HMC40 Operating Instructions Observations
- Thread starter rich_r
- Start date
shphotovideo
Well-known member
A question about ND filters. Besides convenience of a built in one, is there a performance different between a built in ND filter and a ND filter that you screw onto the camera?
This is correct when AVC/H.264 camcorders are used for commercial purpose. Sony Germany send an email with same content to an end user: http://videotreffpunkt.com/thread.php?postid=158429#post158429
BTW: I am now very satisfied with my JVC GY-HM100 (MPEG-2).
ATL Media Group
Veteran
It would be completely ridiculous to base a camera purchase decision off of this. It's a technicality! Sure if you had proof of lawsuits filed for use of the codec then maybe, but seriously....
It hasn't happened, and most likely never will!
:violin:
But I surely will take this into account. I followed too many patent, license, ... issues on the job :huh:
So I will not buy a second HDC-SD300 or the like.
ATL Media Group
Veteran
I wouldn't. No one would sue over use of the codec unless they used the actual recorded footage for final broadcast of a feature film making millions. NOBODY would do that as first they would transcode or edit and then deliver an edited film.
It would be so rare and nearly impossible to prove I couldn't see a lawyer even taking a case like that.
Isn't MPEG-2 stuff also managed by some licensing authority as well? One has to pay royalties from every DVD for using of MPEG-2, isn't it true?
As for "NOBODY would do that as first they would transcode", how about legal depositions, that Panasonic specifically note as one of the uses of AVCCAM cameras? These are supposed to be original videos, not transcodes, right? It is very unlikely one would make money off them, but still, if it is used in a high-profile case and then included into some doco...
ATL Media Group
Veteran
Yes. Mpeg2 is also managed with license.
Possibly, but it would be extremely rare for anyone to sue over use of the codec. Even in the case of legal depositions! Would you make a camera purchasing decision based on the paper thin possibility that you could be sued for use of the codec? It's a one in a billion chance!
It's like deciding not to use a boom mic pole because you fear being hit by lightning when not in a storm!
BobDiaz
The Professor
From a practical standpoint, one has to ask will a lawsuit generate anything of value for the party suing?
Now if someone shoots a film on the HMC150 and/or the HMC40 that makes several hundred million dollars, but does not take care of license issues, clearly there's a lot of money to be made going to court.
On the other hand, a small time operator, who does a limited number of videos and has limited resources, isn't exactly able to cough up very much money for the lawyers to be worth it.
Bob Diaz
Now if someone shoots a film on the HMC150 and/or the HMC40 that makes several hundred million dollars, but does not take care of license issues, clearly there's a lot of money to be made going to court.
On the other hand, a small time operator, who does a limited number of videos and has limited resources, isn't exactly able to cough up very much money for the lawyers to be worth it.
Bob Diaz
ATL Media Group
Veteran
Exactly, but even then they would need to prove that the final footage was AVCHD. Just because you used the codec to capture doesn't mean the final output is AVCHD that was captured. It would be a legal nightmare to prove.
Funny discussion. Decision on doing write or wrong is based on the probability weather "they" can catch the user. And if yes how severely "they" could hurt.
Ok, may be everybody is doing so sometimes.
But it should be sure that the big producers of AVCHD Camcorders will not pay for problems. These special sentences in the manuals should protect them.
Ok, may be everybody is doing so sometimes.
But it should be sure that the big producers of AVCHD Camcorders will not pay for problems. These special sentences in the manuals should protect them.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, I went and dug into this, and here's what I've found:
Don't worry about it. There's nothing about shooting on an h.264 camera that makes anything any different, in terms of acquiring or using your footage.
However, when distributing, you face the issue that MPEG-LA expects you to pay royalties whenever you distribute h.264 footage. If you press a blu-ray disc, for example, using h.264 compression, then you are supposed to pay royalties. But here's the thing -- IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SOURCE THAT FOOTAGE COMES FROM. So if you shoot on an HMC150 and distribute on blu-ray in h.264, yes you're supposed to pay royalties. If you shoot on XDCAM-EX in MPEG-2 and distribute on blu-ray in h.264, you're supposed to pay the same royalties! If you shoot on FILM and distribute on blu-ray in h.264, you're supposed to pay royalties. If you shoot on a JVC HM100 or a DVX100 or a Hi-8 camera, and distribute on blu-ray in h.264, you're supposed to pay royalties.
The common factor here is that the camera has nothing to do with it*, it's the way the footage is distributed that matters.
Now, here's where it gets funny -- MPEG-2 has the same problem! If you shoot on HDV, or XDCAM-HD, or XDCAM-EX, or a Nano Flash, or any MPEG-2 device, and distribute on blu-ray in MPEG-2, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PAY ROYALTIES.
MPEG-2 has the same "problem"! And, in fact, the h.264 royalties are *lower* than the MPEG-2 royalties!
And, get this -- you aren't just expected to pay royalties on the discs you sell, but you're also expected to pay royalties on discs that you GIVE AWAY FREELY.
And, now, for the kicker -- this doesn't apply just to blu-ray, this applies to DVD too! DVDs use MPEG-2, after all.
So here's the end-all summation -- there is nothing about this that is specific to AVCCAM, AVCHD, or the Canon DSLRs, or any h.264 cameras. It applies to all MPEG-2 and H.264 products. And it really, as a realistic matter, doesn't really have anything to do with any of the cameras, it only applies to distribution, regardless of how your footage was acquired. If you acquired on an HMC40, or on 35mm film, or a Canon 7D, or a Red One, or a Viper, or a handycam DVD camera, it doesn't matter, what matters is what you distribute on. If you distribute in DVD or blu-ray (using h.264, or MPEG-2, or, for that matter, VC-1) then they all have royalties that are covered by MPEG LA. Heck, if you distribute with web streaming, streaming an h.264 Quicktime file, you're probably supposed to pay royalties on that too.
Furthermore -- I think it's a pretty safe bet that MPEG LA doesn't care about any of us! These licensing agreements are targeted at the movie studios, the people selling millions and millions of discs. MPEG LA is not going to come after a wedding videographer who prints up a hundred copies of a DVD and sells it to the bride's and groom's family. They're not going to come after an indie filmmaker who sells a thousand copies of his movie over the internet. They're looking at movie studios with this; those are who sign the MPEG-LA licensing agreements and pay the royalties.
*(if you acquire h.264 and then distribute the camera-original footage, yes you're supposed to pay royalties, but who does that? And the same thing applies for XDCAM or DVD cameras or the NanoFlash, if you acquire in MPEG-2 and distribute that camera-original footage, you're supposed to pay royalties.)
Lots of good info here: http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/Col...,-Small-Publishers,-and-Duplicators-49328.htm
Don't worry about it. There's nothing about shooting on an h.264 camera that makes anything any different, in terms of acquiring or using your footage.
However, when distributing, you face the issue that MPEG-LA expects you to pay royalties whenever you distribute h.264 footage. If you press a blu-ray disc, for example, using h.264 compression, then you are supposed to pay royalties. But here's the thing -- IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SOURCE THAT FOOTAGE COMES FROM. So if you shoot on an HMC150 and distribute on blu-ray in h.264, yes you're supposed to pay royalties. If you shoot on XDCAM-EX in MPEG-2 and distribute on blu-ray in h.264, you're supposed to pay the same royalties! If you shoot on FILM and distribute on blu-ray in h.264, you're supposed to pay royalties. If you shoot on a JVC HM100 or a DVX100 or a Hi-8 camera, and distribute on blu-ray in h.264, you're supposed to pay royalties.
The common factor here is that the camera has nothing to do with it*, it's the way the footage is distributed that matters.
Now, here's where it gets funny -- MPEG-2 has the same problem! If you shoot on HDV, or XDCAM-HD, or XDCAM-EX, or a Nano Flash, or any MPEG-2 device, and distribute on blu-ray in MPEG-2, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PAY ROYALTIES.
MPEG-2 has the same "problem"! And, in fact, the h.264 royalties are *lower* than the MPEG-2 royalties!
And, get this -- you aren't just expected to pay royalties on the discs you sell, but you're also expected to pay royalties on discs that you GIVE AWAY FREELY.
And, now, for the kicker -- this doesn't apply just to blu-ray, this applies to DVD too! DVDs use MPEG-2, after all.
So here's the end-all summation -- there is nothing about this that is specific to AVCCAM, AVCHD, or the Canon DSLRs, or any h.264 cameras. It applies to all MPEG-2 and H.264 products. And it really, as a realistic matter, doesn't really have anything to do with any of the cameras, it only applies to distribution, regardless of how your footage was acquired. If you acquired on an HMC40, or on 35mm film, or a Canon 7D, or a Red One, or a Viper, or a handycam DVD camera, it doesn't matter, what matters is what you distribute on. If you distribute in DVD or blu-ray (using h.264, or MPEG-2, or, for that matter, VC-1) then they all have royalties that are covered by MPEG LA. Heck, if you distribute with web streaming, streaming an h.264 Quicktime file, you're probably supposed to pay royalties on that too.
Furthermore -- I think it's a pretty safe bet that MPEG LA doesn't care about any of us! These licensing agreements are targeted at the movie studios, the people selling millions and millions of discs. MPEG LA is not going to come after a wedding videographer who prints up a hundred copies of a DVD and sells it to the bride's and groom's family. They're not going to come after an indie filmmaker who sells a thousand copies of his movie over the internet. They're looking at movie studios with this; those are who sign the MPEG-LA licensing agreements and pay the royalties.
*(if you acquire h.264 and then distribute the camera-original footage, yes you're supposed to pay royalties, but who does that? And the same thing applies for XDCAM or DVD cameras or the NanoFlash, if you acquire in MPEG-2 and distribute that camera-original footage, you're supposed to pay royalties.)
Lots of good info here: http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/Col...,-Small-Publishers,-and-Duplicators-49328.htm
Barry_Green
Moderator
Has nothing to do with AVCHD. It applies equally to HDV, XDCAM-HD, XDCAM-EX, XDCAM MPEG422, HDCAM SR, DVD camcorders, or h.264 camcorders like the Canon 7D/1D/5D, or the little Flip cameras or the Sanyo h.264 cameras. It applies to every camcorder that uses MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 compression.
Barry_Green
Moderator
But apparently not. The issue is one of DISTRIBUTION. If you shot on an HMC150 or HMC40, and converted to ProRes, you are no longer using h.264 footage and you will not be distributing h.264 footage.
If you author out a blu-ray disc with using h.264, you're back in the licensing situation. But if you decided to distribute on a Windows Media 9 disc using Cinepak by Radius, no licensing would apply.
Shooting on an AVC camcorder creates no more issues for anyone than shooting on film or HDV does. The only thing different about AVC is that they have to print the disclaimer, but it only applies if you're distributing the footage as h.264 (which would technically be possible from an h.264 camera). If you converted to and distributed as MJPG, no licensing issues would apply. If you converted to and distributed as MPEG-2, licensing and royalties are supposed to apply, which is the exact same situation as if you'd shot on MPEG-2 in the first place and distributed the raw footage.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Glad you're happy with it, but it has the exact same issues as all the h.264 cameras do when it comes to licensing and royalties! If you think you "dodged a bullet" because it's MPEG-2, you're wrong; MPEG-2 has the same licensing hassles.
And the fact of the matter is, nobody has ever come after any small producer of DVDs in the 15 years that DVD has been on the market. It just doesn't happen. It's not going to happen. It *could* happen, but it is no more likely to happen because you shot on h.264 or mpeg-2 or DVD-cam or whatever.
This is what we in the real world call a "non-issue."
Barry_Green
Moderator
EXACTLY. The issue is about distributing h.264. If you pulled the camera-original card out of the camera and sold it to someone, you're distributing h.264 footage and you're supposed to pay royalties on that. Who's gonna do that?
And, the same issue would apply to someone using a Sony HDV camera, recording directly to compactflash using their CF recorder. Or to an XDCAM-EX user, using an SD->SxS adapter.
It's a non-issue in the real world.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The article I linked to had an entry for the VC-1 royalties. They're the same as the h.264 royalties.
BobDiaz
The Professor
Barry,
If I understand the wording of this, a video of UNDER 12 minutes does not have to pay any fees. Correct?
This might allow for one to make "demo disks" to hand out without worrying about fees.
http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/Col...,-Small-Publishers,-and-Duplicators-49328.htm
Bob Diaz
If I understand the wording of this, a video of UNDER 12 minutes does not have to pay any fees. Correct?
This might allow for one to make "demo disks" to hand out without worrying about fees.
http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/Col...,-Small-Publishers,-and-Duplicators-49328.htm
Bob Diaz
Barry_Green
Moderator
I think pretty much nobody, anywhere, is going to worry about fees, except:
1) the hardware manufacturers (camcorder, blu-ray player, etc); those guys are going to have a license and pay fees
2) the movie studios will pay fees, based on their blu-ray authoring or DVD authoring, but that is usually handled by the DVD replicator.
For everyone else, we're not parties to the license agreement, we didn't sign any licensing agreement with MPEG-LA, and if they want royalties they'd have to sue each and every individual producer for patent infringement. For pennies, as compared to what one movie studio would pay on each and every title. For blu-ray it's automatically handled by the disc replicator, you pay the license fee up front during manufacturing.
So -- yes, 12 minutes and under is no royalties.
1) the hardware manufacturers (camcorder, blu-ray player, etc); those guys are going to have a license and pay fees
2) the movie studios will pay fees, based on their blu-ray authoring or DVD authoring, but that is usually handled by the DVD replicator.
For everyone else, we're not parties to the license agreement, we didn't sign any licensing agreement with MPEG-LA, and if they want royalties they'd have to sue each and every individual producer for patent infringement. For pennies, as compared to what one movie studio would pay on each and every title. For blu-ray it's automatically handled by the disc replicator, you pay the license fee up front during manufacturing.
So -- yes, 12 minutes and under is no royalties.