Hopefully he's just getting ready to put in a major update -- and then we can have many many more theatre tours to look at.
I for one, as soon as my new CPU shows up from Gateway (annny day now) am going to scan in about 25 rolls of film and send a LOT of California pics... as if California needs any more information to make it load slow.
I do have a huge amount of new stuff for the site in my Inbox, but I must get my new theater opened first. Events started on Monday, and the public opening is on the 16th, just in time for Harry Potter. Yes, for those counting, that is three weeks of pre-insanity insanity!
And I'm about halfway through the stack of pix Ken sent me.
But let me tell you -- when my couches show up in two weeks -- and I can begin finding a point to cleaning up this house -- I'll get some good stuff sent over to you.
-Scott
(especially now that I have broadband!)
Anybody know PHP and MySQL? I really need to get this thing on a live database to ease up the bandwidth.
A request: If anyone is using one of the monstrous state listing pages as a home page in your browser, please help me out with the bandwidth problem by using the main page (here) as your home page instead. Thanks!
If I ever get caught up on my inbox, I promise to get the database online. Hopefully, sometime this winter. Unless, of course, someone wants help me set it up for free.
quote:
Anybody know PHP and MySQL? I really need to get this thing on a live database to ease up the bandwidth.
How will this ease up your bandwidth usage?
quote:
I have arranged for another subdomain to be opened up, and I should have the site rearranged with this weekend's update.
If you have used (or would change to) relative links or links starting from the domain base (links starting with a forward slash) you could just mirror the entire site (instead of trying to do a 'balanced re-organization') on both domains and then use a cgi script to do a quasi load balance by sending every other user to the sub-domain. This would work really good if you put the whole site in a single full page frame, but is not absolutely necessary.
You might also want to look into hosting at tera-byte dot com ( here ) they've been around for 'a long time'. I've used them for some stuff for the past few years and only have experienced 6 minutes of total downtime (at about 3:00am) for a backup power generation upgrade. Their website says $55/US for 50GB monthly.
quote:
How will this ease up your bandwidth usage?
I shall use the state of California as an example. Currently, when a user loads the California page, it displays all 1876 theaters and 678 photos. If I use a live database, I can set it up to break the page into easy-to-chew 100 theater groups to display, with links to "jump to page x" or "jump to city x". The California page is about 1.5MB of html plus photos as it is now. That's where the bandwidth is to be saved.
It will also allow "staff" to sign in and see things not available to the general public without me having to produce (and upload) two different pages like I'm doing now.
As far as using relative links, I'm using DOS-type links now ( ../../whatever/blah. htm ) so that I can easily do all of my work on my PC without having to run Apache to view the pages while I'm working. I also work off of my laptop (very important on the road!) and the PC at work (don't tell my boss -- he thinks its corporate email! 
), and occasionally produce a CD-ROM version of the entire site for "staff" that can be run on any PC.
When the site goes database, I can still use my current DOS-based crappy old database to do my work on, but export through a text file to the MySQL database online for the once-a-week update. I like the crappy old database because I am fluent in its odd scripting language and everything I use is a custom script. I don't have time to learn how to use a new database.
As you can see, my needs are kind of weird.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
and spent a couple of hours populating the new database, which is online now. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If you still get that stupid redirect page now, you need to clear your disk cache and it will reload fine. At least with Internet Explorer, anyway.![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
So many theaters to explore, so little time.
code:Last night I converted the rest of the site to the new database.November 2002 December 2002
------------- -------------
Total Visits 74,059 103,796
Total Kilobytes 28,672,798 20,664,884
.
and most important:
.
Page Request Timeout 95,995 19,750
(from server throttling
due to high volume or
bad page requests)
code:I can't find my backup CD-ROMs from 1995-1998, so those numbers aren't available right now. They're probably still in Oklahoma with all of my furniture. One of these days, I might actually move into my apartment!in the database: 1999 2000 2001 2002
.
US Cinemas 11,141 12,494 19,864 21,977
US Photos (main pages) 1,052 1,691 2,927 4,093
US Tours 95 225 1,069 1,858
.
Canada Cinemas 286 524 1,861 1,890
Canada Photos (main) 2 34 42 59
Canada Tours 0 0 9 13
.
Australia Cinemas 0 214 283 294
Australia Photos (main) 0 21 45 49
Australia Tours 0 3 4 4
.
Rest of World Cinemas 453 2,250 3,676 5,087
Rest of World Photos (main) 17 79 395 553
Rest of World Tours 0 0 14 27
.
Overall Cinemas 11,880 15,482 25,670 29,249
Overall Photos (main) 1,071 1,825 3,409 4,754
Overall Tours 95 228 1,096 1,902
code:Photos Tours
(main) (complete)
------ -------
1,118 *Adam Martin 578
450 Darren Snow 169
383 *Scott Neff 81
368 Bob Meza 152
131 *Scott Norwood 29
111 Roger Katz 66
87 *Ken Layton 68
82 Martin McCaffery 0
61 *Konrad Schiecke 171
43 David Pine 22
.
* Indicates Film-Tech member
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I know of several film-tech members who found their way here from Cinematour.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Before anyone asks, I don't know what the heck is going on right now. The site was fine two hours ago, but now it appears that my hosting account has been disabled. ![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
Eat me. (goes off to look for something chocolaty)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Heh. I did exactly that last spring for a bunch of small-town Oregon theaters. It was actually kind of fun. One of these days I'll drive up to Salem and snap some photos there...
So, um, why hasn't everyone sent in pictures to Film-Tech and Cinematour? How hard is it to drive around to all the local theatres and take one lousy photo of the exterior for Cinematour?
quote:
This is likely off-topic for most, as it deals with still photos, but I'm hoping someone may have some insight.
My sister has been sorting through boxes of family photos, and getting copies made for various siblings. However, photo shops have refused to make copies of what they deem "professional" photos -- weddings, school graduations, and a few family portraits. They claim variously that for either 50 or 100 years, it is illegal to make copies of these. (She is in Rochester, NY, and claims are that this is a state law.) This despite the fact that most of the photographers and photo studios are no longer in business; and those that are no longer have negatives on file.
Has anyone heard of such a law, or run into such a situation?
quote:
Not sure what the term of copyright is in NY, but in most places it will be for 70 years after the death of the originator or artist/photographer. It makes no difference that he is not in business anymore or that the negatives have vanished. He/she was the originator and has the right to this protection.
There is also the fact that the commissioner of the photographs may be the copyright owner, but I think that you will find, in general, that the law still applies. No doubt someone from that side of the pond will be more specific.
Argyll, Scotland
quote:
I'm surprised that wedding photos, etc. are a copyright issue for a photographer as I would think this service was "work for hire" and ownership rests with the family who paid for the services. (A DP of a motion picture doesn't hold the rights to the film.)
quote:
Most portrait and wedding photographs are not done as work for hire and the assumption is that "it's copyrighted when you push the button" in the U.S.
quote:
I think you will find that far from common courtesy there is a very definite law relating to copyright both here and in the USA.
Unauthorized Copy negs are generally an infringement of this right, whether or not they were taken in Rochester.
quote:
I am a little confused by this statement - if you have a studio portrait, or a series of wedding photographs taken by a professional photographer, how is this not a "job for hire", and why should this be any different than say the work that a DP does on a movie? Is there separate legislation for
professional photographers? And if so, why hasn't the Kobal collection (for instance) been sued out of business by all the individual photographers?
I'm sure they (and Corbis etc) are not just using the original negs...
Does anyone actually have any specifics on this either in the UK or in the US?
quote:
For legal questions relating to still photography, check the website of ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) and APA (Advertising Photographers of America). Historically, these two international organizations have set the standard and laws for issues such as "work for hire", privacy, copyrights and related. And yes, based on the number of groundbreaking cases in these areas, separate legislation does now exist due to the persistent efforts of these professional groups. The ASMP book "Professional Business Practices in Photography", first published in 1982 (as well as other related topics such as Stock Photography, and business forms) set rules and contracts in the areas of editorial, advertising, stock, etc. that are still in use today. We photographers, have always appreciated the excellent work of ASMP and APA in protecting our rights and legal claims, while establishing order in a sometimes chaotic profession.
quote:The credit has yet to be changed. Fat chance of me sending high-resolution copies of the rest of the drive-in photos in this particularly large collection.
Hi Adam. We will of course update the photo credit; thanks for acquiring permission on our behalf. We'd love to have a higher resolution version, if it's not too much trouble. We unfortunately have no way of knowing what the true source is for a photo submission; we rely on the person submitting it to give credit where credit is due. We are working on making our policy on this more prominent on the site.
We would of course welcome contributions from any of your folks; we gladly share any photos that Kipp or myself have taken. We have no way to do that as one batch though... let us know which theater's images or specific theatre and we'll send them in a zip file.
Thanks for calling our attention to the miscredit.