Andrew Reid

Not if you need AF though.

The 1080/60p is superior yes. Let's be clear though, the 1D C is an amazing camera, the image is similar to the D850 but the codec is a bit more beefy at 4:2:2 500Mbit... The issue is it's crap to edit and massive file sizes, whereas the D850 fixes that with the sensible 4K codec it has. 1D C has 'real' LOG but D850 flat profile is very similar to Canon LOG in my opinion. The 1D C is 1.3x crop 4K where D850 is full frame, no crop. I prefer the lens mount of the 1D C - more adapts and Canon glass takes some beating even by Nikon. The main reason I would say the D850 is superior though is because of the way it marries a very similar level of 4K quality with better features and better 1080p - it's more complete - and as a stills camera, 46MP is not to be sniffed at, even if it lacks the burst speeds of the 1D C, that resolution in itself is quite amazing and the AF is just as good as the top of the line pro Canon. 1D C only does Super 35mm mode in 1080p, whereas D850 does Super 35mm in 4K so good to have that second crop factor. If you're looking at either the D850 or 1D C your main priorities are probably: Full frame (no Speed Booster or 2x crop GH5 malarky) Better stills than a Sony (OVF, super fast AF, handling, battery life) 4K and 1080 image quality as good as it can possibly be without going to a more video orientated platform, like C300 Mark II, GH5, FS5, etc. Enough basic video features to make it painless (articulated screen and small file sizes - neither is found on 1D C) Top-class low light performance Best colour you can get without step up to 10bit The only thing I would say that is Canon's IS lenses seem to be superior to Nikon VR for video. The D850 is not the perfect handheld camera the GH5 is. Better on a tripod.

Adobe have decided to save a few bucks and get rid of their built in Dolby audio codec, so that the latest, worst, I mean greatest Premiere relies on the god-damn OS for critical things like the sound track on your AVCHD clips. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2396890 Adobe are presumably being run into the ground by complacent bean counters who think a monopoly and a successful subscription model is somehow what we voted for. Vote with your feet.

‘Blade Runner 2049’ Is Disappearing From Theaters More Quickly Than Expected http://www.indiewire.com/2017/10/blade-runner-2049-box-office-1201889796/ Movie theaters are being pummeled by a surprisingly poor Blade Runner performance http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/movie-theater-stocks-are-getting-pummeled-by-a-surprisingly-poor-blade-runner-performance-2017-10-1003559794

The question of how we fund our real passions is very interesting. If what we really want to do in life funds itself then the problem has a simple answer, but it's very rare! I think more filmmakers could pool resources. My musician friend once had an interesting idea. If 10 people pool resources every month (say just $100 each), they pay the 1st person in line ($1000) to take the month off to do nothing but record music. Then the next month the same again, but the 2nd person gets the pot. And so on. Then whatever revenue is made at the end of the year from all 10 musicians having something to show in terms of a record, they share that as well.

Very good summary Bioskop This bit in particular If they had played on this a bit more and made it emotionally impacting, I think it could have helped the story no end. Instead it was so obtuse and unaffecting, I doubt half the audience even knew about her ulterior plot.

It would be criminally stupid not to take #1 more like. Get it shot and go back to regular paid work afterwards. A one off commercial job means nothing compared to the chance to make a successful film, even if you get paid nothing for doing it. If the rest is paid for, then that in itself is worth more than $2k. Fuzzy was a bit fuzzy on that bit though. How does that passion project get made... is it paid for by somebody... or is it just you and your camera, rallying around trying to get funding, actors and a story, and so on... Then the option is less attractive, and that's why most people choose 2

*Hmm*

+11 I am sick of it!! I go to watch a movie not to be blasted into submission. It's a form of punishment that only the sadistic and the moronic actually enjoy! Glad someone else spotted this mini-trailer for yet another sequel. With the crap box office, I hope they cancel it!!

If you come across a good deal on the ridiculously overpriced 58mm F1.4, jump at it... that is probably my favourite Nikon lens right now. It is the only one that is designed for rendering like a Leica. It isn't the sharpest or the fastest (F1.2 would have been nice) but it is a shot-winner time and time again. I am amazed it even exists in modern era. It's Nikon's answer to the Canon 50mm F1.2L, which still has more character than the Sigma 50mm F1.4. The Nikon 50mm F1.4G is ok, but there's a big price gap between that and the next one up (58mm)... Sigma 50mm F1.4 fills that gap nicely. It's just I prefer the character of the 58 and the amazing performance with tiny specular highlights in a cityscape... no halos, no blur, just very well corrected. It is not soft at F2 but it isn't sharp like the Sigma. At F1.4 it's more a portrait lens, so sharpness doesn't matter as much. The 35mm F2.0 AI-S is lovely... Beautiful rendering. I don't have that many Nikon lenses compared to others... But the 35mm F2 AI-S, 58mm F1.4 and 24-70mm F2.8G are about the only ones I'll ever need! Did try the Tamron VR primes (35 and 45) and they are good... but the stabilisation seems to take an age to settle down in movie mode... half the clip is lost basically. It's much better for stills through the viewfinder where I can use shutter speeds as low as 1/8 or 1/15 handheld with it.

Very nice colours there @Mattias Burling What Nikon lenses are you going to be using?

The $15,000 is what happens when there's no competition and Canon wants to sell in small quantities to film studios and Hollywood. Thankfully that was 2012 and this is 2017, very different. I think Canon don't see a market for another 1D C at silly prices. The 1D X Mark II isn't really a follow-up. It's "only" $6,000 for a start Hollywood clearly isn't buying any more DSLRS Not now there is the GH5.

A lot of current screenwriting suffers from too much exposition and not enough spectacle. It was exactly the case again here. Which is perhaps why I feel so cold emotionally to it. SPOILER ALERT... - When your replicant lover is recreated, it's never going to be the same as the original. - Yes, they did try a different look and cinematic language this time out, but like in Arrival which has a very similar tone, I'm sorry but it leaves me cold. - Tarkovsky did a similar slowly paced style far better with more spectacle and less talky talky - It's not a bad film, it's a very good one but it's highly hyped and overrated by the critics and not a patch on the original in any area apart from Roger Deakins

Blade Runner 2049 cinematographer Roger Deakins has been quoted in the clickbait media (basically every website now) saying "don't see the 3D version"! Actually rather than slamming the 3D version, all he did was state a preference for the 2D version! In most cinemas the 3D version was the only one available, be it on a standard size screen or IMAX. This was the case in Berlin at Sony's very own state of the art cinema, so I watched the film twice - the first time in 3D and the second time in 2D in a classic theatre. Read the full article **SPOILERS?** Review is spoiler free This thread is not (uncensored post-film discussion)

It's a 2012 camera but it was a $12,000 2012 camera, which is why it's still better in many ways than what Canon give you for $3500 today. The technology hasn't moved on that much anyway. 1D X (1D C) and 1D X Mark II stills quality are almost identical. 5D Mark IV is just a higher megapixel count... but worse in low light. The 1D C is not old, or past it, in any way.

Growing up with a film. He's already past it The stuff we watched when we were kids or teenagers tends to stay with us as we grow up. Blade Runner was my Star Wars. I couldn't care less about Star Wars though.

I would go for the 1D C. It's a better stills camera not just a better video camera. The low-light is better as well, compared to the 5D Mark IV. Battery life, hugely better. Weather sealing, and build quality is better. Burst rates... up to 14fps! Massive buffer. Better AF. Manual focus in video mode is the only drawback... Except it's not really. Manual focus is just fine.

The D850 is very closely matched to the Samsung NX1 in 4K for detail. D850: NX1: I have no worries over the sub-sampling. How else were they to get 4K off a 46MP full frame sensor? 8.2K readout?! Imagine the rolling shutter on that!

Yes, same as if it's a tech problem, always helps to be really specific, rather than a general complaint "it won't work"

Yes. Literally twice as good as the Sony cameras in that respect.

These are not hard rules but I have some suggestions for making the place easier to read and less cluttered... 1. Please don't quote an entire post or topic as the next reply directly underneath... We know you're replying to it, we don't need to see the same big post repeated 2 times in a row.... If your post is on the same page, people usually see the content you're referring to and the context. If there's a big post with 6 images for example, and you quote it in the very next reply... think about how stupid that looks to the reader. 2. Please try to avoid putting signature text in the main body of your post like "CTB Approved". Put it in the signature of your account profile. That way, it can be formatted separately (smaller, with divider) to the main post text in keeping with the forum design - easier to read for us all. 3. This is a place to discuss camera gear, filmmaking and films! If the main purpose of your account is to promote a service, product or another blog or YouTube channel, then it will be deleted. I want to see real people, with great posts like Mattias Burling, actual organic users with things to say and not a heavy bias or promotional bias towards one thing, or one brand. 4. This forum prefers people who post under their real name, rather than the name of their channel, online presence or a nickname. 5. If your topic is a question please search first before posting it, so regular visitors don't have to read the same questions every day that have already been answered before. 6. If a rumors site posts news, link to the ORIGINAL SOURCE of the news, NOT the rumors site. Save us all the bother, go direct to the source and bypass all those ads. 7. If you are selling products and services that rival EOSHD's, I will allow it only at my discretion. Charging $100 for a picture profile I don't like, that is of low quality and in direct competition with my own, is a certain ban. 8. Please be civil to myself and the mods - because we're here every day and getting heckled everyday isn't what I run this site for! It's the quickest way to get banned. 9. I am all for blunt, non-politically correct chat, banter and forthright opinions, just be respectful of each-other 10. Post good stuff that starts a discussion... leave the boring stuff to the other sites These are guidelines not the law... I will as always be casually keeping an eye out for people who flout multiple guidelines regularly as I want to maintain the quality of the community for the regulars. Cheers!

The D750 is great for 1080p Mattias. Like D500 but full frame. The AF for stills is still pretty good, too. I wonder if DPReview shot the 4K chart in 30fps and not 24fps, and it's possible a harsher pixel binning is in action creating more aliasing in that mode than in 24p... Because what is a bit weird is that the A7R II looks identical to the A99 II in full frame 4K, whereas to my experience the A99 II was an improvement... The D850 is a further improvement with the updated sensor, it has less moire and false detail than my A99 II in a real-world head-to-head but oddly on the DPReview 4K chart scene it shows more stair-stepping / aliasing. I honestly hardly notice it in everything I've shot so far on mine! (24p, full frame 4K) I'm not too hung up on these chart results, but each to their own! BTW Download the JPEGs from DPReview of the 4K chart scene for the D850 and Samsung NX1 https://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=nikon_d850&attr29_1=samsung_nx1&attr72_0=4k&attr72_1=4k&normalization=full&widget=555&x=-0.36881169178973144&y=-0.6556811913954771 The NX1 is one of the most alive and sharp 4K cameras around. I've always loved the image. The D850 4K frame-grab in JPEG format viewed full screen looks more detailed than the NX1, which is really surprising, but yes it does have more stair-stepping on some parts of the chart and the purple false color on the fine black & white stripes. Again though, in real world, it's practically a non-issue.

Hey Israel, please upload the video to YouTube or Vimeo so we can have a look at it. As a forum attachment, it's a bit too big.

Dude, the resolution in 4K of the D850 is as good as the 1D X Mark II / 1D C... https://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=nikon_d850&attr29_1=canon_eos1dxii&attr72_0=4k&attr72_1=c4k&normalization=full&widget=555&x=-0.585179526355997&y=0.08446496469310162 What's not to like. I don't tend to quibble over small resolution differences at 4K on charts anyway....Why? At this level, resolution is already so more than you really need even for cinema screenings, yes, and even in 2017. I don't care whether it is effectively 4K or 3.8K or even 3K. At 1080p, I can quibble all I like! (Oh and 1080 on the D850 is superb by the way). The D850's 4K resolution is nothing to be sniffed at. There's some purple false colour on the D850 chart (like ALL the other Nikon cameras, funnily enough) but the actual level of detail and especially real-world detail is a match to the 1D C. Yet on the Nikon you are getting more for your money and fixing the lovely 1D C's biggest downsides (lack of articulated screen and unworkably large file sizes). The colour and white balance are superb and the image pipeline, processing and codec are top notch, as good looking as the Canon. You're getting a smaller form factor, lighter body, better stills, articulated screen, cheaper price and 4K file sizes that are actually practical... The 1D X Mark II only has two advantages and certainly not the codec - it is less rolling shutter and of course Dual Pixel AF yet films have been shot with manual focus since the start to the present day and there's a reason for that. AF still isn't bullet proof or organic looking enough... It's nice to have, it's practical and convenient for run & gun, but it isn't cinema and you don't actually need it for most cinematography. What's more you need to put chart tests into context. If there's some purple false colour on very fine black and white circles and lines at DPReview, but these things never occur outside of charts, then what is more important is that A) it looks nice when you point it at REAL STUFF and B) it does 4K from an 8K sensor!! - a huge technical achievement and gives you the benefit of 46MP stills, which the Sony A9 and 1D C simply cannot compete with. Then there is the Nikon flat profile and colour science, which is superior to Sony, and even superior to Canon in terms of some subjects. A9 does not have a C-LOG-like profile nor can you add one. No S-LOG. No EOSHD Pro Color. Just the standard crap Sony colour. The codec is also very good on the D850... Higher bitrate than the Sonys and cleaner shadows, smoother to edit and better looking grain. There is also the fact that low light performance is excellent considering the 46MP count sensor and superior ergonomics to all the Sony cameras, superior to the A99 II as well, which I actually liked more than the A9. The D850 is a much better stills camera than both of them. Oh and it is full frame... So that look, in the real world, trumps anything minor that appears on a fucking chart.

See what I mean, you say I can't debate related-topics to climate change...you tell me that the only topic is whether climate change is happening or not. Binary thinking my friend... It's not good. Cleaner solar energy for example is a prevention method, one of many to consider. It's not a separate topic at all, it's all part of the topic of climate change. Once you add up all the elements it's a very complicated subject and one that can't be debated from two polar opposite sides. Which is exactly what our media and politicians have turned it into. The uncertainty comes when you try to consider the truth! Rather than simply being swayed by binary thinking, tribal behaviour and where on the political spectrum you consider yourself to be.