DV Guru

The beauty of a lack of editing

Brian Liloia — 2007-01-16T12:59:00+00:00

Filed under: Movies, Post-production, Editorial

Last week, I saw Children of Men. Two nights ago, I saw it again. Rarely do I pay to see a film twice in the theater, but Children of Men almost demanded that I do so. Not only am I a big fan of intelligent sci-fi films (and books, especially of the dystopian variety), Children of Men represents a startling standout act in terms of actual production. Other than the tight plot, deliciously thoughtful political overtones, pitch-perfect acting, incredible art direction and locations, and superb pacing, this film features some of the most startling long takes I've ever experienced. In fact, it is the film's use of long takes that is the most inspiring and impressionable feature of the film.

In a time where superfluous CG effects and chop-chop editing plague so many Hollywood pictures, Children of Men stands in defiance of the hyper-real. In an early long take spanning at least a couple of minutes, a group of five drives down a road and sees a burning car quickly rolling down a hillside, blocking their path. A massive horde of thugs hoping to do the passengers in come out of the woods and run towards their car which is now forced to speed in reverse. Chaos ensues during the chase, and the camera never cuts away from the perspective inside of the vehicle during all of this. It's an incredibly planned shot, and only a precursor to a much bigger and more technically impressive long take later in the film.

The complete lack of editing during some of Children of Men's most emotionally heated and technically impressive scenes is a real filmmaking marvel. Ultimately, it gives the film a much bigger punch because we are able to experience these scenes uninterrupted, with no disruption to the sense of time. Yes, these long takes give the film an almost "realistic" quality. And that is what separates Children of Men from the rest. There is not only good entertainment to be had with Children of Men, but a valuable learning experience. So yes, long story short: see this movie.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

DVguru Buying Guide 2006

Ajit Anthony — 2006-12-11T09:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Cameras, Hardware, Software, Media, Gear, Editorial

Filmmaking is one of those careers that demands purchasing new stuff frequently. Often, this can be a lot of fun but it can also be miserable when you don't have the money. For those that have the money or have someone who has money and is willing to get you what you need, this buying guide is for you.

Unlike last year, I am not including anything above $700 because purchases in that category should be properly researched to meet the needs of the individual filmmaker.

Under $20: Stocking stuffers and gifts for people you barely know.

DVDs, DV Tapes and any media in general is an excellent buy. Filmmakers always need media, you can't go wrong. If you don't know what they use, ask them.
Mini-DV cleaner. Every camera owner needs one of these.
Digital Video Books & magazine subscriptions also easy gift ideas. I plan to read more books this year whether it be film geekie stuff or general fiction.
One of the writers we constantly quote is Scott Kirsner. He has a new book out titled The Future of Web Video. One of our bloggers is currently reading it and writing up a review. I am next in line to get the copy, woohoo!
For fun, maybe you could get someone a DVD Rewinder!

$20-$100: The sweet spot of the gift prices unless you are really ~~intimate~~ close with that person. There are a lot of shareware softwares in this range, so if you don't like something here, check out VersionTracker for more ideas.

B&H Photo Video gift certificate - If you are not sure what to get someone, you can't go wrong with this. B&H is one of the best and largest stores that service the Multimedia industry.
Cheap Lavalier mics - Just a thought.
Lineform - Illustrator replacement, it has been getting some excellent reviews. And is not as expensive as Adobe CS. ($79)
Lynda.com Training CD's - If they are trying to pick up software skills, training CD's like Lynda.com series is a great and easy way.
A couple of months of IMDB Pro service ($12.95 per month) could be very useful for Independent filmmakers. Namely, to get a script over to a Hollywood star!
VisualHub - Excellent conversion software for the Mac Platform. It made Playlist magazine's Top Plays. ($24)
You can always buy rolls of Super8 film!

$100 to $300: A price range that can really help a filmmaker. Everything I have listed is something that Filmmakers need but most times don't buy because of other considerations.

Upgrades to Withoutabox.com Premium membership ($129-$139). I don't know what I would do without this site, it has made the painful task of submitting to film festivals wonderfully easy. The free version allows you to submit films but with the Premium memberships, you can get festival discounts. If you are submitting a film to more than 10 festivals, the membership is a very good move. The membership has other advantages, check here.
Vidled on-camera LED lights - I am getting one of these, maybe not now but at some point.
Conduit plug-in for Motion brings nodal compositing to FCP Studio. Great looking software. ($199)
External Hard Drives - Like tapes, this is a no-brainer. Make sure it is fast. Firewire is better than USB, Firewire 800 is better than 400 (they need to have a FW800 connection), 7200 RPM is a must. 3.5 sized disks is another must. 160GB and more is good.
REsizer for FCP Studio ($149) - If someone recently got a HDV camera, they will most likely need this. This software allows intermingling of HDV and DV footage.
Pclix LT100 ($139) - If someone has a DSLR and plans to do some timelapse, make their lives easier with this purchase.
Bogen/Manfrotto 560B Monopod ($149 at B&H) - Tripods and monopods, a great way to upgrade your home videos.
Digital Juice SoundFX library (currently only $249, normally $599) - Though I don't work with sound or music, my SoundFX library has been slow expanding. The last thing you want to do in the middle of editing is go online to look for sound effects. Build a library beforehand.
A Director's chair is a bulky but perfect gift for someone spending a lot of time on their feet.

$300-$700: If you considering buying in this range, make sure it's what they (or you) want. And kudos for being so generous.

Samson Zoom H-4 - Most DV cameras have adequate sound (HDV sound is less than adequate). This budget field recorder is perfect companion for your shoots.
Nikon D40 - This DSLR is what I want for Christmas. Perfect for timelapse photography and other stuff. And it is a steal at $599.
Mac Mini - Perfect for iMovie filmmakers. Get an extra drive and you should be good to go. Maybe the LaCie companion drive. I know a iMovie filmmaker (my neighbor) very happy with this combination.
Shake is available for $499. This is one of the best software deals you will find anywhere. After all, the effects from Lord of the Rings & King Kong were done in this program.
If you know anyone who has the HVX200, they can always use more P2 cards.

If you are thinking of buying a video camera, I'd suggest you look at these articles:

Videomaker's Camcorder guide for 2006
Camcorder Info selects for 2006
Camcorders for the Holidays by Richard Baguley
Macworld's Picking the Perfect camcorder (also by Baguley!)

Happy Shopping!

(Thanks to other DVguru's for their suggestions)

Permalink | Email this | Comments

You've got one minute... GO!

Russell Heimlich — 2006-11-13T09:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Trends, Web, Online, Editorial

Scott Kirsner from Cinematech brings up a very good discussion point for this online-video world that we live in. There seems to be a one-minute barrier when it comes to people watching online content. Why is it that people have a hard time getting past that one minute point? Scott has 4 points:

Most are bad and worth abandoning
Poorly described (not the video you thought it was going to be)
No way to link within a video (you can do it with Flash, but it takes a lot of extra work) so people lose patience searching for what they are looking for
People don't have time

Now if viewers are seeking out your video specifically then you will probably get more of their attention as they expect you to help them with their problem. Think instructional videos. But when it comes to entertainment, people are extremely fickle with what they will put up with. It's no wonder when there is so much free content out there competing for attention that a viewer can easily skip over your video if they aren't hooked within the first 30 seconds. And where do people watch video longer? In the living room on the TV.

The web has two big mindsets attached to it: 1) Everything is free and 2) the faster the better. Alex Lindsay from This Week in Media frequently talks about how iTunes was successful because they broke away from the web browser, releasing the mentality that everything is free. How well do you think iTunes would do if it were merely a website? Do you think they would sell 1 billion songs? And we are always craving more speed on the web from faster broadband access to the way sites are designed -- all to optimize the efficiency of the delivery of information. That is why YouTube was such a big hit. Flash video takes no time load and there are no pre-roll ads to get in the way of the video you want to see. This get-it-quick mentality combined with the ease of use are what make YouTube such a positive experience causing others to gravitate to the site is substantial numbers.

Now how can you break the one minute barrier?

Accurately describe your video so people will know if it is what they are looking for when they arrive.
If you are into making your own Flash player and you have a pretty long video add in chapter points or merely break it up into parts.
Charge for it.

I know many of you won't like that last one but if a viewer gives up something of value (like money) than they will be more committed to watching it all the way through. Until there is a simple way to send video to another device, like a TV in the living room, the one-minute barrier is something we will just have to learn to live with.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Microsoft beats Apple to the livingroom: What does it mean?

Russell Heimlich — 2006-11-09T12:01:00+00:00

Filed under: Hardware, Media, At Home, Online, Editorial

As we reported earlier, Xbox Live will be offering movie downloads. Apple previewed their iTV product two months ago but Microsoft came in and beat Apple to the punch as the battle for your living room continues. Another thing Microsoft did that Apple seems to have trouble doing is getting studio support for downloading from movie studios (Disney excluded). Finally, the idea of Internet delivered content on TV will become a reality. But I have been enjoying this for over a year.

Well, I haven't been able to download commercial content , but using a "hacked" original Xbox running the open source Xbox Media Center 2.0 (XBMC) I can stream any content from my computer to my TV. And unlike the Xbox 360 which is limited to the WMV format and iTV which will most likely cater to whatever they sell at iTunes, XBMC supports everything under the sun including H.264, AVI, MOV, MPEG, and even DivX. In addition to the wonderful content I download, I can stream Internet video straight from the web including Google Video, YouTube, Apple Movie Trailers and CNN news headlines. This first generation gaming console has all of my audio/visual entertainment covered.

However, your average TV viewer will not want to even get close to the technical process of getting XBMC to work. That is where the commercial players come in. Although Apple's solution hasn't been officially announced, Microsoft has the edge here too as the 360 can not only stream content, but play HD-DVDs and games as well. Compare that to the iTV that looks aimed to simply stream media. Xbox 360 with a wireless adapter comes in at $480 while the iTV is expected to ship for $299. While $180 more, but with more features to make up for that premium, the Xbox 360 is certainly more bang for the buck. And after these mainstream devices make their first push, secondary companies will fill in the void for demands that aren't met and at a cheaper price.

Now what will this mean for you, the potential provider of content? Well this will surely be another outlet for your work. An outlet that combines the resolution and quality of TV, but the convenience of the Internet. The formats which these two devices will support will become an important factor for distribution. And while Apple and Microsoft will push their content for sale, there is no reason why you, the self-reliant filmmaker, can't sell your own download that customers can watch on their TV in HD thanks to the efforts of the big guys to push new media into the living room. There are promising times ahead and the more competition the better for everybody. So get ready to serve up some fresh media as high quality Internet video is headed for the living room.

Further Reading:
http://www.applegazette.com/itunes/xbox-vs-itv-microsoft-drops-a-bombshell/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061107-8163.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2211

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Ten reasons you should go to film school

Ryan Bilsborrow-Koo — 2006-10-20T10:09:00+00:00

Filed under: School, Editorial

Last week I listed 10 reasons you shouldn't go to film school, figuring the anti-establishment argument would be the more controversial of the two (thus posting it first). Many who took exception to my points didn't seem to understand that I was also planning on posting a follow-up article exploring the flip side of the argument (although, in my mind, the reasons to go seem a lot more obvious). Hopefully these points will give a prospective film schooler some food for thought.

10 reasons you should go:

1. Peer connections.
Your classmates may be the most valuable resource you'll ever have. Go through the program, make friends, find alliances, and when you get out, stay in touch with everyone. As long as you realize there's life after film school and don't burn your bridges while you're there, you'll be able to find collaborators for your own projects, or possibly get a job on another classmate's project. While you're there you may even meet a writing or producing partner--the Joel to your Ethan Coen. That's not a good comparison, since they're brothers, not classmates, but... you get the point. Also, peer connections aren't the only advantages that come with a film school degree; you'll also get...

2. Industry connections.
Because film is a so-called "glamour" industry, everyone and their mother wants to work in it; this means the barriers to entry are more prohibitive than they are in, say, the hospitality industry. Breaking in is hard. But going to a program like USC or NYU gains you instant connections to an alumni network. This can be in the form of your professors keeping in touch with previous students who now work in the industry, it can be through your school's career services, or it can even be in the form of finding out at a job interview that your would-be boss also went to your alma mater (suddenly your job prospects are looking up). But for many of these interviews, to even get your foot in the door you need...

3. Technical know-how.
While listing 10 reasons not to go to film school, I asked, "can art be taught?" While that inspired some debate, I don't think there's any doubting that craft is certainly teachable. One commenter noted in support of the "art can be taught" argument that, while in film school, he was being taught how to draw; I would argue that being taught to sketch "mediocrely" [sic] is, in fact, merely an instruction on craft. So while no one can teach you how to be the next Scorcese, they can teach you camera framing, continuity editing, or high and low-key lighting. If you think you want to specialize--that is, if you want to be an editor or cinematographer, for example--then film school can certainly give you the technical knowledge to be proficient in those areas. And while you're learning the technical aspects of film, you're also getting....

4. Intelligent feedback.
Your professors and peers, being educated and theoretically intelligent when it comes to film, can give you sophisticated feedback on your own projects and ideas, and help mold you into a better filmmaker. Outside the haven of film school, it's not easy to get together a group of film-aware individuals, and have them critique your project. Considering that film school typically takes place during your formative years, the collective wisdom and advice you receive during your attendance could help inform your whole career. And much of this advice comes from...

5. Mentors to push you.
Shooting a no-budget DV flick with all your friends in it, and then showing it to that same group of friends and getting their "that's me on screen, this is awesome!" feedback, may not be the best way to develop your inner auteur. If you go to film school, you may or may not meet a great professor that inspires you in your studies, but if you do, that experience alone can be worth the price of admission. A good professor can push you to work harder and be more daring than you would be on your own; even if you don't find any particularly great teachers, however, the professors can collectively teach you...

6. History and theory.
Even if you want to make experimental, avant-garde films, you're still standing on the shoulders of giants. Not knowing theory and history is the equivalent of saying ignorance is bliss. Many young aspiring filmmakers cultivate a belief that "truly" creative films are created in a vacuum--and it's easy to buy into this, given Hollywood's current penchant for remakes, adaptations, and other "homages"--but skipping an immersion in history and theory is one sure way of shooting yourself in the foot, not only in terms of your own knowledge of what's been done before, but in terms of...

7. Credibility.
Diplomas are a necessity in many professions; film is not one of them (I'm still waiting for someone's "directed by" credit to be capped off with a "Ph.D"). Nevertheless, industry vets looking to separate the wheat from the chaff will often take you more seriously if you graduated from film school; at the very minimum, it shows you're serious about it (because, as already stated, everyone and their mother wants to be in movies). Of course, what truly matters in film is not where you went to school, but what's on your reel and what credits you have to your name; that is, what you've actually done. And in order to accomplish things, you need...

8. Time for your projects.
If you opt out of film school and do the 9-5 thing, pursuing your own projects on the side can be prohibitively difficult (to a certain extent, this depends on what your day job arrangements are). Working a day job and saving up your money to work on your own blood-sweat-and-tears project has a certain romantic appeal to it, but you'll need funds, equipment, free time, and last but not least, collaborators. Film isn't like writing, where you can sit down and do it yourself; for the most part, you need someone in front of the camera, too. And even if you're shooting a documentary all by yourself, you're most likely going to need large chunks of time set aside to shoot, which you might not be able to swing with an employer who expects you to show up to work every day. Film school gives you the collaborators, framework, and the time and space to work on your film pursuits (unless, of course, you go to a film program where only one in ten gets to actually produce his or her project, and everyone else becomes crew...). Also, if you stay in film school, you're more likely to...

9. Stay the course.
If you throw yourself into the working world, you'll tend to go where the opportunities are, and often times they aren't always film-related. I'm not saying that you'll come out of school with your sights set on being a writer/director and somehow end up becoming an air traffic controller, but I am saying that it's likely you'll take some detours along the way. Having elected not to go to film school (at the graduate level) myself, I'm speaking from experience--while I'm currently doing graphic design at MTV, I'm not doing film or video per se on a daily basis. If you go to film school, by contrast, you're setting aside three years to focus on film alone, and it's one way of ensuring that you won't get sidetracked. No matter how focused you are, however...

10. You either have it or you don't.
Yeah, it's the same as my #10 reason not to go to film school, but that's exactly the point; it applies to both lines of reasoning. If you're truly motivated to express yourself through the medium of film, ultimately... you're going to find a way to express yourself through the medium of film, degree or not.

No "10 reasons why" list is ever going to make up anyone's mind about film school (nor would a "3,457 reasons why" list). Ultimately the decision of whether or not to go to film school is dependent upon personal, not general, reasons: whether you enjoy the classroom environment, how well you get along with professors, how independent you are, what your level of film education and technical abilities are when you're making the decision, what type of films you eventually want to make, how you want to make them, and a hundred other personal factors.

Still, these are ten pretty fundamental reasons to go (or not). If you've read both arguments and crave further food for thought, check out MovieMaker's interviews on this very topic. Or, chime in with your opinion in the comments.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Ten reasons you shouldn't go to film school

Ryan Bilsborrow-Koo — 2006-10-11T14:06:00+00:00

Filed under: School, Editorial

Every aspiring filmmaker asks the age-old question at some point: should I go to film school? Will I be a better filmmaker for it, or will I spend a lot of money on education only to end up taking a job as a waiter to pay off my debt, wishing I'd spent the money on a guerrilla DV short instead? It's a tough question, but unfortunately no one can make the decision for you; the only universal piece of advice anyone can give you is, "it depends." And while I've made my own choice--indeed, my personal site is located at nofilmschool.com--I can see it both ways. Thus this week I'll look at 10 reasons why you should skip the .edu; next week I'll throw out 10 justifications for sending in your application.

First of all, I should note that when I talk about "film school," I don't mean taking a couple of film classes in college; I'm talking about shelling out for a specialized film program like USC/NYU/AFI/etc.

Ten reasons you should not go:

1. Your favorite filmmaker didn't go to film school.
Some of the directors working today who didn't attend are Steven Soderbergh, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino, Richard Linklater, Spike Jonze... of course it depends on who your favorite filmmaker is, and plenty of famous directors are film school alumni, among them some of the most decorated. The trio of Spielberg Lucas, Scorcese, and Coppola all went to film school--but that was a different era, before the invention of...

2. Digital Video.
One of the primary reasons to go to film school back when Scorcese et al. attended was to gain access to the tools. 35mm or Super 16 equipment was too expensive to own and celluloid film was much more difficult to shoot on and edit. But nowadays many films showing in theaters (well, indie theaters, at least) are shot with the very same cameras that hundreds of our DVG readers have sitting at home on their desks. The DV revolution has a long way to go, but today the obstacles are more often related to distribution and raw talent, not equipment. Gaining access to a motion-picture camera is no longer a good reason to go to film school; besides...

3. Film school is expensive.
It's easy to justify spending six figures on an education because you're investing in the future. Plus there is a loan structure in place for repaying your debt, and there's a vague promise of a job once you have a degree in hand. But tuition is incredibly expensive, and you'll be paying it off for years to come, unless your last name is Rockefeller. If you think you have a great idea for a film--and that's a big "if," requiring enormous amounts of faith in yourself--then you may be able to produce your project for a whole lot less money than the six figures you'd spend on a degree. And once your labor of love is done, you can distribute your project using...

4. The Internet.
The biggest difference between today and 30 years ago isn't the advent of DV cameras, it's the advent of mass, free distribution like YouTube, iFilm, and a hundred other online sites. You could have all the talent in the world and a DV master of your piece de resistance in hand, but without the ability to put it out there for some recognition, you'd be up the creek. In today's era of amateur filmmakers being snatched up off of YouTube, however, you can be assured that there's an audience out there, there's a way to put your film in front of them, and there's a cadre of scared executives ready to hire anyone who understands kids these days. Another relevant aspect of the internet is the informational aspect; you can find intelligent film reviews, interviews, and forums for discussing movies online, which didn't exist several years ago. All of these things help you find...

5. The Long Tail.
Pre-interweb, it was much more difficult to find niche content that catered to your personal interests; but now, as Chris Anderson has written, even smaller films manage to find an audience, profitably. Even if you're making a niche film about heroin-addicted Latvians who skydive blindfolded while listening to Jethro Tull (actually, that sounds pretty interesting), you can find an audience for it. Ten thousand interested audience members spread across the country won't get your film seen in any one theater, because the geographic concentration of them is far too sparse to sell 100 tickets at any given location, on any given night. But ten thousand interested viewers on the internet means your film can get viewed ten thousand times and passed on many times over, through email, blogs, and myspace. Suddenly you're the authority on terminal-velocity Latvian addicts and have lined up funding for a sequel, without ever stepping foot in film school. And the Long Tail isn't just relevant as a producer, it's also relevant as a student, because...

6. Netflix + books = critical studies.
Classic, avant-garde, and generally obscure films used to be hard to get your hands on. Film school, once upon a time, was a great way to see movies you couldn't see anywhere else. But 90% of the movies you'll see in film school today are available on DVD. Not only that, but instead of having to pay $4/pop to rent them on your own, you can just sign up for an all-you-can-eat DVD rental service like Netflix and watch, rate, review, and queue films to your heart's content. Combine this with a few trips to the local bookstore and some Amazon listmania to get yourself a set of film history and theory books, and you've got a halfway decent critical studies program in your bedroom. That is, assuming you're motivated enough to put in all the work on your own, without grades, peers, and deadlines--which is not easy. Still, you can always...

7. Learn by doing.
Between the corporate video, television, and feature film industries, there are plenty of jobs out there. Rather than paying to learn, you can get paid to learn (Mark Cuban seems to have done okay with that). Regarding film specifically, there are advantages and disadvantages to this approach: the disadvantages are that you may not be surrounded by like-minded peers who can give you valuable feedback, you may get on a track that's not of your choosing (instead of being able to focus on one specialty at film school), and you may not have much time outside of your day job to pursue the projects you really want to. The advantages are that you're supporting yourself instead of going into debt, you're building up your resume, and you're gaining an understanding of how the real world works. And learning by doing is better because...

8. You can't teach art. Can you?
At the heart of the "should I go to film school?" question is an even more basic question: can art be taught? No. Yes. A little bit? Who knows. Personally I've always felt that there's something fundamentally disingenuous about teaching how to create. Yes, as a professor you can explain how a piece of art was created, you can further a student's understanding of the art form as a whole, and you can refine a student's technical know-how. But there's no right or wrong way to create. Of course, on the flip side, having a great professor who gives you good feedback and pushes you in the right direction can make the whole film school experience worthwhile (I'll talk about this next week). But many professors teach formula as technique, and you want to make sure it's your own vision on screen, not your professor's. Regardless...

9. Don't study film, study life.
My problem with Hollywood today is not a lack of craft, and my problem with film school is not a lack of theory; both of these areas of expertise are arguably more refined today than they've ever been. But what's mostly missing in Hollywood today is the writing--what's actually being said--and while they can teach you in school how to say what you've got to say, they can't tell you what to say. If film school costs $100k, I'd say you'd be better off traveling the world, reading a lot of books, doing volunteer work, and meeting a lot of people along the way. If you skip film school to travel the world and you're insecure about your understanding of the 180-degree rule, read the Wikipedia entry on it and be on your way. If, in the course of your travels, you discover that you're not interested in being a filmmaker after all, that's probably for the better too, because you would've realized that eventually, even if you got your degree in film. Because ultimately, when it comes to filmmaking...

10. You either have it or you don't.
Barry Diller said recently that "talent always outs." That is, if you're talented, you'll eventually make it, regardless of whatever obstacles you encounter along the way. Film school can help you become a better filmmaker--it can refine what's already there--but if you don't have the raw creativity, ability, and motivation from the start, you're doomed even if you've got a degree in hand. Conversely, if you've got what it takes, you'll eventually make it, whether you go to film school or not. This is why there's no right or wrong answer to the film school question; it's reductive, but... you either have it or you don't.

This is an age-old debate, so please post your own thoughts and experiences in the comments; next week I'll be posting ten reasons to enroll.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

GooTube: Match made in heaven

Randall Bennett — 2006-10-10T08:07:00+00:00

Filed under: Trends, Business, The Little Guy, Web, Online, Editorial

There's no denying the success of YouTube... Alexa puts it as the 10th most visited website on the internet. [in case you're wondering, DV Guru is about 13,000]. With all that success, many pundits around the web said YouTube was Web2.0 Napster and would likely see the same fate, but they've come through and proved all the naysayers wrong. Now that they're nearly legit, with only a regulatory hurdle away, the $1.65 Billion company isn't being sued into oblivion, but instead striking content deals with big media companies.

While the site was worth $1.6 Billion to Google, and the big media companies feel like they've got a place to distribute their content online to the masses, what does the deal mean for indies? The impending sale doesn't affect independent content creators as much as it does big media, but there are defininite advantages for the independent content producer. Read on after the break for a breakdown of today's transaction.
YouTube isn't technologically different than a host of other companies offering online video. DVG broke down the differences between ten different online video sharing services earlier this year, and other than popularity, what does YouTube really have going for it? They broke new ground (some reactions are here). Their major differentiating factor plays off of another Web2.0 breakout: MySpace. YouTube allowed users to leech their bandwidth, and syndicate content on MySpace pages, blogs and any form of web site. That alone opened up the distribution channel. Millions of internet users knew the name YouTube and knew it was the place to find free movies on the web. With clips like "Juggernaut, Bitch!" and Ok Go's "Here it goes again" among a smattering of fart jokes, men getting hit in the crotch, and other random home movies, YouTube became the place to go for video on the web.

Google and YouTube is the only scenario that works in YouTube being purchased. If a traditional media company purchased YouTube, their competitors would remove their copyrighted content thereby limiting YouTube's effectiveness. Google, being the internet zen garden for smart internet startups (although some would argue YouTube isn't necessarily a smart startup), had their own solution, Google Video, failing to gain traction. Ultimately, Google is the only company that could be a neutral third-party that traditional content creators could trust to distribute their content.

Now that you're up on the history of the site, let's talk about the future, post-Google buyout. The house that Sergey built says they're planning on leaving YouTube as its own entity, and now that they've got a sugar daddy, YouTube's employees will get paid, no more worrying about astronomical bandwidth charges and Google will be taking the cease and desist letters, as well as the deep pockets for lawsuits.

As for Google, they've essentially taken the lead in online video with this move. $1.6 Billion may seem like a huge amount, but Google just purchased a huge catalog of content that they can slap AdSense on. Since YouTube will stick around, one can safely assume Google Video's destiny lies in the trash heap. The Google Video programmers will likely keep their jobs, and relocate to YouTube, adding great new features. While we'll have to see whether Google scraps Google Video in favor of YouTube.

Independent content creators can (mildly) rejoice, since the leader in syndicated web video will stick around for a while. The most obvious benefits are added stability: videos already uploaded will continue to work in spite of lawsuits. That, and as Jason Calacanis pointed out, Google is the sort of media company that will be unlikely to put pre-roll advertisements in front of other people's video content.

That's the obvious route, but what other benefits might we see as independent producers? A direction I'm certain Google is thinking of would be dynamic ads for video content. Their AdSense for Video program hasn't been incredibly well received, but with the YouTube acquisition, dynamically placed revenue sharing advertisements could be coming to a video near you. Videobloggers have longed for a solution that leverages the power of the web with the ease of drop-in spot advertising. Perhaps the GooTube alliance will see some traction towards monetized videoblogs, and for that matter monetized home videos.

One feature Google video has that YouTube hasn't touched yet is selling videos for download. The new GooTube conglomeration has the potential to offer indpenedent content creators the ability to reach a wide audience, and even make money off of potential direct sales. Time will tell if they end up implementing this with YouTube, but regardless, there's definate potential.

GooTube is really in it's infancy, and we'll have to see where it goes. There's one thing for certain though, YouTube is going to stick around, and we'll all be watching.

[Russell Heimlich contributed to this report.]

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Why RED is already a success

Ryan Bilsborrow-Koo — 2006-10-04T13:14:00+00:00

Filed under: Trends, Cameras, Pro, Editorial

RED's greatest promise is that it will irreversibly change the landscape of filmmaking technology. But what if it ends up being a huge piece of vaporware? Or what if it's not even a camera, and it turns out to be founder Jim Jannard's top-secret project to build the ultimate rocket launcher? Here's how RED has already succeeded in blowing up the video camera market--no rockets required.

Six years ago Sony shipped the PD-150, the highly-anticipated successor to the godfather of DV cameras: the VX-1000. What did the PD-150 offer over the older model? Reduced noise, improved sensitivity... and XLR audio inputs. It didn't offer more raw pixels on tape, it didn't offer non-linear acquisition options, and the audio circuitry turned out to be intentionally crippled so Sony could further delineate its prosumer option from its "true" pro products. Why sell for $4k what you can sell for $20k, after all?

What a difference six years makes. Panasonic, JVC, Canon, and Sony all offer prosumer HDV options for under $5k now. Each manufacturer's camera represents somewhat of a compromise--some are better for news gathering, some are better for music videos; even after dozens of pros spent days comparing them, a clear winner didn't emerge. And then RED announced the end-all, be-all, no-compromises 4k supercam. It may have even been a rival camera manufacturer, possibly worried about their future, that broke into RED's headquarters to try to get their hands on a prototype (no one knows if it was corporate espionage or not; whoever they are, if the culprits are caught, I have the headline "caught RED handed" ready to unleash on the world).

RED was first hinted at back in December of 2005; the camera itself, dubbed RED One, was shown in prototype form in April. Then, just last month Sony announced the HVR-V1U, a 3CMOS, variable-frame rate, 1080p camcorder for under $5k. The V1U's optional direct-to-disc recording attachment doesn't rely on any proprietary (moneymaking) media like XDCAM or MemoryStick, breaking a long-standing Sony tradition. The camera's announcement surprised a lot of people, especially coming from a company yet to offer true 24p on anything except its $200k CineAlta line of cameras.

Does anyone else see a connection here? Pre-RED I'd guess that Sony would have never given away this much camera for so little money. But now the landscape has been terraformed and Sony (and Canon, and JVC, and Panasonic) are eyeing the market and trying to figure out how they'll fit in once RED--and yes, other companies like Silicon Imaging--release their digital cinema offerings for a fraction of the price of the CineAlta and Varicam. Electronics companies are most agile on the lower-end, and thus I think the HVR-V1U is the first camera to demonstrate "the RED effect." The V1U is likely indicative of Sony's future--high-definition CMOS censors with diagonally-arranged pixels, true variable frame rates, and tapeless acquisition.

Sure, Sony was working on all of these technologies long before they were aware of RED One's details. But I think it'd be a safe bet to say that they weren't going to put all of them into a $5k handheld camcorder until RED blew everyone away. So now we have the RED effect; you can bet the rest of the manufacturers are going to step up to the plate as well. So while RED might be an exciting prospect for those of you with $25k burning a hole in your pocket, it's also already helping everyone on the lower end too. Thus the HDV, 24p, tapeless camcorder wars begin; the next few years will see a glut of cameras with features that would have cost six figures a few years ago, and it's in part due to RED... a product that hasn't even seen the light of day.

Also, don't forget it's named the Red "One." It wouldn't shock me to see a RED Two camera announced in a few years with a Mysterium sensor--and price tag--cut in half.

Permalink | Email this | Comments