For those that have shot HD/HDV. How do you distribute to Bride&Groom? at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Wedding / Event Videography Techniques

Wedding / Event Videography Techniques
Shooting non-repeatable events: weddings, recitals, plays, performances...


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 5th, 2006, 12:21 PM   #1
Trustee
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,564
For those that have shot HD/HDV. How do you distribute to Bride&Groom?

i just shot one in HD. gonna give it to him in on the same DVD (it'll be a DVD-Video/Data hybrid) via WMV-HD. 1920x1080p
__________________
bow wow wow
Yi Fong Yu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2006, 12:50 PM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 275
curious. do you also downsample to SD for regular DVD playback?
A.J. Briones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2006, 12:51 PM   #3
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
I gave one client an edited HDV master on a removable hard drive which he provided, so he can transfer that in the future to other delivery solutions. I also use WMV-HD, but typically at 720p since that will play more easily on most computers. Plus I'll sometimes post samples on the web using WMV at a resolution of 540p or lower.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2006, 02:52 AM   #4
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
rare to have anyone ask for HD, as i dont offer it openly to my public clientelle, but i usually give then SD dvds, then to a transcode from the Cineform codc to WMV9, HD 720p (coz it plays better from a PC)
The transcode is at 6000kbps and i use the same audio mix, albeit with levels dropped -12db.
Looks quite nice but playback does get choppy on slower machines. copy the file a HDD nd theres no problem with playback

Id like to try h.264, but i havent been up to date with the codecs of late.. i now what it is, but until i know the ins and outs of it, i wont use it..

This wedding is then burnt to a Data DVD as a WMV file. I keep an M2t tape copy (with NO MUSIC) until HD DVD is available. Then if they want it on HD DVD when its finaly released, i'll charge them for it accordingly. obviously ill add what i need and redo my sound mix (i do everythign in 5.1 surround sound and tape obvioslu doesnt support 5.1)

I dont like the idea of my work being cheapened by a client tryin to save afew bux and gettin it done by a hack.. like a photographer, i keep the negatives.. to me these tapes are my negs and a HD DVD copy is like a super duper large poster print...
Peter Jefferson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2006, 08:04 AM   #5
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson
like a photographer, i keep the negatives..
Photographers keep their negatives partly so they can gouge their clients for the privelege of making standard prints, which they usually just send to a lab like the client would. Once the time period has passed that they figure they'll make any money from prints, they'll often offer the negatives to the client for an additional healthy fee. It's a great business model for the photographers but a terrible one from a client perspective, and thankfully this finally seems to be changing with the switch to digital photography. If I ever have to hire a professional photographer again, I'll look for one who provides the negatives or digital originals as part of the contract.

So unless there's real money to be made selling copies of a video, I wouldn't have a problem giving the client a full-quality master if there's a reasonable way to do that, like putting an HDV file on a blue-laser DVD. That's what I would want as a client, and we're ultimately in business to serve them.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 01:55 AM   #6
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
"So unless there's real money to be made selling copies of a video, I wouldn't have a problem giving the client a full-quality master if there's a reasonable way to do that, like putting an HDV file on a blue-laser DVD. That's what I would want as a client, and we're ultimately in business to serve them."

I agree to a degree about that, however for me, its not jsut about the momey.. not for this elemnt of the product anyway. Its about time and the fact that the client has hired me to edit a finished piece and theyve agreed to come to me for any extras.

Giving them raw in a master format is an invitation to have ur work re-edited (they might change their minds about music etc) or include this material with a renewal of their vows (which im OK with IF THEY ASK PERMISSION.)

Alot of people forget the copyright and licensing implications, being that my products are licensed, not only with ARIA, but with Dolby Labs as well, so manipulating my product is like ripping a commercial DVD and using its footage for your own purposes. Its just not on.. obviously i dont press my weddings, but u get the gist

Dont get me wrong, content and giving the client as much as possible is always a good thing, but there must be a line drawn somewhere

Last edited by Peter Jefferson; January 7th, 2006 at 03:46 AM.
Peter Jefferson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2006, 01:21 PM   #7
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson
...content and giving the client as much as possible is always a good thing, but there must be a line drawn somewhere
You make a good case for maintaining control over your work and how it's used, but if someone can take pretty much any format we give them and manipulate it then does it matter all that much what we deliver? It's worth noting here that we now have the ability to deliver as a standard playback format the same level of quality some of us are using for recording and editing, which was not the case with DV. Does it make sense to refrain from using this option to minimize unwanted use of our work?

I guess where I would draw the line would be that if shot in DVCProHD or other high-bandwidth format, I wouldn't deliver anything better than standard blue-laser playback formats unless that was my agreement with the client.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2006, 05:05 AM   #8
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
intereting thoughts there Kevin

"You make a good case for maintaining control over your work and how it's used, but if someone can take pretty much any format we give them and manipulate it then does it matter all that much what we deliver?"

((Of course it does.. lets say i gave someone footage on DVD.. 6000kbps constant blah blah..
obviously this is inferior to DV, and when editing this, even though the content is visible, it IS inferior.. I guess u could say that this helps in the control area. Coz if they want the full quality of what is there, theyre going to have to pay for it..
Most people dont want raws or masters though.. most people just want something to watch so going out of ur way to give this edited master tape or raw material is making more work for yourself.
When blu ray or hd dvd come out, then their finished edit will be available in that format. Obviously theyll pay for the extra time required to process this.
Then you have the art thats involved.. do u really want ur work floating around to be pilfered by your competition? I supply equipment and do alot of training to other production companies here.. some members here have even bought their gear from me, but the point im tryin to make is this.. one day, i had a guy come in and ask me to "show him how this is done" he drop his briefcase and pulls out a DVD.. that DVD was my own demo which i send out to clients.. he didnt know it at the time though.. but i pretty much went off.. now i know this kind of thing happens.. its human nature to copy and some people are flattered by it.. but if someone wants to use somethign i created, like a filter package or mixing routine, i would expect to be paid for it.. i guess thats where my training hat comes into play.. but my point is that its taken me 3 years to develop this stuff and im not about to give it out willy nilly

Moving on..
If we dont keep a business hat on duirng this transitional stage from SD to HD, the wedding video insustry itself will just fall down the way it did when digital came out.. undercharging, overworking and sacrificing the industry itself to get a foot in the door..

Before digital and during the Linear analogue systems, videographers charged what we charge now.. NOW though, the client gets ALOT more within the product as well as doubling and even tripling the amount of post work required, but these days were making what the old fellas usd to make in the late 80s..
To me that doesnt make any sense, but a precedent has been set by mindless producers who want to "score the job" which in turn bites them in the ass becuase when they want to start charging what theyre REALLY worth, people dont want to pay..
The amount of work must be payed for somehow.. ))

It's worth noting here that we now have the ability to deliver as a standard playback format the same level of quality some of us are using for recording and editing, which was not the case with DV.

((How do u mean?? I can give a DV copy if i wanted to.. what makes this any differnt to delivering a HDV version on a HDD or HD MPG2 on a standalone TVIX unit? the only difference throughout the whole format issue, is the way the format is managed.. whos going to pay for that management though?
The product remains the same though. the product being a finished edit.. Whether it be DV, HDV, WMV, blu ray..... whatever.. in the end, its the same thing.. like gettin from A to B, either on a bus or on a train or in a car.. in teh end, youll still get to point b.. one might be cheaper than teh other while another is faster.. but in the end, youll get there.. ))

Does it make sense to refrain from using this option to minimize unwanted use of our work?

((i would agree to that to a certain degree, however its not just about that control element.. How many people here in the industry had DVD burners before the consumer rush on them? Burners were so expensive that you COULD charge people for extra copies as noone had a burner..... now htough, people rip ur work and give it to friends. this is a loss of income for you.. its like a photographer having his stills scanned in and reprinted and handed out willy nilly. hes not making a profit for the sale of his product.. the product being HIS ART... not just the physical element..
And if licensed, the vidoe producer himself has the onus to ensure that the copyright requirements are met before duplicates are made..
But going back to the format issue.. when delivering th HD DVD becomes the norm, then i woudl expect DVDr production to cease.. i trully dont see this happening for at least 3 years on the consumer market though..
Eitehr way whatever is delivered, shoudl be cost effective for the business. . if people want raw material they shoudl pay for it.. Dont let the offer of raw material become a precendent in teh industry.. if everyone asked for raws because company XYZ offered it, and this continued then not only must u ensure that the client understands the raw DOESNT represent the finished product. Again, the product being a finished wedding edit...
(of the 200 odd clients ive had in the last 4 years, 2 have asked for raws... no shit )

I guess where I would draw the line would be that if shot in DVCProHD or other high-bandwidth format, I wouldn't deliver anything better than standard blue-laser playback formats unless that was my agreement with the client.

((well the delivery is a relative thing.. to me, im not too fussed about HD until clients are educted at least to the point of understanding the differences.. at the moment its hard enough to educate them on what i do and how do it, let alone tryin to upsell a HD product to them, and they have no clue..
Here in Aus, Video has a negative stigma due to the way business has been conducted and mismanaged.. what i do here for 3 grand, i can easily head to the US and charge 4k US.. as the US market understand the value of the ART, not the format.. formats mean shit if ur work sucks ass..

Hell, some dont even understand the value of an SD presentation.. as for delivery options, whatever becomes the standard is the one ill chooose. I'll not waste studio money or labour on formats which are still in the air, its just too futile at this time.

One day we'll do it, but not today..
Its pointless and its a waste of energy.

Insteda of worrying about formats, producers shoudl be focussing on how to bring video in the same, if not BRIGHTER light than wedding photography.
Hell were dealing with moving pictures, sound and music.. we do alot more work and its valued MUCH LESS than what it should be..

Having a variety of formats wont do much to help our market grow... UNLESS we MAKE it grow our market... and with HD formats, THAT is our chance to make it grow again...
we can only do this by educting the client and charging accordingly..

Why do u think so many people love Corp work? Hell i get 4 times as much doing a 15 minutes corop interview than what i get from shooting a wedding.. WHY?? Coz the client UNDERSTANDS the value...

education is the key..
Peter Jefferson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2006, 03:36 PM   #9
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Again, you make some good points. What's different now is that we're about to have a standard delivery format which happens to coincide with what we're recording and editing. (Yes, you could deliver DV to clients before, but not in a consumer-friendly format.) Plus for now it's easier and quicker to encode to HDV than to more compressed HD formats like Windows Media or H.264, so that's another reason to consider that option. I'm not talking about delivering raw video to clients, I'm talking about giving them their finished HD project in a form that's useful for them and convenient for me. If that creates a potential conflict for some in terms of concern about inappropriate use of your work, then you'll have to decide what format you will use for HD delivery.

As far as the rest is concerned, of course we want to try to get people to understand the value of what we do. I think HD will help a little with that, plus it gives us a better way to deliver useful frame grabs to wedding customers and that may get their attention as much as anything. With a couple of HD video cameras and a few formal still camera shots you could potentially eliminate the need for a separate photographer at a wedding, and that might be one way to get more people to consider hiring a videographer. That's a whole discussion in itself, but don't bet against that being a significant selling point for HD.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2006, 01:22 PM   #10
Trustee
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,564
hi ya'll. great discussion =). i'm glad i'm asking interesting questions =). using the search button, i was puzzled as to why people don't ask these simple/practical questions.

anyway:

1. H.264 is waaay too beefy to modern machines to playback. i would wait until 4ghz, 4+gigabyte, nv80, r700 generation cards are out. it's not a very practical codec (imho). results look nice, the majority of the new quicktime trailers are using h.264, but i can only download the 480p and even that is slow sometimes. the machine has to do a LOT of processing work. thick as molasses.

2. if you shot the original production on SD (720x480) why make Blu-ray from that? this is why i'll never those upconversion DVD players. you can't GROW pixels. thus, if you shot SD, DVDs will do despite the coming of HDTVs&Blu-ray. if you shot HD/HDV, you can do both HD format and SD.

3. on a related note, do you give a DVD-R/+R with a sticker label or just write on the DVD? as you already know, adhesive on the label can destroy DVDs overtime. do you distribute the master or copies via professional presses? i've gotten quotes before, it's roughly 1-4 bux/DVD depending on quantity. i think there's 500 DVD minimum.

thx Peter J, that was very insightful (as usual) look into the wedding industry (exactly what i was looking for).
__________________
bow wow wow
Yi Fong Yu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9th, 2006, 03:39 PM   #11
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 755
I use either DVD with MWV HD or I give them an HD VHS and player. I include the price of the HD VHS player in the price if they want it.

I save the project file and original tapes so that when they make up their mind on the HD DVD format I can give it to the couple without to much time
on my end.

Jon
Jon Omiatek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2006, 10:14 AM   #12
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
hehehe this is cool..

"Again, you make some good points. What's different now is that we're about to have a standard delivery format which happens to coincide with what we're recording and editing. (Yes, you could deliver DV to clients before, but not in a consumer-friendly format.) "

I always thought DV was easier to delivery than any processed HD format.. considering the client would most likely have a consumer DV camera of sorts. I dont mean to say that they all do, they dont, u have a great point there, but to be honest, many clients wont appreciate the value of it, if theyre already happy with your product.

Whether or not were recording on the same format that were delivering in MPG is of no consequence to the client.
Ive jsut had 4 consults.
Theyve all booked our 3grand package, and u know what, its all in 4:3 SD shot on DVX100's. The offer to upgrade to HDV is there for them.. but did they take it?
Not on ur nilly, and its only a $500 difference, and they would have recieved a master on a HDV tape so they could then transfer it back when they were ready to upgrade to optical HD playback device. (I keep the tape in my safety deposit box and offer them to upgrade when i get the blu ray in... )

Either way this HDV tape is useless to them unless they find someone with a HDV playback device. How useful it is to them, i cannot see...

whether its HDV or SD, it dont mean shit to them unless it looks good and offers them something different enough to call it original and "different from the others"

I stand on a cliff top and yell... CONTENT IS KING

lol ))

Plus for now it's easier and quicker to encode to HDV than to more compressed HD formats like Windows Media or H.264, so that's another reason to consider that option.

((Not if ur working in Intermediate AVI.. either way, encoding is done when one sleeps so as to utilise studio resources to the full, or better yet a dedicated render box with dual CPUs or what have u, would be perfect in any situation. rendering is not an issue, its a time managed element of what we do

Formats dont mean anythgn if the client knows nothing about it.. which i might add is about 95% of real world clients... and to half of those you consult, it will just go right over their heads.. ))

"I'm not talking about delivering raw video to clients, I'm talking about giving them their finished HD project in a form that's useful for them and convenient for me. If that creates a potential conflict for some in terms of concern about inappropriate use of your work, then you'll have to decide what format you will use for HD delivery. "

Oh your totally right mate, i agree 100% But its not just about the misuse of work u see.. its about the loss of any further income from that client.
As for being useful to them, i wouldnt know what ur refereing to here.. as a HDV tape is useless to anyone without a deck or HDV cam.... somoene posted that they sell DVHS... ok, cool.. but your still using tape and your still omitting the "dvd" flavour of it.. i mean maybe in a year or so they can use this DVHS deck for something else.. but to buy something like this for their wedding only, is a little much to ask. Instead, i would recommend a TVIX box which plays mpg2 HD files, can be plugged into a PC like an ipod, u fill the HDD with shit, and play mp3s and other movies blah blah and can literally be used for any purpose u need.
Cheaper too. at least this way the client has something more than just the "wedding video playback device"

Whether or not giving a finished master on tape is convenient for u, remains to be seen at the HOPE that this client will return for this master to be converted to HD DVD.
If your gonna give a master, offer the master tape for $50 at least.. SET a precedent for continued behavoiur within this growth stage.
If someone does it free, who cares, thats them, this is YOUR business... theyre paying u FOR YOU.. and if theyre happy to pay three to four times what they paid u for stills, $50 aint gonna kill em..

The desperation to "score that job" has really fekked this industry and now its time we as produced stood back and proved our worth to the client NOT by what formats we use and how we deliver,

This is an option (delivery is an option i mean), irrespective of the format u use... but we can ALL do this..

As for formats, for NOW, its not a given.. its an OPTION for the client.

Irrespective of how i shoot and what i shoot with, the work doesnt change, unless they want more than what i offer.
My shooting and editing doent change and for my clients, THATS what they pay for..
Everything else comes second to that. ))

"As far as the rest is concerned, of course we want to try to get people to understand the value of what we do. I think HD will help a little with that, plus it gives us a better way to deliver useful frame grabs to wedding customers and that may get their attention as much as anything. "

About 99% o clients i actually meet book me. My point here, is i already offer everything uve mentioned. From stills through to proper DVD Sleave artwork, direct printed discs, motion menus, 5.1 surround sound, the whole kit and kabooodle. They already get that, so i wont be offering anything new..
Now with education, i CAN GUARANTEE YOU that half the joes out there doing what we do DONT KNOW JACK. With that, they cant educate the clients as they themeselves DONT KNOW. Why? THeyre too busy undercutting everyone, overbooking and left with 50 weddings to edit..
I see this everyday with the idiots i train...yes theyre idiots...theyre killing the industry..

"With a couple of HD video cameras and a few formal still camera shots you could potentially eliminate the need for a separate photographer at a wedding,"

((That will NEVER happen. 80% of wedding have an official photographer, while only 25% have a pro video. this market penetration is appaling and no amount of interlaced stills will make up for a decent 15mp still taken with a digital back. If you try to sell ur services this way, youll prolly get dirty looks and be laughed at. No im serious.. go to any bridal forum and read the posts about video... it will depress u...

But i would recommend u use this as an ADDITION to YOUR existing product, NOT a replacement of another service.. Photogs are doing this to us now with offering DVD Slideshows so ppl think "oh thats enough for us, we dont need video, our photog is giving us our stills as DVD..."
But its not the same..

THIS is where education comes in again.

i dont see people confident enough in HD, let alone confident enough to ditch the photographer. On top of that, our market has been hammered quite badly and for now i believe the priority WE HAVE is to bring our value back up in line with what were really WORTH... and then worry about everything else.

As far as im concered, id rather book a client who goes for a cheap package but WANTS IT SO BAD, as opposed to somoene who is gettin a HUGE PACKAGE, for archives sake and really doesnt care (ive had afew clients like that with arrogant stuck up grooms givin in only to keep their brides happy)
WHY?
There are stigmas out there which have already set a precedent within the service. Some are so blind as to not se past this, while others take in onboard, then are happy when they see something to prove their theories wrong

THis has to change before we can start offering more to the client. If we TRY to offer more before we change the way were seen, that stigma remains either way.. while these stigmas remain, our prices remain sub to what a photog would charge..

Ever heard of the term, "cheesy wedding video" wether or not ppl have seen ones work, THAT IDEA is whats killing us..

get rid of the stale cheese and replace it with some nice wine.. then maybe were onto something.. but until the cheese stigma is wiped off the planet (as one example) it will always remain and it will always keep our prices below the photogs. ))

"and that might be one way to get more people to consider hiring a videographer. That's a whole discussion in itself, but don't bet against that being a significant selling point for HD."

((But what i dont think u see is that all this stuff ur mentioned about selling HD this way or that, is already been done with SD.. Ive been doing it for 4 years now, and if ppl want REALLY decent sized pics were talking 8mp scaled from DV, there are ways to do that and you wouldnt tell the difference.

These ideas are good, but theyre not new..

what we need to do as a group, is to work out new marketting strategies for the forthcoming formats.
If we dont, we'll end up where we are when digital first came out..
more work, for equal or even less pay...
Peter Jefferson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2006, 10:48 AM   #13
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson
what we need to do as a group, is to work out new marketting strategies for the forthcoming formats. If we dont, we'll end up where we are when digital first came out.. more work, for equal or even less pay...
So what exactly would you suggest? Yet again you make some good points, but none of which helps identify how to make HD more appealing to clients. Some videographers are reportedly booking a quarter or more of their weddings in HD for a substantial increase in price, so there must be something there which some people want when it's properly presented to them. I haven't had a client yet who didn't like the way HD looks when shown a full-quality sample, but convincing them to pay extra for it is still a challenge.

So yeah, we ultimately have to convince people to put a higher value on video before they'll pay more for it, and technology is obviously only one part of that equation. Plus thanks to HDV the long-term cost of producing HD is not significantly more than producing DV; there's just more rendering involved and a little more work if you have to produce both HD and SD versions of the finished video. The basic acquisition, editing and output costs are nearly the same now if you're starting from scratch to buy equipment.

I think there's likely to be a long-term trend toward people expecting one company to provide both videography and photography services for their wedding, and if that's what it takes to get them to pay us decent money then so be it. It's not surprising that people are only willing to pay so much for video after they've already committed to spending a couple thousand for photography, and since most couples hire a photographer first that puts us at a big disadvantage. But with photography getting easier and videography getting harder, the portion of a couple's "memories" budget which ought to be going to videographers should be increasing. So let's say a typical couple spends $2000 on a photographer and $1000 on a videographer when it should be the other way around: let's just charge them $3000 and let them think whatever they want about how that money gets distributed. I doubt there's a better way to improve our chances of getting fairly compensated for our efforts on a mainstream basis, as opposed to concentrating on making expensive videos for that small percentage of couples who can afford them. Time will tell if I'm right about this.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2006, 10:57 AM   #14
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
By the way, I saw an article yesterday suggesting that the initial pricing for Sony Blu-ray HD DVD players may be well over $1000, while the pricing for the Toshiba HD DVD players has already been set at $499. It's going to be tough to decide what to recommend to customers this year in terms of HD playback equipment, but at least we're going to have more options.
Kevin Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2006, 06:35 PM   #15
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 45
I provide HD Masters as an option to my packages. Their DVDs are in SD but they get to keep the masters which are in HD. Whether they come back to me in a few years to edit the HD Masters (as a new paying project) and produce/author in HD or if they do it themselves or even have someone else do it, is up to them. =]
Christopher Cruz is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Wedding / Event Videography Techniques

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:13 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network