Edmond Leung: No way to consider this camera for heavy invested movie productions.
Will you take the risk by not using Arri or Panavision?
Arri? Panavision? Anyone pushing the edge is far more likely to be using Silicon Imaging or even Red. The real strength of Arri and Panavision is in the accessories and lenses, and there are adapters to use them on other cameras. Their sensors and interfaces are nothing special.
Cy Cheze: 4k RAW is to video what a freight train or ocean tanker is to transportation. It's not anything even a prosumeror "indie" can handle, without substantial investment in ancillary equipment. The incremental benefits of capture in RAW are difficult to translate into benefit for usual projects (see a Luminous Landescape test), though perhaps relevant to Dreamworks Studios or a high budget ad firm.
With hardly any 4k displays outside of commercial theaters, the main attraction of 4k might be to crop video shots the way still photographers do all the time. I've read no user review to date of the $5k JVC camcorder that shoots compressed 4k. It may not even be on the Zacuto radar screen. I doubt the T4i or D5200 will offer 4k video. Might the GH3? At this point in time, wider use of 1080p60/50 video may be challenge enough.
4k uncompressed video would indeed require very fast and large drives. Depending on the type of compression, however, it can be quite easy to handle. REDCODE files are typically around 40 MB/s, which any modern SATA drive can handle.
I agree the 4k resolution is generally wasted (with most screens and projectors being HD or, at most, 2K), but a 4k sensor will often produce better 2k images than a native 2k sensor (even with good de-Bayering), so buying a "4k capable" camera to shoot 2k can be a good idea.
As to raw vs. sRGB, the benefits are absolutely obvious to anyone working in cinema / broadcast. I've seen several hours of footage that would have otherwise been lost saved in post thanks to the extra range of raw files.
Obviously, for home videos or live broadcasts it's kind of wasted.
4:4:4 is not really a form of chroma "subsampling"; on the contrary, it means chroma is sampled at the same resolution as luma.
I guess if they're going for YCbCr that means they won't support uncompressed output at all (YCbCr allows better compression, but since post-production is always done in RGB, uncompressed video with full chroma sampling is generally stored in RGB, to avoid unnecessary conversions).
General advice to potential commentators (especially the ones coming from Slashdot):
Before posting nonsense, click the link and read the actual judgement.
Ivan Lietaert: Am I the only one agreeing with the judge on this? After skimming through the full judgement, it becomes clear that this issue is about commercial use of these pictures: Justin Fielder's image is sold as a poster/ postcard, while the second picture is used on the packaging of English tea, sold to tourists. I can understand that a professional photographer wants to see his creative products protected. The second image is obviously a (bad) case of plagiarism: rather than using the original picture, and paying the original artist royalties, someone at the tea company decided to use a cheap copy and hoped to get away with it.
Which photographers would those be? First you have to show an image created by someone else that shares those elements (red bus in front of Houses of Parliament, B&W background, white sky). Second you have to prove that the author of the first image had seen that one before creating his.
The guy who made the second photo had seen the first one (and tried to use it without paying the author), and set out specifically to create an image that copied the original one's look. Read the court's decision (link at the top).
Mondrian's paintings' copyright has probably expired, but if you had copied his work and used it commercially during his lifetime, he would have been able to sue you. Likewise, if you copy a book and try to sell it as your work (or record yourself singing someone else's song and try to sell it without permission), the author can sue you.
If you think that "has nothing to do with copyright", you have no idea what copyright is.
Gothmoth: i remember that my grandpa (wedding photographer ) has done colorkey back in the film days.
i doubt that 2005 was the first time such an image was made.
i did one myself in 2003 at the same place but i can´t prove it. :(
From the ruling:
"The technique of highlighting an iconic object like a bus against a black and white image is not unique to Mr Fielder (he did not suggest that it was)."
Why do people feel the need to post when they couldn't even be bothered to read the thing they're supposedly commenting on? What makes you think anyone will be interested in your opinion when you display an obvious ignorance of the subject being discussed?
"Trivial" and "non-trivial" has nothing to do with how long it takes. It takes two hours to paint the walls of my living room, and it took Picasso 20 seconds to do some of his drawings.
You think it would be "trivial" for a child to take a photo combining 4 major London landmarks, desaturate the background, saturate the bus, and paint the whole sky white? All in 5 minutes? Without having seen it done by someone else first? Then please mention at least five children who have done that. What, you can't? One child then. Not even that? Your definition of "trivial" seems rather broad, then.
In fact the tea company admitted it took them 80 hours to take and manipulate the photograph until they achieved that look. If you had read the ruling (instead of wasting your time with multiple exclamation marks and UPPERCASE WORDS!!) you wouldn't even have used that argument.
Go read the ruling and stop being "outraged" at something you're not even informed about.
Copyright isn't about how hard it is to make something. I could copy most of Mondrian's works in less than 5 minutes. That doesn't mean I can present that copy as my own work, especially if I had previously been using the original without paying any royalties.
You're just shooting in random nonsensical directions. Read the ruling (you clearly haven't) and stop making a fool of yourself.
Carl Sanders: How ridiculous the judge is clearly not aware that cameras can isolate colour as a matter of course. The law certainly is an 'ASS' on this occasion. Is it being suggested that no one in this world can take a similar shot and not be in breach of copyright? What about all the similar shots that assistants create based on standard studio lighting, is this not the same as stealing their photographers ideas?
It should also be noted that there is a photographer who displays his work in Covent Garden with similar effects and has done for years, is Justin Fielder in breach of copying the work of this photographer. It is a nonsense and hoped that it will be appealed.
Does your camera also have a "paint the whole sky white" function? And when you took such a picture (if indeed you did), were you deliberately trying to copy the photo shown above, after trying to use the original to sell your products without paying the author? If so, then yes, you would be breaching copyright if you tried to use that photo commercially.
Read the ruling. The tea company was clearly trying to copy the look of the original photo to avoid paying the author.
Zds: Good gods.. Since when *ideas* became copyrightable..
Since copyright law was created. If you try to release an album with Beatles songs where you play all the instruments and sing all the lyrics, you're still infringing on their copyright (the "idea" of the order in which the notes were arranged and the words), although you're not producing identical sounds.
Read the verdict (link at the top).
gepe: I think this case needs serius review by the Law Courts without there having to be another case to establish a 'precedent'.The Judge is refering in his asessment of the claim for infringement to the use a a photographic style - 'popping' - which has been around from the earliest times of digital photography and is taught as a process in many photographic courses. This makes it in the public domain and belonging to nobody.With the many millions of photographers there are in the world and the standardisation of the digital photographic process both in camera and via the digital darkroom plug in filters and themes it is impossible for any one person to claim the right to any one photographic image style.This judge is saying that only one man has the right to produce popped images on a desaturerated background.My two penny worth.
Why do you come here and post exactly the opposite of what the ruling says?
The judge specifically mentions that popping is a common technique and cannot by itself be used to uphold the plaintiff's copyright.
Here's the exact quote from the ruling:
"The technique of highlighting an iconic object like a bus against a black and white image is not unique to Mr Fielder (he did not suggest that it was). The Granta Books image (p16) shows an image which pre-dates Mr Fielder."
So how can you say that "this judge is saying that only one man has the right to produce popped images on a desaturerated [sic] background"...?
Oh, and it's been done since long before "digital photography". In fact, it's been done since before there was even colour photography (by painting a specific element with transparent ink).
Seriously, people, go read the ruling and stop posting nonsense and misinformation.
DUMB4SS: The court even admitted that the defendant had gone out of his way to avoid infringing the copyright of the claimant.
Fairly ridiculous as with a quick google image search, I found at least another 8 different images showing a red London bus in front of a BW Houses of Parliament.
None of those images has a white sky, none of them is taken from the same angle or has the bus in the same place (in all of them the bus is directly under Big Ben), and in two out of the three, the background isn't even monochrome.
It's pretty obvious you didn't read the ruling, but I have to wonder if you even looked at the photos.
Read the ruling (link at the top). The tea company was clearly trying to copy the first photo; they didn't just hire a photographer to take a photo of famous landmarks, they spent 80 hours of their own time taking photos and processing them to reproduce the look of the original photo, which they had already tried to use without permission (and been forced to pay royalties for, in 2011).
Charlie boots: I have read the judgement, which is very interesting, and it seems the judge has overly complicated the issue with the detailed technical and background analysis.
Whilst it is good to site prcedent ect the point of simply comparing the images has, in my view, been missed.
Yes they are of the same subjects and have been rendered in similiar tones and yes the is a red bus but there the similiarity ends.
I personally do not see how judgement could have been awarded to the claimant.
So they are of the same subject, from the same angle, processed in the same way (clouds erased from the sky, saturation increased on the bus, background made monochrome), and the second photo was made by someone who had seen (and tried to use) the first photo, but you think there aren't enough similarities...?
MadsR: Both good and bad this... Reading the verdict, it seems to be more about the way this was done, than the actual picture.
I don't like that it is being put as a copyright verdict, that gives legitimate copyright a bad name. It is a case of dishonest business, and should be treated as such.
I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as "dishonest business law". When a company tries to use your photo without paying (as they did), and then creates a very similar photo (again so they don't have to pay you for the original), that's clearly a copyright issue.
olyflyer: No chance at higher court, not even if it would be identical images would hold as long as it is not stolen. I mean, what would be the case if 10 photographers would be standing on the same spot taking images of the same scene? Who is the owner of the copyright in that case?
That judge must look for another job.
So if I rewrite Lord of the Rings, I can sell it as my own work as long as I didn't steal a book belonging to Tolkien?
If anything, this thread shows how clueless some people are about what art is and how art copyright works.
"For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality.
... the Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright protection and copying it will not be copyright infringement"
Yeah, ok so this is US law, but UK copyright law has a similar clause.
I'm sorry, but Justin Fielder's photo is about a derivative as they come (images using this Popping technique, with a London Bus on Westminster Bridge, with Big Ben in the background, is a cliche). Therefore, his photo should not have any copyright protection.
If he processed them in a particular and distinctive way, then anyone taking photos of exactly the same subject, from roughly the same angle, and processing them the same way (and selling them to the same potential clients) can be sued for copyright infringement, yes.
Derek Barrett: I photographed this scene hundreds of times back in the 1960's.I therefore claim copyright on all images of London Buses and The House of Parliament taken since then.
This action is utterly stupid. There must be hundreds of thousands of copies of this scene taken over the years. It is so much in the public domain that I'm very surprised that the Judge couldn't see this and throw the case out.
You can probably go to just about any stock photography site and find multiple variants of this same image.
The question isn't what "scene" you photographed, it's whether or not you created similar artwork.
Did you paint the sky white? Did you turn everything monochrome except the bus? Did you use it commercially?
If so, you definitely have a case, go for it. Otherwise it seems that you don't understand what art copyright is or what it applies to, and should probably learn that before posting or classifying an expert's well documented decision as "utterly stupid".
doobob: The judge must be insane! These two images do not look alike. The only similarity is the location, subject and color. If this decision is held up, why take pictures anymore since someone probably already shot the same scene before you...
So "the only similarity" is... everything about the picture (except the cropping)...? I can see how they're totally independent photos...
davidkachel: If this is a copyright violation then every wedding and yearbook photograph is also. So is every painter of the same school who followed the first painter in that school.Obviously, photographer #2 stole the style of photographer #1. Stealing style is not a copyright violation. It is simply a violation of taste and the wannabe rule.
The judge is out of his mind; but then, we kind of expect that from the whole upside down leftist British system.
The judge should instead have fined BOTH photographers for poor taste and boring us with their photographs.
I'm afraid that "stealing style and substance" (since the theme is also exactly the same) is indeed a copyright violation, if used for commercial purposes. Otherwise, virtually all forms of art would be impossible to copyright.
If you try to sell an album where you play and sing other artists' songs using slightly different instruments (and, naturally, with a different voice), the actual sound will probably be quite different, but you're still trying to pass off someone else's work as your own, and need permission from the original author.
Art isn't (just) its physical representation, it's its meaning and the creative process leading to it.
Same processing, same subject, same purpose. Even you admitted that the second photo is clearly an attempt to copy the first (for commercial purposes, to avoid paying the first photographer), so what more do you need?
If you took a photo of exactly the same part of Yellowstone, painted the sky white and turned the entire picture black-and-white except for one particular element (assuming Adams had done the same), and if he was alive, and thought you were trying to harm him financially (by selling "your" artwork to his potential customers), then yes, he probably could sue you.
This isn't just "a photo of a London bus". It's a photo of a London bus on the same spot, with the same background, processed in the same (non-trivial) way (blank sky, B&W background, red bus), just from a slightly different angle and with different cropping, meant to be used commercially.
Do you have any doubts that it was a deliberate attempt to copy the first photo, and profit from the first photographer's idea?
If someone published a story where the sequence of events was identical to Lord of the Rings, but changed it to a 1st person narrative, do you think Tolkien wouldn't be able to sue?