[Mike Smith]

Yes it is.

This thread comes up from time to time, and divides into those who think like a hired crew – all footage belongs to the hirer – and those who think like a producer – so hired to deliver a completed programme, and that’s what’s delivered. The intermediate steps, the items of footage, the permission slips, the copyright clearances, the rights assignments from contributors all relate to the specific project (and quite likely to that only) rest with the producer, rather than the client who commissions, specifically, a programme or series of programmes.

Both persuasions are well represented here. Neither is likely to switch position. Either position is tenable and fair (*and legal).

It’s just good to be on the same page with your client right up front, so terms can be agreed and no nasty surprises down the line.

[Mike Smith]

You could look at Twixtor … https://www.revisionfx.com/products/twixtor/

[Mike Smith]

Both of those are lens adaptors – they are designed to fit onto the front of another lens. Direct body mounting is not going to be possible.

[Mike Smith]

Isn’t that the stylize / replicate effect with keyframes for the count property …?

[Mike Smith]

1 do the monitors show similar colours for images or video from sources other than your own footage when you view stuff from the web – is this an issue with your footage, or with the monitors?

Do your monitors show images on your local discs in similar colours when you view them / drag them from one to the other – are your monitors matching?

Do you your video to look ok to web users in general – not just FF or Apple users (is your goal faithful colour for you, or good colour to the wider world?)

QuickTime colour management has caused issues for non-Apple users for a long time, and with the Mac family roundtripping image files between apps like FCP and AE has long brought colour management (often gamma-related) issues: there are workarounds on the web. Though Apple has changed gamma handling / default gamma in recent versions of OSX which has helped ease this.

Relying just on QT colour management is likely to mean you will be surprised how your images and video look to non-Apple users.

https://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2010/04/how-to-calibrate-color-for-the-web/
https://support.pixelmator.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9123
https://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
https://maururu.net/2008/getting-colors-right-on-the-web/

[Mike Smith]

I suggest that if you have AE you try the tool out for yourself: it can be very effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmG4y0Vrc-8
https://www.videocopilot.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&p=208196

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Mike Smith]

If you have After Effects you could try out the RotoBrush toolo on the footage once you’ve cut it.

https://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/rotobrush_ae_cs5_douglas.html
https://tv.adobe.com/watch/after-effects-cs5-feature-tour/rotoscope-with-rotobrush/

[Mike Smith]

The client cannot impose anything on you after contract – retrospectively – and if they want you to sign something now about work already completed or under way then they likely know that your contract / agreement does not include what they are asking for. But of course you want to be nice to your client as much as you can – though not at the cost of giving away the store.

If you supplied footage or programmes as contracted and they now want the source files, my own inclination would be not to supply, and certainly not at no extra cost. The only reason they could want those is to build on or modify your work without paying you for it: if not contracted to, why would you help with that?

Any change of terms – new signature – would have to be acceptable to both parties.

So you could smile and say no, not in our agreement.

If they want extra from you, you can either supply it at extra charge to cover the additional work and materials in copying or supplying masters as well as the additional intellectual property rights not contracted for, or simply not agree to the change of terms. Or you could you could tell them what extra costs they are causing you and extra rights they are asking for, but offer them as a freebie.

This may limit your chance of more work from this client.

And perhaps it was a mistake to give the huge discounts and not to charge for media and storage …?

[Mike Smith]

I’ve found local authorities – councils – in the UK to be usually very reliable if not always that speedy payers. For me they have always honoured any timing-of-payments agreements.

Without a contracted payment schedule, you could look for payment at worst at 30 days from invoice date. Anything longer than 30 days and you could reasonably chase things up quite hard.

Often councils have very reasonable buyers (who you deal with) but separate financial officers, with much less interest in making payment on time. So you may need to be firm early. Which council, might I ask ..?

[Mike Smith]

Well it’s up to you, though most people would insist a on fee.

It could be good, probably, to be sure that the person or company who paid you to make the promo is happy about what you propose. And that you have rights to the footage / edited clip / whatever it is the prospective buyer wants. If there are elements that you might need rights clearances from others for – music, performances, interviews, other stuff you had to clear when you made the promo – it would be good to check that your clearances or permissions allows you to sell on in this way.

It might also be good to limit any licence you grant to a specific programme, use, period of time.