tpr

Most of the people in the comments disagree with you, so why on Earth would you assume that everyone else who read the post without commenting agrees with you? I don't think you can rely on your site statistics being an indication of how many unique visitors you have either. There are probably quite a few of us checking in regularly on the progress of this discussion. I don't think anyone here is arguing that Clarkson positively endorses it. People have various ways of rationalizing their own behavior or excusing their own mistakes as exceptions, but if he's going to do things like this, there should be consequences. The actions of any individual are invariably explainable if you look closely enough at the circumstances of their lives, and you can have all the sympathy you like for someone who is going through personal issues, but it just isn't sensible to allow someone in a poor state of mind to hold a position of responsibility. When people say things like "I don't mean to be rude, but...", they generally follow it up with something rude. When they say "I'm not racist, but...", they generally follow it up with something racist. It's a familiar way of anticipating an objection and maintaining some deniability, so when you preface your comments by saying you consider what Clarkson did wrong, but go on to argue that he still shouldn't be sacked, you can maybe understand why some of us take that to be a less-than-convincing denunciation. I don't think anyone here is arguing that you positively endorse his actions (that word again), but you are clearly downplaying their significance. Your explicit attempts to justify applying a double standard to talent vs non-talent are also deeply troubling to me.

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!

​I couldn't agree more with this statement. As for Andrew's comments about how important Top Gear is to the BBC, the only relevant question is whether the allegations against Clarkson are true or not. The profitability of Top Gear is completely irrelevant unless you believe moral exceptions should be made when profits are at stake. Imagine someone making the same argument about Saville. It would be an absolute disgraceful position to take. The allegations against Clarkson aren't anything like as serious, but the argument about moral consistency still applies.

As jcs notes, both images are now 8-bit jpegs, so this talk of 8-bit versus 10-bit isn't entirely convincing. Second, you'll notice that the blue color patches 6 and 8 appear more similar in the B image than in the A image, unlike the reds in 31 and 37 which, as you pointed out earlier, are more similar in A than B. It makes sense that the reds will be less distinct and the blues more distinct in an image biased towards a warmer white balance.

Those colors may appear closer together in A because of the warmer white balance. I don't think distinctness of colors is a good way to identify a raw image. Think of a raw image in its flat unprocessed form. There is a lot more information there, but before processing, all the colors look very neutral and similar. The colors appear more distinct when tonal contrast is increased and we can't in principle know whether the contrast in a set of images was introduced via in-camera jpeg/video processing, color grading or processing on a raw image, so it's a bit hard to tell which was responsible. I would still put my money on A being the video and B being the raw, and for essentially the same reasons that other people are using to justify the opposite conclusion: B has less sharpening, B has uncorrected chromatic operation, B has less contrast. An unprocessed raw file would have all of those attributes, so my guess is that Andrew has been less heavy handed with his raw processing than whatever workflow produced the video still.

Live stream discussion about the Samsung NX1 from Photokina:

"Non-EOS 4K - Directed by Mirrorless Filmmakers"?

A fairly obvious question missing from both lists is if they have any 4K capable cameras in the works that will be priced within the reach of non-professionals. In the same vein, you could ask whether we should expect to see other video-oriented features like higher frame rates, zebras, peaking, image stabilization, quiet operation, aperture control on Nikons, and so on, which could lead to an interesting discussion of why projects like Magic Lantern exist and the competing demands of stills and video on a hybrid camera. I'd also be interested in whether they are planning to enter the higher-end the mirrorless market. In general, I'm much more interested in finding out what to expect in the future than badgering them about the lack of emphasis they've placed on video in the past, and I agree with what others have said about the tone of many of these questions. I think you could ask the same questions in a much more positive way. They can be just as difficult, but I think it's better to ask them in a way that makes it sound like you genuinely want to know the answers rather than simply telling them off.

It's hard to tell what it would look like without youtube's compression, but there are some issues: 1. Moire at 54s. 2. Rolling shutter at 8m18s. 3. It's basically your fault if you don't succeed even if the economic system is rigged to direct more wealth to the wealthiest at 2m39s.

According to the press release, they've added zebras! Woohoo!

Anyone know when the official release will be?

This mechanism on metal legs looks like something out of The War of the Worlds.

You don't need an ftp client to access the Arri Alexa files. Just use your browser: ftp://ftp-footage.arri.de/ and plug in the user name and password.

There are some panning shots in this AX100 clip from around the 7:40 mark, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere near as much rolling shutter as in the other video:

I'm sure a few people will be put off the base unit when they realise it needs to be powered from an external source.