User

Congratulations on your opinion. However, you have no idea what I'm working on and the conditions I'm working under... so your assumptions seem... largely misplaced.

It's seems 'The Chris' has moved the discussion forward by citing existing info on 'fair use' from what appears to a reputable org. Nice work Chris! And a hearty thanks to everyone else for weighing in. Love this site and the folks who contribute in meaningful ways

Um. Maybe we better just stick to talk about cameras in this forum. So I'll rephrase the original question. What are your opinions if a have a quote from a book printed on a sticker, and then I stick that sticker on my camera. The sicker would be black in color and so would the actual letters. Can I get in trouble with the copyright owner of the book?

Thanks to everyone for weighing in on this. I'll try to keep this simple, I feel like most of this will be redundant. I'm shooting/ directing a doc film in Asia about a city. This film will be for broadcast and possibly other forms of distribution, so that means that I have, and may continue to be paid from this work. The film itself is a hybrid art documentary and not meant for scholastic education purposes although it could easily be born from the Film Study Centre at Harvard. Hat tip to Robert Gardner. Now, the "QUOTE" I want to use is from a 600 page book about the city published in 2004. Needless to say I would credit to the author of the book, why would I not? The quote would be in the form of text that opens the film. I've never come across any info that the 41 word section is extra extraordinarily important to the book. But it does bare a nice resemblance to certain aspects of the film I'm making. Simple enough. The actual quote is a kind of 'poetic description of the city.' What I am starting to realize here in asking this is that everyone has their 'opinion' but at the end of the day, the publisher owns the copyright and they will decide what they want for me to use it. As Grim has pointed out, I fully expect the published to try to get as much as they can for the quote. The challenge is to know if the publisher can actually charge for this and weather or not the can sue me if I do use it without their permission. And to what degree the term 'fair use' is applicable in my situation, because that is not always, easily and exactly ascertainable. I know the writer personally but he seems a uncomfortable individual so I'd rather just deal with the actual copyright owner. Alas.

Sorry if it was not clear but I have no intention of using an author's words as my own. That would be suicide. Moreover, since noone here seems to have any direct experience, and none of us are Entertainment Lawyers, let's drop this until I hear from the publisher, after which I'll post again.

I sometime wonder about folks 'overthinking' what other folks are thinking about. Entertainment law is something quite different that writing a research paper in school and it would be a bit bizarre to be standing in a court of law and trying to explain that a guy in a camera forum said it was ok. I have several broadcast licences on this project and I require facts. If you can point to those then be my guest. If not... well...

Oh really. Can you cite a confirmed source for this info? Agreed. I've mailed the copyright owner. Will report back when I have an answer. Thanks.

Thanks folks. The quote would be used to open a doc film. The doc won't be a blockbuster. The book is not a Harry Potter bestseller. If anything, the quote your more than likely draw people from the film to the book.

I've been Googling around for an answer on this but haven't found anything concrete. The book in question is copyright protected in the U.S. I want to use 41 words. Does anyone have any relevant info? Experience?

Agreed.

A camera is a box with a lens. Get on with it.

It's absolutely beautiful colour and detail. No grade required. The WDR needed a little work to get things right.

For others interested. I had been using Wide Dynamic Range (WDR) for night shooting. Tonight I tried the AbleCine LowLight profile... what a huge difference!

http://www.thomann.de/gb/sennheiser_sk100_g3_g_band.htm?ref=search_rslt_Sennheiser+SK100+G3+%2F+G-Band_313981_2 Thanks again Greg.

Thanks Greg. Will have a look but unfortunately it will have to wait until I'm back with the Schnauze to pick up. Fortunately I have a spare set. Let's see.

Hi Folks, I'm wondering if I can purchase sennheiser ew 112 g3 "transmitter only"? Can't seem to get any info on this. Anyone been through the same?

More info on Picture Profiles: http://www.danielhaggett.com/blog/137-canon-c300-custom-profiles-and-gamma-curves http://blog.abelcine.com/2015/10/08/canon-c100-mark-ii-scene-files-from-abelcine/

If anyone else wants to test your camera for this follow these steps: It does not matter shutter speed, ND, lens. Set your ISO at 850. I see this issue from 850 to 5000. At ISO 5000 there is typically enough light (exposure) so that this does not occur. Enable a Log curve. Clog, WDR. Point your camera at a fluorescent light source like in the photos I have already posted. Expose for the fluorescent light source. Look for the green strip to the sides of the fluorescent light just like in attached photos.

Can any party heavies weigh in on Canon's explanation: We are quite sure that you camera or the sensor is not defective. The issue you complain about happens under light conditions where logarithmic camera curves can have an negative effect on dark and noisy picture elements near to high brightness objects. This is within the specification of the camera. Logarithmic camera curves like Clog(1), Clog2 and WDR as well as all other types of logarithmic curves presuppose light conditions where the 12 stop range can be expected. Light conditions out of the range of 12 stops respectively especially the lower conditions but not really far away of good light conditions will reduce the dynamic range but make it still possible to record a large dynamic range. In dark night scenes respectively low light with small illumination you will normally never have 5, 4 or 3 stops to open the aperture. This is by sure the time to abandon Clog/WDR and to go back to conventional gamma curve. When the scene only has a limited dynamic range, you don’t need logarithmic camera curve anymore. That will give you much more real picture information and will make it much easier for post-production processes. The appearance of smear mostly occur in case of the use of logarithmic camera curves out of the recommended and reasonable range and is especially visible without corrective measures performed in post-production process. After corrective measures in post-production smear effects will disappear or mostly be removed. This cannot be guaranteed. The smear respectively the horizontal green stripe in the dark part to the right and left of the high brightness light source was caused by the use of the logarithmic camera curve in a light situation where it is not recommended to use it. It will be reduced or disappear after grading in post-production but should be prevented by the use of conventional camera curve. It is also not to recommend to change the base sensitivity of 850 ISO (2.5dB) or to do individual settings – if possible – in addition to specific logarithmic camera curves provided by the camera. Without the right LUT or divergent to verified LUTs it can cause difficult to impossible to get right graded movies. - All individual changes out of camera specified log settings be performed under personal responsibility. I can confirm that the 'green stripe' disappears when I change the Log picture profile to Canon's Standard profile. With this being the case, and to reduce this anomaly, I guess this means that I will be shooting gun and gun on the streets at night with a non logarithmic curve. My question now is, does anyone have (or can comment on making) a tailor made Picture Profile for the C100 that does not use Log with the 'contrast/ punchy-ness' of the Canon Standard profile dialed back that can be used for night shooting? On a side note, listening to Alister Chapman's talk on the Sony F5, I seem to remember him mentioning that it wasn't a good idea to be shooting log at night as the image just did not benefit from it.

Hi Lintelfilm, thanks for jumping in. I haven't tried using filters, flags or hoods but I'm really starting to think that this is a sensor or processing issue. I've tried everything I can think of to mitigate the issue short of stepping into the picture profile fine adjustments. Good eye Andrew. Your example is pretty much bang on. Seeing your Berlin work sure makes me a little homesick for the good life back in the hood. 3 more months of hell and you can find me parked on a lovely terrace with a decent hefeweizen!

Hi Aaron. Thanks for the offer to test. It's very subtle in the viewfinder and OLED. Always when the image is is slightly underexposed. Always seen as a horizontal continuation of the fluorescent tube light. Most prominent at shutter speeds between 1/48 - 1/120. I'm in a 50Hz country and tried both 50Hz and 60Hz but to no avail. Sometimes I don't see the 'green stripe' after panning away from the light but then it returns after a few seconds. It can be seen in 24fps, 25fps, 30fps and 60fps. Black balance but didn't help. Tried different white balances didn't help. I've removed the lens protection filer and still there so it's not a reflection.

Same type of issue, the green stripe (band) seems to be wider. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-cinema-eos-camera-systems/528485-does-my-c100-mark-ii-have-defective-sensor.html

Hi Aaron. Have you had this 'green stripe' in any of your footage with fluorescent light? Could your check on your camera? This happens at ISO 100 to 5000. The 'green stripe' disappears when not pointed at the fluorescent light. Hi Ebrahim, good to have your sensibilities here. I was sort of hoping to hear for some folks here that this has been seen before in other cameras and that there is a quick fix. But I will now be heading towards the idea of a Canon Service Centre if the issue becomes too prominent. Thanks again to everyone for their help here.

Update: The issue seems to happen when the footage is dark/ underexposed and disappears as aperture exposure OR ISOs is raised.

Hi Zach, thanks for jumping in with your suggestion. I just tried the the C-Scan all the way through it's range but to no avail. The hunt continues...