redge

I follow this forum even if I haven't posted in a long time, and it occurred to me that some people might find this interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/business/media/16cnd-schwartz.html

Hi Courtney, I think that your post clearly explains, to a degree that has perhaps been less clear in the past, your position on iXML and how that position is reflected in your software. I appreciate your candour, as one of the people who has paid to license your programme, and I think that it will be helpful to people who are thinking about licensing your software. Rory

Courtney, when I asked you to respond in plain English, I knew that unless you have changed your attitude I was tilting at windmills. I don't mind that you are vehemently opposed to iXML. I do mind that you don't say this to people who are thinking of buying your product. The only way that they can find out about your attitude toward iXML, and the consequences if they buy your product, is to read your "rants", as you call them yourself, in various fora. More importantly, I mind that you use language to fudge the whole question of the relationship between your product and iXML. Behind the fudge is the assumption that people don't understand enough about data bases and iXML to understand what you are saying, and that consequently you can get away with speaking in a way that is obtuse and, more importantly, misleading. People who are thinking about buying your product need to understand that they are buying into a position about databases and database search functions (at the end of the day, what you are selling is a searchable database) that is at odds, to the point of "rants", with where the industry is going, and that they won't know this from your web site, nor perhaps even from your posts, given the degree to which you play fast and loose with answers to plain questions.

Courtney, Does the new version of your product fully support iXML, the emerging industry standard, or are you still philosophically opposed to it? What is your current position, for people who might be interested in your product, and for people like me who have paid you to license it, on whether you are prepared, regardless of your personal views, to support iXML? I ask because when the subject of iXML comes up, as it has on a number of fora, you make your opposition abundantly clear, and if I understand matters correctly, you are not prepared to build true/full iXML support into BWF-Widget, apparently because you disagree with its proponents. So the question is, does the new version of BWF-Widget Pro fully support iXML? If not, when will it? I mean, as we both know, doing it is not difficult. It is just a question of whether you are prepared to do it. As a licensee, a clear response, in plain English, would be appreciated. Thanks.

Mick, Sorry, I wasn't criticizing your post. On the contrary, I was using it as a counterpoint to some other posts lately that seem to raise the question about whether technological advances are a contributing factor to the undermining of professionalism/quality. It is an interesting question, that goes beyond the immediate focus of this thread, on which I expressed a view with which others may disagree. In fact, I think that the part of your post that I quoted pretty much hits the nail on the head. I should have expressed myself more clearly. Again, sorry.

Could I ask, what does it say?

Quoted from Mick: "The only "old school" aspect of the job I miss is the assumption that we will be given the time and opportunity to provide the best sound possible without having to compromise because of the location scout's indifference to the major freeway next to the location of a three page dialogue scene and similar stuff like that, ..." As a serious question, what does this have to do with technological developments or, to refer to Mr. Wexler's comments in another thread, with recording on CDs rather than certain brands of tape? As a guy who is doing small projects with digital gear that is reasonably up to date, and who has built and uses old-style gear (eg. tube amplifiers), I don't see how technological advances lead inevitably to slipshod/compromised work. If that is happening, I can think of other reasons, but technology isn't one of them. There is one caveat to what I am saying. I am inclined to think that expensive media results in good planning, that cheap media results in bad planning, that bad planning results in bad product and that if enough bad product is broadcast, it becomes the norm/expectation. On the question of expectation, it is kind of interesting that High Definition television is proving to be a hard sell. On the other hand, some extraordinary films have been made using cheap media (which has always been the case, whether one is talking about 16mm, or 35mm shot with sound added or video - indeed, I'd say that in the last few years, most of the good films that I've seen were shot cheap, and that the quality of professional product coming out of Hollywood and Toronto, etc. has been progressively deteriorating). Maybe there are two issues: (a) the fact that we are going through a period of feature films, at least in North America, that lack imagination and ( the perception, at least on this forum, that there is a declining respect for craftsmanship. If these are real phenomena, my bet is that technology is not the real cause.

The interesting question is, why does the software accomodate this idea in the first place? The reason is pretty straightforward. The people who run forums have found that participants compete for status, and that quality of content is not a necessary criterion. What matters is number of posts. Apparently, implementing this system encourages participation and, especially, traffic. Some sites have many status levels. The incredible thing is that people buy into this. On many forums, number of posts actually creates rank. It is all about psychology, and there are many discussions about this on the internet, especially among forum owners who are interested in generating traffic on their site. For an example, see the site for Inverloch, which is the home of a rather accomplished fantasy comic strip out of Australia that has a wide following among people, in many countries, in their mid-teens to early twenties: http://www.seraph-inn.com/index.html. Fans of this comic participate in a forum that has many levels of recognition, each having an imaginative name. The most exalted level is moderator (they have their own unique moniker), but short of that, the levels depend on number of posts. I rather doubt that this is what Mr. Wexler is doing. Perhaps he has some other reason for activating this function, or perhaps he hasn't had an opportunity, given everything else he does to support this site, to even think about it. If he decides to continue using this distinction, Inverloch might serve as a good inspiration for coming up with something more colourful than Hero Member.

Jeff, I can understand what you are saying if a lawyer for the union actually told the organizers that they could get sued if they showed the programme over the internet. As people love to blame lawyers, I am skeptical that that is what happend. When a lawyer tells a union something like that in this kind of situation (assuming that it even happened), the lawyer normally explains how to do it in a way that doesn't result in a lawsuit. It seems fairly obvious to me that it is possible for a union to disseminate educational material, over the internet and to a wider public, without being sued. I think that the real question is, does the union want to make its educational materials widely available or not and, if the latter, does it want to do as good a job as Gotham did? If it doesn't do as good a job, is it a matter of legal impediments or a matter of simply not having the vision that the Gotham seminar demonstrated? If the explanation is legal impediments, then as someone who has spent time representing some of North America's larger labour unions, I don't get it. If it is a lack of vision, then maybe the union should talk to the people who did the Gotham seminar with a view to learning a few things. I'm not saying that the Gotham seminar was perfect (far from it, the gentleman who was handling the international participants said himself that they were learning as they went along), but I think that they did a pretty good job. If the union doesn't get on the phone to the people in New York who put that seminar on, its representatives are daft. I have worked with unions for which this would be seen as a major opportunity, not as a reason to run scared from their own membership. Myself, I just want the DVD. Where do I send my cheque? Best

The norm for unions is to make their educational programmes as widely available as possible. I can't think of a single rational reason why a union would restrict access to this unless it incurred costs and announced, at the same time, that it wanted to recoup costs through sale of a DVD. As far as I can tell, nobody made a nickle out of the Gotham seminar. It must have involved a lot of donated time and resources. The result was an international broadcast that covered a lot of important issues. Why on earth can't a union do the same? Or at least have the common sense, if only in its own interest, to either make the material available to anyone who wants to see it, or to say that it is available if one shells out $X for a DVD?

I subscribe to one of the categories and some topics in order to get e-mail notification of new posts. For me, this is a very handy feature of the site. It would be even better if I could subscribe to a category or topic via RSS feed. Just a thought. I don't know how easy/difficult it would be to implement this, or what others think. Best

Like someone else, who asked a question about Safari in an earlier thread, I don't know whether this part of the site contemplates discussion about computer issues that are not directly related to sound recording. Just a note to say that after downloading the new Internet Explorer 7, Microsoft's first thorough reworking of IE in years, a few weeks ago (I gather that earlier this week, it was installed via the internet, automatically, on the computers of most Windows users), I decided to have a look at Opera and Firefox. I had not tried these products before. It turns out that there are quite big differences between these interfaces with the internet. In my case, I was so impressed with Opera that I am now using it in place of IE. Anyway, for those who are curious about the alternative products, and haven't tried them, they are worth checking out. Just recognize two things, which took me a bit of time to figure out. If you run Windows, IE has to stay on your computer, partly because it is more than a browser (it is essential for upgrades), and partly because there are some web sites (not many, but some of them are important) that IE can read and Opera and Firefox can't. Curious to know, if it isn't too far off topic, whether others are using Opera or Firefox instead of IE, and, if so, why. Cheers

I may get killed for this, but here is my view on your question as it relates to documentaries and small independent films. I started with a Schoeps 541 microphone that I bought, as it happens, from the owner of this site (thanks very much, Jeff, for setting me off in the right direction -I owe you plenty for that). Then I added a Sound Devices 702 recorder with time code. Since then, I have acquired a second Schoeps 541 microphone, a boom pole and two kinds of windscreens (a Schoeps hollow foam ball for each microphone and a single Rycote zeppelin). To that, I've added headphones, cable, three Sony batteries, and a Sony charger, to run the recorder, and a number of compact flash cards. The cost of these items, most of which are not included in the packages that you outline, should not be underestimated. Also, I want to say that the key to this gear is the microphones (have a look at a thread that Mr. Wexler started very early on in this site about what the key factors are for good sound). I have complete control over the projects that I am working on, so I don't claim to know what demands you are seeing. What I do know is that there seem to be a lot of people working in video for whom this would actually be overkill. All I can say is that I do not think that there is a documentary or small independent film that cannot be made with this gear. Since you are from Toronto, let me add that this setup has proven more than adequate for a project that I am working on for the CBC. At the same time, I don't know anything about what is needed for reality shows. Cheers

I think that Peter Schneider and company, the people at Posthouse and the people who made presentations should be given a vote of thanks for the effort that they put into this. The content and presentation were first rate, and the fact that they broadcast the seminar live over the internet demonstrates both forward thinking and a willingness to try fairly new technology. I was particularly impressed that Gotham had the foresight to have a member of its staff (Jim G.) spend his entire time, via chat, getting input from those who were watching over the web, both about the substance of the seminar and how it was coming across over the net. Putting this seminar together must have taken a great deal of time and commitment on the part of a lot of people. Great job. Rory