jebbyderinger

I agree. The D800 is by no means a camera that won't allow you to create something brilliant but their competition makes it much easier. The press release is promising though at least if not for this camera perhaps future. I'm a Nikon shooter, I like their ergonomics, build quality and lens legacy. I don't like where they have been going (or lack of going) in regards to video though. I'm in the market for a new camera and while primarily a still photographer I'd love to have GH4 video quality or at least something competitive. I can see myself using a lot more video for work etc. At the same time I still want to shoot stills and the GH4 is not the best camera in that regard. I like to print large like 20x30 (or bigger) and I like the shallow DOF and improved pixel data of the larger sensors.That said for the price of a D800 I could get a GH4 and a D7100 or Fuji APS-C camera and have something great at both.

Do you like the still shots? I think the footage looks like video because of all the aliasing but it's probably a result of the uploading. The still shots from the video look a lot smoother and film like.

The same thing is happening in the video game world too. Ballooning budgets, bombs, studio closures. The entertainment industry in general is so money obsessed they are forgetting to actually make things good. Throwing more money at something doesn't make it a better product.   There is still a lot of good stuff out there but it's not mainstream and it's not making money.

It's been a while since I've seen a movie MADE for the big screen. When I finally got around to watching the original Planet of the Apes a decade ago I was impressed by the first few scenes. Seeing them as little dots walking through the desert made me realize how little used wide shots are today. Of course Lawrence of Arabia also has scenes like that and it too is one of my favourite movies ever made. I can understand the younger generation not appreciating slow pacing, it took me until my 20s to appreciate Blade Runner but having movies as one giant explosion is a bit too far in the opposite direction.   I like David Lynch, even his failures are interesting and engage the viewer. He's still creating art even if you can't classify it as a good film. Dune was amazing as a child, I still have a soft spot for it despite the flaws. It wasn't just the lack of money but also the editing that killed some of the original vision. He most definitely could still be making films but I think like a lot of directors of the era (Spielberg included) if it's not on the big screen it's a bit below them. I know if I were Spielberg I'd be pretty pissed if I had to change my delivery method while terrible directors were getting produced.

A lot of the people that complain about Apple often don't create much content, they tweak. Professionals have money, they also are very busy, anything getting between them and doing their job is a cost. Building a Hacktintosh even if quite reliable when done is not even an option for most professionals. A piece of gear needs to be replaceable on a whim, if something breaks it needs to be swapped out for something that works ASAP. if you can't you lose money and credibility. I know it goes against a lot of the hacking that happens here but closed standardized systems are far better for professional work this includes iPads, iPhones etc. The problem with a lot of PC, Android, or whatever setups is that they really aren't very standardized and replacing a unit 1 to 1 is often not possible even after as little as a few months. Nothing wrong at all with going the other route there are just many benefits people often look past when comparing the two. And I think most people would prefer Canon, Panasonic, Nikon or whoever made a camera with all their desired features from the factory rather than feeling the need to resort to hacking, fact is they aren't and they could be.

I feel that J.J. Abrams may be overrated but when compared to a lot of other blockbuster directors (cough cough Michael Bay) he is actually good. He is far from perfect but his visual flare (lens flare?) and his character work is solid. I enjoyed his first Star Trek despite some major issues I had with it. I thought the "bad guy" in it was completely lame. Super 8 had some moments but then kind of degenerated as it went on. He is by no means in my top list of directors but he does make blockbusters actually watchable for me at a time when I can't stand most of them.   As for the Orange/Blue I'd say just because it is scientifically the best look doesn't mean it best suits the mood all the time. The use of blue without the orange was quite stunning in Blade Runner and set a sombre mood. Hugo I found took the blockbuster look to an extreme and I personally thought they went a bit overboard. Some scenes even seemed like the image quality suffered. Maybe I'm crazy though because I've never seen anyone else complain about it.