Todd Terry
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
[Tim Wilson] “Always nice to see Desi Arnaz mentioned for the pioneer he was…”
Indeed he was.
Suggesting multi-camera film shows was wildly innovative for the time… I’m sure some network honchos probably thought Desi was nuts. He had a number of other production innovations too that were considered wild-n-crazy cutting edge at the time, which we take for granted today.
Those giant Mitchells on their big dollys made for some pretty crowded stages though… I count at least ten crew members crammed into this little set…
Ah, those were the days…..
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
Well I think it might be a bit different on some of those types of shows because in some cases it is the broadcast or cable network that is actually serving as producer of the show (i.e., actually ponying up the cash and paying for the production, rather than paying for the rights to air a show once or a set number of times)…or they are just buying the ownership rights as well.
In those cases the network may indeed own the show. But it’s because they technically produced it, not because of who aired it.
In a twist on that… I can’t for the life of me remember which show it was, but there was a primetime network show just a few years ago. In a slight rarity it was actually produced and fully owned by CBS (a little unusual that a network fully own a show). BUT… it didn’t air on CBS, I believe it aired on ABC.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
I don’t know if this pertains at all to Richard’s original question, but a little clarification…
It ALL DEPENDS ON THE DEAL, but television programs are generally owned by the producers of the show, not primarily by the networks on which they appear. SOMETIMES a network will own a show outright, but that’s highly unusual. Usually the producer owns the show and the network might own a piece of it, or the producer owns the show outright.
Quick example or two…
For years David Letterman’s “Late Show” was exclusively owned by Worldwide Pants, Letterman’s production company. Beginning a few years ago (I think it was Letterman’s last contract negotiation), Letterman gave up a portion of the ownership to CBS, and now The Late Show is co-owned by Worldwide Pants and CBS.
Law & Order (and all of it’s various 142 different franchises) is owned by Dick Wolf Films… I think almost exclusively. NBC might have a piece of it, but I’m not sure… don’t think so.
30 Rock was a tri-ownership. It was primarily owned by Little Stranger (Tiny Fey’s production company) and Broadway Video (Lorne Michaels’ company) and was partially (a very minor part) owned by NBC Universal.
Who can we thank for this ownership arrangement? Believe it or not, the very very VERY brilliant Desi Arnaz. Didn’t know Desi was such a brilliant producer? Well he probably made the best deal in the history of television…
When “I Love Lucy” was kicking off, CBS wanted the show to originate from New York, as a multi-camera show on video. At that time that was the way to get the cleanest signal to the affiliates. But Desi and Lucy wanted to live in California and produce the show there. CBS said no-go to that, because the shows would have to be produced and delivered on kinescope masters, which looked terrible. Desi suggested they produce it still as a three- or four-camera show, but with multiple simultaneous film cameras running. CBS balked at that, saying it would be too wildly expensive.
Desi said if they would shoot it in California multi-cam with film cameras, he would personally pay for the difference in the production costs… if….
(here comes the brilliant part)
…if he retained rights and full ownership of the show after each episode initially aired. CBS laughed at that and said “sure” (after all a show was worthless after it aired, right? What would Desi do with it?).
And the rest is history.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
What you are seeing there is a pan with very “filmic” motion… pretty much exactly what a similar pan of that speed in a feature film would look like.
I think you summed it up exactly, “Coming from the broadcast world…”
You’re probably used to seeing interlaced broadcast TV footage, where yes, a pan like that would look very smooth and fluid. But it also looks very live and “videoy” (not a real word, I know).
Usually when people complain about pans and tilts not looking smooth it is because they are panning or tilting too fast, and there are charts in the ASC manual that will give you “do not exceed” pan rates for particular frame rates, shutter speeds, and focal length combinations. However, your pan is pretty slow, you definitely aren’t pushing the speed boundaries.
This is not what you want to hear, but that actually looks pretty good and would be considered a good looking “filmic” shot. If I were doing it with my C300, my optimal settings would be 24fps at 1/48th of a second which would give me the absolute best and smoothest motion. Based on your settings I bet you are coming from the PAL world, where your 25fps and 1/50th combo is the equivalent of that.
You might try shooting with a slightly slower shutter speed which would give you a tad more motion blur and might make things appear smoother (don’t get too hopeful, though)… but the settings you are already using are the ones that would usually be considered optimal.
If you really want to make it look smoother than that, the only real solution is to shoot interlaced rather than progressive. You’ll get the same smooth look that you were used to in the broadcast world. However it will definitely have that live “video look,” and will not have the cinematic filmic look that you get from 24p or 25p.
If your project is for broadcast television, then shooting interlaced is fine (as long as you are ok with the “video look,” which I personally hate). However if your project is destined for the web or any other computer-monitor viewing, then you wouldn’t want to shoot interlaced, you’d want to stick with progressive.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
I think our most drastic budget change was for a television commercial for a local company.
This was actually brought to us from a commercial producer at a local TV station… the client was a long-time advertiser with them, but he felt they needed something much better than a television station could produce in house.
I said sure, we love to hear that, that’s what we do.
Then this guy (who works in the creative dept of the station, mind you) starts laying out his “must haves.” He had quite a list of things that were needed, including shooting at seven different locations in five different cities, various talent, plus insisting “And we definitely want it on 35mm film.”
To his credit, at least this guy did throw out a number before I wasted my time budgeting, when he said “And I think we could spend maybe even as much as $4,000.”
I put my pencil down.
Ah… so I explained we could gladly and easily concept a $4K production for him (we’ve even done plenty of $4K spots on 35mm), but it wouldn’t be that production.
And we did. We shot on HD, one location for about two hours, the spot was one carefully-choreographed continuous shot with VO and two non-speaking extras. It was actually a decent spot, and came in under $4K.
I never added it up, but that was probably a nine-tenths budget cut from their original idea.
Oh… and it still took us three months to get paid. I guess it was a good thing after all that the job was $4,000 and not $40,000.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
[Mark Suszko] “Pro actors seem more expensive but they actually save more time than amateurs”
So SO true… I preach that all the time.
I had to hire a bunch of actors for a shoot last week… I auditioned about 30 guys from throughout the southeast for the principal male role.
This client usually spends a decent amount but not a huge amount on talent… maybe something in the $300-500 range for a principal. You can get decent talent for that, but you’re not going to get Anthony Hopkins.
Out of all our auditionees, there was only one the client really liked, and they LOVED him. His dayrate?… $1500. “But we don’t usually spend that much.” Yeah, I know. But that’s what he gets.
We cast him. He flew in and did a great job. Zero hassles. No busted takes (maybe one, if that). And worth every penny.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
[Greg Ball] “How would you respond to this?”
Easy answer… “No.”
You have to feed cast/crew. Here that is non-negotiable, not that it has ever come up (it’s also one of the few times that meals are 100% totally expensible with Uncle Sam).
You COULD say, “Yes, we can take meals out of the budget… but it’s usually easier for us to include it, rather than for you to have to bother with arranging to feed everyone.”
And the client needs to know that on a film set food isn’t food. Food is fuel. And pizza and Yoo-hoo might be ok every now and then, but if you have a big full-week shoot with long extended hours you don’t want to be feeding a crew two meals a day of junk (mmmmmm….Yoo-hoo).
Typically both meals and craft services are such a miniscule portion of a project’s budget that no one has ever even said a peep about it here. I’ve never put a pencil to it, but here it can’t be more than 1% or so. Unless you have a HUGE cast and crew (or unless you have hired TomKats to cater your location) meal expenses are rarely big enough to worry about. Sounds like your client is a real gem if they are pinching pennies that hard.
Food is like any other consumable on a set. Would they ask you to cut costs by not using gaffer tape? Or a roll of gel that you need?
At any rate, if you can cut your budget by 20% and still make a healthy profit, then you definitely have a lot more fat in your budgets than most of us do, I’d imagine. Bravo.
If you can cut your budget by 20%… cut it. Whatever it takes to make the client happy. But DON’T cut it by such a drastic amount and give them the same job.
We too hear that all the time… although rarely in percentages, it usually more in budget numbers. We might give a client an estimate of $20,000 and they counter with something like “Ouch, can you do it for 14?” We’ll always say “Sure!” and tell them we can always find places to cut, locations to eliminate, sections of their script to kill, cheaper talent ideas, lower-end narration or music… etc.” What they don’t get is the same exact thing for their bargain basement budget. We always think the original price we quote for something is fair to both sides, and if they want that project exactly, that’s what it costs.
Of course we often hear “No, no… I don’t want to cut anything.” Well, then we’ve already given them our estimate for what that will cost.
Also, while we can almost always hit any budget, we never ever ever do that by lowering our hourly rates, at least not on paper. That’s always bad form… and it devalues your work. It also establishes a new rate that the client knows you are willing to work for, and you’ll never get it back where it is supposed to be with them.
I realize I went on an unsolicited budget-cutting rant there… when Greg was really just asking about meals… sorry.
So yes… include meals.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
Andrew is right… as long as it hasn’t been recorded on, the tape itself has no format… tape is tape is tape.
HOWEVER… it is conceivable that the shell itself has certain notches, tabs, knockouts, or holes that are used to communicate with the deck and might be different for NTSC and PAL versions. I don’t know if that is true (and it may be that they are indeed identical), but it is possible. Certain minor shell indicators have been used for other info in the past.
I kinda DOUBT it and I suspect these tapes would work fine. But still I think it would behoove you to get a few of them first and try them before you spring for a whole boatload of them.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
[chris king] “Since MXF is not a good editing format for NLE system including Avid Media Composer.”
Well I wouldn’t lump them all together like that… I think that’s largely an Avid shortcoming. We edit with Premiere (CS6 in Matrox MX02 suites), and MXF files there edit like a dream (we shoot most everything on the C300PL now). They import fine, look great, and no rendering.
I know that doesn’t help original poster Danielle, but just didn’t want anyone else reading this thread to think that MXF isn’t a great acquisition and editing format. It really is… just sadly not for Avid cutters… yet.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
I own those exact instruments.
Did you read the posts already in this lengthy thread? Lots of discussion about them above.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
