Lammy

That GX7 EVF hump and rectangular corner just looks so ugly in my opinion... I prefer the symmetry and sleek aethetic to the GX7.
All I wanted was just a 4K update on the GX7, and maybe a 3.5mm jack and a tiltable uppy screen and maybe weatherproofing. This total re-design and 2.5 times price tag is bizarre!

That GX7 EVF hump and rectangular corner just looks so ugly in my opinion... I prefer the symmetry and sleek aethetic to the GX7.
All I wanted was just a 4K update on the GX7, and maybe a 3.5mm jack and a tiltable uppy screen and maybe weatherproofing. This total re-design and 2.5 times price tag is bizarre!

​"Here for the first time on EOSHD we have seen the potential of a top management consultant for Apple! You should be paid millions! You're a genius!"
"You are living in cloud cuckoo land."
Well Mr. Reid, I supposed anything less from you would have been unacceptable.  Instead of debating on substance, you ridiculed the opponent. That's brilliant.
For the record, and unwittingly on your part, you were right. I was with a major management consultant firm, whose services were retained by Apple, Samsung, and many CE products and services that at varying times you had hyped beyond hyperbole on one extreme and savagely sagged on the other extreme depending on the day of the week, or sometimes the hour of the day.  There were sporadic balanced and objective analysis and discourse, but that's fast becoming a tantamount search for Waldo in the entire western hemisphere.
"So you suggest to any future Steve Jobs that by being more vague and sweetening feedback to employees, you will get better decisions out of them and a better conceived product?"
"In engineering, if there is a design problem you don't sweet talk it until it goes away or make the designer feel good about his terrible mistake."
False on both counts. I did not suggest that feedback to one's own employees or from third parties to camera makers should be sugar coated or vague, what I did suggest was that management and user feedback should be assertive and tactful. There is a world of difference between what I said and what you thought I suggested. Effective communication is key and too much easier said than done. You want to convey the facts of what's not working, what went awry, and what would be the best alternative/end state without humiliating and demoralizing. If you glossed over my previous post, then I understand the misconjecture, please reread. I don't know if you have to work in a corporate environment and/or team environment, and charged with delivering results--quality results--both individually and at the same time collectively. This magnifies when a multitude of cross-functional teams have to collaborate toward a common goal. Essentially you're managing, balancing, directing a multitude of personalities all of whom are quirky on some level, and how you accomplish that is effective communication and interpersonal skills, not verbal diarrhea.

​Utterly uncalled for.  Why stoop this low just because you assumed a different viewpoint from someone else?  I see preschool and grade school children that conduct themselves with much better manner and less reproach.  I have seen a good number of genuinely kind and even altruistic gestures from the gamut of photo/video forums across the blogosphere, but occasionally it's posts like this that flies in the face of basic decency and humility. Not only that it does not adds, but I believe it is outbursts like this that has a deleterious effect to the visual artisans and technicians community as a whole.  If this trend continues, then I think we will have much more to loose than gain in our common pursuit for knowledge and growth here.  Perhaps the great veil of anonymity through the iron curtain of the internet is conducive to malicious behaviors.  I can hardly imagine such things being said in the physical presence of another person with so many to witness.
No one is infallible, I had my own blunders just as you had yours and everyone else here and elsewhere.  If you're having a bad day or for whatever reason had succumbed to your own emotional impulse, then that's understandable (though not excusable).  I think a simple apology maybe in order here, of course that's entirely up to you.
I don't know Max, I have read some of his blog comments, and believe him to be a learned and cultivated man. Although I may not necessarily agreed with some of the viewpoints he espoused, I do feel that he was offering constructive and cogent feedback to Andrew for the betterment of the blog.
Everyone can exercise and benefit from a bit more civility, especially toward another artist and/or technician who shared the same passion for filmaking.  Lets hold ourselves to a higher standard. Vitriol and ad hominen attacks are better left at the landfill.
=========================================================================================================================================
On to the topic at hand. I don't doubt that the FS7's menu layout and operations are atrocious, though I much rather that Steve Job was not employ as a reference model, not because he was incapable of conceiving some of the most functional and beautiful design in gadgetry that the world has ever seen and put to good use, but precisely because he may have accomplish more by being more tactful and less corrosive/coercive with his interpersonal dealings/interactions. It's one thing being assertive and quite another being aggressive, and for some, that's a fine line.  Shortly after Job passed, one of the senior executive at a top management consultancy asserted that Job exhibited his personal traits and management style not because they were particularly effective, but because they required less skills--soft skills that is.  Agree or not, there is no denial of the man's legacy in technical and design prowess and the success that persists to this day.
Personally, I think a more apt example for us here in the community is none other than James Cameron, whose personality is very much fungible with Job's, but has gone through a long evolution through his time spent out in the field in scientific explorations and expeditions. Cameron has recounted and acknowledged his shortcomings early in his career in directing the performance and work of his cast and crew.  He readily admitted that a more collaborative approach, one that he had cultivated through his work with countless teams of scientists, deep sea explorers, and technical personnel would have suited him better as a filmaker in those formative years.

​Agreed, this is one thread that didn't need to be made other than to have a last word and to keep provoking the same conversation... the same conversation... which is basically this:
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."

 

​Agreed, this is one thread that didn't need to be made other than to have a last word and to keep provoking the same conversation... the same conversation... which is basically this:
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."

 

​Agreed, this is one thread that didn't need to be made other than to have a last word and to keep provoking the same conversation... the same conversation... which is basically this:
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."

 

That design looks like it belongs on a cool robot!

That design looks like it belongs on a cool robot!

That design looks like it belongs on a cool robot!

That design looks like it belongs on a cool robot!

That design looks like it belongs on a cool robot!

I wish I had never started this discussion!

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.
 

It's sad times when the most exposure people see of the Kodak brand is just selling cheap AA batteries at Poundland.
Walking around the Pinewood lot, at least Spectre and Star Wars are being shot on Kodak film still.
Makes me wonder if they were as innovative at making better digital cameras or collaborating with companies like Nikon or Arri may have turned a better route...

Yes, calling each other racist, scum, and stupid really is daft as fuck and doesn't help. The pitfalls of speaking politics and different ideologies in the wrong place...
And QMedia, I care. Just last week the popular opinion of a million Top Gear fans wanting petition for Clarkson to stay on. That's pretty good fandom, mind you. Most Conservatives were on the fence, until the report came out, where they then changed their tune to agree with the Left with the inevitable BBC sacking. It's funny how popular opinions can change given information and context.
While we can all now agree (as Andrew now with mphillips and damp posted above) that Jeremy Clarkson is at fault... and we can agree that assault is terrible... I can also see the thinking that the BBC really should have had better talent management and avoided this. Well, from a preventative measure at least, still not sure they could have done anything different after the incident. This guy has been on thin ice for over a year, and what they did was extend this season of Top Gear by 4 episodes? Interesting... 
Oh and I'm also questioning the BBC's reporting on the NHS and Elections too so yez, thanks, think for ourselves indeed.
 
 

Poll for Clarkson's Dismissal 59% right decision, 29% wrong decision, 12% don't know. 
I've been keeping an eye on the elections lately but it's really interesting looking at the overall demographic of voters for topics like the Clarkson debate. Like the usual difference in ideologies etc.
 
 
 

Poll for Clarkson's Dismissal 59% right decision, 29% wrong decision, 12% don't know. 
I've been keeping an eye on the elections lately but it's really interesting looking at the overall demographic of voters for topics like the Clarkson debate. Like the usual difference in ideologies etc.
 
 
 

Its really sad that one of the greatest TV shows will never be the same. Jeremy Clarkson was the backbone of the show but he also bears the responsibility for its (probable) demise. He seems to have a problem with understanding that actions have consequences - you see it in pretty much every episode and it really makes for great TV. He behaves as if he is invincible and entertains the hell out of us in the process. Unfortunately this behaviour leaks out into the "real" world and he's got himself into trouble many many times. 
You can argue that he should be given a break but its not an isolated incident. He's really f**ked up a lot and got away with it with a slap on the wrist. The BBC has defended him where it may not have defended others and they have already given him the "star" treatment several times over. He's one of the biggest starts of the corporation and given his serial bad behaviour, which has put the show at risk on a few occasions before, I'm positive that his superiors would have done everything they could have to protect the show. He's put the BBC in a terrible position with his latest actions and he alone is responsible for this.
I spent 4 years working at the BBC and its a very "by the book" organization. Its pretty clear right from the beginning whats acceptable and whats not. Tens of thousands of other employees seem to get the rules. He's worked there for decades, understands the organization and the responsibilities it has to license fee payers and he still screws up like this after many warnings. How many warnings and slaps on the wrist should he be allowed exactly? 
I understand the argument that its a bigger picture; that one of the most popular TV shows on the planet is at risk and that sometimes you need to be flexible with your rules to benefit the greater good. This is fine on short-term productions (like film) or with independent companies that only answer to shareholders, but the BBC cannot afford to be that flexible - its a publicly owned company with a charter, answerable to the people and absolutely cannot be seen to be supporting criminal behaviour. As I said, Clarkson knew this. He knew he was on thin ice and he knew that another f**k up probably signal the end of his employment. He might have been under a lot of stress and fuelled by booze but he still made a conscious decision to do what he did. I'd bet you anything he woke up the next morning and thought to himself "oh dear......."
Its just a sad sad situation. Like many stars, he's the master of his own downfall. His unpredictable and risk-taking character which has helped to take Top Gear to the heights of success is also the cause of its demise.  
Maybe he can take a break on Clarkson island:
 

Last night I watched Frances Ha. Shot on a 5D. Now that is something I would like to see discussed here. A lout and cars, not so much.

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.

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

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

I really can't believe all the faeces being slung in this thread, can we be clear on one point here, what Andrew is talking about is not "one rule for one, and one rule for another", that is very clearly not correct. (Unless, you are working on a cure for cancer according to horshack, then it is one rule for you, apparently, because that's how moral crusaders roll). Neither was he saying that assault or abuse is on any way ok. I mean he literally, directly stated that.
I believe he is saying the following, and I agree with all points:
1) The BBC were wrong to drag this into a public forum before they began their investigation.
2) People make mistakes, we are all human and everyone is different and thus will make different mistakes.
3) When people make mistakes, deal with it appropriately.
How can I justify supporting these statements in the context of work place assault?
1) Come on. There was a clear ulterior motive to the BBC going public with this in the way they did and with the wording they used. They deliberately presented a very one sided point of view at a time when they had not even started investigating. The investigation was clearly a scam, a con, a public display of fairness when in reality the die was set from the moment they decided to go public.
2 & 3) Clarkson made a mistake. It is clear that he felt remorse because he reported it himself. Personally I don't believe in punitive punishment, this idea that you've broken the law therefore you will be punished to discourage you from breaking the law is a failure. At times in history when the punishments were harsh and severe, including death for even petty crimes, people still committed crime. Punitive action does not work, fact. Rehabilitation works. I do not believe Clarkson should be punished, he should be rehabilitated. Plenty on "lawyers" on here have been talking about the law in absolute terms in this thread, well how about this little nugget of British legislation: The employer has a duty of care towards their employees. Clarkson and Oisin were both employees, and the BBC have absolutely failed in their duty of care towards them both. They failed to help Clarkson with his problems, which they had a duty to do, and in failing to do so, they failed Oisin by putting him in direct contact with a man who had the problems and placed them both under stress by working them hard all day. What did they expect to happen? They could have stepped in at any moment, got Clarkson the help he quite clearly needs and never have had this happen. When a human being is suffering the problems that Clarkson is, the cowardly thing to do is to turn your back on them, get rid of them, cast them out of your group. The brave thing to do is to help them, to accept that "there but for the grace of God go I". In this case, Clarkson is even making the BBC so much money that paying for the help he needs would be a drop in the ocean - but that is a particularly cynical view, that a group of humans should only help another human if they are worth it.
All of you people who are saying that it was correct to sack him are talking with a particularly nasty corporate mindset. A corporation is a human construct, one designed to gather and horde money. It is the ultimate expression of capitalism. Any human being who turns their back on another human in need of help to protect this capitalist machine is in my eyes, scum. They are stating loud and clearly "This machine created and designed to gather money is more important to me than the health and well being of any person, even one who has given their talent to help that machine gather money." Any person who has said, it doesn't matter, the BBC has plenty of talent who can do the job are saying "People are replaceable, we don't need to look after them properly. When we break one, we will put another in their place". And you're doing this under the banner of being a caring human being, you care about Oisin, so this monster who bashed him must be cast out. But you are brainwashed by the corporate culture we live in. Dystopia is here already, money, and the ability to gather it chooses our politicians and our laws which it happily ignores, it dictates what you eat, drink and how you will be treated if you are ill. Every single part of our lives is dictated to by faceless entities, using friendly names, reaching into your wallet to take your money from you. I once attended a conference on how to price your product - attended by someone I was making a documentary on. In the audience was a man who represented a baby food company. I watched as he cheered and hollered to the devious ways the presenter was showing them to raise the price of your product and I thought of my sister who had to choose at the time whether to buy food for her baby or for herself. I thought of this man cheering and hollering as he took so much money from my sister that she couldn't eat properly. That is capitalism. That is what you defend when you tell me that the BBC was correct to fire Clarkson.
So what should have happened? Simple, Clarkson should have been cared for by the BBC. They have a legal duty of care towards him. He is a human being and you are arrogant if you assume that you could never behave like that, all that means is that you have never been put under the kind of stress that would make you behave that way. You know that fame is not pleasant or enjoyable right? Today, I sat behind a camera as two people in front of it agreed that they hated the red carpet experience. This was not an isolated view, I am yet to meet any person for whom fame has been a positive to their mental health. Yes Clarkson makes a lot of money, but all the money in the world does not matter if you are under so much strain and pressure that you have serious problems. Time is the only currency with any meaning, as we have a limited amount of it. I don't care how many nice cars he buys, he has lost time to this stress and pressure that he will never get back. The BBC have chewed him up and spat him out when they felt they didn't want the bad publicity anymore. And what suffers? As has been rightly pointed out, not Top Gear, they will slot in a new cog, and start grinding them down with ridiculous hours and stress. Not the BBC, he's gone. Done and dusted. Not their responsibility any more. Not even Clarkson, this may actually be very good for him. It is the art of what we do and create that suffers. Like it or hate it, Clarksons Top Gear was. And art existing is important, even if you don't like it, even if you refuse to accept that it is art. Diversity in art is what makes it so important. I can't stand Tracy Emin, but if she stopped shitting in tents, the art I do like would be poorer because of her demise. For art, TV, cinema, literature, music et al to be healthy, it needs diversity. Without diversity and with corporate interference, you end up with bland, homogenized art/TV/cinema/literature/music made for the widest audience, in the safest way without risk. And this won't affect us, we grew up in a world where Clarkson entered out lives, gave us an opinion on the man, whatever that opinion was, it helped shape us. The problem will be in 10 years time when the kids today grow up in a world with one less Clarkson, one less strong figure to be opinionated over, one more element of bland BBC security in the world.
Today was a bad day for the industry.
As for Oisin, he is the product of a millennia of genetic refinement, his ancestors have survived fire and ice, starvation and poor nutrition to pass his genes on. They hunted, gathered, became warriors to fight for their freedom. He'll get over a little split lip. He'll be absolutely fine.
And since when did we stop being annoyed at people who clog up hospitals with cuts and scrapes that can't be healed any quicker by having a doctor or nurse look at it?