Tim Sewell

One of Brexit's results will almost certainly be Scottish independence (and who can blame them? They were told in 2014 that voting to stay in the UK would protect their EU rights and Single Market membership - both of which have now been removed from them despite their having decisively voted to remain in the EU). The loss of those Scottish seats, combined with our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system will make it a lot easier for the Conservatives to remain in power for as long as they keep the South East happy. The north, the midlands - well, it's not as if they're not used to being ignored by central government, is it? At least in the EU those regions had access to billions in regeneration funds - you may well say that those funds were the UK's contributions, re-routed by the EU - but just watch to see how much of that cash gets 're-routed' by the Tories.
The fact is that all those who voted to 'take back control' are in for a surprise - the control won't be taken back by them, it's being taken back by those who hated the fact that there was a higher level of regulation that meant they couldn't get a worker's right removed here and an environmental regulation there removed by having a quiet word with a chum in a private club. They'll no longer have any barrier to whatever they wish to do in order to further enrich themselves. The mostly non-working people (look it up - one of the highest correlations with a Leave vote was economic inactivity) who voted to leave have bequeathed those of us who still have to work with a couple of decades of declining rights, incomes and environmental protection, while handing the Rees-Moggs of this world yet another mouthful of gold.
At the end of the day, you didn't need to know much about the EU to figure out that Brexit would screw everyone but the rich - you only had to look at the collection of crooks, spivs, chancers and nutjobs who were front-and-centre of the Leave campaign. But sure - it's going to herald a new age of localised democracy and levelling up - Michael and Boris said so, so it must be true.

One of Brexit's results will almost certainly be Scottish independence (and who can blame them? They were told in 2014 that voting to stay in the UK would protect their EU rights and Single Market membership - both of which have now been removed from them despite their having decisively voted to remain in the EU). The loss of those Scottish seats, combined with our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system will make it a lot easier for the Conservatives to remain in power for as long as they keep the South East happy. The north, the midlands - well, it's not as if they're not used to being ignored by central government, is it? At least in the EU those regions had access to billions in regeneration funds - you may well say that those funds were the UK's contributions, re-routed by the EU - but just watch to see how much of that cash gets 're-routed' by the Tories.
The fact is that all those who voted to 'take back control' are in for a surprise - the control won't be taken back by them, it's being taken back by those who hated the fact that there was a higher level of regulation that meant they couldn't get a worker's right removed here and an environmental regulation there removed by having a quiet word with a chum in a private club. They'll no longer have any barrier to whatever they wish to do in order to further enrich themselves. The mostly non-working people (look it up - one of the highest correlations with a Leave vote was economic inactivity) who voted to leave have bequeathed those of us who still have to work with a couple of decades of declining rights, incomes and environmental protection, while handing the Rees-Moggs of this world yet another mouthful of gold.
At the end of the day, you didn't need to know much about the EU to figure out that Brexit would screw everyone but the rich - you only had to look at the collection of crooks, spivs, chancers and nutjobs who were front-and-centre of the Leave campaign. But sure - it's going to herald a new age of localised democracy and levelling up - Michael and Boris said so, so it must be true.

One of Brexit's results will almost certainly be Scottish independence (and who can blame them? They were told in 2014 that voting to stay in the UK would protect their EU rights and Single Market membership - both of which have now been removed from them despite their having decisively voted to remain in the EU). The loss of those Scottish seats, combined with our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system will make it a lot easier for the Conservatives to remain in power for as long as they keep the South East happy. The north, the midlands - well, it's not as if they're not used to being ignored by central government, is it? At least in the EU those regions had access to billions in regeneration funds - you may well say that those funds were the UK's contributions, re-routed by the EU - but just watch to see how much of that cash gets 're-routed' by the Tories.
The fact is that all those who voted to 'take back control' are in for a surprise - the control won't be taken back by them, it's being taken back by those who hated the fact that there was a higher level of regulation that meant they couldn't get a worker's right removed here and an environmental regulation there removed by having a quiet word with a chum in a private club. They'll no longer have any barrier to whatever they wish to do in order to further enrich themselves. The mostly non-working people (look it up - one of the highest correlations with a Leave vote was economic inactivity) who voted to leave have bequeathed those of us who still have to work with a couple of decades of declining rights, incomes and environmental protection, while handing the Rees-Moggs of this world yet another mouthful of gold.
At the end of the day, you didn't need to know much about the EU to figure out that Brexit would screw everyone but the rich - you only had to look at the collection of crooks, spivs, chancers and nutjobs who were front-and-centre of the Leave campaign. But sure - it's going to herald a new age of localised democracy and levelling up - Michael and Boris said so, so it must be true.

I’m just here for the bronzed MILF’s.

Appreciate what you're saying, but I guess we sure would like to be going into a 3rd lockdown after 25 deaths than after 70K+. There's governmental incompetence and then there's 21st century UK Conservative Party governmental incompetence!

Film like digital has many looks and this one obviously went for a super16mm look. But one can easily turn off grain, halation and blur and just get the colors with that powergrade. I think grading under a print emulation lut like many pro colorists do helps a lot though to get to something that feels "cinematic" https://juanmelara.com.au

A lot of assumptions about me in this I don't like. But let's focus on the facts.
If we rewind to 2005, you are probably not with a strong opinion on the EU. Probably getting on with your life just fine. Country seems to be doing well. Certainly better than the state of it today after 10 years of the Tories. I am from a 'red' Labour area. Manchester. Tony Blair did a decent job of running all of the country not just London, and Manchester was booming, pretty much. This is after a full 30 years of EU membership and a so-called political union... it is actually far more of an economic one than what the Express would have you believe about Merkel bossing us around.
Post-Brexit, how is your life better. And what will you personally gain from it. Answers on a postcard please...
Here is what was in it for me... To be clear - nothing. Under EU membership as a Brit I spent 8 years living in Berlin visa free, with travel around Europe as easily as getting train to London from Manchester. I had a life in Berlin, very valuable to me. Now I have a 90-day max stay and have to pay as much as 40% import duties and VAT on anything I buy from Amazon or a UK website when in Berlin. Camera deals, eBay, that kind of thing, is now ruined. Meanwhile the German post has stopped sending to the UK altogether, whilst they decide how to restructure the cost of postage. It used to be that anything I couldn't bring back to the UK in my luggage would be put in a box and go back that way. Not any more. It will likely now get hefty charges stamped on it and there will be tons of paperwork to fill out.
Now, imagine if you are running a UK or Europe based business. The European based side can't serve customers in the UK at all at the moment... can't use the post. The UK side now has a 600 page document to familiarise itself with, and staff cannot avoid duties and VAT when sending to their biggest neighbours and trading partners. It's shit. In terms of bureaucracy the EU actually cut down on paperwork, especially in terms of the movement of goods and people.
Meanwhile people now require a visa of course to work in a different EU country if they are British, which means the younger generation won't have the same freedom as I did, creatively, as a filmmaker, to escape the high rents of Manchester and London, or to explore new places and meet new people. It's a disaster for them. Getting a visa is expensive and requires health cover, which is also expensive. Hundreds of quid a month expensive. Before, it was free and on the NHS for emergency care throughout the EU, be it in Manchester, Barcelona or Berlin.
The EU gave us free roaming, 100GB per month with EE for £20 to use throughout Europe, they spurred the private sector on to abolish some of their highest charges. It saved me a fortune in Berlin. The EU gave online streaming one market for DRM, so that Amazon UK could stream the British content in Europe, for when you are on holiday or living here. The cross border portability of content like movies and TV shows has now ended.
Moreover, I can't find a single benefit of Brexit for me... Not a single thing. It's all more expensive, more hassle, less freedom, depressing shit.
The irony of you saying the 'democratic' Referendum crushes the idea that the newspapers (like the Express, Daily Mail and tabloids) and powerful vested interests get to decide the results... When actually the outcome was the direct result of the newspapers banging on about refugees and EU bureaucracy for years on end, and the powerful vested interests of people like Farage or Johnson... mostly vested in themselves, as opportunistic scumbags. When you say that MPs get to decide election results, you ignore the fact they are the elected representatives of the people. However for this to work, democratic society has to be well informed. Over the EU, they were not. Simple as that. And if MPs and government had no power to plot the course of the nation, what's the point of voting for them in the first place? All this anti-parliament BS that came up during the debates on Brexit and the court cases, with the press attacking the judiciary, was a scandal. Very few so-called working class British people voted for Brexit knowing in factual terms exactly what was in it for them. They just got wound up emotionally. Like I said before, rewind to 2005 or even 2010 and nobody down my local pub in Manchester is talking about how much their daily lives are hindered by fishing quotas and tariffs on Japanese imports, and how they can't wait to leave the EU to negotiate their own. Let alone, "we can't wait to leave in order to get all those specific advantages including X, Y, and Z".
The very fact you haven't listed any specific advantages for your own life, livelihood, town or village of Brexit tells me a lot...
How about putting to one side the 'taking back control' and the slogans for a moment and listing the explicit benefits you have personally felt since 1st January 2021.
The first corona vaccine is German by the way.

Puh, gender equality- something the world is far away from. So many people worldwide even get killed just because of their gender. Let´s not take this topic light hearted like a dull Hollywood shmockbuster. Thank you. The way some people here juggle with terms is breathtaking.

Here's a fun anecdote.  In 2019 I did a "4-wall" tour of a doc my wife and I made.  I'd set up screenings with theaters in the area that were willing to rent out their auditoriums.  Basically we took it on the road to a bunch of local meet-ups with groups that supported the theme of the film.  We did this in conjunction with our film fest run so we were able to bounce in and out of region where the film was accepted.  The story had a niche appeal so we were able to pull about 50-75 people, on average, into the theaters wherever we sold tickets.
As such, I made a DCP.  Not the first time I did that, but it was the first time I traveled with the DCP and watched it on multiple screens in multiple theaters.
Here's the deal.  It looked different in almost every theater I took it into.  The variable of sound quality was even more intense; usually in an unfortunate way.  With DCP visuals at least , theoretically, you should be getting a standardized visual experience -- as the projectors and media are supposedly tightly controlled.
Well, nah.  Far from it.  For every theater that had well informed skilled people working the projection, just as many were kids with the priority job of selling popcorn.  Sometimes it was a struggle to to explain the concept of aspect ratio to the projectionist.  The state of their DCP equipment was all over the map too.  
Although, there was one grand old theater in upstate New York that not only sounded amazing, but had the best color rendition, biggest screen, and the sharpest resolution of them all.  That one? They didn't have a DCP projector. I played the film from a PC laptop off a 8-bit 1080p .mp4 usuing a high-end consumer projector.  I don't know who their technician was at that theater, but they REALLY had it dialed in.  Restored my faith in the movie-going experience, that show.
Point is, you can round and round about standards and whatnot, but you can't really adjust for the chance of what's going to happen in the real world.  After all, you can't really overcome ignorance you can only hope to alleviate it a little bit here and there.  So, yeah, fight the good fight if you want, but it's a war of attrition and the other side has more troops.

Very, very rude.
It is everyone's right to write movie reviews and to have a personal opinion on a film. For some people, it is even a career!
The irony of you coming on here writing a big internet diatribe about my cultural commentary and not liking a certain movie, is not lost on me. If you can't be polite in my house, you will leave it, little piggy. Be careful the wolf doesn't blow your fucking front door down.

That's fine - but you're going to need to spend a *lot* more than 2000.

Cracking stuff Panny!

I love shooting on my Olympus OM-2N! The Zuiko 50mm1.8 is really incredibly sharp with nice character. 

The problem with film cameras is the rapidly dwindling number of people who know how to repair them and the scarcity of spare parts. I have a lovely, almost mint, Olympus OM-2 SP (for may years my dream camera). Unfortunately it has a power issue that is relatively well-known but very fiddly, more fiddly than I want to attempt, to fix. I've been looking for a year for a company that can do it for me at a reasonable price, but to no avail. I also have a Canon 1V - once their top-of-the-range pro model - that I picked up non-working for £50. It turned out that all it needed was the batter contacts cleaning and it worked perfectly. A great bargain for me, but with the knowledge that if anything else ever goes wrong with it it's unlikely I'll be able to get it repaired.

So my point, laboured as it is, is that while there might be a good supply of cameras (although for the desirable ones that comes at some eye-watering prices sometimes) they're mostly one-shot deals as the expertise that supported the market is disappearing as people retire/die.

I'm going to disagree with all the sentiments in this thread and recommend something different.
Go rent an Alexa.
For practical purposes, maybe an Alexa Mini.  Talk to your local rental houses and see if there's a timeframe you can rent one and get a big discount, often rental houses are happy to give you a discount if you're renting it when the camera wouldn't be rented by anyone else so have a chat with them.
Shoot with it a lot.  Shoot as much as you can and in as many situations as you can.  Just get one lens with it then take it out and shoot.   Shoot in the various modes it has, shoot into the sun and away from it.  Shoot indoors.  Shoot high-key and shoot low key. 
Then take the camera back and grade the footage.
I suspect you won't do this.  It's expensive and a cinema camera like an Alexa is a PITA unless you have used one before.  So I'll skip to the end with what I think you'll find.  The footage won't look great.  The footage will remind you of footage from lesser cameras.  You will wonder what happened and if you're processing the footage correctly.  
I have never shot with an Alexa, but I am told by many pros that if you don't know what you're doing, Alexa footage will look just as much like a home video as from almost any other camera.
Cinematic is a word that doesn't even really have any meaning in this context.  It really just means 'of the cinema' and there's probably been enough films shot and shown in cinemas on iPhones that now an iPhone technically qualifies as being 'cinematic'.  Yes, i'm being slightly tongue-in-cheek here, but the point remains that the word doesn't have any useful meaning here.  Yes, images that are shown in the cinema typically look spectacular.  Most of this is location choice, set design, hair, costume, makeup, lighting, haze, blocking, and the many other things that go into creating the light that goes through the lens and into the camera.
That doesn't mean that the camera doesn't matter.  We all have tastes, looks we like and looks we don't, it's just that the word 'cinematic' is about as useful as the word 'lovely' - we all know it when we see it but we don't all agree on when that is.
By far the more useful is to work out what aspects of image quality you are looking for:
Do you like the look of film?  If so, which film stocks? What resolution?  Some people suggest that 1080p is the most cinematic, whereas some argue that film was much higher resolution than 4K or even 8K.  What about colour?  The Alexa has spectacular colour, so does RED.  But neither one will give you good colour easily, and neither will give you great colour - great colour requires great production design, great lighting, great camera colour science, and great colour grading.  By the way - Canon also has great colour, so does Nikon, and other brands too.  You don't hear photographers wishing their 5D or D800 had colour science like in the movies. What lenses do you like?  Sharp?  Softer?  High-contrast?  Low contrast?  What about chromatic aberation?  and what about the corners - do you like a bit of vignetting or softness or field curvature?  Bokeh shape?  dare I mention anamorphics? But there is an alternative - it doesn't require learning what you like and how to get it, it doesn't require the careful weighting of priorities, and it's a safer option.  Buy an ARRI Alexa LF and full set of Zeiss Master Primes.  That way you will know that you have the most cinematic camera money can buy, and no-one would argue based on their preferences.
You still wouldn't get the images you're after because the cinematic look requires an enormous team and hundreds of thousands of dollars (think about it - why would people pay for these things if they could get those images without all these people?) but there will be no doubt that you have the most cinematic camera that money can buy.
I'd suggest Panavision, but they're the best cameras that money can't buy.

As I have been dealing with a mild case of appendicitis I have checked out of this discussion. Hoping to avoid surgery. And spending 5 hours in an ER seeing exactly what this hoax virus is doing To people...my god. But it’s people exactly like Tim Pool here that give real journalists a bad name. He is a disgrace. The world needs to tune out people like him and start doing the far more important and hard thing and solve our troubles, not peddling in this click-bait sensationalist fear and hate mongering. 

Tim pool is a cynical hack who'll espouse or promote any batshit idea that he thinks will get him clicks. I used to follow him on Twitter under the heading of 'seeing what other views are' and saw his videos attempting to incite anti-immigrant feeling in Sweden, under the guise of 'news-gathering'. He's a money and attention whore and best ignored. He is in no way a credible journalist.

Tim pool is a cynical hack who'll espouse or promote any batshit idea that he thinks will get him clicks. I used to follow him on Twitter under the heading of 'seeing what other views are' and saw his videos attempting to incite anti-immigrant feeling in Sweden, under the guise of 'news-gathering'. He's a money and attention whore and best ignored. He is in no way a credible journalist.

Tim pool is a cynical hack who'll espouse or promote any batshit idea that he thinks will get him clicks. I used to follow him on Twitter under the heading of 'seeing what other views are' and saw his videos attempting to incite anti-immigrant feeling in Sweden, under the guise of 'news-gathering'. He's a money and attention whore and best ignored. He is in no way a credible journalist.

Well, that's a matter of opinion, as you say.

I think it makes sense and anyone who's worked in broadcast can instantly pick up one of these (or an FX9 or FS7), start shooting, and find most of the controls they're used to. Apart from setting the right res/codec for the project or formatting cards, you can often get through an entire days shooting without ever needing to enter the menu's with these cameras. And usually you can find the button you need without even looking.
 
You literally push one button. The video you linked shows you how to change your S&Q settings, but once that's done, it's a single push of a button to get into slow-motion mode.
 
It will be far from "less cluttered" once you have 2x xlr cables (+ adapters to full-size), headphones and HDMI cable coming out of the side with all those little rubber doors dangling around. Not everyone will need that, but it's just as easy to criticise the C70 design as the FX6 (even more so in this regard). The FX6 has the ports right where you need them on a set - on the dumb side. It even has the ports recessed enough so that you can avoid obstructions when using a battery plate.
 
Unless you need to shoot any high or low angles, or on a shoulder mount, and can't use the non-rotating handle. In that situation you have exactly 0 nice dials.  FX6/FS7/FS5 style handle is very versatile and convenient.
 
Fair point, in some cases. But if you're stripping the camera down, say to shoot on a gimbal or to mount it in a car, are you really going to want audio in-camera? All those cables/mics/receivers would just get in the way and go against what you're trying to achieve. You'd probably be recording externally anyway. A deal-breaker for some, (eg if you MUST have in-cam audio on gimbal), but for most it's a problem that is easily solved when it arises.
 
This comment shows just how out of touch you are with most people who will actually use a camera like the FX6.

The reason people will build a rig is to improve ergonomics (for their particular preferences) and reduce fatigue. It also lets them use all the tools they'll need when they work in a crew with a 1AC, soundo, director, etc. It lets them go from tripod to handheld to shoulder faster. It lets them put the shoulder mount and top handle directly in line with the COG for perfect balance. It lets them put the camera down on unbalanced surfaces without getting damaged or falling over. It lets them power everything from a single battery. It also gives the camera more mass which reduces shake and gives a more natural feel to the images (and if done right, makes it easier to balance and operate too).

The only people building rigs to impress other people are those who care more about THEIR image than THE image.
 
Again, we're all entitled to opinions. But you're also making pretty outlandish statements that show how much understanding you lack about this product and the people who will use them.

It's the equivalent about me writing an article claiming the Isuzu N series is a "monstrosity of stupid design" because it doesn't fit into the average household garage.

 

Rich man's toy.

Canon colour is one of those things that's said to be good so often, its accepted as fact...  even though those saying it are not really scrutinising the colour in the same indepth analysis as they would use,  say for example Sony colour.  
To be fair, I'm not immune to this and would judge Canon colour superior to Sony.. but maybe its because the vast majority of videos out there are not properly colour graded, and Canon therefore appeals more to those who don't have skills in that area, and which has colours that can look mostly appealing SOOC.

Nice B-roll bro'.

This could have been interesting but:
1. Too expensive. It's around the same price as the GH5S, yet has no screen, no evf, no battery and - presumably - no strap or charger. So WTF, Panasonic - should be cheaper, if anything?
2. The reason we always get for the lack of internal NDs in hybrid cameras is a lack of space. No NDs in this - why? 

Here is another tip..... at no point....  should you have an uncle come up to you and say.... "Hey, I own the same camera as you... you think you can do a better job than me?"
Do you know how to avoid that?
Gaffer tape the labels, and build the shit out of it.... put a cage, matte box, focus gear, external monitor, mic it up. Make it look like a $50,000 camera instead of a $3000 camera.... people need to physically see where the money is going.... small and deinty can be operated by small and non-professional people.
Going back to the camera jib - thats the difference... a gimbal... everyone seems to have a gimbal nowadays (even the regular joe - that ends up being an enthusiast) and its so friggin small.... its not obtrusive.... so everyone can bother with a gimbal. Nobody can bother with a jib... its too big to use on the regular.... but its in everyone's face <- people see value in that....
Whats the difference between a Toyota and a Rolls-Royce? Figure it out and show the people why you're a Rolls-Royce.