DIY Days Boston, October 4, 2008 (conference notes, part 2)

This post continues my coverage of the DIY Days conference in Boston which I began in a previous post. Please keep in mind these are my notes and do not necessarily represent the views of the various speakers at the conference, sometimes it includes my own parenthetical thoughts, which are not always clearly delineated.

Modern Filmmaking

Arin Crumley presented an indie filmmakers perspective on recent technological changes and how it has changed the creative process. In spirit the presentation was in the context of the possibility of a two way conversation between filmmakers and their audience (or better yet, community). It’s a recurring theme: create a dialog around your film, what does something like that look like? Arin talked about his Four Eyed Monsters experience and his travel around the world of conferences and filmmaking seminars (the case study has been covered extensively so I will not repeat here) and it’s a fine example of finding a community (rather than an audience) for your film which fits in nicely with the theme of DIY Days.

Arin had just returned from Burning Man where he was collaborating with Mike Hedge on a documentary about the event titled As the Dust Settles, that’s been his focus for the past few months, now in post. They shot with the Red camera and it’s a participatory documentary project designed to allow any individual who attended Burning Man to contribute their photos, videos and edited segments to the project as well as share in any proceeds from the project as well. Given the journey Arin has been on with Four Eyed Monsters, I’m looking forward to see what happens with As the Dust Settles.

Arin asked the audience about examples of interesting use of new technology and techniques in filmmaking, lots of examples were provided, including:

• _Cellular_ Cinema, a cellphone film festival;
• Todd Verow’s Hooks To The Left, a feature-length film shot on a cellphone
• David Redmond and Ashley Sabin’s documentary Intimidad, the film mixes cinéma-vérité footage the filmmakers shot and home-movie footage their subjects shot with a camera the filmmakers gave them in order to shoot their lives when the filmmakers were not around
• Awesome; I Fuckin’ Shot That a Beastie Boys concert film shot at a concert in which the band distributed fifty camcorders to the audience with the instruction, “keep the tape running” and the result is a ninety-three minute film with over six thousand cuts
• This is What Democracy Looks Like, a film shot by over a hundred cameras in the streets of the Seattle WTO protests providing multiple perspectives that could not have been created prior to the introduction of the consumer camcorder.

Film becomes more subjective, rather than objective, what does an individual see? There are an increasing number of participatory filmmaking projects starting up, the idea of a community participating in making a film is exciting, film is inherently a creative and collaborative experience and new tools are making this easier to do. From the old model of “Filmmaker, Subject, Audience” we are moving towards “Collaborators in Conversation.” Is it still “filmmaking” or is it something new? I’m reminded of Janet Murray’s list of characteristics that make computers an ideal medium for literary expression: they are Procedural, Participatory, Spatial, and Encyclopedic, which she discusses in her book Hamlet on the Holodeck.

Some of the “cool new tools” that were discussed includes the new Scarlett from Red (what the Red One Digital Cinema camera is to 35mm the Scarlett will be to Super16, small, hand-holdable, etc). And a new generation of D-SLR cameras that can shoot video, nice form factor, optics with cinematic depth of field, things are leaping in terms of technology. Apple Final Cut Pro has made non-linear editing easy and affordable, cheap hard drives you can record to directly, disposable cameras, give cameras to your subjects, you can now take crazy risks with cheap cameras, and things like Google Docs support internet-based collaboration, project planning, writing and more. And let’s not forget LED lighting, and portable digital audio recorders like the Zoom from Samson. Cheap hard drives. And Media Indexer Software allows you to browse indexes of your removable media as if they were inserted in your computer. This makes the process of finding your archived files fast and supports indexes export.

Some tools Arin is using on When the Dust Settles includes the Red camera (great for interviews, hard drive, long interview times, straight to a hard drive is a lot better, yet the camera is so heavy, it can be a pain in the ass to shoot with cause of the weight of the camera, but there’s a quality trade-off to be made), the community around the Red camera is a cult bordering on the insane, an amazing open source community around the camera, lots of feedback, corrections, you don’t get that from Sony or Panasonic (I think you get something like it but not as intense from Panasonic), Red really gets the concept of community.

Arin talked about collaboration at a distance and explained the process of emailing FCP project files (each person has a copy of the media files on identical hard drives) and using Google Docs for collaboration (this is how I collaborated with my editor Elissa Mitz while editing Smile Boston Project in order to avoid Boston cross-town traffic). It’s not up to the filmmaker how the audience experiences the film, viewers will do what they want, give full control to the audience in this case, a way they can experience it the best waty and have then decide the scaled down experience. From Here to Awesome is making a list of digital screen 600 movie theater database, so people know where they can show their films, an environment where filmmaker taps into a network. Arin is supportive of open codecs, DIY Filmmakers should be using open source codecs.

The Era Of Digital Creativity: Opportunities & Challenges

Scott Kirsner talked about living in the era of digital creativity: ideas can take shape and reach audiences with an ease that was not possible one generation ago. Now the tools of production and the channels of distribution have been democratized. The old forms like half-hour TV shows, hour-long dramas, 90 to 120 minute feature films don’t seem to work as well in the new environment. So Scott asks: What forms and storytelling strategies might replace them? What will evolve on the internet? And most importantly to everyone who was at the confernece, how are we going to build audiences for our work and earn a living?

One problem, however, is a glut of independent movies competing for audience attention. Scott shared an interesting statistic: in 2000 973 independent films were submitted to Sundance, in 2007 the number grew to 3,624. There’s a lot of noise out there, and I’m always reminded of this sobering point: viewers still have the same number of hours each week for their leisure activities, and not only are there more movies to choose from, there are many new media forms. In spite of this, Scott suggests that “this is the best time ever to be a storyteller” and he presented the audience with five challenges and five opportunities.

The opportunities are:

1. Collaboration and Participation. The approach of “I have my crew, I have my vision, it’s my project” is being replaced with “everyone can help me.” For example, consider the model being used by Robert Greenwald and his collaborators, using field producers to conduct interviews remotely, collaboration, new ways to make films, an example of this is Iraq for Sale, anyone can contribute to a wiki, films cam be made by more than you and your team, it’s tapping into the “society of audience” to borrow a phrase from the MIT Media Lab used a long time ago before the web changed everything.

2. New Forms and Formats. Much of what we talk about when we say “I’m making a film” is the traditional 90 to 120 minute program designed to watch in one sitting, it’s crazy not to work in new forms and new formats, right now we see growing ways to distribute and not a lot of experimentation in forms.Josh Weeden, during the writer’s strike, made his own project, explores new forms and formats, Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog is well done video in the $100,000 to $150,000 budget range, 7 minute segments, what is the movie musical going to look like on the internet? Here’s an interesting example. New Forms and Formats are where it’s at. Try it.

3. New Tools and Software. Two examples are machinima going mainstream with things like the Red vs. Blue series in which the producers used video game software to render characters for their film. Another example of this is the wonderful new Red digital cinema camera that provides 90% of 35mm quality to independent filmmakers at a cost that’s at or lower the cost of shooting on High Definition video.

4. New Distribution Channels. A mix of established and new generation aggregators are getting films onto iTunes, for example, Michael Buckley satirizes American celebrity culture on his vlog What the Buck, one of the most popular shows on YouTube. He has makes more from YouTube than from his Day Job, which he recently quit, since he got a development deal with HBO. These new channels should not be overlooked by independent filmmakers. Theatrical has always been the holy grail, but in terms of what’s really practical, new channels are opening up much more interesting opportunities for filmmakers.

5. New Marketing Modalities. Lance Weiler developed a game around Head Trauma, his new film, a game is a way to market a movie, another example is the way the King Korn documentary has been marketed with online activities for fans.

And the challenges are:

1. Giving up control. Indie filmmakers might have to get used to being a ringmaster rather than an auteur, a good example is Brett Gaylor’s Open Source Cinema, a collaborative project with the goal to produce Basement Tapes, a documentary film. The site was launched in 2004 and serves as a repository for all of the footage for the film licensed under a Creative Commons license, which the audience is free to remix. The site also hosts user-generated remixes that have subsequently been edited into the final film.

2. Experimentation is really hard. It’s hard enough to make an independent film. It’s even harder to do it in an experimental manner and try new things. It’s a challenge, and at the same time an opportunity.

3. Rights and Windows Conflicts. It’s time to take advantage of the instant gratification culture of the internet. Sundance will get your film know, why not sell the film right then and there, release window conflict with home video or theater downloads, conflict one example is the film 10 Items or Less, tried to release 2 weeks after theaters on clickstar, the problem is no movie theater wanted to show it for that reason, Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner are into experimenting with WIndows

4. Getting Paid is still a pain. This is a problem that will not go away, there have been various cases of aggregators not paying filmmakers, for example, Sundance recently ended its relationship with Mediastile, a new media aggregator, after the company failed to send royalty payments and traffic reports to the festival directors who screened films online through iTunes and Netflix. No matter what you do, you should always have rights revert back to you if an aggregator fails to properly distribute your film and pay you. This was good advice with traditional distributors (I know several filmmakers whose films ended up in limbo when the distributor decided to shelf the film) and it’s double good advice with new media distributors who may or may not be here tomorrow.

5. Being a filmmaker is really hard work. It’s a big job and add to that being an entrepreneur, which is also a big job. You have to ask what is the business model, what is the strategy, what is the target market for the film, this is a producer’s job, and if you’re lucky you will partner with a good producer, but for many of us, it’s hard to be an independent filmmaker doing it all ourselves. Two good examples of filmmakers taking matter into their own hands successfully include first-time filmmakers Josh Caldwell and Hunter Weeks’ 10 MPH, Tiffany Shlain’s The Tribe, and We Are The Strange by M dot Strange. All of these projects point to new ways to distribute to the market and it takes a lot of work.

So here’s a thought for filmmakers to consider. The whole world knows about movies when they play at their first festival, “you have to wait until we distribute it” then wait longer to get into DVD, Scott suggests that it is becoming absurd to wait, you need lots of time to market, the first time someone hears about it they want to buy it then, you can’t tell someone “coming in June” unless you have a serious marketing campaign, you have maybe 500 people see you film at a festival, 2,000 festival audience, still millions out there, lots of movies that play at top tier festivals are never picked up for distribution, no DIY strategy, no sugar daddy distributor, Scott’s point is for 80% of films that are not picked up, creating another moment like the SXSW premiere is not going to happen again. Holding out for theatrical, playing roulette at the festival, reality the odds are against you, the odds are not great, no money for festival screenings, sometimes you can get screening fees but it’s rare.

A Sundance premiere can get you the leverage to demand a screening fee from second tier festivals, but it’s very rare, festivals run break-even or at a loss (as Anna Feder, Director of the Boston Underground Film Festival was quick to point out), not a good source of money for your film, though there are exceptions as some filmmakers in the audience pointed out. Scott Kirsner a little while ago asked the folks at Sundance, is there any rule to prevent from selling during the festival, no rule against it, Sundance does want premieres, however, Sundance said no one had done an online release at the same time as a festival, use the big festival thing to be there you can see it on my web site, if you think about it, use a film festival as a launching point for an online release. I think this might become an emerging pattern. iTunes does not deal with indies at this time, but their top shorts have come through festivals.

And there’s still more, so notes might continue in yet another post if I can make sense of the last set of notes.

DIY Days Boston, October 4, 2008 (conference notes)

The DIY Days Boston conference was held at MassArt on October 4, 2008. The conference drew a full-house of both seasoned and emerging filmmakers and media artists who came to learn about online tools, techniques, and strategies for building and sustating their audience. DIY Days follows an open source model, the conferences are produced with the efforts of the organizers, volunteers, and generous supporters like MassArt Professional and Continuing Education for the Boston event. Lance Weiler said, “if there is anything that you find valuable [we ask that] you share with someone else, that’s the cost of admission […] embed it and share it.” Some of the gems from the conference include Lance’s suggestion (I’m paraphrasing) that “your movie is only a seed from which to build a community” and he is urging filmmakers to stop thinking of themselves as being in competition with each other and helping each other, creating a new community of sharing ideas and films and strategies from the ground up, this is what the Workbook Project is all about. Slava Rubin of IndieGoGo put it in terms of DIWO (Doing It With Others). Here are some of my notes from the sessions.

An Investor’s Perspective On Indie Film And Digital Media

The conference got off to a good start with Scott Kirsner (CinemaTech) moderating a fireside chat (sans fire, but the room did get warm) with Todd Dagres (General Partner of Spark Capital) and Lance Weiler (filmmaker and DIY Days co-organizer). Todd Dagres has a unique perspective on the funding of film and digital media. He’s led Spark’s investments in start-ups like Veoh Networks and EQAL and has also been involved in the production of several films including TransSiberian which was released by First Look Studios. Todd suggests that even though for a while it looked like technology was “king,” content is really “king,” and he chose to invest in creative properties because he wanted to be inside the circle rather than a looking from the outside looking in.

Scott asked Todd to share a painful lesson. Todd replied, “Once you’re done with your film you have to get it distribution, you basically give up control of the baby,” since distributors are people who “just want to make money, the second they believe they are not going to make money with your film they move on to the next film.” Todd sees lots of opportunity in disrupting the established industry and said, “the 30 second commecial is dead, TV programmed to a time of day is dead […] I don’t watch TV when I’m supposed to, who watches commercials anymore?” And therefore he’s “investing in companies that are trying to break [the existing model].”

Scott suggested that all “these companies are still having trouble making a profit,” and Todd replied that we’re in the same place as the early days of TV, producing the content is expensive, sponsors are needed, and he said, “I can prove with data [that] monetization is not on par with what is being spent on the web.” And this creates a huge opportunity for people who figure out how to package stuff. Studios, for the longest time had a model based on extracting value from a library of content, and up until two years ago it was all about protecting the library, now they are broadcasting and allowing you to stream content, but still figuring out how to monitize their content, with a TV show you have ads. Todd mentioned that “on Next New Networks Obama girl gets more views [than most TV shows],” but Scott reminded us that “lots of gems are not there online yet.” Todd suggests that the networks are “still waiting to sell you the stuff in BluRay form.”

Lance suggested that community plays a big part, the new models have to be about viewer to engagement, the key to success on the web is community, if you are a traditional television or film person, you think of audience, you think of a demographic, that’s thinking in terms of a passive medium, people watch and then go somewhere else, Lance suggests, “forget the word audience, the new word is community,” and explained that content should be the seed that gets the community interacting with the content, and viewers must have some impact on what happens. It’s interesting that with most popular shows like Lost there are very active social networks with people talk with each other about the show, why would producers not want to foster that? Todd suggested that it’s because they are “still addicted to nielson ratings and ads,” since they can make a show for $3M and sell $4M in ads and make some more money selling figures and tie ins with McDonalds. What are the major barriers to new forms of distribution and reaching an audience? One of them are are guild and contract barriers, as Todd said, “great ideas can get bogged down by the Hollywood machines structures put in place by lawyers to protect them from other lawyers who are going to sue them.”

So in the end this creates many opportunities for doing shows in a new way, for reaching out to find your audience, or better yet community. It’s still very hard to convice investors they are going to make money with this, the odds are against you to be realistic about it, but you have to think out of the box. Todd brought up the example of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” which is one big product placement, they “almost pay for production” with the product placement. Very fertile ground for artists, not everyone knows what they are selling and how to sell it, Todd said, “the most relevant ad for me is content, things I care about and things I want to see,” which is good, but that seems to make more sense for episodic content, what about movies? The market is shaken, traditional models disrupted, things fragment, what happens is there is a natural consolidation to a few, that means we move from people with lock-in to people with new locks and then that wil be disrupted, but that will take a long time. How can we move to a new model so indie filmmakers can be more successful. Lance and Todd are suggesting that the community must start interacting more with each other and consume each other’s films, american idol of indie film, we could create a social network that would promote these films and share promotion and start to work on the problem of how to finance these things. It’s the same message I’ve heard ever since I first got involved in independent film in 1988, however, there is one thing that is significantly different now compared to then: the internet really does level the playing field. Instead of working through gatekeepers to find our audience, we can now find our audience directly, however, it’s not easy. It never has been. But building a relationship on your own allows you to capitalize on the relationship and own and control you own destiny. It still takes investors. And you still can’t promise anyone you’re going to make money. But I’d rather work on building a community than struggling to find a distributor whose agenda is at odds with my own.

If It Doesn’t Spread, It’s Dead: Creating Value In A Spreadable Marketplace

Xiaochang Li and Ana Domb from the MIT Convergence Culture Consortium gave a presentation from an academic perspective how media spreads in the current landscape and how the audience engages with it. They suggest moving away from thinking about the “viral” and “sticky” metaphors because they strip users of their agency. Instead, they suggest a framework based on “spreadable media” which is in sharp contrast with older models that emphasize centralized control over distribution. They were hesitant to share their slides or research report because the research they did was supported by corporate sponsors, the very organizations that are being disrupted. Gone are the days when academics could share their ideas openly, now they give is brief overviews while the corporate sponsors get the juicy details. It was strange to listen to a presentation at a conference based on open source ideas and sharing that could not be shared with the participants. But this puts in sharp relief the tensions between private enterprise (which thrive on competitive advantage and secrecy) and professional organizations (that thrive on sharing of information and techniques among peers). Ana said that eventually the embargoed research will be made public. Of course the slides were videotaped, so you can get them that way, but no deck in digital form was forthcoming.

They spoke of viral concepts and memes as a unit of cultural dissemination. I’m surprised they did not mention Douglas Rushkoff, who has written a lot about these topics over the years, his Media Virus was one of my favorite books in graduate school and he’s written many others, and while some are now dated, they provide a valuable historical perspective on how this internet media distribution and media sharing thing has evolved since the early 1990s. But back to Xiaochang and Anna. They suggest more open ended participation in media distribution and that humans are part of the spreading equation, Social Networks, Web 2.0, Technology is an enabling agent for what people want to do. They provided a nice discussion of the moral economy, the gift economy, sometimes money takes the back seat (like professional conferences like this), sometimes money is front and center (like when research can’t be shared). My examples, not theirs.

It’s clear that big companies are freaking out, they are focused on commodity culture while people also engage in the gift economy, file sharing and piracy makes it hard for companies making sense of circulation of media. It’s not polite not to share what you have (social contract) when you can share it, but corporations want to sell you things again and again, they don’t want you to share a book, they want to sell a book to everyone. Producers work on economic dictates while many consumers work on social dictates. From an economic standpoint, companies think file sharers are stealing, but in a gift economy, not sharing would be socially damaging. This is all interesting stuff and I’d suggest reading The Wealth of Networks by Yochai Benkler.

We are moving away from a filmmaker / distributor / audience model to a filmmaker / {Supporter, User, Consumer, Advocate, Investor, Fan, etc.} model. The relationship is becoming much more rich and complex. Media theorist John Fisk suggests that content is flows when it’s producerly, people can take the it as raw mateiral and communicate their own messages, so we have to start thinking of the things that we make as more open ended. Spreadable media good for active commitment, audience integral part of film’s success, online world of mouth, you can reach niche audience, communicate w/ audience in a way they want to be addressed and where they already are. This all results in building a stronger emotional tie with audience. As filmmaker Orlando Sena, a Brazilian Filmmaker suggests, “right now, imagination is much more important than information.” Mashups and remixing is huge part of this, giving audience a way to play with mashups, engage with the content, examples include Lance’s Head Trauma mashups, and sites like JumpCut and Kaltura that allow people to pay a part in editing your material and creating new things from it, our new role is to facilitate that process. Or, as Lance said, crete s seed from which to build a community.

Show Me the Money

Slava Rubin talked about crowdfunding and fan participation. Through a direct connection through social networks, email, blogs, house parties, twitter, etc. and a call to action, filmmakers can transform their niche audiences into a fundraising and promotional base. Slava’s own company, IndieGoGo, is helping filmmakers with a process they call DIWO (Do-It-With-Others) Funding and Filmmaking. They describe themselves very well on their web site, so I will not go into detail here. The film Flow, currently screening at Kendall Cinemas, was among the first films to use IndieGoGo as part of their fundraising and release strategy. In summary, Slava suggested filmmakers need the following to succeed in this new environment: 1. the medium by which you take your project viral, 2. the content has to be great, really great, and 3. a very clear call to action, what do you want people to do? Good resources for learning more include Kevin Kelly’s blog, Peter Broderick, Cinema Tech, IndieGoGo’s Blog and DIWO Guide Online, and the Workbook Project.

And then we broke for lunch. I’ll continue my coverage of the conference in a second blog post. Right now it’s time to go to sleep. It’s been a long, fascinating, wonderful day.

My photos of the event are on Flickr at: flickr.com/photos/kino-eye/sets/72157607770556279/ or check out all photos on Flickr tagged with diydays and boston

My notes continue in this post: DIY Days Boston, October 4, 2008 (conference notes, part 2)

Maria’s Story and its role in the technological history of documentary filmmaking

Maria’s Story (1990, Monona Wali & Pamela Cohen, 53 min.) is a documentary portrait of Maria Serrano, a 39-year-old woman who is a peasant, mother, and guerrilla leader who at the time the film was made, had spent over a decade of her life fighting in the hills of El Salvador. Some might condemn the film as agitprop, others would argue it provides an insightful point-of-view of the late-eighties struggle in El Salvador from a highly personal point-of-view. The film is also interesting and important because of the manner in which it was made. More on that later. The film was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize at the 1991 Sundance Film Festival, had a modest theatrical release, and was broadcast by PBS on P.O.V.

I would argue the film is not propaganda due to the fact the filmmakers focused on one woman’s story through which the filmmakers explored the injustice of the situation of El Salvador. Reminds me of the old film school adage, “show don’t tell.” The film was made in conjunction with CISPES (Committee In Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) and was a very effective fundraising tool for them, definitely in part to film’s personal perspective. Viewers might disagree with Maria, her politics, her approach to the problems she faces, but they could not disagree with the reality of her life and the people around her. Not only is there no such thing as objectivity, the duplicitous “objectivity” of the mainstream media stifles real dialog, real debate, real understanding. I like my documentaries with a point-of-view from perspective of real people, and if the filmmaker has an agenda, so be it, as long as they are willing to go to bat for their facts and perspectives and the social reality they are depicting.

But I digress. This post is more about what makes this particular film interesting from the perspective of media technology history: the production of the film was made possible by the use of a new Sony Video8 camcorder that recorded high quality audio and introduced around the time the film started filming. This film was made at a watershed moment in documentary film history. The filmmakers have told the story (ref. Q&A session during a San Francisco screening of the film, circa 1991) of the first time they went down to El Salvador with their 16mm film camera, audio recording gear, and many cans of 16mm film. Maria’s response, in summary, was “with all that gear you can’t move fast, you’re going to get us killed” and the filmmakers returned to San Francisco and had to rethink how they were going to shoot the film.

This was just around the time that Video8 (and soon after Hi8) were being discussed in documentary circles as viable alternatives to 16mm film and Betacam SP for shooting documentary films. There was lots of talk about whether PBS would accept Video8 (and later Hi8) documentaries and the video engineers and film snobs were out in full regalia for this debate. John Knoop, the cinematographer on the project, came up with a solution, using Sony’s new Video8 prosumer camcorder, a small shoulder mounted camera that had high-quality built in audio recording capabilities with real audio meters, and he fashioned some solar panel powered battery chargers for the camera batteries. The prosumer Video8 (and later Hi8) video cameras, were lighter and a tad smaller than most 16mm film cameras like the Aaton LTR popular at the time, but they required more electrical energy than their 16mm counterparts, so a methodology of charging the batteries in the jungle was critical.

With the new smaller gear and a way to charge their batteries far from the power grid, the filmmakers returned to El Salvador and this time Maria allowed them to follow her and her army of children and men as they travel through the hills to their campsites in preparation for what they hope will be their final offensive against the government. With very little resources and a small number of weapons, they are not the revolutionaries we see in movies but this film is about a social reality we often don’t see. Revolutionaries who are also mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, fighting for basic human rights. No stars or effects or steadicam or sweeping crane shots in this film. Just life as the filmmakers observe it day to day living under harsh conditions. The quality of the video image actually works in favor of this film, constantly reminding you this is a mediated experience, not a mimetic virtuality.

The film is also interesting because for the theatrical release the filmmakers had no choice but to produce a film print. This was at the time that a post firm in Los Angeles called Image Transform has perfected a video to film process that was helping filmmakers make film prints that looked good enough to entice some distributors and theaters to program films that had been shot in video. We don’t get hung up on shooting medium these days, but circa 1990 people sure did. The video vs. film as an acquisition medium debate was raging like a California wildfire.

The film is primarily a document of political struggle, but it’s also a turning point technologically because it was among the first films shot in Video8 that presented a compelling and important portrait that could not have been made with the analog photo-chemical film medium. The electronic Video8 format provided for a smaller camera, recording sound and picture in the same camera (16mm required the use of a separate Nagra 1/4″ tape recorder) which further reduced the technological overhead, making this film possible.

The use of a small video camera improves the filmmakers ability to record everyday life in a more intimate fashion. One of the more poignant scenes in the film is when Maria travels back to her home village, devastated by long years of fighting, and talks about the events that transformed her from a young girl into a guerrilla leader, and the story is all the more intense through the unvarnished video image with it’s matter-of-fact starkness, we observe how she’s become a hero to her people, inspiring her troops as they prepare to engage with the government.

There’s another scene I remember in the film when Maria, her soldiers, and the filmmakers are attacked by government troops. The filmmakers dive for cover. The camera, dropped to the ground, continues to record the skirmish, and while the picture from the camera laying on it’s side is not interesting, the soundtrack is about as real as you ca get and brings you there into the moment in a manner that post-production sound effects just can’t do, you know this soundtrack is real, it’s a part of Maria’s life. For this scene, the filmmakers take the actual audio footage of the attack and lay over it images they had shot at a different time. We’re a visual culture and we need images as a frame upon which to experience a film, even though sound carries most of the emotion. Some people complained that it was a re-creation. The documentary purists cried foul. But they did not understand the role of sound in conveying the so-called reality of the moment, and providing authenticity, but that’s a whole other discussion.

At their best, documentary films provide us with points-of-view we could not, or would not (possibly due to ideological bias), ever see on our own. They are extensions of our collective selves that allow us to share social reality with others, and the evolution of cameras from analog film, to analog video, and finally to digital video has made it possible to show so much more, to go places that we could not have gone before. Maria’s Story was made at a very important inflection point in this history, among the first films to show us a social reality we would not have been able to see here in the United States had it not been for the introduction of viable prosumer camcorder with decent image and audio quality from Sony.

I saw the film and heard the filmmakers talk seventeen years ago, so my memory might be sightly inaccurate here and there, but the gist is right. The film is currently distributed by Filmmakers Library and is available on DVD and VHS. A wonderfully effective example of intimate documentary filmmaking and making good use of new technology to produce a story that otherwise could not have been told.

Practical Sound Recording and Editing Techniques For Better Video

Here are some resources associated with my session, “Practical Sound Recording and Editing Techniques For Better Video” recently given at the 4th Annual New Media Expoin Las Vegas.

Presentation Slides

Here’s a copy of my presentation slides, available in two flavors.

Sound-Better-Video-4NME.pdf
A PDF of the New Media Expo presentation (34MB).

Sound-Better-Video-4NME-notes.pdf
A PDF of the New Media Expo presentation along with some additional notes on most of the slides (34MB).

Dialog audio clips

The following files are available for download as a zip archive: dialog.zip (8.7MB)

David-123.wav
Recording made with an RE50 omnidirectional, handheld microphone, from three distances, 1 foot, 2 feet, and 3 feet. Note how the audio level falls off dramatically as we move farther away from the source, there’s also some background noise.

David-123-levelator.wav
The above recording processed with Levelator, notice how bringing up the level of the second and third recordings brings up the noise level too. Keeping the mic close the source keeps the level of the voice well above the room noise. The farther away the mic, the less difference between the dialog level and room noise level. Levelator is a good tool for quick and dirty balancing of levels of an audio track, but can sound strange when the original recording is not perfectly clean. Note how the three recordings are progressively worse, since Levelator has to deal with more noise.

Scott.aif
The baseline audio clip, recorded in a room with hard walls, note the reverberation that results, this is impossible to remove.

Scott-Levelator.aif
The Scott.aif clip processed through Levelator

Scott-3Comp-2Gain.aif
The Scott.aif clip processed with 3:1 compression and +2dB gain, zero attack, gentle decay

Scott-3Comp.aif
The Scott.aif clip processed with 3:1 compression, zero attack, gentle decay

Scott-6Gain.aif
The Scott.aif clip without compression but +6dB gain

MS audio clips

The following files are available for download as a zip archive: MSdemo.zip (11MB)

MS-1M-2S.aif
The baseline clip recorded with an MS microphone, M in Ch. 1 and S in Ch. 2. See notes in presentation for more details.

MS-M-only.aif
The mid capsule (short-shotgun) only. This is also good demo of how a source to the side and in front of a short shotgun sounds, notice how the off-axis sound is not only muted, but it’s colored. See notes in presentation for more details.

MS-S-only.aif
The side (figure-of-eight a.k.a. bidirectional) capsule only. Also a good demo of just how much side-rejection a bidirectional mic is capable of. See notes in presentation for more details.

MS-M+S-mixed.aif
The M and S channels mixed.

MS-Stereo-M+6dB.aif
The M and S tracks put through an MS matrix to covert Mid/Side to Left/Right, M channel given +6dB gain to emphasize the speaker in front of the mic.

MS-Mono-fr-StM+6dB.aif
The stereo MS-Stereo-M+6dB.aif track collapsed to mono. The +6dB gain added to the M channel messes up the stereo imaging a bit.

Distribution in the Digital Age

Today I participated as a panelist on “Distribution in the Digital Age,” at the Roxbury Film Festival. With technology changing at a rapid pace and media content more plentiful than ever before, the question becomes, how do filmmakers find an audience for their media and make the best use of online distribution avenues to sell their films? We discussed new and inventive ways to get your film seen by an audience with rapidly changing viewing habits. My fellow panelists were Cynthia Close (Executive Director of Documentary Educational Resources), Nettrice Gaskins (Computer Arts and Community Liaison, Massachusetts College of Art and Design), and William Murrell (BlackSoftware.com, Smallwall.net). The panel was moderated by Lisa Simmons (Director, Color of Film Collaborative).

Below are links and notes related to the topics I presented, divided into six sections: 0. Independent Film Distribution Economics 101; 1. Resources for independent filmmakers; 2. Good blogs to read; 3. Distributors, organizations, and start-ups doing interesting things; 4. Articles, interviews, books, etc.; and 5. Industry Publications.

0. Independent Film Distribution Economics 101

Consider this, with a typical home DVD release, the economics look like something like this:

Retail price: $19.95
Wholesale price: $9.95 (price to retailer)
Royalty to you: 20% of wholesale: $1.99 per DVD
Distributor takes care of marketing and advertising expenses
Profit to distributor: Mysterious accounting

The distributor is taking care of management, marketing, prints, replication, fulfillment, advertising, etc. costs. Any theatrical release, becoming more and more rare for independent films, is likely to loose money, but it is a marketing activity to create value in the DVD segment which does help sell more DVDs. So the theatrical factors into the economics as a marketing and promotional cost. Any money comes from DVD sales for all but the largest grossing films. Look at the box office figures for small indie films, they pale in comparison to the cost of marketing, managing, and advertising a theatrical release.

In a self-distribution scenario, the economics of selling DVDs from your website would be:

DVD price: $20 + $5 shipping and handling: $25 revenue
Cost of replication, shipping, handling, and e-commerce transactions: $7.00
Gross evenue to you: $18.00
YOU take care of marketing and advertising expenses on your own.
Net: you know your own numbers.

This is about disintermediation, and even if traditional distributors get out of the way and you have direct access to you audience, someone still has to do the hard work. Attention is the scarce resource today. Viewers have so many options, so many screens, so many things competing for their attention. Then it was the distributor, now it’s you and your partners. There is no panacea. The difference with the DIY scenario is you can build a fanbase that you control, you can build relationships with organizations that have compatible agendas around a cause, and everything you do to build relationships you are in control of. This relationship can be very similar to the time-honored relationship of artist and their supporters and patrons. There is a trend towards an increasing number of filmmakers who are developing fanbases numbering thousands, if not tens of thousands, to whom they can sell DVDs and other items. While DVD will be the staple for some time, I expect a dramatic increase in direct digital distribution. There is a huge intangible value in creating this relationship.

There is a huge tectonic shift occurring in independent film distribution. Today it looks nothing like it did when I was in film school, and in ten years I’m sure it will be different from today. It’s a wild, wild west out there. What follows are some of the resources, blogs, and articles (some of which I mentioned during the panel) that will help you better understand alternative distribution models and to navigate this rapidly changing environment. If you’re in a hurry, start with some of the articles I link to.

1. Resources for independent filmmakers

• The Workbook Project
  A resource for content creators that will become a user contributed repository of information. The concept is part of an open source social experiment, the workbook is meant to be spread and edited. This means that content creators can add their own info, war stories, advice etc. We’re hoping that the workbook can grow as a resource. It’s being built with an open source client side wiki called tiddlywiki that can be saved to the desktop, edited and then uploaded again. Contributors include Lance Weiler, Alex Afterman, Arin Crumley, M dot Strange, and many others. The site offers great stories, tips on building an audience, information on tools and techniques, and pointers to the best resources on the web for DIY filmmakers.
• Independent Feature Project
  Now almost three decades old, the Independent Feature Project (IFP) is a non-profit membership and advocacy organization that has evolved into a vibrant organization that supports and serves the independent film community by connecting creative talent and the film industry. The IFP has grown to informing and supporting a network of 10,000 filmmakers in New York City and around the world.
• The D-Word
  A leading worldwide community of documentary filmmakers that hosts discussions about the art, craft, business, and social impact of documentary film. Public Topics are open to all, professionals can become Members of The D-Word and access a wide range of ongoing discussions in our Business, Creative, Social, and Technical Topics. The online community has grown to over 2,000 documentary professionals from around the world.
• DOCULINK
  The DOCULINK community, consists of an active email mailing list providing a forum for quickly shareing information and engage in ongoing discussion about documentary filmmaking; a website providing information and resources for documentary filmmakers; and monthly meetings in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Vancouver, BC and occasionally in New York, which alternate between guest speakers, work-in-progress screenings and socials. The community, launched in 2002, now boasts over 2,000 members.

2. Good blogs to read

• Cinematech
  Scott Kirsner, a journalist, writes about making movies in the digital age. CinemaTech focuses on how new technologies are changing cinema - the way movies get made, discovered, marketed, distributed, shown, and seen. He attends a lot of events and meets many people along the way and he shares his insights in this blog.
• Springboard Media
  Comments on the future of the media arts field by Brian Newman, CEO of the Tribeca Film Institute.
• All These Wonderful Things
  AJ Schnack’s widely read blog focused on documentaries and nonfiction, he is a filmmaker and writer based in Los Angeles.
• DIY Filmmaker Sujewa
  A blog written by DIY, ultra-low budget, self-distributing, Washington, DC area & NYC based independent filmmaker Sujewa Ekanayake. Recent projects: Indie Film Blogger Road Trip (’08), Date Number One (’08, ‘06), Magnus & The Air Quotes Woman (’07), Rock Collection (’07).
• Self-Reliant Film
  Paul Harrill’s blog that champions small-crew, low-budget, and regional filmmaking.
• Kino-Eye.com
  Yours truly writes about digital filmmaking, new media, and more.
• Resources
  A blog project of Tribeca Film Institute.

3. Distributors, organizations, and start-ups doing interesting things

• DIY Days
  A series of intimate roundtable-style filmmaker events covering the word of DIY filmmaking and distribution. Recently held in Los Angeles and coming to Boston on a Saturday in September (date to be arranged). Last year Lance Weiler (Head Trauma) reached out to Arin Crumley (Four Eyed Monsters) and Mike Belmont (We Are the Strange) with a concept to create a virtual conference and festival. The virtual event has evolved into an online and real world event. It is broken into two parts. The first is the festival From Here to Awesome (described below) which will play out in theaters, living rooms, online, and on mobile devices. The second part is this series of conferences happening in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, New York and London. Very cool, I’m looking forward to the event in Boston.
• From Here to Awesome
  An open-source discovery and distribution film festival that kicks off July 26th in Los Angeles and rollouts out over a six-month period with stops in New York, San Francisco, Boston and London. Filmmakers retain all the rights, see direct revenue from each of the outlets and enjoy access to global audiences. The festival’s goal is to create a direct connection between filmmaker and audience. There are no submission fees for filmmakers. They attempt to create multiple revenue opportunities for filmmakers by providing a platform that enables distribution across multiple outlets - mobile, online, living rooms and theaters. It’s not only distribution that is being re-envisioned and re-imagined, film festivals are also part of the old system and are thus also changing.
• Breakthrough Distribution
  Breakthrough Distribution was formed in April 2006 to connect content creators and fans in new ways, helping content creators take advantage of new distribution possibilities via online, retail, and other channels, beyond the traditional theatrical and broadcast options.
• Truly Indie
  They have a model to help you act as your own distributor, providing tools, guidance, and resources. Truly Indie has created a process to vet films from interested filmmakers who will then be able to choose which markets they wish to release their film in, and Truly Indie will dedicate customized marketing resources to the advertising and publicity of that film. Upcoming films include Fall to Grace, Cavite, and Tibet-A Buddhist Trilogy.
• IndieGoGo
  An online social marketplace launched in 2008 connecting filmmakers and fans. The platform provides filmmakers the tools for project funding, recruiting, and promotion, while enabling the audience to discover and connect directly with filmmakers and the causes they support. IndieGoGo enables a “filmocracy” by providing filmmakers an open platform to pitch their projects to the world, and giving the fans a vehicle to experience and influence the once inaccessible world of filmmaking. Filmmakers get new resources to build and engage a loyal fan base while fans get the opportunity to discover and impact new films while getting insider access and VIP perks for their contributions. Check out their blog as well.
• Mediastile
  A new service that provides broadcasters, film studios, and content owners with the tools necessary to manage their own digital distribution. They offer a royalty tracking systems for handling sales via a digital pipelines, and offer a way to get your media on you own store front as well as services like Apple iTunes, Microsoft Zune, Amazon Unbox, and more. They work with major media companies and small independents alike.
• Open Television Network
  A service launched with the goal of providing a distribution network the “middle class” of media publishers. It’s a framework that allows you to small media through iTunes using RSS feeds. Right now Apple will sell you media making tools, but they will not talk with you about getting your media on iTunes unless you are a established distributor. But OTN offers clever twist that does an end run around that, allowing viewers to access your video through iTunes with a technology called KlickTab. Now you viewers can watch your videos on their Mac, iPod, iPhone, or AppletV through iTunes. Read more about it on the OTN site. Some media makers may be concerned about no DRM, but OTM is perusing a positive model and counting on the goodwill of most viewers out there that want to support media makers doing good stuff. As Philip Hodgetts of OTN has said, “it’s about making it, easier than piracy and almost as cheap.”
• TubeMogul
  Helps you distribute videos to multiple sites and track analytics. Not for feature length distribution, but a good way to get short promo videos out there widely.
• Jaman
  An online community that helps viewers find and discuss world and independent cinema. Members can download films to watch on their computer or television. They offer a player download that manages downloads, provides a full screen experience, and handles DRM. The Jaman Cascade Network helps the player obtain movie files from the nearest source, so it’s like Bitorrent in that way. Rentals are for 7 days from when you download and viewers can watch as many times as they want. Their royalties to filmmakers are not as generous as many of their smaller competitors offering digital downloads (many without DRM which is problematic), but we’ll see what market pressure does to that. Watching Jaman films on the iPod or AppleTV is not available, since Jaman’s DRM is not compatible with Apple’s FairPlay DRM and Jaman does not offer a non DRM option for filmmakers who would like to spare their fans the hassle.

4. Articles, interviews, books, etc.

• Can the Internet Save Indie Film? by Fred Schruers, Wired, June 26, 2008
  There was a time in indie film when specialty houses from the major studios stalked the earth, reaching into deep pockets to acquire the rights to distribute the best films at the coolest festivals like Sundance, but that is changing. The statistics are startling, indie/speciality films are tanking at the box office, indie/specialty distributors are dying, and the growing role of the Web in consumer culture is part of the problem, can the Web be part of the answer?
• Yes, The Sky Really Is Falling by Mark Gill, FIRST PERSON: IndieWIRE, June 22, 2008
  At the Los Angeles Film Festival’s Financing Conference, Mark Gill, CEO of The Film Department (and former President of Miramax Films) declared provocatively, “Yes, The Sky Really Is Falling.” He detailed many challenges currently facing independent film. Here’s a quote from the article: “If you want to survive in this brutal climate, you’re going to have to work a lot harder, be a lot smarter, know a lot more, move a lot faster, sell a lot better, pay attention to the data, be a little nicer (ok, a lot nicer), trust your gut, read everything and never, ever give up. If you’re looking for a cool lifestyle, you’re in the wrong business. If you want work-life balance, go get a government job. But if you really want to make movies–even after all the unvarnished bad news I’ve dumped on you today–then by all means do it.”
• The Long Tail
  Chris Anderson’s seminal book explaining the “long tail” of digital distribution, an insightful big-picture look at the tectonic shifts changing our industry.
• Hollywood Has Finally Figured Out How to Make Web Video Pay by Frank Rose, Wired, July 21, 2008
  Scrambling to find new economic models that work is not just the challenge of indie artists and filmmakers. Here’s a key quote: “Sure, the YouTube explosion was fueled by amateurs, but it will be showbiz professionals who cash in on Web video. That’s because most big corporate advertisers want a safe, predictable environment — not the latest YouTube one-off, no matter how viral. Once the major brands get on board, millions of ad dollars will follow. Which is why when the writers’ strike idled most of Hollywood last winter, talent agents fielded calls from clients eager to try their hand. At the same time, the fact that a three-minute clip can be shot for as little as $2,000 means Web video will be more open to ambitious neophytes than television ever was — witness the guys behind Lonelygirl15, who now have a second hit Web series called KateModern and a deal to develop more for CBS.”
• Theatrical Docs Down, But Not Out by Agnes Varnum, IndieWIRE (July 30, 2008)
• No Film Distributor? Then D.I.Y. By John Anderson, New York Times, July 30, 2008
  Increasingly, indie filmmakers find themselves facing a flooded marketplace with too few theaters and too many movies. The basic laws of supply and demand have depressed the economic returns for independent film.
• Jon Moritsugu Interview by Sujewa Ekanayake
• Rethinking Film Distribution by Rebort, iofilm
  Peter Broderick, President of Paradigm Consulting, speaking about alternative distribution channels, he says filmmakers should consider new strategies for distributing their films to avoid future disappointment.
• An Annual State of the Industry Post and Some Festival Advice for Filmmakers, by AJ Shnack, June 2, 2008
  With all the hanges in the independent film world, it’s become necessary to take a yearly look at the state of film festivals and ask the question, are we are abiding by an old, outmoded system?
• DIY Film Projects: 6 Thoughts on DIY Projects, from Self Reliant Film
• Roll Your Own Docs by Rebort, iofilm
  As DVD projection costs come down, filmmakers are finding it more easy to connect directly with their core audience.
• Cinemocracy
  A platform for commentary and inspiration for citizen reporters, activists and filmmakers. he films which garnered the most praise, interest and online votes (will be) screened during the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
• Screenwriters strike back: ‘Dr. Horrible’ leads Web charge, by Cynthia Littleton, Variety

5. Industry Publications

• The Independent
  The Independent is a lively online magazine that was started with the intent of rescuing, re-envisioning, and re-launching the print publication, archival records, and online resources of The Independent Film & Video Monthly, an respected publication for the community of independent media-makers from 1978 through July 2006, at which point it ceased publication when its parent, a nonprofit organization called the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers (AIVF), closed its doors.
• Moviemaker Magazine
  A print and online magazine founded in 1993 (web site was added in 1995) focused on the art and business of making movies directed at both the audience and filmmakers.
• Filmmaker Magazine
  A publication of the IFP covering independent filmmaking. Also check out Filmmaker Magazine’s blog.

It’s never been a more confusing time to be a filmmaker, nor has it every been more exciting than this.

Inventing the Movies

Some of the things I love about summer are weekend trips to the Berkshires, taking time off for a vacation, and all that means more time available to read books. On my summer reading stack this year was an advance copy of Inventing the Movies, a new book by Scott Kirsner that takes you on fascinating romp through the movie industry’s hundred-year love/hate relationship with technology and innovators. The book is an entertaining read with fascinating historical research and fresh insights from interviews with a long list of contemporary luminaries including director Peter Jackson, computer graphics pioneer Ed Catmull, and entrepreneur Mark Cuban.

With a keen attention to multiple perspectives, Kirsner presents the view of industry executives who are reluctant to innovate, and contrasts their views with the innovators who have advanced the many technologies like projection, color, sound, non-linear editing, digital projection, internet distribution, etc. that have transformed the industry over a century of change and revived it over and over again for many generations of audiences. Inventing the Movies is a lively book of interest to innovators in any field, as well as people who love movies and want to take a look at the business and technological machinations behind the many screens in their life: cinema, television, home theater, personal computers, portable media devices, and video-enabled phones.

Last week I did an interview with Scott Kirsner about the book, how the project got started, and what he plans to do next. The interview is currently being edited will be posted on this blog sometime before September rolls around.

The book is now available from Amazon.com. The book is also available as an e-book from LuLu. Scott Kirsners blog post on the book is here.

Sony PMW-EX1 XDCAM EX camcorder: first impressions

A friend recently loaned me his Sony PMW-EX1 XDCAM EX camcorder for a few days so I had a chance to take this fascinating new camera for a spin. In this post I’ll share my first impressions. I’ll be taking the camera out for another spin next week for more shooting, so I’ll get into the details of camera operation and post-production workflow in subsequent posts.

The top seven things that stand out for me and thus make the EX1 the first camera I’ve taken a serious interest in since Panasonic’s introduction of the AG-HVX200 DVCPRO HD camcorder include: 1. solid-state memory recording, 2. true HD (1920 x 1080) imaging using three 1/2-inch CMOS sensors, 3. no-fuss 24P and 30P recording, 4. a spot meter, 5. a flip-out LCD viewfinder that’s quite sharp and bright with an effective peaking circuit for razor sharp focusing, 6. a 5.8mm to 81.2mm, f/1.9 zoom lens with full-manual override, a real aperture ring, and a real focus ring controlling the optics directly, and 7. most of the controls and buttons you use most often are in relatively logical places with reasonable ergonomics. All in all, the EX1 represents an interesting mating between a 1/3″ handicam and a 2/3″ professional camcorder. What you get from this union and what you think of it has a lot to do with where you’re coming from. For a handycam camcorder perspective, this is one big heavy monster that’s unwieldy except on a tripod or using some form of camera support. From a professional camcorder perspective, this is a small and light alternative, much better for hand-holding off the shoulder.

In terms of first impressions shooting with the camera goes, the first thing I noticed is that while the camera is a bit on the heavy side for hand-holding in “handycam” mode, the adjustable handle with the ergonomics of a pro 2/3″ zoom lens handle made it easier to use as a handheld camera. Of course, on a tripod the camera is right at home. A camera’s handholdability is all relative, I’ve grown used to shooting with my HVR-A1 and a friend’s Sony HVR-V1 over the past year, so I find the EX1 to be a big change in terms of weight. But the extra weight is worth it, for the image quality is absolutely spectacular. Goodbye HDV (and good riddance to videotape), hello XDCAM EX!

There’s lots of serious glass in this camera, as the 1/2″ sensor requires a larger lens than 1/3″ chip cameras like the Panasonic AG-HVX200 (still an excellent performer). And while it’s still not providing the 2/3″ image sensor look of a professional camcorder, the 1/2″ sensors are a big improvement over 1/3″ sensors in most prosumer cameras. It’s easier to get separation between the foreground and background. I’d like to see Sony come out with an APS-sized single sensor camera (like a documentary form-factor Red) someday, but I digress. The EX1 is clearly not in the middle of the pro-sumer price range, it straddles between pro-sumer and low-end professional gear in terms of price. While the camera alone sells for $6,500.00, by the time you add a couple of 16G memory cards and extra batteries (which you’ll need), a wide-angle adapter, and a few other gismos, you’re looking at something hovering around a $9,000.00 purchase. That’s a serious chunk of change when you compare it to the HVR-Z1 HDV camcorder, but if you look at it another way, this camera does most of what the Sony PDW-F350 XDCAM HD camcorder does for much less dough. So it’s either a very expensive pro-sumer camera or an amazing price/performance breakthrough in professional level cameras.

Not all things are rosy, however. Audio was clearly a second-thought with this camera, with digital recording there is no reason why Sony can’t support four channels, but it only supports two. One of the features I’ve really enjoyed with the Panasonic HVX200 is recording camera mic audio on channels 3 and 4 while running audio from my mixer into channels 1 and 2. Having the ambient sound is a nice plus, as well as it often makes it easier to hear a director’s questions in an interview. Battery life is short, so you’ll have to buy one or two additional high-capacity batteries with this camera. In addition, for folks who shoot with a 35mm lens adapter, you’ll not be pleased with the camera’s inability to invert the viewfinder image. There is no ability to shoot in standard definition, so for those quick and dirty jobs that require standard definition deliverables, your stuck converting in post. But no camera can be all things to all people, and this camera seems to have most of the bells and whistles most people want.

Since I’m Macintosh and Final Cut Pro user, I found this camera integrated seamlessly with my Final Cut Pro workflow. I have previously worked with XDCAM HD and I found the workflow to be pretty much identical, except there is no need for a camera or deck. If you’ve got a MacBook Pro you’re all set, you simply slide the SxS card into the ExpressBus/34 slot. Otherwise, you can use the camera to transfer media via USB2 to your computer or use an external USB2 SxS card reader available from Sony. For all of this to work, you’ll need to download two pieces of software, the SxS card driver (from here) and the XDCAM Transfer Utility (from here). It was a snap to ingest footage, rename the clips, and bring them into Final Cut Pro. The much fast transfer time of the SxS cards was a welcome change from having to do HDV captures in real-time. And the footage shot in the HQ mode looks spectacular. Ahh, the beauty of real high definition progressive scan images, simply breathtaking. Some sample images and images of the camera can be found in my Sony PMW-EX1 Flickr set. I’ll be adding more images as I do more shooting, as well as links to motion images in a future post.

Operation Filmmaker offers crisp angle on subject-filmmaker relationship

I recently watched Nina Davnport’s new film, Operation Filmmaker at the ICA in Boston. Not since watching Shadow of the House last year have I enjoyed watching a documentary so much.

This is one of those films that started out as one project and ended up a completely different one, because the filmmaker was able to continue working with their subject as the context around their work changed dramatically, which makes it all the more delicious. The project started when David Schisgall, a friend of Nina Davenport from college, directed a piece for MTV, “True Life: I’m Living in Iraq,” about young people living in Iraq. The piece focused mostly on American soldiers, however, it also featured seven minutes about Muthana Mohmed, a young Iraqi film student who was desperate to go to Hollywood. Actor and director Liev Schreiber saw the piece and was moved. He contacted Schisgall with the idea that he’d like to give Muthana an opportunity to come to work with him as an intern on “Everything is Illuminated,” a film Schreiber was going to direct in the Czech Republic.

Schisgall thought that Muthana’s experience might make for an interesting documentary, so he hired Davenport to make a film about Muthana working on the set of the film. This might have been an ordinary behind-the-scenes movie worthy of a DVD extra, however, when Davenport arrived on the set of “Everything is Illumniated” she quickly realized that this was not going to be a straightforward piece about an intern working on a Hollywood movie. Director Liev Schreiber and producer Peter Saraf had all sorts of expectations of what Muthana would accomplish on the set of “Everything is Illumniated,” which in the end were unrealistic; at the same time Muthana was not much different than the average middle-class kid unsure of what they want while being caught in a very unfamiliar situation. I don’t want to give too much away about the story itself, because I had a chance to see the film only knowing this setup, and I really enjoyed the journey not having any idea how the story was going to end. It’s really delightful to be able to see the movie that way, the film unfolds like life itself.

Nina Davenport, who was Ross McElwee’s student at Harvard, follows her teacher in the tradition of personal documentary filmmaking, and it really works in this film. What starts out as a straightforward behind-the-scenes piece, ends up becoming a personal film for Davenport. Her camera is at once gentle and probing, talking us along the ups and downs of the relationship between subject and filmmaker. In an era in which so many people are making films about themselves without an observer providing perspective, Operation: Filmmaker demonstrates once again why we benefit from seeing a dialog between subject and filmmaker. What makes the film so interesting is seeing a life honestly portrayed from the perspective of a third party who at the same time is closely involved in the life of the subject, and yet a different person who in the end can only observe, capturing both the things that make the subject attractive to us, as well as the things that we may not like about the subject. In the end, Muthana comes across as very human, and whatever we may not like about his character, we must recognize as characteristics about ourselves. As Anais Nin once wrote, “we don’t see people as they are, we see people as we are.” This film provides an eloquent visual manifestation of Nin’s oft quoted phrase.

This richly observed and well edited film goes beyond the events unfolding in front of the camera to tell a larger story about ourselves and relationships with others. Part of what makes this such an interesting film to watch is that Davenport reveals her struggle to make the film, during the Q&A session after the screening she said, “I felt I was in an abusive relationship, but it was not the man, it was the movie.” And while some will see this film as an allegory for our involvement in Iraq, in the end it’s a more universal story about expectations of others and what happens when those expectations don’t meet up with reality.

A list of upcoming screenings is available on the films website.

Open Television Network lauched to serve the fat middle of the long tail

The Open Television Network (OTN) was launched last month with the goal of providing a distribution network for the “fat middle” of the Long Tail, helping to build a “middle class” of media publishers. It’s a framework that allows small media producers to sell video through iTunes using RSS feeds. And that’s the clever twist behind their approach.
Read more

Viva La Difference: mixing media formats with Final Cut Pro 6

Having to render any media that does not match the format of the sequence is a problem that has plagued Final Cut Pro versions 1 through 5. With Version 6 (bundled with Final Cut Studio 2, no longer available as a stand-alone application) this problem has gone away. Version 6 of Final Cut Pro introduced the ability to mix video formats on the timeline, a long awaited feature that was the source of lots of teasing from the Avid snobs.
Read more

Next Page »