-
Videoon 8/26/2012
Export Vegas EDL / Import to Adobe CS6
Bob said it pretty well but I will throw in my 10 cents here as well. As much as I want to "love" Vegas for actual long form editing I simply don't. I was getting to that point in SoFo days, I still think 4 was so much closer to it than it is now (Comparatively speaking in terms of new versions) I wanted to prove that Vegas could be taken very seriously in the feature film world so, with Version 4, I cut a feature with it . but only after asking and re-asking the production company to assure me 100% they never needed to go to another NLE with it, or ever do any sort of online or neg confirm. Andy effects were done in After Effects but the entire edit, and mix, were done within Vegas 4. Of course after I turned it all in, and Lions Gate picked up domestic rights for it, they asked me for EDL's. Of course I never used Vegas again for editing anything such as a feature. Spot asked me a long time ago if I wanted to beta test some software that would allow interchangeable EDL's but I declined at the time as I was busy. But it was also based on audio more than video, so the video portion seemd to be an after thought to see if it would work. What I am saying is that out in the world things need to play nice with each other and the phrase the really has applied to Vegas since Sony took over is "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." This has been talked about for years now. Somewhere buried in the archives is an epic conversation we had about EDL's and basically that nobody really used them anymore for anything because the concept of offline/online was dead. Not too many people really got the concept that an EDL is used for other things - not just machine control. Having said all of that - Vegas does have very basic EDL support built in. Cuts only somewhat work out fine. But here is another very important item that I have asked various programmers to look into: Premiere captures it's timecode information and stores it in a different place than where Vegas does. A Premiere EDL will work with many other companies software whereas a Vegas one will not - again, What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas - due to this. In laymans terms Vegas will not read Premiere timecode, Premiere will not read Vegas time code. Both will read SMPTE - but that is not the root issue, it is how software reads the file and where it looks for the code.. I used to frame serve with Satish's Vegas frame server and back for many things but in the long run it was just too much work because Sony took over and never really built on those things - playing nice with others that is.
-
Videoon 8/2/2012
Spectral Layers Pro released
Just an interesting review and demo of this app. http://bcove.me/wxucva2y
-
DVD Architecton 4/11/2012
Build 135
I think it just a forgotten extra anymore. The March newsletter is touting that DoStudio is now available. Complete 2D and 3D Blu-ray Disc Authoring now available through the full line of DoStudio applications via Sony Creative Software.
-
Videoon 3/21/2012
Embedding CC on a MXF file for broadcast
Vegas is not fully there yet, IMO, with the captioning abilites. I tend to still go for third party solutions. Having said that check out XDCAM MXF Closed Captioning for some info that might be of help.
-
Videoon 3/17/2012
View finder: 1080 w/ SD center-cut & safe zones
Hey - if you can make a version for Magic Lantern that would be killer. There are slightly different versions depending on the camera but you can read about it here: Custom cropmarks . (For example it notes that there is less free memory avialable on the 60D, so you should make your cropmarks smaller) To see some of the available ones: Magic Lantern Cropmark repository
-
Videoon 3/15/2012
OT: Digital Bolex
@ Serena I was being a little ironic in my post but to reply: Clients now are far more prone to accept showing up to a shoot with a "Still" camera as most all of them now have video ability. Showing up with a 5D would be fine, especially if it were tricked out like this: Ready for a shoot, Showing up with a PowerShot D10 would most likely raise a few eyebrows however. As for being hired for known work - in the old days this would be mostly true for serious projects but now most people who do this for a living would agree that their biggest "threats" are their clients teenage relatives who have a point and shoot or handicam and can do it for nothing. More than once I have quoted a price based on "known work" (Because the potential client contacted me because of that in the first place) only to be told "That is too much" and a variation of "My sisters son can do this for 30 bucks." What gear is being used is not being considered. Overall I have always maintained, and said over and over, that people should get what they need. If people need a digital Bolex than by all means - get one. This is the entire concept with being an editor - you do not need to be level billion Avid certified to be a good editor, but people have gotten jobs simply because of their "shoes" (i.e - Avid certified) even if they couldn't edit their way out of a paper bag. As far as the Bolex - my first thought was about a DP friend of mine and how he would be one of the first people in line to get one simply because of the Bolex name. He still has a real Bolex and holds a dream to shoot a low budget feature with it - all hand held and hand wound. A digital Bolex might be the next step for him. Do I think this has potential? Sure, mostly due to the RAW mode of shooting. But I also think the GY-HMQ10 and the EOS 5D Mark III are pretty nifty as well. . (EDIT: I realized for those with java and preferences set to show inline images and video this post was really screwy.)
-
Videoon 3/14/2012
OT: Digital Bolex
Seems cool, but one has to wonder what a client would think if you showed up with this: CUrrent Prototype I know, I know - it is called a prototype for a reason. I am not used to seeing a company asking for $2,500.00 to buy, and use, something before it is finalized. Oh wait - this is a Sony Vegas forum. :)
-
Videoon 2/22/2012
CS 5.5 Master Collection $179.80 (Ed Version)
Thanks for that tip. The code is actually "SAVE80EDU" - "SAVE80ED" came back as invalid. Also it is a code for any of the Educational software. Anyone else can use "SWITCH" for 50% off the full retail. Having said that I was happy aboutgetting Lightroom the other day for so cheap - cheaper than the Teacher/Student version - but had I waited a few days and gone this route it would have been even cheaper. (89 - 80%). And Photoshop extended on it's own is only $39.80. And it is true - many of use do use Adobe products. As much as some people may want it to be, Vegas is not the "be all" of the post production world.
-
Videoon 2/16/2012
OT: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom $70
@ Peter: It appears so. I just checked Amazon and their price is back up as well - yesterday they were at $99, today it is 130.54.
-
Videoon 2/15/2012
OT: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom $70
Cool deal. Just ordered a copy. This is actually cheaper than the Teacher/Student version at the moment. I guess they are blowing this out because LR 4 is due any time now. I have used Lightroom and it rocks. Makes shooting with RAW so much easier for me.
-
Videoon 2/2/2012
OT: Yearbooks
@ johnmeyer - I know there was a discussion about this but for the life of me I cannot find it now. Basicly the question, from what I remember, was about doing old yearbooks (or using old yearbook images) in a video. Than we got into the whole scanning them and/or redoing them. Here are artlcie links that I could remember using at the time: Yearbook-scanning project poses tough test for Classmates.com Model Yearbook Copyright Warning The future of high school yearbooks - namely the section where the writer talks about being contacted by a producer form a TV show to use some of their old yearbook photos. e-yearbook TOS Photo.net discussion about scanning and posting yearbook photos online. Flickr question from a photographer asking how to handle a parent who wants to scan 10 photos of theirs for use in a yearbook. Also as an aside - this is a link to a PDF from a yearbook company that is doing it the right way: YEARBOOK AND COPYRIGHT LAW - it includes this: If you are using a work in your yearbook that is protected by copyright and you have obtained written permission from the owner to reproduce it, submit a photocopy of that proof of permission to Herff Jones with your pages [SNIP] If Herff Jones happens to recognize copyrighted material for which proof of permission has not been furnished, we will notify you of the possibility of copyright infringement and than ends with: Your Printing Agreement with Herff Jones provides that you assume all legal liability for failure to obtain permission to use copyrighted material
-
Videoon 2/2/2012
OT: Yearbooks
@ amendegw - apples and oranges. As you say it was your high school and you were one of three "staff" photogs that is entirely different than asking parents/students/etc to take images from wherever and submit them. It was higly unlikely in 1964/65 you went down the local newspaper and grabbed images off the wire service and brought them back to school for use in the yearbook.
-
Videoon 2/2/2012
OT: Yearbooks
@ johnmeyer - In reguards to " Picasa, Facebook, YouTube, and many other sites" and users " gladly and willingly forfeited those rights in order to get the benefits of publicly sharing their photos and video." In the United Sates that is not even close to being valid argument. Just becuase osmehitng in on th einterent does not make it "free." Perhaps free to view, but not free to re-use. After some high profile lawsuits some sites have had to revamp their TOS. Creative Commons licesning is becoming more and more used as well. Even Flickr has been putting that out there. But the point is also that if I post my photos on facebook it does not mean that you, your daughter, or anyone else can download it and send it somewhere for publication, including in a yearbook, without contacting me first and asking what my license terms are. The fact that a legit company is, on the one hand, telling people to do just that with no disclaimer boggles my mind.
-
Videoon 1/31/2012
Speaking of Copyright Infringement...
@ gwailo - it is not so much the "copyright infringment" as it is the implied endorsement. There was a lot of discussion several years ago because of the same type of thing: Heart's Nancy Wilson responds to McCain campaign's use of 'Barracuda' at Republican convention: Sarah Palin’s views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song ‘Barracuda’ no longer be used to promote her image. The song ‘Barracuda’ was written in the late 70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The ‘barracuda’ represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there’s irony in Republican strategists’ choice to make use of it there. See also Heart Object To McCain Campaign's Use Of 'Barracuda' During Republican National Convention which also says First, on August 29, just minutes before revealing Palin as his running mate, McCain strutted out onto a stage in Dayton, Ohio, as Van Halen's inspirational 1991 track "Right Now" boomed through the speakers. Hours later, the band's publicist told MTV News that Van Halen had no idea McCain would be using the track, and "had they asked, permission would not have been granted." @TheHappyFriar : A similur question is posed on a very regular basis when asscrap goes after mom and pops for not paying them fees. "We do we have to pay when we aren't the ones playing the music?" In other words - start making those DJ's who do weddings such pay royalties, start making all those tribute bands pay royalties, start making all cover bands pay royalties. Before the slams start think about this - there was a band who did only cover bands and was a huge regional act. Once a year they would rent out a club and play there for several nights and rake in around 10k. How much money in royalties did they have to pay to any of the PRO directly? Zero. How much did the club have to pay in order to not be sued by asscrap? A lot.
-
Videoon 1/21/2012
10th anniversary forum members
From what I remember I was using the SoFo forum and something happened where i had to re-sign up so I show a join date of 4/23/2003.
-
Videoon 1/18/2012
OT - Clever new mic
Interesting. I didn't see a SRP anywhere. I have the Zoom H4n which by all acounts was aimed at musicians but has found a niche for DSLR work. The four track recording and abilty to do surround is a nifty bonus. It also plugs into USB on a PC and acts as an external mixer of sorts as well.
-
Videoon 1/18/2012
OT: Wedding Videographers Beware
Some may have noticed that Google's banner today is a black bar over the Google logo. Some of you may have noticed that any Wikipedia page redirects to a page explaining that for the next 24 hours Wikipedia has gone dark. Mozilla was supposed to go dark at 8 AM, which is in about 4 minutes from now. Latest news: Mozilla to Join Tomorrow’s Virtual Protests of PIPA/SOPA SOPA, PIPA: What you need to know - CBS News SOPA blackout: The day the Web went dark SOPA blackout: What happened to Wikipedia?
-
Videoon 12/27/2011
V11 Un- promoting CC Cammand Markers
I started a thread back in October that included this same question but never got any reply: Closed Captions/LIne 21 question There was a similar thread in November that didn't really get an answer either: Command markers Maybe third times a charm?
-
Videoon 12/24/2011
Canon Raw .CR2 usage in Vegas 11
See Canon 60D RAW import not working V10/11 64 bit In short the same issue. Canon blames MS, MS blames Canon. The codec download has not worked for myself and others - within 64 bit OS that is. So I use something that works: Canon RAW CR2 CODEC for 64-bit and 32-bit Windows
-
Videoon 12/22/2011
OT: Wedding Videographers Beware
Great old post! Thanks for that. (F.Y.I - I make mention of your experience in this 2004 post ) I went way back just for giggles and found a question from 2001 - What do I need to know about using copyrighted material?. It starts off "I'm in the business of doing wedding videos...." You would expect a huge discussion on the subject - but back in the early days that was not so. Only a few posts and the first reply informs the poster that copyright laws are "simple" yet a "big subject". How times have changed over the last decade.
-
Videoon 12/21/2011
OT: Wedding Videographers Beware
They delayed further discussion until "after the break" - meaning nothing is changing until 2012. If you use FIrefox you might be interested in the DeSopa add on that was just released. In related news: SOPA supporters are cashing the media's checks from CNN says that those congressmen who are supporting this bill are getting twice as much campaign cash from studios than from tech types, who are against the bill. US NEws is focusing mostly on the censorship slant. UK rapper Dan Bull has joined the discussion with a new anti-SOPA song. He brings up an awesome point in how this would relate to musicians (And film makers): "creativity is all about interpreting and re-imagining what you see and hear around you. The idea that creativity exists in some kind of vacuum, and that you're not a real artist unless you can make something "completely original" is not only stupid, it contradicts the most fundamental axioms of how the universe works." And how did he create this video? Via his Facebook wall when asked on Monday for fans to help out. And if you are a fan of MythBusters and Popular Mechanics you may find Adam Savage's column of interest: SOPA Could Destroy the Internet as We Know It * EDIT: I notice that Sony's automated censorship software is blocking out the word s.t.u.p.i.d in the quote above. Now *that* is s.t.u.p.i.d
-
Videoon 12/21/2011
Random copyright question...?
So I was flipping through the channels (in the U.S.) and came across today's episode of Judge Joe Brown. The case was by an artist who wrote a song for a movie (Answered an ad on Craigs list) and sued the director because he had not been paid yet. The interesting (mis-)information that Joe Brown gave out as fact was when the director was explaining that the film was nearly complete and has used temp tracks. The distributor picked it up and provided money for post production. The license fees were too expensive so the director asked on Craigs list for up and coming artists. The advance money form the distributor went to mixing and fine tuning the edit so the agreement with the artists was the money would come in after 90 days of DVD release. All of that is standard - but here is what the "judge" said (Paraphrasing) - "Well that is not the way it works at all. When the distributor gave you money it was to pay for the music rights. You just said it was for post production and that is what you were doing." The director tried to explain but the judge found in favor of the artist and the director needs to pay. What is wrong with this overall is typical - TV courts trying to deal with I.P cases along with all the "basic" disputes. I have not seen a one who actually understand copyright and I.P (Judge Judy come to mind in one case where she said that a photographer had no copyright claims once their image was on the Internet - "When it is on the Internet it becomes free" was part of her ruling) In this case the contract did not specify about ROI, only that 90 days after release the artist would be paid. So on a purely contractual level the payment was due, and that was a fault of the actual contract. The problem I had was not the final decision based on contract law but the pre-decision comment that 100% of post production money in a situation like this automatically covers all expenses. What is worse is they found the director liable, not the distributor - they are the ones who would be paying out things like royalties, not the director. FYI - the amount paid, based on the contract, was 500 for the syc lincense and another 500 for the rights - so $1,000.00 total.
-
Videoon 12/17/2011
Random copyright question...?
I actually think the first voice of reason was winrock who implied that a Fortune 500 company should not be asking the question in the first place. Also I want to point out that Bob mentioned that "you do retain the moral right of attribution over your work" as a work for hire you need to take it into context that "your moral rights will be [are] agreed to upfront." This goes beyond just a work for hire in the U.S however, because in the U.S there are no moral rights provided with copyright. And it is very common for editors to use rough music guides to edit with. Music licensing most often comes after the film is complete. (Music videos and concerts aside) With that in mind, and somewhere over the years Imentioned this, many companies have different licensing schemes for what it being done. Many allow free use in student films and for film festival screenings. Other may charge a very small fee. Some also have a slightly backwards way of doing it - Freeplay music for example changed their business model from being free forever for anything to free to only major studios and networks and paid for most everything else. "have the costs defined before you roll the cameras" = pre production planning and a budget. If you know you will be using any sort of music you should have a set amount in the budget. Many distribution deals are made by a process know as film completion. It means what it implies but there are companies that specialize in the process. They look at a project and decide if they want to complete it - most often this means the cost of post production will be covered. Fine tuning the edit, audio editing, music clearance, release prints and seeking distribution. The good part is you get a final film, the bad part is you add another whole layer of people who get money off the top before you see anything.
-
Videoon 12/17/2011
Random copyright question...?
This is "funny" with the recent OT: Wedding Videographers Beware thread covering most of this. I have said more than once SoFo needed to, Sony should pin a copyright thread at the top. I am going to double post here as I was just putting this together for the other thread: Here are a (very) few links over the years from like discussions. I miss Spot but am glad to still have Bob, Jay and Kelly here. Church Video Music Rights - 7/23/2004 Use of Music in Wedding Videos - 7/23/2004 Amateur Production: Licensing of Music Needed? - 8/10/2004 Music Rights - 8/25/2004 What is a normal distribution deal? - 1/27/2005 Fair Use - 1/31/2005 Circling Sharks and Copyright - 10/24/2005 Reception music illegal to resale? - 1/2/2006 OT: BMI sues and wins... - 3/21/2006 Free comic - Bound By Law? - 6/20/2006 copyright question...is this infringement? - 3/2/2007
filmy
Offline, Member since 4/23/2003