of agreement” — my experience has been that it’s best to have a very strict, cut and dried approach to overtime, change requests, etc. and then, on a case-by-case basis, to be somewhat liberal. In other words, when you give them something that the contract says you don’t have to it enables you to look like the reasonable party. This is especially useful if you’re negotiating for something else, for example, giving away a couple hours of editing time to get them to agree that they have to pay for going into overtime during the shoot.
-
Sorry for being less than clear and yes of course, Walter, you are right. The contract already has this. I just want it on screen for potential litigants to see — not that anybody actually READS the “fine print.”
-
Andy –
They certainly ARE supplying their own legal jargon. I want to insert language which protects US. This project is for a large entity with its own very large law firm. I have no doubt that they’ll be more than competant at protecting their own interests, I just need to make sure that we’re not left out in the cold. -
(Walter): You should have nothing to do with any legal copy that appears on screen.
I fully agree as far as the spot(s) go but will take it a step further. We’re working on an industrial safety training video for a client at the moment and we have asked our own legal counsel for wording that we can add to the “fine print” disclaimer to protect US. We want the disclaimer to, in addition to protecting the client, hold us, as writer/producers, harmless in the event a lawsuit should come up.
Will it work? My guess would be probably only to a limited extent. When people are hurt on the job personal injury attorneys look to involve as many defendents as they can find. Stating in writing that we’re not responsible for whatever happens to people who were supposed to learn from our video may help in court, but it’s unlikely to keep us out of deposition hell.
Which reminds me: I better check our insurance coverage. Just because we’re insured during a production I doubt we’re covered for anything that happens as a result of that production. Hopefully our umbrella liability policy offers some protection, but I WILL be checking this.
-
Todd-
Everything you say about the non-exclusivity of stock is true. The better the piece, the more likely it is to be used. BUT…1) When making selections from a really big stock library, the chance of having your music show up again in a meaningful way is minor. Sure I’ve heard spots on the air which use a track I’ve used on an industrial but only a handful of times and only once in the past few years. When I pointed out one of these instances to a client her comment was something to the effect, “What do you mean it’s the same? They’re showing wall to wall carpeting and our video was showing winter sports and mountains.” (Huh???) Which brings me to…
2) Normal people rarely register music on a conscious level. Here’s another example. I had a client a few years ago who, after an initial viewing of pro bono fundraising piece, with tears welling up in his eyes, say how touched he’d been by the video. I said something about the music and he said, “What music? I never noticed that there was music.”
Music can be magic, but the majority of normal people only take in the whole package. (Those of us who do this for a living are decidedly NOT normal.) The same is even more true for voiceover. My wife thinks I’m weird when I notice and comment on Gene Hackman’s VO for a financial services company or Thomas Hadden Church for an agricultural company. OK, maybe weird isn’t exactly what she’s thinking when she rolls her eyes and says “Who cares?”