Knowledge

I'm the first to admit that there is too much to know today.

Too many software tricks to cram in. Software updates that come at you too quickly. Changes in tax law you must account for. A client list that needs constant nurturing. The new hot social media platform all the cool kids are talking about. The app that is turning heads. A Kindle full of interesting ebooks, a mailbox full of trades, an RSS feed with 500 updates a day.

Plus a family that wants to say hello on occasion.

Editing the list of demands becomes more important each day. Prioritize, delegate, lean on the specialists in your contact list. Hiring someone to do something in 2 hours that would take you 10 is probably money well spent.

Nothing insightful here- just a reminder that we all have reason to feel overwhelmed, and that it's okay not to know everything. You can't- but be sure to admit it.

Peter

Loser

I think recognizing a music cut on ESPN as one you have used in your day job defines one as a loser.

Guilty as charged.

Peter

Confusion

I sent some tapes I shot this week to a post house, and I don't envy their position. They hadn't encountered DVCPro HD tapes shot in 1080 30P.

One of the advantages of my one-man-band-world is that I can learn what I my gear does and leave it at that. A post house has to learn every possible format that material can be sent and figure out how to ingest it into their edit system. In today's 57 format universe, that has to be dizzying at times.

That was one advantage of the 3/4 U-matic and beta days- passing tapes about didn't require an electronic Babel Fish to make them all work together.

Peter

Timeline Frames

Another missing Avid feature: when using frame view in the timeline, the head frame is the only that can be used, which isn't of much help when you have a transition of some kind on that head frame.

In a perfect world, the user could choose exactly what frame of each clip is displayed, like you can in the bins.

When I'm King.....

Peter

HD ads

My household ahs had HD service via Direct TV for six months, and one of the interesting quirks in the low percentage of HD ads that run during HD programming.

I've read trade articles about the aesthetic choices that must be made for ads that are to be served across broadcast networks, and they are valid choices that must be made. I've had the same discussions on virtually every new project that is shot 16:9 but won't be seen by the every viewer in that aspect. It seems that most projects have multiple destinations, so you must 4:3 protect while still making the 16:9 image interesting anyway.

But I'm surprised that only half of the ads on Discovery's or ESPN's HD feeds are also HD. The reduction in viewer experience is dramatic. If I'm an advertiser who has paid for access to an HD stream, I would want the maximum impression.

I understand there is an added expense to posting in HD versus SD, assuming the content originated on film or in HD, but when you factor in the cost of production and editing in relation to the cost of the ad buy, I see value in spending the extra dollar on the front end to maximize the impression on the back end.

That's why the "free" ad a TV station will produce in exchange for an ad buy are expensive in bad viewer impressions. You get what you pay for.

I imagine this will become less of an issue as the DTV conversion happens, but I am curious how long the residual issues will evolve.

Peter