Leaderboard

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. No one watches that video instead of putting a song on their ipod or music library. Counting "lost" revenue is straight up bulshit. Not every theif of digital, infinitely copyable goods is a potential purchaser, not every person who watched the video would buy the song. It's a moronic way to measure losses. You can't lose what doesn't exist. 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 to delete video will send a lot of users packing. It is literally finding everyone guilty until proven innocent, and is a spineless move.

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!

Finally saw this at the cinema last night, did anyone else notice how soft (and soft edges) and at times almost out of focus the anamorphic sections of the film were? It looked excellent, it was just interesting to see these traits are not specific to the enthusiast/pro-sumer end of the anamorphic spectrum. Some of the 4:3 stuff looked almost like video at times. Very strange, but totally worked.

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

I've been out in Dubai for commercial work, and in my spare time I used the 5dmkIII + raw to shoot a travelogue. Tried to capture some of the lesser-known parts of Dubai and the surrounding region. Enjoy!

Hello Everyone! I'm a huge fan of this forum and I'd really like what Andrew has done for the Indie Filmmaking community. Anyway, here is a video I'd like to share with you all about my trip to Yosemite with the GH4. It was raining, snowing, and sunny in one weekend so I was very fortunate to catch all of those elements in such a short span of time! As for the GH4, it was completely drenched in rain and snow and it still survived! I absolutely love this camera and I found it to be much more practical and enjoyable to shoot on than my BMCC and Pocket Cinema Camera. I can't wait to post my video review on this camera. I'll be comparing this to the 5D Mk. III Raw, BMCC, and Pocket Cinema Camera. I hope you enjoy the video as much as I enjoyed making it, and any questions and feedback is welcomed! Thanks!

My thoughts exactly. Although the meme does appear to be a highly efficient nerd trap, even here. Which is somewhat surprising. But still, it's bollocks. Utter waste of everyone's time. Another nerdy meme not worth propagating. Seriously people, no one is 'cheating' you. Forget the jargon and ignore the nerds, just grab your camera and go out to shoot something with it. If the footage or photos you get look good to you, great, that's all that matters. Regardless of the sensor size of your camera, or the F-stop carved on your lens barrel.

The music can almost always be licensed, it's not that hard. But for the most part record companies don't really give a shit about the odd few hundred dollars from some student filmmaker who wants a festival licence so there is no point building some huge infrastructure to make it easy for someone who for the most part they cannot afford the music they want to licence. You have to play with toys that are in your league. If you are working on a big budgeted film there are people who handle getting quotes, even if you aren't you can just contact the publisher. I've done it and gotten fair quotes, but mostly they are outrageous. Sites like music bed are there to fill the gap, music that is affordable and easy to licence, the downside is the quality is hit or miss. But I think to say fast, cheap licencing is always win win is missing a crucial point. Successful music artists don't necessarily want you piggy backing off their work and a small licencing fee may not worth having their art and reputation likely devalued. I don't want adverts on my shorts and it bothers me when they pop up with new scores without my permission. It devalues the original 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. There are lots of up coming artists who are happy to collaborate with you if you ask though! Like Andrew said, search bandcamp or soundcloud, you might find a future collaborator.

Indeed, I find it curious that even on filmmaking sites like this one people seem to have this juvenile sense of entitlement. People should know better. Neverhteless, the actual issue in this thread is twofold; That's the key issue here, isn't it, it's way easier said than done. In fact, in some cases it appears to be literally impossible for an aspiring filmmaker to do just that, at least within a reasonable budget and effort. Many people would do just that, if they could, in any reasonable way. Apparently what we need is a new "Steve Jobs" who's got the bollocks, the connections and commercial leverage to talk some sense into the heads of the music industry moguls. Someone who could come up with a new "iTunes for Syncronisation Fees" system for us. Someone who could make the music industry realise that they are peeing in their own bowl of cereals once again by not allowing filmmakers and other multimedia artists easy and reasonably priced means to buy a legal licence for their videos. If they saw that, they'd realise that allowing it would be a win-win scenario, and allowing such an easy and affordable access to copyrighted music would give them a massive but free marketing boost, too, along with an all new revenue stream via the licence fees. But alas, I'm afraid our rants here will be futile, until the whole music industry kicks off. The other half of the issue is this; Yes, they should. The (other) problem here is just that, the legal imperative is way too one-sided. The users should be considered "innocent until proven guilty." I believe the majority of people publishing videos on Vimeo are using royalty free music licences, anyway, as per the guidelines they've agreed to respect. They don't want to waste time and fight with some dumb bots and bureaucrats with their inevitable false positives. Nor should they have to. Both issues could indeed be easily fixed by fixing the broken system, not by adding dumb bots into it. It's not like (most) people wouldn't be willing to pay for a licence, if only there was a reasonable system to do so. Perhaps the concept of fair use should be less open to interpretation, too. This may be repeating the same talking (ranting) points once again, but so what.

exactly ..... thats why you need a sync license to use a track My publisher has a whole department assigned JUST for syncs they also actively push my work to adverts and films I've had tracks Ive produced or remixed on the Hollywood films First Wives Club, My Best Friends Wedding , Studio 54 and Sliding Doors (Aqua - Turn Back Time , no1 on the UK chart ) all properly done with sync licenses , contracts and royalty payments. Ive also turned down films I dont want to be associated with ....it works both ways.

Consider also that each time an artist's music is used on a project that is not in line with their artistic goals, and then shared with the public, it's value is diminished. Radiohead or whoever likley want their music being the theme for every art school video project, or worse a car ad. Of course there is a price for everything. I want to have the worlds best actors and best musician's work in my films but I can't afford either so gotta make do with what I can!

I totally agree it needs reforming massively its the Record Industries own fault this huge collapse happened as they sat still for 10 years and did very little, the whole thing with sync fees is complex as you need to clear the recording rights with the record company and the publishing rights with the publisher ....it takes time and one can say yes and the other no - so you are then stuck - no sync.

  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.

Softness, chromatic and edge softness are the traits associated with most classic anamorphic lens families. Read almost any interview with an A-List DP working in the medium and they're often making their selection based on these "artifacts" as a conscious decision, counting them as a positive. All of the things enthusiasts and amateurs and bench engineers routinely poo-poo in "affordable" adapters, ironically. The term "sharp" is also a more or less relative term when you're talking anamorphic. Look at the chart tests found elsewhere here on the Iscorama 54. Compared to the shittiest spherical kit lens that I've ever seen it's soft as hell, but as one of a few coveted Iscoramas it's considered nearly a "gold standard".

What blows is in most cases the rights to music doesn't belong to the artist and if you want to licence it you will pay massive fees and have restricted usage and all the money goes to universal or some other company that had no hand in creating the art. I hope the current trend of self made musician's by meritocracy on the internet continues and the relevance of big music record companies for distribution dies completely. It would be wonderful to negotiate with the artists management directly and know the fees you pay are going directly to person who actually made the art. I feel like the $200 for personal use without strings attached that music bed and such do is very reasonable and I've had no bones about paying it since I know the artist is getting a good portion of the money. Ultimately though, whoever owns the art should be able to say to whom and how it's distributed, I don't understand the entitlement attitude in the digital age. If you don't like it you should try making your own, peoples art in all mediums has value!

Aw man, he's been working on this?! ;) I'm still waiting for an expansion to the FF58/TRUMP lens line. 2X anamorphics have been teased, and a set of primes, and "flaresex modules" (I don't even know what flaresex is, but I want it). I'm starting to look at $4K Iscoramas and $6K LOMO sets . . . It's fun to look at, but it makes my wallet itchy.

I recommend turning off iTunes and listening to Bandcamp for a while, then if you like something for your own personal artistic freedom of use, get in touch directly with the artist via their Twitter or Facebook page.

Maybe there will be a revival of silent film!

Me too, I've been tempted to a 200 quid budget kino, no dimmer but switchable banks... if i get it I'll let you know how it is. I've heard the knock-off HMIs aren't worth the danger!!

I also think that all mechanicals (Mechanical copyrights are those that the labels own 100%) should expire after five years. Since they have been in the public domain for five years, then they should be public domain forever so long as they are not used for profit. Jeez - what other line of work is it where you still get paid 30-40 years later for something you recorded when you were coked off yer head. Try telling that to a paramedic who saved someones life 30 years ago. Hmmm It doesn't seem right with world unemployment rising does it? The recent Pink Floyd digital remastered collection of all their studio albums served only one purpose - to refresh the mechanical copyright and at the same time get the public to pay for it on top- double whammy. Consider the Who's, 'Wont get fooled again' the message is in the music - how can they sleep cashing in on this?

Here's a test grading using Wide-DR stock profile, password is test it's remarkable how the secondaries come out. I secondaried the skin, and considering the compression it was jolly clean It must be due to beyering at 4k not 1080p

I think this is crazy because sometimes I hear a catchy tune on a video and then go buy that tune, so they get free marketing and a sale out of it. Dont the suits realise this happens a lot, as I see many asking uncredited work what music was used in the feedback comments and this is invaluable for smaller artists needing airplay. The notion that vimeo or youtube can be used as some kinda jukebox is silly. For me as long as you give credit and play by fair use (use short passages, snippets not whole works and put the original artist in a good light) I think it should be allowed.

but it's all copyright theft if you use it without permission - that's why we have copyright laws people on the web seem to forget that ! it's not free - it's someone/s career and livelyhood , how they pay the mortgage - so respest that.

Saying record companies lose money due to Vimeo airtime is as crazy as saying they lose sales through radio play and extensive advertising.

Musicians and writers often do get ripped off by publishers. That's why more and more of them are getting into self-publishing.

I agree that this is annoying. On the other hand, if you have bad music or no music at all you can use in your video, you are forced to concentrate more on storytelling, which will result in better clips on the long run.

Well, if you guys are serious about supporting artists, don't shed a tear for the RIAA and the music industry, support websites like "bandcamp.com" where artists can sell directly to you. They aren't losing money because of Vimeo, that's just free promotion, they're losing money because of offshore file upload websites and the music blogs that link to them. If I can, I like to buy directly from the artists, I try to do that at live events for example (they sell cd's at live shows because they actually see the money). It's not just free downloads that are stealing from musicians, it's the labels and their managers too.

You guy did not understand at all. I 100% agree with Andrew, and this is a disaster. Now let me tell you why : 1 - your exemple and comparison is wrong. Because in one case you use audio format (a music) to use it on a different industry : make a personnal video. So it is not copying the music to do the same music, but something else. SO you can't compare with video saying that it would be the same for exemple to copy my video and using it in another video (because you stay on the same support, same industry : video). 2 - Come on man ? If you think 2 seconds about it : first of all I buy the music that I put in my video so the artist should be happy I bought it, secondly puting it in my video is an advertisement for him (see under videos how many comments what is this song blablabla) so it benefits DOUBLE for the artist. If tomorrow you copy my video and use it as a rush in your video, it doesn't give me money (cause you did not pay my video) and it does not make any add for me because people will think this is 100% your video. The rule should be to pay the track, and give credit to artist in the description, that's all. But when I say pay the track I mean pay the normal one, and not 10 000 USD to have to rights on it. I mean, if you do a commercial and make profit with your video it is normal that you have to pay more, but for creative work, is that not enough to pay the song and credit the artist ? Come on..... The digital world is becoming less and less free, just like the real world. FUCK Vimeo if they do that seriously.

great job rich! been thinking about this since the first dof adaptors came out... next stop is 4X5" !! :-)

As a musician turned video guy I'm not at all opposed to this. I hope that this encourages cinematographers/film makers to go find local musicians and work with them. I sincerely hope that it does! I started shooting a personal documentary on a local coffeehouse about a month ago, and two local musicians were practically begging to help score it. There are tons of musicians out there, just as there are videographers. Much like the video industry, it is now easier than ever to create music at home on a limited budget. Of course having the ability to write my own music makes this a non-issue for me, so I do understand why it is frustrating to so many. The way I see it though, the opportunity for more collaboration should only lead to better creative potential!

Exactly. I think it very neat, but to me IMAX is about negative size, not shallow DOF, so thought the original post a bit misleading.

they are flimsy and I had to rewire them as it was a bit dangerous!! but the do work fine just not quite as robust are the real thing - still makes the same light , takes the same bulbs edit - oh yeah and the stands are very thin/ flimsy too , so you might want to by real stands

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but I don't see how this is any different than the DOF adapters, like Letus, made for camcorders before DSLRs. You can get a beautiful, shallow DOF, but the image will be very soft. Don't get me wrong, it will produce a stylized image not possible in post (because depth can't be ascertained from a 2D image). Still, a one-trick pony. Am I missing anything?

i used to use the shuttle pro http://retail.contourdesign.com/?/products/23 but after a while i returned to the mouse, its not that usefull,, i have this keybord from http://www.editorskeys.com/products/video-editing-keyboards/ which i highly recommend! edit with the keybord and it will save time!

Cinema5D had a famous anamorphic thread which ticked along very nicely for 2 years until it died. I'm a big fan of sticky things :)

my favorite camera is THE ARRI LT.. but for (video) digital work ..red one mx is a beast…and (5dm3 nice with raw)

The colors are mindblowing...I miss my Red One!