For those who know me from DVinfo and have wondered why I don't post there any more there are two reasons. The first is that I stopped posting there of my own volition. The second is that when I came to try and make a post there after a long while I found that I had been banned from logging in. I am presuming that this was due to me pointing out to the forums sponsors that they were spreading inaccurate information about their product. How dare I show test results that prove my case (more on test results later)!

The second forum I have now been banned from is DV Doctor. To be honest the comments that lead to my banning have been bubbling under the surface for a while. I was eventually banned by Alan Roberts for stating that his BBC reports have factual errors. He challenged me to back up my statement or apologise. I duly pointed out his totally inaccurate reporting of the Sony PMW-F3 sensor specs. In his report Alan had stated that it was a 12MP chip. He had based this figure upon an assumption he had made. Of course if he had bothered to do any research he would have found directly from Sony and in the publicity material that the F3 uses a 3.3MP chip. Yes, it's all a bit anal and sad.

But anyway, regardless of the nerd factor quite clearly that is an inaccuracy in Alans BBC report that was based upon an assumption of his. I see that in the time since I have been banned that one of the other forum members has accused me of slander. Well, lets look at what the word "slander" means shall we? It means;

 

slander |ˈslandər|

noun Law

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation : he is suing the TV network for slander. Compare with libel .

• a false and malicious spoken statement : I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders.

verb [ trans. ]

make false and damaging statements about (someone) : they were accused of slandering the head of state. See note at malign .

 

Note that "slander" is based around false statements. As I showed a very clear true example of an inaccuracy in Alans report I am not sure how on earth I could possibly be accused of slander, especially as the same mistake by Alan was pointed out on other forums as well as on other well known bloggers sites! That his reports have factual errors sometimes is well known and discussed in many other places. Therefore it cannot possibly be slander.

The other question is whether I should have gone that far? Well, I'll leave that to others to debate. Personally I was fed up of the arrogance on show and the idea that the only report or camera test that counts for anything is by Alan Roberts (yes, he actually said that). I can also say that I am not the only person who feels the way I do on that forum. It's just that I actually voice my opinion.

If someone is arrogant enough to make bold statements about themselves I will call them on it. Life is too short to pussyfoot around. Alan arrogantly stated his opinions, as he has done on many an occasion, and thought that he would not be challenged on them. If you are going to tell the world that the only test results that matter as far as the definitive world opinion on a cameras performance goes are your own, you better be able to back that statement up! Or at the least expect fully that someone will call you an arrogant so and so.

So, has anyone challenged the fact that the F3 report contained errors? Nope, because the errors are there for all to see.

It is true that I was very rude in my posts in the thread that lead to my banning. But to be honest I was beyond caring. There are some that think that they can be as arrogant as they like, and then when someone challenges them on it they try and turn the tables and claim that it is the challenger who is in the wrong and being arrogant. I have had enough run ins on that forum with Alan in the past not to care anymore.

That's the problem with forums. After I had been banned somebody added to the thread saying that nobody would talk to anybody like I did if I was in a pub or had otherwise met them in person. That isn't strictly true. Anything I say in an online forum I would fully be prepared to say to someone in person. If you don't want me to say the things I do, then don't be an arrogant idiot trying to make out that your opinion is the law and that it is not to be challenged. If you do that with me it is like offering a red rag to a bull!

Even funnier is that since I was banned someone has made comments to the effect that "Simons friends" do not use their real names on the DV Dcotor forum. Yes, some there are trying to paint a picture of me heading some sort of anonymous gang that goes around posting under silly forum names. I think what they were trying to say is that there are other forum members there who feel the same way that I do about certain people there. I am presuming that they are now classed as some sort of enemy that needs to be quashed, such is the sad nature of online forums!

I don't really participate in online forums much these days. I am too busy doing things with my life. I am gradually reducing the video side of things. These days too much in the video community is devoted to test results. I know, I have been guilty of it myself. But the trouble is that nobody is out there doing anything decent with the cameras, despite all their blather about compression, resolution test results etc.

Stills guys have a similar problem. Lots of people debating the ins and outs of cameras and lenses, micro analysing test results. None of them are actually going out taking photos other than as 'tests', or when they do they are crap.

Have you ever been to a trade show or IOV event? My God, so many people talking about this or that camera. Things get even worse when they talk about their lighting kit. Some people have lights coming out of their ears, resulting in some of the most bland, flat looking video ever seen. They have all the kit, but no idea how to put it to effective or creative use. Forums just take that mentality and magnify it 1000%!

It is interesting to note that the best cinematographers, the best photographers, the best camera operators, none of them, not one, bothers themselves with online forums! Okay, I lied, there are a couple of exceptions. The pure class that is Charles Papert is one particular example. Walter Graff, a highly experienced lighting cameraman used to post on forums, but like me he was banned from many for posting a few home truths, and he gave up on the forums he did still remain a member of. A shame. I had my run ins with him too, but I still had the utmost respect for him because he could walk the walk.

Many of the best at their craft do not know, or indeed care, about the technical innards of the camera that they use. This is because they can make any camera that they are given sing. They find out its weaknesses and work around them. They don't need to know the pixel count, or shoot two dimensional zone plates. They look at what they are actually getting in the shot. Does it look good? If it does, who the hell is going to be asking the tech specs of the camera?

I was told on DV Doctor that a humourous 'test' video that someone had done with the new Canon C300 was invalid because web videos don't show you anything. Web videos, especially high quality Vimeo ones, can in fact tell you a heck of a lot. The video in question shows quite clearly how the camera handles contrast, what its overall colour reproduction is like, and what rolling shutter isses are present (in the case of the C300 barely any. They compare it to a DSLR and the results are very clear.) The resolution was enough to show the clear difference in moire between a DSLR and the C300 too. I don't need a BBC test report now to tell me that the moire is greatly improved over Canon DSLRs. I can see it in that video thanks. Not to mention that you can download the un-Vimeo compressed version of the file with much milder compression.

Lets face it, the vast majority of videos go to the web these days. So looking at a video on the web gives you a good idea of what your footage will or can look like after compression for internet delivery. The low noise was also very apparent. I do not need it to be technically defined by mathmatical formula to know that the picture looked nice with low noise levels at high ISO settings! All I need to know is "is it better or equal to previous cameras from other manufacturers such as the F3?" If yes I do not need a BBC test report. I'm not shooting for the BBC, and neither are 99.9 percent of others who are on forums.

That's why forums are so full of BS. They often exagerate and focus on things that are simply not important. People need to get out more and do things with their lives. If cameras are your thing get out and shoot with it instead of sitting indoors discussing charts.

Recent events in my family have driven home to me that life is definitely too short to be worrying about the opinion of someone who you do not know or will never meet on a forum. Unfortunately it does often take a sledgehammer of an event in your life to make you realise what is really important.

All that being banned from DV Doctor has done for me is cut off a form of procrastination for me so that I can get more work done. I'd recommend getting banned from forums to everybody!

Send this article to a friend

blog comments powered by Disqus

Go to top of page.