If the Nifty falls below today’s low, it may find support at 5,160
The market settled in the red for the second day on fresh European concerns as the Greek prime minister sought a referendum on aid in the country. The slowdown in domestic infrastructure growth also weighed on investors. In yesterday’s closing report, we had mentioned that the pullback would continue. Today the Nifty traded lower for the entire trading session. Again, the National Stock Exchange (NSE) fell on a volume of 55.19 crore shares, which was above its 10-day moving average. From here if the Nifty does not hold on to today’s low, we may see the index fall to the level of 5,160. However, if we have to see the index resume its uptrend, it should close above today’s high, after which the upsurge may be to the level of 5,315.
Indian shares opened lower for the second day in a row on concerns about the progress of the initiatives to end the European debt crisis. Investor sentiments were down as the US market ended lower overnight and the Asian bourses opened weak this morning. Back home, the Nifty opened at 5,279, down 48 points, and the Sensex started the day with a loss of 164 points at 17,541.
Staying in the negative terrain, the market hit the day’s high in initial trade itself with the Nifty rising to 5,311 and the Sensex at 17,662. However, institutional selling pushed the indices further southwards as trade progressed. A weak opening of the key European indices made matters worse for the Indian benchmarks in noon trade.
The market fell to the day’s low around 2.30pm with the Nifty falling to 5,238 and the Sensex declining to 17,422. However, a minor recovery ensured a close off the lows of the day. End of day, the Nifty was at 5,258, down 69 points and the Sensex closed 224 points lower at 17,481.
The advance-decline ratio on the NSE was 654:1245.
Among the broader indices, the BSE Mid-cap index declined 0.72% and the BSE Small-cap index fell by 0.55%.
All sectoral gauges settled in the negative with the BSE Auto index (down 1.98%) leading the pack. It was followed by BSE Realty (down 1.87%), BSE Banked (down 1.54%), BSE Metal (down 1.52%) and BSE Capital Goods (down 1.10%).
The major gainers on the Sensex were Hindustan Unilever (up 3.52%), Wipro (up 1.83%), Tata Power (up 0.90%), Bharti Airtel (up 0.84%) and BHEL (up 0.53%). The top losers on the index were ICICI Bank (down 3.80%), Mahindra & Mahindra (down 3.38%), Sterlite Industries (down 3.22%), Tata Motors (down 2.49%) and ITC (down 2.35%).
The top performers on the Nifty were HUL (up 3.13%), Punjab National Bank (up 2.06%), Wipro (up 1.81%), BPCL (up 1.42%) and Maruti Suzuki (up 1.13%). The laggards were led by ICICI Bank (down 3.87%), M&M (down 3.75%), Reliance Infrastructure (down 3.73%), Dr Reddy’s (down 3.69%) and HCL Technologies (down 3.55%).
Reports of a fall in China’s factory output for September and the Greek prime minister’s call for a referendum on aid to the debt-stricken country resulted in the Asian bourses settling lower today. China’s official Purchasing Managers’ Index fell to 50.4 in October from 51.2 in September, the lowest in nearly three years. The reading indicates that manufacturing activity continues to slow in the world’s second-largest economy.
The Hang Seng tanked 2.49%; the Jakarta Composite plunged 2.79%; the KLSE Composite declined 1.09%; the Nikkei 225 slipped 1.70% and the Straits Times tumbled 2.3%. On the other hand, the Shanghai Composite rose 0.07%; the Seoul Composite added 0.03% and the Taiwan Weighted gained 0.45%.
Back home, foreign institutional investors were net buyers of stocks totalling Rs358.78 crore. On the other hand, domestic institutional investors were net sellers of shares aggregating Rs276.36 crore.
Fortis Healthcare India will pay $665 million (around Rs3,270 crore) to acquire Singapore-based Fortis Healthcare International Pte from a firm owned by its promoters, the Singh brothers. The acquisition, which is expected to be completed by mid-December 2011, would be funded by debt to start with and once the transaction is complete, Fortis Healthcare will execute its other fund raising plans. The scrip closed 3.45% higher at Rs128.80 on the NSE.
Making a foray into the international operations & maintenance (O&M) business, the country’s largest power producer NTPC today said it has bagged a Rs43 crore contract in Bangladesh for providing O&M services. NTPC Consultancy, a part of the state-run power major, has secured a six-year contract to provide O&M services at the Siddhirganj Peaking Power Plant in Bangladesh. The stock fell 1.31% to close at Rs176.90 on the NSE.
Pharma major Sun Pharmaceutical’s subsidiary has received approval from the US health regulator to market generic Diltiazem HCl extended-release capsules used for treating hypertension and angina in the American market. Diltiazem HCl extended-release capsules are indicated for the treatment of hypertension and for the management of angina. The stock lost 0.63% to close at Rs63.05 on the NSE.
The cost of making audio and visuals just became much cheaper. But the skill of the photographer or cinematographer is still paramount in the business of photography or filmmaking
Living in Delhi, one gets used to heavy security guidelines and regulations for all sorts of events, and has learnt to live with them. However, even by Delhi standards, this one was new, listed as one of the security guidelines for the Formula-1 event in Delhi. It states that included in the list of banned items for spectators are (See: Professional audio visual equipment, professional cameras http://in.bookmyshow.com/sport/formula1/spectator-guide/).
Frankly, till now, either electronic items were allowed, or they were not. Yes, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in its wisdom, continues to try to charge extra for using video equipment, not realising that almost all digital cameras now will record video as easily as they will record stills, but then that's the legacy of decades ago. And they are old hands at it, plus what’s at stake isn't more than a small charge levied for non-commercial video. F1 is supposed to be about state-of-the-art everything—including and especially electronics. Surely they know, by now, that there’s not much difference here, anymore, in what looks like professional equipment and what doesn’t?
This is also interesting, because as on date, the dividing line in output quality between professional audio/video equipment and what is known as consumer audio/video equipment is so thin that it has almost disappeared. Moreover, to leave this sort of discretion in the hands of private security guards is asking for trouble, of the sort that has a bad habit of becoming an issue in this day and age of instant social media based publicity. After all, there are cameras as small as the handheld point and shoots—which function almost as well as professional DSLRs, and there are old very professional looking cameras which will not match even the cheapest of point and shoots anymore.
The reference to the security issue pertaining to cameras at the F1 event in Noida was just one example of a huge change taking place in cinematography lately, which does not seem to be reflected in the way not just security agencies, but others react to the new age dawning on us. Assuming HD (High Definition) film quality as a benchmark, good enough for the end product to be screened at the best of multiplexes, the back-end in terms of equipment used for shooting itself has changed tremendously.
A good professional camera, used in both the television and film industry, like the RED-1, with bells & whistles, would cost between Rs30 lakh and Rs50 lakh in India today. At the other end of the price spectrum, a very good DSLR from a manufacturer like Canon, for example, along with a good lens, locally procured follow-focus, grip, new age LED lighting and portable sound recorder, would come for between Rs1.25 lakh and Rs3 lakh. That’s the simple bottom-line that a producer needs to deal with when going out looking for a few dozen cameras to work with while doing a movie or a commercial.
And both are going to give the same result, as more than a few movies as well as commercials will testify—movies as diverse as Ra.One and The Girl in Yellow Boots have used the low-cost DSLR camera-based rigs, and as for commercials—the list is already very long. Established professionals have not been able to tell the difference, when shown products from both options, while customers from the larger corporates who commission such work clump along blithely unaware, like the security guys at F1, that the world has moved on.
In addition, while professional camera equipment would still require a studio and equipment to work on it for the final product, the DSLR based cinema equipment often requires nothing more than a decent computer and a very quiet room. Yes, both will require some specialised knowledge of techniques, but the importance of the sound recordist as well as the technicians is still paramount, and lighting continues to play a major role for specialised cinema. But by and large, the cost of producing a film which has a technical quality good enough for the best of playback options available, is now coming crashing down because one of the main elements—the camera—is now available at just a fraction of the cost.
So, implications for so-called security issues apart, where does this leave the word "professional equipment" as far as so-called ‘film-making’ goes?
First of all, from the security point of view, professional or consumer level equipment, both are as dangerous or safe, if a fair and proper risk analysis is done. Organisations like F1 need to take a call on this serious matter.
Next, as far as those who are really creative or want to get their point of view across are concerned, it places them in a wonderful place, freed of the cost of film and developing to start with. (How many here remember the political clout involved in even getting hold of raw stock of film for making movies, not too long ago?) The main equipment cost has also come crashing down to about 10%-15% of what it used to be.
And finally, what this really gets across is that no longer is it the person who owns the machine who calls the shots in what the rest of us are going to see, because now it is increasingly clearer that anybody can own or rent these cheaper professional cameras. It will now be the message that dominates, as well as the technological skills of the person getting that message across, and not any more the cost of the technology.
Who is going to explain this to the security guard, or the corporate honchos, then, when their bosses are still not reconciling themselves to this radical shift taking place in the world of cinematography?
Several law enforcement agencies are circumventing the IT Act, the Indian Penal Code and ultimately the Constitution, by not following proper procedure for removal of online content
Internet censorship in the age of free information is still a debatable issue. However, several times, it becomes necessary for the government to block or remove certain content from the Internet in the larger interest of society. In India, the Department of Information Technology (DIT) is the only designated authority that can order content removal or website blocking. However, many times, several law enforcement agencies are found to be circumventing the DIT by not following proper procedure for removal of online content.
In addition, the information procured by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the DIT and the latest Transparency report issued by Google show a wide gap. According to the reply from DIT, so far, six government officials and one politician have made requests for disabling access to certain online content under Section 69(A) of the IT Act. However, the report from Google says that it received 68 written requests from Indian law enforcement agencies for removal of 358 items from its various sites.
The statistics provided by the government show only eight separate requests made to the DIT, which under the IT Act is the only authority that can order blocking or removal of online content. These requests actually total up to 68—including 64 websites (at domain level), 1 sub-domain and 3 specific Web pages.
There are various reasons for blocking the online content, primary being adult content (61 domains), one domain and a sub-domain for specific communal issues and two specific pages, one a video speech of Shiv Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray on YouTube and one page of Sukhbir Singh Badal on Wikipedia.
Section 69 (A) of the IT Act empowers the Union Government to “direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource” through a designated officer.
However, the ground reality is very different when it comes to following the procedures of the IT Act. While there are few who approach the Designated Officer for blocking online content, as per the Google report, there are a number of people, agencies and institutions that are sending requests directly to domains or registrars for removing content. While blocking of online content is regulated by the IT Act, forcible removal of content is not. However, this is what is happening, most of the times. Surprisingly, companies like Google oblige such requests even when they are not under any legal obligation to do so.
According to CIS, the DIT did not provide answers to two specific issues, whether any block ordered by the Department has even been revoked and the basis on which the Department decides the intermediary (Web host, internet service providers (ISPs) for sending content blocking orders. In addition, CIS said the DIT in its reply to the RTI application only provided minutes of one meeting of the committee (Committee for Examination of Requests, constituted under Rule 8(4) of the Blocking Rules) that decides whether to carry out a block, when it had requested for minutes of all the meetings it had held. The Committee is supposed to consider each single item in every request sent to the Designated Officer. The DIT has accepted that it sent 68 items for blocking to the Designated Officer through six requests. This shows there is something that does not add up. Either the Committee is not following the Blocking Rules or the DIT is not providing a complete reply under the RTI Act, said CIS.