Leaderboard

Weird. Not a single word about Clarkson's behaviour or responsibility ? It's everyone else's fault according to you ? Never mind him being drunk while at work and hitting a superior, right ? I only see 1 person doing any moral posturing here. Defending alcohol abuse in the workplace and physical violence. And if you're going to get upset with every person disagreeing with you, maybe you simply shouldn't allow comments. That'll save you the trouble of responding. I don't have a problem with your opinion. But calling this a threat to democracy and free speech is ludicrous. A soccer player getting sacked can still find another team to play for. A recording artist dropped by their label, can still sign somewhere else. If he's really that special and unique he'll find another sponsor and you'll continue to enjoy him. You've now posted 3 times about the same thing. And plenty of people have disagreed. Are you going to keep posting until we all agree ? Or all leave ?

Are you serious? A GH3 + Speedbooster + Sigma 18-35 f1.8 (f1.2 with SB) is not bad in low light at all. Sure, there might be better low light camera's, but this isn't bad at all. Also, I need the 50p 1080p for slow mo and I simply like the current look I'm getting. At the time I invested in these camera's, C100's couldn't even do 50p/60p at 1080... Many people don't take these Panasonic 'toys' seriously but I guess that's actually a good thing. By the way I forgot to mention that I need this wide angle mainly for the 2nd camera, in this case the G6, to record a wide view of the ceremony. ​

If you like Top Gear, you should be angry at Clarkson for messing it up, not the BBC. What's happened is completely on him. The fact that Clarkson is despised by the left is irrelevant, the "PC police" can't be blamed for him punching the producer, and he should be held accountable for it like anyone else would be. The same standards have to be applied universally. That means minor crew and it means talent such as Clarkson, David O. Russell, Christian Bale or anyone else. The fact that some talent have gotten away with vaguely similar things is no argument for allowing Clarkson to as well. And why do people keep saying that punching someone isn't against the law? It is!

... here's the latest video I DP'd, which makes use of plenty of slow-motion and other film 'cliches.' I love every minute of it. We filmed it last fall, but the music wasn't mixed/mastered until very recently. Shot on FS-700. Canon lenses. ProRes through Ninja Blade, internal for Slo-mo (I hadn't yet discovered the magic of the 7Q). Some variation of a flat profile, but not quite S-log.

Arri was in the same mess - they made film cameras and lenses. And now look at them - they adapted and I think are thriving. Kodak had the first digital camera patent - if they knew what they were doing, they would have be at the forefront of the digital photography movement. It was their game to lose and they lost big. So did Sony and Panasonic and Microsoft. Microsoft was number one for so long, Apple was about to go out of business. Then the iphone revolution happened. And now look at Apple. It's sad to watch film die, but it was inevitable. Whatever is cheapest and most convenient always wins. And shooting film for stills - you just don't get that much of an advantage for the cost - film is clearly better, but how much is it worth it?

This is very appealing. Ultra thin and light. LUT support. Scopes. No word on pricing yet. https://www.smallhd.com/lp/502/?utm_source=Netsuite&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=502 announcement

Just wanted to say stab, that the video you posted was gorgeous! I could never be brave enough to do any wedding video and on the basis of what you just showed, if I were in the Netherlands when I got married, you would be top of my list!

​ Thanks JFR. First, would you mind editing your post and deleting the link that I've posted and you quoted? I just wanted to show it to you, not have it here online forever. Thank you very much. If people are interested in my work, they could visit my website http://www.cinematicwedding.nl . The video you posted is indeed 'the next level'. Great looking footage, editing, grading, etc. But that is nowhere near 'run & gun' like we wedding filmers do. These shots are prepared and prepared well. They used lights, production design, etc. I'm sure most shots are done in multiple takes. This is more like a short film. Although I get your point, this isn't really a fair comparison. When I bought my GH3 2 years ago, there wasn't an alternative that could shoot 1080p at 50 or 60 fps. There is now. Of course I will be upgrading along the way, but the camera is not my limiting factor at the moment. Neither in my creativity, nor in what my clients think of my films. Quite the opposite, they are often amazed by the 'clear image' and slowmo. Unfortunately, my business is not high enough ranked in Google yet to make enough money to constantly upgrade all my gear. As you understand, the camera is only one of the tools one needs to buy to make good films. And as much as I agree there are better camera's out there in terms of DR, colors and low light, the GH3 and GH4 are more than great alternatives. You are right that ISO 1600 is the maximum ISO one can use. We never go over it. But with a Speed Boosted f1.8 lens I've only once encountered a venue where it was slightly too dark and that was in the film that I posted here. Anyway, will check out more work of Delivery Men. Cheers.

I really can't believe all the faeces being slung in this thread, can we be clear on one point here, what Andrew is talking about is not "one rule for one, and one rule for another", that is very clearly not correct. (Unless, you are working on a cure for cancer according to horshack, then it is one rule for you, apparently, because that's how moral crusaders roll). Neither was he saying that assault or abuse is on any way ok. I mean he literally, directly stated that. I believe he is saying the following, and I agree with all points: 1) The BBC were wrong to drag this into a public forum before they began their investigation. 2) People make mistakes, we are all human and everyone is different and thus will make different mistakes. 3) When people make mistakes, deal with it appropriately. How can I justify supporting these statements in the context of work place assault? 1) Come on. There was a clear ulterior motive to the BBC going public with this in the way they did and with the wording they used. They deliberately presented a very one sided point of view at a time when they had not even started investigating. The investigation was clearly a scam, a con, a public display of fairness when in reality the die was set from the moment they decided to go public. 2 & 3) Clarkson made a mistake. It is clear that he felt remorse because he reported it himself. Personally I don't believe in punitive punishment, this idea that you've broken the law therefore you will be punished to discourage you from breaking the law is a failure. At times in history when the punishments were harsh and severe, including death for even petty crimes, people still committed crime. Punitive action does not work, fact. Rehabilitation works. I do not believe Clarkson should be punished, he should be rehabilitated. Plenty on "lawyers" on here have been talking about the law in absolute terms in this thread, well how about this little nugget of British legislation: The employer has a duty of care towards their employees. Clarkson and Oisin were both employees, and the BBC have absolutely failed in their duty of care towards them both. They failed to help Clarkson with his problems, which they had a duty to do, and in failing to do so, they failed Oisin by putting him in direct contact with a man who had the problems and placed them both under stress by working them hard all day. What did they expect to happen? They could have stepped in at any moment, got Clarkson the help he quite clearly needs and never have had this happen. When a human being is suffering the problems that Clarkson is, the cowardly thing to do is to turn your back on them, get rid of them, cast them out of your group. The brave thing to do is to help them, to accept that "there but for the grace of God go I". In this case, Clarkson is even making the BBC so much money that paying for the help he needs would be a drop in the ocean - but that is a particularly cynical view, that a group of humans should only help another human if they are worth it. All of you people who are saying that it was correct to sack him are talking with a particularly nasty corporate mindset. A corporation is a human construct, one designed to gather and horde money. It is the ultimate expression of capitalism. Any human being who turns their back on another human in need of help to protect this capitalist machine is in my eyes, scum. They are stating loud and clearly "This machine created and designed to gather money is more important to me than the health and well being of any person, even one who has given their talent to help that machine gather money." Any person who has said, it doesn't matter, the BBC has plenty of talent who can do the job are saying "People are replaceable, we don't need to look after them properly. When we break one, we will put another in their place". And you're doing this under the banner of being a caring human being, you care about Oisin, so this monster who bashed him must be cast out. But you are brainwashed by the corporate culture we live in. Dystopia is here already, money, and the ability to gather it chooses our politicians and our laws which it happily ignores, it dictates what you eat, drink and how you will be treated if you are ill. Every single part of our lives is dictated to by faceless entities, using friendly names, reaching into your wallet to take your money from you. I once attended a conference on how to price your product - attended by someone I was making a documentary on. In the audience was a man who represented a baby food company. I watched as he cheered and hollered to the devious ways the presenter was showing them to raise the price of your product and I thought of my sister who had to choose at the time whether to buy food for her baby or for herself. I thought of this man cheering and hollering as he took so much money from my sister that she couldn't eat properly. That is capitalism. That is what you defend when you tell me that the BBC was correct to fire Clarkson. So what should have happened? Simple, Clarkson should have been cared for by the BBC. They have a legal duty of care towards him. He is a human being and you are arrogant if you assume that you could never behave like that, all that means is that you have never been put under the kind of stress that would make you behave that way. You know that fame is not pleasant or enjoyable right? Today, I sat behind a camera as two people in front of it agreed that they hated the red carpet experience. This was not an isolated view, I am yet to meet any person for whom fame has been a positive to their mental health. Yes Clarkson makes a lot of money, but all the money in the world does not matter if you are under so much strain and pressure that you have serious problems. Time is the only currency with any meaning, as we have a limited amount of it. I don't care how many nice cars he buys, he has lost time to this stress and pressure that he will never get back. The BBC have chewed him up and spat him out when they felt they didn't want the bad publicity anymore. And what suffers? As has been rightly pointed out, not Top Gear, they will slot in a new cog, and start grinding them down with ridiculous hours and stress. Not the BBC, he's gone. Done and dusted. Not their responsibility any more. Not even Clarkson, this may actually be very good for him. It is the art of what we do and create that suffers. Like it or hate it, Clarksons Top Gear was. And art existing is important, even if you don't like it, even if you refuse to accept that it is art. Diversity in art is what makes it so important. I can't stand Tracy Emin, but if she stopped shitting in tents, the art I do like would be poorer because of her demise. For art, TV, cinema, literature, music et al to be healthy, it needs diversity. Without diversity and with corporate interference, you end up with bland, homogenized art/TV/cinema/literature/music made for the widest audience, in the safest way without risk. And this won't affect us, we grew up in a world where Clarkson entered out lives, gave us an opinion on the man, whatever that opinion was, it helped shape us. The problem will be in 10 years time when the kids today grow up in a world with one less Clarkson, one less strong figure to be opinionated over, one more element of bland BBC security in the world. Today was a bad day for the industry. As for Oisin, he is the product of a millennia of genetic refinement, his ancestors have survived fire and ice, starvation and poor nutrition to pass his genes on. They hunted, gathered, became warriors to fight for their freedom. He'll get over a little split lip. He'll be absolutely fine. And since when did we stop being annoyed at people who clog up hospitals with cuts and scrapes that can't be healed any quicker by having a doctor or nurse look at it?

Andrew- as a successful blog owner you have the option to help or to hurt the world with your voice. Clarkson is an alcoholic, an addict. His behavior is irrational and he can't be reasoned with while he's drunk. Even sober, addicts tend to not behave rationally. This doesn't mean they should be isolated, in fact the best way to help a person suffering from addiction is to immerse them in compassionate fellowship. Do you know any addicts? Have you seen any turn their life around, and help others to heal? If not, perhaps attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting (or similar) to witness addicts helping each other heal through fellowship (addicts are always addicts and never 'cured'; always mindful to avoid falling into old patterns). Since moving to LA in 2006 I was surprised how pervasive drug, alcohol, and sex addiction is in the entertainment industry. People doing drugs and drinking on set isn't healthy and is unfortunately very common here (not allowed on my sets- what one does on their own time is their own business). Instead of turning a blind eye to addicts on productions, we should provide daily reminders that there is free fellowship available to help people deal with life (such as AA). Even better, entertainment companies should provide in-house help to encourage people to live healthy, drug-free lives through fellowship. The BBC did the right thing in letting Clarkson go. Clarkson needs change in his life to give him a chance to deal with his addictions, ideally through positive connections to other people through fellowship. Discussion addiction on a filmmaking blog is totally appropriate. If the film industry can help heal its players, then it can help create messages and positive influence to help millions of people suffering in our world.

I ordered the 12mm it should be here within a hour or so. I went with it over the 10 when a guy pointed out that with the 10mm the glass on the front sticks out like a dome and you can not add on a filter to that lens with the dome like that so that killed it for me i need to use a ND filter outside in bright light so i ordered the Cine 12mm version.

I hate Top Gear precisely because of Clarkson he's such an entitled twat and I'm a complete Car Nut and watch almost every Car Race on the Planet! I'm glad he's gone, the English don't see it because they're raised in that classism bullshit, but here in Australia and NZ ppl like him would get his face pushed in every other night!! my 2c!

For what its worth. I am also Incredibly dissapointed to read Andrew Reids continued defence of bullying and assault in the workplace.

I like it.

That's how it should be, so you did it ok, sometimes you need to adjust the anamorphic lens just a tiny bit before infinity, but if you've obtained good results you don't need to adjust anything else. Enjoy!!!! If you have more question join the FM lounge on Facebook here https://www.facebook.com/groups/514311352043955/

Anyone have an easier/faster way in calibrating the fm lens? The instructions were a tad confusing, but I just got mine. So far, I set both the anamorphic and taking lens to infinity, and the fm lens rack focuses perfectly as it should. So I'm wondering if you guys are doing the same or different?

​Unwinding with discussions does make me feel better, thanks for asking.​ You're the one being defensive, bro. All I said was I disagree with you.​ Consensually, yes. I'm sure you understand this nuance. I do like a good sport.​ ​Well now we're speculating. Who's to say the witnesses or crew may not have pushed it further? Yes the BBC are covering their ass here, and it was always lose-lose. ​... calm down, it's only a Motoring show haha. ​Maybe he could have done more to save Jeremy Clarkson's job? Maybe he didn't want to do anything at all? How does one trust any one after being threatened of their job and getting a beat down? His statement seemed professional and respectful enough to the BBC's decision. Hopefully he'll get to keep his job on the new Top Gear or wherever at the BBC. ​Would be better for all involved if he was just fined a lot [if the Producer was 100% on board and crew protected] and I can agree with that if it was near the beginning of his contract. But this happened at the point of his renewal and I guess the BBC must have faith that there's upcoming replacements available for the show. Also LOL: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/25/man-loses-job-after-punching-colleague-in-face_n_6940474.html?1427303245

​One incident that we know about. I have a feeling that the "star complex" doesn't just appear one day, it's a process that worsens every passing day. If the altercation had been in private or on set, I would consider conceivable handling it in private, with a simple apology and reprimand. But it took place in public, so a cover up was not possible. What's really perverse about it and sets it apart from Bale's and O. Russell's incidents is that it was not a fight between equals. O. Russell is a major producer and Clooney a star actor. Bale is a star actor and Hurlbut a reknown DP. Clarkson is a TV star and the producer is, well "a nobody" really. What was he supposed to do? fight back? That would've ended his career instantly. I wonder if Clarkson would have thrown the punch against Tony Hall or anyone else with the power to fire him on the spot. His behaviour is not abou being creative or being a star. It's about someone with power treating those under his command like his "bitches", making them wait (and work) two extra hours after a long day so that he can have his beers, insulting them so that he can have his steak, etc. Clarkson is not going out for his controversial on-screen persona, but because his attitude towards coworkers is unacceptable. And yes, stars should be (and usually are) submitted to the same workplace rules. Robert Downey Jr. has been fired many times for his addictions and many other bigger stars have been kicked out of a big budget shooting for being abusive and/or showing no respect. That is called unprofessionalism. And Maxotics is right, anyone who's ever been working in shootings with a realtively large crew (20+) knows that one rotten apple -especially the big one- is a cancer on set, a disruptive force that does a lot of harm.

​thanks for removing all doubts. EOS HD is run by a man obsessed and dismayed by a changing worldview, who series rising social status as a zero-sum game thus seeking out others to blame for his own loss of stature, who is afraid of the other, who wishes for a time when "men could be men" and conveniently omits that those times were marked by severe inequality and social acceptance of "casual" racism/classism/sexism/whatever. so you're a lad, in other words. go for a nice long drive in your Audi and shout "cunt" at pedestrians. then come back when you're ready to talk about cameras and film technique.

The future is here.

Can't speak for the zoom. The DR60D can be odd with AA rechargeable batteries - I think if you have one that's starting to get weak, the 60D detects it and starts throwing warnings. Seems picky about rechargeables. But with a USB battery (the kind to make your phone run longer, by Anker, etc, $20-$30 - it'll run about 24 hours. So that's all I use now). The 60D has phantom power and will "handle" any professional mic signal. I feel the meters are too conservative - you would want to do some tests, record some test audio and look at the waveforms in an editor - it doesn't have tons of gain to spare but is fine for anyone that knows gain staging and mic placement. I find the limiter and low-cut to be very well done and I just leave 'em on now. I shot an Emmylou Harris solo show and used it for the board feed, I turned off the limiter and low-cut for that. Final mix really came out nice.

This thread doesn't address one of the greatest issues of choice vs. creativity - which is partnership vs. control. For the last year or so, I work work work with macs and digital... but my creative work, my play? Film, 60's era metal cameras, an enlarger and lith developer. Every step of that process means working within the confines of the medium. Particularly lith printing, which is very hard to replicate across 2 prints, and is packed with "ghost-in-the-machine" oddities based on chemistry and temperature and the fact that every print you make changes the chemical composition of the developer. You simply can't "control" any step of the process with any sort of totality, from exposure to final print, like you can with a digital camera and Photoshop. But once you decide you are a "partner" with the media, the game changes. Why do we make partnerships? Usually to add unique strengths which we don't possess or aren't remarkable at, to our creative, business, romantic, or fun pursuits. When you allow chance and surprise into the process, its like being handed a very active and very able muse. I shot about 200 frames, digital, of a nude for a friend who wanted to get a sense of "how she looked" in that scenario. I shot 3 or 4 frames with an old Minolta rangefinder, and one of those just had lots of the mojo I want from a shot. Printing it was work - to get those tools to sculpt the print into what I wanted, while making room for the oddities of the process and making them work together. It's probably my favorite bit of creative output this year. And those things inform my "controlled" work as well.

Thanks Amigos. I'm going to try some of these tricks around town this week and see what I come up with. I'd love to put the Canon out of mind.

My NX500 to be my second to my NX1 will be here tomorrow will have to get out and test it on a sleeping turtle and a shot of my parked car. I only wish it had a good slomo so i could capture some tree leaves blowing to.

​The problem with vimeo and youtube is that there're way too many "test". And the "real" stuff is buried under the tons of visual garbage. People don't use their gear to create but to "test"...unfortunately.

I recently had to give my laptop in for repair. It's going to take about two to three weeks. I had been working on a feature film screenplay at the time, and had started on a second draft, but the work was proceeding very slowly. Browsing the web and watching stuff was what was taking up the majority of my free time. I don't have cable in my house, do not have a smartphone, and my computer was also my DVD player. Without it, I have essentially been sent back to the 1950s. So I order to stay productive, I decided to continue working on my script....longhand. And writing it out on paper without the benefit of instant rewrites or having the first draft in front of me has really boosted my productivity. I write more pages per day, and think about things very carefully before putting them down on paper. Because if I want to rewrite something, I have to remove the page, and rewrite all of the stuff on it. I have a growing stack of rejected pages in the folder of my binder. Then, after I finish writing, I go to the gym (something else I was loath to do with a Netflix Instant account constantly in front of me), then I retire with one of the many books I have on my shelf that I was meaning to read but never bothered to before I lost my computer. It's a true creative's life. That said, I will hug and kiss my laptop when I get it back from repair. This little vacation from the world of electronic devices was fun, but eight hours of web-surfing is one of the few things that makes me forget about my stresses. It's like a bottle of liquor or a joint. It helps you escape reality. I just hope that I maintain at least part of the discipline I have developed.

To be fair, I haven't tried their pasta sauce.

Don't just totally steal someone else's video though right? Be original SOMEHOW. I wouldn't be upset at a film that has tons going for it and then uses some slomo. These are all obviously tools, but people seriously use it as the only tool. If you upload something that's more than just a test video with the intention of "hehe, now people will know how talented.. my camera is," maybe you did something wrong