It was their first show. Give them a chance to grow into it.

Thanks all. I couldn't agree more with what Jonathan Nelson said however, and again, with all due respect, it is my show and my risk and I wanted the first episode to show a very good friend of mine who happens to be both an industry icon and a little difficult to direct because he has so much information to provide and such a burning desire to share it. So he takes one question and really runs with it. So what. But you know what? That's OK because that's George and more people should be like him. It'll be up to me to present his technical information that you all want and deserve in the next episodes with alot more technical substance but the opening episode wasn't meant to be crammed with technical informnation. It was meant to show that a guy can be a great human being and still be a giant in the industry who's forgotten more that any of us will ever know. Do I risk losing viewers? Yes. But that's OK because this was never started as a money making endeavor. It was started to give people who will, more than likely, never set foot on an honest to goodness sound stage in thieir life but still love filmmaking an opportunity to see and hear the best of the best people in this business. It was started to give viewers access to people that they otherwise would probably never get to listen to talk about things that can make them a better filmmaker. And if people get 1, just 1 idea out of our first show, the we all win because you weren't supposed to ge anything out of it other than the opportunity to meet one of the greatest people I or the thousands who have worked with him know.

Now, than being said, the next episodes ARE going to contain MUCH MORE cutaways with a ton of visual information because like Jonathan Nelson (Nice name by the way, Jonathan!!!), all of us are visual people and that's where we're going to excell. The series we're doing with Tiffin lenses as an example DEMANDS VISUALS. You can't believe the difference fileters make if used correctly in proper instances with the correct camera settings. The only area we're struggling with is access to the footage our guests have done because of licensing issues and the ridiculous price the studios want just to run a few minutes of example footage. But other studios are saying, "Fine, great, here it is." So believe me, we're doing the best we can to bring exactly what you want to the show but I didn't want to just jump into the technical with the first show. I want you to get to know the people I know as well. Most of them are wonderful people who can teach us all alot. Then there are others like George say's in his interview you wat to tell to "Go F-O".

Anyway, thanks for the support and thanks for the input. We'll do our best for you all. And by "we'll" I mean Jaime Emmanuelli who became a partner three weeks ago and Paolo Ciccone who became a partner today. It's gotten so much larger than I ever thought that I can't do it alone so I had to bring on people I know and trust and who share my vision of bringing education to the independent filmmaking community. We're all working hard to do this so it's great when we get feedback, good and bad. We'll incorporate your ideas, especially the legal issue. You guys are gonna love that one and THANK YOU!!! Joel and Jack for that I idea. I never thought of it. I have a very good friend who's one of Hollywood's largest entertainment attorneys, J. Michael Kelly who'll jump at the opportunity. Good call, guys! Consider it an episode...or two.

Let me answer this by directing you first to a must-have book as far as I'm concerned. It's called "The COmplete Production Handbook" by Focal Press. Grab that and you'll have most of the forms and answers you'll need as an independent. The other things like horro stories and especially distribution are serious, in-depth questions that warrant a pofessionals advice. I'll ask our distributors to do a show or two on just that subject including the pitfalls in the near future. Now, you see, these are the things I was talking about. We don't expect you to pay for a site that has stuff you don't care about. I've been in this business for 20+ years working my way up and have alot of resources to bring in. Jaime Emmanuelli does too so kep the suggestions coming in an we'll schedule the shows accordingly.
J

Hmmmmm. Dibie insisted for pedagogical reasons. Very clever. Now I wonder if there isn't a lemonade kind of idea for your series buried in that approach. Here's one you may not find to your liking at first, so let it percolate.

Suppose you intentionally embedded some mistakes, technical or otherwise, into the fabric of the program, told the viewers that X number of "problems" are in the program, and gave contest points to the first viewers who correctly reported them all. Adult learners are often stimulated in the task by games as much as children are. In a subsequent segment you could announce the "winners," (whose reward may simply be the honor of being named as such), and review the mistakes, sometimes suggesting correctives or letting them stand as motivation for an installment to come. Very viewer interactive. Of course, if you don't tell them how many problems to expect, you can cover your gaffes by adding to the pool of intentional problems. Too much of that though and the pros will see through the ruse, so keeping to a preannounced tally would save your credibility - unless production got particularly sloppy.

Maybe this particular lemonade is a little pulpy, but there might be something in there you can use. You might not want to start off with it, but introduce it as a special feature later. Anyway, I ramble.

You start the show by saying that, and frankly he got more technical than I expected based on your introduction. I just watched the show and listened to the guy w/o giving much of a thought to the production value and enjoyed it. Some people have made legit points, but I've seen a lot of instructional stuff where the training production value could have been better but the actual training was really good. Not saying that's where you want to live, but it's not atypical.

Then there's the stuff that has slick production value but the content stinks. You REALLy don't want to be there. :-)

When the production value and content are where you want them to be then it'll be time to charge and it'll sell. Until then, keep it free and let people know you're ramping up. I think if you present it as you did here - "We're learning right along with everyone else" that's totally cool. If you're pulling stuff from THEIR reels and they are explaining it well that'll be what people want to see... especially if they keep a slant towards what indies can do on a very limited budget.

Talk to your attorney about Fair Use of footage in question. Since this is educational it might be OK. Once you start charging that could change things. Not sure.

As a free service, I think what you have is great! No disappointment here. I would watch every episode and would love to see the dudes you hang out with everyday.

I only commented on the lack of technical details because you mentioned charging people to watch it which is fine, but for me to pay for that I would need to see more techie stuff. Just a suggestion and thanks for not taking it negatively.

I wish I could be apart of this project of yours. I would even do it for free!

OK, here's the deal. We typically shoot that show on Saturdays to allow for our company's paying production schedule and the cast and crew, some of whom give their off-time. We'll fly you out and put you to work on Camera 3 and you can see what the shoots are all about and meet some of the best people in TV. Or I can fly out to Kingman, pick you up in the Cessna and we can have a couple of hours flight back to Santa Monica to talk film.

You've got to be friggin' kidding me. I'll play along sometime if there's free flying involved. I could even bring my well heeled Micro35. Chandler airport's only 4 miles away. Just a thought.

Wow, your a super nice guy! That would be really cool experience! But I don't want to put you out. I could probably fly out of vegas but I have never been to Santa Monica before. Sounds like a dream trip to me.

What are the dates you looking at for this show?

I thought it looked like tons of instructional videos I've seen...in fact it had higher production values than many. I tend to light more cinematically, but this is more what I expect for interviews. I had no problems with the shadows, I thought it threw some nice texture on a wall that would have otherwise just been white. Like punching it up with a gobo'd background light, but practically.

I'll be watching intently, the tiny vignettes you showed us into the actual explanation of lights when expounded on, should give me precisely what I've been looking for for years. A "Here's how it's done, no BS" type of lighting video. If this covers the other aspects of production as well, that'd be great. I'll be floating your site to a couple other forums I'm on as well.

I'd love to see a bit on how to save money DIYing kit pieces. I've done much of this myself and would gladly write a segment or two for you...I could potentially even shoot (SD-Canon XL1s) some how-to segments. Contact me via my e-mail link if you'd like to discuss any of this.

Keep it coming, first show rocked, reminded me of talking to any industry pro, you just don't want to let them stop talking, every anecdote is a gem.

As a few thousand people on the board will tell you, it's not putting me out. The last thing I want to sound like is, oh, heck, I don't know what the word is but my wife's and my whole life is all about using what we have to educate and help people in this industry. Paolo's life story is a great one and a great example of what 2nd Unit and our lives are all about. He's a house guest here all week because I want him to meet the people who can make a difference in his chosen profession so he's headed to a premiere at the ASC with us with us Tuesday night and working here throughout the week after hanging out with us in the Motorcoach at CineGear al weekend. So, as I said, I don't want to sound whatever but I do want people to understand that there are people out there who just give and don't ask anything in return. That's why your individual and collective opinions are so importnat to us here. We take what we're doing and giving very seriously. So let us set the schedule over the next two or three days and you can pick the set you'd like to work on. I can fly out and pick you up or fly you in commercially the same as I did for Warren and a few other members of the board who have worked with us here. Our house is large enough to host a few people so you'll stay here or in a hotel of your choice, your pick. I don't want you spending your own money. Ypu're donating your time to 2nd Unit and that's enough. Tell you what. Take the money you would use to fly out here and subscribe to the site for a couple of months !!! ;-)

Sounds good to me. I have no problems being your 2nd Unit bitch! :)

Must be nice owning a cessna...

Now now. No one referes to anyone as that. If we did, we'd all be that to each and every guest we have on set. I mean, can you image my position next to, say, Rodney Charters. What he accompllished or rather is accomplishing on "Molly" right now is incredible through his use of light, diffusion and imaging. Or Izzy Mankofsky who DP'd "Somewhere in Time" who I talked to yesterday afternoon at CineGear with George. There was a scene toward the end of that movie that was all his making. He's focused on Christopher Reeve as he comes out of the hotel and sits on a bench. He swings the camera 180 as he follows Reeve and split dioptics the scene where Christopher is in the foreground and 100 yards away, behind and well-below Reeve, Jane Seymoure appears from behind a treeline onto a greass field. The hotel is white, Reeve is in brown, Seymoure's in pure white and the grass and trees are a brilliant emerald and kelly green. Both in focus at the same time. With experience like that, I don't know of many people in this industry who aren't subserviant to that kind of talent.

Anyway, I'll e-mail you with the days that are available for camera and the names of the guests. You can choose which day and which guest you want to work with and we're happy to have you. And thank you for volunteering your time. You'll be working with some other great people from the board.

And as to the Cessna, I use it like most people use a car so it's just another tool.

Somewhere in time is a great flick.

And I'm still holding out for company benefits ;)

Well, keep making those recommendations than make the site better so when we start charging a small access fee, we'll start generating some income, bring you in as a Supervising Producer, pay you a salary and get you those benefits. But you'll have to come out and actually work with us soon. I'll have the dates and guests nailed down this week and get them over to you.

Send the Cessna. However, I will be unavailable next week, I'll be at Disney ;)

Hey Keith,

Disney? Heh, looks like you don't really need those company benifits. ;)

Jonathan, as another member in the cheaper by the dozen category, all I can say is, have you thought about other ways of distribution? After all, you will be competing with the subscribers money allocations. There's only so much money a guy can spend. DVD's, games, new camcorder, monthly cable/dish bills, etc...

What you are competing with, it's a hard take. Most users on DVinfo might sign up, but would that be enough to keep your site running?

What's your pay structure going to be like? Free trial date for visitors? I'm of the type that get turned off from sites such as these. I don't like the auto payment deduction after the free trials bit.

I say, you might want to think about offering your services for free. That is, content you produce for the web.

A partnership with Brightcove or using Brightcoves structure would be interesting and something you should look into. They offer the bandwidth and profit sharing for your content, or you pay them a certain amount and get all the revenues made from your shows.

You can offer DVD's for sale of the show to make extra money. Copy streaming content over DVD? I would purchase a DVD (if I needed it), after watching it on the web. Think-transcripts and shows sold on networks and PBS.

Just a thought.

Right now, I really, really, need a vacation. The past two years has put a new low on the "Really sucks" scale. Really really!

By now you know that I'm a reasonably fun-loving guy but I 'd seriously like you all to think about some things when it comes to 2nd Unit. Alot of people are putting alot of time and money into this venture to bring you things quite frankly you'd be hard-pressed to see or hear anywhere else. We know that there's competition out there for limited dollars but from as business perspective, there are a number of assets you can get from 2nd Unit that you can't get anywhere else.

First is the fact that we're incorporating a number of the subscribers' suggestions as we continue to refine the process. Where else can the viewer write the script, ask for an interview and information on issues that affect them and get them back in video format. Simply put, would you rather buy a book that tells you what to do and augments those words with still pictures or have the guy who invented the solution on tape explaining the theory behind the thing and visually showing you how to employ it?

Next there's the fact that magazines that sell for $7 to $12 a month are comprised of 75% ads with the rest a grab-bag of info, most of which is slanted towards the advertisers' view points. 2nd Unit is pure filmmaker info that the viewer wants to see and hear about. And for $5 - $10 a month, virtually the same amount of money, 2nd Unit subscribers get 4 new issues within that same month quadrupuling your investment dollar.

Next, 2nd Unit brings professionals to the viewer eager to provide the same information that's made them king of the hill to you that can send 2nd Unit subscribers right back to their cameras to better their own productions. Want to see how Michael Mann got a particular shot? It's on 2nd Unit. Want to see how DP star and Sony poster boy Jody Eldridge who lasted so long on JAG and made the jump to NCIS lights his scenes for the 2nd most popular series on TV today? It's on 2nd Unit. Want to hear and see Armageddon's Mauro Fiore, 24's Rodney Charters, Dukes of Hazzard's Brian Crane, Star Wars' David Tatersol and Pirates of the Caribbean's Raphael Sanchez talk about light and camera? They're exclusively on 2nd Unit.

Need to stream the shows or download them later. You can do it on 2nd Unit.

Want discounts on equipment all filmmakers use? You'll get it by being a 2nd Unit subscriber.

Want to go on-set with televisions's hottest series? 2nd Unit's cameras take you there.

Want to know what filters do what? 2nd Unit will tell you. And we're doing a complete series on each of the Tiffin filters, how they should be used and when and their effects....all on podcasts that are immediately available to the members and all that show the before and the after videos...not still images out of a catalogue.

And finally, want podcasts you can download and take with you anywhere? They're only available through 2nd Unit.

In short, 2nd Unit gives you access to people and places you'd never get access to by yourself and we do it all for 1/4 the cost of a monthly, ad-filled magaine.

In short, 2nd Unit brings Above- and Below the Line people to Above and Below the Line people all to the benefit of its subscribers and independent filmmakers through its guests' insight, experience and knowledge. That's something you'll simply never get without 2nd Unit. Honest, straight-forward, in your face discussions with today's top DPs, cinematographers, directors, producers, gaffers, manufacturers, etc gives the independent filmmaker invaluable information working to improve his or her craft.

So I guess the bottom line is will people pay $5 or $10 a month to get access to people and information they'd otherwise be hard-pressed to get? We hope so becasue, again, the insight of the guests appearing on the site is generally unavailable except where the viewer is fortunate enough to be enrolled in USC School of Film or another prestigious institution with tuitions topping the $40,000 a year mark or is alrady working on sets.
2nd Unit is a true non-profit organization whose mission it is to bring reliable information and opinion to the filmmaking community with all of the profits derived there from reinvested in the operation and growth of the site.

Being video-based, the site is exceedingly bandwidth-intensive and thus costly to maintain. Being video-based, the content is subject to costly, labor-intensive post-production work to assure a quality show each and every week. Being video-based, there is an entertainment value to the site to anyone who might happen by. 2nd Unit is intended for the benefit and sole and exclusive use of the independent filmmaking community and by charging a nominal fee, we assure that the casual passerby does not use up valuable bandwidth thus slowing the data rate of the episodes web cast to the independent filmmaking community for whose benefit 2nd Unit was created.

And finally, why the small fee? Becasue we have talent to pay, talent who is working for 2nd Unit as a way to gain valuable experience in the entertainment industry's field of their choice. 2nd Unit is dedicated to paying them a decent wage that provides them with the ability not only to provide for their own and their family's needs but to acquire advanced equipment as their level of experience, knowledge and need advances.

I sincerely hope that all of this gives everyone food for thought. Again, we're not in this for the profit. We're in it to help the independent filmmaker be a better filmmaker and I've already put almost $150k where my mouth is. We'll see where it leads.

Great show, concept, etc.! My only gripe is the lighting (been said I know, but) we have a couple Lite Panels and for what they are, and how we use them, we love them. But to set up an interview using them simply looks so bad, IMHO. Far too blue at 6500K to get a good white balance, and soft to the point of fault. Balance them with some jells and a little better, but then there goes the light values. Just simply not enough light was used, no punch with the Panels. Low light and color all wrong mad it look sick. Please consider using another light kit and offsetting them with maybe some lite panels if you sill want to use them. Or... not?

Good luck to you, good job.

I will happily pay the subscription fee.

Regarding lightingk, etc., I think it will take a little experimenting and practice to get a look that that's right for the computer. What looks good on the monitor in the studio is not necessarily going to look the same compressed and on the computer screen.

George's interview was lit with the Daylight Lite Panels indoor. Even with accurate white balance the straight-from-the-camera result was that look that you see in the first cut of episode 1. Please note that Jonathan has not done any color correction. The new cut, after two days of color correction and rendering is much softer and warmer. We shot today some more inserts for episode two and I esplicitly asked for tungsten Lite Panels and Ron @ AbelCine graciously provided the goodies. I can tell you without needing to check the tapes that the results were much better. We also used a Daylight Flood but this time with full CTO gel in front. So, even with WB the daylight Lite Panels are not the right choice indoor. Fortunatly their kits come with the gels and the gels correct the color temperature perfectly.
I almost finished the new cut of episode 1 but the rendering has been going on for a full day (Magic Bullet) and it's still to be completed. Kinda surprised because my G4 Powerbook seems to render MB footage way faster than the dual processor Intel machine I'm using for 2nd Unit editing. We'll seee. Hopefully the night will be enough for Premiere to digest the footage :)

I'm no expert, but for me a backlight or other light to separate the figures from the background would help a lot on the computer screen I believe.

I also think moving out from the wall and setting background light on another plane farther back, with some highlights and shadows, to add depth would help the look. (Perhaps no backing at all, just the deep recesses of the studio, light stands, cranes, cameras lurking in the semi-darkness, with some highlights, etc.)

For the interview segments, since the interviewer is not the focus, I would prefer to see a setup that puts him off camera or somewhat off camera, perhaps his back to the camera, or 3/4, or at an oblique angle so that a diagonal points to the person being interviewed.

I think the TV/monitor would be better placed a bit away from the interview and lit (or not lit) separately. If the person being interviewed needs to see the monitor, it should be in a place the person interviewed can look at it without turning, somewhat in front. Another camera could be dedicated to the monitor for shots to show the audience. Highlights/pointers can be put in in post if appropriate.

I think the whole thing should be simple, but with some separation, depth, character, and pleasing diagonal lines. And I'm just talking about the interview segments -- the demonstration segments of course will be dependent on their content.

Again, I'm not an expert, just my thoughts.

I like those ads... specially the Varizoom ones. Those girls are hawt! You going to have them on, and show us how to use those stabilisers?

I really like your idea. It reminds me of those interviews where they periodically look at the camera monitor that is focused on the guest. Pretty much like a reality-documentary mix.

Well, we've got a hot chick coming up for you in Episode 2. Hope you like her. The crew did!

It's already done. My camera was pointed to Jamie but every now and then I framed George from the side and I included a bit of that in the new cut. Still waiting for the final render ... :)

If it's not Universal Binary code that could be the case (assuming you're on a Intel Mac).

I do find the idea that 5600k bulbs can't be warmed up with really cool white balancing doesn't make sense to me though. That should work. Also, 5600k indoors should balance pretty well with daylight coming in through any windows, right?

LitePanels always seemed really expensive for the light they were putting out to me. Am I wrong there? I like the idea of building your own Kinos better.

Or just get these - aren't these triple the power for 1/3 the money (without heat and at similar power consumption levels)?
http://www.flolight.com/

Am I missing something?

It's one hell of an assumption, since my post said G4 Powebook ;)

That is what suprises me. A G4 1.67, essentially a 3 year old machine, can render faster than a dual processor Intel modern machine. I'm sure it's not the CPU, there is something that is not performing as expected.

Yes, but we didn't have any source of external light, the only other light available was the industrial fluorescent lamps.
I just worked with Lite Panels all day yesterday and I tell you, they are something different. There's no comparison with a fluo tube. The LP are really easy to handle, they have a built-in dimmer that doesn't buzz or shift color, the minis throw so much light in a small package, it has to be see to to be believed. At CineGear their booth was constantly crowded, people kept playing with the units, bringing friends to look at the etc.
Way easier and simpler than fluorescent.

My friends all call me Sherlock
(buffing my nails)


Hmm... that's interesting. I suppose it would be worth a test, but they sure aren't "indie priced".

Do you have a light meter you can use to test the output? I'd really like to compare with some of my home grown compact flourescent ideas. I'm betting bang per lumen on the litepanel isn't very good in comparison. Might be cool for one DC light, but it might take $6,000 vs. $500 DIY CF to light up a room with them.

Here's another LED alternative:
http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-lig...ight-bulb.aspx
OR
http://www.swps.com/11-8552-a00.html

When it comes to pure monetary point I don't argue, I see your point very clearly. It's in the comparison of features that I believe the LP are ahead of other technologies. And the LED technology allows them to create solutions that can't be mathed by other systems. I'm not at liberty to provide more informations but their R&D dept is working on something very cool :)

I'm going to ask Jaime Emmanuelli, Director of Sales and a partner at LitePanels to answer this. I have a call into him this AM and will post the response as soon as I hear from him.

Sounds good. I know new high intensity LED's are supposed to be out there. But again, why wouldn't I just buy prebuilt bulbs like those in the links I provided. The Ringlite might be a unique case.

I think rolling your own is going to be both more flexible and less expensive for the indie filmmaker.

Jonathan,

It looks like you might have taken offense to what I've said but your response to the statement leads me to believe that you are working on a site that will be as valuable as DVinfo has been for it's members and guests.

I can read the passion you have for this project of yours and truly hope for the best.

I've only made suggestions as to how you might work on other ideas in bringing revenue to support your project.

Recent article in todays Wall Street Journal talks about YouTube and the amount of video viewed on it. Over 60,000 clips are submitted everyday and over 70 million clips are viewed on You Tube. Competition has caused the website My Space to ban You Tube until it's users complained so much that they brought it back, along with their own content streaming program right after.

Besides the competition from such sites as Google, Yahoo, MySpace, etc... You Tube is working on a revenue sharing program with content providers like Google's AdSense.

This is why I was suggesting other venues of income generation.

I know your site is different compared to all these other sites, which is not geared specifically to a niche, but it's something to think about. You'll have less competion for a professionaly produced product, but you'll also start getting competition from larger outfits, once you start gaining media attention.

Now to a different topic, how about doing some interviews with some of the other members and professionals on this site? Say, Chris (founder of DVinfo), DSE (Vegas or VASST), and of course, Jim (seeing Red).

Hey John.
Just because MySpace, YouTube and such serve millions of people it doesn't mean that that account to anything. I was in the middle of the high-tech industry during the Netscape craze and the .com bubble. This is another one of those. Remember that Amazon didn't make any money of its own for years and years. YouTube can give 2nd Unit more exposure but to whom? We don't want to show this to everybody. The show is for a very targeted audience: aspiring film makers. We toss this inside YouTube and it goes together with "Americas Funniest Animals", bad karaoke tapes and the like. And what we gain? Nothing. Also, the quality of those videos is way substandard. That is one of the reasons why I made a specific clause for CruiserCast, my Vodcast, that makes the video freely distributable but prohibits people to post it on YouTube, Google video etc.
The WSJ did not see the .com bubble and there are plenty of so-called financial analysts that are totally clueless when it comes to high-tech and new techno trends. It's not a coincidence that a good chunk of the movie business has been ruined by he lawers and accountants that seem t be running the studios nowadays.
We are going to add a Vodcast version of the show and we will publish it in the iTunes music store asap.

Just my $0.02 :)

Live long and prosper

As long as the criticism is constructive, John, it's always welcome at 2nd Unit. Do our feelings get hurt when someone denigrades our work here? Of course because we care so much about what we're trying to bring to the independent filmmaking community; a community that is a family, a poor family compared to its rich Uncles the studios but a family none the less. If the criticism is constructive, we look for the validity in it and employ it in future efforts. If it's simply meant to attack, then its simply dismissed out ofg hand and forgotten. There will always be individuals out there who for some strange reason feel it necessary to belittle people on this and other boards, attacking them personally under cover and protection of the Internet as if it somehow makes them look bigger. Actually, it's simply cowardly and, in the end, they'll reap the rewards of their actions. We're just doing our best to bring professional insight and information to the independent filmmaking community and trying to give its members what they want instead of what we think they want. And that's what separates us from the vast majority of the sites and the magazines and the other media out there. I mean, what other site do you know of that asks so many time of its viewers, "What do you want to see? Who do you want to talk to?"


The bottom line is this, John. We want your constructiuve criticism and any recommendation that can bring in revenue from sources other than our members to off-set the cost of doing this is welcomed. But as for the recommended business models, I don't want passers-by taking up expensive bandwidth because they have nothing better to do with their time than cruise the web looking for content that they can soak up for free and provide nothing in return. Our prime objective is to provide information, education and advice on filmmaking to the independenmt filmmaking community; things that the average filmmaker would never see, hear or know if not for 2nd Unit. Paolo's right this time. It's an exceedingly targeted audience which is going to be kept targeted and thus the small monthly fee; a cost that's insignificant compared to what we're providing the viewer IMHO. Let's look at the recent CineGear. Even though you could download your pass for "Free", there's simply no getting around the fact that there was a cost to attend. Even if it was only 10 miles from your house, round trip it took you 1 gallon of gas to get there and back. That's about $3.25. But when you got there, you got to see a bunch of cool stuff, ask a bunch of questions and see some icons of the movie world on the stage talking and answering questions. Then, when you left the pannel discussion, you were hungry so a burger and drink was $7. Then, if you're anythng like me, you bought something there. Now, add the wear and tear on your car, the time in transit and everything that a business model has to take into consideration even down to the wear and tear on your tennies walking the circuit, the soiling of your shirt and pants that have to be washed when you get home, it could go on and on but you get the point. All of a suddent when you take everything into account, that the "Free" trip to CineGear wasn't really free at all. It was at least $3.25 and more likely like $25. Now compare that with a month of 2nd Unit. We have George Dibie, Laszlo Kovacs, Rob Kositchek, Rodney Charters, Jody Eldridge David Leitner and a dozen others scheduled to appear on the show. We're reviewing things like Sony, Panavision, Tiffin and a dozen other manufacturers who are going to appear and discuss their prodcuts. We have people like Dr. Steve Mullen to go over his 300+ page book on the 100HD and excplain things that might be a little over my head at least. We have disounts avauilable at major cine stores because you're a member here. Add it all up and there's plenty of reason for members to pay something like $5 or a gallon and a half of fuel to access the site. We're not getting rich of this, believe me. The fee is to do two things; 1) help offset the cost of producing the content and 2) keep passers-by from hogging the bandwidth and leaving nothing in return. That's it. We're not making "Gone With the Wind" or "Apocalypse Now". That's the responsibility of our guests. We're simply giving the viewer to see, hear and feel what it's like to be on set with NCIS through DP Jody Eldrige for example. So please, keep the constructive criticism coming in but remember, the prime objective of 2nd Unit is simply to be a conduit from Hollywood directors, DPs, gaffers and the like straight to you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Jonathan, did you ever get a chance to watch the Screen Savers on TechTV? It was a computer show that did exactly what you are trying to accomplish- They brought you how to's, product comparisons, and interviews with software, hardware, and other developers. They also had a fun, entertaining format, with just a little eyecandy.

They also bolstered viewership with contests and give aways. And you know us geeks, we'll do backflips for swag ;)

That's precisely one of the things we're working on now and, quite frankly, the more positive feed back we receive, (and I'm not subporning perjury, I want to know exactly what everyone thinks truthfully so we can make it what you want) the easier it will be to get the stuff to contest away. Jody Eldridge and I were talking about the 168 contest and doing that here for JVC owners...ok others can enter too... and giving away things that should be in every filmmakers bag. Give me some suggestions.

You want suggestions? I gots your suggestions... You are doing a show on filters with Tiffen, right? If Tiffen is a sponser, get them to give you a set of filters (Which probably cost them $20 to make) and use them as a demo. At the end of the show, you select a name from the list of viewers, and send them the filters. Got a show dealing with warm cards? Same deal. And t shirts go over well too. And some of those light pens Chris Hurd was giving out too! It doesn't have to be extravegant. We're easy ;)