Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

EPIC not allowed?

N

Norbert Niederacher

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
672
Reaction score
2
Points
18
Location
Innsbruck, Austria
Sorry. A strong headline.

I think it is an interesting discussion for using EPIC or Scarlet as DSCM.

I have been an the Nordic Ski Championship in Oslo/Norway. A great event!

The Photographers have to sign a letter, that they are not allowed to take any Videos at the Games with their Canon 1D, 5D II.
Because of the TV-Rights.

There is already a discussion what to do in the future. Maybe the organizers ask for money (Rights), maybe photographers will be not a allowed to use a DSCM...

What will happen with EPIC or Scarlet? Two great cameras for Sports-Photography (Shooting 120 Photos per second and more), at the same moment you are making a movie...

best regards

Norbert

PS: My english is not very good. Ich spreche deutsch.
 
Very interesting.

At what point does high speed photography become motion pictures, or "video"?
 
Maybe 48fps from Peter Jackson and James Cameron is the best thing that happened to people who only want 24 FPS? Now, people can make the argument "I'm only shooting high speed photography at up to 24 FPS. it's not like I want to do video at 48 FPS!"
 
I think it's all about context really. I can't imagine why organizers would forbid the use of DSCM's just because they can shoot motion pictures.

Shooting a sequence of pictures on which you'll extract stills would still be considered "keeping within the boundaries" I suppose... It would only be a movie if the content was treated as such.

Or just imagine if it were the other way around: Would it be a problem if a video photographer extracted a still from his video and "stole" the still-photographers job or "rights" to do so...?

I don't think this will be an issue more than it already is. There have always been rules for photography at commercial events, and there probably always will be. I guess you just sign the release form and shoot whatever you're hired to shoot :)
 
I think that the bigger question is: for how much longer are photographers expected to only produce still images? In journalism you can already see the move towards journalists having to produce text, stills and moving images at the same time. With the decay of printed news and the advent of news consumption on tablets, I believe that it will become the norm within this decade to have moving pictures attached to all news items. Just like the move from black & white to color, then the move from analogue to digital. I believe that clauses like that will be a thing of the past - in the not too far future.
 
Martin, you are right. The Media World is changing.

But. Now Journalists (Print) dont pay any fees at big international events. TV and Radio have to pay, if they cover an event like the Ski-Worldchampionsships or Tour de France or Formula One. Organizers want more money...

I am afraid that I have to pay in the future to cover big events. As Print-Journalist...

Martin Weiss said:
I think that the bigger question is: for how much longer are photographers expected to only produce still images? In journalism you can already see the move towards journalists having to produce text, stills and moving images at the same time. With the decay of printed news and the advent of news consumption on tablets, I believe that it will become the norm within this decade to have moving pictures attached to all news items. Just like the move from black & white to color, then the move from analogue to digital. I believe that clauses like that will be a thing of the past - in the not too far future.
Click to expand...
 
Nuka Wølk said:
I think it's all about context really. I can't imagine why organizers would forbid the use of DSCM's just because they can shoot motion pictures.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm not a professional still shooter, but I know a few, and there have been papers to sign like that for quite a while. The point is you can shoot on whatever camera you want, but if you shoot video you can't put it online or sell it, because the event organizers have the exclusive "moving images" rights. So you can go there with your Epic, you sign the requested forms, then you decide if you're shooting stills or you're shooting footage you later pull your stills from, as long as you don't put that video online, or re-sell it without the organizers' authorization. That's how it was explained to be by some pro sport shooters, and I'm pretty sure there's more to it than this, so if anyone has a better understanding of it, please feel free to correct me.

Martin Weiss said:
I think that the bigger question is: for how much longer are photographers expected to only produce still images? In journalism you can already see the move towards journalists having to produce text, stills and moving images at the same time. With the decay of printed news and the advent of news consumption on tablets, I believe that it will become the norm within this decade to have moving pictures attached to all news items. Just like the move from black & white to color, then the move from analogue to digital. I believe that clauses like that will be a thing of the past - in the not too far future.
Click to expand...

Martin, while I do agree that the two "worlds" have been converging for quite some time (after all, let's keep in mind the request to put video capability in the Canon 5D came from Associated Press, if i'm not mistaken), and you see it happening every day on lots of different markets, I also think we tend to jump to conclusions way too quickly, and usually we think of the future as something which is clearly and sharply defined, not blurred as it usually ends up to be: "there will be no stills", "all photographers will have to shoot video to keep in the game", "there will be no film", "black and white is dead", and so on. From what I see, we have more tools than ever before, more ways to express ourselves, and more ways to satisfy the needs of specific markets/niches/clients. After all, some of the best reporters in the world are still shooting black and white film, on Leica rangefinders, with just one or two lenses. Are they a minority? surely so, but that doesn't mean that a photographer will be forced to shoot video. It depends on many different things, and also on personal choice, I guess.

Clauses like that will always be needed for a simple reason, i.e. to guarantee that whoever organizes the event and holds the video/tv rights doesn't get "screwed" by photographers re-selling footage captured with their Epic, DSLR, and so on.
 
Martin Weiss said:
I think that the bigger question is: for how much longer are photographers expected to only produce still images? In journalism you can already see the move towards journalists having to produce text, stills and moving images at the same time. With the decay of printed news and the advent of news consumption on tablets, I believe that it will become the norm within this decade to have moving pictures attached to all news items. Just like the move from black & white to color, then the move from analogue to digital. I believe that clauses like that will be a thing of the past - in the not too far future.
Click to expand...

Clearly the EPIC DSMC system has changed the paradigm. High quality motion AND stills.

And if RED can create a Photo-Video Journalist kit for Scarlet (and EPIC) it has the potential to become the standard for news acquisition.
 
This really isnt about EPIC or frame rates. It's about commercial rights holders. The TV rights will sell for large amounts of cash. Whether or not individual photographers are capable of producing the same image quality (or better) is irrelevant. It's about having the contracts to sell the footage. hence why TV channels who have already sold the rights win the contracts. This is about economies of scale, not resolution.
 
By the way security screeners at the Superdome harass you about whether or not your gear can shoot video I get the impression that if it could I wouldn't get in, regardless of whether I had signed something saying I wouldn't publish said video...
 
HAHAHA I got burned by this a couple years ago. I was shooting a pro exhibition soccer match (Seattle sounder vs royal madrid I think). And we were told while I was filming (w/Red one) the first quarter that Video was only allowed for the first 15 minutes of each half. I was getting harassed and tapped on the shoulder the whole time by some media lady. Once I stopped filming all the stills guys around me started SHOOTING VIDEO with shit eating grins on their faces. Asses.
 
This world is crazy. I shoot stills predominately. I got the Red cause I wanted to expand a bit, studied filmmaking in school and missed it. Now I've done a few motion shoots for clients and on one of those, another client bought rights to use two different frames as stills. Absolute convergence ;)
 
Stephen Strangways said:
How about motion shooters being asked to produce stills? Yesterday I was asked if a still could later be pulled from a video I was about to shoot, and they wanted to blow it up to a 21 by 13 foot billboard!
Click to expand...

Actually this is a very common request. Some clients hire me to shoot RED specifically with that in mind.
I have shot a lot of EPK's for recording artist, and have pulled still for the press releases and web site galleries, sometimes even album artwork.
 
If the photographers are being asked (on the honor system) to not shoot video then (on the honor system) you could promise to limit your recording duration to something like 2 seconds which is an option in the firmware. Or you could limit yourself to like 22 fps.

Then again the Nikon V2 can burst RAW at 60fps. So.... "what is video" and "what is burst?" The only way to enforce this is on the sale of the video rights. Every digital camera now shoots video. EVERY CAMERA. So if they block RED because it shoots video then they have to block everyone else too. 3 Lumia phones just got 4k enabled. The Lumia 1020 phone has an 8k chip. That means you can do a 4:1 digital zoom and preserve 1080p. That's perfectly fine for filming a sporting event in a stadium.

If I was the owner of the TV rights I would be passing out a card to all of the photographers and offering them some money for B-roll. It's way cheaper to pick and choose the best of the best than to hire one person. And when you own exclusive rights to moving pictures you have the photographers over a barrel on license negotiations. You only have to make it worth their time to pull selects and give them to you which in the stock world is incredibly inexpensive. Setup an FTP or OneDrive or DropBox and say "give us MP4s of your best shots. We'll pay $100 per shot for RAW."
 
AFP was thinking of pushing their photographers to also shoot motion. But they realised they are two different crafts.
Up to today they are more videos that are used to grab some still frames as photographs/DSMC used to shoot also motion picture.
Two different mind set and needs at work.

Pat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top