fuzzynormal

30 foot extension painter's pole with a camera on the end of it.  Easy way to do "drone" shots without the drone.

I believe diversity sells.  "Kumbaya" is a conflation.  I didn't say that.

Oly em10iii owner for the past year. Can be had for less than $300 on eBay. Got mine refurbished “new”
Was filming with it today for a gig, actually  
Nice camera all around. Fiddly with a few things, but really just a great value. 

Oly em10iii owner for the past year. Can be had for less than $300 on eBay. Got mine refurbished “new”
Was filming with it today for a gig, actually  
Nice camera all around. Fiddly with a few things, but really just a great value. 

I love variable ND.  I hate variable ND.

There ain't much of any kind of shot I capture that you can't find something very similar to it elsewhere.  I think that's true for most people, even the pros.  In fact, I was watching some of Roger Deakin's work from Sicario earlier this week and realized there's an almost identical shot from the David Lean's 1946 "Great Expectations" that's a direct copy. (soldiers defending into darkness, shot by Guy Green)  Pretty cool homage/rip-off.
But, even still, every combo of shots and audio is definitely a new context.  So what we do with those shots is what matters.  Often I get paid to create mundane context, but it's context the client wants.  I'm okay with that.  I'm not super creative.  No genius stuff here.  Ultimately I'm rock and roll, not progressive jazz.

Welcome to show BUSINESS.  I truly hope you don't think you're entitled to have it work the way you want it to work.  You can easily find a niche in it, but if you're condemning the overall market, I'd recommend you pull back your angst a little.
I also worry that too many people conflate the modern diversity trend in filmmaking as solely a sort of social justice woke movement. (One they don't agree with, perhaps?)  I'd suggest anyone that truly believes the industry is going woke because they're compassionate humanitarians, simply ask themselves,  "In a global market what sort of movie has a better chance of appealing to as many people as possible?"  These are business decisions that might be championed as "woke," when, if anything, that woke-bragging is simply a useful marketing ploy to use after the thing is made to increase product awareness. 
Tail, dog, wag.  
As for Netflix, you're basically complaining that Netflix understands it demographic analytics.  Netflix has data vectors on it's viewers that understand modern life better than the people that actually live it.  I mean, c'mon now, the only reason for them to do that is if the entire organization would rather be racist than make as much money as possible.  They want a product they can use.  Offer it to them or, as you indicated, don't.
https://towardsdatascience.com/how-data-science-is-boosting-netflix-785a1cba7e45
Here's a hypothetical:  if it was somehow possible for Disney and it's shareholders to make 200 Billion $$ next year with a 3% annual growth by marketing to, say, aboriginal Pygmies, would they do that in a heartbeat and immediately ignore everyone else?

Welcome to show BUSINESS.  I truly hope you don't think you're entitled to have it work the way you want it to work.  You can easily find a niche in it, but if you're condemning the overall market, I'd recommend you pull back your angst a little.
I also worry that too many people conflate the modern diversity trend in filmmaking as solely a sort of social justice woke movement. (One they don't agree with, perhaps?)  I'd suggest anyone that truly believes the industry is going woke because they're compassionate humanitarians, simply ask themselves,  "In a global market what sort of movie has a better chance of appealing to as many people as possible?"  These are business decisions that might be championed as "woke," when, if anything, that woke-bragging is simply a useful marketing ploy to use after the thing is made to increase product awareness. 
Tail, dog, wag.  
As for Netflix, you're basically complaining that Netflix understands it demographic analytics.  Netflix has data vectors on it's viewers that understand modern life better than the people that actually live it.  I mean, c'mon now, the only reason for them to do that is if the entire organization would rather be racist than make as much money as possible.  They want a product they can use.  Offer it to them or, as you indicated, don't.
https://towardsdatascience.com/how-data-science-is-boosting-netflix-785a1cba7e45
Here's a hypothetical:  if it was somehow possible for Disney and it's shareholders to make 200 Billion $$ next year with a 3% annual growth by marketing to, say, aboriginal Pygmies, would they do that in a heartbeat and immediately ignore everyone else?

There ain't much of any kind of shot I capture that you can't find something very similar to it elsewhere.  I think that's true for most people, even the pros.  In fact, I was watching some of Roger Deakin's work from Sicario earlier this week and realized there's an almost identical shot from the David Lean's 1946 "Great Expectations" that's a direct copy. (soldiers defending into darkness, shot by Guy Green)  Pretty cool homage/rip-off.
But, even still, every combo of shots and audio is definitely a new context.  So what we do with those shots is what matters.  Often I get paid to create mundane context, but it's context the client wants.  I'm okay with that.  I'm not super creative.  No genius stuff here.  Ultimately I'm rock and roll, not progressive jazz.

No one tell him about "Birth of a Nation"

No one tell him about "Birth of a Nation"

Of course, but the claim that art shouldn't be offensive...?  Not sure about that.  Certainly being offended is subjective. 
Personal anecdote from me, a kid raised Catholic:  Monte Pythons' "The Meaning of Life" has, what I consider, a hilarious bit of satire mocking Catholics.  I was shocked yet amused the first time I watched the "Every Sperm is Sacred" musical number followed by Gram Chapman's character ranting for 5 minutes about "bloody Catholics!" while 50 Catholic children exited a single household. 
My Mom, on the other hand wasn't amused at all.  She was very offended.

There's a certain context there.  Personally, I definitely think the implication is "...[used to be free to] say whatever they wanted and be offensive."
I suppose I could be wrong there, let me know if so.
But, it seems to me, maybe some people are ticked-off that a certain traditional privilege/entitlement is now being challenged in a more inclusive society.  And since being a rude self-centered person is being called-out more often it kind of makes those people upset?
If so, I'd ask, is being held accountable to new standards wrong?  Or is it only wrong when folks disagree with the new standards?  How we define these shifts in society is pretty important, I think.

There's a certain context there.  Personally, I definitely think the implication is "...[used to be free to] say whatever they wanted and be offensive."
I suppose I could be wrong there, let me know if so.
But, it seems to me, maybe some people are ticked-off that a certain traditional privilege/entitlement is now being challenged in a more inclusive society.  And since being a rude self-centered person is being called-out more often it kind of makes those people upset?
If so, I'd ask, is being held accountable to new standards wrong?  Or is it only wrong when folks disagree with the new standards?  How we define these shifts in society is pretty important, I think.

Certainly not denying any of that.  You can watch films from 70-90 years ago and notice the same thing.  "It's Wonderful Life" "Sullivan's Travels" "Modern Times" heck even "42nd Street."  And those are the films that have endured.  As I mentioned before, there were a lot of mediocre films from that era that never made it beyond the zeitgeist of their times.  Nothing special that.
On the other hand, the thing that's being challenged in these days by "woke" culture (which I'm not a big fan of, really, just observing) is less the championing of soft socialism, but the cultural entitlement of white dudes.  Thus, imo, a lot of said white dudes are upset they're suddenly being held accountable by new standards...or are seeing their cultural significance diminish...and they're bummed they're not being represented as much as they used to be.  Pretty tragic that, right? [sarcasm]. Can you imagine being pissed because some movie heroes aren't as white and male as you're used to --or want them to be?  
So, I don't know, out of all the problems in the world, being upset with that sort of narrscism seems silly to me.  Maybe some disagree with my assessment there, but that's how I see it.
But, yeah, it's "show business."  The market is simply expanding gender and race variety to attract the global masses.  That's what happens when corporations do things, appeal to as many as possible.  And in that global market melatonin doesn't really count for shit, does it?
Oh well. 

There's a certain context there.  Personally, I definitely think the implication is "...[used to be free to] say whatever they wanted and be offensive."
I suppose I could be wrong there, let me know if so.
But, it seems to me, maybe some people are ticked-off that a certain traditional privilege/entitlement is now being challenged in a more inclusive society.  And since being a rude self-centered person is being called-out more often it kind of makes those people upset?
If so, I'd ask, is being held accountable to new standards wrong?  Or is it only wrong when folks disagree with the new standards?  How we define these shifts in society is pretty important, I think.

Certainly not denying any of that.  You can watch films from 70-90 years ago and notice the same thing.  "It's Wonderful Life" "Sullivan's Travels" "Modern Times" heck even "42nd Street."  And those are the films that have endured.  As I mentioned before, there were a lot of mediocre films from that era that never made it beyond the zeitgeist of their times.  Nothing special that.
On the other hand, the thing that's being challenged in these days by "woke" culture (which I'm not a big fan of, really, just observing) is less the championing of soft socialism, but the cultural entitlement of white dudes.  Thus, imo, a lot of said white dudes are upset they're suddenly being held accountable by new standards...or are seeing their cultural significance diminish...and they're bummed they're not being represented as much as they used to be.  Pretty tragic that, right? [sarcasm]. Can you imagine being pissed because some movie heroes aren't as white and male as you're used to --or want them to be?  
So, I don't know, out of all the problems in the world, being upset with that sort of narrscism seems silly to me.  Maybe some disagree with my assessment there, but that's how I see it.
But, yeah, it's "show business."  The market is simply expanding gender and race variety to attract the global masses.  That's what happens when corporations do things, appeal to as many as possible.  And in that global market melatonin doesn't really count for shit, does it?
Oh well. 

There's a certain context there.  Personally, I definitely think the implication is "...[used to be free to] say whatever they wanted and be offensive."
I suppose I could be wrong there, let me know if so.
But, it seems to me, maybe some people are ticked-off that a certain traditional privilege/entitlement is now being challenged in a more inclusive society.  And since being a rude self-centered person is being called-out more often it kind of makes those people upset?
If so, I'd ask, is being held accountable to new standards wrong?  Or is it only wrong when folks disagree with the new standards?  How we define these shifts in society is pretty important, I think.

This has been a really helpful thread with thoughtful responses. Thank you. For now, I’ll be pushing myself with the D850 for a better real-world understanding of its capabilities. And maybe borrowing/renting another cam to feel the difference in similar situations, and in the edit.

Perhaps.  Although if you watch some less remembered media products from the 1960's or before --I really think you're going to see the same ratio of mediocrity and sanitized stuff we're all still complaining about now.

Perhaps.  Although if you watch some less remembered media products from the 1960's or before --I really think you're going to see the same ratio of mediocrity and sanitized stuff we're all still complaining about now.

Think it’s any different now than, say, 1961?
Theres always been a big ratio between good and bad movies. 

Simply, I don't agree with the sentiment.  It's equating the pandemic response to being unjustly subjugated.  So, yeah, I don't see the response as being unjust like slavery.  If there was supposed to be more nuance in the initial metaphor,  I didn't read it.

Simply, I don't agree with the sentiment.  It's equating the pandemic response to being unjustly subjugated.  So, yeah, I don't see the response as being unjust like slavery.  If there was supposed to be more nuance in the initial metaphor,  I didn't read it.

Personally don’t mind staying a bit behind the curve. I picked up a Fuji XT3 with the f2.8-4 kit last year and still love shooting with it. Fuji updated the AF to give us eye af tracking in video. The colors are worlds better than I was personally able to get when I had the Sony a6500. Hoping to pick up a cheap viltrox af lens soon for it as well. All this to say, no shame in going behind the latest!