Andrew - EOSHD

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.theverge.com/2013/9/20/4752576/record-labels-win-right-to-take-vimeo-to-court-in-lip-synching-lawsuit

 

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?

 

vimeo.com/blog/post:626

 

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...

 

http://philipbloom.net/2014/05/12/gh4/

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.

If you have the lens focussed at the same position and the camera at the same position, crop factor of the sensor does not change depth of field at all, it will be just as shallow on both shots. Only difference is the composition changes and to compensate we use a wider focal length on the smaller sensor which results in a less shallow DOF or we move the camera further back, which changes the focus point and results in different DOF.

With respect to the simple math and examples, where are the errors? If it's not possible to point out an error with this math or images, what he says in the video is essentially correct:

1. Multiply focal length by crop factor: well known and the point of the crop factor for full frame reference.
2. Multiply aperture by crop factor: this matches his examples for apparent brightness and bokeh.
3. Multiply ISO by (crop factor)^2: this matches his example for apparent brightness and makes sense based on what ISO really is: gain; the square term makes sense for sensor area, and works for the examples shown.

Samuel (flaat profile creator) did tests and includes an FOV/DOF calculator which exactly matches what is in the video. He made this post in 2011: http://www.similaar.com/foto/doftest/doftest.html

 

Multiplying aperture by crop factor does not change the brightness of the image or the bokeh at all!

 

What changes with the crop factor is the framing of the shot and the need to move the camera back from the subject to get the same field of view as a larger sensor and THAT is what changes the depth of field, bokeh, nothing to do with the aperture at all.

 

His maths is bollocks.

 

Multiplying ISO by crop factor... same bollocks! If a larger sensor is less noisy and more sensitive than a smaller one (and this is not always the case, like I keep telling people only for them to ignore my argument... BMPCC anyone!?? Old 5D Mk1 vs D5200!?) it has to do with the pixel size and architectural design, plus many other factors of the electronics, not the sensor size.

 

So the maths of multiplying sensitivity by crop factor is just total fantasy.

 

And Karim your top diagram of the full frame sensor capturing more rays... are you talking about intensity here? Because the intensity with 4 rays on the large sensor and 2 rays on the small sensor is the same. It isn't right to imply that the Speed Booster with 4 rays delivers the same light intensity as the full frame sensor is able to capture with 4 rays over a larger area. The full frame exposure with 4 rays is darker than the Speed Booster exposure with the 4 rays concentrated on the smaller area. The image with the Speed Booster is more intense and this is a BENEFIT of a small sensor.

 

I suggest the thread dies a death because it is confusion central, total bollocks, and really just not necessary.

 

Use crop factor to figure out your angle of view and disregard it for everything else. It just doesn't fly, either technically or as a conceptual prop and way of figuring stuff out.

 

The least confusing way to continue is to take each spec of the camera in isolation regardless of sensor size. We don't let something unrelated to sensor size like aperture dictate the whole camera spec do we? So why do we let sensor size dictate completely unrelated specs like ISO and aperture!? Madness!

 

I really question the intention behind the video in the first place... It just looks like a Canon & Nikon FUD piece.

 

Dishe, Andrew, again appreciate the discussion thank you.

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing but so far I do not understand how what I am stating is wrong.

But I will gladly learn something and stand corrected.

 

I do understand that sensor pixel size is to be taken into consideration when talking about exposure of the sensor, larger sensors generally having larger pixels than crop ones for instance. And architecture as far as gaps between pixels and the amount of pixels. 

 

In order for me to understand your arguments, can we proceed step by step?

 

Can we begin solely with light intensity? Regardless of sensor specs.

 

What I don't understand in your arguments is regarding the intensity of the light, focused by speedbooster or not.

 

For the sake of understanding here is a lens that has an aperture that lets through 4 rays of light:

Is this correct or is this wrong?

 

the bigger one has a 4 times stronger signal.

 

Again... not true when you look at it on a per pixel level at 1:1.

 

If all is equal with the generation of sensor, and pixel density, then a crop sensor is merely that... a crop of a full frame sensor and in that crop is the same quality of image, same pixels, same intensity of light capture, same signal to noise ratio, to pretend otherwise because you are taking the whole sensor and shrinking the image down in post is a bit daft really.

Andrew, the fstop tells you how much light you get per surface area. If you have a bigger surface you will gather more light. It's pretty easy to understand. So if you had a 1 pixel camera, the fullframe one would gather 4 times the light the m43 one gathers, so it has a 2 stop advantage. If both sensors are from the same generation (most sensors are sony now and they seem to perform about the same) the fullframe one will have two stops advantage in signal to noise ratio, as they both have the same noise in readout, but the bigger one has a 4 times stronger signal.

This hasn't anything to do with fullframe look.

 

Gather more light yes but how much you gather ACTUALLY depends on the pixel architecture!

Reducing an image in size from any sensor crop allows you to think of the sensor as one giant pixel but the problem is not all sensors are created equally.

 

You can have the Blackmagic sensor in the Production Camera, a large APS-C sized sensor with just 8MP and yet above ISO 400 it is really noisy because the photosites that actually do the light capturing are so small, and around them is a load of circuitry for global shutter readout taking up room on the sensor, that cannot be used to capture light!

 

You can have the 1" sensor from the RX100 Mark III which is back illuminated and very good micro lenses, no gaps between pixels, crowded out with 20MP on a small surface area and it ends up being as clean at ISO 1600 as the much larger 24MP sensor in the NEX 7 from a few years ago, because the pixel architecture and design is more modern, the micro lenses better, the readout circuits cleaner, less noisy A/D and so on...

 

So what is this total nonsense calculating ISO with the crop factor of the sensor.

 

The OP is trying to over simplify and combine specs so that they are universal with all cameras. It can't be done. You have to measure each component of the camera separately. Aperture is a separate spec to sensor size. Focal length is separate to sensor size. A 24mm is a 24mm! Whilst it may help to think of focal lengths multiplied by crop to get the angle of view (we all can use this to figure out what a 12mm looks like on a 2x crop sensor can't we?) it doesn't help when people try and change the spec of the lens based on something that is actually unrelated and a totally different thing, a different part of the camera.

I am a big fan of the full frame look and large sensors but facts are facts guys.

Say if we follow his logic and apply crop factor to ISO...

 

5D is an old camera, can barely do clean ISO 800 but hey... BIG SENSOR!

 

GH4 is a new camera, does clean ISO 800 on a 2x crop sensor.

 

By this logic 800 is actually 2x... so as noisy as ISO 1600 on the 5D Mark 1's full frame sensor from years ago...

 

Nah doesn't work does it!?

Andrew- let's start with his math: where are the errors?

He shows example images which match his math: what's wrong with the images?

 

It's not about math or his example images, it really isn't. He uses very little maths and it is mainly his other examples which aren't backed up by any maths at all that are so wrong. What he is saying about applying crop factor to ISO is just plain wrong. It is like calculating the speed of an aircraft based on how windy it is outside, and ignore all the other things. The examples he's grasping at are bad. The reality is very different to what he describes in the video.

 

The intensity of light hitting the pixels and the design of those pixels are what matters when it comes to sensitivity, ISO and aprture, NOT the area of capture or crop factor of the sensor!

 

This is infuriatingly obvious stuff!

- at f1.8 a full frame lens will always, regardless of the sensor size, let the same amount of light through

- a full frame sensor takes full advantage of this f1.8 light output because the sensor area covers more of the light beam (see my previously posted graphic).

- a crop sensor is missing a lot of light coming in from this f1.8 opening as lots of it lands outside of the crop sensor (see my previously posted graphic).

 

Dude this is wrong.

 

A full frame sensor will only take advantage over the larger image circle projected by the lens if the pixel architecture is sensitive enough. If you have small pixels with big gaps in-between or too many pixels and too small pixels then your theory will snap like a brittle stick in the dog mouth of reality.

 

For example a smaller crop sensor with larger pixels than a larger full frame sensor will capture more light.

 

Per-pixel quality matters the most.

 

Therefore you cannot simplify this down to simply 'a larger sensor captures more light' like the idiot in the video has got everyone doing. Ridiculous AND annoying at the same time.

When you attach a lens to a crop sensor, the lens remains identical. The image is identical, but for the crop into the image circle.

 

He says the whole photographic system of aperture, ISO, focal length makes no sense. SAY WHAT!?

 

Aperture and focal length relate to the lens only. Why should they apply to a combo of sensor size and lens, as the video suggests it should?

 

A 2x crop factor helps when it comes to figuring out the angle of view. 12 x 2 = 24mm. That's about it.

 

The aperture doesn't change. The exposure doesn't change.

 

Applying crop factor to ISO is a huge mistake. That a larger sensor captures 'more light' ignores the fact that large sensors can still have small pixels due to very high megapixel counts or large gaps in-between pixels.

 

The ISO does not crank up on a smaller sensor because it isn't receiving as much light as a larger sensor.

 

You have to look at the sensor on a per pixel basis. The size of the pixels.

 

Take a 24MP full frame sensor and cut out 16MP from the middle to give you a crop sensor.

 

Look at both images at 1:1...

 

See a difference? No. So why does this guy suggest otherwise?

 

Because what he is neglecting to mention is he's not looking at the images 1:1, but downsampling the 24MP to 16MP, then comparing to a 16MP crop sensor. The downsampling of course makes for a cleaner image.

 

This is also where DXOMark goes wrong very often. They include the downsampling in their calculations too.

 

So a 36MP sensor would do very well in low light even if it was noisier on a per pixel basis. Look at their low light results for the 5D Mark III vs D800. We know the 5D Mark III has better high ISO than the D800 yet DXOMark somehow haven't managed to show this in their scores.

 

What matters is pixel size, pixel architecture and readout noise... Not sensor size.

 

The Blackmagic Production Camera is absolute proof that this guy's theory fails the reality test.

The Speed Booster effect has no relation to the size of the sensor. It has a relation to the reduction factor of the Speed Booster and how much the image shrinks, but not the crop of the sensor behind it. The is using a very bad example and technically it is very misleading and confusing.

Technique, tips and software - all the how to stuff - that is not subjective and a good place to start with this thread I think.

All this stuff is either wrong technically, or a silly way to look at things... New readers to this thread, all I can say is beware!

Speedboosters compensate for this as you do not lose the light that would have fallen outside of the crop sensor.

Which means by using them you will get the same look as full frame as the field of view is matched and the light loss taken care of.

But you do not gain light, you stop losing it, compared to the full frame sensor.

 

This is also false.

 

Speed Booster works by brightening the image projected at the sensor. The light from the lens is concentrated into a smaller area. It has nothing to do with how far you crop into it. If you took the centre of the image in photoshop and cropped it, you do not 'lose light' and the image does not darken does it!??!

Referring to the video. It has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese.

 

He says a large sensor captures more light, without mentioning the crucial SIZE and NUMBER of pixels. It is the size of the pixels and how many there are that gives you your resolution and dynamic range. The Blackmagic Production Camera for instance has a larger sensor than the GH4 but sucks in low light because it has small photosites due to global shutter circuitry around each pixel taking up a lot of room. He has grossly oversimplified things in that video through lack of basic knowledge.

 

He is multiplying aperture by crop factor to give an equivalent depth of field, this too is bollocks.

 

F1.2 is F1.2. At the same focus distance and focal length you will get the same shallow DOF with a 50mm F1.2 on a small sensor as you would do on full frame. The difference is that to maintain the same framing, the small sensor camera has to move back from the subject, and the focus point shifts backwards towards infinity, which lessens the separation between the subject and background making it appear that the lens is giving a less shallow DOF.

 

He also really stupidly in his Canikon love affair doesn't seem to mention that F1.2 is as bright as F1.2 no matter what the sensor size is.

 

F1.4 does not = F2.8 with a 2x crop sensor in terms of exposure or light transmission.

It's total bollocks.