Andrew - EOSHD
-
Posts
15,672 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by Andrew - EOSHD
-
-
According to Photo Rumors, Samsung will launch a flagship APS-C camera for pros at Photokina called the NX1. It is to feature 4K video.
Read the full article here -
Now if Vimeo provides the option of paying for a licence fee for sync'ing, say with a minimum flat fee + a percentage cut from tip jar or whatever, that'll make a lot of people happier.
This will be a necessary move for Vimeo if they are to keep hold of their users. I won't be on Vimeo unless they improve the system. Already looking at alternatives.
-
its very evident from reading all these posts that people are using other peoples copyrighted work/music for free with out permission - many have mentioned it in this thread .
There is a feeling that if you paid for the cd or download you own it and can use it anyhow . Or if its is too complicated to get a syncronisation license - to just use it anyhow .
That is why Vimeo and Youtube are having to clamp down as they are finally being pressured by the Music Industry to get their house in order.
And rightly so !
There is the Fair Use disclaimer though don't forget. Complicated and no guarantee, but some work can use copyrighted material with no permission.
-
Good news is the latest version works with MLV! (For audio, metadata, etc.)
I found it buggy but there's an update being reviewed on the App Store right now which should make it more stable with MLV.
-
The GH4 has nearly 12 stops of dynamic range in 4K mode and the colour looks like 10bit... The issue is that the camera hasn't been handled right in post or with the in-camera settings for at least 95% of the footage out there so far on the web. There's a range of weird things you need to do to tweak it and you also need to adjust a few curves in post as well.
I have only just mastered it myself!
-
The attitude that other peoples art should be yours to mix and mangle lift up your own work with for free or cheap, on a public platform, is outrageous.
Erm that is kind of how art works isn't it? Appropriation, borrowing ideas, images and sounds from others, mixing stuff together to create something new.
Also I don't think that 'lifting crap work on the free or cheap' is really the idea most filmmakers on Vimeo have in mind when they mix their cinematography sensitively and thoughtfully with a piece of music that inspired the shots in the first place.
Good job The Beatles didn't have to pay licensing fees to the musicians who influenced their sound... they'd have never have made it out the door.
-
there seems to be a fundamental missunderstand that when you buy a cd or buy a download you ' own it ' as you have paid for it ,
so you can reuse it on your video as you 'paid for it'.
Thats not true - you have paid for the right to listen to the music on your ipod or cd player - thats all
You do not own the rights to reuse the music on a video on youtube or vimeo.
You have to pay syncronisation fees to be able to do that legally.
Very true.
And this is a big opportunity for the music industry to get their house in order.
It costs a musician something like 50 quid to licence a famous photo for their album cover. That is a one off fee I believe, not dependant on number of album covers printed? Correct me if I'm wrong, this is second hand knowledge and I haven't researched it myself.
The synchronisation fees for music - it is obscure and inaccessible - the system needs to go mass market. To license a famous Radiohead song it should be as easy as going to a website and clicking, paying, then getting a license by email.
A system like that needs to be cheap so it goes mass market, it is better than the mass market piracy and copyright infringement that we have now. Imagine all the amateur video producers using this for their many many cat videos :) It would make the record label and artists a nice little earning.
It is much better than the current system... which in the eyes of those uploading tracks to their artistic Vimeo clips... is non existant!
Of course I agree musicians should be paid. It is so obvious. It goes without saying. I know musicians in Berlin. One of my closest friends here is one. I have seen their money struggles first hand because of the industry implosion and shift in technology. As a content producer myself I have seen the impact piracy has (on my books). I hate that people have come to expect art, music, knowledge - all for free - and expect us to invest money back into quality material. That does not work! I have been both a consumer and an artist, and the perspective is very different, but somewhere there is a system that works for both of us.
I'll be damned if the current 'suits' at big companies will find the right one any time soon.
- JohnBarlow and Axel
-
2
-
Stuff like this is 100% better and more creative than 99% of what I've heard on The Music Bed and Vimeo Music Store https://kishibashi.bandcamp.com/album/lighght
-
-
From the pov of music copyright, the issue is that there's two types of copyright - the copyright for the person(s) who wrote the song and the copyright of the person(s) who recorded/performed the song.
So you could take a classical piece a few hundred years old - the writer copyright will have expired, but if you're trying to use a recording from an orchestra who recorded it ten years ago, then their recording as the performers will still be valid.
That's why classical stuff can get flagged even though it's an old piece.
How about MIDI tracks of classical music, where the computer is the performer. Anyone know of any good MIDI resources for the written music where copyright has expired, and a good app to take the basic notation and turn it into something more interesting than a series of bleeps?
-
A terrible shame Vimeo has been forced down the same route as YouTube - all of this rubbish is what made me transition to Vimeo as a platform.
A lot of the content on my page is sheerly personal projects; fun things I have shot whilst on holiday or on a day out that I have cut together because, guess what.. it's what I love doing. I am in no way benefitting from uploading these videos: I make no money from them. All I get is [hopefully] some nice comments from fellow users telling me how nice that shot of a tree was at 0:16, or vice versa.
Pretty much every one of my personal pieces uses popular music. I chose those tracks because they are good, I enjoy the artist's music, I am enthused by them. That's why I pay £0.79 or £0.99 or whatever iTunes is charing these days. I would like to think the artists / labels could cut Vimeo and filmmakers like me (and all of us) a break in this case.
Stop allowing a very small minority who upload copyrighted material for personal gain taint the reputation of the rest of us honest filmmakers. We can't all afford a $500 licensing fee for some bland royalty free track for our camping trip video.
This is why fair use copyright law needs more clearly defining. At the moment, it seems to work on witches brews and magic.
-
The music business has a right to protect the business and enforce copyright, of course it does - but it is doing it in such a way as to actually harm the business.
The amount of music bought legally and the number of artists given vital exposure far outweighs whatever the music industry would gain through royalty fees from charging or suing Vimeo and their users.
I don't agree with Andy that whenever a song gets airtime and no royalties are handed over - that constitutes theft - all the musicians I know want the exposure. If their own labels start hacking away at the very infrastructure giving them that exposure then it is goodbye new talent. The end.
Vimeo is the music industry's friend and instead they are attacking it.
In my view the record labels should all simply be bought out in hostile takeover bids by internet companies and the whole business model changed to something better suited to the 21st century. It is the only way artists are going to get paid for their work. The current strategy just won't work on a business level, never mind a fair use / artistic freedom level. Also fair use copyright laws desperately need to be tightened up and made clearer. It is not acceptable for artists who experiment and share their experiments on the internet on a non-profit basis to risk lawsuits over copyright infringement.
-
The suits are stupid on the part of labels, because things like lipdubs and so on don't harm revenue, they're free advertising.
A person a who re-appropriates a song over some test film is advertising the song, not stealing it. It affect no revenue virtual or otherwise.
The YouTube plan was far better, adding a purchase link, and allows videos to sell the original, turning it into revenue generating free advertising.
Using an arbitration bot will send a lot of users packing.
Agree 100%!
-
Saying record companies lose money due to Vimeo airtime is as crazy as saying they lose sales through radio play and extensive advertising.
-
Legitimate question to you Andrew, not trolling here. Would you be okay with me downloading footage that you have shot and re-editing it or repurposing it somehow for my own creative use without permission? Uploaded to vimeo for as a personal or experimental project
No, but if you played it 'as it is' like I do with music, and credited me, like I do with music, then I'd be pleased at the exposure and extra book sales for sure.
-
This appears to be the source of the trouble. Sad for Vimeo. Let's hope they can work their way out of this and that their users are not also impacted.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/record-companies-lawsuit-vimeo-heads-668334
-
Collaboration with up and coming talents, local musicians, I am all for it, I do it. Right now I am collaborating with two bands and a singer.
The subject at hand here is rather different.
Should those collaborators have tracks in the Deep Dark Database that Vimeo is using for their Copyright Match system, your Vimeo upload will be at the mercy of their appeals process and the onus will be on you to prove that you have permission to use the track... not always easy, and an extra bureaucratic headache one really should not have to deal with in all fairness.
There's so many more bad things about this development...
- It severely limits freedom of artistic expression on non-commercial personal or experimental work
- It harms music sales because tracks will get less airplay and a smaller audience. I hear music first on Vimeo or YouTube then I go off to buy it on iTunes so I can play it on my iPhone. I don't walk around with a playlist of videos on Vimeo playing on my phone. Vimeo is not an iTunes rival so having commercial tracks on there doesn't compete with the music industry.
- It is impractical to get a license or permission for most music, especially the best cinematic stuff (Radiohead, Pink Floyd, for example)
- It is cost prohibitive to get a license in many cases
Really if I could pay something, easily and quickly to a major record label for artistic fair use of a track, I would, but there's absolutely no way of doing so. They are missing out on a huge business opportunity here.
By all means for wedding videographers who just got paid $20k for a video and they are ripping off a band by using copyright music in that commercial project without permission, these people should pay for a license.
For fair use, artistic stuff, with no commercial earnings behind the video, this stuff is all so very wrong.
All the best music is copyrighted material and it is virtually impractical to get the proper permissions to use, say, Pink Floyd, whilst fair use has no hard and fast rules and leaves you at the mercy of a judge. Copyright law needs reform big time.
As for Music Bed... Not satisfied with the vast majority of stuff in their library. It's too bland and boring on the whole. Very hard to find something that really inspires.
-
Another service will pop up and everyone will migrate there. Copyright law is flawed in the internet age and it's going to be a while before it straightens itself out. Vimeo must of been pressured by the big wigs to tighten up. Sad day for Vimeo.
Yes, I feel bad for them actually. YouTube have a pretty good system for dealing with this. Vimeo don't seem to. And the quality of music in their library for dubbing over videos is extremely poor overall.
-
Have you seen this?
Essentially Copyright Match works like on YouTube where commercial music is matched to a database and flagged automatically. On YouTube the video is not removed, instead a link to buy the music or advertising is added under the player.
On Vimeo the match results in the user being marched off to an 'appeals process' where he must prove he has the valid license for the sound track in use, or that the video consitites 'fair use'. There are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes fair use.
Personally as an artist who likes to mix my cinematography with the best possible music, I see this as severely limiting my artistic freedom. I also see my personal work on Vimeo as purely artistic and not in any way 'for profit'. They are part of EOSHD's editorial but a completely separate entity to any part of the blog which makes money such as the Shooter's Guides and I don't run any advertising.
This decision by Vimeo means I will seriously have to consider removing 90% of my artistic work from Vimeo and placing it only on my local hard drive offline.
Copyright issues on the internet are universally dealt with by DMCA takedown notices and where money is involved, for example where someone is blatantly making money off the back of somebody's else's music in their commercial wedding videos, the issues is dealt with through the legal system.
I don't see why Vimeo need to get involved at all.
I also don't like how a company seemingly has the final say in what artistic expression I am allowed to make.
Also for those who use The Music Bed, the problem doesn't go away. Vimeo will still Copyright Match tracks on there. All music, at the end of the day, is copyright material. So everyone whether they have a license or not will have to go through the appeals process and risk the appeals people at Vimeo disagreeing.
Say goodbye to your Vimeo portfolio? Personally I am seriously considering moving out to YouTube or an alternative site. I didn't sign up to this shit!
-
I'm confused. How did they get that big imaging area with the pocket camera sensor? Did they use 4 of them?
Why don't you read the article?
-
The digital Forbes 70 is based on a heavily modified Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera using 65mm ground glass for the IMAX 70mm look to medium format lenses.
Recording in Cinema DNG raw the camera delivers an utterly spellbinding image but is currently only at the prototype stage with just two in existence.
Read the full article here -
Philip Bloom just uploaded nearly 2GB of stuff, I recommend you take a look...
-
Also the smaller the sensor, the shittier the DOF behaviour. Someday I will write a text on the reasons because I couldn't find any online. This means that 24 f0.95 will not look as good as 50mm f2. neither will 24mm f2.8 look as good as 50 f5.6.
But for now, trust me ;)
A 24mm has a deeper DOF than a 50mm lens. It is not 'shittier' and it has nothing to do with the sensor size, but everything to do with the lens.
And what pictures anyway? Where?
-
Oh man, once you've figure it out will you come back and tell us about it?
What's wrong with what I'm saying exactly? Oh I forgot... Nothing.
How to avoid Blackmagic Production Camera 4K fixed pattern noise
In: Cameras
Posted
Above: my sample showing no fixed pattern noise in low light at ISO 400 on the Production Camera - it's all about the grade
Almost all Blackmagic Production Camera users have experienced fixed pattern noise - a banding effect or grain texture over the image - and they are quite upset at Blackmagic over the issue. But is the fixed pattern noise problem on the Blackmagic Production Camera a case of faulty cameras OR is it a limitation of the spec?
This is a complex issue and every user seems to report something different. However in my own experience with the camera and of looking at the experiences of others I have to say that all units look to perform in the same way. It is a limitation of the spec, not a case of a large number of faulty units being shipped out.
Yet many users - over 200 of them - are now putting pressure on Blackmagic to acknowledge a hardware or quality control 'fault' and to do hardware replacements. Sorry but I just don't think this is right.
It is best to look at how to handle the camera in order to avoid the FPN in the first place...
Read the full article here