Leopard, Vista, Doesn’t Matter

The big computer news this week is the release of Apple’s “Leopard” operating system. So every tech journalist is dutifully stacking it up against the underwhelming release of Windows Vista earlier this year. But at this point does the OS really mean anything to anyone? Having spent a year with a computer running both Windows XP and Tiger I can say for certain that the features of the OS make no difference to me. They both are no more or less than a way to run applications. They both run them with a minimum of fuss. The user interfaces to me are essentially interchangeable. One has a dock, one has a taskbar. On my Windows keyboard, one uses the Ctrl button for most keyboard commands, the other uses the Alt key. All the other differences make no difference to my productivity or happiness. I run Tiger for Final Cut Studio, and XP for everything else. And lately the majority of my days are spent using Firefox, which is the same in every operating system.

Don’t get me wrong. In the past, operating systems have made huge differences in my productivity. Does anyone remember how horrendous the Mac OS was right before OS X? It might have been groundbreaking in 1984, but compared to Windows 98 it was junk. Windows 98 was not so hot itself. Windows XP was a real step forward in stability, if nothing else. But what is Vista going to get me that XP doesn’t do for me now? I installed the 64-bit version of XP when I first bought this 64-bit computer, but it was too much hassle to track down new 64-bit drivers for everything, and Avid Xpress Pro didn’t run on it, which was the real deal breaker. So I’m still running the 32-bit version and it’s just great. Vista sounds like just another hassle for no apparent benefit. Leopard probably wouldn’t be a hassle, but I don’t think it’s going to wow me once I’m forced to upgrade when Apple decides that FCP can’t run in Tiger anymore.

YouTube Continues To Deny Me Revenue

I was briefly excited today because Google Adsense announced a YouTube component. But it wasn’t available until a few hours ago so the anticipation made me think it would be better than it is. It turns out you can only get content from chosen “partners” just like on regular YouTube. So it’s just another way for those same people who already get money from YouTube to get money from other websites. Of course, if my visitors click on the ads I get a cut now too, so that’s nice, but I’d like to generate revenue from my own content, not from lonelygirl15’s. Revver has been doing this for a long time and I’ve made some good money from them so far, but my viewers on YouTube dwarf the Revver viewers. We’re talking over 2 million views. My content is legit, and Revver has no trouble verifying that. Why can’t YouTube start allowing any clearly legitimate content be monetized? If they can put ads on more video pages they will earn more money. It’s that simple. Anyway, here’s what the new YouTube/AdSense player looks like. Have fun watching other people’s videos.


So far all the ads are “Gilman” based with no other context. Way to go guys!

Final Cut Pro Cue Sheet Program

I should have done this earlier, but here’s my distribution package for the FCP cue sheet generating script I wrote for Fay Grim. This script generates the old-timey audio cue sheets that were necessary in the old days when people mixed on dubbers and dinosaurs ruled the earth. They do not generate the music cue sheets which are often required delivery items in distribution contracts. You should really just suck it up and do that manually. If you’re working in Pro Tools and have the ability to export text versions of sessions (usually requires something like the DV Toolkit) then you should try Agent Orange.

These are the instructions (which are also included in the zip file)

  1. Upload the contents of the Zip file to an empty directory on a server where you can run PHP. Most web hosts allow you to run PHP. Give it a shot.
  2. In FCP export an XML file of the sequence you want to generate a cue sheet for.
  3. Upload the XML file to the same directory you uploaded the script to.
  4. In Safari (Firefox and IE don’t work) enter the url of the directory where you uploaded the script plus the text “?file=filename.xml” where filename.xml is the filename of the XML file you uploaded. For example: http://www.15framespersecond.com/cue_sheet/?file=Reel 5.xml will generate a cue sheet for Reel 5.xml
  5. Adjust the options to fit your needs, then print.
  6. If you’ve uploaded more than one XML file you can select them from the dropdown list at the top of the screen.

I only made the script for my own purposes and I hope some other people get some use out of it. I do not have the time or the interest to provide tech support so the script is provided “as is.” Feel free to modify the source code as you see fit.

HVX-200 Workflow

There is a lot of hearsay, rumor, and innuendo floating around about working with Panasonic’s fancy HVX-200 camera. I have fairly limited experience with it, but I thought I’d throw in my impressions of the best workflow options.

Shoot 720pn on the biggest P2 cards you can afford. Considering the astronomical cost of P2 media, we’re back in the old days where storage space is a limiting factor. Now, the sensor on the camera is 960×540, and it uses fancy methods to squeeze some extra resolution to get to 960×720 (the actual resolution of the 720pn footage). If you go up to 1080p24, tests have shown you do get a slightly better picture, but at the expense of halving the amount of footage you can fit on a P2 card. You’re already getting something really good at 720pn and unless you’re a fanatic about resolution you might not even see the difference. Shooting at 1080p24 also means the files on tape have 3:2 pulldown added in, which is just taking up space and you’ll have to remove the pulldown before you start editing.

Have a laptop on set with a PC card slot. There are a lot of products out there that will read P2 cards or hook up directly to your camera via firewire but I find them dodgy. I don’t like extra steps. The old PowerBooks (before Intel) had PC card slots, as do most PC laptops, although many of them don’t have firewire ports. (UPDATE: You can get a “Duel Systems” (sic) adapter to plug the cards into a MacBook Pro) Hook up a firewire drive to your laptop and you’ve got yourself a perfect transfer station. You might need some drivers, which you can get from Panasonic. Just pop the full P2 card out of the camera, put it in the card slot on the computer, then copy it to a clearly labeled folder on the firewire drive. Come up with your own folder system, but keep it clear and consistent like you would with camera rolls or tapes. Then erase the entire contents of the P2 card and put it back in the camera. You should have at least 2 cards so you can keep shooting while you copy. (Another update: According to Shane Ross, you can’t just delete the cards anymore, you have to use a P2 card formatter, which you can get from Panasonic.)

You need an extra crew member. Unfortunately you’re going to need someone who only pays attention to media management on set. Trying to split up the job can lead to lost footage, which is bad. The best person to have on set is an assistant editor or the editor. That way things can be organized exactly how they want it. If the post-production staff can’t do it, you’ll need an additional person who knows computers.

Make a backup. Look, hard drives crash all the time. And they’re really, really cheap. Buy an extra one and backup as often as possible.

Edit with new versions of FCP or Avid. P2 is bleeding-edge stuff. Don’t waste your time trying to make it work with FCP 3. It just doesn’t work. And I’m sure those upstarts like Premiere Pro and Vegas are just fine, but why are you making everything so difficult? Avid has the advantage of working natively with MXF so you don’t do any transcoding, but because there’s no tape name associated with the files there’s a lot of worry about what happens when things go offline. I haven’t had enough experience working with P2 in Avid to dismiss any of those fears, so proceed with caution.

Some YouTube Thumbnail Data

YouTube is probably the only remaining online video site that doesn’t let you change your video thumbnail. The video thumbnail uses the frame from the exact middle of the clip and there’s no way to change the thumbnail once a video has been uploaded. This was obviously an arbitrary and expedient decision made in the very beginning of the development of the site. Why they haven’t opened things up yet is beyond me. It would mean an immediate and enormous jump in the quality of the information available on the site. Text descriptions are one thing, but a representative still from the video is worth something like 1,000 words.

Aside from making the browsing experience more informative, it would help people promote their videos better. Truth @ 15 Frames Per Second has a striking example of this. There are really only two possible thumbnails for a 15fps video. Either a still of me or a still of Jennie Tarr.

15fpsicons.jpg

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which videos will have more viewers. Even removing the exceptionally large numbers for the Webcam Sex video (currently at 1,106,754 views, the #97 most viewed People & Blogs video of all time) the average Jennie-thumbnailed video has 24,769 views. The average Kyle-thumbnailed video has 3,604.

Never underestimate the selling power of a picture of a pretty girl.

UPDATE!: It seems that YouTube now allows changing the thumbnail. Their help pages still claim you can’t, but I was able to select from 3 potential stills at the top of the video info page as of the morning of July 3. There is a note on the page that says it may take up to 6 hours for the selection to appear on YouTube.

Movies Get Pirated

Michael Moore’s new movie “Sicko” got posted on the Internet before it was released. Why is this news? Because Michael Moore and the Weinstein Company are making it news. I’m sure there was a press release put out by the Weinstein Company, and Moore’s going around claiming it was an inside job. Maybe it was. Or maybe it was made from a DVD screener. I don’t know the specifics of the distribution plans, but I find it hard to believe that there were no DVD screeners available for the film, considering that it’s already played at Cannes and it’s coming out in theaters so soon. Then today there were more articles wondering if the film’s box office would be hurt by all this crazy piracy. The figure mentioned in the articles is 4000 downloads on Piratebay. 4000! And “as many as 600” saw it on YouTube! Do reporters even stop to think about what they’re writing? That many people watching a movie online before it’s released is a story only because the numbers are so small. Hell, according to mininova, 2,000 people are downloading Fay Grim right now. Fay Grim was pirated 2 weeks before it opened and that’s a movie much lower on the radar than Sicko. Trust me, Sicko will do just fine even with all these dirty pirates around.

We Don’t Need More Movie Screens

Yesterday Chris Anderson over at his Long Tail blog posted some research done by Kalevi Kilkki, Principal Scientist at Nokia Siemens Networks. I don’t really follow the math, but somehow he’s worked out that if there were a lot more movie theaters in the US and an efficient distribution network that didn’t require physically shipping prints to the theater, there would be 60-70% more revenue available to theatrical distributors because they could show a lot more movies with niche appeal. They claim there are 13,000 films shown at film festivals every year and there’s all kinds of untapped theatrical revenue from those films that everyone is just throwing away. Now, you can do a lot of stuff with fancy math that seems reasonable, but this is just ridiculous.

Theatrical distribution is the opposite of niche. The nature of theatrical presentation is that you have to herd a group of people into a particular room at a particular time. You don’t get around that by building more theaters. Have you ever gone to an art house theater on a Tuesday evening? 9 times out of 10 you’ll see 15 people in the audience.

Let’s imagine that there were enough new screens to show every movie available for theatrical distribution, and also assume there’s a network that instantly delivers HD (or better) versions of the films for playback on fancy digital projectors. In the real world, those screens would be built very small and because of the nature of niche interests, the screenings would be even more sparsely attended than they are now. Eventually as you increase the volume, the screens get even smaller and the audience for each screening dwindles to one or two. Do you know what that sounds like to me? It sounds like home video.

Theatrical presentation and home video are not two different things, they complement each other. In almost every case, theatrical is a money-losing advertisement for home video.

Now, if we could get over the stigma of releasing films directly to video, that would really be something. If respectable media outlets would review niche indie movies released directly to video rather than ignoring them and lumping them in with the fifth American Pie sequel then it would be financially viable to release all those movies that don’t make it through the theatrical bottleneck that exists for very real reasons which aren’t going to be solved by technology.

And if you’ve seen even a fraction of those 13,000 movies that supposedly screen at film festivals every year (where does that number come from?) you know that most of them aren’t really of interest to anyone outside of the friends and family of the cast and crew.

This Web Stuff Starts to Pay Off

I earn most of my income helping other people make movies. It pays well and most of the time it’s exciting. But like most people, I want to have some control over what I do every day. So I’ve started a number of web-based ventures. I put all my movies online, I sell Obey Saget merchandise, and I manage a TV blog. Today I’m on the cusp of two milestones. First, I’m about to cross the $100 payment threshold for Google Adwords. The money has been accumulating in tiny increments for a little over a year, and in a few weeks I will earn enough to actually have Google transfer that money into my bank account.

Ok, that’s not a lot of money considering the amount of time it took to earn it, but it does nearly cover my actual expenses. It certainly doesn’t pay for all the work that’s gone into these things, especially TiFaux, which accounts for the bulk of the Adwords income and includes three other people writing dozens of posts every month. That sort of thing adds up, and will most likely never earn any of us any money.

Revver paid me for the first time last month, and I’ll earn enough this month to get paid again. That’s all thanks to the 1-year-later surprise success of “Truth @ 15 Frames Per Second.” My older, less web-friendly movies aren’t pulling their weight. This week Today! the Truth@15fps videos will reach 1 million combined views on YouTube, which is totally astounding, but it doesn’t earn me a dime. Granted, most of the traffic on the 15framespersecond.com site comes from YouTube viewers, so it does indirectly earn me money, but it would be nice if YouTube could figure out a way to pay legitimate content creators directly.

And finally, the Obey Saget merchandise provides the most income out of all these ventures, and takes almost no time at all to maintain. It’s a lesson for the kids out there.