Archive for November, 2009

Another one about the music industry

There’s this idea on the internets the last few years that if you’re a musician you must give your music for free, and then try to make money off of live performances and special packages for fans who are collectors. I personally don’t share this idea. I don’t believe that anyone can be a Radiohead or NiN. These bands are already established with a known number of fanatic fans who would buy anything. But the reality is that for the 99.99% of the rest of the artists, this won’t work. I, and anyone I know, would never buy collector’s items. It’s not our style, I guess. We follow a musician for his music only (ok, and for those dreamy eyes).

Live performances only bring so much money too, and all we know how bad music sales are these days. So, you ask, how can the music industry survive? And my answer is: it can’t, and it won’t. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that times changed, and no matter what, only a handful of artists will make it big, and the rest should keep their backup jobs? The age of rock’n’roll and Hollywood glam are over. Just like being a weldor was a cool job back in the Middle Ages, and it’s not anymore. Times changed.

Just the other day I was reading on BBC what journalists and music industry specialists suggested that should be done in order to save the music industry. They suggested from subscription streaming, to universal licensing, to anything else you can think of. And guess what: none of this will work. Nada. Reasons being: 1. Over-saturation of the market, 2. There’s already enough legally free music out there, 3. Streaming a problem in a non-100% internet-connected world, 4. Piracy.

In my opinion, trying to be a musician that can sustain a family financially, is a very difficult thing to do, and it’s only going to be more difficult. And if you happen to have a drug habit, well, good luck with your cheapo MacDonalds daily diet and still look young & sexy in your ’30s. However, if you still feel that you want to give it a try in that industry, here are my suggestions.

Production

1. Experiment with new sounds, new instruments. If you’re just another 1 guitar, 1 bass, 1 drums, 1 vocals band, well, good luck with that. Oh, and stop seeing rock with keyboards as “pop/disco” (and therefore “bad music”). Keyboards is just a tool, it can be very flexible sound-wise, and so use that to your advantage. On the other side of the spectrum, violins are still cool.

2. Chances are you’re not a new Elvis or Nirvana. Therefore, you’ll have to play within the constraints of the current market. This means that you will have to write music people WANT to hear — even if you don’t. Oh, shut up already with your “I won’t sacrifice my artistic integrity” bullshit. Do you think Leonardo daVinci only created the stuff he wanted to create, or did he also got side jobs for governors and the church, and had to abide within the rules and needs of these employers? Because, he totally did, and you’re no different. Today’s “employer” are the consumers. And today’s consumers are so overrun by their hectic life, that they simply have no time to decode your experimental/avant-garde/whatever-weird-shit you’re writing. They need HOOKS, melodies that their brain can hold on to after a SINGLE LISTEN. The rule of thumb here is this: if you can imagine your neighbor being able to sing your song in his shower, then you have a marketable song. If not, go back to drawing board and rewrite it. Now, I am not saying that you should only write “pop” music (by “pop” I mean “easily understood”, it could be any genre, including heavy metal or punk — more explanation on all this in the comment section below). But you need to write such music in order to make a BUCK, so you can then produce the music you REALLY want to make available (e.g. Blitzen Trapper took off when their last two albums became more accessible musically). You can do this via two ways: have 3 out of the 10 songs on your album being the music you really want to make, and poll your customers what they thought about it. The other way is to give away your not-very-commercial music via your web site, and then see the reactions of your fans. If that kind of music sells, consider it for your next album. If not, keep making “pop” music, write the music you want on the side, and give it away for free, and await for another 20 years until it gets appreciated. If you’re not willing to do that, then I wouldn’t consider you a wise professional. There’s no shame in making a living. The shame only comes when you are a musical fanatic, a “purist”. Nothing good ever came out of fanaticism.

3. Learn how to use recording software, e.g. Logic, Pro Tools etc. It is absolutely possible with today’s equipment to record in very high quality on your own home. You will only need professional mixing and mastering to be done by others.

4. Design your own artwork. If you’re a true artist, it doesn’t matter if you’re a musician and not a painter or a Photoshoper. Let it come out. Improvise. Or, ask your fans to do art for you.

Business aspect

1. Avoid label contracts (including with indie labels), unless you’re 100% you are getting a good deal. Majors never offer a good deal btw, avoid them like the plague.

2. Avoid managers. If you need to be told what to do then this is not the right profession for you. Being a professional musician today means more than just writing music. If you’re only interested in writing/play music, then keep a day job, and play music on the weekends. Do employ a manager/helper when you become too successful and can’t take care of the daily business all by yourself anymore.

3. Hire a PR company to do specifically the TV/magazines/radio promotion for you (there are 5-6 good ones in the US), a live-show booking company, a licensing company, a distribution company (e.g. CDBaby, who will also get you to Amazon, iTunes, Spotify etc). If you’re successful, also get legal counsel.

Your side of promotion, online

1. Send ONE mp3 to music blogs from your new album. IF you can give away more, give away up to three mp3s from your album, but there has to be a 1-2 months of space between the freebies. Otherwise, overloading listeners won’t work well, and you might give the wrong impression that your music doesn’t worth much to give it away so easily. It’s a bit of a mental game. You will have to keep listeners think “oh, I remember these guys, they had this other mp3 a couple of months back“. Very important: always tag your mp3s properly, including with album art.

2. You must spend time to find the top-100 music blogs out there to send your info, mp3s for reviews or for freebie promotional reasons. The top-5 such blogs will probably ignore you, but the rest 95 probably won’t. If the top-5 can get you 1000 new fans, and the rest 95 combined can get you 2000 new fans, it’s still a good plan despite the extra work. As for the top-5, that’s why you hired the PR company suggested above.

3. While commercial FM radio might be inaccessible to indie artists (even with a PR company is difficult), college & internet radio are not. Send your free CDs or mp3s to these radios. There are hundred of thousands of listeners in these radios these days. This should also include services like Pandora and Last.fm which are not internet radios with the normal sense of the word.

4. TV is also inaccessible for indie artists, but Youtube/Vimeo are not. And I am not talking here about just shooting a music video or capturing a live performance. Instead, contact top amateur videographers and ask them to make videos off of your songs. The band Barcelona became more known in the last few months just because a videographer used their song for his video (currently, the most “liked” HD video on Vimeo ever). The interesting thing here is that this is NOT the best song off of the album, and yet, AFTER that video became popular, that song became their No1 sale on iTunes. One big thing that ticks the music industry is the unauthorized usage of RIAA music by amateurs. This is a major point that the indie artist should use against his major artists’ competition! If they don’t allow people to use their music with their random non-commercial videos, then the indie artist should! All you need to ask is for attribution, so your new fans will know who plays that song.

5. Always maintain at least a Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter account. Twitter must be updated regularly. It’s very important to actually reply to your fans there (I personally unfollow bands that don’t reply to fans). Then there’s Imeem, purevolume, hypem, ilike etc. You can use a web site like ArtistData to manage them all at once. And of course, have a main band web site, that uses NO Flash. Flash takes ages to load and it doesn’t work with mobile phones. Keep it simple, and accessible. Also blog.

6. Do shoot 2-3 official music videos from your album. There are amateur videographers out there in your area that do want to shoot your official video, for free, or for very low cost. They get to brag that they shoot real music videos for artists, and you get a music video. And if the outcome is not stellar, it’s still better than nothing. Upload to both Youtube and Vimeo.

7. Sign up for sessions with Daytrotter or HearYa, then make these sessions known to your fans so they can download them for free. Just the other day I bought the EP of ‘Magic Wands‘ after I heard them for the first time at Daytrotter.

8. Tell your label or your PR company to give away for free 1-2 mp3s to mp3 manufacturers. If you can get 1 of your mp3s onto the Sandisk players (which usually come with a few mp3s for free), or an Android or Nokia phone, then you will get *millions* of new listeners, for free. Bay Area’s Loquat made a name for themselves by giving away their single via the Sandisk players.

9. For the top-5 or top-10 of the music blogs/mags, along the CD send an actual mp3 player with your top-3 songs in there, asking for a review (and mentioning which one of the 3 songs is to be given as a freebie for the blog/mag’s audience). See, if you send just a CD, no one will rip it, it will be ignored. If you send an attached mp3 on an email, it will get wiped out by their firewall. If you send a link to an mp3, most probably it will be ignored too. But by sending an actual mp3 player, no one will say “no” to a free gadget. They will feel compelled and *obligated* to listen to what’s in there. These days, you can buy a cheap 512 MB mp3 player (which is way bigger in storage than what you need anyway) for $10. Geeks.com had some a few weeks ago for $7+tax+shipping, they are out of them now. But they might still be available elsewhere.

10. Do shows. A lot of shows. And don’t shun the rural America, since most bands don’t go there, and so you can get new hungry fans there, while you least expected it to. Not everyone’s listening to country over there.

And finally: look good. The ladeez like seeing good looking men up on the stage. Sorry mate, part of the job too.

7D vs 5D vs 500D/Ti1 vs GH1 vs D90

Don’t know which VdSLR to buy? Here’s a rundown of common knowledge and in my experience (both hands-on, and based on footage/tests found online):

Canon 5D
Noise: 9/10
Resolution: 8/10
Frame rate: 5/10
Bitrate/format: 7/10
Manual controls: 8/10
Audio gain control: 5/10 (requires firmware hack)
Live HDMI-out: 5/10
Rolling shutter: 6/10
Ergonomics: 6/10
Mic input: 7/10
Focusing: 5/10
Average Rating: 6.45

Canon 7D
Noise: 8/10
Resolution: 8/10
Frame rate: 8/10
Bitrate/format: 8/10
Manual controls: 8/10
Audio gain control: 3/10
Live HDMI-out: 6/10
Rolling shutter: 7/10
Ergonomics: 7/10
Mic input: 7/10
Focusing: 5/10
Average Rating: 6.81

Canon 500D/Ti1
Noise: 7/10
Resolution: 8/10
Frame rate: 4/10
Bitrate/format: 6/10
Manual controls: 2/10
Audio gain control: 1/10
Live HDMI-out: 5/10
Rolling shutter: 5/10
Ergonomics: 5/10
Mic input: 4/10
Focusing: 5/10
Average Rating: 4.72

Panasonic GH1
Noise: 7/10
Resolution: 8/10
Frame rate: 6/10
Bitrate/format: 2/10
Manual controls: 8/10
Audio gain control: 5/10
Live HDMI-out: 5/10
Rolling shutter: 6/10
Ergonomics: 7/10
Mic input: 6/10
Focusing: 8/10
Average Rating: 6.18

Nikon D90
Noise: 6/10
Resolution: 5/10
Frame rate: 3/10
Bitrate/format: 2/10
Manual controls: 2/10
Audio gain control: 1/10
Live HDMI-out: 5/10
Rolling shutter: 2/10
Ergonomics: 5/10
Mic input: 1/10
Focusing: 5/10
Average Rating: 3.63

The average rating puts the Canon 7D ahead the 5D with only a few points. However, when you also put into account the fact that the 5D costs an additional $1000, then the 7D is the clear winner. The 5D will stir clear the GH1 competition when the promised firmware upgrade comes out next year.

UPDATE: Just for fun. You get what you pay for:

RED One
Noise: 9/10
Resolution: 10/10
Frame rate: 10/10
Bitrate/format: 10/10
Manual controls: 10/10
Audio gain control: 10/10
Live HDMI-out: 8/10
Rolling shutter: 8/10
Ergonomics: 7/10
Mic input: 10/10
Focusing: 9/10
Average Rating: 9.18

If I had a music label…

This is a list of 30 rock bands that I would try to sign if I had a music label. The list is comprised mostly by completely unsigned artists, while few artists do have contracts with majors but they have been fucked up by these labels in many ways (oh, I’m aware of some good cases alright). Here are the bands in question:

– AG Silver
– Andy Kong (local)
– Arman Bohn
– Bang Bang Eche
– The Boxer Rebellion
– Cloud Cult
– The Crash Moderns
– Daddysmilk
– Dangermaker (local)
– Dizzy Balloon (local)
– Dolorata (local)
– Dredg (ex-major, local)
– Drist (local)
– Fono
– Girls are Robots
– The Golden Filter
– HIJK (local)
– The Hoodies
– Longwave (ex-major)
– Loomis and the Lust
– Low vs Diamond (major)
– Magic Wands
– Malbec
– Music for Animals (local)
– Rantings of Eva
– Rock Kills Kid (major)
– Solid Gold
– Sounds Under Radio
– Veil Veil Vanish (local)
– Wiretree

Kodak digicam HD editing with PiTiVi

One thing that bugs me with the 720/30p MPEG4-SP format found on Kodak digicams (not on their digirecorders, as these use h.264), is that it’s very slow to edit on Windows. Most Windows video editors use the Quicktime engine to decode that MOV format, and Quicktime on Windows just plain sucks ostrich balls. I mean, sure, if you have a very modern, very fast PC, you’ll get some acceptable performance out of it, but on a modest PC, you won’t get more than a few fps on the editor’s preview screen. And besides, Sony Vegas is super-crashy when using the Quicktime engine. Every time I had to edit footage from these Kodak digicams, I had to use proxy files. The MPEG4-SP format is NOT a heavy format (it’s even lighter than XViD, which in turn is much lighter than h.264), it’s just that PC’s Quicktime somehow sucks with it.

These days, I am preparing a laptop to give to my mom. She’s 54, she’s never used a computer before, but she wants to learn. So I’m thinking of giving her my HP 1120NR netbook (1.6 Ghz Atom, 1 GB RAM, 16 GB flash storage, 1024×576 res, latest well-configured Ubuntu). I have already left with her the last time I was in Greece my Kodak Z1275 too. It’s a digicam with 720/30p recording capabilities at 12 mbps (no manual controls in video mode, not even exposure compensation). I think she would really enjoy shooting pictures and videos with it — something she didn’t do so far since she had no computer to enjoy them (she just has a 14″ TV with no A/V inputs, but she might buy a 32″ HDTV soon).

So while I was preparing that netbook, I also installed PiTiVi, the only easy-to-use GTK+ video editor that can do HD. KDEnLive is a bit overkill for her I think. So while I was testing PiTiVi with Kodak’s MPEG4-SP format, I found that at least ffmpeg/gstreamer were able to playback the format easily, even via a video editor (which usually adds performance constraints to the decoder), and even with the usage of an Atom CPU. And when removing the toolbars and making its UI “fullscreen”, even at a 1024×576 resolution, video editing was very acceptable! Only one screen needs to be trimmed down to fit in that resolution (the Project Properties dialog).

Of course, PiTiVi, has no support for transitions, effects, or titles. It’s just a straight-cutter right now. But for someone like my mom, I think that would be good enough. It’s fast for the specific video format, somewhat stable (not amazingly though), and it can export back in a 720/30p format (XViD) that the Atom CPU can handle in real time either via VLC or Totem (720/30p h.264 is too close of a call with that CPU, plus, the latest Ubuntu “unrestricted” ffmpeg package has removed AAC support once again). So I envision a scenario of my mom shooting some video, editing it with PiTiVi, exporting as XViD to a 16 GB SDHC card, deleting the working files to save space in the measly internal storage, and playing back the XViD file from the SDHC card on a (new) HDTV via the HP-2-HDMI dongle (if I ever find to buy it, since it’s a rare hardware addon for that netbook model).

As for still pictures, I’m excited about the new F-Spot that features basic image manipulation tools.

Not sure if she will ever manage to learn all that stuff, since she can hardly use her Nokia S40 cellphone, but hey, why not? JBQ’s grandmother learned how to use a PC with Vista at her mid-70s, so it’s never too late.

Blog License

I have decided to re-license portions of my blog under a “Free” license.

Definitions

“Me”, “My”, “I”, “Myself” means Eugenia Loli.
“You” means an individual or entity exercising rights under the Licenses mentioned below.

Details

1. The actual blog posts’ text that I have written (not including quotes by other publications) is licensed under the Creative Commons “Attribution” 3.0 license.

2. The blog comments’ text that I have written (not including quotes by others) is licensed under the Creative Commons “Attribution” 3.0 license.

3. The blog comments written by people other than myself are owned by whoever posted them; I take no responsibility for them, and I claim no ownership over them. I do retain the right to remove them in whole or in part though if I find them offensive, or edit them for clarification (e.g. fixing a bad link).

4. Embedded videos, audio, or Flash applets are owned by whoever created them, and are governed by their respective licenses.

5. a. Pictures/images that are obviously not shot or created by me (e.g. PR shots of a product, celebrities etc), or that are already mentioned to be under a different license, are owned by whoever created them and are governed by their respective licenses.
b. Pictures or images that I did shoot/create but feature recognizable people, or recognizable trademarked products/logos, or artistic works (e.g. collage) are “all rights reserved” by me.
c. The rest of the pictures/images in the “Recipes” category, and all other eligible pictures/screenshots/images that I have obviously shot or created myself are under the Creative Commons “Attribution” 3.0 license.
d. If in doubt, send me an email. If I’m dead, or I don’t respond to your email within a week, use your best judgment.

6. Especially for blog articles that are obvious product reviews, you must also clearly mention the date of the original publication as shown below, if you are going to copy them away.

Important Notes

1. The Creative Commons “Attribution” 3.0 license’s legal code states that: “You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author’s honor or reputation“. I plan to exercise this right in all the common sense ways, but also please note the following: for the articles that are obviously “tutorials” or “recipes”, feel free to do whatever you like with them (to the extent that the license allows). I encourage enrichment/corrections/etc on my tutorial/recipe articles. But for all the rest of my blog posts/comments, which most of the time represent personal opinions, you have all the rights that the license allows you, including translations, creating derivative works, and even grammar-fixing, BUT, you can’t change the meaning of my writings. Changing the meaning of my writings would be considered “distortion” by me.

2. Regarding this blog’s privacy: to the best of my knowledge, this blog never ran any ads, weird javascript, or other questionable software. However, the two third party statistics services I’ve used might (or might not) collect some information. Take it up with them (StatCounter in the past, and WordPress.com Stats currently).

3. The Creative Commons “Attribution” 3.0 license allows the licensor (me) to define the way he/she wants to be attributed. Here are my wishes:

Originally by Eugenia Loli
eugenia17@NOSPAM.gmail.com
<a href=”original article LINK”>original article TITLE</a> [IF applicable]
Original publication date: [Publication date of the original article goes here]
http://vimeo.com/eugenia [IF you are using a video-related article]

4. My FTC 16 CFR Part 255 disclaimer, for those who need it.

Review: Lady Gaga’s “The Fame Monster”

The second album by Lady Gaga, “The Fame Monster“, was released today. It includes 8 new songs, and one remix. The new album is very electronic, but it also feels more mature too than her previous album. In detail:

* Bad Romance – 8.5/10
* Alejandro – 9/10
* Monster – 9/10
* Speechless – 7/10
* Dance In the Dark – 7.5/10
* Telephone (with Beyonc̩) Р10/10
* So Happy I Could Die – 7.5/10
* Teeth – 8/10

Best moment: The opening of “Alejandro” between 00:25 to 00:42 seconds.

Overall rating: 8.3/10

This places this album on my top-10 favorites for the decade, next to Madonna’s “Confessions on a Dance Floor” album. I know that many of my readers don’t understand my fascination with Madonna and GaGa when 95% of my music is actually alternative rock, but I recognize good pop when I see it, and I try to give it credit when it’s due.

I also bought Adam Lambert’s “For your Entertainment” album, but it’s not as good as GaGa’s (still, some very good pop in there too — “Sleepwalker” is the best song on his album). Rihanna’s & Shakira’s albums (also released today) felt very blunt and un-catchy to me.

Regarding Adam Lambert’s performance at AMAs

The internet is abuzz right now debating if Adam Lambert’s AMA performance was softcore porn or simply somewhat raunchy. During his performance he and a dancer touched his crotch (Madonna did this before), he had male dancers on leash (Madonna did this before), he put his face to another male’s crotch (Madonna did this before), and finally he kissed a same-sex band member (Madonna did this before).

So, everything of what Lambert did on stage last night was already done before (17 years ago, no less). The difference is that what he did was all part of the same number, and that it was broadcasted live in national television (most of what Madonna did was for her live performances only available on VHS/DVD). And when Madonna kissed Britney and Christina on stage it was for the cable MTV channel rather than on a network channel (in the US, there are different rules for networked and cable TV channels).

So basically, what shocked most people is not exactly what Lambert did (since it was all done before), but the fact that it was all that shown on network television within 4 minutes — and rumor has it that ABC did not know of the kiss. But the question really is: was it really that shocking?

In my opinion, no. I found his performance theatrical and entertaining. I was not offended at all. And I don’t really understand why people get offended over real or simulated sex. It’s just sex. It’s something everyone and every living thing does. Why the taboo? Why the shock? My guess is because half of the people who found the performance “offending” are boring puritans, and the other half are homophobes. That’s how I see it.

BTW, Lambert told CNN that his kiss with the male keyboardist was not rehearsed, but I don’t buy that. The keyboardist did not look shocked at all. It was probably not rehearsed at AMAs (and that’s why ABC didn’t know about it), but it was surely agreed with the band. I mean, come on. Lambert will have to play that card and say it was just an impulsive move to avoid future award/TV/show banning. Of course, if TV viewers didn’t get offended that easily he wouldn’t have to lie to do what he wanted to do.

The bottom line is that Lambert is doing his thing one way or another (I never expected anything less from him btw), and just like Madonna, he will use that controversy to build a career. It was a calculated risk he took last night. I would have done the same thing.

The Kodak EasyShare M420

Geeks.com, sent over the consumer Kodak M420 digicam for a quick look.

This is a 10 megapixels camera, shooting at a 3648×2736 resolution. It features a sensor of 1/2.3-inch CCD, a 3.0-inch wide angle color LCD display, a 4x optical zoom, digital image stabilization, 64 MB internal memory, SDHC slot, face detection, high ISO support up to 6400, text and sound tags, records continuous VGA video (640×480) at 30 fps and QVGA video (320 x 240) at 30 fps (MJPEG), and it comes with many scene modes.

According to the specifications it has a Schneider-Kreuznach Variogon lens, 28 – 112 mm (35 mm equiv.), f/2.6 – 5.8, shutter speed of 8-1/1000 sec., auto focus modes at normal, macro, infinity selectable, white balance with auto, daylight, tungsten, fluorescent, open shade options, a flash range of 0.2 – 4.0m at wide, ISO 400; 0.5 – 1.8 m at tele, ISO 400. Flash modes: auto, fill, red eye reduction, off, burst modes: self-timer (2 sec/10sec, 2 shots), burst 3 shots, scene modes: portrait, sport, landscape, close-up, night portrait, night landscape, snow, beach, text/document, fireworks, flower, museum/manner, self-portrait, high-ISO, children, backlight, panning, candlelight, sunset, panorama (right-left), panorama (left-right), blur reduction, program. There’s also AV output with NTSC/PAL selectable support.

The package came with a wall charger, which is pretty rare for Kodak cameras. Charging the battery for the first time took a whopping 7 hours. Battery life was so-so with this camera, mostly because of the large screen it had to power up.

On paper this camera’s abilities look good, but the quality we got out of it was sub-par. As you can see from the sample pictures, there’s fringing, and a very grainy look — reminiscent of interpolated cams. We also found it impossible to focus close enough in our macro shooting experiments. More over, the camera over-exposes like crazy in auto mode. The only good thing about its actual shooting abilities is the wide-angle aspect of the lens.

The ergonomics for the camera are not good either. I usually don’t complain about ergonomics on digicams, but this one is worse than usual. The flash/on-off/shutter buttons are glued next to each other, and more often than not I kept clicking the wrong button. The trash/menu/info buttons are very small and round, and so I needed to use my fingernail to press them — using just the thumb would press the wrong button. The D-pad’s round and stiff nature is as problematic too. Only good thing about the ergonomics was the zoom rocker buttom, which in fact I found it better than in most other digicams.

On the plus side the flash was pretty powerful and had an effect even from pretty far as you can see below in the without and with flash example:

The video mode is very basic (30 fps VGA MJPEG .mov) and there are no manual controls for it. In fact, the only manual control that the camera has is in its “P” mode, where there’s exposure compensation. When manually reducing exposure we were able to shoot a few acceptable pictures that weren’t hopelessly over-exposed.

Overall, I don’t think most people would be happy with this cam. Even every day people who just snap random pictures and don’t care about controls won’t be very happy with it. The pictures produced are too grainy, and the cam over-exposes way too much. If you need a cheap digicam I would suggest the Kodak Z1285 instead, which shoots better pics, has good manual controls when needed, has 720p HD video recording support, and it’s much cheaper too!

Rating: 5/10

Loading Canon digicam/dSLR footage on Avid MC4

From any Canon video dSLR or digicam h.264 format to AVID’s Media Composer 4 (MC4), using the Avid DNxHD intermediate format: step by step tutorial (PC & Mac). For 1080/30p timeline support on MC4 you will additional need the Symphony Nitris DX hardware though.

A preview of my next project

This is a 38-second preview of a music video I shot 1.5 months ago, and it should be completed in December, after we do some necessary re-shoots. The Bay Area artist is Andy Kong, the song is called “Accidental Love Song”, and it’s part of his newly released album “This Beautiful World“.

It was shot with a naked Canon HV20 (just an ND filter was used). The specific “band” scenes you see here were shot in PF24 (at 1/48), but the rest of the video actually has cut-scenes of a little background story we put together. The cut-scenes were shot in 60i, interpolated to 60p, and then slowed-down to 24p (2.5 times).

Edited with Sony Vegas Pro 9, Cineform removed pulldown to 24p, and the following plugins were used: AAV ColorLab, Color Corrector, and a custom Magic Bullet template.