Jump to content


Photo

I've Found JJ!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
42 replies to this topic

#1 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 01 November 2006 - 01:05 AM

I have relocated the long lost JJ, he's over at the DVX User forum, as I'm sure many of you know.

Seems he's having difficulty with those folks as well if this reply from him to a DVX member is any indication:

"Originally Posted by Jannard
Are you kidding me? Maybe you should come down from Portland and help us clean up the glass. a**ho**.
Jim"

Wow! I don't even think he ever called one of us an a**hole.

Also, seems they don't like us much over there (post #172):

"And as for cinematography.com, those guys are always brutal about anything concerning video. And they especially have a mean-on for RED. I've been avoiding reading RED posts on there because it was pissing me off too much. Its a great resource for information, but I have posted there maybe twice and thats about it."

Most impressive of all is that I was named in one of the posts, geez I'm famous (post #178)

"Rejecting cinematography.com is a very wise decision Mr. Jannard, ok, fanboyism isn´t that good either, but the behaviour on that forum by richard boddington, that grizzly-adams-avatar-guy and some other people is unacceptable. "

And boy are their threads long over there, 24 pages and counting on this one about the Red break in.

Check out all the fun!!

http://www.dvxuser.c...ad.php?p=702046

R,
  • 0

#2 Rod Otaviano

Rod Otaviano
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 November 2006 - 02:07 AM

Also, seems they don't like us much over there (post #172):

R,


Wow, I just noticed you got banned already ... lol
  • 0

#3 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 01 November 2006 - 02:21 AM

Yeah, they are not very friendly over there.

Seems quite a number of people over there don't like cinematography.com, especially their bossman Jarred Land.

Jarred prefers the, prevent some one from posting a response then attack them, technique. It seems that JJ does as well.

JJ, come back here and post like a man!

R,
  • 0

#4 EricUlbrich

EricUlbrich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Orange, CA

Posted 01 November 2006 - 02:27 AM

wow. Quite hilarious. It seems that he is on the warpath.
  • 0

#5 Gavin Greenwalt

Gavin Greenwalt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:52 AM

Richard you dug up a more than month old article to sling mud and then returned jubilant in your successful (and probably sought out ban.)

From all of this did you learn anything new about the sensor? What about the capture system? Did you provide any feedback on how it might better fit into your productions? Did you ask for a change in a feature?

What exactly is your agenda? Is it to thumb your nose at Jim Jannard or is it to rigorously shake down a new potential product? I only have time and patience for one of them. If it's not the latter, perhaps you too have better things to do with your time.

Edited by Gavin Greenwalt, 01 November 2006 - 05:53 AM.

  • 0

#6 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 01 November 2006 - 07:24 AM

What exactly is your agenda?


Hi,

I think Richard is interested to see if Red can produce pictures that are better than film. That was the hype I thought?

FWIW stephenw at dvuser is not me!

Stephen
  • 0

#7 Eirik Tyrihjel

Eirik Tyrihjel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oslo, Norway

Posted 01 November 2006 - 09:53 AM

Hi,

I think Richard is interested to see if Red can produce pictures that are better than film. That was the hype I thought?

FWIW stephenw at dvuser is not me!

Stephen


There is no hype, its "us" here against "them" over there, "they" like to kiss JJ´s *ss, while we like to kick it!

Any cinematography.com user interested in this future aquistion system have all been succesfully hunted away from this forum, and over to dvxuser, and hence their assets to this forum succesfully been removed.

A job well done guys!
  • 0

#8 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 November 2006 - 10:16 AM

Who besides Jim Jannard is actually not posting here anymore?

The fact that he isn't posting on this site nor CML anymore, but instead over at dvxuser and some other dv site makes me think that he prefers get his ego stroked on a regular basis. How that will reflect on the camera that he is developing remains to be seen.
  • 0

#9 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 01 November 2006 - 10:24 AM

Richard you dug up a more than month old article to sling mud and then returned jubilant in your successful (and probably sought out ban.)

From all of this did you learn anything new about the sensor? What about the capture system? Did you provide any feedback on how it might better fit into your productions? Did you ask for a change in a feature?

What exactly is your agenda? Is it to thumb your nose at Jim Jannard or is it to rigorously shake down a new potential product? I only have time and patience for one of them. If it's not the latter, perhaps you too have better things to do with your time.


Well seems you're in the minority opinion Gavin. Bottom line is that we are free thinkers here in this forum and refuse to kiss the rear end of a billionaire just because he wants us to. Over at the DVX forum JJ has found a bunch of lap dogs that bark for him every time he commands. JJ feels safe in taking me on over there now that I can't respond to him. Of course I could always re-register with a different e-mail account if I wanted to.

JJ, I know you have not left this forum, you still read these posts. Please come back, I for one won't say one negative thing about your camera. I'll just ignore the Red forum all together. Of course I can't control what the others will do, but you won't hear a peep from me. And we'll still meet at one of your shows in person at some point in the future.

R,
  • 0

#10 Eirik Tyrihjel

Eirik Tyrihjel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oslo, Norway

Posted 01 November 2006 - 10:43 AM

Bottom line is that we are free thinkers here in this forum and refuse to kiss the rear end of a billionaire just because he wants us to.


Man, you have some serious issues with your self image...
  • 0

#11 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 01 November 2006 - 10:47 AM

Man, you have some serious issues with your self image...


No clue what you're talking about???????????

Any way here are some other gems from DVX users. I wanted to look at the IMDB credits for these folks but seems none of them have any, and since they are all too cowardly to use their real names, they could not be looked up any way. But from a comedic point of view, their forum has merit.


It's like a little window into your own internal
struggle... Richard your work is beyond any recording
medium...

BURN HIS IP DOWN!

Red Reservation: $1000.
Red One: $16,500.
Being banned: Priceless.
  • 0

#12 Chris Kenny

Chris Kenny
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 November 2006 - 11:14 AM

Many here claim they're serious professionals who are interested in the merits of what Red is doing, but seem far more interested in sniping at the camera's developers and mocking the users of other forums.

Yes, there are some people who get a little carried away over at dvxuser.com, and it does get slightly annoying sometimes. But frankly there is also far more substantive discussion of this camera and related issues over there as well. So, congratulations, guys, you've driven away all the clueless fanboys. And with them, you've also driven away most of the discussions about the merits of digital slating, desktop 4K workflow, lens choices, etc. Hope it was worth it.

Frankly I think this is unfortunate, because a lot of people in this forum clearly have a lot of knowledge which could have added to the discussion, if they'd been willing to take a slightly less hostile position. (There's a difference between useful criticism and hostility.)
  • 0

#13 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 November 2006 - 11:34 AM

So, congratulations, guys, you've driven away all the clueless fanboys.

None of whom ever posted here in the first place. Off the top of my hat, I cannot think of a single user who posted useful information here and was 'driven away' to dvxuser.
  • 0

#14 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 November 2006 - 11:39 AM

So, congratulations, guys, you've driven away all the clueless fanboys. And with them, you've also driven away most of the discussions about the merits of digital slating, desktop 4K workflow, lens choices, etc.



I'm confused I dont see any legitimate questions being left unanswered due to the lack of input from experts/ professionals who have, if i understand your post correctly, left in disgust. Perhaps this is because theoretical nonsense is of less merit than actual practice. And are you honestly telling me that i could learn more about professional lens choices from dvxuser? I mean obviously if i want to know how to convert a cola bottle to a nikon mount...
  • 0

#15 Chris Kenny

Chris Kenny
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 November 2006 - 12:05 PM

I'm confused I dont see any legitimate questions being left unanswered due to the lack of input from experts/ professionals who have, if i understand your post correctly, left in disgust. Perhaps this is because theoretical nonsense is of less merit than actual practice. And are you honestly telling me that i could learn more about professional lens choices from dvxuser? I mean obviously if i want to know how to convert a cola bottle to a nikon mount...


Actually, the gist of my post was that some of the more abrasive experts had driven away folks from Red and many interested Red reservation holders. As a result, there isn't a lot of new information or discussion here, and there aren't a lot of questions being asked in the first place. As I said, I think this is unfortunate, because there is obviously quite a lot of knowledge here.

And yes, you can learn a lot more about cine lenses here than on dvxuser.com... by reading through posts in the 35mm forum. When the subject of lenses came up in this forum, it ended up degenerating into another (to paraphrase one of the posters in it) "Jesus would shoot on film" thread.
  • 0

#16 Jarred Land

Jarred Land

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 01 November 2006 - 12:14 PM

Hey everyone, just thought i would clear this up briefly.

First I just want to point out I have no problem with Cinematography.com, or any of the members here as Richard would suggest. Dvxuser has a different user-base than Cinematography.com, My members on average are alot younger, and tend to be more involved in the Indie world -- So yes the signal to noise ratio can be a little lower. Its more of a filmmaking community than anything else, and I encourage people to randomly converse as thats what happens in real life, at work and on set. We have alot of incredibly talented professionals from the celluloid world as well, things are just a little more laid back.

Richard was removed from DVXuser for clearly coming online yesterday as a new user, and his first and only post was to instigate Jim in a Red centric forum, "calling him out" per say. I have alot of respect for Jim Jannard, and my other members that so quickly came to the defense, because we treat people like family over there.

So I just wanted to be clear, the removal of Richard had absolutely nothing to do with you guys over here at cinematography.com, the removal was soley to rid a deliberate attempt of trolling.

I just dont want to see this turn into a DVXuser.com vs. a Cinematography.com debate, since both are incredible filmmaking resources with different demographics.

thanks for understanding everyone.

Jarred Land
DVxuser.com
  • 0

#17 jan von krogh

jan von krogh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Producer

Posted 01 November 2006 - 12:32 PM

some 5,6 users in this particular subforum often use bad language and get insulting. trying to disguise that as "freedom of speech" is not all to intelligent. personal vendetta, emotions and professional discussion & opinions don´t mix very good.
  • 0

#18 Emanuel A Guedes

Emanuel A Guedes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Producer

Posted 01 November 2006 - 01:01 PM

This is my turn to say: Welcome! As I was: @dvxuser.com from ever. And as all the people with good will, they are -- as a healthy family meet point. Well said.

Hey everyone, just thought i would clear this up briefly.

First I just want to point out I have no problem with Cinematography.com, or any of the members here as Richard would suggest. Dvxuser has a different user-base than Cinematography.com, My members on average are alot younger, and tend to be more involved in the Indie world -- So yes the signal to noise ratio can be a little lower. Its more of a filmmaking community than anything else, and I encourage people to randomly converse as thats what happens in real life, at work and on set. We have alot of incredibly talented professionals from the celluloid world as well, things are just a little more laid back.

Richard was removed from DVXuser for clearly coming online yesterday as a new user, and his first and only post was to instigate Jim in a Red centric forum, "calling him out" per say. I have alot of respect for Jim Jannard, and my other members that so quickly came to the defense, because we treat people like family over there.

So I just wanted to be clear, the removal of Richard had absolutely nothing to do with you guys over here at cinematography.com, the removal was soley to rid a deliberate attempt of trolling.

I just dont want to see this turn into a DVXuser.com vs. a Cinematography.com debate, since both are incredible filmmaking resources with different demographics.

thanks for understanding everyone.

Jarred Land
DVxuser.com


  • 0

#19 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 01 November 2006 - 01:23 PM

Hey everyone, just thought i would clear this up briefly.

First I just want to point out I have no problem with Cinematography.com, or any of the members here as Richard would suggest. Dvxuser has a different user-base than Cinematography.com, My members on average are alot younger, and tend to be more involved in the Indie world -- So yes the signal to noise ratio can be a little lower. Its more of a filmmaking community than anything else, and I encourage people to randomly converse as thats what happens in real life, at work and on set. We have alot of incredibly talented professionals from the celluloid world as well, things are just a little more laid back.

Richard was removed from DVXuser for clearly coming online yesterday as a new user, and his first and only post was to instigate Jim in a Red centric forum, "calling him out" per say. I have alot of respect for Jim Jannard, and my other members that so quickly came to the defense, because we treat people like family over there.

So I just wanted to be clear, the removal of Richard had absolutely nothing to do with you guys over here at cinematography.com, the removal was soley to rid a deliberate attempt of trolling.

I just dont want to see this turn into a DVXuser.com vs. a Cinematography.com debate, since both are incredible filmmaking resources with different demographics.

thanks for understanding everyone.

Jarred Land
DVxuser.com



That is completely false Jarred, please don't spread your lies or criticize me on this forum as well as your own. The only on-line troll is you.

BTW, you did not remove me from your forum, I'm still a member posting under a new name. I can also still access your site, what ever you use to block IPs simply isn't working. I can read all your comments just fine. Not that any thing you or your members say has any value.

R,
  • 0

#20 Eirik Tyrihjel

Eirik Tyrihjel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oslo, Norway

Posted 01 November 2006 - 01:44 PM

Not that any thing you or your members say has any value.

R,


Very mature... :rolleyes:
  • 0


CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Willys Widgets