Damphousse

​I forgot about the CCD.  I was always fixated on the Digital Bolex's global shutter.  It's been so long since I've taken a hard look at that camera.  What you say makes sense.  It is unique.

​

Oh, you were interested in the monochrome.  I think it is just too niche.  I shoot, develop, and print my own black and white analog photographic film and I am not a fan of black and white movies.  I don't know why.  As much as I love black and white prints I really can't stand black and white movies.  I watch them because the story and acting is good but I merely tolerate the black and white aspect.  Technologically though I do understand the benefit of a B&W sensor versus a traditional Bayer.  I've wondered why B&W DSLRs aren't more popular.  B&W pictures are used somewhat commercially.  Considering the thousands people spend on lenses they could spend a fraction of that on a B&W sensor and pick up a lot more resolution and tonality.  Again though... maybe it is too niche.

​Actually StenR has already confirmed that he's seen it advertised in Sweden unbundled for 20% off...

​

Ebrahim, I hear you.  It's a moot point.  If most of us were to get the camera we would immediately go out and buy media and a reader.  So either way not something to go back and forth about.  I went down that rabbit hole because some people can't understand the concept of a bundle when Canon's name is attached.  Anyway thanks for pointing out the cost of the media and the reader.  I empathize with people who dismissed this camera.  I too dismissed it till I read your post and started thinking about other camcorders that had an announced price of $2,000.  When you look at it that way it is obvious Canon is right in line with the market.  Canon definitely gouges but I can't see how they are gouging any more than Sony was a year ago.

Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera does 30p global shutter and active M43 mount for $995.  $1,500 with monitor.  Why would anyone pay $2,999 for a dumb mount camera?  Besides XLR inputs what does the Digital Bolex have the BMMCC doesn't?  Honest question.  Why the $1,500 premium for a dumb mount?

Oh, hold on you are talking about the micro four thirds mount Digital Bolex.  That thing is $3,699!  I think these guys missed their opportunity.  I guess we have to see what the image from the BMMCC is like.  If it is comparable to the Digital Bolex then they are toast.

​I explicitly stated that the AX100 came out last year so I think my head is wrapped around that point pretty well.

What you don't seem to get is this forum was full of people praising the AX100 and Sony last year and one year later when Canon puts out a camera that improves on the Sony model in several important areas FOR THE SAME PRICE it causes widespread visceral disgust.  That makes no sense.  Cognitive dissonance is a b-tch.

​

Not sure how many times I have to post this...

The XC10 is expected to go on sale worldwide in mid-June for about $1,999 or 1,999 euros, according to a Canon spokesman in Tokyo.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2907452/canon-xc10-4k-camcorder-has-rotating-grip.html

​Sounds about right.

I just saw this...

The XC10 is expected to go on sale worldwide in mid-June for about $1,999 or 1,999 euros, according to a Canon spokesman in Tokyo.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2907452/canon-xc10-4k-camcorder-has-rotating-grip.html

Hopefully that puts an end to people saying the camera body costs $2,500.  I really didn't think the concept of a bundle was that hard to understand.

​Hmmm... Maybe I wasn't clear.  Let me try again.  The XC10 AND a 64 GB CFast 2 card AND a card reader cost $2,500 at announcement.  Back out the cost of the CFast card and the card reader and you have the price of just the camera... $2,100.  The AX100's announcement price a year ago was $2,000.  $2,100-2,000=$100.  Even if you want to lump in the price of the media and the media reader it is still less than a $600 difference.  I just don't know where you are getting that number.

​That's irrelevant.  Go back and read all those AX100 threads.  What was one complaint that came up over and over again?  People wanted a more robust codec.  Well Canon delivered and...  time to move the goalposts.

Neither of those cameras is for me.  But let's be consistent when we are talking about them.

​That doesn't matter.  You can't compare apples to oranges.  If you want to compare the price of two cameras that is fine.  But you can't include in one the price of media and a card reader and ignore it in a different camera.  I mean that is just the basics of comparing two products.  Honestly I didn't even realize it needed to be stated.  Is this controversial?

And who cares about the cost of the media?  One big knock against the AX100 was the codec.  Well guess what?  This is the solution.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't ask for a better codec and then complain about the cost of the media that codec demands or start doing voodoo math when comparing the cameras.

​I'm going to bookmark this thread and come back in a year.  I will be very interested to see these sub $1,000 Sony Handicams that shoot 4:2:2 8-bit color at bit rates up to 305Mbps in 4K internally.

I don't know why it is so hard for people to accept reality when Canon's name is involved.  People were gushing a year ago when the Sony AX100 was announced for $2,000.  Can anyone honestly say the XC10 is an inferior product?  It only costs $100 more and improves on several key shortcomings of the AX100.  I'm just trying to figure out why there is such a swing in reactions.  I mean if someone last year said the AX100 was rubbish and Sony is full of it then fine.  Dump on Canon.  But if you were gushing about the AX100 at $2,000 you need to be having some words of praise for Canon today...  or at least don't say this camera is a complete joke.  Be consistent.

​Not sure why you quoted me.  I never said anything about using Twixtor.  I've never used it so I can't recommend it to anyone.  I don't have much use for slow-mo.  It's nice but I would much rather have less moire/aliasing and color artifacts.

I didn't know that.  Although here in the US I think a CFast2 card and reader can be had for $400 total.  Still $2,100 is not bad when you consider the Sony FDR-AX100 4K was announced at $2,000.  Kind of puts things in perspective.  If people were taking the Ax100 seriously at $2,000 I don't see how this is a total joke at $2,100.  I realize it isn't what most of us want but neither was the AX100.  And presumably this camera won't have the comical rolling shutter feature of the AX100.  The AX100 is selling for $1700.  So it is not inconceivable that the XC10 could sell for $1,800 a year after launch.  So $200 more than a BMPCC and EF speedbooster.

​The problem isn't just moire.  It's moire, aliasing, and false color artifacts of which there are plenty.  With or without a speedbooster if you use a modern sharp wide angle lens and stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 you will see issues particularly in landscape shots.  I love the camera but you can't deny it is not as artifact free as some other options.

The VAF-BMC-MFT is also $385 not $300.  Probably more like $400+ with shipping... Not cheap.

Global shutter on the new Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera is pretty awesome though.  I really can't wait to see footage from that thing.

​This is a very creative retelling of history.  What you are witnessing on this forum is the Barbara Streisand effect.  I look things up on other camera specific forums and I haven't seen a single thread about Clarkson on any of them.  On EOSHD we have three.  Why do you think that is?  Most of us would never have written a word about Clarkson ever if it wasn't for the first blog post.  I think it is 100% wrong for people to call Andrew racist.  But I also think it is wrong to open a discussion such as this by labeling everyone who disagrees with your opinion as "politically correct."  This technique of labeling your opponent so you invalidate their opinion isn't going to lay the ground for a fruitful discussion.

And by the way you just contradicted one of the main pillars of Andrew's argument.  He quite clearly told us the only people who had a problem with Clarkson were a "vocal MINORITY."  This was repeated multiple times.  So when the thesis was we are in the majority therefor we are right everything was fine.  When someone posts independent poll numbers showing the majority of people across the political spectrum, except UKIP for obvious reasons, thinks Clarkson should go now all of a sudden the threatened minority card is getting played.  We aren't stupid and you can't have it both ways.  To me this smacks of picking the desired conclusion and then creating a supporting back story.  When one part of the story is debunked you simply forget it was every written and conjure up a new story.  I loved the people that were completely silent when the "vocal minority" quote was posted over and over and then when the objective third party poll numbers showed it wasn't a "vocal minority" those people flooded into the tread asking "who cares about polls" and saying "think for yourselves."  Amazingly selective outrage.  Where were you when the first blog post was pushing the thesis the proClarkson camp is the majority?

​Charlie Sheen is a much bigger star than Clarkson and he's made far more money for himself and his employers than Clarkson ever will and he was fired before he even had the opportunity to punch a subordinate.  Let's just stop with the beatification of Clarkson.  Why do people keep editing the historical record to fit their desired conclusion?

I am not happy about what has happened to Clarkson.  I hoped that when the facts came out this would have merely been Clarkson raising his voice (which is bad enough).  But now that it has gone into the violent criminal realm there really should be no doubt BBC did what they had to do.  It should not be that hard for a 54 year old employee at a tax payer funded entity to avoid punching subordinates in the face.  How low as a society have we gone if asking a 54 year old well educated wealthy man to refrain from fisticuffs at work is considered "political correctness."  When I was a kid that was considered common sense... or an unspoken rule.

And by the way let's see what London justice looks like if you aren't a rich white privileged male who hangs out with a Tory prime minister on the weekend...

The man accused of stealing an empty box

Denzel Zivangwe, 20, from Enfield, was accused of stealing an empty jewellery box from a looted jeweller in Enfield on Saturday night. He had allegedly met with friends at nearby Waltham Cross but was forced off a bus in Enfield after trouble in the street caused the bus to abandon its route. His defence council told the court, "He acted in a moment of foolishness and stole an empty jewellery box. He reached in through the broken window to take the box but didn't cause any damage."

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/on-the-rap-sheet-looter-who-pocketed-1631-and-a-suspect-caught-with-an-empty-box-2336861.html

The 22-year-old was also caught with 10 packets of chewing gum that she allegedly stole from a Kwik Stop convenience store. She was arrested when police raided the Argos building. She admitted theft and was jailed for six months.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/on-the-rap-sheet-looter-who-pocketed-1631-and-a-suspect-caught-with-an-empty-box-2336861.html

I know we are supposed to get worked up into a lather over Clarkson's "mistreatment" but there are far worse things going on in London.  Six months jail for stealing some gum?!  Maybe people should focus on fixing the UK from the bottom up.

​Clarkson verbally abused and physically assaulted a subordinate with high volume in a public place.  Clarkson went "public"... not BBC.  I am not as famous or recognizable as Clarkson but because I've worked for various marquee names in various industries since I was 22 I always watch what I say and what I do in public because you never know who is taping you.

​No.  It is clear he has a decent PR rep.  Any PR rep will tell you, get ahead of the story.

​That's all fine and well but Clarkson has become a liability to the organization.  I don't know what you or anyone else who's posting on this forum do for a living but there is no employer that I have ever worked for that would risk multi million dollar/pound lawsuits to "rehabilitate" one employee.  We need to live in the real world.  You start beating subordinates at work you get canned.  Capisci?  Nothing personal.

Clarkson will be fine.  He will find work elsewhere.  The only thing we can pray is he learned from this experience.

​My friends and I are a fraction of Clarkson's age and we have been in high pressure life and death situations and somehow managed to not make these "mistakes."  Eventually everyone has to grow up.

​Umm... it isn't a "political and ethical problem."  It is an employee physically assaulting a subordinate.  The police are investigating.  It is a criminal matter.  I mean it is 100% your choice if you want to take the legal liability of hiring and protecting someone who has a checkered history but you can't honestly dictate that the BBC should take on that kind of legal liability...  at TAXPAYER EXPENSE.  It's not even about Oisin.  When Clarkson has his next blow up or drunkenly grabs the @$$ of some woman at a BBC Christmas party the lawsuit that will follow will reference the fact BBC covered and enabled him even after they knew what kind of man he is.  They will be found culpable.  You keep talking talking about the rest of the crew.  Well what do you think will happen to them when BBC is sued for millions?  The show will be canceled anyway but now the BBC takes a financial and reputation hit.

When we were just discussing repeated use of racial slurs and a verbal assault on a subordinate there was some wiggle room.  Now that a physical assault has been confirmed it becomes a black and white legal matter.   The Christian Bale analogy is 100% wrong.  There is a big difference between an outside contractor and an employee.  Clarkson is an employee.  Christian Bale was merely on contract for a movie.  If someone is on a short term contract and has ONE verbal incident that is completely different than a TAX PAYER FUNDED employee having years worth of racial slurs, controversies, and now the physical assault of a subordinate.

There are tons of people who jump from job to job.  They are not perfect people but they never get fired.  Clarkson could become one of those people.  He could do a couple of years at various networks.  But to think you can just camp out at a marquee TAX PAYER funded employer like the BBC while your HR file grows bigger and bigger is just insane.

If I was him I would have just laid low, eaten my cold sandwich, and then taken my show over to some other network that would tolerate my antics for 3-4 years then rinse wash repeat.  It's not hard... for an adult.

​In all fairness I wouldn't trust what lafilm has to say about any black person unless he has a direct quote and a link to an unbiased source.  His comments about the "Obama government" pretty much tell you what you need to know about his agenda.  And the Ice Cube thing is just weird.  Last time I checked Ice Cube was spending his time making comedies and family movies.

This forum is going downhill fast.  I miss the old arguments about pixel peeping versus content.  This racial stuff is terrible.

I’m going to go full ugly American for a minute to inject a bit of sanity into this discussion.  It may offend some but it will no doubt entertain many others.  And please don't take my word for it.  Fact check any of my statements and post any corrections.  I don't want to spread false information.  Here goes...

First of all let’s all be honest with ourselves the entire combine British film and television industry, Clarkson included, is a pimple on the butt of an elephant.  It isn’t squat.  I know it.  You know it.  Here in the richest most powerful country that the world has ever seen nobody knows who this Clarkson character is.  I was actually surprised that Russell Brand said Top Gear was the number one show for BBC America.  Then it occurred to me that BBC America is a low tier network and that a lot of break through British TV shows actually appear on non BBC networks.  Talk about lying with statistics.  Nice job Russell.  It’s funny how Russell Brand and all these other characters are saying that there is some yearning for this devil may care rugged individualism… particularly in the US.  Guess what British show annihilates Top Gear’s ratings in the US?  Downton Abby.   Bah ha, ha, ha, ha!!!  So please stop telling us IF Clarkson gets canned the world will fall off its axis.  The hyperbole is unnecessary.

Let’s work through some more numbers.  Clarkson’s salary…  It’s a big deal in Britain.  It isn’t $h-t in America.  Charlie Sheen made more money than him shooting two and a half men.  And he chain smoked, did drugs, and banged hooker’s the whole time he was doing it.  What he didn’t do was write prissy little school boy columns for some random rag.  And guess what happened to Charlie?  That’s right when he didn’t follow the rules he eventually got canned.  I honestly don’t even know what he did!  I remember feeling sorry for the guy but the world didn’t end.  No one is marking the day Charlie Sheen got fired and saying that is the day the music died.

As a denizen of the country that created the biggest media juggernaut in the history of man let me school you on how it is done.  First of all censorship on the public airwaves… get some.  Clarkson would have been canned long time ago if he was employed by an American network in the US.  The thesis that some reasonable level of censorship means your media market is doomed to failure is 100% false.  Let’s stop pretending.  Once again like the H-bomb and the lunar landing it took America to show the world how it’s done.  The thesis that the UK is a second rate media market because of censorship of all things is absurd.  We have more censorship and we demolish the UK media numbers.

Second suggestion from your American cousins…  check out a little thing we call capitalism.  If Clarkson wishes to remain a socialist parasite suckling at the teat of the government dole that’s his business.  But he has to then do their bidding.  If he wants to continue his abysmally low rated show (BBC America numbers) he can quit, risk his OWN capital, and start his own network.

Let me tell you about two fine Americans in the media industry who aren’t socialist parasite cry babies.  One is a young black kid from a crime riddled impoverished neighborhood who not only never got a break but was harassed by the cops and even the FBI and virtually banned from radio.  Do you know what that guy did?   He made himself half a BILLION dollars without begging for tax payer money like Clarkson.  He would wipe his @$$ with Clarkson’s salary.  That fine young man who made it with virtually no public airplay is known around the world as Dr. Dre.

The second outstanding American entrepreneur is an overweight far right wing white male about Clarkson’s age.  Unlike Dr. Dre but very much like Clarkson he was in the favored class and got all the breaks Clarkson got.  And like Clarkson this white male was prone to saying racist things and causing controversy.  That’s where the similarities end.  Unlike Clarkson there was no President/Prime Minister to stand up for this bigoted privileged white guy and he was eventually run off of the 100% private right wing monstrosity known as Fox News.  So what happened when this guy was run off CABLE TELEVISION and a 100% PRIVATE network? Did he cry like a little b-tch and beg to be allowed onto a tax payer funded channel?  Did he ask another private network to give his multimillionaire @$$ a job so he can eat?  No!  This is America.  He started his own company.  How much do you think he makes a year now?  Try $80 million.  That’s right.  He would wipe his @$$ with Clarkson’s salary.  In fairness I will say this gentleman does have a syndicated radio show, so he didn’t have a blanket ban like Dre.  But no TV… not now… not ever.  Motherf-cker makes more money now than before he was booted from TV.  And his name?  Glenn Beck.  He set up an internet video service for private paying members.  His subscriber numbers?  300,000.  A whopping third of Clarkson’s Neilson numbers… on BBC America!  $80 million.  Clarkson is a clown.

FYI In America Top Gear USA which doesn’t star Clarkson is rated higher than the original Top Gear.  Russell Brand conveniently forgot to mention that little data point.

I will say though I watch and respect BBC News.  The reason being is I like to see if someone or something in America that claims to be a big deal is even mentioned overseas.  Often times what we obsess over here in America is a complete nonissue in the rest of the world.  Actually not getting mentioned is the best case scenario…  worst case scenario you are viciously lampooned (I'm looking at you Mitt Romney).  It is good to have some perspective.  When someone starts telling me about how important they are to the world I gently tell them, “no one in London has ever f-cking heard of you.”

​So power distance doesn't exist at the BBC?  Interesting.  Well Clarkson certainly thought it did when he said he would get Oisin sacked.  Time to read up on labor law.  Let me tell you something that is NOT how egregious incidents like this are resolved.

​He used the racial slurs "nigger" and "slope" on camera at work, man.  Not sure why you guys want to keep lying about it.  There is video tape.

Guys get put in jail for missing one meeting with their parole officer.  They aren't getting arrest and incarcerated for missing a meeting they are getting arrested for doing a string of bad things and then breaking their parole agreement.

​Louis CK is a self deprecating Mexican.  Yes, believe it or not he is given a bit more latitude in certain areas when compared to mean spirited grumpy old white guys from South Yorkshire.

For filmmakers you guys are terrible about picking up on the subtleties of society.  Which is a shame.  A good film is subtle or explores subtleties.  It isn't a hamfisted bulldozer that ignores the intricacies of human interactions.  I mean really?  Is this the amount of thought you put into your films?

And yeah if all he ever did was yell at someone once you know full well he wouldn't have even been reprimanded.  The fact that you are pretending he didn't do that other awful stuff tells us exactly what your agenda is.

​So... being asked not to say "nigger" repeatedly on video tape at work is what you consider being "put in a straight jacket"?!  WTF?!

​You live in Berlin right?  Why don't you put on a Hitler costume and stand in a public square and do a comedy routine about concentration camps.  Let us know how that goes over.

​Agreed.  It's always the usual suspects defending the same aberrant behavior.

This "freedom of speech" stuff on the internet never involves anything positive or worthwhile.  It's never anyone protesting that they weren't allowed to voice their scientific opinion after proving their hypothesis in multiple experiments that were published in prestigious peer reviewed journals.  Let's just say standards have really slid since the days of Galileo Galilei.  Now any Joe blow who is asked to have a modicum of decency can hop into the victim line.

​Well US Cannabis laws are and were unreasonable.  Asking people not to call black people "niggers" is not unreasonable.  And I would prefer Mick Jagger got substance abuse treatment for the amphetamines vs jail time... but that is because I like Mick Jagger and I want him to be happy and healthy and around to make more hits.

Frankly the best outcome of all this is for Clarkson to be suspended and learn from it.  He can be funny without being an awful bigot.  I would prefer he rehabilitate himself and come back and make some great TV.

I only wish Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin were arrested and put into a drug and alcohol treatment program.  If they were they may still be alive and making great music.  Honestly if you love these artists you want them to get help and stop their self destructive behavior.

Sorry, that's not your call to make.  You can't have a group of white men sitting around determining what is and is not offensive to black people.  You can't have a group of men sitting around determining what is and is not offensive to women.  All those experiments have been tried and they all failed miserably.  I could understand if black people popped up every week with a new list of offensive words but that simply is not the case.

In all likelihood Clarkson will clean up his act and be back on the air making tens of millions.  There are plenty of ways of being funny and edgy without repeatedly getting into this racial stuff or verbal/physical confrontations.

​I dunno?  The world would be a better place?

Is it really that hard for a white male with tens of millions of dollars in the bank to not say "nigger" on tape at work?!  If it is that hard they have a problem.  And despite your lengthy post no I have never done anything even close to that reprehensible at work... perhaps because I don't bring in £50 million for my employer.  I am a peasant.  I do as I'm told and I don't jeopardize my employer's good name and brand equity.  And guess what their are billions of people on this planet who are even better than me.  Give them a job.  Why should we preserve the jobs for this handful of bigots?

​There is freedom of speech...  just not freedom from the consequences of speech.  Clarkson can call people "nigger" all day long and still live a life a million times better than my wretched middle class existence.  He just can't do it on BBC.  Clarkson's bigotry doesn't supersede the BBC's freedom of speech.  BBC has the right to say they don't like the word "nigger."  And Clarkson has the right to start his own network and say "nigger" all day long.  He can call it the N-word Network if he so chooses.  Clarkson N-word Network... CNN  for short.

​I have no recollection of working at any bank where you could call people "nigger" and "slope" and have any hope of having a job Monday morning.  So in that sense every Wall St bank I've worked for is a million times better than this Clarkson piece of garbage.  And really that particular comment was ironic considering...

​

Your argument is tolerate racial abuse, because... you know... money.  This is better than a bank?  How?

General question for the forum...  Where do you guys and gals work where "nigger" and "slope" are okay parts of your vocabulary whether or not you are on the clock?  I always assumed that when I saw people complaining about their "freedom of speech" they were just wasters on the welfare rolls who never had a proper job and didn't realize not being a racist dick was a prerequisite for gainful employment in most of the civilized world.  But now I'm being made to understand you can go around calling people "niggers" on tape and still hold down a job?  Where?  SAE fraternity headquarters?  Okay.  KKK recruiting office?  Sure.  Stormfront forum administrator?  I can see that.  Anywhere else?

So less than a week after the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday we have people on the internet complaining about how the world is ending because a rich and powerful white male can't call black people "niggers."  And this message is being brought to you from Berlin of all places.  Wow.

Guys this type of behavior isn't tolerated anywhere.  I know it and you know it.  BBC has been around longer than Clarkson and they'll be around long after he is gone.  Tens of thousands of people have spent their lives building the company and the global brand.  No one person has the right to trash all their good work just because some people believe a short term financial reward should take precedence over all else.  That actually is the problem with Wall St banks.  The quarter by quarter mentality would say hey keep this jerk around and let's make £50m.  Where as a privately held family company would say let's take the financial hit for a few years but have an untarnished brand that will last decades... or longer.  Frankly if I was working at the news division of the BBC I really wouldn't appreciate management letting other people working under the BBC moniker run around calling people "niggers" and "slopes."  That kind of behavior tarnishes the whole brand.

By the way I know most if not all you guys aren't racist.  But you really have to think about what you are defending.  It really is very aberrant behavior.

​Or maybe it's because the GH4 was announced over a year ago and the Samsung just became available a few months ago.  The GH4 was already being treated like old news when the Sony a7s became available.  Plenty of people have moved on to the latest and greatest.  A year from the announcement date you will see more Samsung's for sale.  They are all battling it out for the same or at least overlapping spaces.