Filming And Photography Terms And Conditions: Fill & Download for Free

Because real cameras, machines that are purpose-built around an image sensor, are incommensurably better at taking images than smartphones, on which the camera is an accessory function with a bad plastic lens and a ridiculously small sensor.Edit, and it will be long. Sorry about it.With this question in mind, I did a small test the other day. I took photos with my Huawei P20 Lite, a 2018 phone that produces good images, and I also took some, of the same place and at the same time, without even moving my feet, with a Nikon D750 (2014) and a Nikon 18–35/3.5–4.5 AF-S lens mounted on it. I took the photos without support, because it would have been too easy to get good photos by lowering the ISO and lengthening the exposure time, in crappy to really bad light, in a street near the cathedral in Bern, Switzerland. The photos were not cropped, so they are actually tilted to a various degree, and due to differences in focal length, they are not exactly identical in framing, but close enough.I ran the images through Lightroom, but there was little to be done with the phone image; the D750 was a .nef file on which there was plenty of “room” to work.Phone (ISO 2500, f/2.2, 1/13s, the focal length of 3.81mm translates as 26mm equivalent):Frankly, I was surprised: it’s good, actually. And as I have made it a 1180 pixel-long image, it looks amazing on a screen.D750 (ISO 6400 (auto), 18mm, f/4.5, 1/20s):Not bad either, and honestly even at this size, one should already wonder why bother taking photos with a phone…Let’s zoom in. First, let’s have a look at the back of the first car:Phone:What I can see is that the car is not registered in Switzerland.D750:Sorry for the privacy invasion. Really.Then, let’s have a look at the bell tower of the cathedral.Phone:Not bad, really, but what are those two things on the right of the tower?D750:Ah, scaffolding and the hoist…Now, the closest star hanging above the street:Phone:D750:I see the individual led lights now.What about the distances? Let’s see:Phone:Ouch.D750:Grainy, ill-defined - but seriously much better even though I cannot read licence plates or street signs.Of course, all of it is of absolutely no importance if you only shoot for web publication. But as soon as you want to print images beyond A4 format, a camera is your friend, much more so than your phone. And this is further compounded by light conditions.It’s only my 2 cents, opinions may vary and probably will, but I will stick with my camera(s) for the foreseeable future as soon as it’s about serious photography.And let’s not forget a very important point: ergonomics. A camera, especially a DSLR, is a tool that has been developed for decades with the sole aim of taking photos. It is not good at filming - it requires accessories - but for stills, it’s pretty hard to beat. A phone is made for phoning or text messaging, and photography arrived on phones as an accessory. A phone lacks stability.Thanks for the A2A, User-10610729032231652853 - and I hope someone will read it! ;)

In terms of gels (the coloured pieces of plastic you see fixed in front of film and theatre lights) there's two general categories of use:Stage lights by Flickr user Tambako1. Artistic Gels - These are used simply to create coloured light for artistic effect. They are available in literally any shade of the rainbow and can be used however a lighting designer thinks up to create a unique visual experience for an viewer. There's no difference between using gels this way, or using coloured lights in a display, in a shop, in a nightclub... etc."Lectura nocturna" by Andrés Nieto Porras2. Colour Temperature Adjustment - On the other hand the gels used on large film and television lights generally fall into this latter category. The average person on the street doesn't realize that "white light" (as perceived by humans) actually comes in a wide variety of colours. Even over the course of the day basic sunlight actually varies in measurable colour quite a bit. Our eyes are very good at automatically adjusting for this discrepancy - however photograph and moving picture cameras are not. Anyone who has taken even a couple of photos on their phone has likely seen the effect of daylight seeming overly "blue" or inside light making everything seem "too orange". Streetlights, flourescent lights, and stadium lights can often veer into the purples and greens when you view them through a camera. Often these results are very unpleasing.You can even see this with your eyes if you spend a long time in a darkened room (like a movie theatre) and then go outside (or vice versa) it takes time for our brains to "recalculate" what colours should look like.Thankfully, even simple cameras today have extremely advanced "white balance" settings, by which we can tell the camera what type of lighting condition we are in, and it can try to figure out what spectrum of light should be perceived as "white" (and then deduce what other colours should be in relation to that). If you set your camera's white balance to "daylight" what you're really doing is telling the camera you would like to see light at around 6,500K (colour is measured in light in Kelvin) as "white" and shift all the other colours to compensate. If you set it to "indoor" the camera will assume that "white" is closer to 3,200K... etc.This also isn't *just* a feature of digital cameras, manual film and photography cameras could get the same effect by putting a piece of coloured glass either in front of the lens to shift all the colours coming into the camera, or in front of the film being exposed. This way you could accomplish the same result without digital technology (although the digital gives you far more control and options, obviously).So if we can adjust white balance in-camera why do we still need to put all this stuff in front of lights? Because while the camera can be set to whatever white balance value we want - we need to make sure that the temperature value of all the lights that will be hitting our subject, or scene, match that expected value.Like I said above if white "daylight" is 6,500K and white light from a tungsten lightbulb (like in a big industrial film light) is about 3,200K and we are using both to light a scene - we're going to get two very different colors (in fact that's exactly what's happening in the photo above - the left is pure daylight, the right is pure tungsten light).If you wanted the example image up top to appear "even" you could either make the daylight "more orange" so it matches the indoor light (perhaps by covering up the entire window with a large orange gel). Alternately, you could make the inside light "more blue" to match the daylight (through putting blue gel in front of your light sources, or using special daylight-balanced lightbulbs). Then once you have the scene either "all blue" or "all orange" it's much simpler to adjust the white balance (either while shooting, or in post production) to get a pleasing, evenly coloured, image.This is why the two most common colors of film gel you will see on film and television sets are CTO (Colour Temperature Orange) and CTB (Colour Temperature Blue). There are set values for these basic gels, and then you can get all kinds of variants to match particular light sources (for example you could get a 1/4 CTO if you only wanted a *little* orange, or a double CTB if you wanted a LOT of blue).This is obviously just the tip of the iceberg of a very complicated field. Modern film and photographic lights are now getting into using colour-adjustable LED lights, or having different bulbs pre-calibrated to different colour temperatures. There are special "film" bulbs you can put into lighting fixtures (like lamps and chandeliers) so you can film them without adjustment... and of course you can then start to use colour temperature filters for artistic reasons as well (many DOP's shoot night scenes with a slight blue cast to the lighting to match the cool real like Kelvin of reflected moonlight... etc).If you'd like to know more a good starting point would be the Wikipedia article on Color temperature and then any good beginners text on lighting theory or lighting design for film or still photography (there's a lot of crossover - but be careful as still photographers can adjust their shutter speed to solve certain lighting problems... motion picture photographers cannot).Also - completely outside of gels, there is also a wide range of material that is put in front of lights to change the quality, or quantity of light, but not color. Things like crumpled wax paper, thin sheets of fabric, or special shapeable black foil can be used to make the light softer, or speckled, or angled in a particular direction. But those aren't, specifically speaking, "gels".

tl;dr: Yes, absolutely it's right. You may own whatever copyright you obtain for recording the video, but you don't own any underlying works portrayed in your video.Yes, it is right. There are a lot of balls in play here and I will go through each one briefly.First up, a contractual matter that applies to the situation generally, but is not a copyright issue. You paid a lot of money for your ticket. Tickets are contracts and come with terms and conditions. In exchange for licencing your entrance to the concert, you agree to pay the ticket fee and abide by whatever rules they make you abide by. Typically, but not always, there is a clause that prohibits photography, videography, or sound recording. You would have to read the contract that came with the ticket to be sure but you likely breached the contract by taking the video in the first place.Next, you need to understand how a copyright is created. Any 1) original, 2) work of authorship, 3) fixed in a tangible medium automatically gets copyright protection. The owner of the copyright is the author and the author is typically, but not always, the person who fixes the work in a tangible medium. The rights granted by copyright include, but are not limited to, the right to produce copies of the original work and the right to produce derivative works. A derivative work is a new work made by reproducing elements of the original. For example: Fantasia is a copyrighted Disney movie. Disney has the right to produce copies of Fantasia as well as the right to produce plush Mickey dolls in his apprentice garb.Other kinds of derivative works include translations of books and movies, alternate musical arrangements, and movie adaptations of original material.So how does your video fit in? Well, your video is certainly copyrightable by you because the bar to get protection is very low. But some parts of your video simply infringe on the original copyrights to the songs performed. You may own a copyright in the video, but you don't get to capture the copyright in the underlying work by putting it in your own medium. So long as the songs are somehow copyrighted your recording is, at best, a derivative work.Third, just like your recording of the songs is infringement, your recording of any set design could also be an infringement. Set designs are copyrightable works of sculpture and by filming them, you are producing a copy of the set (in a new medium).Some of your video may not infringe on any copyright. Recordings of extemporaneous speeches, uncopyrightable things, and works in the public domain won't infringe on any copyright. So when the performer says something like, "I love performing here in New Orleans, you guys are a great crowd!" then that part of your video does not infringe. Performance of public domain works wouldn't infringe insofar as the copyright never existed or expired BUT if the performer adds something new or different to the original then that new thing is copyrightable even though the underlying work is not.Ultimately, your video probably infringes on several copyrights in several different ways so unless you got permission to profit off of someone else's hard work, it's right that they can make you take it down.