Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'media'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Main Board
    • Current
    • The Daily Journal
    • General Discussion
    • Equipment
    • Cameras... love them, hate them
    • Recording Direct to Computer
    • Workflow
    • The Post Place
    • Images of Interest
    • Macs... and the other computer
    • All Things Apple
    • Technical Reference
    • Do It Yourself
    • Manufacturers & Dealers
    • Work Available - Available for Work
    • Post to the Host
    • Donate to Support JWSOUNDGROUP

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 4 results

  1. I recently wrote an article that I wanted to share with all my friends in the music industry as I believe it contains information and tips about music piracy and preventing it that can boost any sales and exposure by 80%. This article covers law and copyright as well as suggestions of best practices to maximise exposure and sales by using free download websites and torrents to your advantage. Please read the article here and let me know if you have any questions or if I can help with anything, I would love to hear some industry thoughts on this. http://mixingmastering.co.uk/music-piracy-how-to-avoid/ Your friendly neighbourhood freelance music industry advisor and marketing consultant, Narcis 'Nachos' Radoi http://uk.linkedin.com/in/nachosdj
  2. An important topic that concerns the Swiss film industry at the moment is the country’s exclusion from MEDIA support, which came about as a result of the national referendum “against mass immigration”, which took place in February this year. Measures such as the reintroduction of quotas and caps for the immigration of foreigners are not reconcilable with the free movement of people within the EU. For this reason, Switzerland can no longer participate in the MEDIA Programme. According to Ivo Kummer, head of the film department at the Federal Office of Culture, Swiss films run the risk of disappearing completely from cinemas in EU countries. This issue was discussed at the StepIn.ch forum during the 67th Locarno Film Festival. “We decided to give the representatives from the Swiss film industry a chance to meet with European industry participants,” underlines Nadia Dresti, head of the Industry Office at Locarno. According to Roberto Olla, executive director of Eurimages, Switzerland is clearly the loser in this situation because apart from the MEDIA Programme and the promotional agency Swiss Films, there is no national institution for the export of Swiss movies. Meanwhile, countries such as France actively support their film industry abroad because they consider films as part of their marketing strategy for culture, trade and tourism. “I will think twice about buying a Swiss film now,” says Jean-Christophe Simon, CEO of Berlin-based international sales agent Films Boutique. “Distributors won’t buy a Swiss film, because they don’t get any distribution support from MEDIA.” Since the beginning of this year, Switzerland has had the same third-country status as Albania or Lebanon in the programme, Kummer adds. European distributors no longer have any incentive to promote films from Switzerland. While European distributors have to deal with the lack of MEDIA support for Swiss films, the Swiss government has agreed on a temporary solution to compensate for the lack of MEDIA money going to the country’s film industry. The Swiss Parliament agreed that an amount of CHF 5 million would be spent on six support programmes for national producers, distributors, festivals, markets and educational projects. Handled by MEDIA Desk Suisse, the eligibility criteria for the support will be similar to those for the MEDIA Programme. In the long run, Switzerland wishes to participate in the EU programme again. The first steps could be taken when Brussels receives an official negotiating mandate in the autumn. At Locarno, Alain Berset, Swiss Minister for Culture, declared that the government is aiming to reintegrate Switzerland into the MEDIA Programme during the first few months of 2015. But it takes two to negotiate this issue: now it’s Brussels’ turn. http://cineuropa.org/nw.aspx?t=newsdetail&l=en&did=261898
  3. I just posted this in the <hat> forums but I figured I'd add it to the brain trust here on JW. Fortunately I asked to redo the take for other reasons! This happened to me today. I have the latest firmware, recording 24bit 48k .wav to a SanDisk SDHC 14GB card Class 4. I've never had a problem (that I know of). Last night I formatted the card for Fat 32 in disk utility and then formatted the card with SVEN in the 552. Today at the end of a take I heard what sounded like an intermod issue on my wireless (right channel) and, fortunately, asked to do that take again. When I was reviewing the files at home on my iMac I discovered that there was loud static on both channels during that portion of the take. After the static subsides you can hear a bit of that intermod in the right channel. I mention the intermod because I find it to be a huge coincidence and perhaps it isn't an intermod at all... Upon discovering the static in the duplicated files on my system harddrive, I went back to the card and listened from there to find the same issue. I then popped the card back into the 552 and found that the issue was present when playing back from the 552 as well. I then put the card back into the computer and opened Disk Utility. I ran Verify Disk and came up with the following screens (attached) I repaired the disk and re-copied the offending file but the static remains so this happened during recording. I'd be curious to know if anyone else was able to hear this problem in real time monitoring in Record Source? I was monitoring the Stereo Program. I'm also uploading the offending segment of the file to my Dropbox here: https://www.dropbox....segment.wav.zip In the meantime I'll be getting some new cards to use.
  4. I found this article originally published in 2007. I do not necessarily agree with everything the author is saying but it is definitely food for thought. New York Times: Media & Advertising The Afterlife Is Expensive for Digital Movies By MICHAEL CIEPLY Published: December 23, 2007 (LOS ANGELES) Time was, a movie studio could pack up a picture and all of its assorted bloopers, alternate takes and other odds and ends as soon as the production staff was done with them, and ship them off to the salt mine. Literally. Having figured out that really big money comes from reselling old films — on broadcast television, then cable, videocassettes, DVDs, and so on — companies like Warner Bros. and Paramount Pictures for decades have been tucking their 35-millimeter film masters and associated source material into archives, some of which are housed in a Kansas salt mine, or in limestone mines in Kansas and Pennsylvania. A picture could sit for many, many years, cool and comfortable, until some enterprising executive decided that the time was ripe for, say, a Wallace Beery special collection timed to a 25th- anniversary 3-D rerelease of “Barton Fink,” with a hitherto unseen, behind-the-scenes peek at the Coen brothers trying to explain a Hollywood in-joke to John Turturro. It was a file-and-forget system that didn’t cost much, and made up for the self-destructive sins of an industry that discarded its earliest works or allowed films on old flammable stock to degrade. (Indeed, only half of the feature films shot before 1950 survive.) But then came digital. And suddenly the film industry is wrestling again with the possibility that its most precious assets, the pictures, aren’t as durable as they used to be. The problem became public, but just barely, last month, when the science and technology council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences released the results of a yearlong study of digital archiving in the movie business. Titled “The Digital Dilemma,” the council’s report surfaced just as Hollywood’s writers began their walkout. Busy walking, or dodging, the picket lines, industry types largely missed the report’s startling bottom line: To store a digital master record of a movie costs about $12,514 a year, versus the $1,059 it costs to keep a conventional film master. Much worse, to keep the enormous swarm of data produced when a picture is “born digital” — that is, produced using all-electronic processes, rather than relying wholly or partially on film — pushes the cost of preservation to $208,569 a year, vastly higher than the $486 it costs to toss the equivalent camera negatives, audio recordings, on-set photographs and annotated scripts of an all-film production into the cold-storage vault. All of this may seem counterintuitive. After all, digital magic is supposed to make information of all kinds more available, not less. But ubiquity, it turns out, is not the same as permanence. In a telephone interview earlier this month, Milton Shefter, a longtime film preservationist who helped prepare the academy’s report, said the problems associated with digital movie storage, if not addressed, could point the industry “back to the early days, when they showed a picture for a week or two, and it was thrown away.” Mr. Shefter and his associates do not contend that films are actually on the verge of becoming quite that ephemeral. But they do see difficulties and trends that could point many movies or the source material associated with them toward “digital extinction” over a relatively short span of years, unless something changes. At present, a copy of virtually all studio movies — even those like “Click” or “Miami Vice” that are shot using digital processes — is being stored in film format, protecting the finished product for 100 years or more. For film aficionados, the current practice is already less than perfect. Regardless of how they are shot, most pictures are edited digitally, and then a digital master is transferred to film, which can result in an image of lower quality than a pure film process — and this is what becomes stored for the ages. But over the next couple of decades, archivists reason, the conversion of theaters to digital projection will sharply reduce the overall demand for film, eventually making it a sunset market for the main manufacturers, Kodak, Fujifilm and Agfa. At that point, pure digital storage will become the norm, bringing with it a whole set of problems that never troubled film. To begin with, the hardware and storage media — magnetic tapes, disks, whatever — on which a film is encoded are much less enduring than good old film. If not operated occasionally, a hard drive will freeze up in as little as two years. Similarly, DVDs tend to degrade: according to the report, only half of a collection of disks can be expected to last for 15 years, not a reassuring prospect to those who think about centuries. Digital audiotape, it was discovered, tends to hit a“brick wall” when it degrades. While conventional tape becomes scratchy, the digital variety becomes unreadable. Difficulties of that sort are compounded by constant change in technology. As one generation of digital magic replaces the next, archived materials must be repeatedly “migrated” to the new format, or risk becoming unreadable. Thus, NASA scientists found in 1999 that they were unable to read digital data saved from a Viking space probe in 1975; the format had long been obsolete. All of that makes digital archiving a dynamic rather than static process, and one that costs far more than studios have been accustomed to paying in the past — no small matter, given that movie companies rely on their libraries for about one-third of their $36 billion in annual revenue, according to a recent assessment by the research service Global Media Intelligence. “It’s been in the air since we started talking about doing things digitally,” Chris Cookson, president of Warner’s technical operations and chief technology officer, said of the archiving quandary. One of the most perplexing realities of a digital production like “Superman Returns” is that it sometimes generates more storable material than conventional film, creating new questions about what to save. Such pile-ups can occur, for instance, when a director or cinematographer who no longer has to husband film stock simply allows cameras to remain running for long stretches while working out scenes. Much of the resulting data may be no more worth saving that the misspellings and awkward phrases deleted from a newspaper reporter’s word-processing screen. Then again, a telling exchange between star and filmmaker might yield gold as a “special feature” on some future home-viewing format — so who wants to be responsible for tossing it into the digital dustbin? For now, studios are saving as much of this digital ephemera as possible, storing it on tapes or drives in vaults not unlike those that house traditional film. But how much of that material will be migrated when technology shifts in 7 or 10 years is anyone’s guess. (And archiving practices in the independent film world run the gamut, from studied preservation to complete inattention, noted Andrew Maltz, director of the academy’s science and technology council.) According to Mr. Shefter, a universal standard for storage technology would go far toward reducing a problem that would otherwise grow every time the geniuses who create digital hardware come up with something a little better than their last bit of wizardry. As the report put it, “If we allow technological obsolescence to repeat itself, we are tied either to continuously increasing costs — or worse — the failure to save important assets.” In other words, we could be watching Wallace Beery long after more contemporary images are gone.
  • Create New...