2nd-unit.tv looking good!
 

I see that www.2nd-unit.tv quietly went live sometime last night or this morning. I just finished watching the first George Spiro Dibie interview. (You have to click on his picture to start the video).

It looks like Jonathan is on to something good here. I'm really looking forward to part two when I assume George will explain his lighting charts and we'll see more of him demonstrating techniques. The few shots we were teased with of George using the Mini Lite Panel were great. This is an excellent start to what has great potential for teaching movie techniques to the rest of us in the Indie community and outside Hollywood.

Keep it up Jonathan. I want MORE!

Great introduction of George Spiro Dibie, Johnathan. Very gracious.

The site is looking good and I like the premise very much. Hat's off..

Now for a small critique. When Dibie speaks and the interviewer speaks the audio is on the wrong side. In other words, George is on the left but his audio is on the right speaker (and vice versa for the interviewer). A suggestion would be to encode the spoken word in mono.

You caught that too, huh??? Well we were fighting like heck to meet an 8:00 timeslot and there are a couple of goofs like that in there. Another is that the editing is not done the way I want it but we shot George's part of the show on Saturday and got it into capture and editing Monday morning... together with the three other actual TV shows we're doing. When we got the cuts back on Tuesday, wrote the inserts and had to schedule the insert shoot with the model on Wednesday morning at AbelCine. That footage got back into the studio Wednesday afternoon for capture, final editing and post late that afternoon and the final copy was burned that evening to meet the timeslot I had promised and uploaded to the servers. That's when I heard the audio switch! But, all in all, I don't feel too badly. We're recutting the show concurrently with the production of the second part next week so we'll straighten things out as we go. But, that said, your comments are always welcome, Stephen, as are others. 2nd Unit is all about giving indies what they want and need. It's your show, we're just the messengers so let us know what you think and what you'd like to see. We'll be at CineGear this weekend (too far for you, Stephen, sorry) at the Lite Panels booth inside the lighting tent and I invite all of the members who are going to be there to come by and say hi. The 2nd Unit Motor Coach will be parked all weekend right behind the tent where there's plenty of libations for visitors.. I truly hope to see you there. And again, Stephen, thanks!!! Oh yeah, Paolo came down from Santa Cruz to hang out so come by the booth, say hi and enjoy the Coach.

I enjoyed the first interview. I especially like the advice about the proper way to tell directors and others how to go F-Off by using a clever compliment. Very helpful.

:-)

Nice show guys. What would really bring it home, would be a copy of George's light chart in the downloads :)

Now there's something they don't teach you at USC! As for the charts, consider it done. We'll have them digitized right after we finish up at CineGear and thanks for the suggestion.

Too cool! Thanks Jonathan!

Brilliant!

Very much looking forward to the next installment, where I believe he demonstrates the lighting with the model.

The opportunity to hear people of this level is very rare, especially to have them discuss in detail the practical as well as art sides of what they do.

Regarding the audio:
On my my computer speakers, I would like the voice out of both sides (mono). Also, to be super critical, the moderator's mike needs to be a little sharper (less muffled, not so close in relation to the main speaker). Also, it was hard to catch the moderator's quick comments, especially when they overlap the speaker. Fortunately, we can go back and re-listen to catch what was missed. When a comment is needed it would come across better if spoken with more definiteness, rather than as if it is trying to be stuck in quickly.

But, Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! I've been to a lot of classes, workshops, demonstrations, etc., and these little shows have the potential of being more valuable than anything I've seen before (and to people all over the world)... to both new and experienced people.

Will see you at Cinegear.

Audio...
 

Jack,

I recorded this sound, and during the taping I spoke with Jonathan regarding Jaime's levels. I had his mic up so high that George was virtually as loud on Jaime's mic as on his own, but still Jaime's level was lower than I wanted.

Jonathan explained to me that Jaime just has a quiet voice, and Jonathan has recorded him many times before and knows that he cannot be brought up higher by directorial suggestions. He is what he is.

During this segment of the taping, both mics were hard-wired Countryman lavs, so there was no problem with wireless transmission. Jonathan's Countryman mics are excellent, and their placement was correct as can be discerned by looking at the video. There is just no way to make Jaime speak as loudly and clearly as George. Jaime also spoke very little, and when he did, he didn't have a lot of free air in between George's pieces of business.

As for their physical placement, moving them farther apart for the sake of the sound would have been unwise, as I think that Jonathan spaced them properly for the visuals, while the sound remained acceptable. They would have looked as if they were across the room from each other if much farther away, although then Jaime would have had more audio separation.

Tip McPartland

Thanks Tip. It's great to deconstruct a shoot and find out why things were done the way they were. It seems nothing is ever ideal on a makeshift set and solving problems or knowing when to make compromises is part of the challenge. I appreciate the insight.

Tip,

I'm not really being critical. The speakers I am listening to are not good.

To clarify what I meant -- what I heard on my computer was Jaime's comments came in larger than George, and more muffled, with more "proximity effect." Perhaps the character of the sound was the result of turning up the level to compensate for the lower voice as you describe.

When I said to move the mic away... I didn't really mean it was placed wrong. What I meant was that Jaime is basically off camera, and his comments, the way they came in, would be less jarring if they sounded a bit off-camera... at least not on top of the picture, especially since the picture is pretty much close on George throughout. since the only time we see Jaime, the close sounding lav voice doesn't immediately compute in the brain... we would expect to hear a voice with just a tad more distance as in the two-shot, or as if he is off camera.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned anyting, but to tell the truth, I was sitting fairly close to the monitor watching the show, listening to George, and everytime Jaime came it it made me jump. Since I was at work, at first I thought someone had come up right behind me. This effect was added to by the fact that the voice came out of one speaker on the wrong side of the screen. When I figured out what was happening, I just figured I had the speakers placed backwards. However, even then, Jaime's voice startled me when it came in. That's all. Bottom line, the way I heard it was probably my bad speakers.

To be completely honest, I never noticed any audio issues. I was too distracted by the host changing stuff on the monitor... :)

That's curious. Neither the host nor the guest had any control over the monitor. All they did was refer to it when discussing the various lighting issues outlined on "cards" that were scanned into the system and made available to them via the monitor. Those cards are the culmination of George's 50+ years of 6-time Emmy winning experience. I'll look at it again, though, and see where your concerns lie and thanks. I'm glad you're all interested enought yo bring stuff like this up. It'll make the series even better.

I just got all the other posts and really appreciate the comments and congrats. The sponsors share your excitement and that'swhy the're suppoprting us. As to Jaime, I spend half my time with saying "Whay...what...?" I thought at 49 I was just getting old but thank heaven it's not that! In Jaime's defense, though, no one can ever get a word in edgewise. George is like a big Energizer Bunny he just keps going and going and... We had 6 pages of questions to get through. As you can see, we got 1 out...actually 2 but that's left for next week. Thank heaven, though, because with CineGear this weekend, we're missing a week so we're airing the 2nd question this week. Then the 3rd week, George and Rob Kostichek are coning on to really drill down on the lighting, hopefully over at CineAble which is just a great place if for no other reason that they really go out of their way to help us and all indies as well.

I saw it a couple of times too late in the show. In the most obvious case Mr. Dibie asked for chart #3 to come up and the interview host made some movements that looked to me like he was changing the screen by fussing with the computer sending output to the monitor. There was a time just before that when Mr. Dibie was talking and the monitor was being changed for reasons unknown, by someone off camera at the moment. What made that more surprising and distracting is that after the screen settled down on a new image, Mr. Dibie sought to refer to something on the chart which had been there, and it was gone. That's when he had to ask to have it brought up.

Nonetheless, for me the whole presentation was very useful, and I intend to archive it for my personal lighting 101. BTW who was the gentleman who introduced the whole interview? No name was given that I caught. Is that you, Jonathan?

Jonathan, I was really just being nitpicky. Like I said, I was enjoying the show as best I could. I had kids going off every 10 seconds, so really couldn't soak it all in. Maybe that's why I didn't notice the audio issues? I had to fight just to hear it anyways!

Overall, I thought the show had a lot of promise. In fact, it sort of reminded me of the TechTV show, The ScreenSavers. Back before G4 took over and made it suck.

The guy introducing the show is indeed Jonathan.

I know Jonathan and he has expressly told me that he doesn't mind people being nitpicky. He invites constructive criticism and it helps everyone when people explain what they were dealing with and why things were done that way.

As for me, I felt like I wanted to see and have explained what was on the screen. Looks like some good info hidden there.




If we all aren't making mistakes, we're just not trying hard enough.

Just checking messages here at CineGear and need to respond to this one. He's right. I love nit-picking. It's how I got where I am today and how I'll get where I'm going tomorrow. You have to know, I pick up alot from you all and 2nd Unit is my way of saying thank you to everyone who went before me, everyone who's been with me for 20+ years in this business and everyone like Stephen and Paolo and James and Michael and Warren and Tim and Robert and Michael and the other Stephen and 100 others here. So pick away but also look at the time frame for putting the last show together...3 days with a 1/2 day power failure. I'm NOT HAPPY with it and we're recutting it. But, when I said we'd debut at 8:00, I'm proud of hitting that mark and what my guys and girls did get together to hit that mark. And now, thanks to George Dibie and Lazlo and the ASCs at CineGear, everyone here knows about 2ndUnit as well. So nit pick away. It's what family does and this is one big family. OH yeah, one more thing. If you can make it to CineGear, it's worth the trip this year. Amazing the stuff. Bring lots of plastic though. You'll want everything you see!!!

Just checking messages here at CineGear and need to respond to this one. He's right. I love nit-picking. It's how I got where I am today and how I'll get where I'm going tomorrow. You have to know, I pick up alot from you all and 2nd Unit is my way of saying thank you to everyone who went before me, everyone who's been with me for 20+ years in this business and everyone like Stephen and Paolo and James and Michael and Warren and Tim and Robert and Michael and the other Stephen and 100 others here. So pick away but also look at the time frame for putting the last show together...3 days with a 1/2 day power failure. I'm NOT HAPPY with it and we're recutting it. But, when I said we'd debut at 8:00, I'm proud of hitting that mark and what my guys and girls did get together to hit that mark. And now, thanks to George Dibie and Lazlo and the ASCs at CineGear, everyone here knows about 2ndUnit as well. So nit pick away. It's what family does and this is one big family. OH yeah, one more thing. If you can make it to CineGear, it's worth the trip this year. Amazing the stuff. Bring lots of plastic though. You'll want everything you see!!!

I don't want to sound like the party pooper here, guys, but the show was kind of low-budg looking, in my opinion. The concept is brilliant and I wish it all the success but I had a few issues. For example; the lighting for the interview with George was nothing short of horrendous. I was astonished watching a guy who's supposed to be the "Spielberg of lighting" getting interviewed while bathed in lighting that's just, plain, bad. He tended to go on a bit which I personally would have cut in more of the lighting B-Roll they stuck in a few places here and there. To me the cut-aways of him working practical lighting techniques with the girl was the best part of the interview. Where you can- show it, don't tell it. More cut-aways of what he's talking about would go a long way to keeping my attention, especially during long interviews. Even if it were Angelina Jolie talking I'd still get bored of staring at her for an hour. I realize they were behind the gun to deliver the show on time but you're always better off looking your best, especially on the inaugural episode, than compromising the show just to make the party. You, usually, only have one chance to hook 'em. Having said that, I'll give it the chance it deserves and watch it again next week in hopes of a more polished look.

Well, Scott, you're exactly right on many of these points and we've addressed them previously. In the end it was may call relative to what the episode was all about and I eleced to risk "bore"ing people but, to tell you the truth, I'd do it again. I really think you need to know the person when it's someone like George. Someone once said you know you've made it when your first critic says sometheing bad about you production. Well, i guess I've arrived! The one part that troubles me though is your review of the lighting. This forum is as much about learning as it is anythinig else so please let us all hear your specific issues relative to the lighting that was "just plain bad". It troubles me beacuse that's the one thing on which the everyone has commented positively with most of them ASC members from the panel yesterday. It's beneficial to everyone where you can say, "This area was flat" or "This area was shadowed too heavilly" or whatever so we can then discuss it to the benefit to all. So let's see, or rather hear, where you think specific improvments and can been made instead of saying generally it was "horrible". And know, please, that you don't have to be disagreeable to disagree. Let's just share our opinions here and discuss our apparently differeing points of view with underlying support so we can all benefit. I'll be at CineGear all day today again but checking in to I'm anxiously awaiting your response.

Hi Scott.
Well, some of your points where addressed on Thursday, when Jonathan and I discussed the video. Jonathan takes deadlines very seriously and so, I believe, he decided to post the video as promised, instead of risking missing the deadline in order to make it "pretty". Please note that Jonathan shot some additional footage on Wednesday, the inserts of George moving the lights around the model.

Jonathan has graciously agreed on letting me edit it a bit. I can tell you one thing, I looked at the timeline for the show and it had all the clips from the 3 cameras. It was just a matter of time to not be able to include all the cuts. So, we are going to address some of the issues and re-release the video soon. I first need to learn how to use Premiere :)

Jonathan, I have obviously deeply offended you and I apologize. I reread my post, as it was way past my bedtime when I wrote it, and realized the "nothing short of horrendous" part was harsh and undeserving. Sorry. As for "boring" I never said that. I only meant that George tended to go on a bit and more cut-aways would help that. When you say "I need to know the person" I take it you feel that I've dissed George. I didn't in my opinion. The guy is the king, I realize that. I was just surprised the someone of his stature, talking about painting with light and all, wouldn't at least make sure you were lit without harsh shadows etc. I'm not a DOP so what the hell do I know, anyway. You're not going to get an argument out of me or specifics on how you "should have" lit the interview cause I don't know anymore than the next guy. Good luck with the show and I look forward to the next one.

It's always been because your show has made it "on air" for people to critique (which they will). For the web site & first show to get uploaded is a triumph. The next show will get better and then the next even better. You're up and running now which was the main thing, right John?

Once again, it's a fantastic idea which has become reality. That alone is worth a six pack of Red Stripe.

I'm watching with anticipation to see the variety of topics which get covered.

I for one very much appreciate what you are bringing together with this. It stimulates my desire to look more carefully at what I see, and pay more attention to what I am doing. I look forward to future installments. There are a couple of minor, and maybe for some people not so minor, things you will want to look at again. The nitpicky ones are things specific to this piece that are fait accompli. But there are a couple of things that you might want to reconsider for the next installment. So in the interest of offering what I hope will be seen as helpful hints for sprucing it up a bit, here goes:

You have already seen my comment about the on camera changing of the content on the monitor screen. That was actually closer to the middle, and I hope you were able to find it.

Personal opinion: the lighting of Jonathan at beginning and end was better than the lighting of Mr. Gibie in the interview. Gibie, and the monitor, cast rather prominent shadows. Could you have moved them both a little further from the wall and hit the space with the output from a 200-300 watt soft light for a more even back illumination? Given the dark clothes, that would have given a bit more contrast and by effect might have increased the apparent brightness of the shots. BTW was it just my perception or did others see that his right hand (our left) usually had more green than his left, which had more of a magenta overtone? That was an indicator of slightly uneven illumination, I believe, although I think his proximity to the monitor screen might have had something to do with it. That had to be a complicated lighting problem and overall it was not a bad view.

I hope you will forgive a bit of physics. Two popups about Lite Panels state physical impossibilities because they misapply the notion of the watt. A remark like that requires a bit of explanation, and I sure don't want to come off like some kind of know-it-all - 'cause that I ain't. A watt is a unit of power; in this case, electrical power. The wattage figure on a light bulb is not its output level but its maximum electrical power handling capability. The unit of light output is the lumen. Since bulbs with filaments strong enough to support 500 watts of electrical power can put out more radiant energy, we tend to associate a higher wattage capacity with a larger light output. That's fine for everyday speech, but when you want to compare different light sources, especially in a discussion of lighting, the colloquial use of the terms can be misleading. What you wanted to say is that at full output a Lite Panel may draw 45 watts of power, but put out as much light as a 500 watt incandescant lamp. What you are really telling us is that the Lite Panels are more efficient at converting watts to lumens than incandescent bulbs.

There was a typo in the popup on Leonardo de Caprio that had him "staring" as Luke Bower. (Now that's nit pickin'! - unless you're Leonardo de Caprio)

The signoff at the end looked clumsy to me. I wonder if it would have looked better if you had faded to black while Jonathan was still looking at the camera instead of having him look for a couple of seconds and cut as he starts to swing forward to get up. It's a style thing, I'm sure, but it seemed a little odd - like he was waiting for a cue to cut and it didn't come, so he finally just got up.

Most of these things are so small they hit us below our level of cognition until someone points them out. But then, it is that subtleness that is a driver in setting mood, a point Mr. Gibie was at some pains to make. Anyway, I hope these notes are useful. I think the overall project is excellent, and I applaud what you have done and intend to do.

As promissed, here we are checking in at a break in the CineGrea panel discussions as I promise and I want to respond briefly to this post just to say Thank You... it's EXACTLY what 2nd Unit is all about, and thank you so much for the time to bring these things up. Everyone learns through dialogue, exact, specific dialogue like this so again, thanks. I have to get back to CineGear but I'll address the points it makes later this evening when the show dies down.

I don't know about that... you ever see Decrapio in that role?

Scott, No problem and I certainly didn't feel offended. Ask some of the people here!!! You'll know it if you've offended me maliciously. One time someone purposely and I might add unwarrentedly (new word again!!!) attacked me and I was amazed and the dogpile this group had on this guy. I didn't even have to post anything, they pretty much said it all. So, you'll never offend me with your personal observations and opinions. It's how we all learn and it's what families do. I can't express that enough. If I didn't think this to be a family of filmmakers, I wouldn't be spending the time and tons of money it takes to porduce this. Remember, we're not a profit engine. All of this comes out of my own personal pocket so far to the tune of almost $200k with equipment, talent, crew that gets paid, location, transportation, makeup, insurance (BIGTIME) and the hundreds of other expenses, well, you get the idea. It's an expensive proposition briginging 13 episodes to the big or small screen so believe me, no offense taken. Again, it's what 2nd Unit is all about and it's why my crew keeps comibng back like Warren a,d Paolo and Scott and Jeff and a dozen others that threw in with me for this. AND it's what the sponsors want too. We're starting to get some much-appreciated financial support from these big companies so I want to hear and to know what you want, what you think and what you feel. This is truly your show, I'm just the producer.

Is it too early for me to ask for a raise? What about Health Benies?

I cant give you a raise but I can get you a title!!! ;-)

Well, here we are after CineGear and I promised to address Stephen's coments so here goes.

First, “Could you have moved them both a little further from the wall and hit the space with the output from a 200-300 watt soft light for a more even back illumination? Given the dark clothes, that would have given a bit more contrast and by effect might have increased the apparent brightness of the shots.” The fact of the matter is that it’s very, very difficult to direct a cinematic icon like George. I tried unsuccessfully to redress the set and move things away from the stark-white walls but George insisted on the setting. Why? Because he wanted to over-emphasize shadows and their part in the picture. “By over-emphasizing something, you’ll remember it and, in your own films, you’ll certainly modify the settings to meet your own needs, I guaranteee you’ll remember when George wanted to overemphasize shadows and you’ll remember the issue and importance of shadows, probably the most important aspect of cinematography.” So, while the shadows look out of place, they actually serve the purpose of “2nd Unit” better than I could have ever thought of. That’s why he’s George Spiro Dibie and I’m me.

Second, “That was an indicator of slightly uneven illumination, I believe, although I think his proximity to the monitor screen might have had something to do with it. That had to be a complicated lighting problem and overall it was not a bad view.”
Yes it was very difficult, incorporating and using properly practical light but that mistake is all mine. I’ve always struggled with lighting which is one of the reasons I’m doing this; to learn as much as others are. Lighting is the very foundation of cinematography and because 90% of what we do is reality and sports, we don’t have the chance to practice that art and craft and like anything, if you don’t practice, you lose the ability. Drama, comedy and other “setting” shots all depend on lighting. Sports does not so we’ll get better as you get better, I promise.

As for the lighting issue, Stephen’s absolutely right and I thank him for explaining that. Another important thing to note here is what the equation means to the set. Lighting has always had two drawbacks; weight and heat, both of which sap the energy of the cast and crew. LitePanels addresses both of these issues positively, weight obviously but heat especially. When heat builds up on a set, money and time which is money is wasted. Everyone equates the loss of time to makeup and wardrobe but that’s only about 10% of the problem. The actors work hard to make it into character and stay there through the performance. When you have to break the action for a makeup touch-up or wardrobe redress, you not ony lose that time and money but typically it can take as many as 4-6 “takes” for the actors to ramp back up to the level of performance needed or a particular scene. Thus, defeating the arch-enemy of the industry, heat, is a major time and money saver and LitePanels is doing that so well they’re selling out of stock at the factory every day.

The typo will be fixed today but the comment about “The signoff at the end looked clumsy to me. I wonder if it would have looked better if you had faded to black while Jonathan was still looking at the camera instead of having him look for a couple of seconds and cut as he starts to swing forward to get up. It's a style thing, I'm sure, but it seemed a little odd - like he was waiting for a cue to cut and it didn't come, so he finally just got up” is super important to anyone in this business. Check your work, no matter who’s doing it, before it goes out. The ending was the wrong one put in at the last minute and not checked before hitting the deadline with seconds to spare. We shot a number of different endings that days and I selected the one that I wanted. But it wasn’t the one you saw. The wrong one got sent to editing and I didn’t watch the whole series before it went up so I never caught it. So the lesson is, always check your final product before posting. It might sound simple and you’d think that after 22 years in this business, I wouldn’t make that mistake but I did and, well, sorry is the only thing I can say.

What’s important to note is that when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. 2nd Unit is all about relative amateurs using affordable equipment to turn out exceptional products. Paolo, who most of you know through this board, is hard at work re-cutting the first episode to address the issues the board has raised. Volunteering to do it, he’s using Adobe Premiere, a product he’s never used before. It’ll be interesting to see what he comes up with and his comments relative to using the product.

Thanks again for your comments and we’ll se you next week.

The hell with a title! What about Benfits??? Health, dental? Company car?

Sorry, all we can offer is alot of good information. And I thought you'd like to know who we have scheduled to appear in the first few weeks. George will be back for the second part this week and after that we'll be moving on to Rob Kositchek, Professor at USC School of Film. He'll be followed by Jody Eldridge, DP for "JAG" and now "NCIS" and the poster-boy for Sony. He's going t be talking about alot of things not the least of which is the amazing new Sony XDCam. He's mixed its footage with that of the 950 and says you'd be hard-pressed to see where the 950 ends and the 350 begins. We also have Mike Baumann, gaffer for "Armageddon", "The Island", "Munich" and "23" along with Mauro Fiore, DP 2nd Unit for "Armageddon" and I"Te sland". Rodney Charters of course will be joining us as well as "Dukes of Hazzard 2"'s Brian Crane. Jeff Murrel is in the mix also along with David Tatersol, DP for the last 2 episodes of "Star Wars" and finally Raphael Sanchez, gaffer for all of the "Pirates of the Caribbean". It's really an exciting star to what we hope is a great year of shows and, after CineGear and mmeting Tiffin Filters' people, we start shooting a series on fileters and their use in the field.

When is it going to become a paying member site?

We haven't really decided yet although we figured 4 weeks or so. I want people to be able to see what the site has to offer first and to that end, the list of directors, DPs, gaffers and ASC members offering to appear has been very humbling after the site debuted last Wednesaday even with it's issues that we're working on. Almost without exception, all the DPs appearing on CineGear's panels congratulated me and offered their help and appearance so we'll be having Izzy and Laszlo and the like on the site and I want to pay them for their time or at least offer it to them and let them decide. Right now I'm averaging about $1500 per week with the bandwidth, talent, crew, regular site and apportioned costs of my regular office staff. You can figure makeup is $250, sound is $350 and talent is $500 each per day, all crew that are necessary to the show but do not benefit directly from it so I have to pay them. The cameras and editing are the only "free" crew becasue that's what 2nd Unit is all about; amateurs using our "sponsors" products and by "free" I mean I still have to pay for insurance, food and a dozen other things and by "sponsors" I don't mean we're receiving financial support from them. If we were, there'd be too much of a chance for bias and I don't want that. We bought, for excample, 6 JVC 100HDs handing over $30k+ in cash to lens the show before JVC even knew what we were doing so our use of their camera, purchase and operating costs are out-of-pocket expenses and our accolades of them and/or their camera are not influenced by their contribution whatsoever. And right now our accolades stop dead at their camera because the company, or more precisely a couple of their highly-placed executives leave alot to be desired when it comes to honor and integrity. But that doesn't adversely affect our use of or reporting on their equipment. They'll be out the door sooner or later. People like that don't last long in this or any other business but their cameras are really working well.

Anyway, that's another story. Bringing the site live after 6 months has been roughly $125k hard, approtioned costs. That means we'll hit the original $150k investment I've set aside, again, hard, directly apportioned costs in about 4 weeks. After that I have to look at where we'll break even so the show at the very least pays for itself and its talent. Then, after people have had the chance to see that something like 5 or 10 bucks a month isn't much to pay for Academy or Emmy Award winners spending an hour talking film, hopefully they'll join and provide us with their own films to showcase and critique. I mean you figure you spend $5 or $10 for a magazine that you read and toss. Membership here means you'll always have access to a new show every week jammed with profesional advice and information, access to downloads of those shows, sepcial reports on things like filters and other tricks of the trade, on-set podcasts and special pricing at AbelCine for members only. All that 4 times a month instead of once a month like a magazine so, when you think about it, if you're saving 5% off your purchases of filmmaking equipment by being a member of 2nd Unit and you buy a Chrosziel Matte Box at $1500, you just saved $75 off the box becasue you spent $5 or $10 a month for membership to 2nd Unit. That's our thinking anyway. What's yours?

I'm thinking, I need to make more money, or drink cheaper beer. Yech! ;)

Seriously though, I'm enjoying 2nd unit so far, all 1 episodes... but I'm just not sure about paying for site membership. And I do totally understand why you will charge. I'm not saying you are a money grubbing tyrant or anything like that. I'm saying I'm cheap. And easy. But that is a different story.

If they ar appropriate to answer, I have a couple of questions:

1. What insurance do you need and where do you get it? Do you need liability? or are you talking about equipment insurance?

2. What kind of releases are you using for the people in the video? Is a copy of the release available?

3. This has probably been answered, but I missed it: what framerate and format are you shooting the show in? What software are you using to compress the web video?

Thank you!

I'm sort of with Jack on the insurance question. That is really a question that most videographers haven't a clue about. Maybe do an episode on the insurance racket... I mean business?

I'd vote for an entire show or two on the legal issues indie filmmakers need to be aware of when shooting. There must be a bunch of horror stories entertainment attorneys could share. A distributor could give info on all the releases they require. Which brings up another show... distribution - how it works and how filmmakers get completely screwed by some distributors. What to watch out for. And... do you really want to give up your rights or just sell direct these days?

Technique is cool - but if you get sued or can't market what you're creating then you're broke and about to be out of the game altogether.

The membership program is a good idea, but IMO, it is going to be a flop based off the first episode. The first episode really lacked a utility purpose and even though I thought George was interesting, I was disappointed by the lack of detailed visuals explaining different lighting techniques. The show only had a few examples and they were really vague.

IMO, the heart of this show should be the direct teaching of a film/video related topic. I would make a story line that outlined the methods of delivery and I would severely* recommend detailed visuals. I know how important these visuals are because I am a visual learner and I make training videos all the time using this philosophy.

Episode 1 actually reminded me of this skit put on at a non-public probation get together. All of the people in the audience were probation workers and they performed a skit that metaphored the effects of drugs. Obviously, all the people in the audience understood the effects of drugs, so why have a skit about it? Simple, its a probation event and they deal with drugs all the time so it's only fitting to have a skit on drugs. This example is actually really bad but that was how I felt.

Most of us know that lighting is a crucial tool to help tell the story. Now we just need some information to help use and apply this tool.

I can see most of us paying 10-20 bucks a month for a program that is able to give us ideas and teach us something we can use in real life.

Thanx for putting this all together and hope it works out in the end.