3 ms·

> You're talking about stills. The data requirements for video are massive. The vast, vast, VAST majority of war photo journalism is stills. This may change i

> You're talking about stills. The data requirements for video are massive. The vast, vast, VAST majority of war photo journalism is stills. This may change in the future, but in general video journalism in war is handled very differently, has different operating parameters (for example tends to be conducted further back from the front lines, involves way more people, etc), and doesn't typically use SLRs at all. > Also remember that what you're replacing here is the transfer of pre-edited footage, of which there is likely to be a huge amount. You refer to files of "a few MB or less" elsewhere, which suggests you haven't really thought about what's required here. For some reason you appear to be shifting from photo journalism in warzones and other hostile and hazardous situations to videos taken in London... I'm not sure how this is related to the previous posts in the thread, and trying to completely shift the discussion then claiming that I haven't thought about what's required seems somewhat disingenuous at best.

Joeboy 10y ago
I accept that your argument is more reasonable if you're talking about stills, but the article is about video, and presumably that's what everybody else here is talking about. > For some reason you appear to be shifting from photo journalism in warzones and other hostile and hazardous situations to videos taken in London My point was that the measures you suggest for worst case scenarios do not even make sense in best case scenarios (London being a highly developed first world capital city).
- jfindley 10y ago
  > I accept that your argument is more reasonable if you're talking about stills, but the article is about video, and presumably that's what everybody else here is talking about. The article is not "about video". The article mentions both, and if you read the original letter[0], you'll find it does too. > My point was that the measures you suggest for worst case scenarios do not even make sense in best case scenarios (London being a highly developed first world capital city). Making sense for London is irrelevant. Read the actual letter[0] - it talks about, and only about "...the most dangerous parts of the world", and protecting against "authoritarian governments or criminals". Obviously, if that's not what you're doing, then different solutions might be better. 0: https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojournalists-call-major-camera-manufacturers-build-encryption-their-cameras/ https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojour...
  - Joeboy 10y ago
    You're right, it does mention photojournalism, I should have read it more carefully. Apparently we've been at least somewhat at cross-purposes. My point about was that video journalism is likely to generate huge quantities of data, which is inconvenient to transfer even in relatively favourable circumstances, let alone adverse ones. Perhaps we can agree that comms infrastructure is going to be no better in most war zones than in London.

Joeboy 10y ago

I accept that your argument is more reasonable if you're talking about stills, but the article is about video, and presumably that's what everybody else here is talking about. > For some reason you appear to be shifting from photo journalism in warzones and other hostile and hazardous situations to videos taken in London My point was that the measures you suggest for worst case scenarios do not even make sense in best case scenarios (London being a highly developed first world capital city).

jfindley 10y ago
> I accept that your argument is more reasonable if you're talking about stills, but the article is about video, and presumably that's what everybody else here is talking about. The article is not "about video". The article mentions both, and if you read the original letter[0], you'll find it does too. > My point was that the measures you suggest for worst case scenarios do not even make sense in best case scenarios (London being a highly developed first world capital city). Making sense for London is irrelevant. Read the actual letter[0] - it talks about, and only about "...the most dangerous parts of the world", and protecting against "authoritarian governments or criminals". Obviously, if that's not what you're doing, then different solutions might be better. 0: https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojournalists-call-major-camera-manufacturers-build-encryption-their-cameras/ https://freedom.press/news/over-150-filmmakers-and-photojour...
- Joeboy 10y ago
  You're right, it does mention photojournalism, I should have read it more carefully. Apparently we've been at least somewhat at cross-purposes. My point about was that video journalism is likely to generate huge quantities of data, which is inconvenient to transfer even in relatively favourable circumstances, let alone adverse ones. Perhaps we can agree that comms infrastructure is going to be no better in most war zones than in London.