Mokara

13 hours ago, liork said:

Panasonic manager says “8K on Micro 4/3 is complicated, if not impossible.”

https://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-manager-says-8k-on-micro-4-3-is-complicated-if-not-impossible/

Why? Cell phones have higher pixel densities than sensors used in micro 4/3 cameras. The only thing that would affect practicality is the power of the processor being used. If the most advanced processors currently available have a hard time doing 4K60p, then they probably can't do 8K30p. That is most likely what the Panasonic manager was saying, but it got lost in translation and comprehension.

Do Sharp have a processor capable of encoding a 8K30p stream in H.264 or H.265? Likely not, so if they do make such a camera it would probably use some relatively uncompressed encoding scheme. The picture of their camera shows a small body, it is dubious that thing will be capable of dealing with the heat from a high efficiency codec at 8K.

11 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

Zl0@Mokara I wouldn't talk back to @Snowbro. He has guns and knows how to use them!

@User I bet you 14CAD that we live in the most peaceful and less violent era in human history! Most people (like women, immigrants and minorities) couldn't even vote a few decades ago, the most profitable profession for thousands of years was slavery. Rape was just a common, everyday thing. In Europe, they were burning people because they were owning cats. You know what I mean, they didn't have internet back then!

Well, if he tries to cross the border with them they will be confiscated and he will be deported.

On 1/7/2019 at 11:22 AM, KnightsFan said:

@DaveBerg Haha, I totally understand! I once tried gaming with a 4k monitor, but it was limited to 30 fps and I couldn't stand it! It really is just that we are used to "cinema" being really slow. I sometimes shoot whitewater kayaking at 120 as well. The motion is beautiful, really a night and day difference compared to 30 or 24. Although, I'm not sure I'm ready for that smoothness in a narrative film yet.

I have issues like this too. I have an "80 MB/s" 32GB SanDisk that is too slow for 120 fps (though it works perfectly for 4k/24). Then I've got a pair of "45 MB/s" 16GB SanDisks that are somehow fast enough for 120. Doesn't really make sense to me. Actually, my NX1 is on its way out to be honest. It freezes from time to time, it even did so while shooting tests yesterday. Sometimes the screen is half black, or the menu won't come up. So far, battery pulls have fixed every problem... but I don't think I'll use it on real projects anymore.

No, but I've seen other mentions of this glitch. My NX1 sometimes has weird color in single frames when using a Kelvin white balance. It's like I'm shooting in Gamma DR and then one frame will be in Gamma Normal. It only happens with a sudden change in exposure, like if I quickly close the aperture while shooting video. And only in Kelvin white balance mode. I never had any color issues in any white balance presets, or using a grey card, or even in AWB.

Card speeds are usually read speeds, the write speeds vary considerably depending on the brand, model and capacity. Cards with smaller capacities often have much lower write speeds than the higher capacity versions, so you need to be aware of that.

The Kelvin white balance thing is likely a computational glitch. I would guess that the white balance adjustment values used by the camera internally are not linear with respect to exposure so a sudden change might throw it off briefly.

On 7/18/2018 at 7:25 AM, Drew Veeneman said:

Interesting... I thought the whole camera shutdown when the usb cable was plugged in. Never tried that...

As a side-note, in my experience the NX1 batteries last a pretty long time, around 2 hours or so.

Longer if you have the grip installed.

On 7/19/2018 at 8:44 AM, KnightsFan said:

Exactly. I can just do away with the USB cable clamp, so that I can unplug it when necessary to avoid the glitch, but it's a lot less sturdy.

@iamoui Thanks for the suggestion! I considered that early on. But I like powering both the monitor and camera (and any other accessories) from the same powerbank. Furthermore, the battery grip will add extra height, which throws the balance off my rig.

 

If this glitch can't be solved, I'm satisfied with having a non-permanent USB cable that I can detach when necessary. And eventually I hope to figure out a way to have it "quick release." But it would certainly be ideal if there was a way to work properly with the setup I shared in the photo.

If you are using the 16-50mm lens you need the grip, otherwise the lens hits the bridge of the tripod mount, lol. Unless you are using some sort of riser to get the necessary clearance.

Shouldn't contrast be adjusted according to how flat the actual lighting is?

11 hours ago, Snowbro said:

Haha, fortunately, no. Most gun owners are just regular people & have one for their home, or shoot a few times a year for fun. I find some irony in the fact that areas with the highest gun restrictions, have the highest gun violence. It seems to reduce the amount of law abiding citizens that have them, not affecting the criminals (they don't have legal guns anyway). When you hear about gun death statistics in america, they fail to mention that most of those are someone commiting suicide with one.

There is very low crime where I am from; people know that they can't break into your house late at night to rob you, without potential consequence in the form of buckshot. If there ever is universal gun restriction that is successful, then people (criminals) will just smuggle them (like in all countries that they are banned), or go back to using sharp/blunt objects. I personally do not think much about it, everyone gets so worked up on both sides of the spectrum. I enjoy the freedom to protect my home effectively, but take it for granted most of the time, I rarely shoot. 

Didn't mean to get the thread off topic, by mentioning the mouth breathers over at hk forums lol

Yeah, this is true. I have encountered a few very crazy people, that seemed to have nothing to lose. I won't mention all of them, but I had one that was as bad as someone in the bird box movie lol. I was leaving an event in Reno,NV (first & last time there), we were behind someone that was holding up about 50 cars. His car was running, so it likely was not broken down. He didn't move for 5 min, the driver of our vehicle honked finally. A 40 year old red headed guy got out of the car and ran up with crazy eyes, bashing our window with his bare hands. He was punching it as hard as he could, you could see blood all over the window. He didn't break it, I just laughed, but I am glad someone like him wasn't packing heat lol. I learned after high school that your pride isn't worth dying over. Growing up, you could settle a dispute outside with someone in a gradeschool mutual combat ha. I have confronted people calling me out (over random dumb stuff, like accidently locking eye contact in public etc.) then seeing them pull out a knife or something. You never know what someone will do, it's not worth it imo. I saw a video of a guy who was confronted by two people at a gas station (did you disrespect me type of deal?!), he won the fight. Then the aggressors came back and shot him as he was driving away.. 

Well, if you go north of the border to Canada, gun regulations are very strict and gun violence is a tiny fraction of what it is in the US. The same is true for pretty much every other country with strict gun control. So sorry, but your theory is flat out wrong. Gun violence stems directly from ready availability of guns, especially guns which are owned for frivolous reasons. This should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, so I am assuming it is obvious to you as well, since you have taken the time to attack the intelligence of  "mouth breathers" on other forums who dared to disagree with you.

On 1/3/2019 at 10:34 PM, liork said:

Well, some MILC oversample from 6K and there is still degradation in EIS.

Usually because it requires additional processing and the processors are already at their limits. So, some compromise has to be made. The extent varies depending on how much oversampling is being done.

6K is the minimum to get an approximation of true 4K, but you will need more than that if you have EIS as well. Anything less than 6K raw will get you image degradation after debeyering. An 8K image would allow you to get a close to true 4K final image and have enough headroom to allow EIS. But, as I said, you need the processor headroom to account for all of the extra processing that would be needed.

13 hours ago, liork said:

Well, still waiting for the first Mirrorless camera to show it. Right now, all present models show sharpness decrease in EIS.

That is because most MILCs don't oversample enough or don't oversample at all, so some degradation happens.

The NX1 did a pretty decent job at it though.

6 hours ago, liork said:

As you said, as long as the EIS has extra crop and softness, it cannot be "close or superior" to IBIS. On the day it will overcome these 2 problems, then I will prefer that.

As long as you have minimal rolling shutter and an oversampled sensor, using EIS should be superior to IBIS.

The weird distortions you sometimes get with IBIS are likely due to the sensor rolling in the focal plane. You get similar effects with lens stabilization, which also results in the sensor rolling in the focal plane relative to the lens elements. How severe those artefacts are will depend on how aggressive the mechanical stabilization is.

Log profiles involve collecting a larger data set than normal and then conforming it to fit a smaller data space using an algorithm. That would require more processing than non-log, so it would not be surprising to see things like AF affected if the processor is operating near it's limits. 

12 hours ago, Shirozina said:

Why?

Because there is no science involved. It involves making a bunch of subjective modifications usually by people who have zero understanding of what the underlying data actually is. If it is not measurable and definable it is not science, it is guessing. You might be good at guessing but it is still guessing.

It is sort of like a group of sheepherders from 2000 years ago talking about DNA modification, lol. They know that by selective breeding through trial and error that they can get different properties in their animals, but they know nothing about the DNA basis underlying that (although that lack of knowledge won't stop them from explaining how they are doing DNA "science").

As soon as you see people throwing terms like "magic", "special sauce" and "undefinable quality" about you know they have no idea what they are doing/ It is pure subjectivity, there is no science involved, at least with what they are doing. They are the modern day versions of those sheepherders ;)

4 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I assume because so long as the chromaticities defined by a given sensor's filter array encompass at least rec709 or sRGB (same chromasticities/gamut, different decoding gammas), then transforms exists to map an image acquired with that sensor to an image acquired with a different sensor that also covers sRGB (assuming the final output is sRGB or rec709). And all color sensors should cover at least sRGB. This is sort of the idea behind ACES if I'm not mistaken.

The flilpside of the above argument would be that things like dynamic range, noise performance, and metamerism error can result in an image clipping, being overly noisy, or having poor tonality or colors that bleed into each other or simply false or indistinct colors. And those are inherent to the raw file. And metamerism error cannot be accounted for in software so far as I know. As I wrote above, Phase One's trichromatic back and their standard backs should both more than cover rec709, and yet the images taken with one appear more saturated and with better looking (imo) color than those taken with the other, even on an sRGB monitor. And, for instance, Red's too-close red and green chromasticities make it more difficult to get punchy green foliage in post (though the DXL proves it's possible to and I've also seen work from Company 3 that looks amazing with the Red). 

So for an expert colorist, I could see making the argument that raw files might as well all be the same... to a point. With raster, however, each company is baking things in quite differently and I think that really does matter, just maybe not where one expects. And that's where Red applies their "color science" label, in the debayer process. So personally I don't think it's entirely BS, even if I think it's mostly a marketing term. (No offense to @Mako Sports, I don't mean to speak for him or disagree with someone more experienced, just hoping to contribute to the discussion even though I'm a real neophyte with this kind of thing. I suspect you have better reasons for claiming it's entirely BS than I do for thinking it's somewhere in-between BS and material.) Also, a lot of raw isn't really really. Canon Raw Light has a lot baked in. I suspect ARRIRAW does, too.

As regards color being more important in raster than raw, a friend worked with Stephen Sonnenfeld (founder of Company 3) on a project he cut and even he wasn't able to fully account for chroma clipping on cheaper cameras, though I'm sure what he did still looked absolutely amazing. But it's specific bugaboos like chroma clipping that ended up being the hardest things to address, and with raw that's not so much an issue. Again, this is just my uninformed opinion and I don't mean to speak for anyone or insult their abilities. I'm just a fan of Sonnenfeld's work so that's my bias, to agree with what he says, but it's totally possible someone more technical has figured this out better than he could. Back when I was shooting with the F5 I couldn't grade out clipping color channels in SLOG2, then I worked with it again with a a different LUT (Sony now has Arri-emulating and Kodak-emulating LUTs) that addressed that and the image was much easier to work with. So I think for raster images the pipeline makes a big difference, but I'm not much of a colorist.

Well, actually, if you know the chromatic profiles of each dye element used for a particular camera, you should be able to produce a correction table that will largely adjust the responses from different cameras RAW output. There will still be some differences since computation might be required to figure out more or less where in that response curve an individual particular cell is, but it is possible. Not by anyone reading this board though. It is the sort of thing the NLE producers would have to do (those that work with RAW footage that is). If they don't (or do a crappy job at it) I suppose a user could do it themselves in post manually, but it would require exceptional skill and a lot of trial and error to get it right, something most users are not prepared to do.

1 hour ago, Snowbro said:

You forgot: bad ergos, menus, low bit rate, over sharpened at 0 setting, small lens mount, poor skintones, jumpy AF, expensive lenses, playmemories app no longer allows timelapses. Did I miss anything? Haha, the a7siii is going to wreck everything no doubt, might as well get my last laugh in now. 

Thanks for proving my point

3 hours ago, frontfocus said:

Interestingly in his recent teardown of a Canon lens, Roger from Lensrentals says two things:

 

So it seems other notice too

Ya, but Canon and Nikon people do the same thing as well. Roger is probably in one of those camps, so when fanboys from those camps do the same thing, they are being "reasonable". Look at any review of Sony equipment and you will see those folk chirping in as well, basically that whatever they happen to use is "better" even when objectively it is not.

You see the same thing here as well, when people start talking about things like "color science", "undefinable qualities", "video like" or "organic" when discussing whatever equipment they like to use. People who talk nonsense like that you need to make fun of, because they deserve it!!

On 12/16/2018 at 3:39 AM, Snowbro said:

I have shot most brands since 2006 & go with whatever I test and like. I don't understand why sony fanboys feel the need to invade every single video etc. on all videos of other cameras? They don't leave semi underhanded comments, it's full blown nastiness. Who is this demographic? I don't get the level of unprovoked hostility, is it purchase insecurity? Is it young kids that can afford a sony instead of the traditionally high priced dslrs of the past? 

Someone help me understand ?

 

It is the same folk who own Canon gear, they are by far the worst.

Why not just shoot with a H.265 capable camera such as an NX1 and then record the same scene with a Ninja recorder? You would be able to compare the two directly then without any intermediate steps.

On 12/7/2018 at 8:04 PM, kaylee said:

Incorrect! 

There are minor differences due to the exact composition of the pigments used in the filters, but otherwise it is correct, assuming you are using real RAW and not preprocessed data. Those minor differences should be correctable if you know what you are doing. I have a suspicion that a lot of people are calling debeyered but otherwise not processed data "RAW" when that is not RAW.

On 12/8/2018 at 5:19 AM, odie said:

Film has an undefinable quality that is not related at all to digital 

 

but as previously stated the choices in digital are numerous 

If it is undefinable then it is not a quality.

It is like saying that people born from the aristocracy have an "undefinable quality" when in actual fact they are just like everyone else, but happen to have been born from parentage that has some historical significance. The snob effect

On 12/4/2018 at 8:23 PM, IronFilm said:

I think @Jonesy Jones means that the stills part of a "hybrid" camera doesn't matter to a film production. 

That is irrelevant, a hybrid is still a hybrid. The OP is talking about how those cameras can be used. The point was that hybrids can be used for feature production, as evidenced by examples.

On 12/5/2018 at 1:12 AM, kaylee said:

im not talking about canon, im talking about magic lantern raw

≠ whatsoever

canon doesnt make a video camera with the same image. if they did i would DEFINITELY buy one

edit: im being too concise. if youre new to magic lantern raw, its good to know that the image you get from different camera bodies will look different – a 5d2 is not the same as a 5d3, some are more similar than others, and so on. i was oversimplifying

final point: SO many of the videos above have a grade where this doesnt matter. not saying thats bad! just sayin'

If you are shooting in RAW the camera itself is largely irrelevant as far as colors are concerned. The color you get is the color you adjust for.

16 hours ago, IronFilm said:

"You can take any brand of camera that shoots video and shoot excellent video with it"

 

As another saying goes, poor workmen blame their tools.

5 hours ago, Kisaha said:

GH5 is a video camera that records unlimited video and my NX1 and NX500 never overheats with an APS-C sensor in hot hot summers. Obviously is more complicated than just "sensor size". Gaming/editing laptop's biggest issue is overheating and they do have the tiniest sensor (in their web cams)…

Overheating comes from the processor, not the sensor. The NX cameras did not overheat because they had a thermally efficient state of the art (at the time) processor that could handle the workloads imposed on it by the compression. Most other cameras, especially those from Canon, have more primitive processors which can't handle the work load without melting, which is why all sorts of compromises have to be made. When you buy a Canon you get crap outdated tech. They try to deflect from the deficiency by encouraging nonsense like "color science" and other such unquantifiable things that people talk about but can't really say what it is.

Good old fashioned marketing. Convince the sheep that the slaughterhouse is cool and just lead them in.

10 hours ago, DBounce said:

Nikon has a sizable sensor design department. So... I’m pretty certain the Nikon Z cameras are not using Sony sensors... rather Sony manufacturers Nikon designed sensors for Nikon. 

@Andrew Reid posted an article about it. The original source was Image Resource that actually went to Nikon and toured their facility.

Just like Apple designs their own CPUs and outsources the manufacturing... Nikon does the same thing with their sensors.

The idea that Nikon is using Sony designed sensors in the Z7 or Z6 is “fake news”.

 

More specifically, it is an idea propagated by people who have no clue how business works.

16 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Heat management seems to be the main struggle for all companies. But they already have come far. Blackmagic managed to do it with the pocket 4K, so the rest will follow suit prob. Prob even in even smaller bodies.  

Heat management is not an issue for BM because they have a "feature" where they do little or no compression. No compression is zero pressure on the processor, which is where heat comes from. So, in actual fact the BM "feature" just reflects the bargain basement design of their camera. If you are not doing compression, or very little, you can throw in a cheap underpowered processor and call it a done deal, but just put up some smoke to fool the noobs and call your cost cutting a "superior feature" to pull the wool over the eyes of people who don't know any better.

Marketing to the ignorant at it's finest. Convince them that less is more.

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 12:04 PM, Trek of Joy said:

After years of being Mac only and a one-man-band, my work is requiring me to be more collaborative with a few PC only shops. So to make life easier, I'm going to move to Resolve as my main editor and build a windows box. I'll be editing stills/video including h264 and h265 from various hybrids and raw from a Blackmagic P4k at some point in the next 6 months or so. My grades are mostly primaries with a lut, along with lots of titles and music/audio tweaks. I don't do FX. I have a 1tb SSD on my iMac as my main edit drive. Most projects are no more than 4 or 5 minutes long (though I'm doing an 8-hour Yule Log by looping a 30 minute Red shot this weekend, first in HD and then upscaling to 4k), so I do want another SSD. Beyond that I'm not sure where to go. Any advice on where to focus the cash in terms of processor, video cards, ram and so on is greatly appreciated. My budget is $3000-ish for the box, and I'm just going to go with something like Alienware because I don't want to mess with a pile of parts to build, chasing down drivers, figuring out why audio isn't working with certain pieces of software and so on - that's what drove me to Mac in the first place. Plus, I'm knee deep in learning Resolve while trying to wrap 3 edits, along with 3 more shoots coming up that have to be turned around before x-mas. I've looked at the BMD hardware guide, but I'd like some advice from other users as well.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Chris

Easier to make your own system, nowdays drivers are not an issue unless maybe if you get stuff from some obscure manufacturer. It will cost less and you will get exactly what you want.

Lots of nice looking cases are available now. 

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 1:09 AM, Shirozina said:

The CFA density dictates the colour fidelity and accuracy. Increased subsampling will help but I repeat it can't invent colours that were not captured. By this I'm talking the very slightest differences in hues needed to get critical colours in skin tones right. I shoot 8k stills in 14bit RAW but I don't get a miraculous improvement in colour by sunsampling to 2k and certainly not anything approaching the quality in colour from a good MF digital back which isn't trading sensitivity for colour fidelity with weaker CFA density.  

You are going to get much better color accuracy from an 8K image downsampled to 2K  than you are going to get from straight 2K simply because you are getting more color information from a virtual pixel. A virtual pixel sampled in multiples of red green and blue subpixels is going to be more accurate than a pixel sampled in one of the three colors. What more is there to explain, if that is not obvious? It is not going to be fully accurate, but it will be pretty close. If you are not getting the colors you want it is more down to your post processing adjustments than anything else.

1 hour ago, androidlad said:

These new sensors are specifically designed for industrial and/or consumer digital stills camera with video capabilities. And Sony have put just enough restrictions on the video side in these sensors so they won't cannibalise the cinema lineup.

It has nothing to do with preventing "cannibalization". The differences in the product line ups are due to processor capabilities. If you have a large video specific camera it is much easier to keep the processor cool during shooting. Cooler processors mean higher clock speeds and more capability and hence more functions/IQ. MILCs will always be second class to dedicated video equipment for this reason, it has nothing to do with market segmentation outside of the fact that the equipment is physically different so that it can be used optimally in one function or the other.

The whole cannibalization nonsense is a myth started by consumers who want what big pro cameras can do without understanding exactly why those cameras can do it while their little MILC can't. So they stamp their feet and pout, but really it is just that they have a simplistic view of the technology involved.

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 4:45 PM, Andrew Reid said:

Sony has developed a duo of 8K capable full frame sensors, which will soon be released in two Sony cameras.

Read the full article

Got the specs sheets @androidlad?

Having a sensor that can do these things is one thing, having a processor capable of handling the data flow is quite another.

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:28 AM, Shirozina said:

Yes downsampling helps and infact is essential for best quality (1:1 can't produce optimal images due to the Nyquist Theorem) but for better colour the sensor has to capture it in the first place and that data can't be interpolated by downsampling and nor can DR be increased beyond what the sensor can capture even if  downsampling and interpolation can reduce noise. 

You will get more accurate color from downsampling because the composite pixel is based on more information than a single physical pixel. It will also increase the bit depth of the composite pixel (assuming the original data was 8 bit, it would convert it to 10 bit). That does not mean increased dynamic range however, but it would result in more accurate color and luminosity. Shooting in 8K with a beyer filter in place means that you should be able to resolve true color at 4K resolution (assuming you are using a RAW feed of course) since each composite pixel would be receiving input from two green pixels and single red and blue pixels.

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 12:58 AM, graphicnatured said:

I've heard they are just shipping replacement doors to people who have the loose ones so you don't need to ship your camera in anymore and they're easy to take off. Looking at the mechanism of mine, I'm pretty impressed with how easy they are to remove.

It just fell off on it's own?

58 minutes ago, hmcindie said:

Shitty downscaling increases aliasing -> increases hard edges -> looks "sharper". Playing stuff in a browser usually means shitty downscaling. Youtube is played in a browser. 

Those edges of the buildings (and hard lines) will start flickering and aliasing when played in 4k with a 1080p screen.

 

All youtube does in generating the lower res versions is combine the pixels, so 4 pixels becomes one in 4K > FHD. They are not going to spend extra computational resources to do anything else. If you have a deliberately soft image it will lose that when downscaled. More problematic is that it will be re-encoded again after that, which will introduce a whole bunch of artifacts. 

For best results on a 1080p panel you should view the 4K version and let your computer do the down conversion, that way you will get the pixel remapping only, without the re-encoding artifacts, and get a much better image than if you viewed the 1080p version.

2 hours ago, dslnc said:

 

Andrew is spot on with his perspectives -

If it would just be 'pirates' using vimeo then 99,99% would understand and not complain about the new policy-
But I find it sad that Vimeo has given up the benefit of the doubt of its long term users and letting the vultures skinning their corpse. 

I.e. lets say you are an agent representing directors. And you i.e have been using vimeo pro since launch. One day you sign up a new director that also makes music videos for artists signed with 'the big 4' labels. He gives you a few music videos for his reel and you upload them to your vimeo account and embed them on to your webpage. All good.
Suddenly you receive an email from vimeo's legal team about a takedown notice of exactly those music videos. Strike One! Ifpi London that represents the right holders wants the videos down unless you can prove you have a explicit permission to add them to your vimeo account.
But unfortunately that email ends up in your spam folder so you have no idea.

In the mean time the director changes agent you take his reel offline and you sign up new directors. Later some also with music videos...Strike2...Strike3...

One morning a client calls you complaining why the links you send doesn't seem to work. Entering on your website all video links are dead. Your account on vimeo suddenly isn't there.
You try contacting vimeo. You are desperate. No phone numbers. nothing. just a webpage where you can fill out a form. 
Vimeo comes back to you noting that they tried contacting you but are unable to do anything to help you other than giving you 1 week to download your hundreds of videos and giving you the contact info to the right holders if you wants to try get your strike count down to '2' in order to restore your account.
Your years of trust towards a technical partner suddenly goes haywire.

Sure. Very unfortunate not to have seen the strike emails. But disconnecting your business because of a technicality. 3 to be exact. It seems like a vey dystopic future. 
Especially since your aren't new on vimeo. The years spend trusting (and paying) vimeo. Actually representing 50+ filmmakers that are part of Vimeo's the core demographic using vimeo for showing their work to agents worldwide. Spending xxxxx€  integrating vimeo even closer with your publishing tools etc. All worth nothing when somebody is knocking on the dmca door. Then your have to prove your innocence. With the right to get disconnected.
Later you spend months with letters, emails, phonecalls to get the right holders to understand that you represented or represents the guy or girl they hired to make the music video in question.
But for some reason one director wasn't credited internally as director on one clip although he developed it and produced it because he send an AD abroad for a few takes...

Well. Obviously it is not a made-up story. But the reality of a friend on mine.

I think his situation could have been less dire if he would have seen one of the strike emails. But the very limited help and understanding from vimeo is quite surprising  ( they actually mentioned that it happens to quite a few not receiving the notifications ) I find it quite distasteful that they doest at least offer a phone number to speak with a special dmca help line to give guidance. After all deactivating an account could easily mean hurting others businesses. People get shocked and stressed.

No doubt that music rights is a hotter theme than ever especially since the big record companies have regained their power and are getting comfortable in the digital world. But the world still isn't binary (yet)

 

 

Well, what you are describing is using other people's work to promote your business or public interests, the fact that there is an intermediate guy (the director) does not make it ok. He does not have the right to assign the content over to you, only the original music creator does, and he/she does not know you from a bar of soap. As far as the people who actually own the content are concerned, you are stealing their stuff and they are 100% correct.

Having a third party as an intermediate does not absolve you of responsibility. In the scenario you described the director basically has a license to use the content to promote their work, but they do NOT have the right to sublicense that work to a third party without express written permission of the original owner. It is the same thing as buying a song from a download service. What you buy is not the song but a license to store and play back that song for personal private use, you are not allowed to then turn around and use that bought song for commercial use or public use. For that you will need to buy a different, much more expensive license. If you use the song for anything other than personal private use then you are violating the terms of the license and are in essence stealing the work even though you bought it for use in a limited way.

That is exactly what stealing creative works is.