Main image
17th June
2009
written by Downtown Dudette

Someone with a video production experience put up a post on AZ Starnet that’s worth a read. The story is on the City of Tucson’s $820,000 journey into movie business. Apparently based on stock footage, video production market rates both locally and from national firms and video editing techniques we could have got the same 15 minute film from local access Channel 12 for just under a grand.

Nothing really surprises me anymore about Tucson’s leadership.

 

229. Comment by Don M. (saffronbindy) — June 17,2009 @ 4:37PM
Ratings:   -1 +10
Loose ends…
The more I look at this video clip the madder I get. It is horrible. I’ll get into more technical details just later.
I’m most PO’d that the city spends taxpayer money for the Tucson Film Office every year to bring films here. We OWN them. Why not use them? Same for Tucson 12. Nobody watches them, but they do produce very pretty video and win awards for it. We pay for every cent of them. We OWN them. Same for whoever shoots the videos for the Desert Museum. Some of those are nothing short of spectacular. Why not find out who that is? Strangely, someone told me it was really Tucson 12 who shoots the Desert Museum videos, which doesn’t surprise me.
Next, the cost. I spent some time today calling around. Produced locally a 15 minute promotional video runs between $30,000 and $50,000. From the national companies it runs between $200,000 and $300,000. Not $820,000. We got took, big time.
Then there is the $70,000 “oversight fee.” I mentioned this to one of the national companies and the person just laughed and said I was being “milked.” If you contract a video with any money behind it the video company gives you a full-time person to oversee your project. You and your employees have to do nothing. Even the smaller local companies will do this, but they will be part-time. Then there is the time deal. I asked all how long it would be before I got my video. Five years? Three? Two? Our video project has taken five. They all work on about the same schedule. Forty-five to 60 days for the first edit to be delivered, and about 90 days for the final product.
Now the technical part. Being born and raised in Tucson I was annoyed that so much of the video (most of it, actually) was shot in Cochise and Santa Cruz counties. As I looked at the video it hit me. This was stock footage spliced together. I knew this because of the edits, and the fact that some of the cactus pictures had types of cactus we don’t have within 200 miles of here, and the cow herding picture had black cows in it. We don’t have black ones. Ours are brown.
This is the technical part. Splicing stock footage together is hard. Takes a good video company to do it. You can see this yourself. When a scene shifts, from one clip to another, the video editor makes sure the colors in the first few seconds of the clip just shifted to more or less match the colors in the clip just shifted away from. This makes the transition easy on the eye. This video for Tucson is almost a tutorial in how not to do do scene shifts. One scene shifts from a man on horseback which is 85% pure white to another shot at night which is 90% pure black. Your eye cannot adjust that fast, and you will miss the first part of the second scene. Sloppy editing. Go to a new-release Hollywood movie and look at nothing other than the scene-shift colors. They will be perfect. They are perfect because they now use software to manage colors across scene shifts. If it shifts abruptly, it’s because the director wants you to notice it.
I started looking for where the stock video might have come from. I found some of it. The black cows live in Colorado. You can buy your own video of the black cows. Same cows, same cowboy, same meadow, same mountains in the background. But is will cost you $500 to license it.
We’ve been ripped off. For only $100,000 I would have been willing to put together a video just as good as the one the city bought. I would buy stock footage and download it. Stuff it into my movie maker software which can write broadcast-quality output, and deliver it. I would never leave my house.

Tags:

7 Comments

  1. 17/06/2009

    D Dudette,
    I seriously considered a post almost identical to this one.

    Perhaps Tucson suffers humiliating swindle after swindle because its leadership has somehow congealed into the ultimate sucker for the greedy and unscrupulous. KMK Consulting got $1/4M for a three day effort to make a pamphlet stating the obvious. $800K for a $50K product seems about par for an outfit splurging $200K so two do nothing goons can have DTP business cards.

    Sadly, the town is a schmuck magnet, a cloth trough that attracts swine in search of nookie. We all get to watch as consultant, contractor and agency guzzle millions while real people and real programs are laid off and cut. As our streets and schools get the knife, the city has everything in the world for TREO, DTP, MTCVB, and apparently, amateur videos.

  2. 18/06/2009

    For the record, per the Comment from Don M. about tax payers owning the Tucson Film Office, 6 years ago, the Tucson Film Office was moved from the City of Tucson to the Metro Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau (MTCVB) so that local tax payers would not have to fund it. The MTCVB is a private/public partnership entity funded through partnership dues, revenue from marketing programs and, primarily, from a portion of the hotel bed tax that the City and the County charge visitors staying in the local hotels.

  3. James L.
    18/06/2009

    “so that local tax payers would not have to fund it.” “The MTCVB is a private/public partnership entity funded through partnership dues, revenue from marketing programs and, primarily, from a portion of the hotel bed tax that the City and the County charge visitors staying in the local hotels.” You need to match those 2 statements up. The vast majority of the MCTVB’s budget comes from tax dollars.

  4. outsidetheironcurtain
    18/06/2009

    We paid $820,000 for basically an Ed Wood movie. “Plan 9 from Tucson.” Splice together a bunch of unrelated stock footage, the only thing missing was Bella Lugosi and the octopus prop stolen from a studio lot.

  5. Iron Viking
    18/06/2009

    This stinks on so mnay different levels. Here’s my summary:

    1. Making a film before the tourist attractions are even built!
    2. Spending about $55,000 per minute for a film with no actors! The famous indie director John Sayles (Lone Star, Matewan, Limbo) never spends more than $3 million per movie, or about half the city’s cost per minute. And he has to pay actors and actresses that you’ve heard of.
    3. Sending the work out of town, given that Tucson has a local film/video industry that needs the work.
    4. Not using its own Channel 12, or local colleges like Pima or the U of AZ, or even high schools in the first place.

    Let’s face it. Tucson is the municipal equivalent of the kid in school wearing a “kick me” sign. We’re a municipal mark for the consultant class.

    Time for regime change in November!

  6. Tucson Tommy
    31/07/2009

    The real truth is this cow pie downtown has almost nothing woth showing off.

    The airmpit of Tucson is the proud work of city elected morons who spent $165,00,000 and have done noyhing to justify this bill they gave up all.

  7. Tucson Tommy
    05/02/2010

    when will Tucson realize they have a total fuc-up in Walkup?

    Tucson is joke beyond any possible story printed

Leave a Reply

  • Pages

  • Categories

  • Archives

  •  

    June 2009
    M T W T F S S
    « May   Jul »
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    2930