Start-up company Grand Central was bought-out by Google last year. You may have heard last week about how Google Gave All San Francisco Homeless a Free Voicemail through Grand Central. Well, Google recently opened the service as a private beta, and we were lucky enough to get in on it. So what does it do?

Think of Grand Central as like a social security number for phone service. If someone calls you at your GC number, it will ring any number of phone numbers you own, and the first one to pick up takes the call. So if you want it to ring your office, cell and home number when someone calls, it will.

We have setup our GC number to ring all of our staff when someone calls, so when you just can’t wait for us to check e-mail, you can get one of us on the line to answer a question about your project.

Want to give it a try? Call us for questions about our services or just to chat: 785.748.8076.

Categories: New Media | No Comments »

Many of you are probably wondering what happened to the concert taping guide I began last fall.

I was in debate when I first started the guide, whether to make it a blog series or to write it as a more in-depth e-book. Since starting it, I realized I wasn’t going into as much detail as I wanted to, so I will be going ahead with finishing the series as an e-book. The topics and breadth of topics will be more complete and written in a bit more of a formal approach.

I will be offering the book through a different domain, which will accompany a blog dedicated solely to concert taping and filming.

If you would like to be notified when the complete e-book is available, leave your e-mail address in the comments below, or you can send it to concertguide@titusfilms.com . I will send free copies to all who leave their address.

If you have any suggestions or questions you would like addressed in the book, please send those along too.

Thanks to everyone that has enjoyed the guide so far, and I thank you for your continued support.

John Kary

Categories: Concert Films, Tutorials | 23 Comments »

The goal of every website is to provide content and services to its visitors. You probably look at your website daily from your computer to make sure it looks great. But not all web browsers display the web in the same way. Little nuances between browsers can sometimes make sites unusable.

Things get even more tricky when trying to implement web video, which unlike HTML, has no “web standard” in how best to present it. You have to worry about users having QuickTime, Real Player or Windows Media Player installed, that their software is up to date, and that it doesn’t crash the user’s browser.

Video delivered through Adobe Flash has quickly become the best of both worlds, thanks to its cross-platform support and extensive developer community. If you are still embedding video using QuickTime or Windows Media Player, you are turning away visitors and potential clients.

1. Flash has an adoption rate of 98%

That means Flash is already installed for 98% of the people viewing your site.

98% Flash
83% Windwos Media Player
68% QuickTime
52% RealPlayer

While your PC viewers certainly have Windows Media Player installed with their OS, Mac users don’t usually have it. Same goes for QuickTime installed by default for Mac, and with some PC users having it.

2. High quality with low bandwidth

You have seen Flash video in use on YouTube. Most of it is a bit fuzzy and the audio might be out of sync. Don’t let this fool you. YouTube serves up millions of videos, and having them all at high quality would drain their bandwidth. But with proper optimization and encoding your Flash video on your own, it can look stunning.

3. Support for multiple video and audio codecs

Codecs are different algorithms used to encode video and audio to a smaller filesize while trying to sustain the quality of the original image. Codec support in Flash is based on Flash version the end-user is viewing with.

Most video codecs play in Flash Player 8 (98% install base) while newer HD video codecs were enabled in Flash Player 9 (95%). Knowing the right codecs to use, and their optimal bitrates is the key.

4. Custom player interface

Skilled Flash developers can whip up a custom interface to load and play your video. That way you’re not stuck with an ugly progress bar detracting from the actual content.

5. It can fit into any workflow

There are several flavors of Flash video encoding software on the market. Luckily, most of them will take any valid video file as input. But not so fast. Not all video files are created equally.

Getting the best quality from your Flash video can take a lot of trial an error if you’re not sure what settings to use. The optimal settings for a documentary are quite different from an action movie trailer.

I’m a visual learner, and I bet you are too. Our Portfolio uses Flash video to showcase our work, and we get a lot of comments on how great the video quality is. At the same time, each of our videos play back in real-time* with no annoying buffering. Because the last thing you want to give your visitors is a “Loading…” screen.

What are some sites you all have found that use Flash video particularly well? Be it in quality or unique presentation.

* = assuming you agree to be gouged by your high-speed Internet provider.

Categories: New Media, Software, Tech Corner | No Comments »

While 2007 CD sales were down 14% from 2006, digital downloads were up 50%. Record labels continue to struggle to develop new distribution models that take advantage of the digital revolution.

Over the last year, fans have shown they are willing to sink money into digital intellectual property. The success of digital audio in 2007 is paving the way for the comoditization of online digital video in 2008-2010.

Digital Audio is to 2007 as Digital Video is to 2008

As everybody knows, video delivered via the Internet is quickly becoming the future of mass communication. With the success of digital audio downloads in 2007, and with more people than ever knowing how to use online video thanks to YouTube, video is set to be the next major commoditization in 2008 in the same way digital audio took hold in the last 3 years.

Bands can now generate buzz with video on their MySpace pages, YouTube channels and official websites. Promoting a live concert video on these sites can greatly cut down on the cost of marketing across traditional mediums because they are footing the bandwidth bill. All the while you are hitting your target audience and giving them media in a way they feel comfortable receiving it.

Using online video sites to show off a one song clip from the concert is a great way to promote the sale of the full-length show, or the band’s upcoming album release or tour. After viewers watch the video, they will inherently want to see the rest of the show.

Having a professionally-produced concert video on YouTube quickly exceeds the mixed bag of low-quality footage from other amateur videos, immediately making your footage stand out and look even better in relation to what viewers are accustomed to seeing.

The Numbers on Digital Downloads in 2007

While Radiohead stole most of the limelight in terms of independent digital downloads of their newest album, hip-hop artist Saul Williams went the same route, offering his album for download and giving listeners the option to pay or listen for free. Lucky for Williams, his album was produced by tech-savvy Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails), who fully embraces the digital revolution in the music industry.

Reznor, unlike Radiohead, recently detailed the results with hard numbers:

[taken from nin.com]
As of 1/2/08,
154,449 downloaded Saul’s new record
28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning:
18.3% chose to pay.
[/taken]

You can take the 18% however you like, but Reznor claims the roughly $140,000 brought it did not cover all costs. Regardless, this was for a relatively unknown artist in the grand scheme of things, and little to no promotional push was made to sell more records via this method.

Possible Cost Breakdown of Producing a Concert Film

How many records did your band push of their last release? How many more do you think downloaded that album online without paying for it, resulting in your real total fan-base? Does your band appeal to people who know how to use online video? Let’s do some math…

20,000 potential sales (a modest first-week sales run for a new album for an indie label band)
@ $7.50 profit per sale ($2.50 to ship it = $10 total sale price)
=
$150,000 total budget

So we have a modest potential budget of $150,000 to work with to produce the show. We have the to take into account expenses to derive a profit.

$150,000 budget
- $20,000 for 25,000 DVD replication w/ standard packaging/artwork/shipping
- $15,000 for Titus Films to record and produce the show (a rough estimate for a bigger show)
=
$115,000 profit assuming all discs sold.

Could you offer downloads of the show as well? You bet. Bandwidth costs would be about 5 cents per download at high-quality, and 1 cent per download at lower quality. Maybe even give people a discount at $5 for the download since there is no manufacturing overhead and they can instantly pay and watch it.

You are then sitting with $115,000 profit. Of course some parties have a stake in that profit, but it’s more than you had before producing the show.

Compared to producing an album, producing a recorded concert is relatively inexpensive, with just as much potential sales revenue. While you won’t make any additional profit from licensing fees of the show, you will be pushing more product into the market for the band and giving fans a more immersing media experience.

Producing the Show

Ready to get filming? If you have a crew ready to go, check out our guide on How to Film a Live Concert, or simply give us a shout about how we can help.

Categories: Concert Films, New Media, Titus Films | No Comments »

Rolling Stone recently ran an article called The Death of High Fidelity: In the age of MP3s, sound quality is worse than ever. The article puts the buzz of “The Loudness War” of the audio enthusiasts into a mainstream magazine. While there have been plenty of articles already published in more audio-enthusiasts magazines, this article should run across the desk of every major record label executive in the industry.

The battle between artistic integrity and commercial success is a fine line that can be difficult to walk. Working in the video production service industry, you quickly learn that the client is always right. You could whip up a finely crafted website design, or a motion storyboard of a commercial, and if your vision doesn’t meet the client’s vision, that spot you just spent all night cutting means nothing.

This is the current state (the last 30 years) of the music recording industry. Mastering engineers, who represent the “artists” in this scenario, are the people responsible for putting the technical fine-tunings on every track of a CD. (That description does no justice to their technical knowledge, since most mastering engineers would make your head spin with audio jargon.) These guys are at war with record labels executives over how music should sound, or instead be “experienced” by the listener.

Unfortunately, the article doesn’t shed any new light on the loudness war. The author doesn’t make any call to action, instead letting the engineers do the talking where they talk as if it’s a battle that can no longer be won. There is no reaction from anyone representing a label, making it feel a bit one-sided.

How the article pertains to concert recording

Live music, when experienced in person, does not suffer from the same brick-walling effect that recent CD music suffers from. The loudness is all part of the show, and you are allowed to really feel the music. The instruments sound alive. The experience taps into the psychoacoustic rhythm of the heart. The low-end speakers that hit you in the chest with every thump of the kick drum. This is why we love live music.

As digital media consumption has become mainstream over the last ten years, more labels are finding that concert films and bonus DVDs containing live video are valuable assets to generating not only additional revenue, but gaining additional exposure.

Then comes the task of capturing this live energy and bringing it to web, CD or DVD, where listeners have come to expect to be abused by the loudness of CDs.

When mixing a live show for release, I like to keep the music feeling live. This means mixing in a good part of the room mics and letting the recordings from the console fill-in the clarity of each instrument and to fine-tune balance of the mix.

A lot of concert recording engineers (or their producers at the label) like to shoot for a studio-session live performance, where the “live sound” of the room acoustics isn’t so much added to the final mix. Instead the final mix comes out sounding like a bloated mess.

There are exceptions, of course. Metallica’s S & M live album is one that I constantly reference, as it blends metal and a live orchestra, two genres of music that rarely share the same stage. Then there’s Thelonious Monk Quartet with John Coltrane at Carnegie Hall which is an amazing live jazz recording from 2005.

How our work compares

While we try to preserve as much of the dynamic range as possible in our concert work, it is inevitable that we use compression and other mix techniques to bring up the volume of the music. The release medium is what really dictates the amount of compression and maximization used.

A commercial CD release will require more compression, as people will listen to their music in any number of environments (iPod, car stereo, home stereo.) When we mix for 5.1 surround or DTS, where the listener will have nicer equipment, we can use less compression and let the mix breathe, keeping more of the original characteristics of the recorded audio.

Here is a sample of a live mix I’m working on right now which is intended for being synced to a video mix as a 2.0 stereo track. The band is dredg, and the show was recorded in October 2007 at the Troubadour in West Hollywood, CA.

Download MP3 Here [10MB, 5:26]

Categories: Concert Films, New Media, Productions, Screening Room | No Comments »