I have already done that. I have downloaded much of Vimeo's HD content, re-encoded it when necessary to.mp4 h.264 and I play it back through our PS3 to our 55" HDTV. It looks great!
I was speaking about ripped shows, not about shows recorded with these cameras. The point was to show that 24p is important for video editing, not that the HV20 is capable of doing uber-professional TV show recordings.
Both the HV20 and the ZR800 that are mentioned in the article have external mic connectors. I don't buy cameras without a mic input either -- even if it's not in XLR format.
In the article I mention the ZR800, which costs $250 overall. Get that one if you really need one. However, as I wrote in one of my blog posts, it makes more sense to wait for AVCHD to take off.
Alternatively, you can buy the new Kodak 12 MP digicam that is also able to record 720p video. This one costs $180.
No 16bit support on Gimp, and so it's NOT a good solution for prosumer or pro photographers. And Cinepaint has forked a long time ago and so many other features are missing from it, so don't even mention it as an alternative. 16bit support on Gimp was first promised in 2002, but it's still not here...
800 Mhz Macs should be included on Leopard's compatibility list IMO. We are talking about machines that were released just 4 years ago, and we should not forget that Mac users take pride on their computers and they keep them for a long time. There is not a real technical limitation why QuartzExtreme-compatible, firewire-compatible etc Macs should not be supported, other than Apple wanting more money from you and less money spending on testing with these systems.
Yes, but the law says that when you are on a public setting, you CAN be photographed, and the photographer determines the license terms. So the photographer decided to release his picture in CC-BY, which is his prerogative and right to do so. The girl and family can't do anything about it. She should have asked right there to not take her picture, or to not publish it. From the moment she didn't express any disconcern, then she has NO SAY in what happened afterwards.
And btw, when you are on a public setting, photography is allowed. So the guy who took the picture, owes nothing to the family, and it's his prerogative to license the picture any way he wants to.
This is crazy. The image was posted under the CC-BY license, so neither the company, or Flickr should pay them anything. The family should just get more familiar with the CC licenses and be more careful when they choose a license for their stuff.
BTW, do you know if I can license my home videos and combined music separately? For example, can I publish my video on youtube under the CC-BY license, while the music used in the video to be licensed under the CC-BY-SA (which I used under permission from the artist)? So this way, if someone wants to license my footage, he will have to get a separate license for the audio?
Not that I know of. It would indeed create a new kind of business model... which is "advertise my work by using it any way you want in your derivative works, but to download the original you gotta pay me". Although there is a danger with this idea: that a derivative is better than the original.:D
>using someones audio work in another audio-visual work
Yes, because at least for me, while music is part of the overall work, it is not MY work, and therefore, I don't even modify it, I simply use it. I do not consider it part of MY work. This is why I want to DUAL license my works, one license for the video and one for the music's license. They go together, but I consider them distinct entities. At least, as a videographer who can't write music.
>If the author wanted that they wouldn't have chosen an no derivative license.
I am fairly certain that most of the people who choose the ND license don't even know that their work won't be included in videos. They only think that they won't get remixes or covers.
>How you'd define "unmodified" I don't know
Unmodified means not remixes, no covers, no different beats etc. Just the mp3 as you downloaded it from the artist's web site or CD.
>What you really need is more music produced with a less restrictive licence rather than trying to force people using the No derivative to allow derivatives.
That's true. Indeed, there is just not much selection under the CC-BY.
More over, don't forget the NC clause. While a piece might be under the NC and not under the ND, it will still not allow you to use that video on youtube! So put all that together, and you are ending up with 5% of the CC available music *as a videographer*. This problem has an impact for video in particular not for other uses.
>If I host a YouTube video for my relatives with personal photos >synced to some commercial track, it's supposed to be ok
Nope, it's not. It is copyright infringement. YouTube STILL makes money, even if you don't. And even if they weren't, you are still not licensed to use music that way.
It all depends if you define "derivative work" as the syncing of audio and video --even if the audio was unchanged over the original recording--, or not. I don't. I dual license my videos in fact. Some of my videos are pretty much public domain, but the songs used are CC-BY and unchanged over the original recording (e.g. no remixes). So, it all depends on your and the law's definition of "derivative work". I don't think it should be named as such.
I wrote an article about the lack of fair use being a consumer right last week. In particular, I mentioned that even 90% Creative Commons licensed music is very restrictive for videographers -- which was a surprise to me when I found out. Unless you only use the CC-BY license (only 60 albums exist in that license), you can't "sync" audio and video legally for free for your own projects. And that's for the CC music we are talking about (and two of the Board of Directors of CC agreed with my conclusions). I don't even want to start thinking how bad it will become if RIAA starts suing the actual users on youtube who sync their HOME videos with their music. In other words, IMO, fair use should be expanded to become a consumer right, at least for personal pre-specified usage (I am not endorsing piracy here and I do believe that commercial vendors should continue licensing for professional usage).
Slashdot Mirror
I have already done that. I have downloaded much of Vimeo's HD content, re-encoded it when necessary to .mp4 h.264 and I play it back through our PS3 to our 55" HDTV. It looks great!
Canon is behind it and sponsors the HD part of the site. So as long as Canon funds it, they are ok.
>Movies? TV shows?
I was speaking about ripped shows, not about shows recorded with these cameras. The point was to show that 24p is important for video editing, not that the HV20 is capable of doing uber-professional TV show recordings.
I have to agree. The ones that record in flash cards with the smaller body are indeed toys. Like Aiptek's too.
Videography is not about making indie films with actors. At least not always. So what you say here is not always relevant or important.
Both the HV20 and the ZR800 that are mentioned in the article have external mic connectors. I don't buy cameras without a mic input either -- even if it's not in XLR format.
In the article I mention the ZR800, which costs $250 overall. Get that one if you really need one. However, as I wrote in one of my blog posts, it makes more sense to wait for AVCHD to take off.
Alternatively, you can buy the new Kodak 12 MP digicam that is also able to record 720p video. This one costs $180.
Every 10 minutes. I have my way to crash them by actually using them instead of petting them.
No 16bit support on Gimp, and so it's NOT a good solution for prosumer or pro photographers. And Cinepaint has forked a long time ago and so many other features are missing from it, so don't even mention it as an alternative. 16bit support on Gimp was first promised in 2002, but it's still not here...
800 Mhz Macs should be included on Leopard's compatibility list IMO. We are talking about machines that were released just 4 years ago, and we should not forget that Mac users take pride on their computers and they keep them for a long time. There is not a real technical limitation why QuartzExtreme-compatible, firewire-compatible etc Macs should not be supported, other than Apple wanting more money from you and less money spending on testing with these systems.
So when when I say "you are right" to the poster above, that's not good enough for you?
Go fuck yourself.
Nope. Indeed, model release is needed.
Creative Commons in not a company, it's the project that wrote the license. Virgin is the company. And I agree, it requires a model release.
You are right. This is a model release case. The photographer is liable.
Yes, but the law says that when you are on a public setting, you CAN be photographed, and the photographer determines the license terms. So the photographer decided to release his picture in CC-BY, which is his prerogative and right to do so. The girl and family can't do anything about it. She should have asked right there to not take her picture, or to not publish it. From the moment she didn't express any disconcern, then she has NO SAY in what happened afterwards.
And btw, when you are on a public setting, photography is allowed. So the guy who took the picture, owes nothing to the family, and it's his prerogative to license the picture any way he wants to.
This is crazy. The image was posted under the CC-BY license, so neither the company, or Flickr should pay them anything. The family should just get more familiar with the CC licenses and be more careful when they choose a license for their stuff.
Good to know.
BTW, do you know if I can license my home videos and combined music separately? For example, can I publish my video on youtube under the CC-BY license, while the music used in the video to be licensed under the CC-BY-SA (which I used under permission from the artist)? So this way, if someone wants to license my footage, he will have to get a separate license for the audio?
Not that I know of. It would indeed create a new kind of business model... which is "advertise my work by using it any way you want in your derivative works, but to download the original you gotta pay me". Although there is a danger with this idea: that a derivative is better than the original. :D
>using someones audio work in another audio-visual work
Yes, because at least for me, while music is part of the overall work, it is not MY work, and therefore, I don't even modify it, I simply use it. I do not consider it part of MY work. This is why I want to DUAL license my works, one license for the video and one for the music's license. They go together, but I consider them distinct entities. At least, as a videographer who can't write music.
>If the author wanted that they wouldn't have chosen an no derivative license.
I am fairly certain that most of the people who choose the ND license don't even know that their work won't be included in videos. They only think that they won't get remixes or covers.
>How you'd define "unmodified" I don't know
Unmodified means not remixes, no covers, no different beats etc. Just the mp3 as you downloaded it from the artist's web site or CD.
>What you really need is more music produced with a less restrictive licence rather than trying to force people using the No derivative to allow derivatives.
That's true. Indeed, there is just not much selection under the CC-BY.
More over, don't forget the NC clause. While a piece might be under the NC and not under the ND, it will still not allow you to use that video on youtube! So put all that together, and you are ending up with 5% of the CC available music *as a videographer*. This problem has an impact for video in particular not for other uses.
Sound good, thanks, I will email you later tonight.
>If I host a YouTube video for my relatives with personal photos
>synced to some commercial track, it's supposed to be ok
Nope, it's not. It is copyright infringement. YouTube STILL makes money, even if you don't. And even if they weren't, you are still not licensed to use music that way.
Agreed with the rest of your points.
It all depends if you define "derivative work" as the syncing of audio and video --even if the audio was unchanged over the original recording--, or not. I don't. I dual license my videos in fact. Some of my videos are pretty much public domain, but the songs used are CC-BY and unchanged over the original recording (e.g. no remixes). So, it all depends on your and the law's definition of "derivative work". I don't think it should be named as such.
I wrote an article about the lack of fair use being a consumer right last week. In particular, I mentioned that even 90% Creative Commons licensed music is very restrictive for videographers -- which was a surprise to me when I found out. Unless you only use the CC-BY license (only 60 albums exist in that license), you can't "sync" audio and video legally for free for your own projects. And that's for the CC music we are talking about (and two of the Board of Directors of CC agreed with my conclusions). I don't even want to start thinking how bad it will become if RIAA starts suing the actual users on youtube who sync their HOME videos with their music. In other words, IMO, fair use should be expanded to become a consumer right, at least for personal pre-specified usage (I am not endorsing piracy here and I do believe that commercial vendors should continue licensing for professional usage).
re-install windows and go back to them (or another outlet). It's as easy as this.