Andrew Reid

  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.

  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!

  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.

  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.

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

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.

  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?

  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.

  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.

  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.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.

  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!

  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/

  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?

  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.

  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.