Subforums
16,942 topics in this forum
-
- 5.7k replies
- 1.3m views
-
- 497 replies
- 142k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 488.8k views
-
- 0 replies
- 8.7k views
-
- 218 replies
- 77.2k views
-
- 48 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 4 replies
- 96 views
-
- 235 replies
- 25.1k views
-
- 3 replies
- 139 views
-
- 31 replies
- 803 views
-
- 21 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 1 reply
- 66 views
-
- 18 replies
- 609 views
-
- 70 replies
- 3.7k views
-
- 37 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 18 replies
- 1k views
-
- 59 replies
- 3.3k views
-
- 38 replies
- 5.4k views
-
- 143 replies
- 80.7k views
-
- 34 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 17 replies
- 645 views
-
- 1 reply
- 350 views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 18 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 61 replies
- 10.2k views
-
- 29 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 14 replies
- 3.7k views
-
The EOSHD Interview - Kazuto Yamaki, CEO of Sigma and Takuma Wakamatsu, Sigma Fp Product Manager 1 2
- 31 replies
- 8.7k views
-
- 8 replies
- 536 views
-
- 5 replies
- 454 views
-
- 530 replies
- 138.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 209 views
-
- 428 replies
- 110.3k views
-
- 29 replies
- 2k views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 24 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 34 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 135 replies
- 29.8k views
-
- 1 reply
- 480 views
-
- 53 replies
- 3.3k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics16.9k
-
Total Posts343.5k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By Eric Matyas · Posted
Hi Everyone, I've created and uploaded some new seamless texture images on these pages on my website: TXR - WOOD - FANTASY https://soundimage.org/txr-wood-fantasy/ TXR - BARK - SEAMLESS https://soundimage.org/txr-bark-seamless/ They're free to use in your projects with attribution, just like my thousands of other images. Enjoy! 🙂 -
By Ilkka Nissila · Posted
As I believe all politicians are morally corrupt I think you've fallen into a victim of Trump's lies. In Main Kampf, Hitler wrote (not a verbatim quote) that when a lie that is big enough repeated enough many times, regular people will believe it because they are used to telling little lies about small things but would be ashamed of telling big lies about important matters, so they don't believe a person in power would do that. Trump repeated his big lies thousands of times and so people started to believe that the opposition is equally corrupt. The people working in the traditional media spend their lives and careers on finding out and reporting the truth and go through a great deal of trouble to achieve this, even though there are sometimes mistakes made in the process. They don't like Trump because he waters down their efforts by telling big lies and repeating them thousands of times. If you spent a lifetime on telling the public the truth then it is understandable that Trump's success in the election causes a lot of anxiety. they just want to afford food and gas Unfortunately for them, Trump has said he will deport illegal aliens (and some that are legal) which will increase the price of food that the consumer pays. Import tariffs will do the same for many products: people will end up paying more for them, or not getting them at all. He might make gas cheaper by drilling more oil which will destroy the environment and life for future generations will be more miserable. It would be great if people actually read the traditional media and listened to the 23 Nobel-winning economists who said that Trump's policies will increase the inflation and Harris's policies would be more egalitarian. Now they will learn it the hard way. It's a pity for the poor and lower middle class about whom Trump and the other billionaires he plans to put in government couldn't care less. My point is this - the media tried to programm people in to believe Trump should be disqualified from being president based on the moral superiority. Not really, he tried to cause an insurrection and illegitimate overthrow of the government (or the future government led by Biden), that according to the US constitution disqualifies him from holding public office. However, as Trump has installed his cronies into the Supreme Court, they would of course return the favor and vote against the disqualification of Trump in the ballot. It's not a question of moral superiority but simply that Trump is an authoritarian who wants to continue in office even after his second term (he has said so several times, he admires Putin and his lifetime presidency and said that the US should try something like it). He was practicing overthrow of election results in 2021 and failed, but this time around he will try to pack the government with those who are loyal to him so that he can succeed eventually with the overthrow of democratic government. This is what the press is afraid of and why he should not have been allowed to run. They had us wrap around their little finger until they lied about Biden being mentally sound then they had to do the last minute switcheroo... that was some the of the sloppiest political maneuvering I have ever seen. Where is the moral outrage that Harris did not have to go though the normal nomination process - end the end it cost them, even against a morally inferior candidate. Why would there need to be a moral outrage? The parties nominate whom they want and voters decide whom to elect president. If America had a better functioning democracy, you'd have more parties who offer more candidates to choose from, but unfortunately the two-party system is a poorly functioning, declining democracy. I agree that Biden was too old to serve another four years as president, but Trump is almost as old and gets confused in his words and speaks nonsense all the time. You could elect someone younger so that this would not be a concern. In Finland our current prime minister is 55 years old and the president is 56. Our previous prime minister was in her thirties. About 85% of Finns believe that the public broadcasting company's content is factual and trustworthy. Our press is ranked fifth in the freedom of the press rankings in the world (higher ranking = more free). The index was higher but a couple of incidents reduced it. The leading newspaper was publishing a series of articles about an intelligence center of the defense forces and this lead to lawsuits where reporters were deemed guilty of revealing state secrets, or having had the intention to do so, and so this was considered a violation of the freedom of press. (United States is 55th in the freedom of the press index, so it's not very free.) -
By newfoundmass · Posted
The use of internal, non-replaceable batteries continues to increase. For now it's not being done in professional grade equipment, but it very well could start and likely will. And these consumer and prosumer products are increasingly being used on smaller and medium size professional productions. Look at cell phones and laptops. My $1,000 Samsung phone is less than two years old and it's battery life has decreased significantly. The battery will die and make this phone useless sooner than the usability and functionality of the phone will, maybe before I even pay it fully off at this rate! My MacBook Pro M1 Max is 3 years old. The battery too has started to hold less of a charge. It too will be rendered useless by the battery dying before anything else on it goes. Just more stuff that will end up in a landfill. -
By Ilkka Nissila · Posted
All politicians have character flaws and will ultimately chose what is best for those who got them in office and will keep them in office. In a representative democracy, it's the voters who got the politicians into office and it's the voters who decide who stays and who does not. However, in the US, because campaign funding seems virtually unlimited (even though there are legal limitations, it seems the rules do not apply to campaigns of some criminals and their donors), to get elected, you need a lot of campaign financing. This is a problem as it means only those candidates with a lot of money get a lot of visibility and can get elected. It seems some citizens feels that anything different would be limiting their freedom of speech, if rich people could not donate as much as they like. But this essentially gives people with money more votes than just one: they're influencing others to vote for their candidate. If campaign financing were limited to a total of a relatively moderate sum of money, people would be elected based on their merits as the voters see fit rather than how many rich people they are supported by. No politician is on your side. They only serve themselves. Pick the politician who serves your interests, when they are serving their own interests. That's not actually true, a lot of politicians are altruistic and are genuinely trying to improve society and the world, and how things are managed so that people who are not doing well, would be doing better. I'm sorry that you have such a cynical view of politics. It is the people against the government not democrats vs republican. In a representative democracy, the government consists of people who are either elected themselves or were appointed by those who were elected. The elected representatives make the laws which the government then implements. The government is basically serving the people. We are all programmed to take a side. I think we are all trying to solve the problems in our everyday lives. There is a broad media landscape which, in a democracy, consists of numerous free operators that try to inform the public as to what is going on in the world. The problem in the US is that there are only two major parties which leads to polarization of opinions. In my country (Finland), there is more than a dozen parties, none of which has more than about 25% of the representatives. The parties form coalition governments that compromise on issues to create their agenda and legislation based on these compromises. Because there are so many parties and a culture of making compromises there is no strong polarization of opinions. However, this is changing a little bit due to social media as algorithms direct people to see information that they viewed before, leading to information bubbles and that can eventually lead to polarization into camps. In my opinion, this is happening because invisible algorithms control what people get to see (in social media) instead of human beings making the decisions on what to publish and what not to publish, and what to put on front page. I think letting algorithms control what we see is a huge mistake and can lead to the decay of democracy and organized society, even wars. Deprogramming ourselves from believing that there is a morally superior side is difficult. I believe each party is just one of the two wings on the same elite bird. I think there are individuals who act morally and others who do not, but not necessarily parties. Parties typically force their members to vote in a certain way to follow the party line and this deteriorates democracy. I believe in the people, who, with the power of free speech, will free each other's minds so that we can suffer through this together as friends rather than enemies. Unfortunately, speech that actually gets pubished in some format is not really "free" in the sense that there are always agents that control what we see, and the motivations of those agents can sometimes be obvious but other times they're hidden. Social media algorithms are known to highlight content which people share and often it brings up content that cause outrage because it's so ridiculous. People feed those algorithms with ridiculous claims that are not based on facts and this has polluted the media landscape. In the traditional press (in western democracies), editors had their own political views but generally content is fact checked often from multiple sources before it's published (this is true of high-quality publications but not necessarily all). The degree to which the political bias shows can be evaluated by comparing the different media. However, as the "free" content on the internet has put publishers of traditional media into financial difficulties, the concentration of ownership seems to be increasing and this risks the freedom of the press. In social media, generally content is not fact checked and so a lot of false claims are made on purpose, perhaps to cause outrage, or mislead readers. This is highly unfortunate. I am not even sure if having social media is worth it in the big picture, some degree of moderation would be needed to reduce the hate and intentional misleading of readers. Moderated forums can be useful for sharing specialist knowledge, but I'm not sure how commercially viable they are. Of course this is just my opinion, as we will never have all of the true facts, ever, though it may feel like you absolute know what is right - you do not - because what is absolutely right is absolutely unknowable. Same goes for me and my opinion - it has no more value than yours or any other. I agree that not all facts are known but there is a huge difference between the random social media post and professionally created journalism where the journalists are highly educated and spend a lot of time investigating the facts. A lot of political comments on social media seem to be generated by actors who are not what they pretend to be and are intentionally telling falsehoods. I personally think that professionally trained journalists working for high-quality publications, scientists, and historians are much more likely to get it right than typical people posting on social media. Adding information does not lead to the discovery of truth, but the scientific and journalistic processes often do. Everyone's opinion is not equal as some are factual because they did their research and found out how things really are, vs. others who are telling falsehoods out of either ignorance or because they want to intentionally mislead people. Unfortunately the latter has become mainstream in social media. Fact-checked journalism has never been so important to counter the wild west of social media. I could be completely wrong and that is fine, as long as it gets people thinking about what they believe to be true and that the facts that they live and die by are almost certainly based on some falsehoods. Discovering the truth is hard work but not impossible. Often truth is complicated and difficult to understand and populists try to give simplifications that some members of the public find appealing. However, the truth is still more valuable and seeking it should be encouraged. This is how society develops to be better. -
Well it seems too much to ask for a compact hybrid without forced cooling. For my needs, I never shoot longer than 2/3 minutes so the problem doesn't arise and I rarely used intra frame codecs with my GH5. But of course everyone has their own needs. For sure you can't rely on it for long shots as interviews. I will use it underwater with an external monitor. So EVF performances doesn't affect my needs. I was reading about several people using it for macro video, and it seems that the latest generation AF makes a difference. It has the same chip as the A7RV. Again, it depends a lot on the lens used. A lot of positive feedback comes from users using the Sony 90mm. All seem to agree on the indecent AF performance on the Sony 50mm macro. i had positive feedback from users with Nikkor 60mm macro + Monster adapter. Which lenses do you use? Thanks
-
