MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Work In Progress – DP/30: The Site

With DP/30 closing in on two hundred thirty-minute interviews, it was time to figure out a way to make it a bit more manageable. With seven interviews posting just this week, dozens since Toronto, and more than dozen in the can awaiting launch, the challenge of keeping the episodes easily accessible and even enticing has grown.
So… welcome to the DP/30 site.
There are still things to fix, such as making mp3 audio files for each interview easily accessible, notes on posting date vs shooting date, the entire back catalog of Lunch With David and DP/30, and more. But I thought that no group would give me more intense feedback on the new page than y’all.
You will also find the first appearances of a full interview with Anna Kendrick, new DP/30s with Vera Farmiga and Michelle Monaghan, and a recent discussion with Henry Selick,
Let me know what you think…

Be Sociable, Share!

22 Responses to “Work In Progress – DP/30: The Site”

  1. SJRubinstein says:

    It’s running really slow for me right now, but yeah, I don’t think I’ve ever made a secret out of how much a fan I am of these. Really great to see a full site dedicated to them.
    One small thing and I know it’s likely expensive and something of a bitch, but you mentioned transcripts at one point. With 230, I don’t know how likely that is, but are they still in the offing?
    But, congratulations on the new site. When just about every other outlet is necessarily having to reduce the size and depth of their filmmaker interviews, it is really cool that you’re going in the opposite direction and nice to see the great Soderbergh’s Foot interview so prominent, too.

  2. Jamieson says:

    The new site is nice and organized.
    I’ve been hoping that you’d start updating the podcast feed again…is there plans to revamp that?
    http://davidpoland.typepad.com/dp30/rss.xml
    Maybe add it to the iTunes store as well so we could download the latest videos directly to iphone/ipod touch via wifi?
    Anyway, keep up the good work with the interviews. I’m a big fan of them.

  3. mutinyco says:

    The full-size QuickTimes are a bit of a chore. They’re so large they don’t always properly load. Maybe offer a smaller version as the default so it loads quickly, then offer separately the full-size.

  4. Yes, very nicely done Dave (and whoever you hired to get it up). I haven’t watched anything from there yet so can’t comment on how the videos run, but the scroller at the top is a nice touch and it looks clean and thankfully uncluttered (which so many sites are).

  5. Gonzo Knight says:

    I really like the layout of the new site too. Unfortunately, for some reason, the left side bar ends up on the right in IE7 on the computer I’m using and as a result it overlaps with some of the videos. This is the only problem I found and everything looks exactly as it should in Firefox.

  6. movielocke says:

    I bet LexG has a different solo site he goes to for his DP fix.

  7. White Label says:

    I’m with mutinyco. It takes quite a while to get a good enough start on these. I recognize that MOV is the best quality, but there has to be a way to do HQ Flash that doesn’t take forever.
    I may have missed something, why did you stop using iFilm (was that the site?)

  8. leahnz says:

    i too dig the scrolling function (and the ‘reflection’ symbolism)
    i like the DP/30s because as always i’m not so much interested in what people are saying but how they say it, their particular mannerisms and ticks and ‘tells’ when they are being dishonest and what makes them laugh (if at all) and how guarded or forthcoming they are and what makes them nervous or bored, etc. half an hour of DP asking questions is a good window of time to observe someone and get a taste of their personality

  9. leahnz says:

    or lack thereof

  10. reuben says:

    Hi, I suggest you just publish everything (additionally) on YouTube. It will solve the
    * RSS/Subscription problem
    * OS/player compatibility problems
    * performance and bandwidth problem
    And it will also fit into your routine as a creator (using numerous tools) and the routine of fans (using phones, Linux, highly restricted PCs etc.).

  11. sashastone says:

    Looks awesome. I concur with the YouTube thing. Now you just need to upgrade MT and put it all together into a hub. Looks really good.

  12. martin says:

    I don’t mind the QTs. Takes a minute or so to buffer enough that I can start watching, but quality is better and smoother than you’d get with flash. If there’s an alternative to QT, then I’d agree that Youtube is best. But I think YT still has a 10 minute limit on videos unless you get granted director type status on there.

  13. mutinyco says:

    Stay QuickTime. Just use a smaller player. My standard size is 500×281. The largest I go it 640×360.
    These videos aren’t Lawrence of Arabia. Just conversations. No need to be so large.

  14. scarper86 says:

    I agree that the video resolution is just too high for it to be the only option offered. Not only does it require a long time to fill the buffer to be watchable, on older or lower spec computers it won’t play smoothly if at all. On a small notebook or netbook screen there is no real world advantage to all those extra pixels.
    Also it would be nice to get the MP3’s in a separate RSS feed. Sometimes I just want to listen to the audio on my iPod.
    Great improvements though. Thanks.

  15. sharonfranz says:

    Very clean and organized. I agree with mutinyco regarding the size of the files. Having a smaller version that streams smoothly, but with an option available to download the full version would be ideal.
    I’m very impressed with the video quality though. You can see the subject’s pores, zits, and wrinkles. What kind of camera are you using for these interviews?

  16. David Poland says:

    We shoot with a Panasonic AG-HMC150, with which I have been very happy.
    The difficulty with servicing to all the different size and delivery methods that everyone wants is that I am doing this on my own – someone shoots and lights, but I do the small bit of post – and pushing out 30 minutes in different sizes, followed by uploading the various sizes takes a lot of hours.
    When I do a pull for YouTube, I have to find it, edit it, render it, and then post it. And the idea of splitting all of these up into 3 segments then posting all three, as well as the full piece, sound, etc, is daunting. If I did one interview a week, it would be easy. But a couple of weeks ago, we shot 10 in one week.
    With due respect, Mutiny, I think it’s actually my preference on how large these should be that matters. I am happily respectful of how you choose to present your work. I post these the way I would like to see them. And frankly, I would push up to 1260 wide HD (which coincidentally is how I post to YouTube) if I wasn’t conscious of the load time.
    I want the viewer to have the experience I have with these people. That’s why I leave my mistakes and theirs in.
    Also, I am asking people to have a 30 minute focused experience online. It’s new turf and if I had to watch something like this streaming 600w, I would give up after a while.
    I would love to post everything on YouTube, where the HD quality is pretty strong and people can adjust sizes and quality levels to what works best for them, but they do not allow me 30 minutes a pop.
    Like I say… the whole thing is a work in progress. If we can get the machine moving so there is some revenue, I would happily spend every dime on someone who could spend the time processing the work. We now have three Macs that can be used towards that end, but except at festivals, I rarely have the time to split focus and use them all.
    I am still doing the mp3s for every video that goes up, so I will figure out a way to make them available. I was hoping to make changes on the new site quickly, but so far, the first two techs recommended to work on this theme have been too busy to take on a new client. And man, should I ever not be the one doing coding myself!

  17. mutinyco says:

    Dave-
    I suggested the smaller sizes not because I have an aesthetic preference for them — I use those sizes because they’re practical: They’re big enough that people can view the videos comfortably, yet small enough to keep the file size manageable.
    Even when I shot Cotillard for you 2 years ago, the final version that was uploaded was a medium quality 500×281. It was 30 minutes long and still came in at over 200MB. And I shot it in a smaller format than you right now — 720 vs. 1080.
    I’m just offering the perspective of somebody’s who’s been at web video for nearly 6 years now…

  18. martin says:

    mc, i think it’s pretty clear that you’re barking up the wrong tree with the resize suggestion. sounds like he’s keeping them high res for a reason, whether it’s a reason you personally agree with or not.

  19. jeffmcm says:

    I just wanted to chime in that I agree with Mutiny that smaller = better as far as download size/time. David Lean films deserve to be seen in 70mm but Errol Morris films are just fine on a 16 inch TV.

  20. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Just as an extra consideration regarding the size – not everywhere has unlimited traffic internet providers.

  21. reuben says:

    Hi Dave
    Since commenting on this (Nov, 22nd), I have been studying your publications. The sizes are simply not appropriate for your available bandwidth. For instance, I have been downloading a DP/30 episode from Central Europe with a 16MBit/s line for more than an hour and have reached 82%, so far. The same was true during the week.
    This means your publications are everything else than on-demand. Independent from where you decide to host the episodes, I therefore urge you to use the enclosure-tags in your DP/30 RSS. In this way downloads can be automated in advance, prior to watching them.
    If you are not privileged for a YouTube partner account, I suggest you change your distribution channel to BitTorrent – your server holding the initial copy. It is not more of a hassle and you distribute the payload. For inspiration, please check out how revision3 is publishing their content.

  22. martin says:

    I suspect that less than 1% of MCN’s viewers have a “limited traffic” internet account. I actually hadn’t even heard that term since the 28.8 modem days and don’t know a single person that has anything but unlimited. Maybe at Airports and Hotels, but other than that internet access afaik is unlimited for the vast majority of users. Some providers do throttle torrents and that sort of thing, but that’s not an issue with Dave’s QT files.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon