SleepyWill

Hey guys - just a few things: To clarify, I am not affiliated with any company or product mentioned (as should be painfully obvious), but I also recently got my second strike (and the worst part is, my first strike was because I used incompetech music, and Kevin McCloud himself emailed Vimeo to explain that I had fully complied with the terms of using his music, and that the claim had not come from him, the sole owner and writer of his music - but they left the strike on my account, because f me apparently) But to get my video's off, I have been using an automatic video downloader, called "4kvideo downloader", it costs a small amount, is free from any malware that my antivirus (bitdefender) can find, and though it looks sketchy as anything, is in fact working for me. I can leave it overnight and it will plough through my entire account, maximising my efficiency at downloading them. I've also been hearing a lot about floatplane as a youtube/vimeo alternative, and was wondering if anyone had any experience with them - I think they are new, but right now it seems to be pay to access, which obviously would be a problem. I tried steemit, and it just screams "scam" to me - and I can tell you now, the "money earned" under every video is grossly inaccurate, 100 times out and I cannot for the life of me find a way to work out how it is generated.

Art in which the supposed audience are not supposed to get it, generally work because the people who believe they are the audience are not. Some artists are their own intended audience, taking amusement at the bewilderment, or for others to take amusement at the same thing. When you make a work intended for (insert group here) and that group of people see it and say it's rubbish, then it's rubbish. Art is a lot of things but one thing it can never be is audienceless. Art by definition is supposed to be seen or otherwise experienced. Sadly artists are just normal people and come with the full range of weasel like behaviour that we can all exhibit when our feelings are hurt, and that includes lying about the intention of art if it fails the honest intention. As for "commercial art", everyone's got to make a living, and if you can monetise the thing you love, why shouldn't you, why should you get sneered at for making the decision about your life that made you happy? Who are you to say that if I make something and someone is prepared to pay to experience it, that it's worth less than something made that no-one is prepared to pay to experience? Or that if I choose to take that money, suddenly my art is less worthy.

"so many people can’t interpret the correct target of a film or even a joke, because they are too thick." A joke, or a film that has to explain itself to the audience is a failure. If the audience don't get it, then you as an artist have failed, you've either marketed it in such a way that the wrong people are going to see it, or you're not a very good artist. Now if you're trying to show something to an audience that they wouldn't usually see, and are trying to show them why your work is good, then you both need to expect the discussion about it, along with the criticism and for only the very pinicle of your genre to have any chance of success. If you are not at the pinnacle, you're likely to fail. " I remember reading just recently about a top scientist who was in a large elevator with a lot of members from the audience of a conference, and he joked he wanted someone to press the button for him to get out at the women’s lingerie department. The target for this joke was of course himself, a decaying old man finding humour in a desperate fictionalised version of himself, seeking sexual satisfaction by exploring the women’s lingerie department, " With you completely... "but he ended up losing his job because people in the elevator took offence" He didn't lose his job. He didn't lose anything. If he does, it won't be about the joke, it was about how he responded to the complaint. See below. "saw the target as their gender, thought it misogynistic and wanted him fired. And the community in which he worked was so politically correct that they actually went ahead and did so. A life’s work ruined in a blink of an eye, a career smashed in the time it takes to make a wise crack in a lift. Actually, the complaint about the joke was, quite rightly about to be dismissed. The big problem wasn't the joke, it was that he tried to intimidate the person who complained. Ex Partie communication is a very bad thing and should never be defended. "but trivially empty family friendly content has kick started a mental health epidemic" No it hasn't "In the lead up to this year’s Cannes, Kate Muir of the Guardian newspaper in the UK lambasted Von Trier’s presence in the festival purely for being male" It's interesting you think she lambasted him, given that all she did was print his own words, in context. What she was saying was, when there are all these great female directors, why is space being given to this guy. Here's things he has said. She was lambasting Cannes, yes, but him, no - his own words were enough - she even printed his follow up's to complaints about his words. "At the screening of the new film, over 100 critics walked out mid-way through, probably because .." Probably? Hmmm..... anyone can make up stories about why someone did domething that supports their narrative, look: You probably wrote this article because you have been kidnapped by aliens. "The Ghostbusters remake and Black Panther were both terrible films " Black Panther was terrible? Really? Most people disagree with you. "and were practically immune to criticism" Not being criticised doesn't mean they were immune to criticism. For starters Ghostbusters was heavily criticised. I've only seen one even slightly positive bit of press about it that they didn't pay for and it was as faint praise as you can get, basically saying that it's for kids, and this is what kids find funny (They don't, as you can see by kid's criticisms of the film). Black Panther meanwhile was not heavily criticised because most people thought it was OK. "This privileged puritan mindset implies that women and black people are so downtrodden, they need some lightweight popcorn hit to empower them into doing something with their lives. " Hmmm... No. This "privileged" "puritan" mindset implies that not all successful movies need to be made for straight white guys in their early teens through late 40's. "it demonstrates to us that Von Trier and artists like him are right not to care, because logically the audience have no right to be offended." You there, stop feeling the things your feeling and saying the things you are saying! You don't have the right too feel those things and say those things. Von Trier would wholeheartedly disagree with this statement of yours: “Rebelling is part of my family. If you come to a family gathering, the family says something, you have to say something else. Then my family met my wife’s family, who said yes to everything, but my family often said no. If I see a form or a concept, I’d naturally challenge it, to see if there’s any possibility to gain more from it.” If everyone loved his film, if no-one was offended, if no-one criticised it, then he's failed, in his own eyes. "It is the filmmaker who is offering something to the audience." In exchange for money. Never forget that bit, you can rightly rail against criticism if you are offering it with no expectation of recompense, but as soon as you earn a living from your trade, expect to be compared against others doing the same, and criticised for where you fall short. "To feel personally insulted afterwards tells me that these critics are grandstanding a superior moral position over a work of FICTION, whereas the job of Von Trier the director is to create art, not a piece of ethical code for society." Logically then, you are grandstanding a superior moral position over a film writeup, whereas the job of a critic is to guide consumers to work they may enjoy, not a piece of ethical code for society. "In the puritan society" Let's talk about this. Can you really call a society puritan when bikinis are acceptable wear, when pornhub exists, when comedians routinely get naked on stage. Society isn't puritan, especially when you understand puritans dislike violence too, but society doesn't want to see tits in nearly every film (It would be nice if violence was in nearly every film too), not because they don't like seeing tits, but because it's so fucking boring seeing the same story points over and over and over again. If every schlocky horror film had gratuitous closeups of amputees limb endings, it would be that which society would be bored of. " really, it amounts to cultural censorship" Spoken like someone who has never experienced the horrors of actual censorship. No-one is putting him in prison for his movie, they are just not going to give him as much money as you would like for it. That's not censorship, cultural or otherwise. "If the industrial pioneers whose technology led to the creation of the camera all sat around raising awareness about empowerment of science, rather than making experiments in a lab" They did both, actually, because, you know, people aren't one dimensional cardboard cutouts. "and the way things are going we’ll be without the future films of one of the world’s most interesting directors because no studio will accept his material." The irony, on a piece decrying pearl clutching, you scoop up the mightiest pearls you can find and clutch them so hard it's making me think this whole piece is your attempt at comedy. ---- I do agree with the thrust of your argument - that films like this are important and should be given publicity - I just think you went about it in quite the stupidest way possible. Now excuse me while I write an email to my local arts cinema explaining why they should show this film. Please stop assuming I'm so dumb (and the silent majority) that I swallow critics self serving ramblings hook line and sinker. And try to not say things that are factually wrong.

Ed - re. the question of your character thing, I don't think anyone questions your character at all, you come across as a motivated force for good in the world, an all too rare person in this world, and while I believe humanity is fundamentally comprised of good people, we have built a society which rewards selfishness and punishes altruism, which is why I personally admire you greatly. However, I discussed on this board the Philip Bloom thing last year with you and while I don't and would never queston your character, the thing you did to me and others from what I have observed is that you tend to present your opinion as fact, whilst not only telling others that their opinion is wrong, you go so far as to judge people for their opinion and further, devalue their existance as a human being because they don't agree with you on a subjective matter. That's what it felt like you did to me, telling me I was an unpleasent human being for not judging a man when I had no evidence one way or the other - paraphrased. You refused to accept that it was valid to not be be obnoxious to a man who had been accused of something - where would Craig Charles be now if all of humanity had taken the girls side with no evidence? Serving a prison sentance for a crime he did not comitt, that is where. Remember the irony that only weeks earlier, I had a blazing row with Philip Bloom himself on this board over the Clarkson punch, with me refusing to judge JC on the basis of an accusation alone so I was hardly a PB fan either It's not a threat to your belief if people express a disagreement to it, one day, you will understand that, and hopefully, produce yet another excellent film about it Anyway, onto the actual subject of this post - I think it's great that the workers have a union myself, I'm a European and I come from a culture where workers have strong rights that are gradually being eroded. In the US, it seems, from an outsiders perspective that workers have very weak rights yet are battling away step by step to improve their rights. That is a drastic oversimplification I know, but if there's one thing I've learnt from many years of involvement with the unions, yes, they can be corrupt, yes they can protect the guilty - but because society is a conglomerate of complex individuals, even the guilty deserve representation, just in case, they are not actually guilty. Someone mentioned the idea that a union can protect a lazy person drawing a pay packet while doing nothing, well, I do not deny the existance of those people, freeloaders exist at all levels in society, including the guy who accused the worker of being lazy, the manager who needed a scapegoat, the complex individual capable of falsifying reports, lying etc. That is why that worker deserves representation, yes it does introduce beaurocracy which can delay the removal of that freeloader from the company, but in exchange, it protects the vulnerable from corruption - from freeloaders further up the food chain. It's a balancing act, of course - I've seen a nurse who was caught red handed stealing from patients, who stayed on the payroll for a year after thanks to a clever union rep, but at the same time, I've had to visit a good friend in hospital after a manager let his tyres down in the staff carpark because my friend comforted his ex after they broke up. The unions eventually had that man fired and got him the compensation he was due, although he had to wait 5 years before he got it. We are closing in on a better balance, and while cherrypicked individual cases can smack of unfairness and inefficiency, on a society level across Western/Northern Europe - US and Canada, we're leading the world in that balance and can be rightly proud of companies like bh being made to tow the line and stopping them from bucking the trend.

I can appreciate that from a sellers point of view, but as someone who has had his life savings scammed out of him - over £6000 by a dodgy seller, when buying a wheelchair, of all things, and had it returned thanks to paypal - that paypal mark is one of the few things that gives me enough trust to buy from sellers that I have never heard of before. So while it may feel frustrating as anything to have done nothing wrong and be forced to give a refund, even be left out of pocket by it if the goods are unsellable, I do wonder if the trust paypal brings in attracting customers is more than worth it?

Hardly surprising that a company like Shure can out-do Rode in the microphone department, nothing against Rode, they make great products, but Shure are up there with Electro-Voice and Neumann yet manage to charge a lot less.

The camera you have + some lights

Or the black magic micro studio camera Blackmagic Micro Studio Camera 4K With such a small Micro Cinema Camera design, we quickly realized that if we removed the built in recorder and digital film sensor cooling and replaced with SDI connections and a 4K video image sensor, we could build a really small studio camera for live production! The Blackmagic Micro Studio Camera 4K looks the same as the new Micro Cinema Camera but it’s really a completely different camera because its a broadcast quality Ultra HD studio camera! Although you can use it with an external recorder as a production camera, it’s really designed to be used in live production with a live production switcher. It has an Ultra HD sensor so it works in native Ultra HD and of course with a sensor at that high resolution, it makes an incredible HD camera also! Because it’s a live camera, it’s features are almost identical to our Blackmagic Studio Camera 4K. It has SDI in and out, a built in color corrector and all the control to the camera can be sent via the SDI input so it uses the same SDI control protocol as our studio cameras and ATEM switchers. It uses 6G-SDI, so supports all Ultra HD frame rates up to 30 fps, but it does 1080 HD frame rates up to 60 fps using the full sensor size. It includes an expansion connector, but it’s also different. This camera has a PTZ serial connection out and this can be used for controlling a remote head. Any pan, tilt and zoom commands sent to the camera via SDI from the switcher will be output on this PTZ connection and if you have a zoomable MFT lens, it will adjust the zoom on the lens as well. Also on the expansion connector is a B4 lens control connection so we can control broadcast lenses. We have been asked for this a lot by high end broadcasters and now with this camera and the B4 lens connection you can use add accessories to turn this camera into a fully featured studio camera. Imagine using it as a full sized studio camera with external monitor and broadcast lens. Or using it on set concealed so you can get all kinds of exciting and interesting camera angles! The Blackmagic Micro Studio Camera 4K will be available in July for $1,295.

Hey! Great to see you here! Glad you're enjoying that lens, I mean it, keep it as long as you need! Great work, as well, this is awesome, I know you had trouble seeing the screen, but think about what you include and leave out of a scene, as well as where you are focussing, this would be my only advice for this. Can I just mention, my favourite part, on the rowing boat in the fog scene, look at the beach, that child makes me smile every time!

​Considering that 4 days ago, one of your realistic hopes for NAB was that this camera was going to have slo mo, and you only re-evaluated that to be the Mk3 later, after the rumour was released, I'm going to suggest that you're not one of those Japanese testers, neither have you had enough access to one that your job would be at risk

Guys, seriously, read and re-read jcs's posts, he is bang on with this stuff! JCS - I'm currently trying to decide between the SD Pre2 and the RME Babyface - have you ever used the latter? I've heard plenty of people talk about it being as good as, with better software and drivers, but that kind of flashy marketing campaign always makes me suspicious. That being said, the Pre2 I've been using is driving me nuts with it's quirks but it's too much on an investment if it can't match for me.

​I am not discussing with you the differences in the psychology and measurable differences in physiology of serial killers and no, I will not restrain from telling you that I think your theory is too stupid to discuss with you. This way you know full well why I am ignoring you. I would rather talk to the man outside my building who has conversations with the cheese in the supermarket. Although I will say, you have either never made a mistake in your life, or are guilty of the same offence you accuse Clarkson of - not properly planning as to how not to make a mistake. Which is disturbingly what you are accusing serial killers of as well. Which I why I think you are an idiot and is why I am not going to respond to you, ever again.

​Occams Razor - Has he spent the last decade planning, meticulously plotting how he can conceive to bloody the lip of one unassuming man OR did he get drunk after a long day and over react to not having hot food. For what it's worth, there are books written of the physiological and mental differences between normal people and serial killers. But if you really want to conflate planned mass murder for deviant gratification with anger, I won't stop you. I'll think very poorly of your intelligence, but I won't stop you.

​Er... no. This statement is entirely untrue. You plan to kill someone, you are by definition not leading a normal life.

​No-one think's you're clever. No-one. Troll, continuing to be off topic. If you want to insult me, use the PM system, where I don't have to be restrained with what I say to you. Can't help but to notice that you have no answers to my questions either, I'll take that to mean you literally can't disagree with anything I said.

​Wait, you think that me saying "and they just have again, with your blessing, it seems!" was polemic? A ferocious verbal attack? Firstly, it was by text, and I know in some circumstances in the internet age it is appropriate to converge the two, but in this case, with this word, absolutely not, it is purely for verbal, aggressive shouting, the kind of shouting where you would have been sprayed with crumbs from things I ate earlier. What Clarkson did in fact. You have not been subject to that, not even close, and hilariously, by misusing such a loaded word, you have insulted the poor people who have had to face down such a thing. People like Oisin, for example, who I'm sure would be delighted that you have so trivialised this thing that has turned his life upside down. As for the indefensible, I am not defending anyone or anything, I am attacking the BBC. I agree, the way they have managed their staff in this case is indefensible, so instead of trying to deflect to a week old conversation in which you threw out ALL of your toys and took your ball home, why don't you answer the question I actually raised in this thread. By all means, if you wish to continue the conversation in which I "defended" Clarksons actions (By which you mean, I asked people to stop making assumptions as to what actually happened and stop flinging around loaded terms before we knew all the facts because idiots like you act like little clingons to Phillip Bloom - who by the way, was not impressed in the slightest by you), reply in that thread, where that was the topic of conversation. But in this thread, I am posing the questions about the BBC and why they did not act in accordance to the law, why they allowed this situation to happen and how they should have acted, many years ago. If you have a comment to make about that, feel free to, otherwise, back over to the other thread, troll. EDIT: My bad, polemic can be about written words in modern english - in my native tongue we have a word, near identical from the same etymological root which means as I have described it, so apologies about that. In english, it basically has been weakened to the point it means "disagreed with" but I still don't think I was directly disagreeing with you, merely making the point that what you are accusing Clarkson of not getting away with, I am also accusing the BBC of actually getting away with. I don't think that's polemic, by any definition of the word.

It's curious isn't it, since I suggested that I believe the BBC shirked their duty of care towards their employees, just how many people have taken the time to try, in their own ways to shut down the conversation. I could understand it if they were forced to read this thread, or browse this website, but to take the time to come here and post their displeasure at the conversation and make various plees or threats to stop talking, it's like they don't want this line of thinking to be talked about. Like you want to apply your own ineffectual brand of censorship to an argument that you have no legitimate response to. If you genuinely don't want to browse this website or read about this subject, you wouldn't have. You did, which tells us all one thing, you care, you want to voice your opinion, but mine has proven you wrong. You don't have the strength of character, unlike Lammy, who I respect a great deal for his intelligence and nuanced responses, to challenge your own assumptions, you would rather try to censor the opinion instead.

​and they just have again, with your blessing, it seems!

When adults behave like that there is a reason. We are bags of chemicals, and we react in very predictable ways. While there are some minor differences, we do know the effects of long term stress and pressure, and we know he was under stress and pressure. Go to the website of the British Mirror and search for Jeremy Clarkson, tell me that you wouldn't be under stress and pressure if you were being subject to that barrage of tabloidism. That's just one singular source, now multiply that by 100. Without the pressure of his work, we can say for certain that he was being placed under pressure, he was stressed, because who wouldn't be. Now we can also say with some certainty that the BBC were aware of this stress and pressure, and I can't imagine he hid his drinking while on those extended shoots, thus the crew absolutely would have known. Which meant that the BBC absolutely would have known. So what was going on in their minds that they didn't pull him from work when all this started, give him the help he needed and bring him back on when he was ready, better equipped to deal with the ghouls - the same aspect of humanity that is now bullying and abusing Oisin. I'll tell you what - £££££££££. If we give him help, not only do we have to pay for it, but we will lose viewers who tune in specifically for him. The BBC are absolutely shirking their responsibilities here and that is a dangerous thing to defend, because tomorrow it will happen to someone who we don't ever hear about. And the day after and the day after. I'm not justifying what he did, I'm just suggesting that if we were to walk a mile in his shoes, we may actually find he is not so different from the rest of us after all.

​I disagree, and so does UK law, at least in the letter of it - in two respects - the work being responsible for the health and safety of it's employees is one, the other is the idea that if you by your action or inaction cause harm to a human, you are liable to undo the harm you allowed to happen. I will never agree with the principal that you can abuse your employees by overworking them, burning people out with stress and causing serious mental and physical illnesses and not take responsibility for that. We are not talking about schools excluding naughty children, children are, by definition immature and not able to act appropriately. When an adult does not act appropriately, it is perfectly reasonable to ask "Why has he not acted appropriately" and if there is the suggestion that he was under a large amount of stress and pressure, it is perfectly reasonable to ask "Who continued putting him under stress and pressure, despite there being large warning signs that he needed help". At that point, serious questions need to be asked of the people who did that, how they did that, why they did that. In this case we know who - the BBC, we know why - money. The BBC burned a man out, and when he was all done, threw him away, because they wanted money. You are correct in that he could have played the PR game, which I read as lying to people about his state of mind in order to further his career and public status, however, I have more respect for him that he doesn't play games and is just straight forward. We need to celebrate people who are themselves, not a carefully managed image, we need more people who can be joke and be happy after losing jobs, more people for whom the glass is half full. Finally, the people abusing Oisin are disgusting, the absolute worst side of humanity. I have nothing to say beyond I hope the police investigate each and every last one of them.

​Don't forget to apply the "crop factor" to the f number as well, the lens which will give you a similar fov and dof to a 10.5mm f0.95 is a 21mm f1.9 on full frame which absolutely does exist (f1.8) and faster (21mm summilux f1.4 - the equivalent of a 10.5mm f0.7 on m4/3) , as do speed boosters to bring them to APS-C. Not to take anything away from the voightlander, it is a fine looking piece of glass, but it certainly is not unique in it's characteristics.

​ ​Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are two versions of the lens, I've seen plenty of others claim the same - wondering if there are two factories producing them or something? Either way, it is worth being careful, I can try to post a video in a week or so when I am back home showing what I am getting

​Possibly, yes. I have always struggled with improving myself, trying to be better. And trust me, I am way more critical of myself than I am of others. I would direct you to my own blog in which I talk quite openly about the struggles I put myself through but I am the target of a sustained and nasty cyberbullying campaign and do not wish to link this profile with the other in case I give them more ammunition to trawl up, bring those people here or give them further details about my personal life, helping them to zone in on who I am in the real world. In my opinion though, actions speak louder than words. We know that the BBC will say that they are in favour of seeking professional help for their stars who have problems, but they don't actually seem to seek professional help for their stars who have problems (which is almost certainly a high percentage of them, increasingly so for the ones who lead a higher profile life). Neither do they sack them straight away. They keep using them and using them until they make a mistake which puts them in the firing line for some criticism, then they get rid of them. If they happen to rehabilitate themselves, maybe they come back. Yes I may contradict what I said last week, but that was last week, when the events were fresh and I hadn't given the subject much thought. This week I have had thousands of percent more time to think the subject through, it's only natural that my mindset will evolve and improve over time, I am constantly challenging my own assumptions. And if Clarkson was a new employee who had done this, I stand by my earlier comment. However, having the long history he has with the BBC, I would be shocked if his problems were not caused by his work and therefore, in a right world, are the responsibility of his work. No congrats necessary for Clarkson, that was work, though if you are impressed by celebs, I could spin your mind with a list of names. I will accept it for the Dali Lama though, that was a personal epiphany, getting to talk with him. He really is a beautiful person and regardless of belief, I highly recommend seeking him out.

​Just watch out for that pump action focus thing, in manual mode it is still fly by wire and a significant number of people, including myself experience it focusing in steps in that mode and as nice and smooth as it feels, it is useless for video.

​If that was the case, why didn't we hear about this on the morning of the 5th of March? Why did we only hear about it on the 10th of March, the morning after he reported it himself? I'm sure you have enough of a working knowledge of the news to know that 5 days is an eternity, to be 5 days late with a story is commercial suicide. ​Well, fortunately for you, you are not as famous and recognisable as Clarkson, so no matter who you work for, no-one is going to tape you in public. You would have to do something extraordinary indeed to warrant someone caring. I'm not being derogatory, I'm setting up a point for later: ​Again, 4 days later is not "ahead of the story" and if your PR agent thinks it is, he is not decent. Besides which, doesn't Jeremy Clarkson use BBC PR? I can't find a single statement or quote from any PR agency for or about him that isn't demonstrably working for someone else. Maybe you could link your evidence that he is using his own? As I said in my post, it is vile and scummy that anyone would have the attitude "Let's not make sure we care properly for our employees mental health and well being, because money. Let's instead work him to the point of substance abuse and stress related disorders and then can him" So you, in my eyes are corporate scum, the bane of society, defying human decency and ethics for your paymasters. The "marquee" that you bear on your lanyard impresses me not at all. ​I said exactly that myself, but it's hardly the point is it? The point is a giant corporation has acted like shit and no-one, except Andrew has called them out on it. If they had acted as responsibly as they want you to believe they had, Clarkson would not be an alcoholic nor would he have hit a man. ​Here we get to the point I set up earlier. This is codswallop, absolute bullshit. Everyone who has ever existed has done something shameful. I had the honour of speaking to the Dali Lama on an occasion, I asked him how he maintained such a pure (translation is difficult, but close enough) lifestyle, he laughed at the question and told me that he was not to be held in the esteem I had, he was as normal as anyone else. Just because you haven't been caught on film doing something the internet would digest and pick over for weeks, doesn't mean that I believe that you haven't done it. As shameful as punching a man whilst drunk, certainly. If you genuinely don't believe that you have, then you need to take a long hard look at your self perception, it is skewed because you are claiming to be more pure than the Dali Lama, who, for what it's worth, according to Barber Gates claims he has hit someone, in anger and described it as "not so bad"