newfoundmass

There is absolutely truth to that, but I also include those people in with the cultists. They have their "truths" that will remain true regardless of the facts that stand before them. To be clear, I'm a Democratic Socialist, so I am to the left of most Democrats. I'd say I am even to the left of AOC and Bernie. So issues like student debt forgiveness, LGBTQ+ rights, Global warming, and all of these other causes are things I believe in dearly. But if you're a working class person that never went to college and are struggling to make ends meet, you know what you're probably not concerned too much about? Student loan forgiveness. Repeat that with almost all of the major things Democrats ran on in 2024 and you'll see a platform that is irrelevant to a lot of the working class. Folks are struggling and are looking for a life jacket for the issues impacting them directly. Right or wrong, all these other issues are abstract at best to them. Jack, who works at the Ford factory helping to assemble cars he'll never be able to afford, doesn't give a fuck that my best friend Tom is drowning in student loan debt for a liberal arts degree he's not even using. You know what I mean? Democrats need to reach out to the working class and win them back. You can't win elections without them, especially in the South and South West.

My experience has been that there are a lot of dumb people (I'd describe them as being in a cult, to be honest) but the biggest issue is that most folks that voted for him feel like Democrats talk down to them instead of talking to them, that they abandoned them. They're not totally wrong. At the end of the day they just want to be able to afford to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. Democrats really didn't address that, while Trump (sort of, in his dumb way) did. Now, me personally, I don't understand how you can overlook the racism, the fascism, the misogyny, transphobia, his multitude of business failures, his felony convictions, January 6, etc. but again, if the Democrats couldn't convince people that the billionaire scumbag who shits on gold toilets doesn't have their best interests at heart then that's a huge problem. Normally I'd say we're getting what we deserve, but the damage being done will last generations. My nieces and nephews will be feeling the effects of our failures long after I'm dead and gone, and that's a tragedy.

It's an aggressive entry level camera with strong video specs, I love that Nikon is coming out guns blazing! Weird though that they aren't getting a lot of the same guff Panasonic gets for using "old" sensors and for "terrible" rolling shutter. 🤔

The frustrating thing, as an American, is that lower income folks are among his most ardent supporters yet are the ones who will end up hurt the most by his heartless, cruel policies. I've said it on here before, I live in a mobile home. I made a choice to live as cheaply as I could, regardless of whether I could afford a nicer home or not, because I want to live a simple, affordable life. I own my mobile home outright, so I have no mortgage. I just pay a modest lot fee every month in the community I live in. My taxes property taxes are extremely low, and I live comfortably. A lot of folks here are lower income, though, and live here because it's what they could afford. They're decent, working class folks who struggle to make ends meet. A lot of them are on public assistance, like fuel assistance and food stamps. You want to know who most of them voted for, though? Based on the yard signs and flags, most folks here voted for Donald Trump. They voted for the man whose policies will hurt them the most. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. It's a testament to the Democrats and their incompetence that twice they lost to a swindler and con man because they were unable to convince a majority of the electorate that the racist billionaire doesn't give a fuck about them.

These kind of posts are always my favorite. Thank you for sharing!

The gap between mirrorless cameras and cinema cameras, when it comes to image, has narrowed so much as to almost be irrelevant outside of the more costly cameras that DO have a genuine "secret sauce." For instance, when you buy an ARRI you're not just paying for the hardware, you're paying for decades of research into color science. For other cameras cinema cameras, the premium comes not from the "secret sauce" but because you're buying a camera that is supposed to be built like a tank that can hold up under stressful situations and be serviced by the company if needed. I would say the KOMODO (and most of RED's cameras) fall under that definition of "cinema camera." Then you have the even lower end ones, like your BMD Pockets, or the FX3/FX30. They might put out a good image (in BMD's case, I think there is a level of secret sauce to their color science) but they also aren't cameras that are built nearly as well as even mid-range cinema cameras will. I mean, you can get great images from them, but those Pocket cameras feel like toys. Really, when you look at it, the term "cinema camera" has kind of become just more marketing jargon. What does it really even mean anymore?

None of the BMD cameras I've seen touch the original Pocket's look, imo. There really was something about that image that made it really special. It's old, but I really don't think it's a meh sensor even by today's standard. That S5 image still holds up, if you ask me. I was editing a multicam shoot today with the S5 and S5II X and the S5 is such a nice image. I really don't think you can complain much about it being in a $3000 camera.

This is both pretty crazy and also kind of "meh." There was a time when I really wanted to buy a RED (or really any "real" cinema camera) but that was a long time ago. These lower end cinema cameras just aren't significantly better than what we all have access to. If you're a working DP it might make sense to get this, but unless you're doing mid to high level jobs I'm not sure it's worth it.

Thank goodness you're okay!

It's very nice to see more companies joining the L-Mount Alliance, but I really, really, REALLY like those Lumix f1/8 primes and it's hard to justify getting any others, especially with how affordable they are on the used market. Now if someone released super affordable and compact f2.5 primes I'd be all over those, no matter who made them, especially if I end up getting the S9.

If they re-released the pocket with the same sensor but with a battery that lasts at least 90 minutes I'd buy it. That was literally the only reason I stopped using it. There were times I just wanted to go out with it and film some cool stuff without having to rig it up, but it was just a pain. I loved everything else about it, even the quirks, but battery life was such a deal breaker. To this day though that image is my absolute favorite out of any camera I've ever shot with. Using that camera made me better at my craft and I miss it.

For me it's the original Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. That camera, and all the wacky c-mount lenses I used with it, was just so much fun to use and everything I got out of it looked so much better than it should have, at least to my eyes. I FELT like an artist using it, as opposed to a videographer. That was such a special sensor, and to this day I still don't understand why every camera manufacturer hasn't switched to a menu system like it (and the other BMD cameras.)

This. Yeah, we can look back at older films and remark about how nice they look, but I can name you just as many (and, frankly, probably more) that look like absolute dog shit visually. Ironically, some of those are my favorite films! But most of them weren't made to intentionally look that way, they just did because of budget limitations. There is a lot of really bad looking films out there though. In fact I'd say most films from the film era aren't any more remarkable looking than what is filmed today digitally. There certainly are exceptions, which is why I do agree to a certain extent that it's unfortunate that most everything has moved to digital, but I can't say that every film I watch today would look substantially better if it'd been shot on film, especially lower budget ones. It's really easy to look back with rose tinted glasses and say "everything looked better back when it was shot on film." I think the bigger issue with the move to digital is how disposable images have become in general. We all shoot thousands of pictures on our phones every year but most we never look at again after taking them. In fact, most of the time we put little thought into taking them. Or at least I am guilty of that. They just sit on our phones, taking up digital space waiting for the day when maybe we remember that we documented this moment or that moment. Whereas with film, or even video tape, aside from the camera itself, you were limited by how many pictures were left on the roll, how many rolls you could afford to buy, and then the cost of developing them. You also didn't get that immediate feedback of looking at a photo you just took to see how it turned out, instead you had to wait until it was developed. I remember going to sports events as a kid with my camera and only having two rolls of film. That was roughly what, 50-60 pictures total? I had to choose carefully what pictures I took less I run out of film and miss something extraordinary. I couldn't just waste pictures! Now though I'll take 60 pictures in the span of 5 minutes with my phone! Taking photographs or moving images was a much more thoughtful experience in the film days. Today that doesn't really exist, because content is so disposable. Even if you are fortunate enough to create something that breaks through, something else rapidly comes along to take the viewers attention away. With the rise of TikTok it has gotten even worse than it was during YouTube's peak. 15 seconds and then it's on to the next thing! Still, that isn't to say it all is bad. But it's not all good either.

I very much prefer the image of the OG S5 over the S5II X, but people really make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the "worse" image. It's really not that bad. In the year I've had it not one client or viewer has complained about the image; in fact it has been the exact opposite! I feel like cameras have plateaued so now people over analyze and overstate every little thing. But virtually all of this stuff doesn't matter to the audience that we are creating these images for. Anyone with any discernible talent will be able to take the S1RII and create compelling images with it. That bride is going to love the pictures you take, the corporate client is going to be ecstatic with the talking head interviews you shoot, the MMA school is going to be psyched with the promotional video you film, etc. As long as it's in focus, the colors are okay, and it's framed well, these folks aren't going to really care if it's a little noisier than the R5II or if the rolling shutter is slightly worse than the A7RV. I don't know how it is where you all live, but there are literally people making money using cheap Canon Rebel DSLRs and kit lenses in my area. I see friends post their wedding pictures, their kid's senior portraits, baby pictures, and all of that stuff on Facebook all of the time. Most of the time these photographers aren't even good at what they do, put people I know still go crazy over them and post these photos they paid for proudly on social media! These photographers still get paid work, not just because they are cheap (that certainly helps!) but because the average person's standards aren't all that high. That's not to say that we should lower our standards, just that we should remember the big picture (no pun intended) and stop worrying about the small things that aren't going to matter to 99.9% of our clients/audience.