Leaderboard

I'm going to go ahead and say it. This $1,000 camera looks slightly better to me than the URSA Mini 4.6 footage I've been seeing -- in terms of color rendition and motion cadence. That's a matter of taste to be sure but damn it if it doesn't make sacrificing resolution a no-brainer for such a beautiful cinematic image. I have one pre-ordered. Maybe i should sell my Pocket and get two of these.

The real suprising champ is the RX100IV - the slow motion out of this guy is beautiful. I am shocked by how good it came out. Mixed F35, A7S, everything - especially at the waterpark.

Didn't even think about using it as is without the video assist. That would suddenly make it a whole other fun way of shooting indeed. Although, I haven't been shooting on film back in the day, so I'm no natural at figuring out if with ISO800, 180°, f/2.8 I'd be over- or underexposing for any given situation. There I've come to heavily rely on the in-camera exposure meter and histogram unfortunately. That said, indeed, I'll probably be selling off two of my BMPCCs to get one of these. The option of global shutter is awesome and the battery upgrade is more than welcome! Plus, you can really use it as some sort of action cam too. Just add some GoPro adapter and you can use it with all the GoPro accessories and mounts. I don't know, I'm more excited about this little camera than the expensive 4K stuff from any given manufacturer that's not shipping out yet. Except perhaps the A6300. Might be a cool combo those two. One for the solid image and the other if you'd need the 4K and slowmo capabilities. Two little cameras, roughly the same price, other applications, but might be a perfect synergy.

details: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?141427-FORGED-Shot-on-RED-Weapon-8K

This badboy is seriously on my radar. If i take the plunge it'll be mated with a super fast s16mm 16mm/1.4, a pistol grip, and a optical viewfinder, shooting Prores LT. all focusing will be done with the focus scale on the lens and using hyperfocal distance. even at f1.4 it'll be pretty easy to get focus right with the scale and knowing usable dof at 1m and beyond.

mmmmYeeeahhhh.......... They're missing our point. They want a smoother end-user experience and that pretty much ONLY means less stuttering due to any bandwidth issues. The solution is to kill the quality. That's ALWAYS BEEN the solution. YouTube has been doing it for years. Now I WILL give them this: "Adaptive" is indeed better than simply defaulting to something really low like 320p. DUH.... Our point is simply this: Many of us PAID subscribers NEED folks to see our stuff is as high quality as is possible. ESPECIALLY if it is clients. And EVERYBODY understands a little stuttering. NOBODY goes: "Oh my gosh, the video just stuttered for a second or two, I guess that means it's no good and I'd better turn it off!" DUH... And don't forget the BIG one that affects everyone in an even worse way - EMBEDDING. In MANY embedded video situations (websites etc,.) the little "HD" icon where you select playback quality DOESN'T SHOW UP. What you gonna do NOW? DUH... So, in summary - DUH. They WILL respond to paid subscribers cancelling if they don't return to at least the OPTION of a selectable minimum quality playback. BIG THANKS, BIG THANKS, to everyone who has sent an email to Vimeo about this. Especially Paid subscribers willing to cancel.

Getting the 2.5K back in the NX500 would make my day.

message me if you want to know what bits you will need for each rig - I presume you have gone for the nikon 2.8 zooms

Anyone up for testing this? http://inogeni.com/4k-usb3-0/ Along with USB capture app on Android smartphone or tablet (i.e. CameraFi)? Here's my article on it.

Nobody compared fw 1.01 and fw 1.2 or higher? As said, 1.2 is where higher bitrate was introduced.

don't expect anything like that from sony, they have a pro 4k camera segment to protect, the only companies that could have given us the best bang for our buck ( such as 4k raw on usb3) are companies that do not have higher priced 4k camera segment to upsell ( black magic in the begining tried but they now have a higher price range of camera to protect, samsung tried with nx serie but failed as they are getting out of the camera market). let's wait for the next new comer to flip the market upside down - the obvious thing that will change everything is an open firmware where third party developers can add features inside the camera, again samsung started that but they failed (http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/05/28/redesign-your-own-camera-samsung-nx300-nx2000-source-code-released) - do you remember how expensive, crappy and limited where our digital phone services before the smartphone era with the app model, this is where we are now with the digital camera market.

oh stupid me, i thought i was in the 80d thread not the k-1. Excuse me

optical viewfinder is a brilliant idea Check out the Sigma ones. They did a few for different focal lengths on their DP and Quattro cameras. 14mm (21mm equiv.) and 30mm (50mm equiv.) are two I am aware of. And the utterly superb Zeiss finder from the RX1 (35mm equiv.) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-V1K-Optical-Viewfinder-Camera/dp/B009O06XAS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1455806726&sr=8-2&keywords=sony+rx1+viewfinder

Well the Dual Pixel AF isn't just useful for youtube, it's a great tech. Problem is the entire rest of the camera. Nikon will give you better for $500!

And for framing you add one of these

adds to the fun. 13stops of dr gives you an awful lot of headroom! grab a cheap analog lightmeter, get an exposure on the highlights and work from there. The amazing thing is that for each clip you can push or pull the footage in raw individually. with a roll of film if you are underexposed on one shot out of 20 you can;t just push process that one shot otherwise the rest will be over. even with prores Lt and film dr the lumetri adjustments for exposure give almost as much control as with raw.

Zak that boxing video is awesome!!! Let's hope BMD put this on the street soon!!!

To anyone who hates rap music, or doesn't have a sense of humor, I am very sorry.

Has anyone taken a look at what exactly is in that SDK? I was under the impression it was just for developing remote apps. I think the Nikonhacker folks made an emulator for some Nikon DSLRs to help understand the firmware. I'm not sure how much they have done with it. For the NX1/500 getting root on the physical camera and running a debugger there would probably be easier and more fruitful. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, and most other camera manufacturers use custom (or semi-custom) operating systems, which make standard debuggers incompatible. Since Samsung uses a Linux kernel it should be possible to run a standard debugger if you have root, and use that to see the instructions executing on the real hardware.

Smart move. Don't get studio

It should be the same as Pocket, 2.88 x

I just found a comparison between GH4 And G7 on Videomaker. Is it possible that G7 is so much cleaner in higher ISO? There is side by side ISO test in the video. http://www.videomaker.com/video/watch/reviews/18520-panasonic-lumix-g7-vs-gh4

Nah I need a 72mm or larger and only iso achromats +1 or lower. Thanks though.

$1000 off and a 120fps firmware update: http://pro.jvc.com/pro/pr/2016/releases/gyls300_slomo.html

Attached are three .DNG frames from three separate raw clips I shot on the URSA Mini 4K. They were all shot in 4K RAW 400 ASA. If you want to see the clips in action, check out my video on vimeo: Fazer_1_2016-02-10_2344_C0016_000609.dng Fazer_1_2016-02-11_0023_C0005_000194.dng Fazer_1_2016-02-11_0023_C0005_000566.dng

Don, check the f5/55 forums. Sounds like you may have read a portion of the14 pages worth on DVXuser. Also Photozone, and individual blog posts as well. The claim is not unsubstantiated. I should still have my lens test files, but unfortunately wont be returning home until mid April. (a likely story right ) However, the lenses (24-70ii 70-200ii, 50 Xenon FF) are adapted like I would imagine the vast majority of emount Sony's being used for video are. Grim, I mentioned that Sony's seem to "exacerbate" ca for whatever reason. "Amplify" in the way you've used it was not my intent. Thanks for the aberration 101! Again, I totally agree lens/adapter and have never stated otherwise. For whatever reason Sony cams just seem to make fringing even more apparent. Any one find multiple threads/posts/blogs about abnormal fringing from Panasonic users? Red? Black magic? Nikon? When we've countered, hypothesized, and explained away all of these posts from users on other forums who are obviously much less educated and experienced than our Wikipedia copying selves, we can go back to our ignorant bliss, admiring our sleek consumer cams collecting dust, dreaming all the while about custom Alexa luts. and how amazing our video will look to the 47 Vimeo users who stumble across it while searching for porn.

at the moment the samsung nx500 is $497 shipped with 16-50PZ, sure it is 4k cropped instead of being downsampled from 6k but the bitrate is 40% higher so the 4k image quality should be very close for 1/2 price (the small and sharp 30mm f2 pancake lens is also down to $154) (but the nx500 has a 15min max recording in 4k, is it 30 minutes max on the a6300 ?)

In Sony UK site, the A6300 specs show PAL+NTSC modes.

Sorry, but what are the crop factors?

I don't think I currently have the experience or time to successfully modify the NX1/NX500 firmware. I don't even have one of those cameras. However it would be a shame to let the interest in this die, so I guess I'll post some of my notes/thoughts about the firmware in hopes that it might help keep the ball rolling. Note: if you aren't into technical minutiae, the only interesting part of this wall of text is the bulleted list at the end detailing what is and is not possible in my opinion. Here are the files listed in the header of nx1.bin (version 1.4.0): version.info: offset=0x0 size=0x3F (same as found in /etc/version.info) linux image: offset=0x0130 size=0x00624748 idk: offset=0x624878 size=0xD8E9 linux image: offset=0x632161 size=0x3192E8 linux image: offset=0x94B449 size=0x638518 idk: offset=0xF83961 size=0x01FF10 idk: offset=0xFA3871 size=0xB35140 rootfs: offset=0x1AD89B1 size=0x117A89FF (lzo compressed ext4 filesystem image) opt: offset=0x132813B0 size=0x58E91C (lzo compressed ext4 filesystem image) pcachelist: offset=0x1380FCCC size=0x7000 (PAGECACHELIST, preceded by a header, I think) idk: offset=0x13816CCC size=0x35BCC44 (lzo compressed. header indicates swap image?) Anyone with the skills to reverse engineer a camera could figure this out pretty easily, but it was fairly tedious so maybe this will save someone 20 minutes of poking around in a hex editor. If anyone knows what's up with the files I've labeled "idk," I would love to hear about it. The checksum algorithm is fortunately unchanged from the NX300 as far as I can tell. As documented at sites.google.com/site/nxcryptophotography/diy-firmware "width=32 poly=0x04c11db7 init=0xffffffff refin=true refout=true xorout=0x00000000 check=0x340bc6d9 name="JAMCRC"" "jacksum -x -a crc:32,04c11db7,ffffffff,true,true,00000000 [file]" The main camera app binary is (I'm pretty sure) located at /usr/apps/com.samsung.di-camera-app/bin/di-camera-app in the rootfs. It seems to access the hardware through a relatively high-level API with the /usr/lib/libmm* libraries. libmmf-camcorder.so is particularly interesting. The function I've focused my attention on is mmf_camcorder_set_attributes(), which comes from libffm-camcorder and is used repeatedly in di-camera-app. It conveniently (and strangely IMO) takes strings as identifiers for the attributes that are apparently being set (why not just an enum? I suppose I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth...). Some of those attributes include "target-time-limit," "audio-encoder-bitrate," and "video-encoder-bitrate." The guy who successfully removed the recording time limit on the NX300 did it by modifying the instructions that set the variable being passed along with "targe-time-limit." I found the control flow instructions he mentioned in that thread, so it should't be hard to get rid of the time limit on the NX1, provided the camera accepts the modified firmware. The NX500 is probably similar. The "video-encoder-bitrate" attribute also looks promising, though it would take some more advanced reverse engineering to figure out where the values are being set. So from what I've seen and read, here is what I think is and is not possible to modify on the NX1 and NX500: Remove time limit: Highly likely. Seems to be the same as the NX300. Pretty easy too, if there aren't any new security measures in place. Increased bitrate: Possible. Needs some real reverse engineering to find where the rates are set for each resolution and quality. Noise reduction and sharpening: Possible. Haven't seen anything that looks like it's controlling these, but if setting the bitrate works, this should be possible too. FWIW I think that increasing the bitrate would help with the noise reduction issues. H.265 tends to smooth things out a lot to achieve low bitrates. Re-enable 2.5k on NX500: Plausible but difficult. It depends on whether they just removed it from di-camera-app, or if they removed it from the underlying libraries as well. Either way it would likely require actually adding control flow to the binary, which opens a whole new can of worms. Beyond my current ability, for sure. Focus peaking for NX500 4k: Maybe? I have no idea, really. There might be a good reason they didn't include it, there might not. 4k crop on NX1: Plausible but even more difficult. We know the hardware can do it, but it was probably never implemented on the NX1, even in pre-production. Gamma profile on NX500: Plausible. Similar to porting the NX500's 4k crop to the NX1, I think. 6k 24fps H.265: Highly unlikely. The H.265 encoder would have to support frame sizes larger than DCI 4k and be able to handle twice the pixel rate (clock speed) of 4k. Furthermore it would require implementing a brand-new video mode at a very low level. I can't say for sure it's categorically impossible, but don't get your hopes up. 10bit H.265: Nope. The H.265 standard does indeed allow for 10bit encoding, but I highly doubt Samsung would include the significantly larger (wider busses, more complex encoding) hardware necessary to do it. It would be a miracle if Samsung had really decided to go to all that effort and not use it. 6k or full sensor 4k at more than 30fps or 1080p at (significantly) more than 120fps: Impossible. The image sensor simply isn't fast enough. If you hope for this you will just be disappointed! RAW Video: Not really. It might be theoretically possible to dump the live-view feed as in Magic Lantern. Who knows how fast the SD card interface is, though. Certainly no more than 1080p. I can imagine tricking the GPU into packing 12bit 4k RAW into 1080p 444 HDMI like Apertus, but consider that a pipe dream. Don't get your hopes up. Anyway, that was longer than I expected, but I enjoyed poking around in the firmware, so I don't regret it even if it comes to nothing. It's a shame Samsung appears to be dropping the NX line; they are cool little cameras. p.s. If you know anything I've said is wrong, please correct me; I'm learning this as I go along.

I own the lanparte gimbal and I wouldn't even bother trying a micro on it

Thanks for the nice comment Sudopera,

That's a battery drain, a pain to pair every time you turn on the camera and also unreliable, occasionally jerky and mostly pixilated. No thanks However since the Inogeni acts as a capture device, you don't know how much of the workload this takes over from the Android phone or tablet. The Android device might need to do very little with the signal once it has been converted to USB 3 by the capture device, which I am sure has dedicated hardware in it for the job. The general purpose CPU on the tablet probably doesn't need to do much. Just my opinion. If you have any hard evidence why the opposite is true I'd like to hear it and broaden my understanding. I am surprised there's so much chatter about this and so few people willing to just TRY it. No harm in that is there? I am tempted to find one on Amazon and return it if it doesn't work, no harm in trying.

Fine for monitoring. Remember idea here is not to compete with an Odyssey 7Q+... It's simply to make use of those lovely thin and portable AMOLED displays on our smartphones and tablets.

Piracy is a very emotive subject, especially for creators of pirated content, and I have been involved in three industries now which have dealth with piracy in different ways: Music, Video Games and as a Youtube producer. I feel because it is such an emotive subject, there is a lot of assumptions made and they can be incorrect, for example, every instance of piracy is a lost sale is a common attitude among publishers and studios in the video game industry, yet it is demonstratably false, and some studios report an increase in sales after a pirated version is released. So this is my 2p, and the reason I created an account to stop lurking here: Piracy is a service problem. Piracy was rampant in the music industry, it was and still is easy, the file sizes are small and nearly any album can be found and downloaded in 5 minutes flat. At first, the industry cracked down hard on the file sharers and site owners, however the legal system cannot keep pace with the internet and the vast majority of cases were dropped because digital evidence is notoriously expensive to collect, easy to manipulate and rarely is more than circumstantial. Besides which, for every site that gets taken down after a year of work, twenty more spring up, with more sophisticated defences against detection. Why then is the music industry, particularly the indie scene in rude health? Well, simply because it is easier to get digital music legally than it is illegally. People are definately willing to pay for music, and most people with the disposable income will pay for it if they can. Now, lets look at the most pirated tv show of 2015 - Game of Thrones. Lets look at how convienient it is to obtain legally in the UK. You can of course buy a DVD set of season 5, watch it "live" on sky or buy a Now TV pass. The most expensive option by far is Sky, costing a minimum of £400, though admittedly, this gets you 2 seasons - 24 month bundle and you get to record it, watch on your tv etc. A DVD is the cheapest option, at £20 for the season, though you have to wait until you can buy it. The middle option is to buy a now TV pass each month that an episode is broadcast, costing £21, if you're smart and you get to watch it live. The problem is, people are already paying for a Netflix subscription, Amazon Prime, Spotify, have a library of steam games, have a library of DVD's, and quite often, they just want to be in the loop. They don't care about game of thrones as much as talking about game of thrones with their friends, so the £20 is not something they're willing to pay. So they don't because it's just not worth the money + hastle of waiting or figuring out Now TV. These are not people who will pay for GoT anyway. If you implimented a perfect piracy prevention system, they would not pay. So the question is, if you can, as kaylee wishes, implement a perfect piracy protection system - which you never can - if it displays on a monitor, you can simply set up a dummy software monitor which "displays it" into a memory buffer and records it from there - but if you could and the budget made sense, they why wouldn't you? It's a service problem again. Yes, you may prevent piracy, but at what cost to your legitimate customers, the ones who gave you the full asking cost to watch your content. You make your product much worse for them, and that has proven time and time again to cost you customers. Gametrailers shut down this week, why, because of their insistance on using proprietry video player. The audience doesn't want to deal with "not as good as youtube", and so they just don't. They go elsewhere, even at the expense of missing out on that content. Kaylee, you could introduce some system with timed tokens and whatever, but all you would do is annoy people who gave you their money as halfway through watching your video, you get an error and they have to reload to start watching again, yet I promise you, the pirates who paid nothing, who stripped that system out of your video would be getting a better deal. You know what companies I will no longer buy from? Companies like EA, who's paying customers get a substandard product as a direct result of anti-piracy measures, when the pirates get the product the creaters intended. I think you just have to accept the basic premise that piracy happens, it's a cost of doing business over the internet - the business 99% of small content creators wouldn't have if it weren't for the internet. It's worth considering that not every pirate is a lost sale, if the content isn't worth it to them, if they cannot afford your content, then they never were going to give you the money. That they get the content anyway is maybe worth making peace with, and focus your efforts on making better content that appeals to more people, so that the balance shifts, that it becomes worth the asking price for more people, and the evidence suggests that if you do that, more people will pay for your content. Finally, it really is worth looking hard at the demographic of pirates. The research by Excipio shows that piracy is most common among the poorest, and youngest in their surveys - correlation is not causality, but can you so easily dismiss the idea that the $3 the Sundance Infographic tosses out as "only" when $2 is more than a days pay for half the worlds population - would you pay a day and a thirds pay for a movie? I wouldn't, because for me, that would, on a bad day be the equivilent of dropping £150. And yes, if you put the cost of access to your movie at £150, yes, I would pirate it.

If Sony stick with their usual (very careful) market segmentation, it'll have just enough limitations and lack just enough must have features such that it doesn't impact on A7 sales. When the full reviews come out, I'll bet there are loads of people on here and in other forums saying 'if only it had xx like the A7' or 'why didn't they give it xx, they could have done it easily'. I'll bet we're all just a bit disappointed...

apsc gh5 wouldn't make sense to me. the gh4 was also the first of that kind of camera to have 4k, and it's still the cheapest way to get 10-bit, if I'm not mistaken. the 96fps 1080p slowmo was pretty revolutionary at the time too. that's not really playing catch up. even low light when speed boosted is still pretty impressive, as you know. and it's the best for anamorphic too. others still need to catch up to panasonic

4K 60fps and/or 10bit internal, and that alone would "kill" the A6300 in the eyes of many people in favor of the GH5!! (of course there would still be many people who would hold out and prefer the A6300 of course, everything is all very subjective in the end as to which is more important than another factor or not) I somehow doubt the GH5 will however... but could be the GH6 would! A bit like the GH2 => GH3 => GH4 progression. I feel the GH2 to GH3 was more like a half step forward, but GH3 to GH4 was a GIANT LEAP! So GH4 => GH5 might just might be a consolidation and refinement stage, before they make another GIANT LEAP to the GH6? (organic sensor at last for the GH6?)

I'll say this. Its getting harder and harder for us to come up with excuses for not making films

A nice comparison 5dmarkII vs 5dmarkIII magic lantern raw. Both look very good, but you can see some aliasing issues on the 5dmk2:

Not true. You can shot slowmo in raw with the Markiii, not with Markii. Here's a video i made with my 5Diii