David Harvey to do Capital Vols 2 and 3 videos
- Thread starter Blagsta
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
10 grand! I wish them luck but 10 grand! How?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
10,884 cities. If one person from each of those donates $1 they're there.
Or $1 from 2% of the total number of page views (assuming each pv is also a unique user...I would assume that the number of UUs is about 1/3 total page views, so $1 from 4% of the total number of people who've seen it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I mean how can it cost 10 grand? It's one camera filming a bloke talking for an hour. One edit on the first lecture to include a pre-discussion talk.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I'd chip in a couple of quid, but, like butchers, am a bit puzzled about the costs...
And then there's BA's mum... 
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's what i was thinking - there's ways round that though, torrents, Internet Archive, youtube etc. I guess they'd like to keep all the material in one place and stream-able.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
It's ludicrous - it could be torrented perfectly legally- can someone who knows about these things please email his team.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Will do.
This might interest some people:
The Enigma of Capital
Date: Monday 26 April 2010
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue: Old Theatre, Old Building. LSE. (Map #1 - map #2)
Speaker: Professor David Harvey
Cost: sweet FA
This might interest some people:
The Enigma of Capital
Date: Monday 26 April 2010
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue: Old Theatre, Old Building. LSE. (Map #1 - map #2)
Speaker: Professor David Harvey
Cost: sweet FA
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I've just asked someone who works in TV if this is a reasonable amount for 2hrs worth of talking head shot.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Tbf it's about 50 hours. But of course, we can just multiply the answer i suppose.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Please note this comes with lots of caveats about being off the hoof and not a 'proper' quote etc etc (every mention of 'I' is from my mate):
50 hours of talking head footage is a lot to shoot. For this hypothetical I'm going to assume that you're hiring one camera operator at a low rate and you're hiring the camera, tripod and lights (also at a low rate) - ie. you have no resources. Let's also say that you're filming maybe approximately 7 hours of talking head footage per shoot day (which is a LOT if it's just one person doing the talking, not so much if it's different people being interviewed).
So for a 7 day shoot that's:
Cam op @ £ 150 per day = 1,050
Equipment @ £220 per day = 1,540
The the edit costs, these cost a fortune if you don't have access to your own kit. We're going for the cheapest possible quote here so let's say the cam op also had Final Cut Pro on his laptop at home and could edit it for you. He'd charge the same daily rate plus a bit for using his equipment - so let's say £200 per day (£1000 for a 5 day week). Then how many days do you need? Well that depends on the edit - if it's nothing fancy it wouldn't take too long but like I said, 50 hours of footage is a hell of a lot. Just to watch it all through once (assuming you do 8 hour days) is over 6 days worth. I'd say you'd need 4 or 5 weeks which would also include time to titles, graphics and DVD authoring if required (making usable menus which takes time).
5 weeks @ £1,000 per week = £5,000
Total approx cost = £7,590 (or £6,590 for 4 weeks of post-production, not 5 weeks)
I have to say that the rates for equipment, editor and cam op I've used are very low and if you had to hire a professional edit suite to do this in it would cost a small fortune!
I think that's pretty reasonable to be fair - like I say, 50 hours of footage is loads. And if they want 2 different camera angles for the talking heads - then you've got to get 2 camera operators and tripods and cameras, or film the whole thing twice, which will add to the shooting time required
So $10K bucks for the production on current exchange rate is about £6,500 - altho as stated, this is bargain basement stuff that makes a lot of assumptions about kit, edit costs etc.
50 hours of talking head footage is a lot to shoot. For this hypothetical I'm going to assume that you're hiring one camera operator at a low rate and you're hiring the camera, tripod and lights (also at a low rate) - ie. you have no resources. Let's also say that you're filming maybe approximately 7 hours of talking head footage per shoot day (which is a LOT if it's just one person doing the talking, not so much if it's different people being interviewed).
So for a 7 day shoot that's:
Cam op @ £ 150 per day = 1,050
Equipment @ £220 per day = 1,540
The the edit costs, these cost a fortune if you don't have access to your own kit. We're going for the cheapest possible quote here so let's say the cam op also had Final Cut Pro on his laptop at home and could edit it for you. He'd charge the same daily rate plus a bit for using his equipment - so let's say £200 per day (£1000 for a 5 day week). Then how many days do you need? Well that depends on the edit - if it's nothing fancy it wouldn't take too long but like I said, 50 hours of footage is a hell of a lot. Just to watch it all through once (assuming you do 8 hour days) is over 6 days worth. I'd say you'd need 4 or 5 weeks which would also include time to titles, graphics and DVD authoring if required (making usable menus which takes time).
5 weeks @ £1,000 per week = £5,000
Total approx cost = £7,590 (or £6,590 for 4 weeks of post-production, not 5 weeks)
I have to say that the rates for equipment, editor and cam op I've used are very low and if you had to hire a professional edit suite to do this in it would cost a small fortune!
I think that's pretty reasonable to be fair - like I say, 50 hours of footage is loads. And if they want 2 different camera angles for the talking heads - then you've got to get 2 camera operators and tripods and cameras, or film the whole thing twice, which will add to the shooting time required
So $10K bucks for the production on current exchange rate is about £6,500 - altho as stated, this is bargain basement stuff that makes a lot of assumptions about kit, edit costs etc.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Have you seen the original vids - they're not professional. They're just a static cameras dumped on a tripod, low quality, filming a scheduled uni lecture. They could could have been done on a phone.
tonyharkney
New Member
Capital Filming Project
Hi all,
I just stumbled across this thread via Google. I was part of the team that put together the Volume I lectures, and I think I could shed some light here.
We used two identical camera kits for each lecture: Panasonic DVX100 cameras mounted on tripods, with both a wireless lav mic and shotgun mics. In addition we used a Marantz digital audio recorder with an omnidirectional mic to try to pick up the sound from student questions.
Professor Harvey gave 13 two-hour lectures, and we filmed an additional interview with Neil Smith and David Harvey. We ended up with over 55 hours of tape. Aside from the costs of renting the equipment (plus lighting), the major expense was getting that amount of tape edited. So, the budget for the second project is based on what the Volume I project actually cost.
In terms of streaming, when we started the project we were using Google Video. Unfortunately, after the 6th video, Google Video refused to accept any more uploads from us, with no warning and no explanation. (In retrospect, it seemed to have been a part of their abandoning Google Video after they bought YouTube.) So, we scrambled to find another solution and we ended up paying Blip.tv to stream the videos. We are not entirely happy with this solution, and they are not as high quality as we would like, so if people have suggestions of a better way to go, that would be great.
We then released the videos in a number of formats (high quality QuickTime, low quality QuickTime, and the iPod friendly .m4v format), as well as two audio formats (mp3 and ogg). The high quality QuickTimes are big - just under 1 gig per class, and our web hosting company can't really handle them, so they are currently only available on our Archive.org mirror site (http://www.archive.org/details/Davidharvey-newClass01ReadingMarxsCapital908-2).
We have wanted to make the files available, especially the larger high quality ones, on bit torrent, but no one on our team has any experience with this. Any help on the best way to go about this would be great. We want them to be available to as many people as possible.
Tony
Hi all,
I just stumbled across this thread via Google. I was part of the team that put together the Volume I lectures, and I think I could shed some light here.
We used two identical camera kits for each lecture: Panasonic DVX100 cameras mounted on tripods, with both a wireless lav mic and shotgun mics. In addition we used a Marantz digital audio recorder with an omnidirectional mic to try to pick up the sound from student questions.
Professor Harvey gave 13 two-hour lectures, and we filmed an additional interview with Neil Smith and David Harvey. We ended up with over 55 hours of tape. Aside from the costs of renting the equipment (plus lighting), the major expense was getting that amount of tape edited. So, the budget for the second project is based on what the Volume I project actually cost.
In terms of streaming, when we started the project we were using Google Video. Unfortunately, after the 6th video, Google Video refused to accept any more uploads from us, with no warning and no explanation. (In retrospect, it seemed to have been a part of their abandoning Google Video after they bought YouTube.) So, we scrambled to find another solution and we ended up paying Blip.tv to stream the videos. We are not entirely happy with this solution, and they are not as high quality as we would like, so if people have suggestions of a better way to go, that would be great.
We then released the videos in a number of formats (high quality QuickTime, low quality QuickTime, and the iPod friendly .m4v format), as well as two audio formats (mp3 and ogg). The high quality QuickTimes are big - just under 1 gig per class, and our web hosting company can't really handle them, so they are currently only available on our Archive.org mirror site (http://www.archive.org/details/Davidharvey-newClass01ReadingMarxsCapital908-2).
We have wanted to make the files available, especially the larger high quality ones, on bit torrent, but no one on our team has any experience with this. Any help on the best way to go about this would be great. We want them to be available to as many people as possible.
Tony
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Hi Tony, thanks for posting - i'll contact you tomorrow with some ideas about torrenting and other methods for getting as wide a distribution as possible.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I was going to post that the other day, it's got the clearest explanation of the central role of credit in overcoming (at least temporarily) the problem of the realisation of total capital and what problems that throws up.
love detective
there's no love too small
Pretty good essay, but found one part of it a tad simplistic and even incorrect at the abstract level
This is the premise of a capitalist economy that supposedly can only realise it's surplus value through credit. Any reading of marx's reproduction schema in volume II of capital shows this not to be the case. Fair enough the reproduction schema is fairly fragmented, incomplete, relies on fragile proportionality under anarchaic conditions and abstracts away a lot of niggly issues - but they certainly don't rely on credit/ficticious capital to show in essence how value (and the underlying use values) are produced/realised/consumed/reproduced - which is pretty much what the writer seems to be suggesting
Whilst the credit system is obviously crucial for the development and maintenance of capital in practice - the underlying abstract basis for reproduction & circulation of total social capital that marx puts forward in his reproduction schema does not have credit at its fundamental core (this probably appears as something fairly counter-intuative), and therefore positing that it does, doesn't really help in the understanding of it
Also the example of the economy which consists of a single firm - and that firm needing to find the extra $10 to realise their surplus value (which at that stage exists as $10 of value in the form of a commodity product) is a daft one from the point of view of trying to logically demonstrate the assertion about realisation/reproduction only being possible through credit. If they are the only firm in the economy, the only place they could spend that $10 once converted from commodity product to money (as in spend in either consuming the surplus value as revenue or investing it in expanded reproduction) would be with themselves, because by definition they are the only producer and supplier of (non-labour) commodities in the economy
So in that particular example there is no need for money to mediate the transformation between Commodity product and Money and then back into either Productive Capital (for expanded reproduction) or Means of Consumption (for simple reproduction) because that firm already owns the entire available commodity product stock in the first place (as it's the only producer in the economy) - they can therefore just skip the transformation into money stage and directly consume/productively consume the product it needs directly. And even if it wanted to spend the entire $10 on additional labour (the only thing it doesn't already directly own) it still wouldn't need to realise it's surplus value into money to buy that labour as it, as the only producer & supplier of commodities in the economy, would already own the means of consumption that that variable capital would ultimately be spent on, so again the nature of the example chosen dispenses with the need of the mediating step of monetising the surplus value. The only way the example case put forward would make 'sense' would be if that single company wanted for some reason to hold $10 in cash and never throw it back into circulation as capital - but in that case it would cease to be capital anyway so it becomes an even more absurd example
This is the premise of a capitalist economy that supposedly can only realise it's surplus value through credit. Any reading of marx's reproduction schema in volume II of capital shows this not to be the case. Fair enough the reproduction schema is fairly fragmented, incomplete, relies on fragile proportionality under anarchaic conditions and abstracts away a lot of niggly issues - but they certainly don't rely on credit/ficticious capital to show in essence how value (and the underlying use values) are produced/realised/consumed/reproduced - which is pretty much what the writer seems to be suggesting
Whilst the credit system is obviously crucial for the development and maintenance of capital in practice - the underlying abstract basis for reproduction & circulation of total social capital that marx puts forward in his reproduction schema does not have credit at its fundamental core (this probably appears as something fairly counter-intuative), and therefore positing that it does, doesn't really help in the understanding of it
Also the example of the economy which consists of a single firm - and that firm needing to find the extra $10 to realise their surplus value (which at that stage exists as $10 of value in the form of a commodity product) is a daft one from the point of view of trying to logically demonstrate the assertion about realisation/reproduction only being possible through credit. If they are the only firm in the economy, the only place they could spend that $10 once converted from commodity product to money (as in spend in either consuming the surplus value as revenue or investing it in expanded reproduction) would be with themselves, because by definition they are the only producer and supplier of (non-labour) commodities in the economy
So in that particular example there is no need for money to mediate the transformation between Commodity product and Money and then back into either Productive Capital (for expanded reproduction) or Means of Consumption (for simple reproduction) because that firm already owns the entire available commodity product stock in the first place (as it's the only producer in the economy) - they can therefore just skip the transformation into money stage and directly consume/productively consume the product it needs directly. And even if it wanted to spend the entire $10 on additional labour (the only thing it doesn't already directly own) it still wouldn't need to realise it's surplus value into money to buy that labour as it, as the only producer & supplier of commodities in the economy, would already own the means of consumption that that variable capital would ultimately be spent on, so again the nature of the example chosen dispenses with the need of the mediating step of monetising the surplus value. The only way the example case put forward would make 'sense' would be if that single company wanted for some reason to hold $10 in cash and never throw it back into circulation as capital - but in that case it would cease to be capital anyway so it becomes an even more absurd example
love detective
there's no love too small
who is?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Vol 2 being edited right now.
ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
I've been looking forward this since it was announced that the next two volumes were to be done. You involved in the process somehow butchers?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Nope, just know people that are.
love detective
there's no love too small
I re-read both Volume II and Accumulation of Capital again earlier this year - and was once again struck by how underrated and overlooked Volume II and the topics it touch upon are
It's amazing how little this kind of thing has been progressed/built upon in the last 100 years or so. Just seems completely ignored yet fundamentally central to the reproduction of capitalist social relations and human beings - yet intellectuals and so called political economists, both marxist and non/anti marxist seem happy to devote huge amounts of time & effort to fairly irrelevant crap like the transformation problem. Things like this though are laregly ignored (or at least I never see them). Would also say the same about things like the section on surplus profits/rent in Volume 3.
It's amazing how little this kind of thing has been progressed/built upon in the last 100 years or so. Just seems completely ignored yet fundamentally central to the reproduction of capitalist social relations and human beings - yet intellectuals and so called political economists, both marxist and non/anti marxist seem happy to devote huge amounts of time & effort to fairly irrelevant crap like the transformation problem. Things like this though are laregly ignored (or at least I never see them). Would also say the same about things like the section on surplus profits/rent in Volume 3.
ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
I wish they would pull their finger out with the editing. I mean, how long can it possibley take ffs?
Commie inefficiency I tell ya; 'they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work' etc.
Commie inefficiency I tell ya; 'they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work' etc.
The hilarious irony of it all, well done.
Similar threads
