Forum Replies Created

Page 13 of 36
  • [Ron Lindeboom] “My favorite line was the one about “give and take…” — too funny.”

    And here I was thinking, ‘did Ron actually watch this?’ I owe you one. 😉

    My favorite was.. ‘future movies will have a lot of explosions and people bumping into each other.’

  • [Ron Lindeboom] “This video from YouTube gives the studio’s side of the recent Writers Guild strike. I thought that some of you would like to see it and consider its arguments…”

    The studio’s side? The guy’s a writer having a little fun.

  • Randall Raymond

    November 21, 2007 at 8:34 pm in reply to: billing for changes and revisions

    A lot of these ‘change’ problems stem from not getting a good read on the client and the message. A good account exec will nail both from the get-go – and then be able to communicate that to the creative dept.

    I’ve seen guys get off on a tangent that neither the client wanted nor made a good market fit. Why? They didn’t ask enough questions nor guide the client into the right direction at the beginning. Never coddle a client when he’s wrong – he’s not paying to be coddled, he’s paying for results.

    Do your research and then stand by the direction you take on his behalf. If he changes direction in mid-stream, then bill him. “Let’s target teen-agers rather than the retired.” Fine. Are you going to pay me for BOTH?

  • Randall Raymond

    November 21, 2007 at 5:09 am in reply to: Cancelled shoot- who pays for the equipment rentals

    [Mark Suszko] “You may have to front money from time to time but only with the understanding you are passing these costs on to the client. If they don’t agree, they are not a client (see definition).”

    If it ain’t in the contract, there ain’t no stinkin’ definition!
    Listen: there is one thing on a corporate communications guy’s mind: His Job. He can’t screw up. He’ll pay double if he knows you won’t screw up – but you have to lay it out for him. No surprises. Trust me on this – your job (in part) is to make him look good. When accounting approves your contract – he’s off the hook and remains a corporate warrior – and you get paid. Easy as that.

    I could write a book on this. Most video guys never see the inner sanctums – when you do, price is no longer the criteria – it’s something else.

  • Randall Raymond

    November 20, 2007 at 7:17 pm in reply to: Time to ask the industry giants!

    [wiedenu] “what are some of the questions YOU would ask applying for an editor/production assistant/producer position within YOUR company or production house?”

    I would want to know about your writing skills. Can you tweak a script without someone holding your hand? It’s about content. Great stories are put together by great communicators. So how’s your writing?

  • Randall Raymond

    November 20, 2007 at 7:04 pm in reply to: How to email 30 sec commercial in Vegas

    I agree – the last place I would want a client critiquing a production is on YouTube. “It looks fuzzy to me and sounds horrible.” It’s all downhill from there…

  • Randall Raymond

    November 19, 2007 at 12:53 am in reply to: render for YouTube

    [Aharon Rabinowitz] “However, shortly after doing these tests, YouTube stopped allowing users to upload FLV’s without their re-encoding it. It is not possible. No matter what you upload, they re-encode it.”

    That’s unfortunate and really stupid of them. YouTube gives me a headache after watching a few in a row. Obviously, bandwidth usage has become a problem for them.

  • Randall Raymond

    November 18, 2007 at 10:19 pm in reply to: render for YouTube

    [Aharon Rabinowitz] “[Raymond Motion Pictures] “320×240 – 30fps – start with 400bps – the flv file should then be served up as is.”

    Where did you hear this? 400Bps is Extremely low. maybe you mean Kbps?”

    Yes. If they are using Flash 7 – it looks to me to be encoded at about 200kbps. In your testing, did you ever try an extremely high rate Flash 7 encode at, say, 1500kbps for upload?

  • Randall Raymond

    November 17, 2007 at 8:40 pm in reply to: Avid says No to NAB 2008

    [GrahamS] “Hey guys,

    great discussion – and btw, we deserve it.

    Just let me say one thing – we do care about our user base and we are starting to listen ( I agree we didn’t used to do either).

    I find the concept of NAB arrogant – we plant a big flag in the middle of Vegas and say ‘come to us’ – the few thousand that do show up we then shout at for an hour in the din – what a great concept!

    I am acutely aware you guys pay my (and every other Avid employees salary) so you have my attention.

    Things are changing.”

    Hello Graham,

    If I may suggest something… Assign a person or two to ‘Cow Duty.’ Jan Crittenton from Panasonic does a bang up job of correcting misconceptions and rumors about Panasonic right here on the Cow. I think that would really help communicate the new Avid even while in the making.

    Randall Raymond

  • Randall Raymond

    November 17, 2007 at 3:55 pm in reply to: Avid says No to NAB 2008

    [Bob Cole] “Just curious Raymond: What do you mean by “we take that attitude into consideration?””

    Just that there are people who distrust and even hate salesmen, the pitch and advertising in general. They are sometimes, (or is it always?), targeted as a market.

Page 13 of 36

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy