Leaderboard

​I think maybe you need a more active imagination. This capability has existed for years now.

The old Red One MX - still a workhorse - forgotten piece of old tech that still gets a really beautiful image Shooting in Havana as Americans was not easy

So if the nx500 has the cinegamma.... 10$ top handle ^^

That video is brilliant!

I have a question, what the hell are you guys all shooting that's so significant that you'll sit here and split hairs over DR, gamma, this, that, and the other thing? Are you producing a multi-million dollar blockbuster, or, rather is it something like some shots of a trash can, may be the sky and a few trees posted on Vimeo? You take one persons findings and opinion of a camera and suddenly you're all high ranking DP's of the world, trash talking this and that because it isn't 10 bit, it doesn't have enough DR, it doesn't compare to this camera or that camera. Who cares? Show me something you've done that's so significant that I should care. I'll be waiting!

​ It's not just Premiere. Transcoding into ProRes can cause that problem too. #1 challenge with the NX1 is workflow. The price/performance makes it a worthwhile effort. TBH, the NX500 is going to be the better deal for 4K/UHD 24p

As a really old Eoshd reader, i'm excited about the possibilities that we have with the Samsung cameras using the Tizen O.S. If Vitaly, Magic Lantern or somebody else decides to mess with this system giving us RAW, Prores, diferents aspect ratios, higher bit rates... Nx1/nx500 would be the gh2/gh3 of 2015.

Brian, given your own eyes have moire, it's going to be there on the camera in some situations. Laws of physics, and all that. When you look at the file to check for moire, make sure you look at it 1:1 because 4K material scaled to fit a 1080p is going to moire worse, it is completely at the mercy of the video player or NLE scaling method.

​Coming soon. New firmware is great! But wait till you see what is in store for the GH4 ;)

No moire in 4K on the NX1.

On a more serious note: Andrew, I'd love to read a write up about the new NX1 firmware and your opinion on it vs the GH4.

You've seen what samsung did to apple with phones, man they are gonna bring chaos to the market with these little things, i love it ! I imagine a future where filming equipment is dirt cheap and only talent counts, i imagine samsung and panasonic is gonna do this for us because they have nothing to lose.

The Canon C300 (currently reduced to $11,500) was the $15,000 stalwart of the professional videographer, only recently did it have a compelling rival - the Sony FS7. The Samsung NX1 is essentially a cutting edge 4K Super 35mm sensor in a mirrorless camera, recently given a video oriented firmware update which improves dynamic range and the available image profiles. I was curious to see how the images from these cameras compared and I put my Canon 1D C into the mix as well. Read the full article

Nikon is going to be selling a boxed stater kit for people looking to get into DSLR Filming, D750 DSLR Filmmaker's Kit . I think its a good marketing idea, but the problem is Nikon is not close to being a leader in that portion of the industry. What are your thoughts? I would like to see some other companies venture into packages like this.

This was at a Native American Festival so it has a lot of colors. I made a custom color profile in Edius trying to mimike the look of one of the Red Giant Film Looks need to save up some more to buy that - i think i got it close maybe 75%.. All edited in Edius... Most all the dancing i am using up to 78% zoom in and out when editing so the 16x50 Samsung lens got some better zoom range after the fact. Most of this was all shot with the NX1 auto focus or the rest was focus on - off button no manual except for one shot. I also used a ND filter on the lens for the bright light outside.

nikkor 35 1.4 or 35 2, the ai-s versions have a short throw and focus 0.3m. They have CRC which makes them very nice on close focus distance. I have the first version of the 35 f2 and it really shines on close focus. the nikkor 50 1.2 is also "pretty cheap" and has a 90º turn, but it only focuses down to 0.5 ( I just checked with a ruler and the minimum focus on my version is 0.36m). here two samples the first with the 50 1.2 ai-s and the second with the 35mm f2 pre-ai:

​Yes Stu, Form, fit and function from design through to final product. There is no need to remove the focus ring from your anamorphic lens, and besides, it is imperative that this is not done, for how else can the minute adjustments be made for precise infinity focus? You will see from the brochure that Rectilux 3FF series also feature infinity adjustment screws because every designer would know that some scope/ taking lens combinations can experience changes to the back focus during close focusing. In short Rectilux can be tuned to your favourite lenses. Without the anamorphic focus ring, this function goes out the window. ​My focus is on Rectilux, Stu, what happens to other products is not my concern. ​Thanks and you will, birds in flight

​I have never considered a Moller 32 to be an underrated adapter, I think all Moller scopes are excellent. Do you remember I helped you solve your filter problem you had with your 32 Rudolf? How is that working out for you? ​Rudolf, I think you are in the wrong thread, 3FF-S is not heavy, requires no rails, no sticks and no sidewalk permit and you can swap out the 32 to the 8/19 in less than a minute using the quick change system ​Please show me how you rack focus with the double focus Moller Rudolf. I like to learn new tricks. Rudolf, earlier you spoke about interesting footage, can you please share your Vimeo or You Tube account so I can see some examples of what you mean?

​Perhaps, but when it comes to cameras and many of the hobbyist/enthusiasts that use them, gear acquisition is always going to be more important than creating. I don't think that sentiment is anything new; been around for more than a century. And those are the people most likely to fret about the latest and greatest and, in turn, help fulfill advertising. And advertising is important on these sorts of websites. After all, if you like really playing with tech stuff and you know you're not as good as other people making creative things (I'm figuratively looking in the mirror while typing this, btw) what else do you have to hang your hat on? Ownership is then what tends to matter more. For what it's worth, I've also run into pros that dismiss more than capable cameras as "toys" simply because they're not in the upper tier of equipment.

By the way, anyone else feeling that this website is starting to wander off its core audience? Who, besides professionals, can shoot with 1Dcs and C300s? Where's that old GH1/2 budget minded shooting gone? There are some seriously awesome cameras out there now, so much so that our (well, mine at least) shooting is defined more by features than absolute image quality. Can't there be more focus on the creative side of things, rather than tech specs? There's a lack of that kind of website at the moment, and EOSHD has the heritage and potential to fill it. Cameras are just gadgets without creativity.

​Its pretty crazy, given the more complex design over the 35 I would have guessed a higher price. I'm not complaining. I was going to get a 24/1.4L II, not anymore. Just ordered the Sigma from B&H.

As long as your computer can handle it I would always recommend to work with your footage at its highest captured resolution and down scale at the end for delivery. It is easy to downscale after the fact to any resolution, not so easy to update the entire project if you later decide you want to output to 4K...

​Here is a test with the two modes (30fps and 120fps) and yes Pro mode is available with both frame rate : https://www.dropbox.com/s/sidw6aoooo5a9af/SAM_0360%40120fps.MP4?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ssscqjv4sst344p/SAM_0361%4030fps.MP4?dl=0 Thanks Andrew for your tips, i will try it but i haven't seen difference between Gamma DR and Standard mode.

work in 4k timeline, It's more efficient and better for final output. Warp at 4k, grade at 4K do it all at 4K, just do your final render 1080p with the maximum render quality box ticked, and render at maximum bit depth ticked. you can still zoom to reframe and so on. thats the way to win

I tried to load it to youtube but wouldn't work. The FB quality is terrible. But look at the airvents, you can see some aliasing/moire, but the poor encoding masks it. It's the baskbetball vid. Tried in different settings. GH2 didn't alias in comparable settings. No one here needs to explain the hows and why of this informal test for my sake. I'm not interested in DPreview nerdsnark. I'm just putting it out here to show that aliasing and moire are things to contend with on most cmos cams and the NX1 isn't an exception from my experience to this point. However it's not a deal breaker IMO, it's just something to keep an eye out for if it bothers you. Lots of ways to cope with aliasing. I do some music videos occasionally, and those can tax a cmos sensor -- the guitar string, the extreme contrast on piano keys, so far the NX1 hasn't created an issue in those types of shooting situations. YMMV. https://www.facebook.com/pages/NX1-Rumors-and-Tips/306653216190462?ref=hl

​Yeah, I'm hyperbolic. Sorry bout that. I mean I intellectually get why it makes sense for a lot of folks. It certainly depends on what they're trying to do. I just don't run in that arena of higher levels of production. And I've never met a camera I've been unable to effectively utilize because of bad colors. Well, that's not true. I've used some pretty wonky JVC cameras. As for the RED1, there's still a reason it appeals to dudes like Mr. Davis and why they use 'em to make cool stories... But man is it slow!

​I think in this case he meant it as a compliment- you're both on the same page. What most of us want are cameras with accurate skin tones out of camera. From there we can more easily match cameras, have no surprises in post, and can tweak color for emotion (ending up no longer accurate/realistic and instead lending to the cinematic mood of the story).

​​That sounds awesome! Way beyond my expertise. Please share your progress on this forum.

MattH- iffmpeg is a GUI for ffmpeg. ffmpeg has full source code available and is relatively easy to compile on Linux/OSX (it's better to cross-compile for Windows from Linux or OSX!). I'm currently wrapping up a fast batch converter for Windows (uses ffmpeg). If there's interest I can look into adding H.265 to H.264/ProRes conversion with full-range ffmpeg support. Also thinking about providing an add-on for mlrawviewer to improve 5D3 RAW workflow performance.

I love this review - amazing work Andrew!!!!!!! Yes, you did it man. You did research and a thorough test to show how a little small camera can beat the image out of a camera 10 times its cost. Well done, well done!

Here's a set I'm slowly collecting / modifying. Pentax SMC Takumars: 17mm f424mm f3.535mm f250mm f1.4 - 7 element50mm f1.4 - 8 element55mm f1.885mm f1.8105mm f2.8135mm f2.5200mm f4I've de-clicked them, had 3d printed focus and aperture gears fitted and lightly grub screwed, shimmed them all for infinity focus with EOS adapters, and have 80mm fronts on all but the 17mm. Yes, they're a bit slow at either end, but with an A7s, plenty of fun to be had.

If you want to mod a 50mm Nikon lens, there's far cheaper alternatives like any of the 50mm f/1.8 or even the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D! Filing down the protruding metal parts will certainly make you lose a lot in possible resale value. Personally, I'd have a look around for a Canon 50mm f/1.2 and sell the 50mm f/1.2 Nikon. The Canon 50mm f/1.2 performs well, I believe even better than the Nikon (and I'm a Nikon shooter saying this ).

Good review. After shooting with the NX1 from just before Xmass i have shot a lot and had many ups and downs with the camera but do feel at this point i could shoot a TV ready or any project with it. The work flow is longer but the end result to me is worth it. I do most of the converting now over night letting it run. Also for work flow i am using Edius to edit with and they have a special HQX file format i convert to now ( so i am not using Prores) that gives me much smaller files to work with and real time palyback when editing even after using some filters, At some point it will start to slow down when i add in a lot of filters effects and a title but it still plays just not at full speed. I have found that i can trust the cameras auto focus after the last update its very good very much like a ENG camera now and using one of the image stabilization lens works very good for video as well. Still has a few quirts that need working out but over all i am loving it now. To my eyes the NX1 4k image quality and details is much better looking then the new Sony FS7 i have yet to see a video showing any better for over all shooting. I was really looking at the FS7 but for the price i could get another NX1 or the new pocket version to be out soon, Buy a small remote helicopter camera rig, A gimble. Good lighting kit, better audio recording setup and mikes, More lens and more for the same price.

Just remember, NX1 isn't perfect, you're gonna get your moire and jellovision. Not perfect.

The added "what's the point" by the OP seems a bit troll-ish to me... I bought a killer super-8 camera for music videos - I've yet to find someone who wants to pay the added costs though. But man, pushing tungsten reversal film about three stops - magic, gorgeous. But as a still shooter - I only do digital for work and have restored my wet darkroom. There are things film and paper can do that photoshop simply can't even approach. And every time I get a beautiful process dialed in, seems like one of the elements needed for it gets discontinued and I want to go have a good cry. So you go, Kodak.

Magic Lantern proved this, they are upscaled from a lower resolution and not only that but heavily line-skipped on the sensor. If you want better you need to go considerably higher up the Canon line, ideally to the $5500 C100 Mk II, or shoot raw with the 5D Mark III and Magic Lantern (with resulting huge file sizes). So don't use a Rebel for video, they're really not fit for purpose. There's so much great YouTube content let down by it - mushy, false detail. If only they had listened to EOSHD and shot GH2 / 3 / 4.

I think Canon know exactly what they are doing, unfortunately for all of us who'd like them to be more innovative. They have the most complete stills system, and the most complete video system, albeit over the last 3 years these systems have become separate bodies that share the same lens set. But how many times have you read a post where they say: "I would have changed system, but I'm heavily invested in L glass". The poster could sell the glass and not lose much money, but lenses are an emotional thing for us video and stills makers, they work like our eyes and capture what we see. And with the turbulence of the DSLR/DSLM video market over the last 5 years how many people are going to brave a decision that will see them lose money and take a hit emotionally, when just around the corner the camera they've been waiting for might be delivered. So yes, Canon are playing the game well, and have been spending their brand capital heavily to keep the competition at bay, and this is the year for them to make their move or lose a dangerous amount of ground in the £1-2K market. We all know that Panasonic and Sony currently have the best all round cameras in our price/size bracket, and as much as we all love using vintage glass etc., what we really want is a mature complete system like Canon have. Sensitivity, DR, Colour, usability, and... lenses. Lenses designed for our favourite system. With respect to the "Rebel" buyers, it only takes a critical mass of people to blow their friends away by showing them what their Olympus or Panasonic can do for Canon to start losing their critical "lead in" market. So for god's sake, show your friends, and keep the market competitive. It's going to be a very interesting year. We should be excited not angry. I don't think they will, but if Canon rest on their laurels then so be it, because we don't really need them any more.

Canon FD set - very very good all round lenses and cheap Yashica ML set superb as good as the Zeiss C/Y just alot cheaper Contax Zeiss set - modern lens look great colours and blacks - bloody sharp Nikon AIS set - Killer!! Russian set - Helios Tair Volna etc etc - character tastic and a curve ball really good cheap set is Miranda .....yes Miranda made by Cosina - really really cheap about £15 each and very very good !! edit one more I forgot is Fujinon C - mount lens set - made in Japan bloody good glass - very fast and cheap - need modding to make work on Micro 4/3 but almost Distagon good.....but faster so superb in low light f1.425mm 35mm 50mm 75mm all very small and light but with Fujinons stunning glass in them .Ill remind you that Fujinon make cinema lenses - Alura etc so are very very good....195

The more I think about it the more I think celluloid motion picture film really is an environmental disaster. Leaving aside the chemicals required to make it, processing it requires huge amounts of a witches brew of toxic chemicals - the bleach contains potassium ferricyanide, potassium bromide,ammonium thiocyanate and various acids. The developer contains formaldehyde; the fixer ammonium and sulfur compounds. All of these chemicals are further contaminated with heavy amounts of silver waste washed away from the film during processing. And loads of clean water have to be consumed at each rinse step. An 120 minute 35mm film requires at least 36,000 feet of camera negative processed (at a conservative 3:1 shooting ratio). Back when movies were released on celluloid to theaters it took a staggering 24 million feet of release prints processed (12,000 feet per print times 2,000 theaters) for just one movie! For digital, you need toxic chemicals to make the storage mediums, but in far smaller amounts; making a tiny memory card consumes just a drop in the bucket compared with the amounts needed to process just two hours of celluloid (12,000 feet of 35mm). And digital storage mediums can be reused hundreds or even thousands of times, compared with the one-time use of celluloid.

Shooting film requires a Discipline. Its not about being fast but being a creator, an artist, is the magic of the unknown within the known parameters. DP's all over would shoot film over digital, for many technical reasons and its proven that it would not be much more expensive. I have shot 35mm (Fuji and Kodak) and the latitude its fantastic. I agree with one comment, there is a democracy in Digital, But film requires craft and Discipline, that can hardly be found in the simplistic world of fast content. Its easy to dismiss Film, when there is very little knowledge of the craft.

There are alot of valid reasons that most films are shot digitally.... But if a crafted film maker wants to use film and knows what they are doing, how is that a bad thing? It is like wanting to stop making pianos because it takes longer to tune, is heavier to carry and a digital piano can now recreate the sound (debatable). To me, The Dark Night was, visually, one of the most stunning films of a generation.... Maybe it would look just as good in digital (if a 65mm digital cam even existed then). Why take away the choice though or be unhappy that the choice is now going to be available?