Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 1st May 2010 22:17 UTC
UPDATE: Engadget just wrote a reply to this article. The article says that you don't need an extra license to shoot commercial video with h.264 cameras, but I wonder why the license says otherwise, and Engadget's "quotes" of user/filmmaker indemnification by MPEG-LA are anonymous...
UPDATE 2: Engadget's editor replied to me. So according to him, the quotes are not anonymous, but organization-wide on purpose. If that's the case, I guess this concludes that. And I can take them on their word from now on.
UPDATE 3: And regarding royalties (as opposed to just licensing), one more reply by Engadget's editor.
Permalink for comment 422171
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2006-11-12
There might be a couple of other cameras which are "in the clear":
www.ikonoskop.com/dii/
www.sumix.com/products/cameras/smx-12a2c.html
http://www.kinor.ru/en/products/camera/dc2k/
http://cinema.elphel.com/elphelcamera
www.panavision.com/product_detail.php?maincat=1&cat=36&id=375&node=c0, c136,c137
www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?sector=htm/files&page=camera_HD_new
www.weisscam.com/products/hs-1/features.html
www.arridigital.com/technical
www.grassvalley.com/products/ldk_8000_elite
www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?sector=htm/files&page=Phantom_Flex
www.sbfinalcut.org/community/index.php?option=com_content&view=article &id=68:sony-f35&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50
Furthermore, some of these manufacturers have more than one HD camera.