Xiong

​When I watch TV on a plasma it just reminds me more of a theater experience. LEDs/LCDs are great but I feel like I"m watching an iPad with brightness to 100%. Just a preference I guess.

Am i the only one who wishes they still made plasma?

To address something from the article
They pack in advanced stills options on these cameras because they are stills cameras. How often does that need to be repeated?

​hahaha, I opted for the A7s as I was filming Auroras.... Someone bought the 1DC
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?332554-Canon-1D-C-for-sale
At the time I was looking, the exchange rate pushed it under £2600.... Was SOOO tempted, but A7s ticks more of my boxes... No regrets.

Jimmy, just fucking buy it.
If you don't I will!!!

I don't want to come across as being self-serving with this, but I work at one of the retailers that received pre-release firmware to test on the GH4. There are "reasons" V-LOG-L is not part of the v2.2 update, but I can assure you, Panasonic would not have let us release the footage we shot with it if they weren't planning on actually bringing it to the GH4. We tested it in some fairly low-light conditions and, yes, it is noisy, but the footage was still a dream to work with in post compared to CineD.
Here is a link to a basic before/after color grade test I did (sorry if the colors are "dodgy" ;-) ): https://youtu.be/AhPK56Ii5sw
And our full presentation: https://youtu.be/_aEMUDQlRFE
Lens used was a Cooke 40mm t/2.3 2x anamorphic.
Again, really not trying to come across as self-serving or spammy here, just wanting to contribute to the conversation.

Honestly I think some people need to either cough up more cash or quit whining so much and learn the benefits of patience.  VLOG will come out or they wouldn't be beta testing it now with these guys.  Panasonic knows how important it is.  If they didn't they will know it when they look at the Ursa Mini.  The price difference between an entry-level Mini and introductory price GH4 is so low that they have to be worried.
If you think that VLOG is mandatory you either have the wrong camera for the job or you haven't learned how to expose properly.   The most impressive VLOG demo in that video is the side to side comparison outdoor with a bright background sky that's blown out.  Go get yourself an ND grad.  Jesus.   You have to learn how to work within your limitations no matter what camera you bought.
I bought a GH4 for personal projects because for the most part it's easy to use, has 4k and looks pretty damn good out of the box.   For my high-end projects I do the same as everyone else - work out the budget and part of that is renting high end lenses and cameras.   When your looking at a multi-million dollar budget, the cost of renting your cameras comes to practically zero.

Now stop whining and go create some awesome stuff with your GH4, A7S, Pocket Camera or whatever.  It's all good.   Remember that the Wachowski's could have made millions even if the only version of the Matrix they had was an iPhone video.
 

Looks interesting. Really not sure how anyone can deduce that this will look better than the Alexa just because it is 8K. How is resolution going to make the image more cinematic? That has been disproven time and again by the Alexa. Along with many other elements that make up the Alexa's image, one of the most powerful things is the highlight rolloff, which no camera out there has currently been able to replicate. We'll have to wait and see if the Weapon gets close.

Maybe there is a surprise we haven't seen yet regarding those.
 
 

The C100 is a very good deal. Maybe some here haven't used a camera with simple luxuries like built in NDs and XLRs, but it is so liberating.
I'd not be buying any $6500 camera so close to NAB though.
 

It's resolution may not be on par with the GH4, but the image seems much nicer. But the the $6500 doesn't really seem like a bargain as much as it just seems like closer to a sensible price.  

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.

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.

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!

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

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 ?

Andrew, I don't really get this issue and all this talk about nanny states and mollycoddling and self-emasculation and the triumph of cowardice over creativity.
yes, you're coming around to the fact that what Clarkson did was unacceptable, but you still seem to think that Clarkson was singled out for something since Clooney or whoever is still working. why do you think Clarkson is being singled out?
with all the ranting, it comes off as slightly unhinged Fox News-esque raging at Political Correctness, which in its essence amounts to "think before you speak". there is no "dogmatic liberal elite" coming for the rights of white men over the age of 30 to say what they want about blacks, women, the French, and automobiles. your concern for the crew seems disingenuous since your biggest bone is approximately "why can't we make the jokes my grandfather used to make?"

I'm not being entirely disengenius at all when we're talking about criminal  behaviour in the arts. Especially because your article is talking just that.
The question is where do we draw the line? If Clarkson's 20 second physical assault became manslaughter? Yes it matters and I haer to agree that people (no matter how creatively talented) are not above the law because fans like their work.
 

Gonna have to disagree on this one again.
O Russell and George Clooney and the Producers and Warner Brothers haven't all worked together since. They obviously had wanted to finish the film (whereas other films some talent simply walk away). And there was a 5 year gap for O Russell. 
In this parallel you suggest, yeah it would be nice if Top Gear could finish it's last two recordings with Clarkson as a proper send off.
Christian Bale, while bordering on verbal assault, he never actually punched the Shane Hurlbert and just ranted at him about "unprofessionalism" and the lights lol. 
Let's take this further... the director of Midnight Rider makes good films I think. But do you think that film should have been finished? Nah... him and his crew were idiots.
There's more to life than just appeasing fans and the money train.
 

I've got to say I feel uneasy with with Andrew's implication that minorities are to blame, that the BBC are too easy to fall under political correctness. This is dangerous territory here...
I must say some of Jeremy Clarkson's work is entertaining, much like I find Stephen Colbert's right wing character entertaining. And fast cars are always cool to see.
As to the above point - I would say Andrew's post is nothing like Charlie Brooker, because that guy is a champion for the minorities (as comedy should be uphill battle) and because of the good points Jimmy and Philip laid out. If we're talking about some of Clarkson's humour, Brooker (and Steve Coogan) has already picked it apart as mostly bullying rather than comedy; "Haha it's funny because it's racist." - on point wit. 
But let's not get confused here... this isn't to do political correctness. This is to do with Clarkson possibly being unpleasant, overstepping the line and possibly punching someone.

SlippyWill.... Sorry, I missed that.
re: second point. He has not been suspended for anything he has done as his "persona" and certainly not anything that is stifling creativity. This is why I think the blog post is a nonsense. 

I agree. I read a quote that the BBC need to learn how to handle larger than life characters. Nonsense. Punching someone is not larger than life.  You can't send out a message that "it's ok...it's clarkson being Clarkson!" 
 

Well, yea, he did. Off camera, on camera, out take... What's the difference, he said it, he apologised. It shows the mindset of the man.
I'm about as hard to offend as possible, I'm not offended by Clarkson. I don't even dislike the guy (other than being a chelsea fan)... I laughed out loud when he said he was "off to the job centre" yesterday.
I just don't believe that huge stars should be given different rights to anyone else. If the producer had punched Clarkson, do you think he would be working today?
This diatribe is hiding an ugly point behind an indie/creativity mask.... That big stars should be able to do whatever they want, without consequence... Because they bring in money and entertain. It's the opposite of the indie mindset.

Hey Andrew
clearly this bothers you
the he thing is you are making statements based not upon facts not assumptions. We don't know the full story here but I can tell you this if the presenter of a show I was working on (allegedly) punched a producer the show would be most likely suspended until this was sorted out.
 
Love him or loathe him he is the show. He is what you see, a loutish, arrogant loudmouth. That's why he is so polarising. I personally grew tired of him a couple of decades ago but my post here is not about my personal feelings towards Mr. Clarkson. He does what he does very well indeed.  
There clearly is more to this than we have been told but hypothetically if Clarkson punched this producer unprovoked just because there was no catering that is beyond acceptable behaviour. He should be fired. If it was the other way round and producer punched Clarkson would the show be suspended like this? Would the producer still have a job a half million petition to bring him back? If there was a fight between them behind closed doors then maybe, just maybe they could sort it out between them. But in the public? It becomes something more...this is public behaviour.
If Clarkson did punch him then it's assault pure and simple. Do we just ignore it and give out the message this is ok to do? No we do not. Last time I checked punching someone was still illegal. 
Yes, it's a massively successful show and brings in huge amounts of money. I think what the BBC have done is show balls! The cynical amongst us would have expected the Beeb to not want to lose their cash cow and sweep it under the carpet, pay off producer and carry on like nothing happened for danger of losing said cash cow. 
The BBC have to be beyond reproach. It's part of their remit. They are not a broadcaster like all the others. If they want to do away with the licence fee and make it a commercial station like all the rest then they could get away with the aforementioned cynical behaviour. They are the BBC. They cannot. They have a really bad stigma these days about very serious past incidents that they ignored. We all know what those are. They HAVE to be seen to not protect their stars and brush stuff under the carpet. No company should but especially the BBC given what's happened the past two years or so. 
 
so there are my thoughts.  
if you miss the show watch the movie version.  It's more believable. "fast and the furious"  

I'm not offended by your post, but I do find it a load of tub thumping nonsense.
1) If a lead star on a production punched a producer, there would be consequences, even if it were Tom Cruise.
2) You seem to conveniently paper over the fact that he was caught saying nigger on camera and also called an asian guy a "slant'. Two of numerous offences that went unpunished and led to his final warning.
If you want to move into this sort of editorial you need to put down both sides of the story, especially when your followers are not all UK based.
This isn't bending over to political correctness, it is very lightly punishing someone for a constant stream of problems. Most other presenters would have been kicked in to touch long ago. You cannot let someone go unpunished, time and again, just because he is a creative asset and pulls in big bucks.
I don't mind Clarkson, he can be funny, entertaining, no nonsense and clearly knows his cars. But that isn't a green light to do absolutely anything.