|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: BKSTS Membership drive
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-05-2007 01:27 AM
Diversification has to be the key to any non-profit's long-term financial security. If you rely too much on one income stream, then in lean years you can have a big problem. As I say, the only one of these bodies I have any real experience of is AMIA, which is built on three basic streams of revenue: membership subscriptions (individual and institutional), an operating profit made on the annual conference and corporate sponsorship (usually for specific events and initiatives). If you have a bad year for one, then hopefully the other two will cushion the blow.
quote: Steve Guttag
Nearest I can figure, most memberships are paid for by the companies that members work for.
I'm not sure what the proportion is in our case, but for an organisation like the BKSTS I'd have thought that targeting large employers for bulk memberships could be a way forward.
quote: Steve Guttag
There are tax deductions to be had for the professional organizations in the USA too to offset some of the expense.
Same here, but the bureaucracy involved in trying to claim them is an Orwellian nightmare; and you might just - if you're lucky - get around the cost of a pint of beer back again if you can be bothered to do it. Try claiming anything like that and you're almost guaranteed to get a self-assessment tax form the following year. Most Brits have income tax deducted at source from their monthly salary through a scheme called Pay As You Earn (PAYE) - but people who are deemed to have 'complicated' financial affairs, e.g. are self-employed or who do a bit of freelance work as well as their main job, or claim tax relief on work-related expenses, have to fill in an annual form which is a 30-page hell. I made the mistake of claiming the relief on my BKSTS subscription and one or two other little things during the last year of my membership. I think I got around £15 in the end, but doing the self-assessment form the following year took the best part of a day.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-05-2007 07:59 AM
Good points Leo, and you're right about the different types of aims one can have as a member of an organisation.
quote: Tim Reed
I was a member of the SMPTE for a while, but let it lapse. Primarily because the dues kept going up and the motion picture information in the Journal kept going down.
Truly, I would've loved to join the BKSTS -- and I followed the link Gordon posted with a mind to do so -- but as Leo mentioned, the cost is just too great.
I can't swing $169 a year for what amounts to 4 issues of a magazine.
Understood Tim, but just to let you know, BKSTS Membership gives automatic Subscription to both Journals of the Society - Image Technology and Cinema Technology. The former is published 6 times a year; the latter quarterly, yielding ten publications per annum. Membership also yields discounts on Publications and Wallcharts, on Training Courses and Seminars, on attendance at BKSTS Events, gives access to information and advice, affords networking oportunities, facilitates input into Standards setting, promoting excellence, and much more!
SMPTE offers the same kind of benefits...it really is about much more than simply receiving Journals. As for the reduction in Motion Picture content in the Journal of the SMPTE, well surely this is a reflection of how digital technology as a new technology "leverages" much higher coverage because simply there is so much more being developed in that area right now, since Film is a mature technology. But there are still learned papers appearing on new film stock developments, for example, and there is a fine account of The Evolution of the Cinema Lens in the current Journal, which is being published as a series.
I do feel that membership of these organisations is extremely valuable, and maybe the task is to communicate the "bigger picture", and the real value of what it is all about, more effectively.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Bachlund
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 696
From: Monrovia, CA, USA
Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted 03-06-2007 06:55 PM
Dick has asked several posters their reasons for not wanting to renew their memberships.
In my opinion, SMPTE today is geared toward the “digital revolution” and has left the film world behind, something with which we cannot necessarily take issue.
However, the vast majority of screens in today’s market remain film screens, and SMPTE is the US technological resource. In this connection, perhaps EG-18 will one day be revived to complement the other great engineering guidelines and recommended practices.
Meanwhile, SMPTE membership offers access to and support of cutting edge technical excellence for those who seek it. BKSTS remains more “film friendly,” and is, accordingly, more rooted in the past (and, dare I say, in reality?). The joint membership offer, at $280, is neither out of reach nor unreasonable when viewed in light of other technical societies. For example, the IEEE is currently $161.
Accordingly, I have juggled my finances and opted to renew my SMPTE/BKSTS membership instead of going to ShoWest this year. While I will miss many friendly contacts over a two or three day period, I will look forward to a full year of technological news and entertainment, both digital and film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-06-2007 07:45 PM
I don't know how EG-18 could be properly revived without bringing up the same problems which brought about its demise. That is, if you come up with a document that gives good technical reasons for how to design a theatre (sightlines, acoustics...etc) that it will somehow try to be perverted into being a document that some will try to use in a legal sense. That is, if there is a document that detail the right way...if you deviate, you must be doing it the wrong way.
The SMPTE has always tried to provide RECOMMENDED practices and Engineering GUIDLINES not Laws. The ANSI/SMPTE standards were for those things that had to be uniform for all systems to properly handle/reproduce items. For instance, film dimensions and such...if there were no Standards, cameras/projectors...processing equipment...you name it would have to be different for every willy nilly system. The film systems of today would never had made it this far without standards.
RPs are just that...things you should do or ways to accomplish a standard. Most people are familiar with the test film described in RP40 (RP40 is really the document, 35PA and 35IQ are described in the document). The test film and RP came about in order to comply with ANSI/SMPTE 195 the projectable image area standard. Yeah it is great that S195 tells us how big the projectable image areas are...but how do we go about setting up projectors to achieve those sizes...well RP40 tells ya a way by using a calibrated test film...35-PA.
In fact, there is an excellent article in this months SMPTE Journal on the evolution of lenses and howcome RP40 came about...it is part 2 of a 3-part series.
Engineering Guidelines are even lesser documents. Here are things, based on actual test/practice we think one should be able to achieve or even HOW to achieve better results.
However, when one tries to turn a document such as these into law...it makes people want to back away.
The fate of EG-18 remains a pet-peeve of mine and I would gladly try to revive it if I thought it were possible. It is a needed document, in my opinion.
I've been a member of the Washington DC section of the SMTPE now for about 20-years (probably a bit longer). I've been to less than a handful of meetings. They are at the local TV stations, video editing suites, and other Videocentric facilities. It isn't that they don't interest me at all...just not enough to go to the meeting to hear about it.
The most recent meeting I attended was at the AFI/Silver...about 2-years ago. I attended because I was giving the presentation! I'll give our chair credit, they solicited members for some sort of FILM event. As I recall...I greated them with some sort of quip about "Thank you for coming to the 'STE'" meeting but we'll be talking about "MP" tonight....or something to that affect. It was nice to see that it was well attended! It must have been like going to a museum and seeing the "old" way pictures were shown! Then again, the AFI/Silver is no ordinary film facility and it has its own video production suite as well.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Richard P. May
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 243
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 03-07-2007 12:46 PM
I appreciate some of the comments, especially the constructive ones.
Phil, you are complaining that some of the monthly programs are boring. Yes, we can't please everyone every time. We need to come up with ten programs each year, and it is no small job thinking them up, getting participants, and staging them.
Some ideas of what you'd like, instead of just saying you aren't interested in Turner Classic Movies, would help.
Some of the best attended programs drive me up the wall, as I am out of the film background, and some of the new technologies just aren't my thing. There are many people that work in these fields though, and they deserve their share of attention.
Making your comments without foul language would also be nice.
DM
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-08-2007 02:14 AM
While I agree that the way Phil expressed himself might put him in the running for the 'Genghis Khan Diplomat of the Year' award, I also agree with his two core points: that it's difficult to tailor a professional body's coverage and events to suit all its members, and that the level of membership dues remains a real issue.
I don't think the SMPTE has too much to worry about on the latter score. $135 (£67) is towards the upper range of professional body memberships but not outside it; and the discount on the conference registration alone covers the cost. So, as with AMIA, you effectively get a free membership for going to the conference. If I was thinking seriously about going to the conference, I'd certainly join.
At £92 the BKSTS membership is significantly outside the average professional body subscription rate, and not just in our area. Their other problem is that they don't hold a big, flagship annual event which they can use as a membership carrot. I've done a bit of asking around among various friends and colleagues who belong to a wide range of societies in different fields - £40 to £70 seems to be about the ballpark, with most in the £50-60 range. Most of those I asked who paid their own dues (i.e. their bosses didn't) said they would be put off renewing their membership if the cost headed towards three figures. The only one who definitely said she would explained that this was because she had no choice - membership of the society in question was a legal requirement for being able to work. When you also consider that most projectionists don't earn massive salaries, that £92 represents a significant barrier.
I also agree wholeheartedly with Phil's grouse about a small minority of professional body activists who are activating wholly or mainly for the purpose of promoting themselves and/or their organisation. Of course one of the reasons people get involved is to boost their own careers - there's nothing wrong with that in itself, but I've been to a fair few seminars or workshops which are basically sales pitches for a product/service/consultant etc., and they bug me, too.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-08-2007 06:40 PM
quote: Leo Enticknap
At £92 the BKSTS membership is significantly outside the average professional body subscription rate, and not just in our area
That may be so Leo, but think about what you get for that!
Repeating from my post above:
quote:
BKSTS Membership gives automatic Subscription to both Journals of the Society - Image Technology and Cinema Technology. The former is published 6 times a year; the latter quarterly, yielding ten publications per annum. Membership also yields discounts on Publications and Wallcharts, on Training Courses and Seminars, on attendance at BKSTS Events, gives access to information and advice, affords networking oportunities, facilitates input into Standards setting, promoting excellence, and much more!
Now think about that for a minute. 10 informative, high-quality, specialist publications a year. That to me I reckon is worth at least STG£6 x 10 = STG£60 alone. Then look at all the other benefits - is it too much? Hardly. STG£92 per annum is about 25p per day! And - BKSTS Projectionists' Training Seminars are FREE to Members! Come on!
Also, if Projectionists are not earning enough, that is a problem unto itself, and has no bearing on the issue. I mean using that logic we could argue for the price of food, housing and travel to plummet to match the derisory wages paid in the cinema industry - one has to be consistent!
I think the real problem here is not seeing the value of what's on offer. And if people think things aren't up to scratch in these organisations - well then suggest ideas and alternatives! Get involved, and make it better. There's lots of support and goodwill out there. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic