Who wants to get their own video made?

[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by MadmanDarkHeretic

This really sounds ridiculous. Does anyone really think quality video projects show up for 100 bucks? Those comics that get sold around here usually cost the creator more than that per page.

Did it really need a thread in almost every board on the forum? This is straight up sales spam, meant to lure as many folks as possible to opening their wallet. Could you at least keep it to one thread?

You know, the problem is that I worry that General Discussion tends to get ignored by a lot of people who are only here for content--which would be the kind of people who might actually commission a video.

And the only reason the price is so low is to encourage people to contribute. Dave wasn't thrilled to death at the prospect of doing so many commissions, but it's what we had to offer, and if we went around asking for $200, $300, or more to do one video...well we didn't like our chances. I could point out that some other people who take commissions (or have previously) tend to ask in the neighborhood of $175-$200, so it's not like we're being completely ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Katsumend

Well, I for one think this is highly relevant information, and I'm glad it was shared.

Once again, I would like to point out that I invested almost as much--more recently--and I feel like it went well. So take it with a grain of salt.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, this is from 11fifty's tumblr in answer to LK's "He never improves" complaint:

"What makes you think you can do any better with more money you havent improved in years.

Anonymous

-----

Why what a nice question!

I would normally shrug delete this and move on, but I decided to actually answer it.

So the main problem with improvement are three simple things, Time, Money and Space. These are the limits on what can be done. I will go through each of them and how they will be improved.

Time:

I shoot 4 to 6 clips per shoot, we have to move fast, model time is costly, and even if you could pay them more there is a limit to how long they will be able to stay and shoot. Other studios can take time and shoot 1 clip because they self shoot or have a single focus. We have 3 hours to shoot 6 clips, that is 30 minutes each, no time for scripts no time for many takes. That includes quick camera set ups and moving the cameras around.

Now, in the future, we will be shooting more clips, as many as 25 a month. What is different is *how* we shoot them. Using virtual sets, 3 camera shooting we can more finely edit things, with less camera movement. Motion capture clips are 1 continuous takes… the whole thing in 1 shot without pausing. We can now use 80-90% of the shoot’s time to actually *shoot*.

Money:

Right now…we use have a small shooting budget and some overhead from gear loans. The sales from 1 month determine the shoots for the next month. Clips pays around 7th of the month, we cannot book until we have it, so we lose a week.

Post Upgrade: Money is solved, there would be a much larger (3X ) shooting budget and a more flexible one at that. More chances to book those traveling models, chances to pay a day rate, or import models from afar for a weekend of shooting. In short, flexibility.

Space:

Our space is very very limited, the green screen is 9 feet wide, and it requires me to re-arrange parts of the house. and we are limited to a couple areas of the bedroom. That is not a lot of space, we can barely have two models on the screen at the same time. Motion capture we have to move a computer, and set it up each time, recalibrating and it so forth, it is a kind of a pain, actually. Further we cannot use the boom due a low ceiling.

Post Upgrade: The space we are looking it is HUGE, it is currently being used to store 2 large boats and a couple large campers… with lots of space left over. The new green screen will be 30 feet wide, much taller (for low angle shots). The ceilings are 15 to 20 feet, so boom is not a problem! There will be a separate motion capture area, with the set up being left in place, carefully calibrated.

So that is the short-ish answer. This does not address all the lovely features and concepts. New uses for technology I have been testing. New *people* helping with clips, and new ways to shooting things and such.

Tired of coasting along, want to make big and do new things."

[vincent_richter]

Wait, so this "Dave" would be RacerX?
Yeah, I'm not comfortable with his directing style, but ya gotta admit he has Quantity to a science.

Now, I think it might not be so bad with someone else's creative vision driving the project...

Perhaps that's the aim, here?

[LK]

Dave Sammons, Xil, 11fifty.

No, creative vision isn't what makes a quality project. It's all about technical execution -- a pragmatism rooted in knowing how to fool an audience by manipulating what you see on screen to produce an effect.

[vincent_richter]

Poor choice of words on my part, as I rather meant it in reference to "creativity in direction" than "creativity in inspiration."

Still trying to clarify though - are you saying he's used to churning out subpar product, and maybe should stick to acquisitions over attempting to inject his direction into a project he's not personally financing?

I'm looking for a silver lining here; I hardly think the man's incompetent, but everyone is better at some things than others.

[LK]

Yes, I'm saying he's used to churning out a subpar product. No quality control. Effects mistakes IN THE FINAL CUT! He's relying on his audience to be horny and hungry enough to look past things no person with pride in their own work would release.

Here's who I'd give money to: someone has a plan for a project. THEIR plan. They aren't whoring themselves out to the public looking for ANY idea (each idea having its own technical challenges, requiring different props and funding to accomplish). They have a track record of quality releases -- you can see what they've done and have a reasonable expectation of what they'll produce based. I wouldn't pay to enable someone to get better tools unless they've already proven they can do some amazing stuff with the tools they have. Even then, the profit they make from their releases should have some amount set aside for gradual tool upgrades.

There was this guy on here, RedParrot, produced some *amazing* test footage, had a real good eye and concept. Blew everything of Dave's out of the water. No single-shot, unmoving camera film-making. No terrible editing and cutting. NO MORPHS! He got creative with what he had.

He's had the opportunity for a decade now to create, and all of his releases have had some issue with editing, sound, effects, composition, directing. They just look *bad* even by fetish clip standards.

The problem is not his tools or studio. The problem is Dave. Pay your money to an artist to realize your vision, or go with one of the established outfits who'll be more than happy to do your custom with far more enthusiasm and energy.

This pitch promises the WORLD! Only $15,000 to make it happen!

Look, some of what I write is speculative, but my bottom line is: This is all highly suspicious. Buyer Beware.

[LK]

First post back and I'm already writing like an asshole. Guess my internet forum personality hasn't changed that much.

Oh man, that's funny. I'm doing exactly what the trolls have been doing to me over the years. The internet makes you a sociopath -- I can't see the harm my words are doing. But at the same time, it was important to say something. My plan was to lurk. I wouldn't speak up unless I felt it was important.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

I'm all for informing the general public of potential harm but hijacking qzar's thread and commanding people in as many words not to contribute is basically taking a giant shit on qzar. Don't do dat. By all means, raise awareness if you think there's monkey business going on but not here and, as a general rule I think valuable, maybe don't give other grownups commands? Give them the information (elsewhere) and I'm sure they can use their own judgment to make a decision that's right for them.

I'm going to take an exam I'm nowhere near prepared for now. I don't know why because I'm taking the course again to hammer the material into my head. This should be a gas.

In the meantime, can we be kind to one another?

[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by LK

You're right, I forgot how it is a statement's author that is most important to its merit, not its content. Anything worth being listened to requires an identity people respect, with its attached reputation and history. Similarly, someone's reputation and history are important factors to consider when deciding whether to trust someone or not with an investment opportunity like this.

I don't fully believe Dave Sammons knows how to do better. To be clear, I'm not saying anything about you, qzar.

Don't get me wrong, my intent isn't negativity and disparaging your project. I view this as informing the uninformed audience that there is a large risk / Buyer Beware situation inherit in your pitch. The fact that it goes against your interests is the side effect, so I understand your reaction.

I've thrown my money around at anything that has even the faintest whiff of fetish material and taken hits on things others would be hard pressed to -- such was my desire and susceptibility to the hype of a hint of process material. I've also sold plenty of material and seen the business strategy for getting fetish folks to part with their money. I know how eager our audience is. I've hobnobbed with clip producers, seen how the internet warps a person, and been exposed to the liars, the cheats, and the fakes. That's who I am.

I gave Dave about $2000 years ago, thinking about starting up a studio, investing in his potential, and was sorely disappointed with what I got in return. Since that time, I've seen little improvement in his standards and execution. He's always been several steps behind in models, technology, and in his execution. Now he wants $15,000! That's a very, very large amount of money in these circles.

He's consistently outclassed by more talented and more attractive producers in a highly competitive arena.

I do not have faith that investing in Dave Sammons will bring you what you expect for your money, but our audience has bankrolled worse.

Take this as one man's opinion who has pretty high standards, though -- nothing to get angry about. See it for what it is.

OK, something about you qzar: post count's a pretty shitty way to measure someone's worth.

You know, I would agree that post count isn't the most important thing in measuring someone's worth, you're right there. However, when someone seems to have an agenda (i.e. "Don't give money to this project!") and their post count is in the single digits, it does merit consideration. Similarly, an extremely low post count means they don't say much--that is, they don't contribute, and they don't praise other people's contributions--so that also is worth thinking about when they suddenly decide to talk shit about something that a longtime contributor is doing. Ordinarily I wouldn't judge based on post count but you have to admit I have a point.

Originally Posted by Kong

Great.... then the steps are pay the $100 donation in the link you brought us and write the script in "comments" box, right? Or is it better to send you an email?

Much, much better to send an email, please.

Originally Posted by LK

Yes, I'm saying he's used to churning out a subpar product. No quality control. Effects mistakes IN THE FINAL CUT! He's relying on his audience to be horny and hungry enough to look past things no person with pride in their own work would release.

Here's who I'd give money to: someone has a plan for a project. THEIR plan. They aren't whoring themselves out to the public looking for ANY idea (each idea having its own technical challenges, requiring different props and funding to accomplish). They have a track record of quality releases -- you can see what they've done and have a reasonable expectation of what they'll produce based. I wouldn't pay to enable someone to get better tools unless they've already proven they can do some amazing stuff with the tools they have. Even then, the profit they make from their releases should have some amount set aside for gradual tool upgrades.

There was this guy on here, RedParrot, produced some *amazing* test footage, had a real good eye and concept. Blew everything of Dave's out of the water. No single-shot, unmoving camera film-making. No terrible editing and cutting. NO MORPHS! He got creative with what he had.

He's had the opportunity for a decade now to create, and all of his releases have had some issue with editing, sound, effects, composition, directing. They just look *bad* even by fetish clip standards.

The problem is not his tools or studio. The problem is Dave. Pay your money to an artist to realize your vision, or go with one of the established outfits who'll be more than happy to do your custom with far more enthusiasm and energy.

This pitch promises the WORLD! Only $15,000 to make it happen!

Look, some of what I write is speculative, but my bottom line is: This is all highly suspicious. Buyer Beware.

The more recent stuff has a lot fewer technical problems, don't know if you've noticed. He's really cleaned up the green screen errors and effects mistakes. There is still the odd issue here and there, but it's nowhere near as bad as it was (because, you're right, there were some bad ones).

For the record, Dave and I both actually make money at the current level of production. We don't NEED this upgrade, we're not seeking it out of greed. Both of us genuinely want to make something better, and he's tired of not being able to shoot like he wants to.

I understand that you had a bad experience with Dave before, and thus would be suspicious of any further attempts to raise money involving him. However, *I* invested about $1500 last year with him and I've already made my money back and then some, so I'd say it could go either way.

I'd like to point out that we aren't asking for handouts, here. We're basically accepting clip commissions, and using the money from them to upgrade. Someone donates their money, they WILL receive what we offer for it, so it's not like there's some kind of con going on.

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

I'm all for informing the general public of potential harm but hijacking qzar's thread and commanding people in as many words not to contribute is basically taking a giant shit on qzar. Don't do dat. By all means, raise awareness if you think there's monkey business going on but not here and, as a general rule I think valuable, maybe don't give other grownups commands? Give them the information (elsewhere) and I'm sure they can use their own judgment to make a decision that's right for them.

I'm going to take an exam I'm nowhere near prepared for now. I don't know why because I'm taking the course again to hammer the material into my head. This should be a gas.

In the meantime, can we be kind to one another?

Thank you, Rachel, for nailing down exactly how this was feeling to me. If someone has an issue with Dave or doesn't think this is worth contributing to, that's their opinion and they're welcome to it, but don't try to tell others what they should or shouldn't do, and don't use your personal bias to try to sabotage this project.

[Animas]

"but don't try to tell others what they should or shouldn't do, and don't use your personal bias to try to sabotage this project."

Do you see the hypocrisy contained in a single statement?

Rachael, I don't agree with every point of your post. I can't envision a more effective means of providing a counter-point of information and personal experience than at the source, and the habits of internet users aren't to go look far for contradictory information -- what's in front of them is all they want to work with, especially in an area of impulse buys. It's unfortunate that qzar's feelings are going to get hurt, which is an unfortunate side effect of investing yourself personally in a venture and not treating it as a business, but I'm thinking about the feelings of other people who might invest money and experience buyer's remorse. I'm the consumer advocate, though I could be more professional myself with how I go about it.

If someone still chooses to invest, at least they are better informed of potential risks. I can't prioritize both his business and his potential consumers if my opinion is that it is a bad idea to give money to him. I've made a number of poor, blind investments myself out of enthusiasm, both financially and emotionally. The internet's all marketing. People are all marketing. We have negative reviews for this reason -- handled properly, it isn't an insult directed at the creator, but a warning about the work to inform others about a bad purchasing experience / potentially unsafe action.

Qzar, I also do not agree. I understand why you'd post the way you did, but such hostility! You've drawn your own assumptions about what certain things mean, and to prove otherwise, I had to change-up accounts.

What you see as commands, I saw as putting options for a better use of their money. "Please do not give any money. Direct it elsewhere if you want to have something created with a good degree of quality." Was this the statement you took issue with and blew up over? Who commands with 'please'?

Bottom line: you're arguing for investment, I'm arguing against it. Buyer beware. We can argue semantics and how we're both writing until we're blue in the face, but the internet doesn't work the same way as the real world. There's so much room for misinterpretation and reactionism.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

You're not arguing buyer beware. You're instructing people not to invest.

Can we just refrain from being dickwads to each other until the new year? Don't you know what this does to the baby jesus?

[darththeo]

just to make sure the video we pay for we get right for 100

[LK]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

You're not arguing buyer beware. You're instructing people not to invest.

Can we just refrain from being dickwads to each other until the new year? Don't you know what this does to the baby jesus?

Sure. I'm done.