Jump to content

tpr

Members
  • Posts

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    tpr got a reaction from Xiong in Top Gear - Clarkson contract won't be renewed by BBC. Should there be one rule for talent, one rule for "the rest"?   
    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.
  2. Like
    tpr got a reaction from Xiong in Top Gear - Clarkson contract won't be renewed by BBC. Should there be one rule for talent, one rule for "the rest"?   
    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!
  3. Like
    tpr got a reaction from That Guy in Top Gear - Clarkson contract won't be renewed by BBC. Should there be one rule for talent, one rule for "the rest"?   
    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.
  4. Like
    tpr got a reaction from Lammy in Top Gear - Clarkson contract won't be renewed by BBC. Should there be one rule for talent, one rule for "the rest"?   
    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.
  5. Like
    tpr got a reaction from dan in Top Gear - Clarkson contract won't be renewed by BBC. Should there be one rule for talent, one rule for "the rest"?   
    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!
  6. Like
    tpr got a reaction from pablogrollan in Top Gear - Clarkson contract won't be renewed by BBC. Should there be one rule for talent, one rule for "the rest"?   
    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!
  7. Like
    tpr got a reaction from Lammy in Top Gear - Clarkson contract won't be renewed by BBC. Should there be one rule for talent, one rule for "the rest"?   
    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!
  8. Like
    tpr reacted to Orcadia in Top Gear - Clarkson contract won't be renewed by BBC. Should there be one rule for talent, one rule for "the rest"?   
    For what its worth.
    I am also Incredibly dissapointed to read Andrew Reids continued defence of bullying and assault in the workplace.
     
  9. Like
    tpr reacted to Jimmy in Fisticuffs end new "Top Gear" series - how the BBC risked biggest franchise over catering fracas   
    ​Wouldn't that stifle their creativity? How very PC
  10. Like
    tpr got a reaction from Lammy in Fisticuffs end new "Top Gear" series - how the BBC risked biggest franchise over catering fracas   
    ​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.
  11. Like
    tpr reacted to Jimmy in Fisticuffs end new "Top Gear" series - how the BBC risked biggest franchise over catering fracas   
    The paradox here is the Andrew mentions Jimmy Saville, the epitome of a company (a whole nation, almost) covering up someone's misdoings to protect the star of the show, yet fails to see the two incidents as being similar.
    Obviously what Saville did is far more serious than punching someone... But the crux of the matter is that celebs and big earners should not be above the law or above punishment. Hiding that notion behind some kind of anti liberal, anti PC crusade makes it no easier to stomach.
  12. Like
    tpr reacted to Jimmy in Fisticuffs end new "Top Gear" series - how the BBC risked biggest franchise over catering fracas   
    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. 
  13. Like
    tpr reacted to Jimmy in Fisticuffs end new "Top Gear" series - how the BBC risked biggest franchise over catering fracas   
    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.
  14. Like
    tpr reacted to Philip Bloom in Fisticuffs end new "Top Gear" series - how the BBC risked biggest franchise over catering fracas   
    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"  
  15. Like
    tpr reacted to Jimmy in Fisticuffs end new "Top Gear" series - how the BBC risked biggest franchise over catering fracas   
    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.
  16. Like
    tpr reacted in Samsung NX1 - which is 4K video and which is the 28MP raw still? Can you tell?   
    Look at colours 37 and 31 in image A (reds, 2nd line down). They look like almost the same colour, yes?
     
    Now compare them in image B. I think that is what you call bit depth, yes?
  17. Like
    tpr reacted to Martin MatÄ›j in Official firmware update brings XAVC-S and 120fps to Sony RX10   
    Is it 720p or 1080p 120fps?
  18. Like
    tpr reacted to rndmtsk in 54 mentions of video vs 32 of photos in Nikon D810 press release   
    This killed me
  19. Like
    tpr got a reaction from rndmtsk in 54 mentions of video vs 32 of photos in Nikon D810 press release   
    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.
  20. Like
    tpr got a reaction from jebbyderinger in 54 mentions of video vs 32 of photos in Nikon D810 press release   
    According to the press release, they've added zebras! Woohoo!
  21. Like
    tpr reacted to Quirky in Blackmagic to release new 'unified' firmware update for all cameras   
    About two hours ago. Along with DaVinci Resolve 11 Public Beta.
  22. Like
    tpr got a reaction from Aussie Ash in Nikon D5300 Review and why DSLRs are dead for video   
    It's never worked with video on any Nikon. Pretty sure that's still the case with the D5300.
     
     
     
    You can still view a histogram even when using a lens that doesn't give you metering. Just take a test still or video, then in playback mode, press the up arrow to cycle through the information views you have enabled. By default the histogram view isn't enabled, so you have to change the settings under MENU->PLAYBACK MENU->Playback display options. I have it set up like this:
     
    ☠None (image only) ☑ Highlights ☑ RGB histogram ☠Shooting data ☑ Overview   This will give you histogram, RGB histogram and blinkies views in playback.   The histogram is calculated after the picture style and white balance settings are applied even when shooting a raw still, so keep that in mind.
  23. Like
    tpr got a reaction from skiphunt in Nikon D5300 Review and why DSLRs are dead for video   
    It's a good question. I just tested by taking a video and a still of the same scene using the neutral profile. Their respective histograms have peaks in the same places, but the video's histogram looks smoother. That makes sense given that the video was 8-bit and the still was 14-bit raw.
     
     
    Nothing yet. Only got my hands on it last month, but I'll let you know when I put something up.
  24. Like
    tpr got a reaction from skiphunt in Nikon D5300 Review and why DSLRs are dead for video   
    It's never worked with video on any Nikon. Pretty sure that's still the case with the D5300.
     
     
     
    You can still view a histogram even when using a lens that doesn't give you metering. Just take a test still or video, then in playback mode, press the up arrow to cycle through the information views you have enabled. By default the histogram view isn't enabled, so you have to change the settings under MENU->PLAYBACK MENU->Playback display options. I have it set up like this:
     
    ☠None (image only) ☑ Highlights ☑ RGB histogram ☠Shooting data ☑ Overview   This will give you histogram, RGB histogram and blinkies views in playback.   The histogram is calculated after the picture style and white balance settings are applied even when shooting a raw still, so keep that in mind.
  25. Like
    tpr reacted in Nikon D5300 Review and why DSLRs are dead for video   
    Someone on Vimeo just asked me about what D5300 video settings I use. For my own benefit I decided to answer quite comprehensively (it helped me get everything clear in my head and made me realise there are still a few things I'm not sure about). I thought I'd post it here for other's benefit, and to see if anyone had anything else to offer (or suggest might be done differently).
    I also started a forum thread on this topic in the D5300 Vimeo group so that it can be a more permanent resource for people to see/add to: https://vimeo.com/groups/d5300/forum/topic:261998
     
     
    I can't claim that these are THE best settings, but this is what has been working best for me so far:
     
    In the menu:
    Picture Control (profile): I'm currently of the opinion that a Neutral profile is best most of the time. I don't think Flaat is necessary, but I do think you loose out on a lot of perfectly useable detail in the shadows/highlights by shooting with the Standard profile - and for no good reason unless you don't want to grade. You can always put contrast back in post.
     
    I set all of the following to OFF in the menu: Active D-Lighting, High ISO NR and Auto ISO sensitivity.
     
    WiFi and GPS: OFF!!!!
     
    In 'Movie Settings':
    Frame rate: You can use whichever frame rate you want (and even switch between PAL/NTSC in the SETUP menu). I really haven't noticed a difference in quality between any of them, though I haven't done or seen any critical tests.
     
    'Movie quality': set to HIGH.
     
    Microphone: Manual sensitivity
     
    'Manual movie settings': ON
     
     
    Because I have mainly Nikkor manual-aperture primes that don't communicate with the D5300 at all, I'm always in Manual mode on the top dial. I have tried using my Tokina 11-16 with a complicated setup that involved Auto ISO, a minimum shutter speed setting and either aperture or shutter priority (can't remember which). Auto-exposure worked well in the brief house-walkthrough test I did.
     
    I'm using Auto WB quite a lot.
     
    Make sure your display is set to movie mode in live view: using the "info" button on the top of the camera, cycle through until the translucent 16:9 letterbox bars appear.
     
    Several of the important settings above can be accessed quickly using the "i" button next to the VF.
     
    You can snap out of focus assist (magnify) using the OK button.
     
     
    I'll leave discussion of using non-manual glass to others.
×
×
  • Create New...