It's common for people to look down upon NIMBY protests concerning stuff others would have to put up with.
"I, myself would totally welcome it, see" - never mind that the things that they scold others for not accepting, are things planned for nowhere near their backyard, so their openess conveniently wont be put to the test.
Most of the talk down of NIMBY protesting comes from such types, not from people local to the projects/changes that do welcome them.
I'm saying we should have the concept of moral judgement. Your judgement could apply that of is okay but something else isn't. Or tricking lonely men into thinking they're talking to you is ok, or loot boxes are ok, etc. but we should have those conversations and not pretend just because it's legal (and I believe it should continue to be legal) that something like of is morally equivalent to being an accountant or something
This is not slightly more options. Log is a lot of extra data for post processing.
Most people won't notice the difference that is true but this is true even for real cinema. Most people don't notice or care about things such as shooting on real film, aspect ratio etc.
The why is that people who create care about these things. Color grading and post shot creative manipulation, these things benefit from extra data. If I can't recover shadows or pushing white balance results in banding, those things are going to still be visible on a phone by myself and the small amount of people who do care.
Log is just a curve that save image differently. Extra data are in chroma sample (4:2:2), bitrate and bit depth (10bit). For example log in 8bit is absolutely useless. You wont get higher dynamic range, that is what size of sensor does.
And that curve allows you to process colors/contrast with way less artifacts than a file saved with a more contrast/saturated colors especially if you compound your after effects.
It might in some situations, but generally you will deal with banding anyway (8bit). Log needs higher ISO which means lower dynamic range [1]. Flat footage lacks depth so you'll need edit it, which create a new space for error.
Yes, I do audiovisual production and postproduction for living.
Your camera (including film cameras) never could take a fully accurate picture to represent what you see. Digital sensors and film don't perceive what our eyes do. It's always been up to you the photographer to ensure that. If you choose to shoot on auto, that's your choice to let the camera guess at the accuracy. Most people don't like what is actual reality so they under, over, long and short expose to choose what reality they represent. They light things artificially and they put make up on. The might even create stage scenes. Even in pure film days, humans have been altering the output. Whether it be for realism or artistic purposes, dodging/burning were effectively retouching practices in film.
Yes smart phone cameras are using computation to get a more "correct" output, unless it's being marked as a feature to alter the image such as face smoothing. Camera makers are always trying to make their camera sensors (or film makers) better perceive the range our human eyes can or at least give use the choice through data to make the decision on realism or art.
Your bit about the police officer is 100% irrelevant to your main point.
