From a Mods point of view I think we should have a read only archive to stop spammers bringing up old threads
"There is a large element of deja vu here. This point was brought up over a year ago by a contributor called "Freeflow", and I responded to his points at http://www.dvforums.com/forums/where-everyone#comment-1400495 The posts that followed brought up various points, but a common theme was the headings badly did need a reorganisation - even if there was debate about how to do it!I agree that the archive should be kept, but maybe many threads should be more actively moved to a section more obviously seen as "archive"? Not mixed in together with more current matters?"
johnpr98 wrote:
From a Mods point of view I think we should have a read only archive to stop spammers bringing up old threadsIMO, then far more important is to reorganise the subject headings to better reflect the world of video as it exists today.In another thread, RayL posed the question of Subject Headings - why, for example, "a whole section for 'Fast' (a firm that hasn't been in existence for over a decade) "?I responded to that post, and was requested to bring the question here - I'm happy to do so.Quote:
"There is a large element of deja vu here. This point was brought up over a year ago by a contributor called "Freeflow", and I responded to his points at http://www.dvforums.com/forums/where-everyone#comment-1400495 The posts that followed brought up various points, but a common theme was the headings badly did need a reorganisation - even if there was debate about how to do it!I agree that the archive should be kept, but maybe many threads should be more actively moved to a section more obviously seen as "archive"? Not mixed in together with more current matters?"
Then maybe half a dozen new relevant sections to bring the forum up to date for 2014
)
Re the old content - I don't see the point in moving it all around. It's there as a searchable archive. Active / New topics always appear in "recent posts" so the subsectional organisation of the content is really not so important.
Re the death of this site..
I've been a member here for over 13 years. In that time i've found the site to become decreasingly relevant to the video world. When i joined there was a lot of useful info for getting MJPEG / Hi8 systems running, posts here helped me to build my first editing suite round a matrox rainbow runner. Pretty quickly things moved to DV and expensive capture cards, rapidly followed by OHCI firewire editing. This site was really useful for people who needed to get working edit systems at a point in time when most computers couldn't really playback video let alone edit it. There seemed to be a good mixture of people here, from old broadcast boys to young freelancers and plenty of one-man-band wedding shooters. People could help each other and everyone benefited as the worlds of professional and amature met and we all felt like we were getting a lot out of the site.
Then a few years on and HD cameras start to come in, and for a time there is useful info here about HDV editing, and then help for people moving to XDCam cards.... When DSLR came into the picture this site started to lose relevance, the old boys could not accept people making films on stills cameras, and all kinds of deeply technical reasons were produced to object to the DSLR movement. (many of which are true points, but the way they were expressed was the deathnail of this site). This site has never really been very creative focused - its always been technical rather than artistic discussions here, and the dislike of DSLR by the technical experts here forced anyone interested in discussion technology for modern filmmaking to move to other sites.
This site had died long before the big crash, it had completely failed to embrace the modern methods of film production because the technical members here were unwilling to accept that inspite of their many flaws DSLRs can be used to create some stunning looking creative work.
The current crop of more active video forums tend to be focused on relevant subjects to todays world. So there is a choice of active DSLR filmmaking forums, a choice of live production / web streaming forums all of which are more active than DVForums. Oh well it was fun while it lasted...
cheers
tom
When DSLR came into the picture this site started to lose relevance, the old boys could not accept people making films on stills cameras, and all kinds of deeply technical reasons were produced to object to the DSLR movement.
I like to think of myself as in the middle ground - my initial interest in photography and film making was on an amateur basis, then it became professional, and whilst I'm still in the broadcast industry, it's less so now with camerawork - and in a way it's pleasant to look on that side now again more as a hobby. I've also used all manner of cameras, from 8mm film and 16mm, to 2/3" shouldermount, 1/3" and 1/2" - and yes, DSLRs, let alone GoPros.
My attitude is - and always has been - that each of these has it's place. There's little that is "good", little that is "bad" per se. I currently own (and use) a Canon 550D, and there are some types of work it is right for. Equally, I also own a PMW320 - which is equally right for other types of work.
You make the arguments pro/anti DSLR sound very one sided - old boys trying to cling on to the past for it's own sake, whilst all the good filmmakers are desperately trying to move to a brave new world in spite of the opposition. That is not my experience. I won't deny that characters such as you portray don't exist - I've argued (against them) in favour of DSLRs at times in circumstances such as you describe. But I've also come across the opposite - DSLR enthusiasts who are equally bigoted the other way, and refuse to countenance there's any downside.
You also say that:
This site ..... completely failed to embrace the modern methods of film production because the technical members here were unwilling to accept that in spite of their many flaws DSLRs can be used to create some stunning looking creative work.
Maybe that applied to one or two people. But most of the comments I read on this forum and elsewhere were more along the lines of "don't get too carried away, because....." than outright condemnation. Unfortunately, to a few people, it's sometimes a lot easier to decide "old fool is just living in the past" than try and understand certain technical concepts. (And that remark is not aimed at you, sleepytom, nor anybody on this forum.) And compared to "traditional" cameras (of all prices) what really is so special about DSLR video? Isn't it really just shallow depth of field possibilities? Yes, that may be very desirable on occasion, but I'd put it a sideshow compared to the opportunities opened up by such as digital video at consumer prices (with DV) and then maybe HD for the masses with the Z1.
Fortunately, in my real world away from forums, the "bigots" on both sides of the debate are relatively few. On the technical side, there's a general sense of realism that whilst it's good to maintain standards as much as possible and viable, there are inevitably times when pragmatism must rule. Likewise, on the more artistic side, there's a similar realism about striking a sensible balance between absolute standards, practicality and cost. And a realisation that the balance point will vary depending on likely end market etc.
Forgive me if it's not what you intended, but the way your last quote is written seems to imply a direct correlation between "modern methods of film production" and DSLRs. A few years ago, a DSLR uniquely offered shallow depth of field cheaply - nowadays the same is offered for not much extra cost by dedicated video cameras like the FS700 or C300/C100. All the advantages attributed to DSLR shooting (without many of the disadvantages), nowhere near the cost of big "pro" cameras, but offering many of the advantages of the latter without the price tag. OK, maybe DSLRs do still have a place, but for most "modern film production" isn't something like the C300 far, far more suitable - except for the real micro-budget sector?
All that said, then maybe it's a tribute to the influence of DSLR video that it generated the interest to spur the manufacturers to bring out the dedicated large format video cameras - right from the prosumer end to the likes of the F5/55?
- Cameras
- Editing
- Computer Systems
- Creative Techniques
- Showcase your work
- Classified Ads
- Chatter
I don't think the majority on here are talking about aesthetics, this site is now totally user unfriendly and, unless things change drastically, I can't see users (old or new) wanting to frequent the boards on a regular basis, speaking personally, I used to be on here every day, now I pop in once every couple of weeks or so to see what's going on but, end up leaving very soon after because it's so frustrating.I appreciate there is a lot of work involved but, unless this forum is at least as attractive (in terms of usability) as the alternatives, nothing is going to change for the better.
On the good side, some members are just quietly contributing to the forum as usual.
Videography is one of those occupations which combines creativity with technical logic - right and left brain activity together. Tom, please accept that not everything can be pinned down and defined exactly with logical precision.
We can improve the look+feel of this site without having to change the backend system. It would be helpful if people maybe linked to sites with design that they actually like, so we could consider what changes to make here.This is not a trivial task and will take time (and/or money) but it is possible.
Tom, you have the advantage over us when it comes to this forum software because you know what is possible and what is not. For me, it's a bit like standing at a trade counter without being given access to the catalogue. What options are available with this software? Up to now the implication has been that we're jolly lucky to have what we have so put up with it.
http://pyro1394.yuku.com/directory#.UqyrlfRdWSo
However, I think the default font size is too large - I am on Firefox on PC - it's fine as I type but when posted it's much larger. If I CTRL + Minus twice it's the right size!
I also think the button size is too big.
I also don't like the way that pressing the return key inserts not a paragraph break but also a blank line. You can't even over-ride this by shift+return as you can with other software. I think this also adds to the illusion of lots of wasted space.
I would also really like a way to subscribe to threads, so that I can receive an e-mail notification when someone posts in a thread: when I'm trying to help someone with a problem it's great to be able to get a notification of a reply rather than having to keep checking back on the off chance.
Thanks for your work.
Mark
Test
I've lost out from my point of view, I know I can ctrl + but this may make other web pages too large, I'll report back
btw to clarify, my subscription settings aren't set to receive notification by PM, I want email only
Thanks
Right I'm not doing anything else with the font. 12px is completely standard. If it's too small then use your browser zoom to make it bigger. There are so many variables which can change font size, your screen resolution and its physical size, your OS settings for DPI, browser settings. All of these can be adjusted for personal preference. So adjust your own computers to make this site look right. I cannot do it for everyone!!
- the font is now standard size,. see it next to wikipedia
Just to add that i came across a bit short in my last post, I didn't mean to I just find this text size thing very annoying as everyone has a different view on what is right / wrong. Given this I really think it is best to leave it at 12px standard and let people adjust if they need to.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/zoomy?q=Zoomy or https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nosquint/ will let you set a specific sized font on a site by site basis. If your finding pages are hard to read (or fonts are too big) then you can use these plugins to provide much better zoom control.
Tom
I'm leaving it there, the previous font size suited me perfectly, now it doesn't.
I'm also seeing white space on the forum I didn't before.
You have the controls and I can't compete, a pity to fix something that wasn't broken from where I'm standing
Thank you for your technical contributions, expertise and time, I am not trying to be picky for the sake of it either
Where are you seeing white space?
The trouble is that *nothing* is really that broken on this site, the quipping and moaning from certain users is annoying - people want the site to look / feel like other forums but when I make adjustments to bring us closer to other sites I get feedback telling me its wrong.
Do you find other websites are too small also? How does wikipedia look to you?
Just ignore me Tom, I was just happy as it was
I suppose the larger font size filled the post boxes up in a nicer way
I'm not downloading add on's either, I'd rather go for a walk in the sunshine
However I have a video to edit now, believe it or not so I won't be around for a hour or two and that's nothing to do with you been a 'bit short'
This forum should be fun, not a power struggle.
Hello,
Personally I prefer the font this current size. Thank you, Tom.
Thank you also for letting me type one line straight after another.
Like this!
One small gripe now is that on some pages the website doesn't resize to fit the browser. It seems to be at a fixed width where, when viewed fullscreen on my 1920x1200 monitor, it fits widthways perfectly.
So for example the index page, that lists the forums, resizes properly, but this page, where I'm reading this thread and typing this reply, does not.
This on Firefox on Windows 7.1
Do you see this Tom, or would you like me to send you screencaps?
Thanks again for your time.
Cheers
Mark
Screenshot please - i do see this some some pages sometimes i think but i'd like to know how it looks on your machine.
Short posts on forums always look a bit odd, however i feel that reading a longer post makes more sense in the new fontsize.
There's this which works OK
And this which doesn't. You can see that the site simply doesn't resize with the browser as it should
UPDATE:
Some threads work, some don't:
This one doesn't resize, but the previous thread in this forum does.
Have cleared browser cache: same problem
Mark, surely the size issue comes down to screen size and res - I have no scrolling and I'm still not using a full width window HERE
Update - I can now see it's a Firefox browser issue only.
I'd just like to say a big thank you to sleepytom.
And add that personally I don't feel that the present under use of the forum can be blamed on the hiatus of a couple of years ago.
I think that some of the big beasts that used to roam here have retired or left the industry while others have drifted away.
Thanks for the screenshot Mark, Firefox is really annoying with images at the moment. I've done a bit of a hacky fix for it at the moment but it should work for most people (very low res screen will still have issues, but not so many people have them anymore) Chrome and Safari both do a much better job of image scaling so the site works a little better in these browsers at the moment.
Just doing some Sunday morning thinking.
We are clearly down on members and consequently issues to discuss. Is there a possibility to add a Twitter feed to the posts or threads? That way we could draw in newcomers? The blog/diaries I maintain have this as an option and it certainly works for those businesses. Computer Video was at the front of technical innovation, maybe we have slipped a little in our ability to communicate more widely. This is just a thought and not a deal breaker!
Chris
what would you like a twitter feed to do? post update notifications to twitter? or something else?