jump to navigation

Deptford.TV diaries out now! December 30, 2006

Posted by deptfordtv in : news , 1 comment so far

Happy new Year! The Deptford.TV diaries reader is out now:

Deptford.TV is an audio-visual documentation of the regeneration process of Deptford (south-east London) in collaboration with SPC.org media lab, Bitnik.org, Boundless.coop, Liquid Culture and Goldsmiths College.

Since September 2005 we started assembling AV material around the area, asking community members, video artists, film-makers, visual artists and students to contribute statements, feedback and critique of the regeneration process of Deptford.

The unedited as well as edited media content is being made available on the Deptford.TV database and distributed over the Boundless.coop wireless network. The media is licensed through open content licenses such as Creative Commons and the GNU general public license.

This book is a compilation of theoretical underpinnings, interviews and written documentation of the project.

Contributors: Adnan Hadzi, Maria X, Heidi Seetzen, James Stevens, Erol Ziya, Bitnik media collective, Andrea Pozzi, Andrea Rota and Jonas Andersson, alongside selected public-license texts from Hakim Bey, Jaromil and Guy Debord.

To order (5GBP for book, 10GBP for book & DVD) send an email to info@deptford.tv, go to openmute, Amazon  or download it for free here:

http://www.deptford.tv/about/diaries/DeptfordTV-diaries1.pdf
http://www.deptford.tv/about/diaries/DeptfordTV-diaries1-cover.pdf

Deptford.TV diaries interviews December 30, 2006

Posted by deptfordtv in : regeneration , add a comment

watch video here

Open Knowledge 1.0, 17th March 2007 December 30, 2006

Posted by deptfordtv in : news , add a comment

Open Knowledge 1.0
Saturday 17th March 2007
Limehouse Town Hall

http://www.okfn.org/okforums/okcon/

Discussions of ‘Open Knowledge’ often end with licensing wars: legal arguments, technicalities, and ethics. While those debates rage on, Open Knowledge 1.0. will concentrate on two pragmatic and often-overlooked aspects of Open Knowledge: atomisation and commercial possibility.

Atomisation on a large scale (such as in the Debian ‘apt’ packaging system) has allowed large software projects to employ an amazing degree of decentralised, collaborative and incremental development. But what other kinds of knowledge can be atomised? What are the opportunities and problems of this approach for forms of knowledge other than Software?

Atomisation also holds a key to commercial opportunity: unrestricted access to an ever-changing, atomised landscape of knowledge creates commercial opportunities that are not available with proprietary
approaches. What examples are there of commercial systems that function with Open Knowledge, and how can those systems be shared?

Bringing together Open threads from Science, Geodata, Civic Information and Media, Open Knowledge 1.0 is an opportunity for people and projects to meet, talk and build things.

Each thread will have speakers to set the scene, with the rest of theday divided between open space formats and workshop activities.

If you have a presentation or a workshop you would like to give in the open space, or you would like to help organise Open Knowledge 1.0, please get in touch.

Atomization: the Fourth Principle of Open Data Development ==========================================================
Consider the way software has evolved to be highly atomized into
packages/libraries. Doing this allows one to "divide and
conquer" the organizational and conceptual problems of highly
complex systems. Even more importantly it allows for greatly increased
levels of reuse.

A request to install a single given package can result in the
automatic discovery and installation of all packages on which that one
depends. The result may be a list of tens  or even hundreds of
packages in a graphic demonstration of the way in which computer
programs have been broken down into interdependent components.

Atomization on a large scale (such as in the Debian apt packaging
system) has allowed large software projects to employ an amazing
degree of decentralised, collaborative and incremental development.
But what other kinds of knowledge can be atomised? What are the
opportunities and problems of this approach for forms of knowledge
other than Software?

Atomization also holds a key to commercial opportunity: unrestricted
access to an ever-changing, atomised landscape of knowledge creates
commercial opportunities that are not available with proprietary
approaches. What examples are there of commercial systems that
function with Open Knowledge, and how can those systems be shared?

OKFN is supporting software allowing the incremental, decentralised,
collaborative and atomised production of open data. KnowledgeForge is
one Open Knowledge Foundation project to provide a platform for
collaborative data development and distribution. The "Open
Shakespeare" project is a prototype distribution of public domain
information with utilities for annotating and cross-referencing it.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Letter from Geospatial: Open Standards, Open Data, Open Source
==============================================================

The "open standards, open data, open source" mantra is not unique to
the geospatial community, but is core to it. Due to our high degree of
specialisation, socialisation and closeness to data, the open source
geospatial community has "incubated" some concerns that are coming to
be apparent in domains where software, knowledge and scientists are
not yet so close together.

Our standards consortium is like a networking club for proprietary
interests; its recent specifications are baggy monsters, filled with
extensions largely concerning access rights, limits and payment
mechanisms. Their older, core standards for RESTful web services *are*
widely used, and have helped the geospatial community to a new level
of "interoperability", as it is still quaintly known.

The new wave of web-based "neogeography" drove the development of
community-based specifications for the simple exchange of geographic
information have become de facto standards. There has been an
implementation-driven focus from open source projects seeking to make
it easier to contribute, distribute and maintain open licensed
geographic information. Now our standards organisation has the bright
idea of a "mass market", "lightweight" standards programme to harness
the energy in this activity. Their established membership, with a lot
of time vested in the matter, are not happy with this.

In the decision-making bodies following the advice of traditional
domain experts, much issue is made of "discovery", "catalog services"
and "service discovery services". Among the "grassroots" at the nexus
of open source, open standards and open data there is a call for a
"geospatial web" approach, re-using as much as possible existing
distribution mechanisms and toolkits, RSS/Atom in particular.

ISO standards for information exchange are not solving the problems
faced by the geospatial community. Yet they are being embedded in
international law; "risk management" and disaster recovery provide a
big political drive for exchanging more geographic information.
Through the Open Source Geospatial Foundation, the community is
attempting to influence decision-making bodies through the strength of
the open source / open data approach. "Open" standards are a gateway
to this, and it is a sad day when our official specification for
metadata exchange is an "add to my shopping basket" page.

There's always a lack of emphasis on contribution; transaction and
feedback are an afterthought. The traditional theory of "Public
Participation GIS" comes closer to implementable reality.
"Collaborative mapping" projects producing open licensed data are
becoming the stuff of business plans. The ISO moves in glacial time;
it would be of benefit to shorten the circuit.

How can we bring good status to "complementary specifications"?
Can we use open source software to influence decision-makers?
Can we help provide a good data licensing precedent for others?
Do our distributed storage and query problems look like yours?

future of film, 5th march 2007 December 30, 2006

Posted by deptfordtv in : news , add a comment

1. General outline http://www.londonwestside.com/

The film and television industry is changing, but not fast enough. While
studios take fewer risks, fall back on old formulas and find their
traditional markets drying up, new, vibrant cultures and markets for
film are exploding all over the Internet: from video podcasting and
peer-to-peer networks to mobile media, live streaming and interactive
environments. For those with the imagination, curiosity, and passion for
film, there are more opportunities and niches for film-making than ever.

This four day programme will introduce film producers to emerging
techniques and technologies for creating, distributing and promoting
film on the Net. Mixing hands-on training with master-class
presentations, open discussions and public screenings, the focus will
shift from technological developments to creative potentials, and
crucially, to the economic realities: how to actually survive and make
money with all this stuff.

By taking these discussions and learning resources on-line through the
workshop website, the programme will create an ongoing forum for
information sharing and networking, and a showcase for the work of
participants.

———————————————————————

2 General Outline for workshops

Video blogging, alternative distribution, peer-to-peer: these are
phrases that set the TV, Film and music industry quaking in their
boots… but needlessly. Like ‘home taping’, VCRs and DVD recorders,
these technologies are not bogeymen, they are business opportunities.
These workshops will focus on how to create, promote, fund and
distribute film totally on-line, without the cumbersome middlemen of the
distributors and promoters – until your film gains sufficient notoriety
for it to go mainstream, of course!

2.1 Technical Workshop (Adnan Hadzi)
The workshop will introduce participants to tools, technologies and available services for encoding, uploading and sharing their films and video blogs online using free and open source software such as Broadcast Machine (RSS feed, Democracy Player, iTunes Vodcast, Bittorrent) and DyneBolic.
Participants will also be shown how to use x.264 technology (portable video devices iPod, sony PSP, Archor etc.) in order to encode and prepare their movies, in conjunction with encoding tools that they can download and take home.

2.2 Production Workshop (Penny Nagle)
The production workshop will introduce participants (briefly) to the
terminology and areas of interest they’ll need to understand to manage
projects in this area. It will then delve into the business issues
involved in using p2p technologies – the advantages, dangers, and
possibilities it opens up. There will also be an overview of the kinds
of business models that are flourishing online, with examples of
cross-overs between established film-industry and new, emerging markets
in online distribution.

DocAgora & Dyne:Bolic stable December 30, 2006

Posted by deptfordtv in : news, tools , add a comment

Amsterdam, 1st, December, 2006, Jaromil presented a script with with the GRUB loader can be automatically installed on a memory stick. Dyne:Bolic 2 is out in a stable version, working from a memory stick, making us ready to test Cinelerra from virtually any PC with broadband connection!

 

During the same week the DocAgora conference took place in Amsterdam. A follow up conference will take place on http://www.d-word.com in the week of the 19th of February 2007.

DOCAGORA NOTES 30/11/2006

General Intro by moderator Peter Broderick:
People talk about the coming transformation of documentary filmmaking
and distribution under the influence of new web-based media. I say the
transformation is already upon us. Yochai Benkler (sp?) writes in the
?Weatlh of Networks? that there is a shift in economic systems from
hierarchies to networks, and this has far-reaching repercussions for
doc film distribution. First in the late ?90s there was the changes
engendered by digital film production, now we see changes as a result
of digital distribution.

It leads first to reconceptualising the idea of the Audience:
filmmakers who have been successful in digital distribution have
usually found a loyal niche target audience first, and only reached a
wider audience later. Filmmakers should now think about a distribution
strategy from day one of the project.

Working relationships with the distributors will take a more hibrid
character. Filmmakers will work more as partners rather than
supplicants and will allways keep a slice of the rights. In case of
political and social documentaries filmmakers can do public
screenings, networking events. This way filmmakers turn consumers into
potential patrons and mentors and I believe that filmmakers will have
greater control then ever before. The challenges for distributors and
funding bodies are going to be greater, especially for distributors
who will loose their role as gate keepers to the audience and will
have to work more as partners and mediators. Funding bodies are also
have to be more flexible to allow hibrid funding models.

Panel One

Introduction of moderator frank boyd who is ex BBC and is a producer
with unexpected media. Frank boyd shows a graph of two waves of
technological innovation, the first wave in which digital and analogue
technologies co-exist and digital technology is used to enhance
anaogue content. Many big media companies have been successful in
using this technologies. But in the second interface in which both the
media and the interface are digital entirely new plattforms are being
created.

Some statistics:
25% was the audience share of bbc 1 in july 2006, this was at the time
of the world cup and I believe this will be the last time one
broadcaster will have such a share.
62% of media consumed by people under 26 is made by people they know
personally.
0.03% of content on tech blogs is sourced from mainstream media

so what are established media doing in this situation? According to
Roger Graef, TV is retreating, increasingly playing it safe. What
about VPRO?

Stan van Engelen (VPRO): the space and resources for docs are on the
way down in public TV. VPRO started ?Holland Doc? two years ago to
find other audiences for films. It started as a digital TV channel and
still runs as a linear channel on the web.

FB: how is Fourdocs different from YouTube?
Emily Renshaw-Smith (FourDocs, UK): Channel4 recognized that as a
public broadcaster we?d have to recognize there?s new platforms and
that we have to engage with them. Fourdocs is a curated space, unlike
YouTube ? anyone can upload films but they are rated by us and by the
viewers, and we insist on legal compliance, which only helps the
filmmakers in the long run.
We get about 30 new films per month and 60% of our audience is outside
the UK.
We don?t pay for films, but neither do we claim rights; the filmmakers
can always sell the films on.
For Channel 4 it is a way for talentspotting new directors ? in two
cases it has lead to commissions on the main channel, but we?ve done
some research and the majority of our contributors are hobbyists who
are not interested in using it for career development.
FB: does it provide opportunities for professional filmmakers?
Filmmakers have used it to upload trailers to look for further
financing.

Huub Roelvink ? CinemaNet
We are now busy with a new project which is called Cinema
Delicatessen, which is a follow-up of DocuZone. CinemaNet helps to
create technical access to digital cinema by helping cinemas to
acquire digital cinema equipment and then screen digitally ditributed
content. Our threshold, like in any cinema distribution, is quite
high, so I guess I am a kind of a gatekeeper.

FB: so far the models have been ?updates? of existing distribution
models ? what about other ways of using digital distribution
altogether?
Gillan Caldwell ? director of ?Witness?:
Witness has always used AV media to create political change, and to
expose human rights abuses. We use the term ?video advocacy? and do
not produce for broadcast, although some productions have made it to
broadcast. One important aspect of our work is to create targeted
screenings for decision makers, and in many cases we have seen a
direct effect in the form of a policy change soon after such a
screening.
We are now working on the next level of using digital distribution by
making a human rights video hub, where activists can post and exchange
audiovisual material, even raw footage. It will come with downloadable
?tactical media toolkits? to help activists in production.
Witness also uses YouTube and similar sites to further distribute some
of our titles, and oru recent report on torture by CIA trained
mercenaries is the most downloaded long-form video on YouTube.

Katherine Cizek ? indie filmmaker
I?ve been hugely inspired by the work of Witness: documentary has
always been hitched to the TV wagon, but now we are in a position to
experiment with new forms. This means that the filmmaker?s
realtionship with the audience changes, but also the relationship with
the subject changes: I am a filmmaker-in-residence at an inner city
hospital in Toronto, sponsored by the Canadian Film Board: and rather
than produce a long form doc, I?m working with the community to create
media content for a form of interactive online documentary (demo: this
is full screen in Flash!). So people ask if it can still be called
documentary, but I think documentary is about giving voice to unheard
viewpoints, in whatever form, so that?s exactly what I?m doing and I
call it documentary.

FB: so we come to the question: what makes docs possible? When it is
supported by public funding there is always the connection to idea of
public service. My question to Google is inspired by a quote from Tim
Berners-Lee, who said he was concerned by the ease with which lies are
propagated in unmoderated space. Does this concern Google?

Sydney Mock ? Google Benelux: Google has always said it is not a
content company, it is a technology company, so on the internet  it is
like in the real world: you have to check your sources, and ultimately
it?s about trust in the source.
One successful example of the use of Google video is Fabchannel.com:
musicians connected to Paradiso webcasting their gigs here to the
world ? they put trailers up on Google Video to promote the webcasts.

FB: how about revenue ? could filmmakers get revenue via Google?
SM: there?s different models how that could be done: one is Adsense,
in which publishers can run Google ads on their own websites and share
revenue.

FB: well I was recently in a conference on interactive TV in the UK
and the consensus was that we?re still in the R+D phase.

Cay Wesnigk (from the audience): the rollback of the revolution is
already underway: the internet haas created new monopolies ? and how
many places will you be able to upload video in a few years? time? Who
will own the portals?

Heather Croall (from the audience): distributors are now looking at
making their own ?curated channels? on their own websites.

Sydney Mock: I don?t agree with the idea of the lock-in effect Cay is
referring to: you don?t have to log in on Google Video, it?s free to
use it or not and in the end it?s about trust in the brand that the
user chooses.

Huub Roelvink ? CinemaNet
CinemaNet can be used directly by filmmakers, so it could serve as an
alternative.

Adnan Hadzi (from the audence); I just want to mention that there is
an initiative called ?Google eats itself?, which involves setting up
google ads and clicking on them and using the revenue to buy Google
shares ? eventually the whole company could belong to the users.

Q from the audience to FourDocs: what is the benefit of Forudocs to
the filmmakers other than exposure? For instance a not unsimilar
initiative from the Knitting Factory in NYC became a fiasco because
the musicians felt they were strong-armed into participating and felt
they weren?t paid for having their material up on the web.

Emily Renshaw-Smith (FourDocs, UK): we?re not claiming rights on the
material, we see it as a way for filmmakers to develop their career.
But we?re also looking at a couple of shared revenue models that might
work for us, like Revver or the way 3 mobile shares with users hwo
upload mobile content.

FB: another place to look at is BBC Innovation labs. I also want to
mention how new consumers expect you to come to them: broadcasters are
no longer the centre, but the individual consumer is.

Witness: we also are interested in giving the users access to content
whenever and wherever.

FB: I think the Submarine online TV channel is an interesting attempt
to create a kind of online broadcasting company. But what do people
actually watch? How do you get them to watch something they don?t know
about already in advance ? soemthing they don?t know they want to see?

Mercury Media (from the audience): we made a film called Loose Change
and we tried to sell it to broadcasters, but were rejected. Then we
put it up on YouTube and become the most downloaded film ever and now
we have sold it to two broadcasters ? after it proved it had an
audience.
{The_D-Word.Community.11.792}: Lennaart Van Oldenborgh {lenn} Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:27:49 EST (221 lines)

hello here’s the other half of the notes all nicely typed even if at
times they don’t really make sense to me either… enjoy

PANEL 2 DOCAGORA, IDFA 30 NOV 2006

Is moderated by Peter Broderick, focuses more on financing and revenue
models. PB asks all participants to introduce themselves in under 2
minutes.

Marc Goodchild ? BBC Interactive:
I work for the BBC but have been an indie producer and what I do may
be relevant to indie producers in two ways: 1) in their realtoin to
the BBC, and 2) as content owners in their own right.
What I do at the BBC is to think about opening up and reusing the
substantial BBC archives in interactive applications. Rather than just
make old programs available, I?m trying to structure the content
differently in an interactive environment. Here?s an example form our
parenting interactive site: all the content is parcelled up into small
chanks and given extensive metadata, so if you click through
?personality? and ?age group 6-12 months? you get an auto-created
assembly of material relevant to that topic, from different sources.
It is a way of seeing the archive not just as films but as content.

Gerry Flahive ? Canadian Film Board:
Apart from the usual film projects, we also fund younger web-based
filmmakers, and projects such as Katerina Cizek?s. For examples see
citizenshift.org.ca

Klara Grunning-Harris ? ITVS
Sums up the ITVS mission

Maria Silvia Gatta ? MEDIA distribution EU
Sums up MEDIA mission and newly approved MEDIA 2007 program
Among others MEDIA supports ?RealPort? online distribution and Midas
network of film archives.

Patrick Crowe of Xinephile Media, Canada
Is indie producer in Toronto, working with doc in linear and non-
linear form, engaged with broadcasting model but also interactive
programming. Example: Beethoven?s Hair: the online part is nota
?companion? site to the film but a serious part of the production
itself.

Stefano Portu ? Buongiorno! Italy
Gives intro on mobile video market ? 3G, or UMTS, is most mature in UK
and Italy (in Europe). Buongiorno! Provides ?snackable video? for the
?interstitial spaces in our busy schedules?, mainly sports,
celebrities and news.

James Fabricant ? head of myspace UK+Ireland
Describes Myspace as the new portal based on a social network

Robert Greenwald gives a prerecorded statement on the financing of
?Iraq for Sale?:
Three months before production the money still wasn?t there, they
decide to put out an open call on the internet and a ?thermometer?
with the target budget on the website and within three months they
raise around 350k dollars from the public.

PB: can we hear more about the issues that MEDIA is concerned about
when funding digital distribution?

MSG: main issues are:
- how to secure content? MEDIA exists to stimulate an industry so it
is in the interest of MEDIA that the actors in this industry can
survive. Hence digital rights management is a core issue
- differences in the rules between regions in the way they set up
local funding get in the way of a system that can transcend these
boudaries
- also: since the web is a global system does it still make sense to
stimulate specifically European content?

JF: MySpace is used for viral marketing of films, we call it ?mass
roots marketing? ? example is the ?lovemap? distribution model of the
Four Eyed Monsters site.

KGH ? ITVS:
We support an online film festival: the winners are broadcast on
?independent lens? slot

MG ? BBC: what digital distribution does is create communities of
interest: if we want to speak to these communities we have to be more
like hosts and less like auteurs. Example: joiningthedots.tv
Also: cycling TV is effectively a digital TV channel run on 60k with
very specific content and a very specific audience which allows
smaller companies to advertise in a very targeted way. So we can think
about financing in terms of ?symbiotic revenue splits?.

SP ? Buongiorno:
In the beginning mobile content was spun off from mainstream content
but this was not very succesful. So now we have two other forms:
1. interactive content: you have to get people to do something every
few minutes otherwise people feel stupid string at such a small screen
2. user generated content: for example we get football fans to submit
little clips from the football grounds about the match or to do a song
or a stupid joke.

Q from audience: what about mixed funding?
GF: well in canada the networks have no online strategy at all ?
they?ll try anyting for a while so there?s opportunities for
filmmakers.

Adnan hadzi: two comments:
- only some forms of distribution are measured, for instance peer2peer
filesharing is not measured so download figures don?t necessarily
represent how many people see something
- question for the BBC: what about rights, for instance in the case of
the BBC Creative Archives?

MG:
Well I don?t speak for the creative archives that?s another dept., but
in general I think we should think more in terms of ?windowing? of
rights for the broadcaster, and that after each such window rights
revert to the content maker

Q from audience:
What about royalties?

PB: like I said before, never sign away all digital download rights

PANEL 3

Moderator: Peter Wintonick
Begins a rant on gadgets, quotes Octavio Paz on technology and quotes
Philip K Dick?s definition of reality: ?that which if you stop
believing in it doesn?t go away?

But first Heather Croall?s report on Panel2:
- canadian film board and ITVS are traditional funders continuing with
their existing parctice which is to stimulate underrepresented voices
- there IS money for cross-platform funding but only if you live in
canada or australia: in these places TV and ?new media? funding can
trigger eachother, multiplying the cash
- what the BBC does is more about ?re-purposing? content
- a new EU commission policy paper on digital rights management has
recently been published and can be found via MEDIA website

so now panel 3 for real which is called a ?brainstorm?

first: Pat Aufderheide ? centre for social media, school of journalism
what can we teach our students about tomorrow?s world?
Example: rights issues ? we published ?best practice in fair use?,
because copyright is about liberating tomorrow?s creators ? our slogan
?you don?t have to pirate stuff in order to quote it?
Broadcasting hasn?t changed all that much ? you get the same kind of
negotiations that you had 20 years ago. But now we have in addition to
that new enterprises that provide new paradigms: according to these
- you don?t have audiences but you have partners, networks, contacts
- rather than a film director you become a ?strategic designer of a
project? in which film is only part of the project. This is also not
entirely new: most filmmakers in IDFA also think of themselves as
social actors
Both models live side by side at the moment, and I predict that new
mediators will arise between the two: not every filmmaker wants to be
a strategic designer of a project.
I would also want to raise the question: what will public media look
like?

PW: waxes lyrical about Aljazeera
Flora Gregory ? Aljazeera London, ex-indie producer
Aljazeera English is a new channel, started just a few weeks ago.
It?s based on an odd funding model: it?s paid for by the Qatari
government, so it?s public service and has no advertising, but it?s
very divers, with a very international labour force, and it wants to
encourage different POVs
It is a news channel but has a major doc strand called Witness: a
daily 22 min. slot, which is commissions and acquisitions, and a
weekly 43 min. slot which is for now only acquisitions.

Aljazeera is an odd combination of the old and the new: it?s very much
built in the traditional BBC/ CNN mould: studio hosted, and with
traditional journalistic storytelling.

Cameron Hickey ? indie producer Pattern Films
Presented ?docsite? which is a free tool for creating websites for
filmmakers.

PW: Sheffield ?meet-market? was an example how half the process of
connecting filmmakers with CEs was conducted online.

Adnan hadzi introduces Djaromil, creator of dyne.bolic ? see dyne.org
Djaromil: you can also think about funding from the other side: to be
less dependent on expensive technology ? after all the less you need
the richer you are ont eh same budget. On dyne.org you can find free
open source tools for production and distribution of video.
Another great advantage of open source is in longevity: you are not
dependent on formats that are corporate owned and that can be
discontinued and be left without any software supporting it. Open
source will always be adapted so it gives you long term archiving
security.

Announcement from audience: filmmakers in Sheffield got together and
started a distribution platform for docs called docutube.com

Q from audience: what about using archive in films you want to post ?
do you have to own all the rights?
A: well we don?t really have an answer but in the end you can always
leave black holes where the archive goes with a description and then
put it in for broadcasts.

Emily from Fourdocs: on our site films are on a Creative Commons
licence, so they can be quoted freely.

Pat Afderheide: we also did a study on agreements about rights called
?the new deals?

Comment from audience: there ARE already models from the music
business, which has struggled with these issues a while ago. Also:
some of these supposed ?free platforms? actually claim copyrights on
posted material and may be extracting value in the long term so
they?re not as free as they look.

Q from audience: surely we can?t all finance our films striaght from
the public like Robert Greenwald?
Peter Broderick: there?s also models not so similar to Greenwald?s:
for example patrons, small loyal audiences could support sertain work
and certain filmmakers. But I believe that overall we are moving to an
era where filmmakers can be truly independent.

End on Peter Wintonick riff.

Deptford.TV workshops Phase II October – December 2006 December 30, 2006

Posted by deptfordtv in : news, research , add a comment

The Deptford.TV workshops entered phase II. For the first time we started to use the database content directly in the editing suites. We used the commercial software Avid Xpress Pro as well as Final Cut Pro and imported the x.264 (x.264) files. Avid had problems with the importing of the files, they all came out asynchronous, forcing us to export and import the sounds seperately.

The next test will be with http://cinelerra.org embedded in the http://dynebolic.org live cd. Our goal is to have the editing process running on FLOSS software by spring / summer next year!

The films where premiered on the pirate boat (mind-sweeper) together with the presentation of our partners, bitnik’s Download Finished system.

stricly for true file-sharers & river bound culture vagabonds, YARRR!

 

- the premiere of the film “Strategies of Sharing”

- the premiere of four shorts “Pipes”, “streetworks”,

“Bookie Talks”, “Living Archive”

- and the premiere of “DOWNLOAD FINISHED”

 

friday 24th of november

screening starts 9pm

 

RSVP essential – places are limited – please book in advance by sending

email to info@deptford.tv !

 

media collective bitnik and sven koenig:

DOWNLOAD-FINISHED ­ MAKE PEER-2-PEER CINEMA!

 

DOWNLOAD-FINISHED is an assistant to transform and re-publish films from

p2p networks and online archives. found footage becomes rough material

for the transformation machine, translating data structure of the films

onto the surface of the screen. the original pictures dissolve into

pixels and overlap into a second layer, the hidden structure gets

visible. file-sharers are becoming authors through DOWNLOAD-FINISHED and

re-interpret their most beloved films.

 

it is the premiere of DOWNLOAD-FINISHED.

www.download-finished.com – the art of file-sharing

 

WARNING, entering of the premises on your own risk: be aware that you

will have to “squeeze” through the entrance gate (but we informed the

police and the owners of the industrial estate, set up a sign

“mindsweeper” and will set you guiding lights to the boat, so that you

get there…)

transmission.cc, 13-15 october 2006, london, limehouse December 30, 2006

Posted by deptfordtv in : news, tools , 1 comment so far

At the transmission festival one of the discussions was around FLOSS manual (see also http://www.flossmanuals.net) the importance of documenting multimedia tools. One of the projects dealing with manuals is http://converge.org.uk looking at video distribution of the x.264 codec (vodcasts). We decided to hold a follow up event at the Limehouse on April 27, 2007.

(quoted from http://transmission.cc/About)

 

Re-transmission was a three day gathering of video makers, programmers and web producers developing online video distribution as a tool for social justice and media democracy. The two events at the British Film Institute were made up of presentations and screenings, firstly exploring citizen video reporting on the Net, secondly discussing how to collaborate and share content on the net in the new era of Open Source and WebTV. For the full Re-transmission program see

http://retransmission.org.uk

 

for documentation of the event see:

http://www.archive.org/details/retransmission the film

 

http://wiki.transmission.cc/index.php/London%2C_October_2006 the wiki

http://www.dgen.net/blog/index.php/2006/04/01/online-video-10-years-in/

 

Metadata process update

 

Thanks to some funding from the alt-media-res project, we now have a draft metadata standard PDF prepared by JJ King and Jan Gerber:

 

This report and proposal is under consultation within Transmission-connected networks until Monday November 6th;

 

We are looking for substantive responses, feedback, proposals, in particular direct inputs from the other Transmission working groups – eg Translation/Subtitling, DoNoHarm, Aggregator R&D, Documentation….

 

I am posting summaries of responses in the wiki and hope that people with experience of this field of work can suggest practical ways forward to finalise and then begin to implement the standard.

 

After 6th November we will gather the working group together to review and improve the schema, spec out next steps etc. please add to and improve the metadata to do list

 

As part of this process, JJ King and I have drafted a proposal for implementation of this standard.

 

28th October 2006 (zoe)

 

http://wiki.transmission.cc/index.php/Responses_to_draft_schema

http://www.shiftspace.cc/j/meta/tx_report_0.2.pdf

http://www.clearerchannel.org/transwiki/index.php?title=Proposal_for_further_funding_for_implementation_of_RDF_schema