I needed to turn an audition clip file into a DVD that a funder could throw into a DVD player and see the movie on their TV.
I wound up using iDVD. It's meant to be a super simple program for putting your home movies on a disc. But if you actually want to do something really simple, it's not that intuitive.
What I wanted to do was make a DVD that plays one movie file once, without a menu. I could not figure out how to skip having a menu. You can put a movie before the menu. But the menus all seemed to require a minimum of two movies after. So I had to put the movie (an audition clip) before the menu, then twice after the menu.
It worked, but it was ugly. Also, the menus themselves, in their efforts to look "professional," came off as cheesy.
Eventually, I was able to download 1.6GB of other menu options, some which only demand one video after the menu, and don't look as cheesy.
So now: hey, I can make my own DVDs now!
Writing for games, TV and movies (with forays into life and political theatre)...
Showing posts with label distribution technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label distribution technology. Show all posts
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Sync Problems on Vimeo
I'm having sync problems with some videos I've put on Vimeo for private distribution. Has anyone else had this problem? Anyone know a better site? (I don't think you can upload stuff to YouTube but restrict its availability.)
Monday, July 18, 2011
More Free Documentaries
There seem to be more free online documentaries at Documentary Heaven.
This makes me suspect that documentaries may not be the most profitable side of the movie industry.
This makes me suspect that documentaries may not be the most profitable side of the movie industry.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Are the Studios Fighting WWI All Over Again?
Bill Wyman writing in Slate:
Like Wyman (who is probably not the same guy as the Rolling Stones drummer), I pay a lot to see content in different ways. I've got a satellite TV bill. I've got a DVDs-by-mail bill. And I may sign on to a streaming bill. DVDs by mail has the selection but you can wait months to see a title. Satellite TV gives you a lot of options but you can't watch what you want, only what's on. Streaming is great but the content is minuscule. (Though I'm told there are workarounds to get Netflix US in Canada.) Itunes is good but overpriced. (And why can't I watch the movie again?)
I don't watch pirated content 'cause I wouldn't like to be pirated. But boy, the studios need to get a better video distribution system in place stat, 'cause the audience is going up the learning curve on movie piracy.
The trouble facing the movie industry right now is the same one the music industry had to confront 10 years ago.Discuss.
The easiest and most convenient way to see the movies or TV shows you want is to get them illegally.
[snip]
If the studios were smart they'd go to the mat and create a massive one-stop shop for TV and movies, find a price point they can live with and then set programmers loose to make the thing as easy to use and ubiquitous as possible. Instead they've been wasting their time strong-arming the cable companies to help them on a new crusade against illegal downloaders—an unwieldy process that doesn't address the root problem and won't work.
Like Wyman (who is probably not the same guy as the Rolling Stones drummer), I pay a lot to see content in different ways. I've got a satellite TV bill. I've got a DVDs-by-mail bill. And I may sign on to a streaming bill. DVDs by mail has the selection but you can wait months to see a title. Satellite TV gives you a lot of options but you can't watch what you want, only what's on. Streaming is great but the content is minuscule. (Though I'm told there are workarounds to get Netflix US in Canada.) Itunes is good but overpriced. (And why can't I watch the movie again?)
I don't watch pirated content 'cause I wouldn't like to be pirated. But boy, the studios need to get a better video distribution system in place stat, 'cause the audience is going up the learning curve on movie piracy.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Zip Drops the Ball
I just got off a long chat with the customer service guys at Zip. They've been totally caught off guard by the Canada Post strike, because who could see that coming. Now 9 days after the end of the strike, they still apparently haven't processed the backlog of movies that people watched during the 13 day strike and sent back after it was over.
UPDATE: They suggested that I burn up some of my "ZipReward" points, sort of "frequent renter" points which allow you to order additional disks for free. Clever boys, that way they'll get everyone to burn up their rewards. Especially since I did, and they still haven't sent me my free disc.
Their attitude is that not having enough employees to handle the backlog, and not having enough discs to send out to customers, is "beyond their control."
It is, of course, entirely within their control to remedy the situation. They just don't want to.
Anyone can have good customer service in normal times. What makes a company excellent is rising to new challenges. Zip, not so much. Boo.
Well, Netflix will probably put them out of business, so I guess it's a temporary problem.
UPDATE: They also have a weird system where when you've sent them a disc, and they haven't received it after a couple of weeks, you have to report it "stolen," even though the "stolen" disc is either wandering around Canada Post or wandering around their warehouse, and not stolen at all. You can't report a disc "lost," only "stolen."
UPDATE: They suggested that I burn up some of my "ZipReward" points, sort of "frequent renter" points which allow you to order additional disks for free. Clever boys, that way they'll get everyone to burn up their rewards. Especially since I did, and they still haven't sent me my free disc.
Monday, July 04, 2011
Netflix Canada
After trying Netflix in the States, I'm trying out Netflix Canada. The selection is really terrible. Of the fifteen movies I have on my Zip queue, Netflix had only one, CRONOS. And my Zip queue isn't that obscure. I have INCENDIES (Canada's Oscar nominee this year); Antonioni's classic L'AVVENTURA (Cannes Jury Prize 1960); THE DESCENT; BAD INFLUENCE; Neal Jordan's A COMPANY OF WOLVES; DIARY OF A MAD HOUSEWIFE; Bertolucci's THE CONFORMIST; and I AM LEGEND, starring Will Smith.
Netflix.ca seems to be good for people who want to watch something. It's not for people who want to watch something in particular.
Although they do have all those VEGGIE TALES for Jesse.
I also had a technical issue with CRONOS. It looked jerky, as if only ever other frame was showing. (It looked step-framed.) My guess is that, rather than reducing the image quality when the bandwidth is insufficient, they just transmit fewer frames. It's pretty hard to watch. If you google "netflix streaming jerky," you get a lot of hits, but the solutions available are for PC's; if you're streaming to your brand new DVD player, you're hosed.
So far, this is very much not a cable killer. It could be, but it's far from there.
Netflix.ca seems to be good for people who want to watch something. It's not for people who want to watch something in particular.
Although they do have all those VEGGIE TALES for Jesse.
I also had a technical issue with CRONOS. It looked jerky, as if only ever other frame was showing. (It looked step-framed.) My guess is that, rather than reducing the image quality when the bandwidth is insufficient, they just transmit fewer frames. It's pretty hard to watch. If you google "netflix streaming jerky," you get a lot of hits, but the solutions available are for PC's; if you're streaming to your brand new DVD player, you're hosed.
So far, this is very much not a cable killer. It could be, but it's far from there.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Itunes
So we ran into a drawback on Netflix last night. Lisa and I wanted to show my folks Jacob Tierney's adorable comedy THE TROTSKY, but the film kept buffering. I suspect the problem may be that we're on a cable modem, and we're sharing a pipe with too many other people in the neighborhood, so bandwidth goes down in the evening.
So we tried to watch THE KING'S SPEECH on iTunes. But it looks like you have to download the entire movie in order to watch it. We got an error message trying to watch it.
This morning, it seems to have downloaded [UPDATE: no, it didn't]. But ITunes has an annoying feature: once you start watching the movie, you have 24 hours to watch it. Then it goes away. Since I had to start watching it in order to see if it had downloaded all right, that means I have to watch it tonight. If I'd rented it from my video store, Boîte Noir, I'd have a week. If I had rented a disc from Zip or Netflix, I'd have as long as I like. So this is a step back in convenience. Apple could be a little more generous, considering $5 is quite a bit more than I'm used to paying to rent a movie.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to unravel a mystery. Apparently the second generation Apple TV's don't have hard drives, just a li'l 8GB flash drive for caching. So how can you download and queue multiple movies on iTunes? (You have 24 hours once you start watching, but you have 30 days from when you first ask to download, though it seems the first day is lost actually downloading.) Or rather, how many movies can you cache? Can anyone explain or point me to a link?
(UPDATE: Tried to watch it this evening. No go. It's saying it will be available to watch in 10 hours 18 minutes. Since it's also saying we can only watch the movie in the next 10 hours, that's probably not going to work for us. It does not seem to have cached or downloaded anything. That seems dumb. So much for iTunes on Apple TV.)
So we tried to watch THE KING'S SPEECH on iTunes. But it looks like you have to download the entire movie in order to watch it. We got an error message trying to watch it.
This morning, it seems to have downloaded [UPDATE: no, it didn't]. But ITunes has an annoying feature: once you start watching the movie, you have 24 hours to watch it. Then it goes away. Since I had to start watching it in order to see if it had downloaded all right, that means I have to watch it tonight. If I'd rented it from my video store, Boîte Noir, I'd have a week. If I had rented a disc from Zip or Netflix, I'd have as long as I like. So this is a step back in convenience. Apple could be a little more generous, considering $5 is quite a bit more than I'm used to paying to rent a movie.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to unravel a mystery. Apparently the second generation Apple TV's don't have hard drives, just a li'l 8GB flash drive for caching. So how can you download and queue multiple movies on iTunes? (You have 24 hours once you start watching, but you have 30 days from when you first ask to download, though it seems the first day is lost actually downloading.) Or rather, how many movies can you cache? Can anyone explain or point me to a link?
(UPDATE: Tried to watch it this evening. No go. It's saying it will be available to watch in 10 hours 18 minutes. Since it's also saying we can only watch the movie in the next 10 hours, that's probably not going to work for us. It does not seem to have cached or downloaded anything. That seems dumb. So much for iTunes on Apple TV.)
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Netflix
Dad has Netflix here in New York, and has his Apple TV box hooked up to it. For kicks, I downloaded A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and then METROPOLIS. Then Jesse wanted to watch something so I found her VEGGIE TALES 'TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE EASTER, in which vegetables sing and dance and occasionally proselytize for Jesus. It took about 5 seconds to download and start watching.
Netflix (and, in Canada, Zip) sending disks to people by mail killed Blockbuster. Streaming, downloadable movies and TV shows is a cable killer. Seriously. The only reason not to dump your cable subscription now is because not all content is available from Netflix.
But can Netflix make most content available? Are their economics sustainable? I've seen articles (can't find one right now) that claim that Netflix is losing money on its downloadable video: they're paying far more in license fees than they can possibly get from their subscriptions.
I'm not an industry analyst, so I can't tell you. But if Netflix can afford to get up to, oh, 80% of whatever it is that people want to watch, the cable industry is done for. Who needs cable when you can just watch anything, any time?
Here is a quick, irresponsible back of the envelope calculation: 23 million customers times $8 a month is $2 billion a year. If they've got, oh, say, 10,000 movies and episodes, they can afford to pay $200,000 per. If that $200,000 is on top of ticket sales, DVD sales, and syndication on cable and broadcast, that's nice. It's that way now. But if Netflix means no one has a reason to buy the DVD (they can download it) or watch it on cable or broadcast, then $200,000 doesn't go very far. HBO isn't going to let its content go for that kind of money. Neither should Paramount or NBC.
On the other hand, if Netflix really is a cable killer, then it will be able to drastically boost its subscriber base, and charge more, too. If I'm paying $60 a month for cable and $25 a month for Zip to mail me disks, I would certainly pay $80 a month so I can download absolutely anything any time. If 80 million households pay $50 a month, we have $48 billion to play with, and the license fee can go up to an average of $2,000,000.
Hmm. Well, that ought to be enough to greenlight any number of VEGGIE TALES. But a tentpole picture can sell 10 million DVD units. What would Warner Bros have to get as a Netflix license fee if it's not going to sell $500,000,000 worth of DVDs of Batman 5?
I can feel the earth moving, but who knows where we'll end up?
Netflix (and, in Canada, Zip) sending disks to people by mail killed Blockbuster. Streaming, downloadable movies and TV shows is a cable killer. Seriously. The only reason not to dump your cable subscription now is because not all content is available from Netflix.
But can Netflix make most content available? Are their economics sustainable? I've seen articles (can't find one right now) that claim that Netflix is losing money on its downloadable video: they're paying far more in license fees than they can possibly get from their subscriptions.
I'm not an industry analyst, so I can't tell you. But if Netflix can afford to get up to, oh, 80% of whatever it is that people want to watch, the cable industry is done for. Who needs cable when you can just watch anything, any time?
Here is a quick, irresponsible back of the envelope calculation: 23 million customers times $8 a month is $2 billion a year. If they've got, oh, say, 10,000 movies and episodes, they can afford to pay $200,000 per. If that $200,000 is on top of ticket sales, DVD sales, and syndication on cable and broadcast, that's nice. It's that way now. But if Netflix means no one has a reason to buy the DVD (they can download it) or watch it on cable or broadcast, then $200,000 doesn't go very far. HBO isn't going to let its content go for that kind of money. Neither should Paramount or NBC.
On the other hand, if Netflix really is a cable killer, then it will be able to drastically boost its subscriber base, and charge more, too. If I'm paying $60 a month for cable and $25 a month for Zip to mail me disks, I would certainly pay $80 a month so I can download absolutely anything any time. If 80 million households pay $50 a month, we have $48 billion to play with, and the license fee can go up to an average of $2,000,000.
Hmm. Well, that ought to be enough to greenlight any number of VEGGIE TALES. But a tentpole picture can sell 10 million DVD units. What would Warner Bros have to get as a Netflix license fee if it's not going to sell $500,000,000 worth of DVDs of Batman 5?
I can feel the earth moving, but who knows where we'll end up?
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Geoblock That Kick!
A dear friend posted this Toronto Star column about American broadcasters streaming content into Canada, commercials intact.
The key determinant will obviously be money. Once U.S. rights holders conclude that it is more profitable to retain the Internet rights so that they can stream their programs online to a global audience and capture the advertising or subscription revenues that come with it, Canadian broadcasters may find that they can only license broadcast rights with the U.S. rights holders competing directly with them via the Internet.As content moves onto the Internet, this could present a huge problem for broadcasters that rely on a protected market. The response that we (content creators) hope they'd have is to produce more homegrown content that they could then stream into other markets. But the immediate temptation, once it really begins to hurt, will be to ask for some kind of government-enforced geoblocking. We'll see.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
NetGalley
![]() |
| From Blogger Pictures |
I was jazzed to discover NetGalley. They do exactly what you'd expect. You upload a PDF to their site, and they give you links and widgets so that when you query reviewers and bloggers, they can immediately download a copy of your book onto their computer, iPad, Kindle, Nook, Sony Reader or other e-reader device.
They handle the DRM, in case you don't want your PDF spreading virally.
1. You build NetGalley title pages for all of your titles. Include marketing copy, photos, cover art, videos, audio--all of this plus the digital galley of your title. You can also list your title in NetGalley's Public Catalog, which will allow NetGalley users to find and request your galley. You can offer your contacts several different reading options for the galley—they can download a protected or open PDF, read on a reading device such as the Sony Reader or Kindle, and even request a printed galley if you choose.Pretty nifty, huh?
2. Using our inviting tools, including a widget you can embed directly in your emails, invite your contacts to view your galley. Contacts can include reviewers, bloggers, media, librarians, booksellers, retailers, educators, etc. You can invite as many contacts as you like, and you can also search our member database to add new contacts to your list.
3. You will be able to see who has viewed your title and even receive reviews back through NetGalley if your contacts choose to post their comments.
There is no charge for professional readers to use the service; publishers pay a set-up fee plus a monthly cost depending on the number of titles you have on the site. How many titles were you thinking about listing (we have a minimum requirement of five)?
Meanwhile, for film festival submissions, there's Withoutabox.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Netflix.ca
It's been a long time coming, but Netflix finally launched a Canadian service. They don't seem to be mailing DVDs out. They're focusing on video on demand: all you can eat for $8 a month, downloaded to your videogame console.
Need I say that could potentially rock the world of television? You have to watch Hulu on your computer screen, which is fine for college students but not so great for families. But if I can watch my TV on demand -- why the hell do I need to pay $80 a month for cable? Plus $25 a month for Zip.ca to mail me DVD's?
As a consumer -- yay! As a content creator -- yikes!
Need I say that could potentially rock the world of television? You have to watch Hulu on your computer screen, which is fine for college students but not so great for families. But if I can watch my TV on demand -- why the hell do I need to pay $80 a month for cable? Plus $25 a month for Zip.ca to mail me DVD's?
As a consumer -- yay! As a content creator -- yikes!
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Getcher Movies on YouTube
YouTube is planning to rent movies for $3.99 a pop. Nothing special about that idea -- you can rent movies from iTunes for the same price. But YouTube's idea seems to be to distribute movies that don't already have distribution.
Distribution is tough these days. It is insanely hard to get your movie into Sundance, yet most of the movies at Sundance won't get distribution. (Which is why you might not want to finance your picture with credit cards.) YouTube, apparently, proposes to let filmmakers upload their movies whether they've got theatrical or DVD distribution or not.
This fits right into the YouTube business model, of course. And they won't be losing any money. Their cost is virtually nil.
The question is whether consumers really want more choice. I rarely see movies at film festivals for the very reason that they're much spottier than movies that have made it to theaters. And YouTube distribution won't eliminate the need to market your movie. People still have to hear that it's worth $3.99.
Maybe what's needed is a "taster" price: you can rent the first 30 minutes of a movie for a buck. The rest costs you $3. Anyone who's into the movie will be happy to pay for it. But you don't have to worry you'll pay $3.99 for a stinker, because you can bail out and it will cost you only a buck. On the other hand 30 minutes is long enough for viewers to figure out if they're liking a movie even if it gets off to a slow start.
I can see people in airports now, browsing movies on their iPads, downloading a couple for the flight. Assuming, of course, that in the future you won't have to fly gadgetless and naked.
Distribution is tough these days. It is insanely hard to get your movie into Sundance, yet most of the movies at Sundance won't get distribution. (Which is why you might not want to finance your picture with credit cards.) YouTube, apparently, proposes to let filmmakers upload their movies whether they've got theatrical or DVD distribution or not.
This fits right into the YouTube business model, of course. And they won't be losing any money. Their cost is virtually nil.
The question is whether consumers really want more choice. I rarely see movies at film festivals for the very reason that they're much spottier than movies that have made it to theaters. And YouTube distribution won't eliminate the need to market your movie. People still have to hear that it's worth $3.99.
Maybe what's needed is a "taster" price: you can rent the first 30 minutes of a movie for a buck. The rest costs you $3. Anyone who's into the movie will be happy to pay for it. But you don't have to worry you'll pay $3.99 for a stinker, because you can bail out and it will cost you only a buck. On the other hand 30 minutes is long enough for viewers to figure out if they're liking a movie even if it gets off to a slow start.
I can see people in airports now, browsing movies on their iPads, downloading a couple for the flight. Assuming, of course, that in the future you won't have to fly gadgetless and naked.
Friday, January 08, 2010
The Netflix Model
Kung Fu Monkey has become something of a promotional blog for LEVERAGE, but here's a thought-provoking post (along with many thought-provoking comments) about Netflix and the E-book and the future of film and book distribution.
Incidentally, I love KFM's postscript: "Tell me I'm an idiot, but be specific." That's my new motto for the next month.
Incidentally, I love KFM's postscript: "Tell me I'm an idiot, but be specific." That's my new motto for the next month.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Bricks and Mortar
Rather than walk to 93rd Street, which is apparently the nearest video store, we downloaded (500) Days of Summer on iTunes and watched it on the computer. Fortunately my folks have a nice pair of JBL computer speakers.
If you're in the physical video distribution business -- if you, say, own a Blockbuster franchise -- now might be a good time to get out.
Happy MMX.
If you're in the physical video distribution business -- if you, say, own a Blockbuster franchise -- now might be a good time to get out.
Happy MMX.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
How Do I Market My Film To the US?
Q. I have directed and produced 4 feature films (running length is 80-95 min) in my country. They are subtitled in English. I’m producing 4 more films in 2009.Film distribution is outside my field of knowledge. Does anyone know of another route to getting your foreign film distributed in the States beyond calling the indie film distributors?
I would like to know how to I approach managers/agents for representation in selling my movies in US markets. I know about the American Film Market and film festivals. And I know about cold calls. Are there any more options for selling my movies in US market?
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Boundless Creativity
Somewhere in the 20th Century, the art of the raconteur seems to have almost died out, along with the habit of ordinary people playing music and singing in public. It's good to see that the informal, unpaid arts have not entirely left us.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Peeking is Fun
Jill Golick is trying to use the full Internet for storytelling. Story2Oh is an attempt to tell a story through Facebook pages, Twitters, Youtube videos, etc. ... which you, the reader, can access in whatever order you choose. It's like peeking in on your friends' lives as they unfold, only hopefully, more fun and scandalous.
One of the most moving theatrical experiences I ever had was when I was in college. I went to see an adaptation of THE REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST into a sort of play. The creators basically took all the naughty bits out of Proust's very long novel and put them on their feet in a (temporarily empty) house on Hillhouse Avenue in New Haven. The exciting thing artistically was that several scenes would be playing at once, so you could wander around the house and see different things each time you went to the play. (I went twice.)
The difficulty with Alternate Reality Games is there's no narrative, as such. People like to be told a story; it takes more work to discover the story yourself, by poking at the Net. Most people want to watch the detective, not do the detective's work.
But it can be fun to imagine yourself into a world. I was once foolish enough to mount a one-night live-action role-playing game set the night before Camlann, the final battle of the King Arthur saga. Camlann Eve was a month's work for me to put it together, not counting what the thirty or so players did to put together their characters. But I'm glad I did it. It was fun to inhabit that world, just for a night. (Now if only the Wandering Jew had bothered to tell anyone where the Grail was stashed...)
Check out Jill's site, and let us know what you think!
One of the most moving theatrical experiences I ever had was when I was in college. I went to see an adaptation of THE REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST into a sort of play. The creators basically took all the naughty bits out of Proust's very long novel and put them on their feet in a (temporarily empty) house on Hillhouse Avenue in New Haven. The exciting thing artistically was that several scenes would be playing at once, so you could wander around the house and see different things each time you went to the play. (I went twice.)
The difficulty with Alternate Reality Games is there's no narrative, as such. People like to be told a story; it takes more work to discover the story yourself, by poking at the Net. Most people want to watch the detective, not do the detective's work.
But it can be fun to imagine yourself into a world. I was once foolish enough to mount a one-night live-action role-playing game set the night before Camlann, the final battle of the King Arthur saga. Camlann Eve was a month's work for me to put it together, not counting what the thirty or so players did to put together their characters. But I'm glad I did it. It was fun to inhabit that world, just for a night. (Now if only the Wandering Jew had bothered to tell anyone where the Grail was stashed...)
Check out Jill's site, and let us know what you think!
Friday, November 02, 2007
DIY Film Release
DENVER, CO — November 2, 2007 – In its first few months since releasing, 10 MPH has ... sold more than 4000 DVDs and 800 downloads. It also reached thousands of people on a limited theatrical release in August and has had several thousand online rents from Netflix and Blockbuster.com.Anyone want to check out their manual and report back, please do.
... filmmakers Hunter Weeks and Josh Caldwell are releasing a unique DIY Manual & resource section on the 10 MPH website, which offers an inside look at the road to a successful independent film release. For more, see the 10 MPH DIY Manual.
Also today, Spinning Blue announces a [Radiohead-style] Pick-Your-Price promotion allowing buyers to choose their own price for iTunes-compatible downloads and DVDs. Downloads can be purchased for a minimum of 10 cents and DVDs $4.99.
The porn industry already has digital film distribution; why sell actual media (discs) for something people only want to see on their computers anyway? How long will it take for mainstream films to get there too? I'm watching MAD MEN on iTunes rather than sign up for AMC. I'm watching five films on DVD for every one that's spectacular enough that it lures me into a movie theater.
Digital film distribution is only part of the equation, of course. I bought MAD MEN because of word of mouth, but somewhere along the line there was a serious marketing push. (I know there was; I read the p.r. in the newspapers.) Radiohead can sell eleven million bucks worth of downloads because earlier in their career their label believed in them and marketed them. Digitial film distribution saves you money on distribution but someone's still going to have to pay for advertisements and press releases. In other words it doesn't mean any idiot with a camera can successfully make a film that people will see.
But it does significantly reduce the barrier to entry to geniuses with a camera. That's the trend we've been following for the past twenty years. Anyone with a Mac and a prosumer camera can now make a comedy, even if they can't make PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. At the kinds of numbers they're talking about (4000 DVDs, 800 downloads), no one's making their money back on this particular venture, I'm guessing. But the next CLERKS could go viral.
Discuss...
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Bittorrent Weirdness
/* begin geekfest */
A friend of ours is trying to download a certain movie it is impossible to obtain on DVD. And the torrents are misbehaving something fierce. He is using two Bittorrent clients on two computers, but though they are on the same torrent, they don't see the same number of peers and seeders. Nor do they even see each other. One has downloaded 600+ MB, the other only 300 although it has been at it twice as long. Both are set for high upload rates, but they're not uploading anywhere near the ADSL limit, so it's not a question of jammed pipes.
Moreover, when one stops the torrent because it sees 0 seeds and 0 peers, and then restarts it, sometimes the client finds a seeder that it didn't see before.
Any experts on torrents out there who can suggest what might be wrong and how to fix?
/* end geekfest */
A friend of ours is trying to download a certain movie it is impossible to obtain on DVD. And the torrents are misbehaving something fierce. He is using two Bittorrent clients on two computers, but though they are on the same torrent, they don't see the same number of peers and seeders. Nor do they even see each other. One has downloaded 600+ MB, the other only 300 although it has been at it twice as long. Both are set for high upload rates, but they're not uploading anywhere near the ADSL limit, so it's not a question of jammed pipes.
Moreover, when one stops the torrent because it sees 0 seeds and 0 peers, and then restarts it, sometimes the client finds a seeder that it didn't see before.
Any experts on torrents out there who can suggest what might be wrong and how to fix?
/* end geekfest */
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
