With the new Apple TV, Apple Decides the Living Room Can Wait

by NoFilmSchool // 2 Sep 2010

Yesterday Apple launched a half-dozen new products, including a new Apple TV. Apple is no longer a computer company; they even changed their name from Apple Computer to Apple, Inc. in recognition of this. But while they’re very clearly a mobile devices company, the question that’s been lingering about Apple since they launched their lackluster first-gen Apple TV is whether they are a living room company too. With the new device, we have an answer to that question: “no.”

The new Apple TV is very clearly better than the old one, but as to whether Apple is making a concerted push into your living room, the answer is still “not yet,” or at least “not in earnest.” First of all, let’s take a look at the new and improved features:

• AirPlay. Re-dubbed from “AirTunes,” AirPlay allows you to stream music, photos, and now video straight to the Apple TV from your iPad, iPhone, or Mac.
• Netflix. It’s a pleasant surprise that Apple would include a direct competitor to the iTunes store, given that Netflix subscribers will almost always watch a movie for “free” (included with their monthly subscription) than pay ala carte in iTunes.
• Size and energy use. It’s smaller and uses less energy. I find the latter appealing, but the former isn’t a big deal as it’s going to go alongside much larger components.

Now let’s list some things Apple left on the table:

• iOS. From Apple’s renaming of their iPhone OS to simply “iOS,” many assumed that the operating system would power the next iteration of Apple TV (similar to how Google TV will be powered by Android), which would allow the diminutive box to do more (like run third-party applications). But no.
• Storage. Yes, that’s right, in order to get the price down, Apple has removed all storage from the device (presumably there is some memory for buffering), and so everything must come from the cloud. Considering the previous model included 160GB of storage, this is a significant step back if you’d like to use your set-top box as a media server for files you own.
• 1080p. You’ve got a 1080p display, so what if you want to watch movies at full resolution? No soup for you. The new Apple TV maxes out at 720p, just like the old one.
• A new user interface. They’re now using the same A4 processor that’s found in the iPad, but they didn’t feel the need to refresh the GUI nor give it any new format capabilities (if you have DiVX or Xvid content, you won’t be able to play it on Apple TV).

Despite these omissions, the new Apple TV, unlike the old Apple TV, is a compelling product at an aggressive pricepoint. Case in point: competitor Boxee announced that it will launch for $199, which to me indicates it won’t survive in a market crowded with devices from giants like Apple and Google. Which is not to say that Boxee can’t survive as a company — their software could end up on either or both of these devices, and they may even be a go-to indie source. But priced at $99, Apple TV will become fairly ubiquitous despite its missing features. Meanwhile, streaming box company Roku slashed their prices to $60 (for SD) and $70 (for HD), and Amazon has announced $0.99 TV show purchases (yes, purchases, not rentals, although that depends on your definition of ownership when you purchase DRM’d files).

In summary, the new Apple TV isn’t all that it was rumored to be. Apple could one day try to take over your living room, which they’d do by making elegant TVs, better remote controls (or just deeply-integrated iPads and iPhones), and a full-featured set-top box. I suspect their research shows that the margins in living room electronics aren’t as high as they’d like, which would be one main reason for their restraint. Another reason would be their reliance on studios for content with which to stock iTunes — the same studios that also want to sell TV shows and movies via competing channels, thus making licensing agreements difficult (if Apple is going to replace your set-top box, they’ll need better content deals). But whatever the reason, the new Apple TV does nothing to change Steve Jobs’ characterization of the device as a “hobby” for Apple. And of course, it does nothing to change things for indies, who still need to employ third-parties to get content into iTunes.

What Could a Bestselling Author’s Switch to Self-publishing Mean for Filmmakers?

by NoFilmSchool // 1 Sep 2010

Lately I’ve been reading a number of books for independent creatives — in film, in art, in business — and the one I’m currently working my way through is Linchpin by Seth Godin. As soon as I can find the time I’ll post reviews of these books, most of which I believe are very helpful in planning an independent career — and most of which align very closely with my own manifesto. Recently Godin announced that Linchpin will be the last book he’ll publish “in a traditional way.” For me to say I’m interested in distributing films in a new way is not news. For Godin (who has written twelve bestsellers) to say the same thing, however, is worth noting. And as it turns out, the decisions he’s faced with as an author aren’t much different than the decisions we’re faced with as filmmakers.

Here’s Godin’s description of the book publishing model as it stands today:

Traditional book publishers use techniques perfected a hundred years ago to help authors reach unknown readers, using a stable technology (books) and an antique and expensive distribution system.

Film distribution might not have been “perfected a hundred years ago,” but celluloid itself was invented a hundred years ago, and up until recently film distribution has relied heavily on physical prints. Like books, however, that’s decreasingly the case. Let’s re-purpose Godin’s passage for film:

Traditional film distributors use techniques perfected a hundred years ago to help filmmakers reach unknown viewers, using a stable technology (celluloid) and an antique and expensive distribution system.

What exactly will Godin be doing instead? While he didn’t exactly spell out his future plans on his blog, The Wall Street Journal did:

The author of about a dozen books including “Purple Cow” said he now has so many direct customer relationships, largely via his blog, that he no longer needs a traditional publisher. Mr. Godin plans to release subsequent titles himself in electronic books, via print-on-demand or in such formats as audiobooks, apps, small digital files called PDFs and podcasts. “Publishers provide a huge resource to authors who don’t know who reads their books,” said Mr. Godin in an interview. “What the Internet has done for me, and a lot of others, is enable me to know my readers.”

This is yet another example of an artist/writer/creative cutting out the middle man and selling direct to his followers. But Godin’s blog and his book readership are essentially one and the same. NoFilmSchool, on the other hand, has a readership of independent videomakers and other creatives, but I’m hoping my forthcoming projects will find a wider audience (NFS should be a good starting point, however!). Regardless, when it comes down to it, if you look at the economics of book sales, it’s easy to see why Godin would come to such a conclusion. From Tim Ferris, author of The Four Hour Work Week (another book I read recently, which I recommend highly and will be reviewing soon):

- For a hardcover book, authors typically receive a 10-15% royalty on cover price. This means that for a $20 cover price, the author will receive $2-3.

- For a trade paperback book, authors typically receive around half the royalty of a hard cover. If you are making 15% on your hardcover, you might get 7.5% when it goes to paperback.

In a world where Kindle books are already outselling hardcover books, it’s obvious that switching to selling eGoods direct to your audience can bring in much higher per-unit profits. Shelf space and delivery costs very little — and can cost nothing if you know a few tricks (for those interested, I will be posting a technique for selling eGoods — without paying for “virtual shelf space” from companies like eJunkie — here soon). And once you get your hands on an eReader — whether that be an iPad or something more “primitive” like the Amazon Kindle (I bought a cheap Sony eReader) — you realize you’re never going back to paper books. Once you see a good 4K digital projection — which looks as good the five-hundredth time it’s projected as it does the first, unlike film — I believe the sentiment is the same.

Mitch Joel of Twist Image notes that Godin’s decision is not only relevant for authors, but for others as well, and sums it up thusly:

This isn’t the future of publishing… this is the future of business.

Why is Godin’s decision to cut out the middle man telling for filmmakers? Because movies, like books, are now digital goods. I have a lot of ideas in this space that I can’t wait to bootstrap, but they’re going to be reliant on my first feature film as a test case. So let me just say that I’m reading these books not as a way of procrastinating and avoiding working on said feature (I’m working on it at the same time); I’m reading these books because I’m interested in bringing to life not just a creatively successful film, but also a commercially successful one. The challenge for independent filmmakers today is twofold: one, to make a good film (duh), and two, to find a way to derive real value from that film. So when I say “commercially successful,” I don’t mean “it has to make a lot of money” — my version of a successful film is one that finds an audience and creates self-sustaining revenue for its creators. In the self-distribution space today, this seems all too rare.

Could Gmail Priority Inbox Kill Email Marketing?

by NoFilmSchool // 31 Aug 2010

I’ve been using a number of Gmail Labs features in an effort to prioritize and filter incoming email, and I’ve settled on a system that has allowed me greater freedom from constant email-checking. But my techniques — which rely primarily on the add-on Multiple Inboxes — are by no means infallible. Thus I found myself intrigued by Google’s announcement today of Priority Inbox, which automagically sorts your email by importance. This is a big deal for any Gmail user, but I wonder if it might create a third category of email just above “spam.” I also wonder if the emails of filmmakers are going to frequently find themselves in this third, deprioritized category.

Here’s Google’s requisite launch video:

To date, most email users are accustomed to a filtering system that, by default, divides all incoming mail into two categories. One is “spam,” which we all know as the junk email that used to choke our inboxes but is now generally under control with most decent email services (Gmail, I find, is almost flawless — there is no need for anyone to publicize their email address as “something [at] whatever [dot] com” anymore). We don’t even read spam, as it goes to a folder that’s automatically emptied periodically. The second category of email is sometimes referred to as “ham” — emails that are “real meat,” not some imitation crap. These are the emails we actually read. But Priority Inbox essentially adds a third automatic category — let’s call it, uh, “pam.” With Priority Inbox, we’ll answer the ham immediately, but the pam could — man, am I really going here? — not stick. Meaning, Priority Inbox users — which will presumably make up the bulk of Gmail users (and if it proves popular, you can bet other email services will roll out similar features) — could start relying on the intelligence of the system, and just not view pam emails very much (or at all). For filmmakers, who often send mass emails about a new release or fundraising initiative, I wonder what effect Priority Inbox might have on open rates, clickthrough, etc. In general I assume Priority Inbox is going to assign the greatest weight to personal emails, which could have some interesting implications for email marketers. Which is to say, if your emails find themselves most often grouped among other newsletters and impersonal material, will they be viewed as much as they are now, when they are grouped in with notes from significant others?

There’s a lot more to wonder about the system — does it assign “global importance,” which would allow you to juke the stats (i.e. tell all your friends to mark your emails as important, and then you’ll be able to better get through to strangers), or is it simply filtering on an individual basis? How much training does it need? Will it be enabled by default?

The proof, of course, is in the pudding — wait, what does that even mean? — oh, the phrase is supposed to be “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.” I suppose that means that the proof of Priority Inbox is in the emailing. Regardless of your email provider, however, Priority Inbox is certainly something to keep tabs on, both as an email user and as a filmmaker/networker/marketer. In related news, a NoFilmSchool email subscription will be launching soon!

Priority Inbox will be rolled out “over the course of the next week.”

[via TechCrunch]

How to Get Macro Close-ups with Any Lens

by NoFilmSchool // 30 Aug 2010

Caleb Pike of DSLR Video Shooter has posted a nice tutorial for turning any old lens into a Macro lens. This process consists of attaching a diopter to the front of your lens, which allows you to focus on objects much closer to the camera than before. Note that these diopters — which come in different strengths — can be “stacked” to allow for maximum effect. Caleb explains the process and then shares some example shots:

Thanks for cranking out the jams on the end there, Caleb!

The lenses he’s referencing can be found at B&H, they are Hoya Close-Up Kits (which consist of a +1, +2, and +4 diopter packaged together).

[via FilmmakerIQ]

Canon Updating EOS E1 Plugin for 60D, Multi-Core Support

by NoFilmSchool // 30 Aug 2010

How are you transcoding your DSLR video these days? If you’re editing in Premiere Pro CS5, are you even transcoding at all? No matter your NLE, there are several options for transcoding, like Magic Bullet Grinder, the still-in-beta 5DtoRGB, and Canon’s own EOS Movie Plugin-E1 for Final Cut Pro. It looks like Canon’s going to be adding some interesting features to their free solution:

EOS Movie Plug-in-E1 for Final Cut Pro version 1.1 will add to the recently released Plug-in-E1 by providing support for the Canon EOS 60D, the latest addition to the EOS range. The plug-in will allow users to view metadata and EXIF data for movie files. It will also provide support for multi-core processing, allowing even faster conversations with the latest generation of Macs.

Wait, the old version didn’t support multiple cores? Well that’s certainly a feature worth upgrading for. The plugin isn’t yet released, but it should be here next month. In the meantime, why not try out the free beta of 5DtoRGB, which claims higher quality output than Canon’s solution?

[via DPreview]