credit

03:42 Feb 5, 2005 

Eze talán közelebb visz valamivel a megoldáshoz. Valami ebből már kezd kibontakozni:

"... Panavision, more importantly, is a company that makes and rents (but rarely sells) cameras, lenses, and related equipment. When a company rents a Panavision camera for use on a project they are obligated to credit Panavision. If "Panavision anamorphic lenses" are used in a production, the credit reads "Filmed in Panavision" but if normal (spherical) lenses are used - whether to film in 1.66 or 1.85 [flat widescreen] or 1.33 [TV] - the credit reads "Lenses and Panaflex Camera by Panavision" or "Photographic equipment by Panavision." When Panavision's lenses were first introduced (1971) they were so superior to the CinemaScope lenses that even Fox dropped CinemaScope in favor of Panavision.

The problem that has arose in recent years is due to the "credit." Written by agents/attorneys (not the filmmaker), the terminology has become misinterpreted. Flat widescreen films might say "Filmed in..." while anamorphic films say "Lenses and cameras..." Even various television shows (1.33:1) have been credit as "Filmed in Panavision."

21:04 Feb 4, 2005 

Az a probl�m�m, hogy ez egy produkci�s term�keket (kamer�k, objekt�vek, digit�lis berendez�sek stb.) sz�ll�t� c�g szerz�d�se. � elv�rja, hogy a producerek t�ntess�k fel az � <credit>j�t minden egyes produkci�, epiz�d, stb. v�g�n. El��r tov�bb� olyanokat, hogy az � <credit>j�nek a bet�t�pusa nem lehet kisebb �s kev�sb� szembet�n�, mint m�s m�szaki besz�ll�t�k (pl, vil�g�t�berendez�sek sz�ll�t�i) <credit>j�ben haszn�ltak. El�g terjedelmes r�sz foglalkozik ezzel, olyanokat is bele�rtve, mint pl. a credit felt�ntet�se elmulaszt�s�nak a p�n�l�i, konkurrens c�gek <credit>jei felt�ntet�s�nek a tilalma stb.

20:22 Feb 4, 2005 

Köszi, igazad van. Ezt elrontottam. De látom, az elutasításokat vissza is lehet vonni.

20:14 Feb 4, 2005