Leaderboard

Re: BMPCC low-light performance, let's break it down this way. The Pocket's native ISO is 800. Using a Speed Booster, you gain 1 2/3 stops of light, effectively bringing that native ISO up to 2500. Since most of the Pocket's DR lies in the shadows, it can easily be pushed 2-3 stops in post with acceptable results. (Ctrl+F "underexposure." https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/06/director-of-photography-blackmagic-cinema-camera/) Therefore, using the same full frame lenses, you can shoot the Pocket at an effective 10,000-20,000 ISO with acceptable results--the same or better than the A7S in S16 mode, according to Ebrahim--but with the added benefits of 10-bit 4:2:2 and RAW. I don't claim the Pocket is the best low-light camera out there, but it's much more competitive than sensor size snobs would have you believe. With fast primes and a Speed Booster, the BMMCC should perform like a champ in most any environment.

I’ve been struggling this year to understand color. I come from a strictly digital-upbringing. I have shot some film, but I never understood color timing or even learned how to look critically at color – at skintones, at greens, blues, and red. And I wondered why I would spend so much time trying to understand it, when I could be spending time practicing lighting and finding angles and watching inspiring films. But now I kind of get it – since the 90’s – one shoots film, then one digitizes it in (Digital Intermediate) then you would color it in CINEON colorspace (which is flat like log, very similar to the flatness of Arri log-C) and then send it off to film print. Right now it’s Kodak 5283 or 5293 which respond to blacks, dynamic range, all that differently. So you would choose a stock to shoot on, digitize it, color it, then send off to a film print. So colorists have been involved digitally since the 90’s on all major motion pictures shot on film. They would have LUTs – or look up tables – to emulate the film prints, so they could see what it will look like before they print it. And also, to keep it consistent when it would go off to DVD or VOD or Blu Ray – so the film looks the same everywhere, with tweaking. So I started to use Filmconvert to grade my footage that I would shoot as flat as I can with my cameras. First, it was the Sony F3 and now mostly the Sony F35 and Red One and sometimes the Alexa. Filmconvert keeps it in REC 709 colorspace, which is the standard for TVs and online. Filmconvert was great, but the curves were aggresive and I found using Alexa dci-p3 worked best with slog1, not just slog2. Anyway, I found out later to lessen the film curve, raise highlights, etc. Then Visioncolor came along with their luts that got highly popular – especially the M.31 lut. I liked it, but it was a little too stylized. This is when I started to learn resolve. Before I just used Final Cut Pro 7 and the three-way color corrector. Resolve I didn’t get for a long time, but read a tutorial by Hunter Hampton and started to understand it. I also started to mess with DSLRs more fully and learned how to play in RAW there. All helping out with shooting on Red and understanding its own RAW and why to use Redlog over their Redgammas, to have the most info to play with, out the bat. And I learned that Red Cine-X was just a simple program that existed before Resolve was made free, and it was good, but Resolve is a lot more customizable. Then Visioncolor Impulz Luts came out. And Hunter said it was as close to film as you could get. I messed with it, didn’t understand it. But now I do. You take your footage, and if you are working quick, add a FC (film contrast lut) or a VS (visionspace) lut that has less contrast or can mess with a FPE (film print emulation) lut – that I think brings down the highlights too much. I would learn to go slog to cineon, then start coloring with the filmstock I like (I like 250d and 200t and 500t a lot – 50d is a little too wild in the blues) – and then once that is good, go off to a Film Print – 2383, 2393, or their custom Film Contrast 1 or Visioncolor or even Fuji print. And that gets you a good look. Anyway why is this important? Because now I can shoot on a log or raw camera, and build a lut, and make sure that the lut looks good and that the final image is going to look good. No more guessing with shooting flat and finding out later there is too much noise in the shadows or the skintone, how it reacts to light and color looks odd and off. In essence, it’s What you see, what you get, which is in some ways an improvement over film. You know for sure, pretty much, if the image is good or not. With film, the mystery and magic of course is there and it looks the best – how it handles skin and highlights and light, and those dancing frames and how unpredictable, but hey, I can’t afford to shoot film. No matter what people say, shooting digital is cheaper and you have less chance of screwing it up. Especially if you own the gear already and shoot pro res 4444 vs some insanely uncompressed codec. The world of digital doesn’t look as nice as film, usually. But sometimes, if you have the right colorist, it can. Watching the trailer for San Andreas, I thought it was shot on film. Same with the Age of Adeline. Adding power windows, using lenses that have pop and circular rendering of faces. Using cameras that have nice motion. It gets you there, kind of close. It’s not always perfect, but I still think the DP and the Colorist can make a film shot digitally look better than a film shot and colored poorly on film. I still wish for more and more advances in digital camera technology that can have the randomness of film – the highlight smooth-roll-off – the sharpness and how it renders faces – I don’t want companies to give up and call it a day. But, hey I’m not an engineer. I’m just a guy trying to figure things out. Here’s a clip of how they digitally graded “Oh Brother Where are Thou” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pla_pd1uatg

This one stacks up. Can think of at least 5 ways it makes perfect sense. Only question mark is what sensor size and lens mount they will have on it. Easiest would be to keep NX mount and rebrand the S lenses, plus build fully functional electronic Nikon F mount adapter for it. This would be similar to their approach with the 1 series mirrorless cameras. They could put a native Nikon F mount on it like their DSLRs but size advantage of mirrorless would be lost. Then again the NX1 was never a 'small' mirrorless camera, it was much more in the mould of a 7D Mark II.

Speed to market, an instant range of well rated, fast lenses with a good AF system (compared to their current mirrorless lens range, which is dreadful). They would also have the benefit of being instantly popular with anyone invested in the NX system. I guess it depends on whether Nikon have any interest in FF mirrorless?

This is all based on a rumor, but I thought the rumor stated that Nikon bought Samsung's camera technology. I don't know, we'll see. I just think it's naive of some of these guys to think that Nikon is just going to put out the NX2 under the Nikon name, at the same price point, with the same amount of firmware updates and cater to the small Samsung customer base and continue to put out lenses using the, poorly received and reviewed Samsung mount, ignore their millions of satisfied Nikon customers, because Marco and Marc want to continue to get the most out of their Samsung lens investment. If you are worried about lens depreciation, sell those Samsung lenses and buy some adapters for other lenses because... Wait for it... The NX mount is dead. Hell, even 3rd party lens makers stopped, or never started making NX lenses... I wonder why? I bought the Canon eos-m body, but no lenses. I bought adapters and now I am swimming in them. Every box and bag of equipment has a damn ef-M adapter. Stop the madness.

As if nikon with an established brand wants to alienate their users by having them handling adapters on and off and don't make money selling lenses so a bunch of guys can use canon fd lenses from their grandpa

mercer, so you disagree with the facts? Nikon can include the adapter in the basic package, not asking for extra money. Basically treat it as part of the camera and have it preinstalled and exchangeable for NX lens owners.

Ok so for you it's better a thicker, possibly heavier camera, able to take ONLY F lenses? Where are most of the advantages of being mirrorless then? ;-)

We read what you said, we just disagree with the point. Why would Nikon want to alienate their existing customer base just so they can utilize a few Samsung lenses? Why would millions of Nikon lens customers want to use an adapter? Why would Nikon care if the new owner of their FF mirrorless camera can buy vintage Canon FD lenses... Actually that is a good reason for them not use the NX mount.

I wrote this several times but many ppl seem to ignore that... Nx to F is possible, vice versa isn't. So no problem with compatibility with F lenses if using nx mount. Plus...with F you use only F lenses. With NX you use a lot of legacy lenses. Including F. Just pros no cons. Smaller bodies, small lenses already available at launch, lots of bigger Nikkor lenses via intelligent adapters, loads of legacy lebses via manual adapters.

Tbh there has been no official word from samsung or nikon, so all is speculation. But if true there is one thing you can count on, you will be paying 3x the money for the nikon version of the NX1. Not sure if that's a win for anyone here. And don't expect Samsung's level of commitment as far as firmware upgrades go. This is exactly why I bit the bullet and got the NX1. Unless my eyeballs are upgraded, the NX1 should be good enough for the next few years. At least until 8k is mainstream.

This is great news if it's true. The beautiful Nikon color science combined with incredible video recording abilities and a fast processor and hopefully a sensor with more dynamic range or smoother highlight roll off and you have an amazing camera. Hell yea, it's a win-win for both companies.

Why make millions of people buy adapters because a few people own samsung lenses, makes no sense at all. Even if they don't go with the F mount, why choose a mount designed for APS-C sensors if you can make a larger one and skip the problems that sony is having with the e-mount (shadowing)

Again, it would NOT abandon anything, by going with nx mount. Nx to F dumb adapters already exist, and if they join forces they could easily build intelligent ones. I see several reasons for going nx mount. First, as already said, more versatility due to shorter flange (a lot of legacy lenses could be adapted, something impossible with F). Second, arriving on the market with a nice lineup of lenses designed for a mirrorless system. Third, the nice i-Function. Fourth, the size of cameras. Fifth, the possibility of having pancake designs. They could just rebrand the existing lenses, perhaps releasing a faster focusing 30mm pancake.

I understand that, but Samsung has a very small lens line up comparatively, why would Nikon change the tradition of their lenses because Samsung has some good sensor tech and heat dissipation technology? I can't imagine that this tech is only usable for mirrorless cameras? Why would Nikon abandon decades upon decades for the NX mount? It makes no sense. Loyal Nikon customers and your average everyday consumer do not want to be bothered with an adapter. IMO.

I really don't see why Nikon would keep the NX mount when they have a half century history with treasured Nikkor glass. In the 70s and 80s when Canon, Olympus, Pentax, etc changed their mounts, Nikon designed their cameras around their lenses. Not to mention, think about how much of a boost their lens division will get by the onslaught of new customers.

If Samsung in the contract had to pull their NX system from the market entirely, I'd bet on it going further than just a tech supply chain of sensors and processors for Nikon, like Nikon currently have with Sony. I think Nikon will do a mirrorless camera like the NX1, but with different mount and lenses. Nikon F mount on mirrorless camera wouldn't be too bad... Imagine a D750 with 4K and EVF...

They'll build something with Samsung tech that can make use of the Nikon F- mount. Anything different from that would be a surprise.

Second Quick Test ECyclops 20x20 inches "sensor" size digital motion camera. Sony A7S + Shogun Capture Camera1942 Epidiascope Zenith Optical Co. Tessar 616mm f6 (wide open) -4 elements in 3 groups, bakelite lens body-2x 6 tube Kino + 1x 1K FresnelSlightly grading."One-person film crew", with makeup and costumes that assisted the model.

Just finished editting a small video for some friends (& client) to check out the look we're looking for. Grade isnt final (its already dif. from the previous images). This is a music video we're shooting soon (these were only random test shots). https://vimeo.com/147527110 Password : Franco

I've loved my NX1 since I got in March. The only complaint was the transcoding and additional space needed. Playback is now smooth at full resolution on my older 12-core Mac Tower and GTX980 card. The Premiere Pro Beta finally optimized h265 playback/export about 4 months ago and I finally got to dump all my ProRes files...about 1TB. Last week I shot a night time test in a car to test the Cinemorph Anamorphic filter with a Nikon 50mm f1.2 and a 4K Grainzilla real film grain quicktime. i wanted to try something different so I went full faux anamorphic bokeh and kept the NX1 at ISO 800 as the Cinemorph eats about 1.5 stops of light. You can watch the Vimeo HD or Youtube 4K versions of DRUNK DRIVE here: http://vashivisuals.com/samsung-nx1-drunk-drive/

Reading the other thread and this one I am now pretty convinced that option 1A will be taken. The current systems are too well established and changing them will just confuse things. One big advantage for E mount is that you can use virtually any manual lenses. An advantage for the consumer, but would nikon see it as an advantage for themselves? You might think flexibility would encourage customers to the system. It would with me, But from nikons perspective they are probably more comfortable locking people into nikon lenses. The A7 cameras and FE lenses are already at the stage where there isn't much of difference between them and a DSLR in size. They aren't exactly pocketable. So really theres no big disadvantage to having an F-mount mirrorless. In fact this rumor apears to be on the money: http://nikonrumors.com/2015/04/20/new-nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-on-the-horizon.aspx/ Also, a good thing about f-mount for a hybrid camera is that there would be plenty of room to integrate behind the lens filters. But thinking again about the NX-mini lenses, perhaps the primes could be rehoused in a recessed configuration which would make them look like body cap lenses.

Photographer and videographer Mathieu Stern attached a french plastic camera lens from the 50s, the Photax Heanar type V, to a Sony a7II... with a couple of rubber bands. His article: http://mathieustern.com/2015/11/shooting-a-video-with-a-1950-plastic-camera-lens Watch the results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nMOeJlnlcI

Or did Samsung cut out their camera division and sell it to Nikon outright? I don't think we'll figure any of this out before an official press release hits.

I have an email from Samsung (NX1 engineers) saying it's 4:2:2. The email is dated 03/10/2014.

Cheers! Thanks for the feedback. Sadly I didn't have much time to work on the colour and Slog2 on this camera is a pain in the arse! Snow was a rush job. It was a nice simple shoot. Wouldn't put it anywhere near my "Best Of" but sometimes it's quite refreshing to do something a bit more straight forward. 100fps is this cameras best feature. The worst feature is focusing. Manual focusing with this camera is bloody hard, especially on moving subjects.

YEAH... What he said.

If they're trying to make a mirrorless camera for the professional market, the advantage is that there's one less thing to fail. A professional on a job doesn't want to worry whether their adapter is going to be shorted out by rain or bend a connector pin in tough situations; they just want it to work. Adapters on high-density sensors can also introduce all sorts of centering/planarity issues, which will turn off landscape photographers and people like Ming Thein who are trying to squeeze out that last 1% of performance. I see what you're saying, and it might give our market pause, but the fact is that professionals care far less about thicker and heavier if it means rugged and consistent. It doesn't give up any of mirrorless' advantages either, which extend beyond just small size. Effective EVF/Live View shooting with accurate image preview, on-sensor AF for perfect focus alignment without fine-tuning, vastly improved MF compared to today's brighter but low-res OVFs, and all the benefits a live view-centric system provides for video shooting. Many professional photographers, such as Kirk Tuck and Ming Thein, have lamented that no DSLR manufacturer has just ripped the mirror box out of their flagship stills camera and given it an EVF instead. They don't care about reducing size. Tuck wants to keep using his vintage portrait lenses on their native mount, and Thein wants an ergonomically mature product that'll do justice to his Otus lenses. If Nikon took Samsung's mirrorless tech, put in a full frame sensor, and gave it a native F mount, I think they'd be answering a lot of people's prayers.

All the Nikon mount are have longer flange compare to other mount, so NX fit that legacy lol.

yes but you can also use a cineon film print, modify on your own, then go to a film print, and export that lut as your own. You use their luts as a starting point then start grading like a madman. There step just gives you a quick filmic s-curve, saturation curve, and remapping of colors. It saves a bunch of time and makes it go towards a standard, then you can tweak tweak and clip the thumbnail and export as a LUT.

So, if you were a professional photographer with tens of thousands of dollars invested in F mount Nikkor glass and Nikon debuts it's first professional full frame mirrorless camera, and you found out it was in the NX mount or something other than F mount, you wouldn't be a little upset... Adapter or not. IMO, people don't want adapters if they don't have to. The point of Nikon all of these years is their backward compatibility with a half century's worth of glass. I highly doubt they would change that now. Plus, look at the link on Nikon rumors... Full frame mirrorless in F mount. http://nikonrumors.com/2015/04/20/new-nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-on-the-horizon.aspx/

They wouldnt "drop" anything by using NX mount with an included smart adapter for their Nikon lenses. Thats the point you don't seem to get. Repeating again and again that they would "drop" or "disappoint" their user base is simply not based on facts and logic.

Never said it was better, I just don't think it's likely. Actually it may be better, if you are stuck using only one brand of glass that has a legendary history, then Nikkor glass is the way to go. Just don't think Nikon is going to buy Samsung tech and put out the Nikon NX2.

If this rumor is true, I find it troubling for two reasons. Firstly, Samsung is a member of the open source Tizen consortium and Tizen is the open source OS used on the NX cameras, and Nikon is not a member. Samsung has binary blobs that deal with most of the cameras' functionality, but given that the OS is open source, there is hope that code/functionality could eventually be modified and enhanced by end users. I doubt that Nikon sees the potential of open source, and it is possible that they might even take measures to thwart attempts by end users to modify/enhance functionality. Secondly, consolidation is generally a bad thing for end users, in that it removes competition and innovation and breeds manufacturer complacency and hubris. There has been entirely too much consolidation/mergers in this and many other industries. The more players in manufacturing, the better.

I don't think there's any chance Nikon would use the NX mount in a new Nikon mirrorless based on Samsung tech. They'll take what they want and adapt it to their FF F mount ... I hope. Current Nikon users will want full compatibility with their lenses and this will sell the most cameras for Nikon. To use the current NX mount would make no sense for Nikon IMO. Very good news for Nikon users !!

Nah. Adapting to NX is still a pain. They just need to copy what Sony did. The E-mount covers both APS-C and full frame, is wildly adaptable to just about anything you'd like to throw at it. Even Sony's own A-mount lenses through the Sony A- to E-mount adapter with translucent mirror tech and built-in AF motor. Or throw on a third party lens with electronic connectivity. Even use focal reducers! Forget that with a NX-mount. I really don't see any future there. 'But they can use the lens line-up'. Yeah well, they can also get you Nikon lenses... Listen. Sony had to start E-mount somewhere too. And like 43 to M43 and A to E-mount with a manufacturer's adapter, you can take your already excisting eco system and give it a new market as well. They only need to copy what Sony did and do it for with Nikon adapting priorities. So a solid adapter for Nikon glass as well. Not a native existing Nikon DSLR-mount, that'd be silly to put on something mirrorless. And the NX-mount isn't going to work either.

Keeping the nx mount would be the wisest move. Compatibility with great s lenses (small for what they are) and small pancakes, with many mf legacy lenses, thin body. So a big range of existing and great native and legacy lenses. A nx to F intelligent adapter would make things just perfect. A huge range of bigger but good lenses. The best of both worlds.

Amazing if true. If only it were so easy as 1+1 when combining know-how, but the true benefits of such a acquisition will take years to manifest in full.

Chipsets tech too - almost as important as the Samsung's sensor tech. Remember, the NX1 samples a 28mp sensor, full readout, at 120fps, and encodes it in H.265 (that needs much more processing power than H.264) without transforming the camera in a ambient heater. And the use of Tizen as the camera's operating system. I think that Samsung's tech in the processing pipeline (sensor + chipset) is leaps ahead of everyone else, including Sony.

Would be easier to just make some sort of NX-Nikon active mount, or even create some speedbooster.

It depends... I have couple of NX lenses and they may become useless after I stop using NX1 (which hopefully not happen in next few years). There is question also about product warranty - will Nikon provide service for Samsung NX? We will have wait on CES probably... It would be great if Nikon would keep NX mount and keep all Samsung current lenses in the production....

Well, now that everyone bashed the NX1 for its codec, it is not for sale anymore... It was really easy to see that it was only a matter of time to see premiere handeling H.265, but no, everyone turned down samsung offer without understanding its value, or even trying the NX1 (I am not talking about you Andrew, but much more about no brainers playing "I know it all" like its ever been through history of technical evolution). I hope next H.264 DSLRs will be understood for their real value thanks to this codec. Anyway, lets hope that thanks to this native editing possibility blackmagic, nikon, canon, panasonic, red and more, much more companies, will handle this codec for what it was trully averagely made for, I mean 16 bits 422/444 and 120i/s in full 4k rec 2020 (at least 35% more color space than P3/dci). It is indeed the real game changing fact about filming. This codec was made for a united new generation color space from shooting to viewing, processed to handle preview, color correction, theater/tv/Blu-ray UHD/internet from hd to 8k and more diffusion at the same time with more powerfull color we have ever used until now in digital cinema. So, no more upscalling down scalling, changing codec through the editing process to the final render for a bit of time... untill better capapbilities come to use... At least, it could produce the cleanest 1080p high framerate 10bit 444 ever seen in rec2020 in low prices DSLRs ! Raw is still in DCi at max to this day, so try to imagine the use of new rec2020 processors in big cinema cameras. It gives you an idea why the whole cinema industry prices for sony FS,red and others put down their prices in 2015. New generation is on its way. 4k was a good thing, Rec2020 in 16bit will be amazing. Try not to destroy camera values by saying anymore that you prefer crappy H.264 possibilities over it.

Have a look at the Ikan VK7I, it's quite affordable and seems to have great colors: http://www.learningvideo.com/field-monitor-shootout/

Christina, Just ran across this article ... thought you'd find it interesting. https://***URL not allowed***/time-stood-still-an-extreme-low-light-video-sony-a7sii-slr-magic-50mm-f1-1/

If you're looking at Milvus and Sigma Art, definitely add Contax Zeiss to the list. There's a bunch of guys over on REDUser getting great results with them on the Epic Dragon at 6K. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide Or if you prefer a warmer, prettier look, Leica Rs and Minolta MDs should be on your radar. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92246-Minolta-Rokkor-Survival-Guide It depends more which Nikkor/FD lenses you're comparing than any hard and fast rule between the brands. Personally, I find Nikons to have more contrast and hate that their focus rings turn the wrong way. Canon FDs tend to have a little more CA, but nicer colors and a very organic look to the highlights. YMMV. Worthwhile reading: http://www.personal-view.com/faqs/camera-usage/nikon-lenses-faq http://www.personal-view.com/faqs/camera-usage/canon-fd-lenses-faq

If Andrew is moving back to London - that's a Zeiss every other week for a 1 bedroom flat lol - yes Europe we are mad!

Anyone knows if it works with El Capitan now? As in works exceptionally well. I had some minor bugs that were really annoying. Updating now....

create a timeline of 2.75:1 so 2970x1080 drag your footage into the timeline, then stretch the footage on the horizontal by 2x. the sides will be cropped off. You might find you can get away with stretching less than 2x - sometimes 1.8x will be ok - particularly for closeups, since anamorphic squeeze ratio is at infinity, when focused closer the squeeze ratio reduces quite drastically. Use your own judgement - by eye is better than by the numbers. Personally I think 2.66:1 is the golden ratio. any wider and things get a little too thin. - Unless you;re Tarrantino / Bob Richardson and able to make it work for the film:)

Zak I still have a good feeling about G&G. They told us 3 months ago that BM distributor predicted December. Every other person was saying November. I have a feeling it's coming in the next 2 weeks.

How much time does it take on your computer to render this 23 minutes video to 4K H.264 MP4 in 50Mbps?