Leaderboard

Disclaimer: This is just for fun. Not meant to be fair, well lit, perfectly graded, scientific or anything else. Just a few shots while I had the two film cameras loaded. IMO Film still kicks the ass of digital in looking what I consider "Good" and in dynamic range and color. But this is not suposed to be proof of that concept. If you want an example of that I say watch "The Hateful Eight", "The Hurtlocker" or any other well shot movie on film. In this video I compare some footage from a BMPCC, Digital Bolex and A7ii to a 16mm Bolex H16 and a Krasnogorsk-3. I did it just for fun so don't read to much into it The BMPCC was shot in Prores and the D16 in Raw. Both where graded with a 7207 LUT. The H16 was shooting actual ISO 250 Kodak 7207. The Krasnogorsk was shooting ISO 50 Kodak 7203 so thats the LUT the A7ii received.

Bang for buck the best image your can buy. Doesn't matter if Samsung goes out of the camera business, the NX1 will still be a great piece of kit.

Sorry can't figure out how to embed from my iPad ...

The first of several short films I shot on the NX1. Let me know what you think

yup lowlith is its weokaness but it bet it could be improved if they didn't apply that heavy NR.

It's not perfect, but in motion on my 22" editing bay HDTV (UHD transcoded to 1080 prores) the compression really looks very good - I really don't "see" it if the shot is compelling - and the noise pretty much disappears. And this at 1800+ iso's. Not an Alexa killer by any means, but for a $1000-ish DSLR body, it kills anything I've used to date in that range. (OK, this week NX1 prices in the US shot back up to release-date levels, oddly enough). I do a lot of small-biz/startup work that I'd turn down if I had rental expenses, and I've generally owned APS-C Nikons or Canons for those gigs. I find it to be a ridiculous leap in quality for that market, and I'm in the midst of a no-lights corporate gig where I expected to be waiting hours for neat video renders. Footage is, in a word, "damn pretty", and I consider DSLRs my "pretty" cameras vs. my do-it-all, small-chip broadcast cameras that I use for corporate events, etc. Certainly you can get way better high-ISO performance when you get past $2k, but for real-world business clients that usually want 720 web delivery and a 1080 file for the trade show screen or the 60" meeting room TV? It's a fantastic little tool, and if you can properly light a shot, it's pretty killer. Very surprised it's actually useable at high ISO's is my overall point.

Maybe it is the noise, but the besides the look, film seems to have something that makes subjects come alive. As you have said in the youtube comments, Gunpowder jumping is the obvious example. But also in the shot of yourself at the end. The film shot would look great cut into a home movie reel or music video compared to the sony where you just look bored.

Really enjoyed that. I'm going to take a look at some of your other YouTube uploads. Thanks, Mattias.

It does look nice. Besides the moire in the water. That very clip made me get rid of it back then. Guess the a7s and the a7s/rii doesnt have that issue.

What's that saying... If you want the film look... Shoot film? But with that being said, the d16 comes the closest, followed by the bmpcc with the Sony coming in last but still looked pretty damn good, depending on the grade.

FIY, the lens kit sold! Thanks everyone.

I went to the road show and the kids couldn't get the damn film version to play so they showed the digital version and didn't tell anyone till after. You could tell though. I was pissed

Lua looks easy. I tell you, your LUTs are much better than most lightroom presets out there.

During artist tests, Davis brought the first Pocket Camera on set. "I put it through a whole range of comprehensive latitude tests; I wanted to see the quality of the image and I also wanted to see how much information it held in the shadows and highlights," he says. "I was really impressed with what I saw, and that was the fundamental thing we were looking for. I think the Pocket is definitely up there alongside the Red and the Alexa in terms of latitude, and that let me cut in with the Alexa and Canon C500, which we also used, in a much more seamless way. And all that information moves straight on to VFX through grading. More Info http://www.studiodaily.com/2015/05/dp-ben-davis-avengers-age-ultron/

I've been shooting as high as iso 2200 and getting very clean footage. If I shot the same scenes at 1600-1800, it might look pretty sad. But opening the shadows with a higher ISO? I've found it shockingly clean. (and I own a shit-ton of lights, but I've had some no-lights-allowed commercial gigs and the NX1 has been the bomb. Had my Nikon body and a panasonic AC-160 "video" camera, never even considered breaking them out).

Nice work. The first few shots are gorgeous. That light, misty fog really set up an atmosphere. I also loved your jump cut rack focus. Jarringly effective. I'm gonna steal that.

Thanks, project was shot in ProRes Film Mode and colored from scratch in Resolve (No Luts used). From my experience with the camera RAW introduces more Aliasing and Moire, which is why I shoot ProRes unless I NEED the RAW workflow for color temperature or maximum dynamic range. Truth is though ProRes imo is my preferred method of using the camera as I feel the compression eliminates Moire and Aliasing by a lot compared to Raw. Dynamic Range, Richness and Color of this camera imo is amazing and no other camera in its class is even close.......

Leonardo Dalessandri's work is just a good example of craft. I know it wouldn't matter what camera you put in my hand, he'd still be able to make a better travel video with a GH3 than I would with an Alexa. So, I use that sort of stuff as my personal benchmark. If I can increase my skill level to exceed the IQ of what he can do, then I'll consider getting a better piece of gear. 'Til then, I'll roll with simple consumer gear too for my own projects. Hey, if it's good enough for him, right? I've been lucky enough to travel around the world on assignment over the past decade. I can watch that video and reflect that my own library has about 80% of the same type of footage. Is it shot as well? No. Is it edited as well? Oh, god no. That's my perspective. Gotta learn technique and craft; get solid there, I'm still lacking. I ask myself, "You got a paint brush?" "Yes. Well, then paint." Worry about the bristles only when your skill demands it. I'm not gonna gripe about refinements that I can't even begin to take real advantage of. ...So hard to do when all I want is to acquire and play with a A7s! More on point to Andrews charting of cameras, ergonomics, etc, I gotta say, the EM5II, after some getting used to, now really agrees with me for some reason. I just like shooting with it, taking it out of the bag and getting footage. Like many machines, some just jibe, others don't. Don't know how to explain it. It's like a car or a motorcycle...

The video posted by avril is quite outsanding imo.

I understand. I'll give a check on how to build a Lightroom plugin ; this could be a good idea.

These are just some quick random samples with a variety of settings. I wouldn't pixel peep to much as most are canon log and not sharpened. Like I said just random shots. Cinegain- I'm not sure why you say it has specific qualities. I feel it's a more well rounded video camera than the gh4. There is a lot of mis information on the internet about this camera.

Wow that promo video is going to take some beating for wooden model movements. She behaves like a cyborg. The dirt under my fingernails contains more life than is present in that video. The yellow-tinted clipped highlights are similar to what I get on the FZ1000 for $700. You'd think for $2500 they would have sorted that out. This camera tarnishes the Cinema EOS brand.

Does not seem interesting at all to me - especially at that price...