Jump to content

Jon-R

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. The CION requires quite a bit of kitting to be on feature parity in many ways with the URSA. You need an external recorder for RAW. As far as I can see, there's no EVF or monitor beside that tiny side-mounted one, so you need one of those. There's only a single capture card. External controls are a lot more limited. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but that it's important to note that they're using two very different design philosophies. The CION is intended to be kitted out, while the URSA is intended to have everything integrated. There are advantages to both.
  2. You're right in that it's not the right camera for everyone, but let's not forget that Blackmagic makes 3 other form-factors as well. As long as you're able to make multiple products, you can tailor each to a specific need. As for trends, well, the F55 is a bit smaller than the F3, but only in its bare-bone configuration. The same's true for the Red One and the Epic. I don't think any Cine camera would survive too well if you were to throw it around.
  3. There's a massive difference in aperture size.
  4. That's a big claim. Most Germans I know value the law, because they feel that privacy is something that needs to be protected. And from what I've seen in the media, that's the prevailing opinion. There are strict laws set-up to protect privacy in all aspects of their lives, not just when they're out in the public.They shake their heads at the idea of something like London, where you can't walk two meters before a CCTV picks you up. And unlike the British CCTVs, the German privacy laws has nothing to do with with the state controlling anything. It has only to do with protecting the born rights of the German people. They view personal privacy as a core right, and as such, you don't lose it just because you're out in the public. Your rights as an artist ends where the other persons rights to privacy begin, and that's true for every western country. The only difference is that in Germany, you've got the right to privacy in public. And like anything, there aren't any god-given right answers. When does freedom of speech become slander? When does fair-use become IP theft? When does candid art become an invasion of privacy?
  5. Nope, I'm being dead serious. Me and Andrew are both are both immigrants in Germany, so I do understand where he's coming from. But if you're choosing where to live, why chose a place where you don't agree with the values of the people there? It's the same reason why I wouldn't chose to live in a country that without equal rights between genders.
  6. Well, If you can't accept the values of the people where you're living, moving is a solid option.
  7. It doesn't defy logic, it only defies your preconceptions. You're used to that being in public means that you've got no right to privacy. But there's no reason why that *has* to be the case. In Germany, it isn't, and that makes exactly as much sense as to opposite. There simply is no reason why recoding someone without asking permission first has to be allowed. The law would only defy logic if the Germans would be OK with losing their assumption of privacy in public, but as we both know, the opposite is true.
  8. Public spaces are spaces freely accessible by anyone. Nothing within that description dictates that you'll have to allow people to record you without your consent. Germany doesn't try, they've passed that law long ago, and it fits in perfectly well with their society. In Germany, you do not abandon your right to privacy when you're out in the public. If you've got a problem with that, then that's your problem. There's no reason why recording others without permission in public would *have* to be allowed, it's something that can just as easily not be allowed. Hence it varies from country to country, based upon what the populus wants. There's no reason why a concert or the like couldn't have a clause that says that when you attend this concert, eg. purchase a ticket etc, you agree to them recording you. That's the whole point of the Germanys law, that you as a individual have to give express permission for someone to record you under normal circumstances. Having to ask for permission before you record someone in public doesn't not meant that all recording is banned. Something isn't nutty just because it's different from what you like or what you're used to.
  9. Well, laws need to be supported by social norms to be effective. Because the social norm in Germany is that recording other people without their consent is unacceptable, the law works because it only needs to strengthen that. Due to the norm, recording people in general is less comon in Germany than in other places. Due to the law, the people have a way to enforce the norm if push comes to shove. They're in a position where they can, if bothered, with confidence demand that someone deletes recordings of them if someone does record them. The norm and the law in the US is that recording in public spaces is A-OK. Suddenly chaning that law with the old norm in place would make the law really, really ineffective. As you said, what are you supposed to do when people are recording strangers literally everywhere? It would simply be unenforcable. It's a bit like seatbelts. It took decades of pro-seatbelt propaganda and really active policing before people started wearing them.
  10. There's no reason why Germany has to be like that. They don't like it either, and like it so little that they've made legizlation to that point. It's not that public photography is illegal. Taking idetifiable pictures of persons without their consent is illegal. In practice, that means taking photos/video of people with their faces large and in focus enough to be identifiable without asking them first. The idea is that your privacy is your own, and no-one can rob that from you. If you want to voluntarily reliquish it for a picture or video however, that's completely fine. In a sense, privacy is considered a core right of each individual. Basically, this is very similar to how things work in the States, with the big difference that in the States, being in public spaces automatically means that you have no expectation of privacy. That's not the case in Germany, and there's no technical reason why one law is correct while the other isn't. The laws simply reflect the wishes of the populus.
  11. Berlin is a 3.5m population city. There are precious few cities of that size that don't have less than desirable quarters.
  12. Germans value their privacy. It might be a foreign concept for someone from the promised land of CCTV, but Germans take it very, very seriously. You might not like it, but you should at least respect it. And if you can't, then you shouldn't live there. There are plenty of places on earth where there isn't really any concept of privacy when you're out in the public. They might suit you better. When in rome, do as the romans. I've lived in Freiburg for a couple of years now, and that simply means that street photography isn't really an option for me at the moment here, because it's too much of an hassle. But I won't blame the Germans for it. I chose to move here, so I'd damn better respect the way the natives want to live their lives. Different folk, different strokes, and as long as no-one is forcing you to live in Germany, I don't see the problem.
×
×
  • Create New...