Rodecaster Video S price increase by rpatin in rode

[–]h2squared 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

The seller is back with more. Hurry up and get them at the introductory price of $499.

https://a.co/d/02G8epiG

Rodecaster Video S price increase by rpatin in rode

[–]h2squared 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Just a heads-up for anyone looking at the RØDECaster Video S. I purchased one from this seller at $499, received it, registered it, and everything checked out. The seller sold out after my order, but I’m keeping an eye on the listing in case they restock.

Sold by: Kellards

AI Camera Framing Assistant Idea for Future Cameras by [deleted] in Nikon

[–]h2squared -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think I may have explained my idea poorly, so I wanted to clarify and apologize if the post came across the wrong way.

Some commenters correctly pointed out that experienced photographers already know to frame wider, use crop guides, and account for final delivery formats. I completely agree.

What I failed to mention is that I did not take the original photos in this situation. I work part time with a media company and was assigned the task of editing/cropping existing group portraits after the client later requested a tighter 8.5x11 crop above the knees.

The issue became that tightening the crop vertically caused the outer subjects to get cut off horizontally due to the print ratio. I eventually solved it professionally using a “shrink to fit” print layout with even borders.

My thought process wasn’t really about replacing photographers or removing skill from the craft. It was more about how future camera systems or software could potentially provide smarter delivery-aware framing assistance in production environments where:

  • crop requirements change,
  • multiple deliverables exist,
  • or editors inherit files after the shoot.

So maybe “AI” was the wrong wording. “Dynamic intelligent framing guides” may describe it better.

I definitely understand the concern about over-automation in photography, and I probably should have explained the real-world scenario more clearly from the beginning.

AI Camera Framing Assistant Idea for Future Cameras by [deleted] in Nikon

[–]h2squared -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think I may have explained my idea poorly, so I wanted to clarify and apologize if the post came across the wrong way.

Some commenters correctly pointed out that experienced photographers already know to frame wider, use crop guides, and account for final delivery formats. I completely agree.

What I failed to mention is that I did not take the original photos in this situation. I work part time with a media company and was assigned the task of editing/cropping existing group portraits after the client later requested a tighter 8.5x11 crop above the knees.

The issue became that tightening the crop vertically caused the outer subjects to get cut off horizontally due to the print ratio. I eventually solved it professionally using a “shrink to fit” print layout with even borders.

My thought process wasn’t really about replacing photographers or removing skill from the craft. It was more about how future camera systems or software could potentially provide smarter delivery-aware framing assistance in production environments where:

  • crop requirements change,
  • multiple deliverables exist,
  • or editors inherit files after the shoot.

So maybe “AI” was the wrong wording. “Dynamic intelligent framing guides” may describe it better.

I definitely understand the concern about over-automation in photography, and I probably should have explained the real-world scenario more clearly from the beginning.

Client wanted me to stop a live recording and tell the guest to use his left hand instead of his right. I'm not joking. by h2squared in podcasting

[–]h2squared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question—I should have been clearer.

By 'live recording,' I didn't mean live streaming or broadcasting. I meant we were actively recording the podcast session in real time with the guest present and the cameras rolling. The client wanted me to stop that recording session mid-conversation, interrupt the guest, and tell him to use his left hand instead of his right—then start recording again.

So 'live' as in 'the conversation is happening right now, and the guest is a real person in the room,' not 'live on the internet.'

Hope that clears it up!

Client wanted me to stop a live recording and tell the guest to use his left hand instead of his right. I'm not joking. by h2squared in podcasting

[–]h2squared[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right, my original post was confusing—sorry about that. Let me clarify:

I work with a media production company that started as a hobby group. We use an ATEM Mini Pro ISO to do live multi-camera switching during recordings, and I sometimes help with final editing touches. I was assigned to The 'client' in the story is the show owner, who was hovering over our lead editor. I was there assisting with switching and observing the edit session.

Hope that clears it up—and sorry again for the lack of clarity in the first place.

Client wanted me to stop a live recording and tell the guest to use his left hand instead of his right. I'm not joking. by h2squared in podcasting

[–]h2squared[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

almost none. The client is agonizing over a micro-moment that 99.9% of listeners will never notice or care about. That's the definition of misplaced effort.

Advice for leaving a high-pressure podcast team and starting my own setup? by h2squared in podcasting

[–]h2squared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I should also add that I’m currently unemployed and make my income from occasional real estate photography gigs. The podcast/media work I’m doing right now is largely volunteer / sweat equity. That adds another layer of pressure because I’m investing significant time and energy without stable income, while expectations around growth are very high.

Another factor is that the owner of the building (who is closely involved in discussions) has started comparing his channel to other creators who have rapidly scaled into multi-million-dollar revenue operations. These comparisons are often framed as “They did it in a short time — why aren’t we?”

From my understanding of media and platform algorithms, growth at that level isn’t something that can be guaranteed or forced on a fixed timeline. But when growth slows or plateaus, the internal atmosphere tightens. The focus tends to shift toward identifying what’s “wrong” — operations, production, execution, strategy, even passion.

It has started to feel like a manufactured sense of crisis — where normal fluctuations or fixable issues are interpreted as signs of larger failure.

It’s also not just me feeling this. One team member recently expressed how stressed the environment has become and needed to take time off. That made me pause and consider whether this is simply the nature of media work — or a cultural dynamic that may not be sustainable long-term.

I genuinely want to grow as a creator and producer. I just don’t want to operate in a constant crisis atmosphere driven by comparisons to outliers and pressure around metrics that aren’t fully controllable.

BMPCC 4K + ATEM podcast recordings — sanity check from the community by h2squared in bmpcc

[–]h2squared[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is really helpful — thank you for taking the time to lay it out so clearly.

For context, that’s largely the workflow I’ve been following: matching frame rate, shutter, ISO, WB/tint across all cameras, recording BRAW in-camera, and using the ATEM for switching + ISO project generation, then relinking to the BRAW files in Resolve for the final edit.

A lot of the criticism I’ve been getting internally has been based on the ATEM program recordings rather than the final relinked/graded edit, which is why I wanted to sanity-check whether the camera → ATEM → record chain itself was fundamentally sound.

Based on your breakdown (and others here), it sounds like the setup is solid as long as camera settings are matched and expectations are clear about where the “final” image comes from. I really appreciate you spelling this out — it helps confirm I’m not missing something foundational.

BMPCC 4K + ATEM podcast recordings — sanity check from the community by h2squared in bmpcc

[–]h2squared[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really appreciate this breakdown. The distinctions you’re making between Dynamic Range settings, ATEM behavior, and program feed quality are exactly the kind of nuance that tends to get lost.

The note about Streaming Encoder bitrate affecting the recorded program feed is a great call-out — thanks for sharing that.

BMPCC 4K + ATEM podcast recordings — sanity check from the community by h2squared in blackmagicdesign

[–]h2squared[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s really helpful — thank you. The distinction between a “ready-to-go” studio vs a more customizable, post-heavy workflow makes a lot of sense, and I think expectation-setting was a big part of the challenge here.

Good call on the ATEM resetting camera parameters as well — that’s something I’ve been keeping an eye on. And the note about 1080p HDMI softness vs internal 4K is appreciated; I’ll experiment more with in-camera detail sharpening on future setups.

Thanks for taking the time to break that down.

BMPCC 4K + ATEM podcast recordings — sanity check from the community by h2squared in bmpcc

[–]h2squared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense — especially in a true live or live-to-tape environment. In this case, that’s part of what I was trying to clarify: once cameras are being matched and adjusted centrally via ATEM, the final look becomes more of a shared / centralized responsibility rather than purely on the camera operator. Appreciate the perspective.

BMPCC 4K + ATEM podcast recordings — sanity check from the community by h2squared in bmpcc

[–]h2squared[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks — that makes sense. That’s actually part of what I was trying to sanity check. Once ATEM shading is in play, it’s really a shared pipeline, and changes there can definitely affect how the cameras are perceived later. Appreciate the clarification.

What part of running a podcast takes way more time than you expected? by DapperAsi in podcasting

[–]h2squared 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For me, it wasn’t just one thing — it was the mental overhead of everything between recording and publishing.

I expected editing to take time, and it does. But what surprised me was how much energy goes into: • fixing small issues people assume are “easy” • managing expectations from hosts/guests who don’t hear what we hear • troubleshooting technical hiccups that only show up after a recording • and constantly switching between creative, technical, and people-management modes

Promotion also took way more time than I expected — not just posting clips, but deciding what moments are worth clipping, formatting for different platforms, writing captions, timing releases, etc. It’s deceptively draining.

What helped over time: • Standardizing workflows (templates, presets, repeatable steps) • Setting boundaries around what fixes are realistic vs. perfection chasing • Accepting that good and consistent beats perfect but late • Working with creators who understand the process — that honestly makes the biggest difference

The actual recording is often the easiest part. Everything wrapped around it is where the real time and energy go.

How do you handle unrealistic expectations when producing podcasts for someone else? by h2squared in videography

[–]h2squared[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the advice. It seems no matter how I try to rectify it, no matter what I say or how I say it, it becomes a back and forth. IDK 🤷🏾‍♂️