Insert Clever Title Here

Entries Tagged as 'Media'

Channel 9 Melbourne, stop stealing my stuff….

I’d love to work in main stream media, there are so many perks. The biggest these days seems to be that you can appropriate content from anyone with a glib line and not give them any recognition what-so-ever.

Melbourne had a very impressive line of thunderstorms move through on Friday (12 Nov. 2010) evening, so as a weather “nut”, I’ve got the radar on the computer, and the camera ready to go. When a squall hit at home, I switched from stills to a quick 1 minute video.

Perchance on Saturday night, (TV in the kitchen while cooking tea) I happen to catch the Melbourne 9 news story about the weather. And whilst still being grumpy about calling something a mini tornado, which there is no such thing as, I see a glimpse of a bit of footage, and think, hey that looks familiar…

Today, I checked the NineMSN website for the story, with that nagging feeling still present… and guess what… it WAS my footage. 2 seconds or 10 seconds doesn’t matter to me. It was my footage, I did not give permission, was not asked for consent, was given no recognition, and certainly I was not TOLD.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/video.aspx?videoid=1cdb6005-75d8-4622-9ba0-c81aae430307 ( scroll to 1:22 ) ( Can someone identify the second piece of footage? )

If I had been asked, the chances are I would have said yes, but that really is beside the point. If someone from Channel 9 is surfing YouTube for content, how hard would it be to leave a comment saying, “great footage, can we use it”, or even, “great footage, we used a few seconds of it on the news”. It is about recognition, not theft!

Guessing what 3 seconds of footage on primetime news costs, I think if channel 9 buy me a new Nikon D7000, I’ll take that as payment for services rendered.

Really, come on media, lift your game.

My footage ( watch on youtube for the 720 version, video recorded on my Nikon D90)

and one of my still shots…

Update:

——–

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 – SECT 42

Fair dealing for purpose of reporting news

(1) A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if:

(a) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgement of the work is made; or

(b) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news by means of a communication or in a cinematograph film.

——–

I’m guessing option b is what their defence would be, but still, my point of being TOLD, is not covered. Someone from Channel 9 was on Youtube, took MY copyrighted content, for “news” value and couldn’t even be arsed to leave a comment saying that they had?

I guess it falls into the you wouldn’t steal a car, you wouldn’t steal a handbag, don’t steal a movie, unless it has news value, and you don’t want to even notify the owner of the video you have “stolen” it.

Unless as per Section 6 par C of the Youtube TOS http://www.youtube.com/t/terms Channel 9 have a licensing deal with Youtube for content. Personally I’d like to know if Channel 9 do have a deal with YouTube, and certainly if they haven’t does the Copyright Act trump the TOS of Youtube and Google? ( I’ll leave the lawyers for the respective parties to argue that one )

Perhaps it is time the Copyright Act was dramatically updated to include fair use of social media. A clause of attribution and notification on the source of the content seems reasonable to me.

Tags: Annoyances, Nikon D90, video by Me
15 Comments »

Quick Camera Show Down on the Nokia N8

First quick post to do with my new Nokia N8, one of the big selling points is the camera… so lets deal with that first.

The Show Down Consisted of the following…
( plus the Nikon D90 DSLR, which took this shot)

Overcast Sunset – Brighton, Melbourne, Saturday 23/10/10

All devices were set on automatic mode and a couple of shots were taken, the best of which I uploaded to flickr.

Each image links through to the flickr version, where you can see the full image as well.

——————————————————————————-

Nokia X6 – 5MP

Exposure	0.01 sec (1/100)
Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length	5.2 mm
ISO Speed	100

X-Resolution	300 dpi
Y-Resolution	300 dpi

——————————————————————————-

JVC FM1 – 8MP

Exposure	0.006 sec (1/163)
Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length	3.9 mm
ISO Speed	100

X-Resolution	72 dpi
Y-Resolution	72 dpi

——————————————————————————-

HTC Desire – 5MP

This is the only Exif Data for the shot from the Desire

ISO Speed	100
X-Resolution	72 dpi
Y-Resolution	72 dpi

——————————————————————————-

Nikon D90 – 12MP

Exposure	0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture	f/6.3
Focal Length	18 mm
ISO Speed	200

X-Resolution	240 dpi
Y-Resolution	240 dpi

——————————————————————————-

Nokia N8 – 12MP

X-Resolution	300 dpi
Y-Resolution	300 dpi

Exposure	0.005 sec (1/218)
Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length	5.9 mm
ISO Speed	105

I think the D90 wins… but then it should. But the N8 for a mobile phone, which of course happened to be the only device that could upload the photos from all the other devices, comes a very very respectable second.

Tags: Mobile, nokia, Photos by Me
No Comments »

RAW versus JPG: Digital Camera File Format Faceoff

This is a cross post of a joint blog post from Neerav’s article…

RAW and JPG are different ways of creating photos in a digital camera. Each has advantages and disadvantages. In the Blue corner we have Wolfcat who argues in favour of the RAW file format and in the Red corner we have Neerav who argues in favour of the JPG file format.

Neerav Bhatt Photos Shown at Lumixlife Gallery Exhibition

Pro-JPG Argument

For some background so you understand where I’m coming from: I love to take photos, mostly of urban streets, wilderness and wildlife.

I take 99.9% of my photos in JPG format and have used these successfully to create A4 posters, a photo book, sold photos for use in technology websites and magazines to accompany my articles, and had some displayed in an art gallery on 32-50inch TV screens.

I understand that RAW has some technical benefits but for the vast majority of photographers out there JPG will be the best option because:

for 99% of people JPG image quality is already far more than they need
it’s convenient because images don’t require any post-processing
the vast majority of keen amateur photographers don’t have the time or inclination to sit at a computer for hours after a day spent taking photos, post-processing RAW camera files into JPG photos manually one by one.
RAW files cannot be immediately shared to the Internet because they require processing with a computer that is reasonably fast. When I take photographs at events I can share the best JPGs to Flickr within minutes using my cheap, underpowered netbook computer,
the more affordable digital cameras used by keen amateur photographers are noticeably slower at taking RAW format photos than JPG’s. I guarantee “RAW only” hardliners have missed out on photo opportunities because their camera takes time recording each massive RAW file,
JPG file sizes are far smaller and therefore take up less space on your camera card, in your photo archive, and when transferring them internally on your home network or on the internet.
Arguments that storage space is getting cheaper are irrelevant. Try calculating how many camera cards you’d need to store 100 photos/day, every day for a month on holiday and you’ll see what I mean,
JPG files can be viewed on any desktop or laptop computer as well as many electronic devices including smartphones, TV’s, dvd/bluray players etc,
RAW encourages lazy “i can always do it properly on the computer” photography. I own Photoshop CS5 and find it useful, but much prefer to get the camera settings right first time in the camera and not have to spend time fiddling later

There are over a hundred different variations of RAW file formats needing special software to convert them to JPG. Often new cameras record in a RAW format that can’t be opened by older image processing applications like Adobe Photoshop.

If you must use RAW then DNG is the best RAW format for archival purposes. The US Library of Congress classified proprietary RAW files as “Less desirable file formats” suggesting that DNG be used instead.

The only times I would ever consider using a RAW format such as DNG are:

if I was being paid to do a commercial photography job. Even then I’d use DNG+JPG which takes each photo in both formats so I could use the JPG’s immediately and the DNG’s only if required.
If I was on holiday and paying lots of money for a unique one off experience eg: hot air balloon ride then I’d set my camera to DNG+JPG.

I leave the final word to respected amateur photographer and camera reviewer Ken Rockwell:

If you shoot hundreds or thousands of images in a day shoot JPG and don’t worry. The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw, and the raw files would take gigabytes or tens of gigabytes and resultant hours to download, convert, catalog and burn to backup CDs. In fact, if you shoot this much then JPG can give better quality since attempting to shoot this much raw will constipate your workflow and you could miss making some images entirely as your cards fill up. You’d always be running out of memory cards or time waiting for the access light to stop blinking.

If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)

JPG vs RAW – Get it right the first time (Ken Rockwell)

Further reading

The RAW Flaw – Luminous Landscape

Are Raw Files Forever? – Luminous Landscape

DNG – Sustainability of Digital Formats – Planning for Library of Congress Collections

Still Image Preferences – Sustainability of Digital Formats – Planning for Library of Congress Collections

Raw as Archival Still Image Format: A Consideration (University of Connecticut Libraries)

Adobe TV – Advantages of DNG format

Pro-RAW Argument

First confession I shoot RAW and JPG. However 99% of the time I just ignore the JPG files, cause I never use them, never see them and they just end up taking up space on my harddrive.

I’m a keen landscape shooter. I like to document the world around me looking for that unique angle on this great country we live in. Whilst I shoot in colour.. I’m a huge fan on the black and white as well for real story telling.

There is only one kind of RAW. The kind your camera shoots. I shoot with a Nikon D90, so I get .NEF files. I really don’t care about other RAW formats. Why, because that is like saying I drive a Diesel powered car, but there are too many kinds of Petrol to confuse me.
Quality doesn’t matter. No of course it doesn’t, unless you care about the photo. Unless that photo is a touch under/over exposed, the white balance is out, the horizon line is a few degrees of centre, the lens you used has a certain type of distortion that throws out straight lines or the highlights are a bit over exposed. Any of these mean you are going to want to “fix” the photo.
Sure Ken Rockwell can shoot in full manual mode and get White Balance and everything perfect every time, never needing to touch Photoshop at all to fix any image…. But are you Ken Rockwell.
You’re are sure that you know what the correct colour temp for each setting is, because you shoot in a perfectly stable environment, with colour charts and controlled lighting every time. Nope didn’t think so. Guess what you are going to want to correct that photo.
Batch Processing is your friend. I use Lightroom3 to processes all my RAW images. If they are similar I can spend time on one image get the settings right and apply them to hundreds of photos in a few minutes.
Raw is non destructive, you aren’t dealing with a lossy compression like JPG you have all the information to play with. You don’t have to trust the camera to guess what you wanted, you have complete control. JPG is also 8bit colorur. The RAW files I shoot are 12bit colour.
Cost of storage is cheap. I have an offsite backup of my photos on a 1.5TB drive that I purchased for $98 dollars. I run a few 4gb cards and can shoot around 240 images per card. And I always take a harddrive with me on trips to backup the images anyway, that drive is a USB powered HD that is 880gb which cost me $120.
JPG is easier. Yes it is, but then so is buying a pizza from the supermarket compared to making one at home. The one you make at home will have all the toppings you want and be to your taste, not the cheapest food to make the pizza.
And finally how often do you need to “get” the shot up straight away. If you are really doing that, you are shooting from a mobile phone anyway. Most of the time you are going to have access to something to process the image regardless. ( I know I do )
If you only store the JPG’s in 6 months time or a years time when someone spots that great image and wants the full size image for print… what did you do with it, oh yes that is right, you compressed it put lots of effects in photoshop and compressed it again.

While I do agree that JPG is easier to use, just because it is easier doesn’t make it better. I like to ensure that the colours on my image are visually correct and that the tones reflect the mood of the image. Say I want a black and white image, shooting RAW gives me complete tonal control much more than JPG ever can. And all for very little work!

And I’ll leave the final word to these images….

The JPG VS the RAW.

JPG

This RAW took me a minute to tweak in Lightroom 3.

Further Reading

Why Shoot RAW – Photography Review

When to Shoot RAW – Macworld

Understanding Raw Files – Luminous Landscape

Photo Lightroom -Adobe

Open Source Raw Processing Win, Linux

How To Shoot RAW without Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt by Michael Tapes

Tags: General, Nikon D90, Photos by Me
2 Comments »

Nikon D7000 vs Nikon D90….

Here is the Show Down Table, comparing the D7000, to the D90.

These are the major features where the D7000 trumps the D90.

	[image title="Nikon D7000" size="full" id="1394" align="right" ]	[image title="Nikon D90" size="full" id="1393" align="right" ]
	Nikon D7000	Nikon D90
Construction	Magnesium alloy body	Polycarbonate
Sensor	• 23.1 x 15.4 mm CMOS sensor • 16.2 million effective pixels • 14-bit A/D converter	• 23.1 x 15.4 mm CMOS sensor • 12.3 million effective pixels • 12-bit A/D converter
ISO range	• ISO 100-6400 • H1 and H2 (ISO 12800 and 25600) expansion	• ISO 200 -3200 • L1 (ISO 100) and H1 (ISO 6400) expansion
Movie resolution*	• 1920 x 1080p (24fps)	• 1280 x 720p (24 fps)
AF sensor	• 39 AF points • 9 cross-type sensors	• 11 AF points • 1 cross-type sensor
Metering sensor	• TTL exposure metering using 2016-pixel RGB sensor	• TTL exposure metering using 403-pixel RGB sensor
Viewfinder	• 100% frame coverage • Dioptric adjustment: -3.0 to +1.0 diopter	• 96% (horizontal and vertical) frame coverage • Built-in diopter adjustment (-2 to +1m-1)
Continuous shooting rate	• Approx. 6 fps max	• Approx. 4.5 fps max
Max Shutter Speed	• 1/8000 second	• 1/4000 sec
Modes	• Portrait, Landscape, Child, Sports, Close up, Night portrait, Night landscape, Party/indoor, Beach/snow, Sunset, Dusk/dawn, Pet portrait, Candlelight, Blossom, Autumn colors, Food, Silhouette, High key, Low key, U1 (user settings 1), U2 (user settings 2)	• Portrait, Landscape, Close-up, Sports, Night portrait
Pixel Density	• 4.6 MP/cm²	• 3.3 MP/cm²
Video Format	• MOV, H.264 (Stereo with external mike), 20 Min Max length	• AVI M-JPEG ( Mono), 5 Min Max length
Memory format	• SD/SDHC/SDXC (dual slots)	• SD/SDHC
Dimensions	132 x 105 x 77mm (5.2 x 4.1 x 3.0in)	148 x 111 x 74 mm (5.8 x 4.3 x 2.8in)
Weight (inc battery)	780 g (1.7 lb.)	704 g (1.5 lb.)
header

(Source of Table: DP Review and Nikon- if I have missed out something let me know.)

As you can see this camera leaves the D90 in the dust. Low light and fast photography have all been ramped up incredibly. And for a RRP or around the $1200 USD mark it gives the non professional shooter a great camera with many Pro and Semi Pro features at what I think is a great price.

A few other thoughts….

The extra mega pixels can ensure larger printers ( although the prints I have got from my D90 at A3 are stunning), but it also gives you a bit more crop room. You can cut that little bit more of the edges of your image that don’t quite line up and still get the same print size. Further (somewhat reduced by the D7000 having a virtual horizon) is that you can rotate your images to straighten them as well and still get a full size print.

The extra 4% in the view finder may not seem much, yet having a 100% Viewfinder means that nothing unexpected will creep into the side of your image. I’ve got used to always checking on my D90 that I’ve got the whole shot and nothing extra, but having the 100% Viewfinder is something that just makes your life in post processing much easier.

I’d love to get my hand on the camera just for the Shutter Speed as well. 1/8000th of a second will freeze just about anything. Perfect for insects in flight, water in motion e.t.c. The extra 2 FPS on the body is also fantastic as well, letting you burn through action.

The other great feature is the “weather-resistant” body. There have been times I’ve had to stop shooting with just a few drops of rain on the D90, the D7000 lets you get a bit more extreme with your shooting, without having to worry about dust and a few drops of rain.

The Video feature has been dramatically expanded as well. One thing is I am glad that Nikon have moved to H264 .mov files. This has become the standard for video these days and opens up a lot more options for cleaning editing as well over the motion jpeg format. ( But this is something for others to comment on. I’ve never really used the video feature on my D90, and I’d suspect that the same would be true for the D7000.

Overall, whilst the D90 maybe around for awhile yet, I’d have to say just on the specs and the initial reviews your better of getting the D7000.

Note sure on Australian released date… but US date is October… so should be sometime next month.

P.S

Please now buy some of my art work…. So I can afford it….

Some More from around the Web:

Nikon Rumors
Nikon D7000: Camera Road Test With Chase Jarvis
D7000 dpreview hands-on
Offical Nikon D7000 Site

And hands on video care of Engadget.

and a Nikon promo video….

Tags: General, Nikon D90, Redbubble, video by Me
2 Comments »

Kim Stanley Robinson at #aus4

Thanks to my sister in law I got to go to Aussie Con 4.

I caught most of the talks Kim Stanley Robinson did…. here is just one of them. Talking about Climate Change, Science and the politics of denial.

(from the Aussie Con Programme )

“Climate change and utopia. – In the last thirty years utopia has gone from a nice idea to a survival strategy. In the coming era of climate change we will not be able to muddle through in our current system, because the bio-physical base of our existence will not support it. Social change is therefore inevitable; and the work of all the sciences together now suggest an emerging plan for change in a positive direction, and a resulting sustainable civilization. Enacting that plan will be both the history of the twenty-first century and the best utopia yet. The talk will explicate this argument. “

(Sorry in advance for the couple of times my phone hunted for signal)

For my photos from Aussie Con 4 visit the flickr set here…

Tags: General, video by Me
No Comments »

#wtrip10 all the main driving videos

Here are all the driving videos from my road trip to Adelaide and back. ( I lost a bit of video from Apollo Bay, through to the 12 Apostles due to my R2H playing up…)

These are just the low res versions, watch on youtube or choose HD for the better views…

Great Ocean Road – Geelong to Apollo Bay (Dur 3:45)

Detailed Blog Post