Nick Hughes

​Yeah, the "slow crawl."  Still, it would be a worthwhile test just to get a handle on the actual limitations; knowing how far I could acceptably be able to push my luck, or not, as it were.

People in the wrong often deny things. People who might not feel they are in the wrong, but are, can deny things. People who are in the right can deny things, if their memory is blurred from booze and fatigue.
Anyway, i'm bowing out of this.. At least until the picture is clearer.
The crux of this blog was not really about his innocence or guilt, but about the idea that he shouldn't even have to answer for his actions because he is a creative and a star... Which I strongly disagree with. Even if he is found completely innocent, these things have to be looked into otherwise we run the risk of another Saville.... Overlooking a potential problem, just because it is the number 1 star.

​
Hello. I can't say as it's beyond the bounds of what I can discuss.  But mostly everything on the list here was also on my list that's already gone in.  It's good to keep adding to it though. What I can say is that Olympus have told me that they intend to do firmware updates and add more features across all their models and plan to do so roughly every 6 months.  The recent E-M1 updates are evidence of this intention. They will aim to do this for all current models. They have also told me they plan to make the E-M5 model their video centric camera, much like the GH series in panasonic. The E-M1 will still always be their flagship and top tier camera but aimed more at pro stills photographers. The E-M10 will be their enthusiast camera. The following is my conjecture only from what I know and the recent contact I've had with Olympus.  They want to understand and do video well. But they're only just starting to incorporate it in their product planning and thinking.   This makes me think that we would never see things like 4K suddenly added to the current E-M1 just through firmware.  I also know that things like 24P aren't so easy to add in firmware as it should seem to be, mainly because if they haven't PLANNED for it, it's pretty hard to change the internal architecture to do it EVEN though logically it seems like a simple thing to do. They do things in their own way. They were the first to do live view. They were the first to do ultrasonic dust / sensor cleaning.  They do lightweight, small and weatherproof as a matter of course... They're only just now seriously thinking about video.  Tell them what you want.... JB         

Yeah, that dusk shot of San Fran is pretty much what scares people about this camera.  Oh well. 

​Throwing a drunk temper tantrum is not an industry standard nor is it justified. 

I find that people who complain about politcal correctness are usually the ones who want free reign to be racist, sexist or derogatory with no repercussions. Whenever I see someone bemoaning our PC world on Facebook, it's usually right after they've been called out for saying something along the lines of 'let's bomb the whole middle east.' 
If you need to put down others for the sake of 'comedy,' you're probably not a very inventive comedian. You can be still be edgy and controversial without being an asshole. 
 
 

​But god forbid you show a (female) nipple.

I find that people who complain about politcal correctness are usually the ones who want free reign to be racist, sexist or derogatory with no repercussions. Whenever I see someone bemoaning our PC world on Facebook, it's usually right after they've been called out for saying something along the lines of 'let's bomb the whole middle east.' 
If you need to put down others for the sake of 'comedy,' you're probably not a very inventive comedian. You can be still be edgy and controversial without being an asshole. 
 
 

I find that people who complain about politcal correctness are usually the ones who want free reign to be racist, sexist or derogatory with no repercussions. Whenever I see someone bemoaning our PC world on Facebook, it's usually right after they've been called out for saying something along the lines of 'let's bomb the whole middle east.' 
If you need to put down others for the sake of 'comedy,' you're probably not a very inventive comedian. You can be still be edgy and controversial without being an asshole. 
 
 

​Very enlightening to read this from you, the administrator and owner of this site.
I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with you.  
If you don't see the problem with any white person saying that word (yes : WHO says the word DOES matter), then there's very little to say.  
Even behind closed doors or without a black person in sight.  Apparently to you it's OK to say it when there's no fear for the consequences.  
If Clarkson is the big guy you claim him to be, let him say it for comic effect in Brixton.  And see what big guy he really is.
You can't use a derogatory term like that like it's nothing and then be surprised people react when you try to laugh it off.  
This has nothing to do with political correctness, which seems to have become the cluster term to justify all kinds of bigotry.
 

I agree, and not just because of the customs issue. When it comes to brick batteries, it's absolutely worth it to stretch a bit and get the name-brand stuff. Li batteries can be very volatile. You're packing a lot of energy into a small rectangle. Well-established brands like Anton Bauer, IDX, Switronix and Bebob have the proper cut-off switches and over-charge detectors both in the battery and in the chargers. You can leave them on blast overnight and not worry about them exploding. Many a house/hotel room/camera truck has been destroyed by unattended overseas Chinese knock-off batteries left on recharge.
You can go ahead and cut corners on rigs, rods, matteboxes, follow focuses, stabilizers and other things that won't explode. But for V-mount or AB mount battery, buy from the top shelf. Safety first!
(I'm aware I'm being a total jewish mom right now)

Well the best news for you then is no matter what you switch to, as long as it's not a mirrored Nikon camera, you can keep using that beautiful Canon glass if you want to. It's some of the most adaptable optics in the industry, covering photographic 35mm all the way down to the BMPCC.
​Assuming this isn't vapourware. It's been "imminent" since the last firmware practically. And so far it's just a rumour. I'm as hopeful as anybody, but I'm not biting my nails waiting either. I'm as hopeful about the next round of hardware as I am about this firmware, and honestly it's not stopping me from going out and making films, I just have to be careful with exposure and light control - but that's filmmaking, no? I guess my point is that M43 is already looking pretty good even now, and it's still in it's first real 4k generation. Give it some time hardware- and software- wise and I think it'll always have a superb place in compact, lightweight filmmaking, much as 16mm did before it (although it has the potential to be far far better than 16mm). 

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.

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.

Why the hate for people who shoot weddings? As if you can't be an artist and also make money (a lot, in fact) with a not-necessarily-as-artistic job that just so happens to sharpen your skills as a shooter. Shooting weddings has allowed me to quit my shitty, irrelevant part-time day jobs and focus way more on my art since I can make the same amount of money in 1/5 of the time. So yeah, shooting a wedding might not stimulate my creative side quite as much as, say, an abstract non-narrative documentary, but at least I'm getting some damn good shoulder rig and glidecam practice during those 8-10 hours. Does that strip me of the title of cinematographer or artist? Or do those terms only apply when I'm actually working on an 'actual' film?
mtheory - you mentioned working on a commercial as an accepted use of the word 'cinematographer.' Where's the cinema in that? Sure, I'll admit that there's definitely more creative leeway, but you're still just selling something. A wedding and a commercial can both be infused with some strong creativity. They can just as easily be flat and boring, like the days when 'wedding video' meant shooting to VHS with lots of slow zooms and awful dissolves on every cut. By the way, if you can figure out a way to think creatively during a boring wedding, then you're probably going to fare well when you actually have some interesting content on your plate.
Ok, so maybe you don't actually have a disdain for those who film weddings (though I know plenty of people who do), maybe it's just the term 'wedding cinematographer.' But is it really so offensive for someone to use such words to market themselves to brides who probably don't know the first thing about video? They don't care that a wedding video is not technically 'cinema.' They want to know that you understand how important their wedding is and that you can capture it in an immensely beautiful and artistic way (at least to them). If someone calling themself a wedding cinematogropher helps them get hired, then so be it. If they happen to also be a crappy videographer, then so be it. I'm more worried about the over-saturation of the market than the degradation of the word 'cinema.' And honestly, the word has already been degraded in my mind by douchey film school kids who can't frame a shot but love to spew pseudo-philosophical garbage about 'pure cinema.' Nothing against film school, but man, I can't stand some of the people who come out with no experience, thinking they've already 'made it.' 
 
So there's my rant. I hope I'm not missing the point.

​I'm not so sure about that. Just about every time I see someone ask 'what should I get as my first video camera,' there is often an overwhelming amount of T3i suggestions. That doesn't happen so much on this site, but elsewhere it seems to be the norm.

We're saying the same thing, but I think you're referring to different things here. I agree with you - but I would say in the case of Arri lights, that's perhaps brand reliability. My Gaffer uses Arri lights because they're a damn good light and they're reliable. If Arri started making terrible lights tomorrow, he wouldn't buy Arri lights anymore.
As a professional working DP, you need to be across the technology, but a professional, IMO, should use the right tool for the right job. The great thing about filmmaking is it's solely a creative endeavour - and that means you can pick the camera, format or stock that you think is going to have the best effect. That can even mean having a RED Dragon as A cam, an SR3 as a B-cam, and a C300 shooting 2nd unit if you really felt that way inclined. As long as you can back it up with a creative idea or decision, it's perfectly feasible.
But as a professional, you shouldn't be closed to new ideas. If my Gaffer pitches me a light that looks incredible, and does something I've never seen from a light before but comes from China and is a no-name brand, I'll happily go with him on it if he has confidence in it. I'm not going to stipulate he only use Arri lights because I like Arri. Similarly, I'm not only going to ever use Alexas because I like Arri. I'll always be open to new ideas and new looks - even if every project I shoot this year is shot on Alexa (unlikely), it will be because I've felt that the Alexa is the right camera for the project - not just because Arri's my favourite, or because I own an Arri and feel I need to justify my expensive purchase (I don't - but you get the analogy for many RED owners).
Each camera has its pros and cons and one should be across the pros and cons, rather than disregarding the cons because they like the pros so much (and in some cases dismissing the cons as if they don't matter).
Also, not to take a swipe at you, but as a general comment - I can't think of anyone who takes videos of their dogs who isn't having fun at the time. That doesn't mean they should all be DPs. There is a beauty in having fun and not worrying about anything but yourself and the subject, but whilst being a DP at a fundamental level requires a love for the camera, it isn't the only pre-requisite to being a DP. I know you know this, and your story shows its possible to go from having fun shooting videos of your dog to shooting quite substantial work. However, I feel I have to caution those who may take from your story that you're advocating not needing any knowledge or experience to become a professional DP.

​Yes I saw that comment from Olympus.
They are right and they're wrong.
Pana, Sony, Samsung do need to generate 4K content for their TVs.
However my question to Olympus is do you see the potential in great 1080p? BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T EVEN DONE THAT YET!

You shouldn't sharpen a letterboxed image- add the crop after you grade and sharpen. 
Low-contrast images can be very nice, but that doesn't mean high-contrast (or really, normal contrast) isn't filmic or cinematic. Sometimes when I'm watching a film, I'll realize halfway through that there are a ton of crushed blacks or just high contrast in general, especially often for movies shot on film. And it's still beautiful. I personally think ultra-low contrast imagery will start to look dated at some point, so I try to make sure not to go to far down that path. Striking a balance is (usually) always best.
 

​Where did you get the idea that everyone is shooting feature films?? Feature films are a small part of the production industry. The majority of cameras are used in commercial and corporate projects. Areas where slow-motion and 4K are very desired (not necessarily for 4K delivery). 
It doesn't make us morons or amateurs.

Hi Guys,
If you are interested to check how gh4 works with old Nikon lenses. Comments are most welcome.
enjoy
 
 

​If objective truth or an objective fact is something we need to agree on, I'd say it's a delusion. An artificial frame, the more abstract the more it forces people to confess to it. A human disease. Literally much ado about nothing, but the ado includes wars and genocides. Think about it. Can there be anything more negligible than, say, the question which NLE or OS is best?
Apply this to any dissensions between individuals, groups or societies. Apply it to your own inner conflicts. Don't worry about things, so-called 'facts', notions. Understand that others are influenced by alien forces . Do the right thing. Use The Force, Luke!

You could color correct this pretty easily with a circular mask and a wide feather. It's very subtle as is (in this shot at least)- pulling out the slightest amount of blue should do the trick. Obviously, this isn't a permanent solution, but it'll work if you need these shots.

They're not same image- you can test yourself using photoshop and the "difference" blend mode. I overlaid A with every image in the third example. The first box is black because it's an exact match. None of the other images disappear because they are all slightly different. Certain points line up and cancel out (it's very close after all, that's the point of the test), but no matter how you move, resale, tilt the images, they never cancel out completely.