leeys

Hello, Sorry for my bad english…
Until now I came every day on your site because you give interesting information on filming. But your pathetic defense of a TV animator is really without interest and make only noise on the net.
I was ignorant of the guy and the program, since then I watched a bit and mama mia, what a lost of time, money, petrol, air! In other places, there is so many interesting people not able to do their second or third film and you say nothing? So many people killed for interesting and generous ideas and you say nothing?
So childish…
And your selfish critic of "political correct" when people have some view on how can work relations between people and you prefer mysoginist, racist behaviors?
That's all for today.
Jacques Hoepffner
 

Simple really, the guy twatted somebody therefore he is a twat and should go. "Thow shalt not act like a nob."

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.
 

You've got to research your festivals. And then have the willpower NOT to submit to the shitty ones just because it looks like an easy in. There are 100% legit regional festivals that have huge sponsors and attract audiences to the festival. They don't simply rely on who the filmmakers can bring.
I'm leaving in a few days for the Phoenix Film Festival. This is a regional fest in a largely conservative state that attracts more than 23,000 ticket buyers of independent cinema every year. I had a feature-length movie world premiere there in 2013 and we sold out 2 of our 3 screenings without lifting a finger. There are many more like this... deadCENTER in Oklahoma City, Dances With Films in LA, Cinequest, Austin, Sidewalk in Alabama. 
It takes work but there are ways to learn which festivals to submit to. Moviemaker magazine puts out yearly lists of great festivals worth the submission fee. This makes it easy to avoid festivals like the Buffalo-Niagara Fest that pressures filmmakers to buy advertising in their program and whose screenings are routinely attended only by other filmmakers who happened to travel in for the festival.
All in all, there are too many festivals, I agree. Most suck. But there are a select number that do a great job and serve a large audience that's hungry for independent movies. They might be harder to get into, but that's the point right? They have to be more discerning because they've built a reputation based on the movies they program each year. Which points to the real difference i see between successful fests and unsuccessful ones. Successful festivals make the experience of the festival AND the films they screen into the main attraction, unsuccessful ones rely only on who the films attract, which as we know, often doesn't amount to jack shit.
I've learned to navigate through the garbage and thankfully, it's been more years than i can count where i had the misfortune to attend a festival I'd describe as "lonely".

To be fair, some art strives to offend.  And why should't it if that's the intent?
On the other hand, some people make things from a perspective where a lot of ideological ignorance is presented --where the creator doesn't have the insight or self awareness to comprehend other opinions.
In one case let's say you have an artist that understands the various nuances yet strives to say something from her/his POV in a focused way.  In another you have someone that does not comprehend the other's views yet presents his/her POV with that empathetic blind spot.
So as a person that has to reckon with those two pieces of work, which one deserves the be held in more value?  If either?  That sort of thing is in a way intangible and it all depends on the art and the artist, but personally I'd hold in higher esteem someone with the intelligence to understand what they're creating and appreciating the context of it.
So if you make an expletive movie because you're just not smart or wise enough to NOT make an exploitive movie, I think I'd approach that material with a healthy dose of skepticism.  That doesn't mean I'm getting my panties bunched because I'm offended by a certain ideology.  It means I think something is shit because there's not much intelligence on display.
Art is meant to be poked and prodded from all directions.  If it can't withstand that scrutiny then maybe it deserves to be ridiculed.  Some things are good, some aren't.

Just a sidenote, if Spike Lee has the right to say all kinds of things then it should be natural to accept anyone's right to call him racist. That's the beauty of the equation.

I felt compelled to reply to this topic. I've been on many sides of the fence on this issue, I've been the guy who, when the fs700 was released, absolutely had to have 120fps for camera work. I was so enamored by the possibilities that I could implement with slow motion, then I actually used it and realized it wasn't too special and I probably overdid it (https://vimeo.com/109775095) but can definitely add value here and there SO AS LONG as you keep the idea/feeling you want to portray in mind.

THEN I became the super jaded guy who was getting irritated with test videos all using slow motion, and tons of videos being uploaded in Vimeo all implementing their respective cameras slow motion. I would say things like "slow mo is cliche" or "slow mo is played out" and basically felt like it wasn't all that special anymore since everyones iPhone could do slow mo.

THEN I realized I was merely projecting my insecurities on others. And just like that I didn't care anymore. It no longer matters to me if people are using slow mo, lifting the shit out of their blacks, the important thing is they're trying to make things. If it's slow mo that captivates someone into doing something creative, so be it. I like that. I like seeing people with cameras, trying to explore a side of themselves that pretty much all modern societies try to surpress. Is it overdone ? Absolutely. Does it *actually* affect me, and my ability to deliver ideas? No, the only thing that could ever affect that is myself.

Overall it's a tool, and I think it's important that ALL camera manufacturers, at this point, include at least 120fps to be there when people need it.

I just tried the NX1 with this lens, and pulling focus in AF with this combination is so much fun. Truly versatile for one-person run-and-gun setups.

​Yes, by all means, stop playing with toys.  At least buy gear that makes you appear like a professional behind the lens and next to the cool camera stuff because that's what the viewer will truly appreciate when they watch the final product. [rolls eyes]
Never mind these option that give you professional level imaging for a few hundred bucks, just use gear that has brand prestige among industry people.  Such as a RED.  It's so great.  And your favorite gritty movie was once shot with it.   
If you do otherwise, you're not going to be prestigious or taken seriously by other guys that appear professional next to cool camera stuff.  
Well, unless you actually capture a compelling story and create an emotional and memorable film...which depending on your circumstances, using a toy camera might give you the best chance of acquiring, but, hey, whatever.  As long as you look good in your PR shot when you're pointing and standing next to a big camera with a huge matte box.
And you'll never make money!  
As a documentarian that's probably going to be true no matter what gear you use.
Anyway, the "you-must-use-this" snob attitude (and it is a legitimate snob attitude) about specific brands is ridiculous.  Sure, some people in the "biz" embrace it, and maybe it even helps them in their certain industry circles, but it doesn't mean it's an attitude we all need to share or assume that outlook works for one's particular needs.  If you have the skill and the story, you can shoot the damn thing on a smartphone.  As a documentary film maker, if you start with thinking about the story you'll always be better off than starting by thinking about the gear.
My opinion is that too many people get that backwards.

More budget for better audio is always good. People underestimate the importance of good audio. If you're not in a hurry you can see how the new cameras fare first.

​I disagree with this as well.  I think many people new to shooting video buy these cameras because they are seeking a 'cinematic' look.  Obviously this is a nebulous term but DOF control is a big part of this which is small sensor camcorders are not an option.  They want a camera that could allow them to create a pro-quality film, even if that film is about their kids or a family vacation.  They watch vimeo staff picks and think, if only I had that camera I could make a film just like that.  They then look at professional review sites, and dream for a moment about owning a C100/300 or 1DC or a FS7 before reality sets in (mainly $$$ and size/weight)  and they accept a small, prosumer ILC is the way to go, and they are happy as after all some vimeo staff picks are filmed on a GH4 or A7s.  
They then get their GH4/A7s and while the image is great, their film isn't like the staff picks they were watching.  As they chase around their kids, or when on holiday try to shoot artistic shots while keeping up with their family, their handheld image is shaky with rolling shutter and just doesn't look as good as they hoped.  With time they then realise how much skill and time goes into shooting those staff picks, and how the camera is the smallest part of the equation -how lighting, composition, audio, editing, colour grading and stable camera movement are just if not more important.  
This is why I think the E-M5ii is a good choice for the average consumer.  I think for the run and gun, uncontrolled event style shooting that they do when out with their family, having a stable image and the ability to add cinematic style camera movement with no rigging or set-up time adds more to the quality of their film than higher resolution.  But hey its just my opinion, everyone can make their own decision.

Here's a photo of the Nebula 4000's pitch motor compared to motors you typically find on DSLR stabilizers.  The gimbal in the picture is one a friend had, which broke, he could never get it working again, so I'm trying to fix it.  Not easy!  This photo gives you an idea how little the motors are on small gimbals and why they work best with small cameras.
 

I'm all for equality, and parts of this thread strikes to being very disconcerting. Transparency is good, being "politically correct" isn't all that bad either.
Being creative doesn't mean you lose respect towards others.

The main issue is that m43 lenses are all electronic, so there's no point in adapting them to E mount, hence I haven't seen any adapters for that purpose.
The most versatile mount to get is the Nikon F mount version. Just in case Nikon makes something you want.

I mostly agree with you there. I don't think we could have a Klaus Kinski these days...
 
However HSBC? There is nothing about that bank that needs to be saved. There were plenty of investigations into that bank that pretty much ended up with showing it was Satan itself, that it supports drug cartels, terrorist groups and other enemies of the US, and the only reason why it was allowed to go on was because it's too big to fail. It has a ton of blood on its hand. The bank needs to go away, and it's staff need to be investigated and put into prison.

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.

The whole issue reminds me of when footballers act out. The club and/or establishment have to tread a fine line between looking like they have control, whilst making sure their prize asset will not just pack up and move away to a rival team/league.

He can say whatever he wants.  
And you know what Andrew you were right - I shouldn't listen to critics and I didn't - I revised the Quiet Escape and made it better - I tried to incorporate what I heard but in the end I modified it more to what I wanted it to be.
Thank you again
Ed

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.

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"  

On the Nebula 4000, there are two ways you can balance the "roll" of a camera.  The first, is to mount it in any plate slot, looses the screws attaching the roll arm to the motor, and move the roll arm until it balances.  The second way is mount the camera on a plate mount either closer, or farther, from where the roll arm attaches to the pitch motor.  The problem with the GH4, A7, and any larger camera, is that you can't get it balanced, for roll, unless it's in a plate slot that puts it right up against the pitch motor adjustment screw; that is, the roll arm doesn't move to the right far enough that you can mount the camera on the right side of the plate where you can get the wrench into the pitch motor screws.  Dave Dugdales's videos show him wrestling with this problem.  The bottom line is that with a smaller camera you can easily adjust the pitch bar position because you can mount the camera away from it.  With the GH4, you'd need to figure out the pitch balance BEFORE You mount the camera.  That makes balancing the camera very difficult.  In order to get a good balance, you need the camera mounted on the gimbal where you can move each part around and test.
The second problem is that if you put any sort of long, or heavy lens on the GH4, you start to stress the Nebula out.  The motors aren't designed for heavy cameras.  So you'd have to have it balanced perfectly.  
I don't want to dissuade anyone for using a Nebula with the GH4.  I just want to point out that it's much easier with a smaller camera.  The sweet spot cameras are probably the A6000, LX100, EOS-M, GX7, etc--and not with heavy glass.

Well after paying a fortune for a Sony DSR570WSP camera (anyone remember those!) back near the start of the century, then moving to a Sony EX3, I finally jumped on the DSLR bandwagon with the Canon 60D (due to the menu view driven audio levels out of the box). I purchased some nice Canon L lenses expecting to stay with Canon for a while, only to be disappointed with Canon's future progress and price compared to the competition.
In the end I finally sold the Sony EX3 and Canon 60D and switched sides to Panasonic and the GH3's. Love the ease of the GH3 settings and menu's (Andrew was late in the game with a GH3 book, I'd picked most of it up by then - but still got the book). I also very much like the 12-35mm f2.8 Panasonic lens and only attach my Canon lenses with manual aperture adapter when I need the faster glass.
Due to the price of the Panasonic bodies I can upgrade and change more frequently these days, if I went down the Canon Cinema route that would never be the case. I'm still basically spending the same amount of my budget every couple of years on more camera's, its just Canon isn't seeing any of it.
I've already upgraded the GH3's to GH4's. Initially got one and love the added benefits of focus peaking, zebra and timecode (things i missed from my old Sony broadcast cameras). 4K filming looks great. I don't really need it and have never output anything in 4K in the last six months, but love the fact that I have the ability to film in 4K with a great internal codec. It's been handy a couple of times for cropping.
My second GH4 body only cost me £860 inc taxes from China (couldn't get the UK version, as I need cameras that can record more than 30 minutes without stopping). What has Canon really got to compete with a 4K camera that has most of the bells and whistles of a broadcast camera with added benefit of DOF for £860!
I film and edit small corporate films, school shows and wedding films and consider myself a prosumer user. However, I can't see Canon reducing the cost of their products enough any time soon to pull me away from other manufactures, they have set their bar far too high for my liking compared to the competition, maybe they don't want my money? I don't have any intentions of selling my Canon lenses (love the 50mm f1.2), but instead of buying more lenses from Canon I'm getting the Leica 42.5mm f1.2 next for the GH4.

Well actually... got this in last week:

Straight from China. The cheapest price I could find online at some handler. They offered me an even better deal if I directly purchased from them and not an intermediate site. 225 EUR below the lowest price I could find through Geizhals.eu (happened to be at Amazon.de). Fantastic experience to be honest. Even flew below customs radar. And look, it's an actual physical and brand new lens.
'Bout third party batteries... Yeah, I know the 'so you've spent all this money on an expensive camera and then take the cheapskate route on the stuff that can ruin that very camera?'-philosophy. What can I say? I like being a bit of a 'rebel' and living 'dangerously'. But seriously though, they're friggin' batteries. That's not rocket science (it's potato science). You can pick up A-brand batteries all shapes and sizes for close to nothing. But wait. Let's make each individual camera take its proprietary battery and charge the sh- out of 'em (pardon my language). Wait... what now? Where did the money go? It didn't go into making the battery, that's for sure. So in all fairness, I respectfully decline buying original batteries. Just do some research. No brand = no go. Don't buy any brandless stuff, yeah, I actually have to agree, that's pretty silly. Don't just go for the cheapest option either. But you can just look up reviews. Check if the manufacturer has a site. Does it looks serious at all? What are their claims? What is there warranty policy? Are there a lot of places selling these batteries? Does Amazon trust 'em enough to sell 'em themselves? I myself have now landed at Patona. Their batteries have been treating me nicely. Actually yesterday bought some of their NP-F970 Premium batteries with charger. Already have some other camera batteries from them, but the F970 is a nice accessory powering battery, that kinda gets rid of the problem of needing tons of AA batteries to power one thing. I don't know. Maybe I'm just good at assessing stuff, having a fair dose of good judgement and making the right calls, but so far I've been very fortunate and happy with the products, logistics and customer service I've encountered whilst buying stuff from abroad (and I do need to mention that I buy silly amounts of stuff from China btw, not just that Nikon lens, they have some terrific bang-for-buck going on, like personal audio, smartphones, tablets, all that good stuff... although you do need to know your stuff and put in the research, and that's just 'what' you're getting, not per se 'how' you are getting it).
But anyways. Your problem isn't even with the product itself, you are just unfortunate enough to be stuck in the world of logistic mishaps and lousy bureaucracy. Could be partly because shipping batteries usually form a bit of trouble, dangerous goods and all that, documentation, clearance... then there's unprofessional handling of the actual logistic services and customs... and perhaps subpar customer service and if such a valuable parcel just vanishes, it better be insured properly. I had cinema lenses from the States coming my way a week before I received the Nikon lens. Had to be insured and handled properly. And kinda knowing about bureaucracy and procedures it was pretty obvious that paying for it to have that kind of treatment to be done right would also result in it being treated so professional as to tax me for the whole thing (could've bought that Nikon and then some for that). No flying below radars there. But yeah, that was kind of the calculated risk of not taking risks.
So... personally, I don't mind getting things from abroad. Also don't mind cheaper items in general, so I don't share the 'cheaper is more expensive' and 'don't ever buy from overseas'. In meanwhile I kinda know the ins, the outs, the risks and have to say that I've been fortunate enough not to have made any losses along the way *knocks on wood*. But yeah, I get that sucky situations suck, so I do hope you get this sorted out somehow.

The impact of the sensor working at higher temperatures is that you get more noise and other sensor faults like FPN and dead pixels are more likely to show up.  These are the symptoms of sensor heating.  We talk about overheating and it's not really because the components will somehow fry, it's just that more heat can change the performance of the sensor.
If you were looking for symptoms of overheating (or operating outside of normal temperature range)  that's what they would be...
Some cameras have black balance features that enable you to set the black levels (and thus the noise floor) and to also re-map dead pixels.
Most recommend you do this at the "operating" temperature of the camera.
I have been shooting a lot with the Sony F55 a lot.  We're shooting day nights at the moment and on the very first setup about 20 mins into our day I spotted a dead pixel.  The camera had been on for a while and I hadn't seen it on the two rehearsals we did.  After an APR the dead pixel went away.
The F55 has a black balance / dead pixel re-map feature they call "APR" and I normally have my assistants have the camera on for 30 mins and then do the APR function once it's at operational temperature.
RED have similar issues because their cooling generally isn't as good.  On very long takes when their cooling fans wind down for sound, they can often have the sensor temp go above the range specified during their black balance.  They have a specific warning for this and their suggestion is to pre-heat your sensor to your normal operating condition before doing a black shading / black balance.  The idea is that you're calibrating the sensor for that operating temperature, even if it's higher than normal.
Alexa (and Blackmagic) approach it differently.  Neither camera has a black balance / dead pixel facility available to the user.  Instead they use solid state cooling to maintain the sensor temperature to their ideal operating temperature.  It's like a refrigerator with a thermostat on the back of the sensor.  They maintain a constant thermal performance and that, along with dual gain architecture sensors is why they both have such large DR (the 2.5K and pocket).
JB