Ok, we're making some progress - we agree that those two situations are roughly equivalent; the analogy itself is valid. Let's move on to why I used that analogy in the first place.
Here's what you originally wrote that prompted me to use it:
What's interesting is in the case of poor sound/sound design, the answer I most commonly hear on IT is something along the lines of; "of course I'd like better sound but we didn't have the budget", "as amateurs/no budget indie filmmakers we've got to learn to do the best with what we've got", etc. In this case though, when it comes to the cinematography, the advice is entirely different and along the lines of; "you need the right equipment", "get more budget", "reallocate the existing budget", "the producer doesn't know what he's doing", "it's going to be a wasted effort/budget". ?!!!
You're citing this thread as an example of how IT responds differently to audio vs. cinematography questions, but it's a false equivalency.
The suggestions in this thread to allocate more budget to the cinematography are entirely focused on acquiring the bare minimum tools necessary to achieve the stated goal - a starting point.
There are countless threads on IT where similar suggestions are made about audio - that at minimum people should invest in a mic/boom/recorder setup in order to record dialogue; again, a starting point.
The paraphrased quotes you cite as examples of the typical audio responses are just as commonly heard around here in regards to cinematography - "of course I'd like [a better camera/picture/lenses/etc] but we don't have the budget". And "as amateurs/no budget indie filmmakers we've got to learn to do the best with what we've got" applies equally to, and is commonly heard around here in regards to, both audio and visuals. Most people here are working with, and discussing, 'prosumer' cinematography equipment that would be consider little more than a minimum starting point by most professionals.
I'm not disputing your larger assertion that indie filmmakers should be putting as much focus on audio as visuals, just your assertion that this thread is an example of how the IT community neglects to recommend acquiring the basic equipment necessary for audio while doing the opposite for cinematography.
And the truth is the same argument you're usually making about what's required for professional quality audio, and the lack of focus on it here (or even awareness of it), can be made about cinematography as well. For all the threads debating cameras, there's comparatively little discussion around here about lighting - which is honestly more important to cinematography than the camera is.
It may seem to you that there is an excessive focus on visuals around here compared to audio, but that's biased by your own knowledge and experience in the audio realm; a professional cinematographer would likely have similar observations about the level of attention paid to the important aspects of cinematography. In fact I would argue that the presence and participation of people like you and Alcove in the discussions here may result in a higher general awareness of the professional audio shortcomings of low/no budget filmmaking compared to the visual side. Of course that awareness may or may not translate into actual improvement - budgetary restrictions still dictate that people have to "do the best with what [they've] got". But the fact is there's no equivalent to the two of you on the cinematography side who's jumping into camera discussions and saying "don't forget - lighting is half the experience!" and discussing what makes the difference between amateur and professional cinematography.
