Loudness

Also, if instead of going into the original files, I just want to use the compressor to control the loudness slightly to control the peaks and the integrated LUFS, what are the ideal compressor settings to ensure a subtle change and nothing too dramatic. Any ideas would be helpful. thx.

Edit: I just set my 1st compressor threshold to -14db, and teh 2nd compressor to -6 to see what kind of readings I get.

1st compressor
Ratio: 2.5:1
Attack: 5ms
Release: 50ms

2nd Compressor
Ratio: 4:1
Attack: 1ms
Release: 50ms

But I'd love to know what a "gentle" setting would be.

Broadcast TV loudness specs in North America (as defined by ATSC A/85):

Integrated loudness = -24LKFS
LRA (max Loudness RAnge) = 20LKFS. Recommended (not a legal requirement).
True Peak = -2dBTP

Momentary loudness is only used for commercials/interstitials. The term LKFS (defined by the ATSC for North America) is exactly the same in practice as the term LUFS (defined by the EBU for much of Europe), although the figures are slightly different: In Europe integrated loudness is -23LUFS, peak is -1dBTP. There are no specs for youtube, although there is an unofficial consensus amongst audio post pros: Integrated Loudness of -16LKFS/LUFS, an LRA max of 12LKFS/LUFS and a peak of -2dBTP.

There are no ideal compressor settings as such, it depends on the material you are compressing, the effect you are after and what you're mixing for. The new TV loudness specs mean we tend to control levels more with mixing automation than with the moderate/strong compression which used to be necessary (and still is with Youtube material). "Gentle" compression is quite a vague term but would generally be a ratio of less than 2:1. Theatrical films, where compression is used the least (or sometimes not at all), would commonly use a gentle compression ratio somewhere around 1.25:1 with quite a low threshold and a Soft Knee.

G

IMPORTANT NOTE: The above figures are the legal max specs in North America. Many broadcasters still have their own, different specs, although these specs have to fall within the ATSC specs. For example a particular broadcaster may set a max peak limit of say -6dBTP (for example) and may have a different LRA (or may not have an LRA at all) in their delivery specs.

thanks.

I just put my first compressor settings at
threshold: -8
ratio: 2.5

2nd compressor at
threshold: -6
ratio: 5

Got my true peak down to -3.5db, which occurs during a musical sequence. I could work with the original track and get it down further. There doesn't seem to be any other true peak issues.

And thanks for the youtube settings suggestions. I might make an output with an LRA of 12 LKFS, and Integrated loudness of around -16.

I'm having difficulty understanding Integrated Loudness. I'll do some more research tomorrow. I'll tell you the confusion.

If I look at the 10 minute mark in this picture, even though the loudness goes above the -24DB, the LKFS is in range.





But in this picture if I start the loudness metering AT the 10 minute mark, it's in the red.




So what the hell is this Integrated loudness?

I won't go into the technical details but Integrated Loudness is effectively an average over the duration of the entire program/act. Being an average, you can take any individual section and it may read higher, lower or the same as the target Integrated loudness but over the entire duration it should average out to the target. The ATSC call for an Integrated Loudness of -24LKFS with a margin of error of + or - 2LKFS. Meaning that an Integrated loudness of anywhere between 22.1LKFS and 25.9LKFS is within tolerance. Again though, this margin of error can vary from broadcaster to broadcaster, some allowing almost no margin of error to pass QC.

Bare in mind that there is a gating function built-in to the the current specs, where any short term loudness more than 10LKFS below the target integrated LKFS is ignored in the calculation of the average (integrated loudness). The gating system was added because it was easy to "game" the system. Being an average, it was possible to create parts of the mix which were very quiet, which then allowed for extremely loud sections which when averaged still maintained the target Integrated loudness. Gating eliminated this trick. Make sure that you choose one of the presets which include gating (ITU BS. 1770-2 or ITU BS. 1770-3 for example). Last year's ATSC revision included the requirement for the latest ITU BS 1770 revision.

G

AudioPostExpert said:

Make sure that you choose one of the presets which include gating (ITU BS. 1770-2 or ITU BS. 1770-3 for example). Last year's ATSC revision included the requirement for the latest ITU BS 1770 revision.

G

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I just used a US preset, which I'm assuming is the same for Canada. But I'll check for the other specs you mentioned.

Not quite on topic but - anyone have any suggestions for plugins for Leq(m) metering? I've been given the task of making sure everything is relatively up to scratch for a commercial before we pass it off to be DCP'd (they've quoted us a $1,000+ fee if things need to be fixed; I don't think they will be, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.)

trueindie said:

Thanks for the info. I just used a US preset, which I'm assuming is the same for Canada. But I'll check for the other specs you mentioned.

Click to expand...

Yes, definitely check. I'm not sure if/how/when Canadian law allows for revisions to the ATSC specs or how/when the actual broadcasters implement it. The US preset was probably almost certainly created before the gating function was introduced and before the ATSC update which included it. To be safe, choose one of the two ITU revisions I listed. BTW, the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) are the organisation which invented the loudness measurement. Both the ATSC and EBU specs are derived from these ITU standards, which is why LKFS and LUFS are different names for exactly the same thing.

I just want to check where in your signal chain you have placed your Insight plugin. It must be the last plugin/processor on your main mix bus. IE. The measurements/specs are for the complete mix (not just say for the dialogue), after all compression, limiting and other processing has been applied.

jax_rox said:

Not quite on topic but - anyone have any suggestions for plugins for Leq(m) metering? I've been given the task of making sure everything is relatively up to scratch for a commercial before we pass it off to be DCP'd (they've quoted us a $1,000+ fee if things need to be fixed; I don't think they will be, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.)

Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't really help. ProTools has an LEQ meter built in so I've never had the need to look for or test third party Leq metering plugins. LEQ has been around a long time and is well established, so I would expect most/all plugins to be fairly accurate. I take it that your target max is 85 Leq, as per the TASA specs? It shouldn't be difficult to hit and I'm sure you're aware that your mix should be at least a 3.0 mix and preferably 5.1 or higher.

G

AudioPostExpert said:

Yes, definitely check. I'm not sure if/how/when Canadian law allows for revisions to the ATSC specs or how/when the actual broadcasters implement it. The US preset was probably almost certainly created before the gating function was introduced and before the ATSC update which included it. To be safe, choose one of the two ITU revisions I listed. BTW, the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) are the organisation which invented the loudness measurement. Both the ATSC and EBU specs are derived from these ITU standards, which is why LKFS and LUFS are different names for exactly the same thing.

I just want to check where in your signal chain you have placed your Insight plugin. It must be the last plugin/processor on your main mix bus. IE. The measurements/specs are for the complete mix (not just say for the dialogue), after all compression, limiting and other processing has been applied.

G

Click to expand...

So I'm using BS.1770-3 for USA

Also, what I did was created a final track where I printed the DX, FX and MX tracks into a stereo MIX track where I bounced a PRINT of all three tracks. I put a compressor on this print track first, and then I put insight, on this final track. So the This is the final track that I will be bouncing. So it's the very last plugin. Does that make sense?

And here's what I did for the audio, and I'll tell you everything, even though it's a bit embarrassing to admit all of it.

- In the beginning I created a 4 separate mono dialog tracks and two stereo FX tracks and two MX tracks according to instruction.
- I spent quite some time checkerboarding the dialog per person.
-Then I found out that every time I had to clean up the audio, I had to send every bit of dialolg to RX4. And also I couldn't remember everything I had done to a DX track to clean it up and I wanted to to have a record.
-So I restarted the process. Instead of checkerboarding the DX track by character, I checkerboarded the tracks by conversation. Then I took entire conversations to RX4, cleaned it up, saved it as a separte RX file, with all changes saved in the "History" section of that file, and then I exported the audio and reimported that audio into proTools.

- Also, My FX_Mix track is empty.
- I created the FX tracks in stereo, but when I was originally separating the DX tracks, I was also separating the FX events that was recorded by the mic, and I couldn't drag them to the stereo FX tracks. So I created a couple of other Mono tracks and called them FX, and stored the clips there. (Edit: I did this because of my unfamiliarity with busing at the time. I had created a mono DX bus for all the DX tracks, and I wanted to use the same bus instead of messing around with a new one, and so I just created a couple of more mono tracks and called them FX_DX and used the same bus)

(I wasn't as familiar with proTools at the time, with busing and everything, still am not, and did not want to recreate my template all over again and screw something up. So I just kept all effects in the bottom two DX tracks. If I introduced any stereo Foley, I just put them in the MX track, which occurred like three or four times.)

Now, while this is not the professional approach, I knew that my film is not going to have a 5.1 surround release, as I don't have the setup for that. And I was planning on releasing online, and trying to get broadcast sales (which also, I have no idea if it's going to happen). So what I thought was, if somebody really wants the movie bad enough to release in a theater, or if broadcast wants to be able to show it in other languages, well, they can redo the audio, and pay for it. Because my audio corrected proTools file will be useless to them.

So this was my thinking in going into audio correction.

Also, when I first created the DX_Print and MX print, and MIX Print, tracks, I had created 5.1 tracks, and the sound seemed to be more muted than the original, as two of the tracks were empty. The mono went into one track, the stereo music went into two other tracks and then there were two empty lines in the 5.1 Mix.

So I decided to have the final print in stereo, and it was quite a challenge for me to create all these separate buses, to get all the audio to the final print.

That's my audio post experience . Just wanted to tell you, so that you have some idea of what kind of idiot you're dealing with when you provide advice.

Cheers,
Aveek

Edit: proTools mix image

AudioPostExpert said:

Sorry, I can't really help. ProTools has an LEQ meter built in so I've never had the need to look for or test third party Leq metering plugins. LEQ has been around a long time and is well established, so I would expect most/all plugins to be fairly accurate. I take it that your target max is 85 Leq, as per the TASA specs? It shouldn't be difficult to hit and I'm sure you're aware that your mix should be at least a 3.0 mix and preferably 5.1 or higher.

Click to expand...

My older version of Pro Tools mustn't have it

I'm sure our sound guy is/was across it all - but he's an 'up-and-comer' (i.e. cheap) rather than a seasoned pro, so whilst it sounds good - in the face of a non-budgeted fee to fix up any issues, I see no harm in making sure that the levels at least aren't exceeding 85 Leq(m) (or is it 82 because this is a commercial, rather than a trailer?).

jax_rox said:

My older version of Pro Tools mustn't have it

Click to expand...

My bad. My brain was still stuck on TV specs and I was thinking of LEQ(a). TASA specs require LEQ(m) and there are only 2 plugins I'm aware of for ProTools which can measure LEQ(m): Dolby Media Meter (DMM2) and Waves Loudness Meter (WLM). I've used the WLM for TASA compliant mixes in the past.

For theatrical commercials the target loudness is 82LEQ(m). LEQ(m) is an average over time, not a maximum peak limit. So, exceeding 82 is not a problem, as long as there are quieter sections to maintain the 82LEQ(m) average over the entire duration of the commercial.

A word of warning! Theatrical sound systems have a very different response to consumer and even professional music or broadcast sound systems. Not mixing on a theatrical dub stage introduces two quite likely scenarios: 1. The commercial may well sound significantly different and 2. Even hitting 82LEQ(m) is no guarantee that the commercial will sound the same loudness as other TASA compliant commercials. As the LEQ(m) measurement is frequency dependent, the same loudness as other commercials can only be achieved with a mix designed for the frequency response of theatrical sound systems.

Potential outcomes are therefore: 1. Even though the client may be happy when reviewing the mix in the studio, they may not be so happy when they review it in a cinema/theatrical screening room and 2. Even if they are happy with the sound during a screening room review, they may not be happy after distribution if their commercial is noticeably quieter than the other surrounding commercials.

G

trueindie said:

Also, what I did was created a final track where I printed the DX, FX and MX tracks into a stereo MIX track where I bounced a PRINT of all three tracks. I put a compressor on this print track first, and then I put insight, on this final track. So the This is the final track that I will be bouncing. So it's the very last plugin. Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

It makes sense in as much as I understand what you've done. However, why you've done it, doesn't make any sense!

The routing/bussing required to make a mix is very simple. Just route all your tracks to an aux track (acting as your mix buss) and then route the output of that aux track an audio track (Print track). Done, that's it! ... Professionally we don't do it this way, we use sub-busses, sub-mix to stems and then mix the stems together, all of which requires complex routing/bussing. We do it this way not because we've got more time and budget to create more complex mixes but because we haven't! The simplest list of audio deliverables which commercial distributors and broadcasters require is a full mix and an M&E mix, while the most complex list of required audio deliverables is ... well, let's just say; a lot more complex! The routing we employ represents the most efficient way of creating these deliverables, IE. Quickest and cheapest!

trueindie said:

Then I found out that every time I had to clean up the audio, I had to send every bit of dialolg to RX4. And also I couldn't remember everything I had done to a DX track to clean it up and I wanted to to have a record.

Click to expand...

As much as possible, processing is done with realtime plugins, so changes can be quickly applied with automation. For example using the Dialogue DeNoiser on a DX sub-buss rather than using the standard DeNoiser as an AudioSuite process. When an AudioSuite process is required, we use one or more DX Work tracks (with playlists if necessary) to store the previous processing steps. These work tracks are disabled and hidden come the final mix time.

None of the routing (and separate print stems) you've described makes any sense unless you are creating a set of audio deliverables but then the way you've employed (and combined/processed) your routing/stems, results in you not being able to create any acceptable audio deliverables except the full mix!

trueindie said:

So what I thought was, if somebody really wants the movie bad enough to release in a theater, or if broadcast wants to be able to show it in other languages, well, they can redo the audio, and pay for it.

Click to expand...

Yep, that ain't going to happen!! Of all the things you said in your post, this part of it makes the least sense! In all fairness, many other amateur filmmakers seem to have a similar line of thought, although I've no idea why. My guess is that many/most amateur filmmakers seem to be under the impression that commercial distributors and broadcasters distribute films, they don't, they distribute/broadcast product! While some might also make some product, usually they commission or buy it. Either way though, they deal in product. Your problem is that when you've finished your film, you've got a finished film, not a completed product and the commercial distributors/broadcasters are not in the business of completing incomplete product.

In the last 25 years how many indie films have been made? Probably getting on for a million. How many of those did a distributor want "bad enough" to pay to redo the audio? I know of three cases, although there might be a few I don't know about. That's a pretty infinitesimal chance which in fact is smaller still, because the indie film market has changed considerably in the last 5-7 years, which I believe makes it far less likely to occur than even it was previously. I'm not sure what the figures are for broadcaster as opposed to film distributors but from my experience, it's not much different because the whole system is set up for product. By making just a film, you are restricting yourself to the small number of potential buyers at the bottom of the feeding trough, those who may be willing to deal in product which is effectively/otherwise unfit for purpose. You're therefore probably looking at no deal or at best, a deal in the mid hundreds. Commercial audio post is not the filmmaking luxury most amateur filmmakers believe it to be, it's essential for almost all commercial distribution/broadcast, which is why there are hundreds of commercial audio post houses!

Sorry to be so harsh but better you get a bit miffed at my harshness, than find out the hard way!

G

AudioPostExpert said:

It makes sense in as much as I understand what you've done. However, why you've done it, doesn't make any sense!

The routing/bussing required to make a mix is very simple. Just route all your tracks to an aux track (acting as your mix buss) and then route the output of that aux track an audio track (Print track). Done, that's it! ... Professionally we don't do it this way, we use sub-busses, sub-mix to stems and then mix the stems together, all of which requires complex routing/bussing. We do it this way not because we've got more time and budget to create more complex mixes but because we haven't! The simplest list of audio deliverables which commercial distributors and broadcasters require is a full mix and an M&E mix, while the most complex list of required audio deliverables is ... well, let's just say; a lot more complex! The routing we employ represents the most efficient way of creating these deliverables, IE. Quickest and cheapest!

As much as possible, processing is done with realtime plugins, so changes can be quickly applied with automation. For example using the Dialogue DeNoiser on a DX sub-buss rather than using the standard DeNoiser as an AudioSuite process. When an AudioSuite process is required, we use one or more DX Work tracks (with playlists if necessary) to store the previous processing steps. These work tracks are disabled and hidden come the final mix time.

Click to expand...

I accept that were I an audio post person, I'd probably have to develop skills that make audio post more manageable, so that I can have my M&E Mix, and create sub mixes so that I can make changes separately, instead of changing the sound file itself. For instance, once I do my noise reduction, I can't really change it if I don't like it, without redoing everything else, (which I did quite a few times), as my noise reduction is already baked in, and not being applied through a bus. I agree. These are things that I was finding out as I was going through the learning process. I just decided that I couldn't handle it, to develop a professional process. I thought I'd rather do everything over in a clip if I didn't like it. In some ways, it was easier for me, mentally. Probably not in reality.

But I didn't really dare work on the process. As I said, I couldn't even figure out why my mono fx tracks weren't being routed to the stereo fx bus I had created according to instruction.

AudioPostExpert said:

None of the routing (and separate print stems) you've described makes any sense unless you are creating a set of audio deliverables but then the way you've employed (and combined/processed) your routing/stems, results in you not being able to create any acceptable audio deliverables except the full mix!

Click to expand...

You're correct. I wasn't trying to create audio deliverables per se, as I was assuming that I wouldn't get a theatrical release anyway, as I couldn't create a 5.1 mix without spending a whole lot of money. So I decided that I was just going to release it online. And try for Canadian broadcasters. I thought that an M&E mix would be required if there was interest in the film from foreign countries, which I also don't think is going to happen, unless there is some sort of organic interest that occurs in the film, of which I'm not tremendously hopeful. So I decided that working on the post as if I'm creating deliverables, when I should be concentrating on how to actually clean up the audio, would be counterproductive, given the actual prospects and realities of the marketing challenges, for the film.

AudioPostExpert said:

Yep, that ain't going to happen!! Of all the things you said in your post, this part of it makes the least sense! In all fairness, many other amateur filmmakers seem to have a similar line of thought, although I've no idea why. My guess is that many/most amateur filmmakers seem to be under the impression that commercial distributors and broadcasters distribute films, they don't, they distribute/broadcast product! While some might also make some product, usually they commission or buy it. Either way though, they deal in product. Your problem is that when you've finished your film, you've got a finished film, not a completed product and the commercial distributors/broadcasters are not in the business of completing incomplete product.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I decided, that even if I had proper audio deliverables, no real distributor would actually be interested in my 1hour 53 minute movie without stars. So selling to distributors was never in the cards for me, and not part of my calculations.

AudioPostExpert said:

In the last 25 years how many indie films have been made? Probably getting on for a million. How many of those did a distributor want "bad enough" to pay to redo the audio? I know of three cases, although there might be a few I don't know about. That's a pretty infinitesimal chance which in fact is smaller still, because the indie film market has changed considerably in the last 5-7 years, which I believe makes it far less likely to occur than even it was previously. I'm not sure what the figures are for broadcaster as opposed to film distributors but from my experience, it's not much different because the whole system is set up for product. By making just a film, you are restricting yourself to the small number of potential buyers at the bottom of the feeding trough, those who may be willing to deal in product which is effectively/otherwise unfit for purpose. Commercial audio post is not the filmmaking luxury most amateur filmmakers believe it to be, it's essential for almost all commercial distribution/broadcast, which is why there are hundreds of commercial audio post houses!

Sorry to be so harsh but better you get a bit miffed at my harshness, than find out the hard way!

G

Click to expand...

You weren't being harsh at all. You were being realistic. And that's appreciated. I like to be realistic about my prospects. I had limited time and limited knowledge about audio post, and given that in my head I decided, that this was not going to be a Cinderella story where a distributor comes in and makes my dreams come true, I decided to spend the bulk of my time learning how to correct the audio. (Which at times I feel like I've done too much. On some clips I almost feel like I want to introduce some noise. )

So even after all this, I'm not sure that the audio is really acceptable. So I'm not sure any broadcaster would even actually pick it up. But that's still my best bet, and I'm going to try as hard as I can.

AudioPostExpert said:

You're therefore probably looking at no deal or at best, a deal in the mid hundreds.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? If that happens... I'll jump off the edge of the world. That's never gonna happen. I hope it does. I even did some calculations on what it costs broadcasters to produce per hour of TV and have dreamed of the scenario in the "mid hundreds." But it feels like a dream in another universe. If I'm able to sell this thing, I think I'll go crazy.

And I'll create a new mix bus and put the plugins there. But is there an actual difference in the outcome? I understand it's a more professional process.
thx

trueindie said:

I thought that an M&E mix would be required if there was interest in the film from foreign countries ...

Click to expand...

In theory, that IS what it's used for. In practice though, that is not why you need to make an M&E mix! You need to make an M&E mix because it's a standard required deliverable for virtually every commercial distributor and broadcaster (bar the very smallest/most local broadcasters). The broadcast market is worth hundreds of billions of dollars and how it works is very complex. There's all kinds of agreements, arrangements, affiliations, sub-divisions, subsidiaries and deals covering the international broadcast market and except for some tent-pole shows a broadcaster probably won't know for sure exactly how/where they will maximise the profit potential of the rights they have acquired beyond the initial broadcast slot. This is why an M&E mix is a basic product requirement and without one you don't have a product! Don't forget though, an M&E mix is just the most basic audio deliverable requirement, to cover all (or most) of the potential bases you'd ideally need a bunch of other audio deliverables!

trueindie said:

I accept that were I an audio post person, I'd probably have to develop skills that make audio post more manageable ...

Click to expand...

To be honest, it can get pretty complex and there are a number of nasty pitfalls. For example, what is the mono compatibility like on your stereo mix? That's just one of dozens of things which can get your film rejected on ingest! That's why I've said in the past that the only sensible way to learn audio post is by interning/working for a commercial post house.

trueindie said:

Are you kidding me? If that happens... I'll jump off the edge of the world. That's never gonna happen. I hope it does.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I've no idea how you'd find those who might be interested in an "unfit" product. Most of the usual routes would cost more than you'd earn even if managed to make a sale and a sales agent wouldn't be interested in the commission on a sale of a few hundred bucks. So in many respects, it would actually be tougher to make a sale of a few hundred bucks than a sale of tens of thousands (if you had a product that is!).

If you had a product, you'd be surprised at the number of potential avenues. Major networks and channels become an option, even if you don't think your product is up to major network standards. Most major networks/channels tend to directly or indirectly broadcast in many territories (beyond their domestic market) and commission or buy different content for those different territories. A distribution model several of the projects I've worked on is: "BBC Worldwide is the main commercial arm and a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Broadcasting Corporation ... In 2014/15, BBC Worldwide's headline sales were £1,001.8m ... BBC Worldwide also sells programmes and formats produced by more than 250 British independent producers." - BBC Worldwide

I find it amazing the number of amateur filmmaker here (and elsewhere) who talk about monetising their work but almost completely ignore by far the biggest commercial marketplace, TV broadcast. It's good that you're at least thinking about the broadcast market but to be honest you're just playing at it, hoping and dreaming. If you were serious about it, you'd know a hell of a lot more about how the broadcast marketplace works than I do, which really wouldn't be difficult! Once you know how it works, you can find niches, design products for it and actually stand a decent chance of earning some money from it. Certainly a much better chance than a miracle theatrical distribution deal or getting millions of youtube views.

G

If any broadcast station bought and showed my stuff for even $1, I'll think I've made it.

AudioPostExpert said:

I find it amazing the number of amateur filmmaker here (and elsewhere) who talk about monetising their work but almost completely ignore by far the biggest commercial marketplace, TV broadcast. It's good that you're at least thinking about the broadcast market but to be honest you're just playing at it, hoping and dreaming. If you were serious about it, you'd know a hell of a lot more about how the broadcast marketplace works than I do, which really wouldn't be difficult! Once you know how it works, you can find niches, design products for it and actually stand a decent chance of earning some money from it. Certainly a much better chance than a miracle theatrical distribution deal or getting millions of youtube views.

G

Click to expand...

I can't help but say that you're right, about me hoping and dreaming. But I tried to find out about broadcast sales, and I couldn't figure it out. I'm not sure why you think this information is easy to come by.

The only in's I have are two people I met who gave me their email addresses to see my film when it is finished. I don't know anything else about it. And I couldn't find any concrete, reliable, actionable information the last time I did some research on it. I'll do it again sometime today, but my hopes aren't that high.

AudioPostExpert said:

I find it amazing the number of amateur filmmaker here (and elsewhere) who talk about monetising their work but almost completely ignore by far the biggest commercial marketplace, TV broadcast

G

Click to expand...

That's because we amateur filmmakers read books about success stories. And the only sexy success stories people write about are about people who made it big at some sundance like festival and got the cinderella distribution deal from Miramax, or Fox Searchlight. And then we set out to replicate that impossible process.

The only reason I decided to look at broadcast, was that I came to the conclusion in my mind that was going to be impossible. So I wrote a local story, I shot a local story, full of local images, in the hopes of getting somebody interested in it in the local market. I just decided that I didn't want to compete with the rest of the world.

Aim small, miss small. That's what I'm hoping and dreaming I suppose.

trueindie said:

But I tried to find out about broadcast sales, and I couldn't figure it out.

Click to expand...

I suspect this is a lie/excuse. I suspect it's not a case of you not being able to figure it out but more of a case of you not being able to figure it out quickly/easily enough that you decided to give up and spend your time and efforts on other areas.

trueindie said:

I'm not sure why you think this information is easy to come by.

Click to expand...

I was saying that I only have a superficial understanding of how the broadcast market works and therefore it wouldn't take much to know more than me. Learning the finer, practical details of the marketplace probably is quite difficult but regardless of how difficult it is, you (or the producer you work with) needs to know it if you're in anyway serious about entering/competing in that marketplace. The more you know, the more chance you have. The less you know, the more you are just dreaming and relying on pure blind luck!

trueindie said:

So I wrote a local story, I shot a local story, full of local images, in the hopes of getting somebody interested in it in the local market.

Click to expand...

Again, you're talking about hopes and dreams, not any concrete knowledge or evidence of the product types and specifications your target market purchases. You're not being serious, you're being an amateur hobbyist! Not that there's anything wrong with being an amateur hobbyist but you trying to hit some broadcast specs and looking at approaching a market (even a local one), indicates that you want to be more than just an amateur hobbyist.

trueindie said:

I just decided that I didn't want to compete with the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

1. The film and broadcast industries are global, more so than most other industries and particularly so in most English speaking countries and, even at the indie level!

2. A local story, full of local images, made by a local has or could have wider marketing potential precisely because it has all these three factors!

3. If your target really was solely the smallest, most local and least national/international broadcasters then you've got a far smaller, simpler and more specific set of requirements and specifications to comply with. Why don't you already know what they are? The answer I suspect, is that you just decided to go out and make an amateur hobbyist film and now, when you're almost finished, you've decided that actually you don't want an amateur film, you want a commercial product. I'm sure you didn't specifically think in terms of hobbyist film and commercial product but whether you thought in those terms or not, that's effectively exactly what you have done!

Where do you want to be in 5 years? Do you want to be a better amateur/hobbyist filmmaker or do you want to be making films with commercial appeal/viability? If it's the latter, then you have to start actually thinking in terms of creating commercial product because being a better hobbyist filmmaker is a parallel road, not a road which leads to or eventually bisects the latter!!

trueindie said:

Aim small, miss small. That's what I'm hoping and dreaming I suppose.

Click to expand...

The problem with this approach is that the "aim small" sector is highly competitive/saturated and becoming more so by the month and barring a miracle, even if you do well, you're still looking at a financial loss and are little or no closer to your ultimate goal.

G