maxotics

I tried to like it.  The sets, fx and cinematography are certainly first rate.  The actors are good, the direction, the editing.  I was able to sit through it.
Then the scene with the Wallace CEO, head cataract guy, that was NOT a
Okay, I was a young guy once and can understand dropping a naked women out of a pastry sack and letting her writhe on the floor a bit.  I can even understand the actor with the cataracts blathering the most inane stuff  to his replicant!  (And we thought Gossling was lonely  ) But to knife her for no apparent reason put me into full annoyance mode.  Why do we need to hate him, and if we do, why doesn't he get killed at the end like the maker in the first movie?  
In the first Blade Runner, there is a simple, strong story that keeps that morose movie together.  Harrison Ford is in a sucky job, in a sucky city, hunting down merciless replicants.  His life is meaningless.  Then he falls in love with a replicant and begins to have doubts about his life values.  Meanwhile, Rutger Hauer, knows his lot in life and wants to understand why it was made for him.  So he searches out his maker.  In the end, even though he is bred to kill, he has compassion and let's Harrison Ford live.  The original Blade Runner put story first.
What is the story of Blade Runner 2049?  There is none, there are only pieces of story, none of which connect or make much sense.  My fear that it's just a vanity project with too many cooks in the kitchen was borne out, for me.  My favorite proof that  no one with common sense had any control over the script is when the Wallace replicant kills a police forensics guy THEN the police chief and says to Harrison Ford that they're going to take him off-world where they can torture him.  I'm wondering why they can't do it on Earth?  I mean, there is no sense of society, government, police power.  Again, just a mis-mash of half-baked story ideas.   And why kill the police chief.  Makes absolutely no sense.  
I never cared about any of the characters, except Gossling's hologram.   Though I keep thinking, if Wallace industries makes her, why don't they know what he says to her?  I guess someone got their "let's put in a little bit of 'Her' in BR 2049"  You're in trouble when the only good thing about your movie is the little bit you plagiarized from another
And the music.  I don't care how good it is, it did not fit the story most of the time.  There were many scenes that would have been stronger without it.  Film-maker children with sound synthesized sound-grenades.
I heard a young person leaving the theater saying it was "much better than the first one."  
On a bright note, I just finished "Trapped", the Icelandic series.  Great film-making isn't dead.  
 

I tried to like it.  The sets, fx and cinematography are certainly first rate.  The actors are good, the direction, the editing.  I was able to sit through it.
Then the scene with the Wallace CEO, head cataract guy, that was NOT a
Okay, I was a young guy once and can understand dropping a naked women out of a pastry sack and letting her writhe on the floor a bit.  I can even understand the actor with the cataracts blathering the most inane stuff  to his replicant!  (And we thought Gossling was lonely  ) But to knife her for no apparent reason put me into full annoyance mode.  Why do we need to hate him, and if we do, why doesn't he get killed at the end like the maker in the first movie?  
In the first Blade Runner, there is a simple, strong story that keeps that morose movie together.  Harrison Ford is in a sucky job, in a sucky city, hunting down merciless replicants.  His life is meaningless.  Then he falls in love with a replicant and begins to have doubts about his life values.  Meanwhile, Rutger Hauer, knows his lot in life and wants to understand why it was made for him.  So he searches out his maker.  In the end, even though he is bred to kill, he has compassion and let's Harrison Ford live.  The original Blade Runner put story first.
What is the story of Blade Runner 2049?  There is none, there are only pieces of story, none of which connect or make much sense.  My fear that it's just a vanity project with too many cooks in the kitchen was borne out, for me.  My favorite proof that  no one with common sense had any control over the script is when the Wallace replicant kills a police forensics guy THEN the police chief and says to Harrison Ford that they're going to take him off-world where they can torture him.  I'm wondering why they can't do it on Earth?  I mean, there is no sense of society, government, police power.  Again, just a mis-mash of half-baked story ideas.   And why kill the police chief.  Makes absolutely no sense.  
I never cared about any of the characters, except Gossling's hologram.   Though I keep thinking, if Wallace industries makes her, why don't they know what he says to her?  I guess someone got their "let's put in a little bit of 'Her' in BR 2049"  You're in trouble when the only good thing about your movie is the little bit you plagiarized from another
And the music.  I don't care how good it is, it did not fit the story most of the time.  There were many scenes that would have been stronger without it.  Film-maker children with sound synthesized sound-grenades.
I heard a young person leaving the theater saying it was "much better than the first one."  
On a bright note, I just finished "Trapped", the Icelandic series.  Great film-making isn't dead.  
 

I tried to like it.  The sets, fx and cinematography are certainly first rate.  The actors are good, the direction, the editing.  I was able to sit through it.
Then the scene with the Wallace CEO, head cataract guy, that was NOT a
Okay, I was a young guy once and can understand dropping a naked women out of a pastry sack and letting her writhe on the floor a bit.  I can even understand the actor with the cataracts blathering the most inane stuff  to his replicant!  (And we thought Gossling was lonely  ) But to knife her for no apparent reason put me into full annoyance mode.  Why do we need to hate him, and if we do, why doesn't he get killed at the end like the maker in the first movie?  
In the first Blade Runner, there is a simple, strong story that keeps that morose movie together.  Harrison Ford is in a sucky job, in a sucky city, hunting down merciless replicants.  His life is meaningless.  Then he falls in love with a replicant and begins to have doubts about his life values.  Meanwhile, Rutger Hauer, knows his lot in life and wants to understand why it was made for him.  So he searches out his maker.  In the end, even though he is bred to kill, he has compassion and let's Harrison Ford live.  The original Blade Runner put story first.
What is the story of Blade Runner 2049?  There is none, there are only pieces of story, none of which connect or make much sense.  My fear that it's just a vanity project with too many cooks in the kitchen was borne out, for me.  My favorite proof that  no one with common sense had any control over the script is when the Wallace replicant kills a police forensics guy THEN the police chief and says to Harrison Ford that they're going to take him off-world where they can torture him.  I'm wondering why they can't do it on Earth?  I mean, there is no sense of society, government, police power.  Again, just a mis-mash of half-baked story ideas.   And why kill the police chief.  Makes absolutely no sense.  
I never cared about any of the characters, except Gossling's hologram.   Though I keep thinking, if Wallace industries makes her, why don't they know what he says to her?  I guess someone got their "let's put in a little bit of 'Her' in BR 2049"  You're in trouble when the only good thing about your movie is the little bit you plagiarized from another
And the music.  I don't care how good it is, it did not fit the story most of the time.  There were many scenes that would have been stronger without it.  Film-maker children with sound synthesized sound-grenades.
I heard a young person leaving the theater saying it was "much better than the first one."  
On a bright note, I just finished "Trapped", the Icelandic series.  Great film-making isn't dead.  
 

I just came back from the movie and I entrered the cinema with maxotics notion in mind. If this really were Personal passion project there wouldn't be so much mainstream content in the film, and the philosophic aspects would be a few levels above teenager masturbations. 
While watching the movie a 70 years old couple answered the phone two times, two  fat people in front of me opened three soda cans and a few gigantic snack bags that made horrible sounds, the projector lens had problems because the keystone correction was at max so the upper part of the screen exibited chromatic aberration, etc...
Anyway, at least it was in my 27.000 people hometown shit hole and I only paid 5€ to see it, can't ask for more.

Thanks. All my videos on a gimbal use an external mic. A Yi adaptor is needed to connect an analog audio plug via the usb-c port. It works fine.
This provides an example of the audio with an external mic:
 

Having worked in Hollywood I can say categorically that the marketing department (money, budget, etc) is less connected to the filmmakers than the person filling the popcorn at the movie theater.  Also, the money can come from different sources.  Even back in 1985 when I worked in the biz foreign distribution money could give/take-away a green light.  That is, there are many "interests" in the film, from academy nominations to simple worldwide gross.  When I was at Orion they made "Dances with Wolves" only to keep Kevin Costner happy so he would make other films with them--who saw Waterworld coming? ;).  While it was being made, people practically laughed to his face about that movie.   Blade Runner is partly a vanity project for all involved.  I remember when they were making 2010, or whatever that 2001 sequel was and had to build all new sets because Kubrick had purposely destroyed the old ones.  At first I thought he was a jerk.  That changed after watching the sequel.   They must have known it would be no 2001.  They didn't care.   For many reasons, various people wanted to invest in it.  Bottom line, if money was the only reason to make blade runner, I doubt it would have been made.  It's an adult story.  They're not money makers.  All the money makers have children in them as lead characters--well, children to me
 

What complete nonsense. Every statement here is without any basis or just plain wrong.
1. You believe the Sony was overpriced, which is irrelevant. In any case there is no price reduction. The selling price now is the same at introduction. Look it up.
2. There is a lot wrong with EIS, requiring a crop of the sensor and reduced resolution among other issues - artifacts.
3. It is preposterous to say that BOSS was implemented because it "CANNOT do EIS". First, BOSS is superior to EIS and second - read slowly here - the SONY also does EIS (should I repeat that?) - that is what "Active" mode for stabilization is, a combination of EIS and BOSS. You can turn EIS off and just do BOSS. No one in their right mind would do EIS instead of  BOSS. It is obvious you know nothing about the Sony. Active mode stabilization has been a feature of Sony's big camcorders for years.
4. You do not understand why Sony chose a "curiously (to you) rectangular" sensor because you do not understand aspect ratios. Sony chose a sensor shape so that there would be few wasted pixels for 16:9 video; the sensor size corresponds to the 16:9 picture size. It is the standard 4:3 sensor (like on GoPro's and Yi's) that wastes a lot of pixels for 16:9 video. "Rectangular" 16:9 is the aspect ratio of video. Pixels would be wasted for 4:3 stills, but this is a video camera.
5. Sony chose to "only" put 8.2 megapixels on the sensor to maximize pixel size while keeping the sensor size small - it is the number of pixels corresponding to 4K (UHD) video. This is why the Sony has superior low-light performance compared with other action cams, which pack 11+ megapixels on a similarly small sensor - bigger pixels, which absorb more light, means better low-light quality. Because of 4 and 5, the X3000 is a not a good stills camera, it is designed for 4K video. Btw, the sensor and processor are exactly the same as in  the Sony AX53 4K BOSS camcorder - the X3000 is essentially a miniature AX53.
Your final, desperate, argument is essentially - if the Sony is so good why is it not dominating the market? Your ignorant rant is an example for why, as it is similar to others. Evidently most people do not understand video and the features of the X3000.
Oh, and your belief the processor of the Sony is inferior is belied by the fact that the Sony processor can do 120 fps in 1080 (with stabilization), while the Yi can only do 120 fps at 720p -  4K60p is a real advantage, however, although the lack of any stabilization for that frame rate severely limits its use.

Ok, so how does that all add up? Simple, I started reading Andrew's site a few years ago and learned everything I needed to know about the Samsung NX1 and SLR Magic Anamorphot 1.33x adapter. I decided to use them on our first feature film. After numerous film festivals and special events our film, Black Luck, signed an International distribution deal with Indie Rights. Yes, we probably would have done the film without this knowledge, but I'm not sure it would have had the same look or feel. The camera and adapter worked amazingly well and proved that a no budget indie thriller can still have a high production value. I can't thank Andrew enough for educating me and so many other filmmakers about the possibilities of shooting a feature film with these great tools.
Cheers!
David 
P.S. If you want to check the film out, it just launched on Amazon Prime. Read the reviews as well. This isn't some masterpiece of cinema, but it is a satisfying movie created with passion. 

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Luck-Garrett-Sheeks/dp/B0764KD2K8/ref=sr_1_2?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1507185936&sr=1-2&keywords=indie+rights
 

Having worked in Hollywood I can say categorically that the marketing department (money, budget, etc) is less connected to the filmmakers than the person filling the popcorn at the movie theater.  Also, the money can come from different sources.  Even back in 1985 when I worked in the biz foreign distribution money could give/take-away a green light.  That is, there are many "interests" in the film, from academy nominations to simple worldwide gross.  When I was at Orion they made "Dances with Wolves" only to keep Kevin Costner happy so he would make other films with them--who saw Waterworld coming? ;).  While it was being made, people practically laughed to his face about that movie.   Blade Runner is partly a vanity project for all involved.  I remember when they were making 2010, or whatever that 2001 sequel was and had to build all new sets because Kubrick had purposely destroyed the old ones.  At first I thought he was a jerk.  That changed after watching the sequel.   They must have known it would be no 2001.  They didn't care.   For many reasons, various people wanted to invest in it.  Bottom line, if money was the only reason to make blade runner, I doubt it would have been made.  It's an adult story.  They're not money makers.  All the money makers have children in them as lead characters--well, children to me
 

Having worked in Hollywood I can say categorically that the marketing department (money, budget, etc) is less connected to the filmmakers than the person filling the popcorn at the movie theater.  Also, the money can come from different sources.  Even back in 1985 when I worked in the biz foreign distribution money could give/take-away a green light.  That is, there are many "interests" in the film, from academy nominations to simple worldwide gross.  When I was at Orion they made "Dances with Wolves" only to keep Kevin Costner happy so he would make other films with them--who saw Waterworld coming? ;).  While it was being made, people practically laughed to his face about that movie.   Blade Runner is partly a vanity project for all involved.  I remember when they were making 2010, or whatever that 2001 sequel was and had to build all new sets because Kubrick had purposely destroyed the old ones.  At first I thought he was a jerk.  That changed after watching the sequel.   They must have known it would be no 2001.  They didn't care.   For many reasons, various people wanted to invest in it.  Bottom line, if money was the only reason to make blade runner, I doubt it would have been made.  It's an adult story.  They're not money makers.  All the money makers have children in them as lead characters--well, children to me
 

Having worked in Hollywood I can say categorically that the marketing department (money, budget, etc) is less connected to the filmmakers than the person filling the popcorn at the movie theater.  Also, the money can come from different sources.  Even back in 1985 when I worked in the biz foreign distribution money could give/take-away a green light.  That is, there are many "interests" in the film, from academy nominations to simple worldwide gross.  When I was at Orion they made "Dances with Wolves" only to keep Kevin Costner happy so he would make other films with them--who saw Waterworld coming? ;).  While it was being made, people practically laughed to his face about that movie.   Blade Runner is partly a vanity project for all involved.  I remember when they were making 2010, or whatever that 2001 sequel was and had to build all new sets because Kubrick had purposely destroyed the old ones.  At first I thought he was a jerk.  That changed after watching the sequel.   They must have known it would be no 2001.  They didn't care.   For many reasons, various people wanted to invest in it.  Bottom line, if money was the only reason to make blade runner, I doubt it would have been made.  It's an adult story.  They're not money makers.  All the money makers have children in them as lead characters--well, children to me
 

Having worked in Hollywood I can say categorically that the marketing department (money, budget, etc) is less connected to the filmmakers than the person filling the popcorn at the movie theater.  Also, the money can come from different sources.  Even back in 1985 when I worked in the biz foreign distribution money could give/take-away a green light.  That is, there are many "interests" in the film, from academy nominations to simple worldwide gross.  When I was at Orion they made "Dances with Wolves" only to keep Kevin Costner happy so he would make other films with them--who saw Waterworld coming? ;).  While it was being made, people practically laughed to his face about that movie.   Blade Runner is partly a vanity project for all involved.  I remember when they were making 2010, or whatever that 2001 sequel was and had to build all new sets because Kubrick had purposely destroyed the old ones.  At first I thought he was a jerk.  That changed after watching the sequel.   They must have known it would be no 2001.  They didn't care.   For many reasons, various people wanted to invest in it.  Bottom line, if money was the only reason to make blade runner, I doubt it would have been made.  It's an adult story.  They're not money makers.  All the money makers have children in them as lead characters--well, children to me
 

My favorite is the slider control box.  Shows expertise with both flat-head and phillips screw technologies   

There's a wide-ranging misunderstanding of Nyquist sampling theory when it comes to images, and I think you might be following that widely-publicized misunderstanding. If not, my apologizes but I think it's such an interesting topic (which I was totally wrong about for years) that I will butt in:
Nyquist does not apply to image sensors how many people think it does. A 4k sensor actually CAN resolve a full 4K (well, technically anything less than 4k so 99.99%) signal, and fully. It's only Bayer interpolation and the presence of anti-aliasing filters that reduces this number in a meaningful way. 
What it boils down to is that a line pair represents a full signal wave. Yes, you can only fully capture less than 2048 line pairs in 4k without aliasing, as per Nyquist. But that's still 4096 lines. So... with a Foveon or monochrome sensor you can capture full 4k with no aliasing on a 4k sensor. Really! You can! (Assuming you also have a high pass filter with 100% mtf below 4k and 0% mtf above 4k. Which... doesn't exist... but still.)
The other point of confusion is the idea that a line pair on a normal resolution chart represents a sine wave. It doesn't. And THAT is 99% of the reason why there's aliasing on all these test charts. It represents a sawtooth wave, which has infinitely high overtones. So mtf should be measured with a sinusoidal zone plate only, as the Nyquist theorem applies to sine waves specifically (well, it applies to anything, but sawtooth waves are effectively of infinite frequency because they contain infinite high odd order harmonics). Since most resolution charts are lines–sawtooth–waves, rather than sinusoidal gradients, even the lowest resolution lines are actually of effectively infinite frequency. Which might be another reason why you see such poorly reconstructed lines and false colors around the very high contrast areas of the window in Yedlin's test in the other thread.
To that extent, the use of anti-aliasing filters is more just "whatever works" for a given camera to split the difference between sharpness and aliasing, and not correlated with Nyquist in any specific way. Bayer patterns I believe remove a little less than 30% of linear resolution, but in practice it looks a lot sharper than 70% sharpness due to advanced algorithms and due to aliasing providing the illusion of resolution... 
So the resolution issue requiring over-sampling is due to anti-aliasing filters and Bayer pattern sensors and balancing things out between them so you get a sharp enough image with low enough aliasing. It's not Nyquist eating half your spatial resolution. I'm no engineer by any means and I have made this mistake in the past and now feel guilty for spreading misinformation online.
Also, I'm normally an 8-bit-is-fine-for-me-and-probably-for-everyone type person, but for next generation HDR wide gamut content you need 10 bit color and a wide gamut sensor. I think Netflix is going for a future proof thing and perhaps it is due to legal. That is a very astute comment. It's not an aesthetic choice, but a legal one. Otherwise, anything could be called "true 4k." (Fwiw you can include small amounts of b cam footage shot on other cameras or even stock footage.)

This thread is insane. 

IMO Blackmagic 4k definitely does not have an image up to Netflix standards. Gnarly fixed pattern noise, aliasing, poor dynamic range, etc. keep it away from serious use. If you are getting great images with it, more power to you, and it has its place. But I would rate that image quite low, below the 2.5k even and nowhere near what Netflix is looking for. The 4.6k is pretty good, though! I would expect they'd include it. Anyhow if you have any tips on getting a better image out of the BM4k I would be glad to hear them because I do use one from time to time and am admittedly a frustrated novice with it.
Marketing, not image quality, is definitely behind the Alexa's exclusion, imo. But yeah, technically the Alexa 4k is a little softer than the F55. The noise pattern feels a little wide, there's some hints of unsharp mask. It's great from a subjective perspective and would be my choice every time, but in the lab it would fail to meet their standards. But the thing is it doesn't matter unless Netflix is producing the show. They'll buy originals (tv shows and movies alike) that are shot at 1080p. So they would acquire a feature shot on the Alexa but not produce one. They'd acquire one shot on film but would not produce one. So feel free to shoot on film... if you're footing the bill and hoping Netflix will pick it up later, which they very well might.
Does the F55 have a different RAW output than the F5? Maybe it is the wide gamut BFA. That makes a lot of sense. When I first used the F5 (a month or two after its release so the firmware was early and you could tell) I thought the image was awful, but I used it again later with the Kodak emulation LUT a few years later and it's way better than it once was. I was recently working on a Netflix show that was shot on F55 RAW and again was not impressed with the image from a technical perspective or even the color didn't blow my mind but it did seem a lot better than the F5 (which I still dislike). Now that the footage is out there and I see the graded footage online, I think the footage looks very good, so the colorist did a good job and I was wrong about the F55 I think. It's possible Netflix knows what it's talking about, but I'm still surprised by how well the F55 holds up. (I would place it way above any Black Magic camera except maybe the newest 4.6k, for instance, but worse than the Alexa or Varicam and yet it seems to look just as good in the final product. F55 RAW is surprisingly good.)
Likewise, I rate the C500 poorly but above the F5 and FS700. But... at that point you're sort of picking arbitrarily. The C500 is sharper, cleaner, better color, slightly worse DR, maybe more aliasing? Not dramatically better by any means. Maybe it has the wide gamut BFA array they need and it's as simple as that.

yeah it is only if your directly working with them to produce a piece or series,
It stills seems oddly political though

That's done using a laser cutter.  Makes it easy to dimension everything exactly.   I need the top part to be higher, so a longer 1/4 screw could fit in.  Thinking I should make it wider so 1/4 things could be mounted on sides, one hole pass-through, another 1/4 threaded.  For example, one could mount a boom mic on the side, or a receiver, etc. Any thoughts anyone has here please let 'em fly!

Those seem very expensive.  Maybe I can build you something.  Are you in the U.S.?  Optimally, how far above tripod head (clearance) would you want camera to be?  

For now, just looking to solve a problem   Here's where I'm at now.  I can already think of some improvements.  PM your address if you'd like to try it out and give me some feedback.  Don't want any money!  

I can put it on Amazon (where I sell my vlogging mirror, and X3000 attachment).  At workshop now, will see what I can cobble together!  No obligation for you to buy!  It's a problem I've had before too so I'd like to have a solution ready.

But then it wouldn't be SLog. CLog was designed for the C300 - a camera that recorded compressed footage at 8-bit.
Slog wasn't. The implementation of Slog seems to have been to bring their product line-up into, well, line, with each other, so that whatever combo of cameras you shoot on, you should be able to pull something together that will cut and grade quite similarly.
If anything, Sony should have included other PPs that were a bit more user-friendly, a bit more C-logish. Less drastic a curve than Slog... Oh wait, they did include that, as well as the ability to custom dial in whatever combination of settings you want.
The problem isn't Sony, the problem is misinformation and lack of education. People tended to equate 5D's Cinestyle with log (which it wasn't) and I guess assumed that Sony's log would be similar (which it isn't).
I think the biggest problem is people not really understanding what log is, and not really knowing why you should/shouldn't use it. The A7s(II) isn't an Alexa, RED, F55, or even a C300. It's recording in 8-bit. Does that mean you can't use log? Of course not. If you need to/want to, and know how to, you can. But so many people seem to be using it 100% of the time with no thought as to how they're exposing, or to why they're using it other than 'well, because log gives you better dynamic range' and then being overall disappointed with the results.
And then they blame the camera for being 'terrible'. By all means, don't use the 8 other Picture Profiles, or dial in your own settings to get it looking how you like, just blame the camera for being wrong.
Some of my favourite A7s footage I've shot has been using PP OFF - i.e. no Cine gamma, no SLog, no S.gamut...

I think the problem is in LOG mode the Sony cameras apply a wide gamut to colour which leaves it at the mercy of compression and bad colour paths in post. The white balance...something is going on there too...
If they had just adjusted the gamma curve like Canon LOG and left colour alone we wouldn't have all these threads and messed up grades in the first place so the blame has to lie at Sony's door really

Sorry wasn't trying to be mean, but when someone is blaming a product for not being good and it's really due to their lack of knowledge well then let's call a spade a spade. A forum full of knowledgeable people are trying to help and the op is being stubborn in my opinion. This post is almost troll like. Maybe that is why I am caught up wasting time typing this out? Dunno...

I'm kicking myself for not asking the same question!!
 
The C200 ships with Dual Digic 6 processors which has got to be faster than the single Digic 5 in the XC10. There's no way the hardware couldn't support it. RAW output can't be the reason either because RAW is *less* processor intensive -- it just takes the sensor feed and writes it to a card, it doesn't have to debayer or add noise reduction or anything. 

Canon's own press release for XF-AVC lists the specs of the codec, and for 4K it can do either 8/10bit I-Frame 422 and for HD 8/10/12bit 420/422/444. Committing resources to creating an 8bit 420 for 4K just to protect the C300mkII would be *insane*, though I wouldn't put it past them. It might even explain why it doesn't ship with XF-AVC.

I walked into the demo planning the business case to finance the C200, and I walked out with an order for a C100 mkII. They're now selling the C100 mkII for $5000AUD and it comes with an Atomos Ninja Blade kit, vs the C200 with retails for $12499AUD. Easiest purchase decision I've ever made!