Leaderboard

Allow me to explain further rimpamposh, because that video is explaining the situation in my opinion in a twisted and counter intuitive way IMO. Lets look at the RGB waveform of this NX1 file: If you look at the top of the waveform it seems the highlights are clipped. However pay attention to the bottom right Clamp Signal checkbox that is checked on and that I circled in green. That clamp signal checkbox, clamps the display of the highlight. It does not DISPLAY in the waveform scope the highlights above the 100 line. However the information is in the video file, it is simply not displayed because that checkbox is checked. Lets have a look at what our waveform looks like once we uncheck it: As you can see we have more highlight information visible in the waveform scope than what was previously displayed. And that is all that has changed, the clamped highlight information above 100 is now displayed in the waveform monitor only. In our video it is still out of range because it is above the 100 line, so in our video those highlights are still clipped. How do we recover that information and unclip the highlights in the video? This is where in the video he says to set the 235 number. You do not need to do specifically do that, and you can do it with a variety of tools. And that specific amount will not be adapted to every situation. All you want to do is bring the highlights down. That is all. In this instance I did it as following: You can do it in different ways. Hope it helps.

it's not actually clipped, it's just displayed beyond the range. 16-235 in camera squeezes that extra bit into range, but it's not actually capturing any more info, it's just displayed that way. if you want to display your 0-255 clips as though it were 16-235 (thus displaying everything in range) simply add a fast color corrector, then change your output to 16-235. or, if you plan on using any decent color grading software (speedgrade/davinci) you'll have access to all that information still, and you can adjust it into range as you desire.

Welcome to the world of Zach. He has a way with words.

Well, in my tests DCI actually produced (slightly) better resolution, so in my opinion that claim about UHD being better is total BS...it was true with early firmware versions, but not now. If you don't believe, check it out yourself, don't trust outdated tests. More importantly, I shoot in 4K to have the flexibility to reframe for a FHD output, and DCI gives a bit more to work with. Also, I generally shoot with both NX1 and NX500, and shooting both in DCI 24p helps with combining the two footages into a multi-camera shot (on Premiere Pro). I also do 3D VFX work that is 24p. And I definitely don't care for film, so 23.976 is just an anachronism as far as I'm concerned.

LONG POST WARNING! Ok team, here are the files. I'm really hoping some people with more skill and knowledge can chime in. If something else needs to be tested, let me know soon and I can do it sometime tomorrow. i've attached uncompressed 32bit tiffs of each setting... so they should be just fine for any test-grading. ill supply a link with the 10gb dnxhr 10bit file that includes all the clips, as soon as i can find a place to host it. here are the camera settings that didn't change: iso: 160 shutter 1/50 aperture was set at a T2 on a 20mm Sony CineAlta prime everything was shot through a 1/4 hollywood blackmagic filter. in my earlier test i tried both with and without, and it doesn't seem affect anything thats really relevant to these tests enough to make a difference. i personally like this filter in front of this ultra sharp sensor, so thats why i left it on. first impressions, right now looking at the images, its like anything 'flatter' than 'normal gamma' starts to break apart just a little bit. i'm feeling like the different gamma modes (as have been stated before) really aren't doing anything different in processing other than adjusting some saturation and contrast. 16-235 settings seem to keep black details better than 0-255 everything being equal. previews: Tiffs: NX1_3_Tiff.zip

I was wondering if anyone elects to shoot in 4K DCI over UHD. I know there has been some pretty conclusive stuff for UHD actually having more resolution than the DC1 4K mode of the camera. Also, UHD has 23.976 fps which for things not to be later transferred to film is the desired shooting method as opposed to DCI's 24p only option. My question is... does anyone actually shoot in DCI or is everyone shooting UHD and cropping to the desired ratio after the fact? Best, Bradley

Have you tried the clear scan shutter speed mode? Where you dial in the frequency? Not sure if that would help or not. If it persists I'd probably email Canon and see if they can help. Their Cinema line support is pretty great

it does not, i own a sony a7 and used it with my nikkor 24mm 2.8 ai

The green bar issue could well be a lens issue. Does it happen with any other glass?

Glad to see you picked up a C100ii. I haven't had that green streak problem. I have no idea what that could be.

1) I used CLog when I first got the camera but have since switched to WDR. It seems the main difference between the two profiles is how the tonal range is spread. Shadows are lighter in WDR, whereas they're darker in CLOG so you have to increase exposure to compensate. 2) Never seen that green bar except when I used a Nikon D7100 for photography (and only one of the two units I used had the problem). I would probably get your camera repaired/replaced. 3) One thing that I've not really seen mentioned anywhere is the use of "Phase" in the Color Matrix section. Increasing this can have a nice effect on the overall image, especially skin tones. I also spent some time tweaking CLOG to get rid of the raised blacks etc. But as I say, in the end I switched to WDR. I've only used the camera for a few projects so far though so my opinions may change.

Yeah flew under my radar too, sounds brilliant

save file on computer and open in photoshop. That has only to do with the color shift and different color management of the different web browers. As long as the file has an attached color profile by opening it with photoshop you are ensuring it is displayed correctly. it's not a conversion, all he is doing in that video is bringing the highlights down. If you want to understand what is going on, look at the bottom right of the video ( the red green and blue waveform) as he sets the output level to 235 the highlights shift down. The fact that he calls it "an error" and always sets the number 235 makes it unnecessarily confusing. All he is doing is bringing the highlights down to recover highlight information, you can do that with a variety of other tools as well. And always setting to 235 as if it is a magic number fix to that "error" is also unnecessary. Depending on the amount of highlight information that is above the displayed range it can be more or less.

Hilariously I saw yesterday released on YouTube the trailer for a local indie film. And boldly in the title it proclaims "4K UHD"!! Butttttt..... I know for a fact they shot the whole thing on a C100 mk1! Ha.

This.. ^ You can get such amazing color with an IR cut filter. It really makes the imagine just that much nicer. I wish there was a moire/IR cut internally...

This is a non-issue, you just interpret the 24 fps footage as 23.976 fps if you need that rate, no conversion needed and no sync issues.

I use DCI 4k, it's my go to resolution on the NX1.

Yeah, it's likely that store says "sold out" because they don't have any inventory (for obvious reasons). HOWEVER!!.... This might be the first actual functioning BMMCC in the wild. by way of Noam Kroll. https://www.instagram.com/p/BAidmqRwazM/

even if it only cost £100 to upgrade all their gear to permit broadcast of 4k they wouldn;t bother since it's a lot easier to send out 720p and palm off all the mugs who bought 4k tv's to watch the crap the said broadcasters actually broadcast. I don;t want to watch commercial television in any resolution, least of all in 4k. 4k footage of staged terrorist attacks to justify going to war. advertisments for consumer stuff, singing and dancing competitions and soap operas. vile.

I'm interested to know about that too. It's my first time with doing 4K, which mine's is only UHD and I downscale it for 1080p for processing.

I'm a Nikon shooter, they focus the right way round! ;-)

Mortgage the house and you can get 16 bit raw photos ;-)

finally admitting to myself that GammaDR, Sat-4,Contrast-10,MBL+10,16-235 is just too flat for 95% of stuff that's shot with this camera (with just so much banding)... So...just shot the same scene with a bunch of different settings including various gammas, contrast/saturation/mbl amounts, and changed up between 16-235 and 0-255. Shot proress hq to the shogun for all of it. I was planning on uploading still tiffs which should contain all the editable info needed, but would anyone prefer to have the whole prores file to mess with? post coming shortly. It's not every conceivable setting, but it should give us generally a good idea of where to go from here, especially with the luminence discussion. I maybe could have shot some internal stuff, but honestly I think h265 is actually a pretty good codec (for 8 bit stuff) and i dont think outputting over hdmi is going to give a significant amount of help even with 422... at least on this camera (i found it quite helpful shooting externally on the a7s though). should show off highlights, a little bit of shadow (back chair with figures on it) and banding on the back wall.

Now this looks interesting...

I'm sure one will be announced at NAB 2016, with a ship date of July.

I agree, a pocket v2.0 with a better LCD, UHS II support, better heat dissipation and the global shutter would make more sense.

The C100 looked really good imo.

This is half the reason why I got a C100 instead of the 4K options in that price bracket (think GH4 or A7S II). I can make it look the way I want it in camera. I don't need labor-intensive color correction beyond basic gamma and RGB tweaks. I certainly don't need to fool around with LUTs. I grew up shooting on film. I'm comfortable working this way. And needless to say, I find HD perfectly usable for my needs. The other half is form factor. So nice to have a proper camera with proper XLRs and an ND filter. I actually just came home from watching The Revenant. Most of it was shot in 2.8K Arriraw on the Alexa M. Some of it was shot in 6K on the new Alexa 65. I couldn't tell which shots were which camera. And that's a massive gap in resolution. In the right hands, resolution is practically irrelevant. That said, I'd rather see what Emmanuel Lubezki could do with a VHS camcorder than what 99% of other DPs can do with a Red Dragon and Master Primes. He's a true wizard.

For PL we will offer 1.33x Anamorphot prime lens set for s35 system. We will offer 2x Anamorphot prime lens set for micro four thirds system.

I'll throw up a sample with my "Flat" settings shortly. Edit: Here you go. Included two shots at ISO 100 outdoor and a festival shot at 1600 geoffcbassett.com/nx1samples.zip

Honestly, the only reason I am thinking about keeping the nx500 is because the 4K downscaled to 1080 looks amazing in b&w and I may have a short in a month or two that it may be perfect for. It seems the over sharpness doesn't affect black and white footage as much... Either performed in camera or desaturated in post. And yeah, those Nikkors are work horses. So cinematically simple.

Cool! Andy had a good tip one time, the cheapish AI 35-70mm f/3.5 that renders closely to the Bourne ones (28-70 & 80-200mm f/2.8D). Perhaps your does too? Yeah, the Planars and Distagons do look damn sexy. Wouldn't mind a set of those. But then again, who would? Well, I guess the conscience, wallet and wife.

Here's a quick test in my kitchen. GH4 plus Panasonic 12-35. OIS off.

Old thread, but thought I'd mention that I got this in the mail today. Hoping to test it a little more tomorrow. First impressions are that it's solid. Holds a GH4 with 12-35 lens no problem. The motor is a little noisy but that's about the only downside I've seen.

Normally, I would agree with that statement -- just like we wouldn't typically call a motorized slider a "motion control unit". In this case, I think the multiple speeds in forward and reverse, the timelapse feature and the Stretch Goal (which adds the magnetic sensors that allow for speed ramping start/stop and repeat moves) and the fact that the device is capable of free movement and not limited to using a linear track -- allow for a somewhat liberal use of the term "motion control". But, yes, clearly not the definition of motion control used in the business.

Certainly looks alright. But take a cheapo table dolly (let's say 15 bucks)... ... and then imagine something DIY to make it motorized... 199 then sounds quite the up in price.

​ It effects close range as well, way more for that matter. Here is an example I have a lens turbo EF to m43. I use vintage lenses, mostly Contax Yashica (thanks Andy) To fit them to the lens turbo they need an adapter ring. I adjusted the Lens turbo so the Yashica lenses hit infinity without overshoot. Then I found a Yashica Auto Yashinon zoom1:3.5 45-115mm. It’s a M42 mount. It connects with an adapter ring to the EF lens turbo. Focus between 115 and 45 were completely off. So I checked if I could improve that by adjusting the lens turbo element. It’s not a real parfocal lens (I think), but it is now as close to parfocal as I can get it. If I now connect my C/Y they slightly overshoot when set to infinity …I couldn’t care less as the zoom lens suddenly is way easier to handle as everything stays in “focus” throughout the zoom range. Non of these lenses have an original EF mount, all adapterrings differ so to make it stick to one lensturbo/speedbooster you will have to make choices. Metabones advice is for varivocal lenses. From my understanding the Sigma 18-35 is a parfocal lens. And I think it’s your lens to go, so if I were you, I would make sure it behaves parfocal on the adapter …even if that means other lenses will suffer from it.