SleepyWill

Hey guys - just a few things: To clarify, I am not affiliated with any company or product mentioned (as should be painfully obvious), but I also recently got my second strike (and the worst part is, my first strike was because I used incompetech music, and Kevin McCloud himself emailed Vimeo to explain that I had fully complied with the terms of using his music, and that the claim had not come from him, the sole owner and writer of his music - but they left the strike on my account, because f me apparently) But to get my video's off, I have been using an automatic video downloader, called "4kvideo downloader", it costs a small amount, is free from any malware that my antivirus (bitdefender) can find, and though it looks sketchy as anything, is in fact working for me. I can leave it overnight and it will plough through my entire account, maximising my efficiency at downloading them. I've also been hearing a lot about floatplane as a youtube/vimeo alternative, and was wondering if anyone had any experience with them - I think they are new, but right now it seems to be pay to access, which obviously would be a problem. I tried steemit, and it just screams "scam" to me - and I can tell you now, the "money earned" under every video is grossly inaccurate, 100 times out and I cannot for the life of me find a way to work out how it is generated.

Art in which the supposed audience are not supposed to get it, generally work because the people who believe they are the audience are not. Some artists are their own intended audience, taking amusement at the bewilderment, or for others to take amusement at the same thing. When you make a work intended for (insert group here) and that group of people see it and say it's rubbish, then it's rubbish. Art is a lot of things but one thing it can never be is audienceless. Art by definition is supposed to be seen or otherwise experienced. Sadly artists are just normal people and come with the full range of weasel like behaviour that we can all exhibit when our feelings are hurt, and that includes lying about the intention of art if it fails the honest intention. As for "commercial art", everyone's got to make a living, and if you can monetise the thing you love, why shouldn't you, why should you get sneered at for making the decision about your life that made you happy? Who are you to say that if I make something and someone is prepared to pay to experience it, that it's worth less than something made that no-one is prepared to pay to experience? Or that if I choose to take that money, suddenly my art is less worthy.

"so many people can’t interpret the correct target of a film or even a joke, because they are too thick." A joke, or a film that has to explain itself to the audience is a failure. If the audience don't get it, then you as an artist have failed, you've either marketed it in such a way that the wrong people are going to see it, or you're not a very good artist. Now if you're trying to show something to an audience that they wouldn't usually see, and are trying to show them why your work is good, then you both need to expect the discussion about it, along with the criticism and for only the very pinicle of your genre to have any chance of success. If you are not at the pinnacle, you're likely to fail. " I remember reading just recently about a top scientist who was in a large elevator with a lot of members from the audience of a conference, and he joked he wanted someone to press the button for him to get out at the women’s lingerie department. The target for this joke was of course himself, a decaying old man finding humour in a desperate fictionalised version of himself, seeking sexual satisfaction by exploring the women’s lingerie department, " With you completely... "but he ended up losing his job because people in the elevator took offence" He didn't lose his job. He didn't lose anything. If he does, it won't be about the joke, it was about how he responded to the complaint. See below. "saw the target as their gender, thought it misogynistic and wanted him fired. And the community in which he worked was so politically correct that they actually went ahead and did so. A life’s work ruined in a blink of an eye, a career smashed in the time it takes to make a wise crack in a lift. Actually, the complaint about the joke was, quite rightly about to be dismissed. The big problem wasn't the joke, it was that he tried to intimidate the person who complained. Ex Partie communication is a very bad thing and should never be defended. "but trivially empty family friendly content has kick started a mental health epidemic" No it hasn't "In the lead up to this year’s Cannes, Kate Muir of the Guardian newspaper in the UK lambasted Von Trier’s presence in the festival purely for being male" It's interesting you think she lambasted him, given that all she did was print his own words, in context. What she was saying was, when there are all these great female directors, why is space being given to this guy. Here's things he has said. She was lambasting Cannes, yes, but him, no - his own words were enough - she even printed his follow up's to complaints about his words. "At the screening of the new film, over 100 critics walked out mid-way through, probably because .." Probably? Hmmm..... anyone can make up stories about why someone did domething that supports their narrative, look: You probably wrote this article because you have been kidnapped by aliens. "The Ghostbusters remake and Black Panther were both terrible films " Black Panther was terrible? Really? Most people disagree with you. "and were practically immune to criticism" Not being criticised doesn't mean they were immune to criticism. For starters Ghostbusters was heavily criticised. I've only seen one even slightly positive bit of press about it that they didn't pay for and it was as faint praise as you can get, basically saying that it's for kids, and this is what kids find funny (They don't, as you can see by kid's criticisms of the film). Black Panther meanwhile was not heavily criticised because most people thought it was OK. "This privileged puritan mindset implies that women and black people are so downtrodden, they need some lightweight popcorn hit to empower them into doing something with their lives. " Hmmm... No. This "privileged" "puritan" mindset implies that not all successful movies need to be made for straight white guys in their early teens through late 40's. "it demonstrates to us that Von Trier and artists like him are right not to care, because logically the audience have no right to be offended." You there, stop feeling the things your feeling and saying the things you are saying! You don't have the right too feel those things and say those things. Von Trier would wholeheartedly disagree with this statement of yours: “Rebelling is part of my family. If you come to a family gathering, the family says something, you have to say something else. Then my family met my wife’s family, who said yes to everything, but my family often said no. If I see a form or a concept, I’d naturally challenge it, to see if there’s any possibility to gain more from it.” If everyone loved his film, if no-one was offended, if no-one criticised it, then he's failed, in his own eyes. "It is the filmmaker who is offering something to the audience." In exchange for money. Never forget that bit, you can rightly rail against criticism if you are offering it with no expectation of recompense, but as soon as you earn a living from your trade, expect to be compared against others doing the same, and criticised for where you fall short. "To feel personally insulted afterwards tells me that these critics are grandstanding a superior moral position over a work of FICTION, whereas the job of Von Trier the director is to create art, not a piece of ethical code for society." Logically then, you are grandstanding a superior moral position over a film writeup, whereas the job of a critic is to guide consumers to work they may enjoy, not a piece of ethical code for society. "In the puritan society" Let's talk about this. Can you really call a society puritan when bikinis are acceptable wear, when pornhub exists, when comedians routinely get naked on stage. Society isn't puritan, especially when you understand puritans dislike violence too, but society doesn't want to see tits in nearly every film (It would be nice if violence was in nearly every film too), not because they don't like seeing tits, but because it's so fucking boring seeing the same story points over and over and over again. If every schlocky horror film had gratuitous closeups of amputees limb endings, it would be that which society would be bored of. " really, it amounts to cultural censorship" Spoken like someone who has never experienced the horrors of actual censorship. No-one is putting him in prison for his movie, they are just not going to give him as much money as you would like for it. That's not censorship, cultural or otherwise. "If the industrial pioneers whose technology led to the creation of the camera all sat around raising awareness about empowerment of science, rather than making experiments in a lab" They did both, actually, because, you know, people aren't one dimensional cardboard cutouts. "and the way things are going we’ll be without the future films of one of the world’s most interesting directors because no studio will accept his material." The irony, on a piece decrying pearl clutching, you scoop up the mightiest pearls you can find and clutch them so hard it's making me think this whole piece is your attempt at comedy. ---- I do agree with the thrust of your argument - that films like this are important and should be given publicity - I just think you went about it in quite the stupidest way possible. Now excuse me while I write an email to my local arts cinema explaining why they should show this film. Please stop assuming I'm so dumb (and the silent majority) that I swallow critics self serving ramblings hook line and sinker. And try to not say things that are factually wrong.

Ed - re. the question of your character thing, I don't think anyone questions your character at all, you come across as a motivated force for good in the world, an all too rare person in this world, and while I believe humanity is fundamentally comprised of good people, we have built a society which rewards selfishness and punishes altruism, which is why I personally admire you greatly. However, I discussed on this board the Philip Bloom thing last year with you and while I don't and would never queston your character, the thing you did to me and others from what I have observed is that you tend to present your opinion as fact, whilst not only telling others that their opinion is wrong, you go so far as to judge people for their opinion and further, devalue their existance as a human being because they don't agree with you on a subjective matter. That's what it felt like you did to me, telling me I was an unpleasent human being for not judging a man when I had no evidence one way or the other - paraphrased. You refused to accept that it was valid to not be be obnoxious to a man who had been accused of something - where would Craig Charles be now if all of humanity had taken the girls side with no evidence? Serving a prison sentance for a crime he did not comitt, that is where. Remember the irony that only weeks earlier, I had a blazing row with Philip Bloom himself on this board over the Clarkson punch, with me refusing to judge JC on the basis of an accusation alone so I was hardly a PB fan either It's not a threat to your belief if people express a disagreement to it, one day, you will understand that, and hopefully, produce yet another excellent film about it Anyway, onto the actual subject of this post - I think it's great that the workers have a union myself, I'm a European and I come from a culture where workers have strong rights that are gradually being eroded. In the US, it seems, from an outsiders perspective that workers have very weak rights yet are battling away step by step to improve their rights. That is a drastic oversimplification I know, but if there's one thing I've learnt from many years of involvement with the unions, yes, they can be corrupt, yes they can protect the guilty - but because society is a conglomerate of complex individuals, even the guilty deserve representation, just in case, they are not actually guilty. Someone mentioned the idea that a union can protect a lazy person drawing a pay packet while doing nothing, well, I do not deny the existance of those people, freeloaders exist at all levels in society, including the guy who accused the worker of being lazy, the manager who needed a scapegoat, the complex individual capable of falsifying reports, lying etc. That is why that worker deserves representation, yes it does introduce beaurocracy which can delay the removal of that freeloader from the company, but in exchange, it protects the vulnerable from corruption - from freeloaders further up the food chain. It's a balancing act, of course - I've seen a nurse who was caught red handed stealing from patients, who stayed on the payroll for a year after thanks to a clever union rep, but at the same time, I've had to visit a good friend in hospital after a manager let his tyres down in the staff carpark because my friend comforted his ex after they broke up. The unions eventually had that man fired and got him the compensation he was due, although he had to wait 5 years before he got it. We are closing in on a better balance, and while cherrypicked individual cases can smack of unfairness and inefficiency, on a society level across Western/Northern Europe - US and Canada, we're leading the world in that balance and can be rightly proud of companies like bh being made to tow the line and stopping them from bucking the trend.

I can appreciate that from a sellers point of view, but as someone who has had his life savings scammed out of him - over £6000 by a dodgy seller, when buying a wheelchair, of all things, and had it returned thanks to paypal - that paypal mark is one of the few things that gives me enough trust to buy from sellers that I have never heard of before. So while it may feel frustrating as anything to have done nothing wrong and be forced to give a refund, even be left out of pocket by it if the goods are unsellable, I do wonder if the trust paypal brings in attracting customers is more than worth it?

Hardly surprising that a company like Shure can out-do Rode in the microphone department, nothing against Rode, they make great products, but Shure are up there with Electro-Voice and Neumann yet manage to charge a lot less.

The camera you have + some lights

Or the black magic micro studio camera Blackmagic Micro Studio Camera 4K With such a small Micro Cinema Camera design, we quickly realized that if we removed the built in recorder and digital film sensor cooling and replaced with SDI connections and a 4K video image sensor, we could build a really small studio camera for live production! The Blackmagic Micro Studio Camera 4K looks the same as the new Micro Cinema Camera but it’s really a completely different camera because its a broadcast quality Ultra HD studio camera! Although you can use it with an external recorder as a production camera, it’s really designed to be used in live production with a live production switcher. It has an Ultra HD sensor so it works in native Ultra HD and of course with a sensor at that high resolution, it makes an incredible HD camera also! Because it’s a live camera, it’s features are almost identical to our Blackmagic Studio Camera 4K. It has SDI in and out, a built in color corrector and all the control to the camera can be sent via the SDI input so it uses the same SDI control protocol as our studio cameras and ATEM switchers. It uses 6G-SDI, so supports all Ultra HD frame rates up to 30 fps, but it does 1080 HD frame rates up to 60 fps using the full sensor size. It includes an expansion connector, but it’s also different. This camera has a PTZ serial connection out and this can be used for controlling a remote head. Any pan, tilt and zoom commands sent to the camera via SDI from the switcher will be output on this PTZ connection and if you have a zoomable MFT lens, it will adjust the zoom on the lens as well. Also on the expansion connector is a B4 lens control connection so we can control broadcast lenses. We have been asked for this a lot by high end broadcasters and now with this camera and the B4 lens connection you can use add accessories to turn this camera into a fully featured studio camera. Imagine using it as a full sized studio camera with external monitor and broadcast lens. Or using it on set concealed so you can get all kinds of exciting and interesting camera angles! The Blackmagic Micro Studio Camera 4K will be available in July for $1,295.

​Ha, thanks for that! please don't worry about me and Ed, I think he is worked up right now but I am not and there is no ill will between us from my side. I still have a great deal of respect and admiration for him and it further highlights a point I made in my Clarkson posts - Literally every person in this world holds views and does things that we do not like. I have already said enough about it and this absolutely will be all I have to say on the matter now, but while I do not like this aspect of Ed's opinions, it changes nothing about my positivity and support for him. I know that I can be a real sod to deal with while debating, I can keep personal feeling out of it and I reiterate, I am only doing this to challenge and inspire thought - not just in Ed, but in others who read this later. From where I st, we're good, and I'm sure we are from where Ed sits as well Debate mode off now for me, back to friendly sleepywill who is really interested in supporting my friend, a new filmaker who took huge step yesterday of displaying his first piece of work in public, who is a deep admirer of Ed, and many others on this board, and is really interested in those new black magic cameras!

1) I have no sexual feelings towards you, and if, by chance I did, what exactly would be weird about it? Are gay people weird? Are people who fancy others of different skin colour weird? Perhaps you find it weird that a disabled person may be interested in a fully able bodied person. 2) Please highlight exactly what you perceived as aggression, there was no aggressive intent of any kind behind any of my words. 3) Why are you talking about US law? Philip Bloom is British. The women involve are both British. The alleged abuse occured while they were living in Britain. I live in England. This is a forum owed and run by a british man. I couldn't give a fiddle about US law. It's not relevant. Zimbabwean legal process is literally more relevant to the discussion than the US justice system. The British criminal justice system is beyond doubt the finest in the world. Note Criminal, not Civil. 4) I can't help but to notice that you have avoided my questions again. You did make it clear that you were happy to answer them, so why have you not? 5) What is this strange obsession with "being on trial". We have formed opinions about you, sure, but there are no consequences of our opinions. We are giving you the opportunity to speak about an issue that is apparently important to you. If you don't like people expressing their opinions about you, then why do you feel ok to so aggressively speak your opinions about others, why do you feel OK to tell others that their opinions are wrong, directly if you can't take even the presence of another who does not agree with you. 6) It's 2pm GMT. I await this interview.

Hey! Great to see you here! Glad you're enjoying that lens, I mean it, keep it as long as you need! Great work, as well, this is awesome, I know you had trouble seeing the screen, but think about what you include and leave out of a scene, as well as where you are focussing, this would be my only advice for this. Can I just mention, my favourite part, on the rowing boat in the fog scene, look at the beach, that child makes me smile every time!

​Exactly my point. It's you who has been pushing the "It's black and white, you must choose a side" agenda. This is an opinion, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Your opinion is not truth, only your opinion. And are you claiming to have never been wrong about anything in your life, because I think that you, as a normal human being, get things wrong literally every day. ​Firstly, it's sad that you let your expensive, privileged western education get pissed against the wall. 8 years studying something for nothing is a spit in the face to the less fortunate who struggle every day to access education. Secondly, I bet you wouldn't let that homeless man perform a c-section on a loved one. I bet my last dollar you would insist on a qualified, experienced surgeon. Thirdly, if you have such disdain for credentials, why are you looking for evidence and case reports created by people with the credentials. You can't have it both ways, you can't tell me that you do not respect my experience and education (though your lack of respect for education is apparently a thing with you) yet at the same time be relying on not being able to find a case report written by someone with credentials to back your opinion. It's one or the other. I'm sorry that your friend doesn't have emotional intelligence, but having the ability to empathise and emotionally connect with people is core to how a psychologist works. Not that I ever worked as a psychologist after my education - those skills were developed to supplement a different career, but thanks for stereotyping me - but I would not have passed my first year without having the skills you clearly want to assume I do not have. We'll talk about your "credentials to have an opinion" in just a second. Spoiler: I'm going to call you a hypocrite. ​But how can you expect people to take a stand when there is no more information coming in. Ed, if you do one thing, answer this question that you keep avoiding: Are you of the opinion that fake accusations are no big deal. Let's be clear, this is where you are going to struggle because you lack the emotional wisdom to seperate opinion from fact, you do not know if Philip Bloom abused those women or not. You are correct, this is not about him anyway, it's about whether you can be labelled as guilty without being proven so. We are saying no. You are saying yes. I have tried to engage you in a number of ways to give you a flavour of what it feels like to be falsely accused and judged for doing nothing wrong. You have deflected like a pro, squirmed and tried to verbosely talk your way out of answering the questions I have been asking of you. We could have done the interview it in the time you spent writing all the posts you have made since you made the offer, especially as you have coopted my gear and my studio to do it all for you. Have you ever actually given a professional interview before? Did you not know it is rather rude to request an interview for a production that will forward your career, then refuse to arrange transport, ask the person to do your setup for you, use their own gear etc. If you want to go into this journalistic style of filmmaking, please understand that you need to have respect for people willing to give up their time for your career, especially when you have made it clear that you have an agenda you will push, which the person is arguing against. Why am I busting my ass, giving you free use of my resources, free use of my time for nothing? I'll tell you why, because I haven't given up on you, not yet. ​Look, "If he did". IF. Yes, welcome to where everyone else was 24 hours ago, even IF he did those things, he is still a human being, well done. I will take that as a victory for the point I made about punitive vs rehabilitation measures in the Clarkson threads, it only took you a fortnight to get it. But what is interesting here is that you won't state as fact that he did those things, even though you have told us to do exactly that. Why Ed. Think long and hard about why you used the word if there. That is all we have ever been asking of you, to acknowledge that your opinion is not necessarily the facts. ​Eeesh, and back to the Ed who cannot tell fact from internal narrative. Interestingly, if Phillip Bloom had lawyered up, as you suggested would be the actions of an innocent man, you would now be in a lot of trouble - you have put your true identity to that statement and if PB turns out to be innocent, he can take you to the cleaners over this. Fortunately for you, PB doesn't seem interested in using the threat of legal action to close down discussion on the matter, which is a clue to his confidence in the validity of his argument. ​Well, then answer the ones I asked, otherwise these words continue to be hollow and false. ​How would you respond to a cop arresting someone without evidence, but opinion? How would you react if a jury convicted a man on gut instinct. Remember, that jury could be anyone, including the people writing vile messages to the two women, would you be happy for those unpleasant individuals using their gut instinct on a jury in the trial of Phillip Bloom? If you want to act as "cop and jury", that's OK, that's not our problem. Our problem is you reacting as "corrupt cop and bent jury". If you will act as cop, then apply the same standards of excellence you wish to see from the police to yourself when you act, if you must act as jury, then you must act to the standards you expect of any jury. Do that and you will be doing the same as the rest of us. Now I did say we were going to get back to tour "credentials to have an opinion". You are inherently hypocritical, no-one minds that you have an opinion, no-one minds that you are telling us what it is. What people mind is that you are telling other people that their opinions based on the precise same information you have is wrong. That is arrogance in the extreme, and hypocritical because you are attempting to take away our "credentials to an opinion". For what it's worth, my opinion matches yours. But it's not worth a damn thing to anyone else other than myself, sure we could have had a nice little circlejerk where we congratulated each other on having matching opinions BUT it would have achieved nothing. By asking you difficult questions, by playing devils advocate, by challenging you views, I have achieved a lot more than if we had sat around and gave each others epeens a boner.

​So, you're a talented enough psychologist to be able to, without meeting or talking to PB, judge his guilt based on how he reacted to the accusations? Because this is my desk. Those books are, among other things on psychology, criminal psychology and the psychology of abuse. I specialised in domestic abuse for over a decade and I can tell you right now, that in my professional opinion, philip blooms actions do not indicate a trend towards innocence or guilt. Are you better read and more up to date than me? Do you have more professional experience than me? No, because if you had even a years training you would know enough to know that you cannot understand someone's motivations without weeks of high intensity - read inpatient - work with them in a 1 to 1 situation. You wouldn't be making ridiculous statements like the one above. If anything, "lawyering up" straight away is a warning sign of guilt. As for being a part of your interview, I have already spoken with you over email about this. I have given you my conditions which you agreed to. It was you who told me that you couldn't do it for a week because of your work, I am ready from Monday midday GMT, as I told you in my email to be interviewed. Do you wish to cancel now you know a bit more about my angle and experience. As for being on trial, feel free to use my name, I hope you reference it properly at the end, with a link to a backed up copy of all your many threads on the topic, so your readers can see that yes, I absolutely have asked you difficult questions, and you have ducked them all. What do you feel I will do to you if I find you guilty of judging a man on circumstantial evidence?

​No, you're not on trial, but I am trying to put scenarios to you where you can appreciate that the damage to your life of being wrongfully accused is just as life changing as having suffered domestic abuse. I'm trying to get you to understand why I think you are being dangerously unfair.

​And you would be totally happy with your career, your life being flushed down the toilet, right? Or would you think it was unfair?