Nope...

I had a stabilizing tool with me, just not a tripod. ;)

What tool was it?

A monopod.

No, it's not .m4v, it's .mp4. I mention this in the description. The .unk happens because of a bug on Vimeo (it's a new bug of theirs for a couple of weeks now).

Only one image is out of focus AFAIK, which one are you referring to? Besides, everything is shot behind a thick glass and not much light, so you can't expect HV20's full sharpness in these conditions.

Ok, too many people ask I got to reply to this... it was a monopod, that was used after an agreement with the facility.

One way that might work without permission is to tie a string to a 1/4" coarse thread bolt, and screw the bolt into the bottom of the camera. Let the string hang down to the floor and step on it. A small weight, like a washer, on the end of the string might help. Then pull up on the camera to tighten the string while shooting. It's kind of a reverse monopod that fits in a pocket.

The aquarium rooms are dark with the tanks lit from the bottom or top, so the glares are not easily visible. No, the credits are easy to do. Going to Vegas from Pinnacle is a good idea if you want more control.

It is on the right sidebar of the video page. It reads:

Downloads
1280x720, 185.64MB

You can download it there as long as you are logged in to Vimeo, and then rename the .unk file to .mp4 file.

Ah, I see what you are talking about. I am talking on the sidebar on the right of the page, not on the flash video itself.

BTW, always reply to a specific comment by clicking "Reply to this comment", not by using the input box below.

Nice;
btw: try to set expousure to -3 or -4 in dark scenes to remove grain/noise, it works

yeah I think you should mention that it's way way at the bottom right - not to the right of the vid itself...you have to scroll down to the bottom of the RHS column sidebar

Many different presets, depending on the scene.

hv20.com/showthread.php?t=17919

Very helpful, even though I thought I knew enough about CC.

But it still does not solve the problem of looking for a needle in the haystack.

Yes, it will take time. You go through these 320 albums and you read what music category they are and then you listen to the category you want. I usually find music i want within 15 minutes.

What you state is correct. This resulted video, is one entity, under the CC-BY. But I prefer for people who want to reuse the video, to think more if they want to also reuse the music or not. Even if the music is under the CC-BY, I just don't want to take responsibility if they use the whole thing (music + video) for a project that the musician might not like. So basically, the word "separately" while it doesn't have a legal meaning, I use it in the context of "think twice rather than once".

It's always good to make people think, but in this case I can't see how you can be considered responsible for the use of a CC-BY work by third parties. I guess they used CC-BY on purpose. Artists that don't want to risk use a CC-BY-ND license.
To me (not an English native speaker) the word *separately* only adds dangerous confusion to the concept of derivative works.

I know what you are saying, but I *already* had a case of someone using a part of my video as a derivative work, and he "forgot" to give attribution. I wouldn't want to be in the middle of such a dispute between a musician and another user, by way of my video. While I don't really care if someone really gives attribution to me, I am more concerned about the musician's wishes. I just don't want a video of mine to be the instigator for bad usage of other people's work. I think this is a legitimate concern. The word "separately" might not show what I have in my mind exactly, but I think it does make people think a bit more of how they should use the works. I haven't found another way to express this in a two line sentence. I am all ears if you have other wording suggestions.

I'm having the case of CC videos sent to a Film Festival: the majority of them don't give proper attribution and licensing as if the synching of an unmodified music piece were not creating a derivative work.
The sentence I use to describe the CC-BY license can be translated into something like:
"If you use this work to create another one you must credit the video *and* the music."

Ah, nice vid on Jellyfish BTW! :-)

My problem with this definition is that most people will get confused that they will have to use both the video and the music for a derivative work, and not just one of the two -- if only they need one of the two. I wouldn't want people to think that they will have to use both when they might not need to.

It's all very tricky, isn't it? :)

It is!!
My last suggestion is "If you use this work or part of it..." PLUS a link to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/.
I now stop flooding your page.

Thanks for making CC videos.

Yes, you can embed it freely.

Everything I know can be found in my blog. I have various tutorials there.

No, because I don't know. Any monopod will do.