theKodu - all messages by user

2016/8/17 21:00:55
Possible bug with Direct X9 and effects? Ah thank you for the link and prompt reply.
2016/8/17 20:56:32
Possible bug with Direct X9 and effects? So I've downloaded and installed the latest Muvizu update and then I switched to Direct x9 as I've had issues with Direct x11 before with various glitches etc.

I reloaded the program and opened it only to find none of the effects worked.

I have made sure my licence is activated and tried uninstalling and reinstalling.

I've also tried both the 32 ad 64 bit versions and in both versions of Muvizu the effects have stopped functioning on the direct x9 version.

I've not had this issues before so I think there might be some kind of bug I've run into.
2013/4/15 16:22:26
New website feedback thread Just one small bit of feedback.
Any chance of getting the facial hair items transferred to work with the Heroes and Villains pack. It seems a little odd that there's essentially classic villain facial hairs but not usable on the villain model.
2013/4/14 20:49:46
To the community at large urbanlamb wrote:

There is logic behind haveing commercial content and its this.

I only put in the asset gallery simple assets because like with muvizu my time costs money. At the moment assets in muvizu are extremely limited. Anyone creating anything complex in muvizu is already in some cases purchasing content from places like renderosity and daz and even iclone and importing it into muvizu. So muvizu is in fact throwing away a market and giving it to those other companies. There are a couple of us that actually make money on content (but elsewhere so we are already selling our content and people purchase it for use inside muvizu or something else). So that market already exists muvizu should capitalize on it. Not to mention I would be able to release content I already create with a pricetag directly on muvizu and it would be optimized and converted and people would not have to muddle through optimizing and converting it from another format. I actually dont want to be seen as a content creator on this site I am a director, but unfortunately its happened anyhow.

Asking content creators to give all their content away for free is just as bad as asking muvizu to take the watermark and give their software away for free.

My take on it is this with the stuff I've done mostly.

I made this due to being part of a video. I've already made that content as such and sometimes I really did just do it as a one off thing because I needed it. Its my video that's the product and often the texture files models etc are by products of it.

I have no use for some of them.
Other people might have use for them though hence I'm happy to see it put to use more.
However if all the packs were being charged for, I'd feel I'd have to charge too just to make sure I can then invest in the extra packs as such.
The idea for me of charging for something that's normally a throw away by product of my stuff while financially it sounds good, I just don't feel I should charge as its no use to me why not let someone else use it as a resource now.

The thing I question is if its the right direction to go to allow people to charge for their produced content in such a way as will Muvizu become less about making films and more like a Team Fortress 2 hat store.

As you've said there are already other ways to monetise content produced this way.
I'd rather see a fixed cost as such for the program for commercial use than it suddenly allow commercial use and all the content be sold in packs.

I guess it comes down to the question mainly of what Muvizu is or should be commercially. Is it a video creation tool or a sales library for 3D objects ?
2013/4/14 20:26:39
Youtube and copyright issues urbanlamb wrote:

The system tags and can tag eroneously hence the post. This particular one is a personal experience and the reason why some people are making music themselves and getting it tagged. In my case it was a midi file I made from scratch from the sheet music in the public domain. It is quite common. So you need to dispute it. Unfortunately the claims can still be rejected. However recently youtube put in another layer in their dispute process. The other issue is youtube and video monetization which now everyone has the ability to do. Youtube will reject this and not believe that you made the music (also quite common) and it takes a lot of hoop jumping to get them to believe you made the music and often they choose to not believe you. As a result of my personal experiences I have joined up with a content aggregator to remove this problem as anything I made now I can claim as mine its cut down immensly on the false matches. Unfortunately you will still get matches even if you get the music from the public domain since in many cases they are copying something else as well so you need to dispute. There are less rejected claims now that they put in this new layer for false matches because the rejection means that you can reappeal and that they are then forced into the position of issuing a dmca take down notice. If they are wrong and it is your music you can then take legal action against them and counterfile so they are being more careful now as they have no choice.

If the company rejected the claim as I had done with one of mine. emailing them does often help remind the company of their obligations.

Oddly if you're still having issues of this nature there are some preventative measures you can take.

First when you record just get some poor phone level footage of you doing it or keep the original raw files if you edit them to get better sound / match perfect takes together as such.
Before you upload your video containing the original music you've made, upload the video of you playing it or the Raw file and place the video as unlisted.
If you then upload the video with the music and get a copyright notice you can then point out its public domain and your own personal performance of it by linking to the unlisted video proving you produced it.
The company will then either back down, or they'll then reject and file a copyright claim on the unlisted video.
If they file a copyright claim on the unlisted video proving you are the owner of the content, they have pretty much opened themselves up to being sued right there as that video is proof you made the content and clearly original. also the only way they could have got the URL would have been from your appeal to the main copyright claim.
Essentially a company has to be a real scumbag of a company to file a copyright claim your evidence of ownership and as such now they open themselves up to legal action (which its nice to remind them about.)
the use of the raw files means that companies can check the wave forms for your raw stuff and in theory notice the same ones in the video they are claiming copyright of content in.

I actually got this information form someone on youtube who actually does make a lot of his own music and used to have trouble with such claims on his own original pieces, for him at least he claimed he was having copyright claims dropped within the day of appealing that way.
urbanlamb wrote:

Also be careful of fair use. This is american law and fair use is not as broad in most other countries. Fair use also doesnt mean (even in the US) that you can use a popular music piece and make a video of it. So if your going to use fair use make sure what your countries version is. In Canada the laws are a lot more strict and fair use is limited to education and news reporting. Many people do abuse it and stretch its limits so be very careful on this one if you take that path be 100% sure what your doing is really fair use or you can loose your channel and get copyright strikes. 3 strikes means your channel is gone and often its hard to start a new one
edited by urbanlamb on 14/04/2013

Fair use does vary from country to country but the best way to look at it is you can use it if you're mocking / doing a parody (though oddly this isn't in Canadian law) or if you are doing a review of the piece. I know some reviewers do use other copyrighted content they aren't technically reviewing but to be safe unless its the thing you're reviewing under copyright, try to go elsewhere for it.

Also youtube has started allowing copyright strikes to be removed etc now. Starting a new channel isn't actually hard the only hard bit is getting adsense re-approval as you lose the adsense account along with the channel. Though again there are plenty of other routes you can take. blip Tv being a good one, Dailymotion too has started to offer ad based pay like youtube as well.

Again you'd have to specifically check for where you live but its often good as an opener to a dispute before having to delve too deep into copyright law
2013/4/14 17:21:46
Youtube and copyright issues On copyright.

Having dealt with this personally I can say the following.

Most companies are fairly good on the issue. Youtube is normally set up to auto detect certain things in videos so sometimes its best to just appeal and the company, if you're using the content as you're allowed under fair use, will let it go. I had one video pulled due to the use of a single line of audio from South Park. I appealed and actually had an apology message come through from someone at the South Park studios, which was very nice of them.

If a company does a full copyright claim on you, when you appeal point out to them how they're losing out essentially, if they wish to have adverts on your video then be prepared to accept that to have the content up if they feel they're not getting enough advertisement out of it and want cold hard cash.

Know what copyrighted material you have used and who is likely to hold the copyright, on youtube this is key a there are companies out there who prey on this. If you see a content claim, first check out the company, then if they are claiming ownership rights and they don't own it immediately dispute it stating the actual owners, and any information you have from a google search of the company.
If they are claiming copyright on the grounds of distribution rights, firstly contact the original content owners if possible (most companies have a commercial enquiries / sale email contact, it can take about a month to get a reply but this gives you firepower). Now you have the original owner saying this company is not allowed then file a dispute and state that if required you can present evidence from the original content owner that said company has no claim over it.

Having a company agree to help with a dispute in this was often works best if you point out it benefits them too and if you feel strongly enough tell said actual content owner that if they wish they can then claim to have adverts on some or all of the disputed work and you'll accept their claim. This gives them a reason to want to fight to help you as you get to keep your video up, sure maybe not making money but you know its at least going to the right person. Also by doing this companies often will allow your video to stay up globally.

If you become a full partner you can take claims higher and dispute them after a company has rejected them, through youtube.

If a company rejects your first dispute and you know you are in the right, contact them via email outside of youtube and state your case. If its got this far and a company is carrying on a false claim its useful to remind them the following.
Firstly the copyright rules that they must be or have the express permission of the content owner to claim this
Secondly the terms of the Digital Media Copyright Act detailing to the rights of the person using it. so fair use concepts along with pointing out that it is illegal for them to submit a false claim.
Thirdly remind them politely that by making a false DMCA if you challenge it and they lose that they are liable to you for a flat cost on top of your perceived loss of earnings.
finally point out how either they are losing free advertising by its use or creating negativity towards the company.

I've done this a a couple of times, once against Apple corporation who made a claim with two other companies all on a single song that was public domain. Its amazing how quickly even huge companies will back off if you display you know your rights.
If you have a video removed additional its a very good bargaining tool to put a video up detailing why the first was removed or is gone and showing clearly the companies claims, then stating how they are wrong and abusing DMCA. What this does is create negative press for the company so if they have made a false claim, you're showing them up and telling other people to be aware so you'll potentially also stop them from scamming off other people not just off you.

Music wise it's tough I have to say.

As it stands, sheet music can be public domain but the performance of it can be copyright so make sure the recording is out of copyright not simply the music.

Basically Disney have every right to copyright claim people using the Fantasia soundtrack as its their orchestral performance that's copyright. What you need to do is to find a recording of the music played that's out of copyright or was done by an orchestra that allow it for public domain use.
2013/4/14 15:39:05
To the community at large my 2p on the matter / ideas

While I know I came loving the idea of Muvizu being free to use for everything I can see the reality as you essentially need someone to pay at some point for it and you can't simply sell your services as a company making videos out well enough to maintain this idea especially when others using your program essentially become your own competition this way.

creates some tiers for people.

Muvizu basic - Normal Muvizu as is with the watermark removal options and those costs

Muvizu endorser - Muvizu as is now with the watermark removal options etc except commerical use is allowed. so you can make commercial videos but with the watermark still present
That way Muvizu is still getting credited, and getting essentially advertising from people using it and creating things however there's a clear commercial use allowance at a fairly fixed cost maybe possibly a slightly lighter watermark but that's all.

Muvizu Pro standard - No watermark on the standard definition output videos, one still on HD videos. Commercial use allowed with crediting muvizu in the credits

Muvizu pro HD - No watermarks, only obligation is to credit Muvizu in the credits

Muvizu super Pro - No need to credit Muvizu at all and no water marks at all

Those would be more fixed cost sales models.
For recurrent stuff it would be more when Muvizu is seen as "content complete" then rather than small updates larger version updates say once a year but the costs lower say about 1/2 the ones I suggested

As far as the sharing of ideas and creations. I want to see that remain free, sorry I know it sounds bad and the idea of charging for content packs and stuff sounds good with people getting cuts, but it harms everyone in the community in the end. I'm more than happy to create a character texture and have others use it free in return I get to do the same. This means as a community we all get the chance to use creations and improve our videos etc not simply those who can buy the packs.

What it would need for me to give £100 now to say I have a commercial licence ?
Nothing If it were available I'd buy that right now. I mean £100 for essentially commercial use on the present version, bargain. I seemingly regularly buy video editors and that's what £40-£80 a year to keep up to date, £40 if I'm willing to stay about one year behind the present version.

The Watermark removal price could do with looking at I would say as more realistically £1 for SD and £2 for HD would have more people happy to pay it, heck even 10p for SD and 50p for HD per minute would probably still have plenty of people paying. Yes its less per minute of footage but the volume would be greater.
Look at Go-animate, they were raking it in at one point and probably still are. With a lower cost more people are willing to go for it.
Also the lower cost per minute would be more beneficial to start ups wanting to try it.
£10-£15 a minute is a very steep rate and really could only be affordable by those who've made it already by which stage they may have gone off to other packages or be more open to the idea of a commercial use contract.
2013/4/14 14:54:14
Watermark: new terms of use From what I understand at present.

The cost is for removal of the watermark only.

You can still make videos with the watermark present and if you contact Muvizu and feel you're going to be making enough money to see payouts to you. You can sign a contract with them for a cut of your revenue rather than having to just pay for each minute of footage.

The difference is you're giving them some free publicity by having the watermark showing and they're taking a set % cut to help improve them.

Then if you do make it bigger, rather than having to negotiate the price down you can simply pay the commercial use on the video. Then you're not paying them 20%.

The problem I see at the moment is people aren't too interested in trying to enter a business agreement as such for the 20% with Muvizu, contract wise. That's seen as something for when people have made it you sign contracts as I'd be more than happy to send 20% of my revenue to Muvizu and back it up but the concern is what the contract will be like, will it be forever or one i have to re-sign each year. what will be the restrictions etc. I know I will probably still look into this aspect more though

Equally the cost for the watermark removal its already aimed at people who have made it.

Really there's no start up as such. the reality is not everyone can make videos just for the joy of it and people would like to maybe make a little off it but contracts are high end really and at present so is the render cost

To be honest at some point I've got to contact Muvizu and get a contract because there are some projects I've like to do, one of which was approved to go on Blip TV and is pretty much delayed because of me being apprehensive about the contract part with Muvizu.

I'd love to see a pro version released, I know there has recently been a competitor to muvizu released at about the £200 mark though I haven't been able to find it for a long time to check it out. I'd happily shell out £80 - £100 for Muvizu pro at present to not have to worry about licence stuff.

While I see the watermark removal as a nice idea I can see peoples issues with it as it's not been explained quite as well as I think it could have been. You're essentially paying for a temporary commercial use license not simply the removal of the watermark. That hasn't really been made quite clear enough I feel.

Really cost wise if Muvizu wants to draw more people in £1 per minute standard definition and £2 per minute HD is probably just about passable. This is considering to make that cost back on blip TV (From people I've talked to already monetising) you need about 1,000 total views per £1 with youtube offering fairly comparable revenue however youtube is more dependent on peopel who viewed the adverts while blip pays a more flat rate per views.
I mean for a 15 minute video £30 is more acceptable to people starting up, heck lower if further to 10-50p a minute and £1 for HD and you'll be using the Valve TF2 hats models as people will happily shell out a little bit if they think its worth it.

As for those on about the source film maker.
the present terms of use state you can monetise videos created using it however only if they are made using entirely original assets. So while you can use their base program to make money you have to make the content models to put in it using another programs most of which are about £70-£80 and normally require more experience to use.
2012/10/18 4:24:17
This Week in gaming. So yeh I decided to try to do a new series and do something a bit out there.
A sketch based satire show mainly focused on gaming

This is kind of the pilot episode with the main 3 sketch areas you can expect if I carry on.

The main stage - a simple studio style / high class stand up stage with cut away gags that go to the sketches themselves and other stuff.

Box News - the bumbling alarmist news show that pretty much doesn't get gaming and is forever seeing it as evil only to manage to screw up somehow.

The bar comedian - lowering the comedy bar with terrible jokes and a drummer.
edited by theKodu on 18/10/2012
2012/10/17 18:39:37
Spooky Halloween #1 challenge! A little bit of a classic styled screenshot for a video I'm working on

edited by theKodu on 17/10/2012
2012/5/8 22:08:19
Um what happened to the old backdrop items ? Jamie wrote:
theKodu wrote:
Unfortunately not the camera overlay option is still missing from the camera options menu.
though I've figured out a temporary work around so I can still use them

Could you send me a screen shot or something? I'm interested to see how it is for you. The only ways you can use camera overlays are -

1. Edit a camera and go to the overlays drop down and select image overlay
2. Go to prepare object properties, after turning the image overlay option on in step 1, then select the images you want to use and record them into the timeline.

What's your workaround?

allow me to just say........DOH !!.......... turns out the option is back and I've been doing my stupid thing of not being able to find it, thanks for this post.

The work around I was going to be using was having the camera image overlay as a background then a background behind that showing a second camera with the main camera looking through the overlay background and the video one so I can move the second camera without the overlay seemingly moving.
2012/5/7 21:34:21
Possible issue with the new AMD Mobility driver. Yeh I would have rolled back but then I found out my system checkpoint system has been turned off since its last system restore lol
2012/5/7 21:33:24
Um what happened to the old backdrop items ? Unfortunately not the camera overlay option is still missing from the camera options menu.
though I've figured out a temporary work around so I can still use them
2012/5/4 21:29:40
Possible issue with the new AMD Mobility driver. so a new weird problem I seem to have hit against with muvizu
here's the system info stats on 1.9 B
System information:

OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.120305-1505)
DirectX: v9.0c

CPU: AMD Turion(tm) II Ultra Dual-Core Mobile M660

Physical memory: 3.9963 GB (379.7656 MB used)
Virtual memory: 1.9999 GB (842.2852 MB used)
Largest free block: 783.3750 MB
Page file: 7.9908 GB
Display device #1: \\.\DISPLAY4
Description: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4500/5100 Series
Manufacturer: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Chip: ATI display adapter (0x9553)
Memory: 2295 MB
Mode: 1366 x 768 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Driver: 8.17.0010.1124

Drive #1: C:
Model: ST9500420AS ATA Device
Capacity: 485214908416
Free: 15413972992

Drive #2: D:
Model: ST9500420AS ATA Device
Capacity: 14574153728
Free: 2408660992

Drive #3: E:
Model: ST9500420AS ATA Device
Capacity: 103833600
Free: 101142528

Drive #4: F:
Model: hp CDDVDW TS-L633N ATA Device

Version: MZASS-v0.19b - build: 2012.01.10.01R (32-bit)

No. objects: 16
No. lights: 0
No. cameras: 1
No. effects: 0
No. characters: 3
Undo: 5 undo, 0 redo

Object resources: 78559 objects
Textures: 48.0628 MB
Animation: 586.8281 KB
Other: 17.1128 MB
Total: 65.7456 MB

Scene file: C:\Users\user\Videos\Full Reviews\main set.set
History: MZASS-v0.13b - build: 2010.11.08.01
History: MZASS-Developer Version - build: Mar 29 2011 (32-bit)
History: MZASS-Developer Version - build: Apr 11 2011 (32-bit)
History: MZASS-v0.18b - build: 2011.09.20.01R (64-bit)
History: MZASS-v0.19b - build: 2012.01.10.01R (64-bit)
History: MZASS-v0.19b - build: 2012.01.10.01R (32-bit)

Running for: 1 minute, 21 seconds

here's the new error that's occurring with the panelled doors (all varieties using panels).

Also the same issue effects the dresser but in a very minor way and also in a minor way the arcade machine too.

the AMD Mobility driver update is an automated install from AMD so its in its full default state.
dunno what the issue is (other than me not really playing on a gaming machine lol)

thanks in advance for looking over this.

Update: having done a bit of research on this it appears to be a common issue with a lot of programs, the issue is with the most recent AMD driver update for the AMD Radeon HD series including 4xxx, 5xxx and 6xxx. The issue has existed with the game rage which required the graphics settings to be edited in a certain way, word is there will be a fixed in the next driver update for AMD or by the changing of the .bin textures files or something.

Update 2: For those super eager like me to have this fixed AMD 11.10 driver preview found here fixes this texture issue, at least it did for me, however be warned its a preview one so you might break other stuff.
edited by theKodu on 04/05/2012
edited by theKodu on 05/05/2012
2012/5/4 20:54:48
Um what happened to the old backdrop items ? WozToons wrote:
It's a bug with 0.19b. They are all still there but do not display in the menu. The easiest way is to search with just one letter. This applies to some blob textures as well.

Basically, anything you can't find, search for using one or two letters, B for bricks, C for city, etc..

Hope this helps. Have a good Sunday.

thanks for this info I thought I had really messed up.
if possible could you help with two other issues I've managed to run into ?

Firstly I can seem to use the camera overlays now (I'm guessing this might be a case of the same this as sets)
Also a second issue I recently upgraded my AMD graphics driver to the latest version and I don't know if its that but the panelled doors are messing up, normal doors are fine by any of the doors with panelling effect its like the UV map isn't being put over the object correctly so there's random patches of transparency and just like black marks etc, it only seems to be happening with the pannel doors though prior to a reinstall I did have the same problem with the arcade machine (to a lesser degree ) and one of the sets of draws.
2012/4/29 4:35:59
Um what happened to the old backdrop items ? hopefully this is just me having clicked the wrong button somewhere but today I noticed a slight issue in that I couldn't pick from the previously available list of built in backdrops such ans jungle alien planet etc. the classroom menu is still there and grounds and skies but not the backdrops themselves or any menus for them. I know the backdrops are still part of the program somewhere as if I spawn in a backdrop one of the previously available ones such as alien landscape is created but the option to switch to the other non imported background isn't there for some reason.
I've already tried downloading and reinstalling the latest version of Muvizu over the top so to speak but its not fixed the issue.
Hopefully someone can tell me what I've done wrong somewhere now lol
2011/8/15 3:22:39
A new music video from me

So firstly its not on my profile as I had a big issue uploading here also the title is oddly too long for here.

If people want I can upload the basic set (theres 3 different sets, 1 being the basic stage, 1 the effects stage and the last one the modified set which is pretty much full of junk and missing parts etc which I actually film in but finding stuff is a pain)

Any one with any questions feel free to ask etc as hopefully I've done a couple of things people might pick up on that are a bit out of the ordinary here.
2011/2/27 15:59:30
Help well the best suggestion I can give is:
Right click on your desktop and select the graphics card option there, once on the graphics card find the part where it says search for updates.

But most likely your computer isn't capable of running Muvizu so you need to either upgrade the graphics card (for a tower unit) or possibly buy a plug in one of a whole new laptop if you're working on a laptop.
2011/2/27 0:16:34
Mitch Benn Music Videos I've gone a bit more mad since so heres another load

edited by theKodu on 27/02/2011
2011/2/5 20:07:35
Import Muvizu AVI to Pinnacle Studio you won't believe this but I have an answer for you.
As a fellow user of the unstable abomination that is Pinnacle 14 I had this same problem. the answer and don't ask me why or how is to get a program called any video converter (its freeware) then convert the files using that to another filetype now I don't know how or why but converting the files allows studio 14 HD to use the newly converted file with all the audio etc in tact.

And no I have no idea why this works or why Pinnacle 14 is probably the only program every unable to view files made in muvizu.
pages: 1 2