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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Most cinematographers want to shoot with the Genesis, the F35, the Phantom, etc.
All the of Elphel cameras (including the Apertus), and the Sumix SMX-12A2C are priced at around (or under) 1/3rd of the price of the Panasonic HVX-200, which is listed in the article as one of the "suitable" cameras. I would guess that the Kinor costs less than an HVX-200, too.
Certainly, the A-cam dII costs much less than the SI-2K and the Red (both deemed "suitable" in the article), and it is only a little more than an HVX-200.
Yes, but the kind of cinematographers who want to shoot with these cams already have lawyers and money to pay for licenses anyway. And these kinds of cinematographers only make up 1% of the overall filmmaking community.
But the rest of us, who are indie filmmakers, or wedding videographers, or prosumers, or consumers with a soft spot for art, can't afford -- neither we want -- such cameras. We want the kind of cameras Canon, or Panasonic, do.
Edited 2010-05-02 08:25 UTC




Member since:
2005-06-28
The kind of cameras most people want to use are not made by these manufacturers, sorry. For example, I have very specific needs, and price range in mind when I buy a cam.