MattH

I went to Egypt the year before last, because I know people from there and indeed I do have them over for dinner. The cost of my house is irrelevant, but I will forgive your pomposity. Cairo is polluted as fuck! Industrial fumes, brick factories, burning trash and old cars all contribute. Yes the developing countries are producing things for western countries. I never said they didn't . But that is beside the point. We are talking about modern cars and whether they are destroying the environment as Russell Brand says. I mean as if he doesn't ever use a car. I bet he's got a fair few more air miles than the average person as well, as Jay Edgar will have if hes been to 40 countries.

I like Russel Brand, and he is well meaning, but god does he talk a load of bollocks. It's developing countries burning vast amounts of coal that produces pollution, not modern cars.

​To a certain extent that is true. Comedy on the bbc practically announced its retirement after the so called sachsgate so called scandal. And other commercial channels may be more free. But in TV there is still ofcom to deal with which exercises authority by its ability to legaly fine and even imprison people through the courts. Ofcom ruled that the use of the word 'slope' in top gear broke broadcasting rules because it was 'offensive'. Yes that's right, you aren't allowed to offend people any more. I don't know how this applies to films like The Deer Hunter for example. Maybe the fact that top gear purports to be factual makes a difference, or maybe they just won't show films or programs with 'offensive' language in them any more.

I think a big underlying issue with all the clarkson hate is Jealousy. People see him driving round in fast expensive cars, saying what he wants and getting paid millions for it and they can't handle it. However If it turns out that he did resort to violence that wasn't in self defence then that is obviously not acceptable. That is a seperate issue from all the things he says, which as far as I am concerned are jokes. The problem with all these moral witch hunts is that that people are crying wolf. They make it more likely that genuine cases of persecution will not get the attention they deserve.

On second look, on the first image the Ninga star examples seem to ad a red fringing to the left edge of the orange sqares. In the second image the ninja star examples have darker shadows on the leaves. It could be this that gives the impression of more detail. This is also aparent in image 3 where the ninja star examples seem sharper, but it is perhapse a more artificial sharpness.

I couldn't see much of a difference personally. Obviously the 10 bit would probably become apparent after grading. As far as the downscale, perhaps something with very fine detail and diagonal lines would bring out the differences.

​If the camera does a full pixel read out, it's the native resolution of the active sensor that makes the difference in readout speed. The resolution that it downscales to doesn't matter.

​It doesn't have better rolling shutter performance, It has a marginally faster readout because it uses less of the sensor vertically, but that doesn't translate to a better performance for the reason I give above. I was the one who worked out that it had a faster readout (in another forum) by the way . Until I explained it people thought the DCI 4k mode would have the same or longer readout, mistakenly thinking that because 4096 is bigger than 3840 it must take longer. But then I realised it doesn't make a difference anyway, unless you crop in horizontally as well and use a wider lens to give you an equivalent angle of view with a faster readout.

​ You are aware that adding the word ‘period’ on the end of a statement doesn’t make it true, right? Lets not take our communication style from fox news anchors. I notice you don’t offer any reasoning to support your statement. Nevertheless I will bite and provide further reasoning for mine: A sensor scans from top to bottom (if you discount lens flip) so vertical movements are not effected by rolling shutter effect but horizontal movements are. From this we can understand that the vertical crop will have no effect on rolling shutter, but horizontal crop will. Which I will support with this example: Lets say that we have a sensor with a 40 millisecond readout time when in 16 by 9 mode. We set the camera to 25 frames per second which gives a frame time of 40ms. So the read time is the same as the frame time. If we then point the camera at a pole and pan the camera at a speed such that the pole travels 9/16ths of a frame width in 40ms, then the pole will be skewed at a 45 degree angle. If we take a screen grab of that, then cut of the top quarter of the image and the bottom quarter of the image, giving a 16 by 4.5 ratio image, we will be left with an image that only took 20ms to scan. But will the angle of the pole be any less? The answer is of course, no. The pole will look exactly the same, we will just be seeing half of it. So a movement of a specific frame width ratio will produce the same amount of rolling shutter skew regardless of the vertical crop. We already agree that a horizontal crop and vertical crop combined (as in the crop mode of the a7s) will reduce rolling shutter skew, so I don’t need to explain how that works, but I will if anyone is interested.

The readout time is less but the apparent skew is not. You in effect create your proposed mode just by cropping in post. You dont see the start of the scan and you dont see the end. So the image that is still visible took les time to scan. So the readout time is less. But you dont watch the wider image on a wider screen, so the magnification is the same as if you hadn't bothered cropping, and so the apparent skew is the same. This is in contrast to the aps-c crop of the A7s which does result in a higher magnification and so the apparent skew is less.

​I guess the name got attention in the same way that my post did. If it works fair enough.

True. Although in some cases there is a clear objective truth. Some people see it clearly and others are delusional. Not everything is subjective.

Why is it called dog shit optics? Is it supposed to be funny? Is it supposed to get my attention? How does associating the product with dog shit making me want to buy it? It just makes me think it must be shit quality made by immature people. Best case for a re-brand ever!

If the c300 mk2 does 4k internally then the c500 mk2 will have to be announced simultaneously because the c500 will have been completely out specced. Maybe its still possible that the c300 mk2 will only give 1080p but now with 10 bit option. And with 4k output but only at 8 bit. 60p in both but nothing more. Then the c500 mk2 would have internal 10 bit 4k, and High speed 1080p options. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened.

I've come to the conclusion that the majority of posts online are people talking to themselves. I sometimes write something in a word document and then don't even bother to post it. It was enough that I typed it. There's nothing wrong with sharing it, its just the majority of people are two into themselves to care and reply, unless it relates directly to them. But you seem to have a positive enough philosophy to not need the approval of others.

I very much doubt the NX1 will output 10 bit. Probably 8 bit 4:2:0. The star will output a 10 bit 4:2:2 file but it wont be true 10 bit 4:2:2. But it will be all i-frame unlike what is recorded in camera. Uncompressed output means that you are getting it before the h.264 or h.265 bullshit gets to it so neither the ninja star nor the atamos shogun will record h.265, so you can forget h.265 exists. So yeah you are paying to use one of the easiest codecs instead of using the codec that is the biggest pain in the ass. The problem with the star is that you would have to be sure you wanted to shoot HD most of the time.

Nice journal entry to yourself. Its a bit to long to expect many people to read it all. I read about half. As long as you learn the stuff that you feel you need to eventually, qualifications mean nothing. Never let anybody put you down (or rather never let yourself put yourself down due to what you assume others to think) merely for not having a particular qualification.

I propose a better 1080p mode. 4k provides excellent detail, but the extreme rolling shutter skew is an issue. The NX1 is scanning 3545 lines in UHD mode, which takes 33ms. 1080p mode has a readout of less than 10ms, so it seems like the camera must be skipping 3 out of every 4 lines to achieve this. (This is under the assumption that scanning speed cannot be increased by missing out pixels horizontally. I am free to be informed otherwise). If this is in fact the case then this would mean a vertical resolution of 886 which is obviously then up-scaled to 1080. This would account for the distinct reduction in detail in this mode and the distinct aliasing present on straight lines. What I think would be useful is a halfway house: Scan every other line for a vertical resolution of 1772 and then downscale that to 1080. This would half rolling shutter but increase detail in 1080p mode. And presumably aliasing would be minimal. (at least less than it currently is in 1080p) (you may have realized that 3545/2 is 1772.5. Obviously you cant have half a pixel so you would have to just forget the 0.5. This would result in a vertical stretch of just 0.028% which would be utterly imperceptible. To make it sweeter, offer it in a H.264 option. If not 10 bit then at least 4:2:2 50mbps.

Looking in 1080 they all looked suitably detailed. Although there was nothing particular in the scene that would provoke any issues like aliasing, all cameras handled the scene well in that regard. I thought the c100 was a little bit over sharp but I've always thought that about the c100/c300. I also noticed that one thing I disliked about the ungraded c100 shot is that it seemed over exposed. In your grade you darken it quite a bit, so I think if the exposure had been slightly less if might have looked right without needing much of a grade. But to say it looked over exposed it recovered well. One thing I seemed to have noticed in c100 videos is that under exposed areas seem to blockey due to compression. This video shows what i'm talking about particularly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuVT9MJrBvM in the dark areas of the water it actually looks cleaner at higher ISOs. Is that something you have noticed, or is that just web compression?

There does seem to be a difference in browsers. Chrome seems a little redder, but it also seems to have darker shadows which makes the red that is there deeper. I suppose its something look for and maybe to compensate for. Can I ask did you choose to upload the video at 720p. I don't know if it is a recent change in vimeo but it seems most tests I have seen recently are in 720 instead of 1080. With no options to download 1080 either. It seems a little difficult to evaluate quality when the image is either small or stretched. Surely most people have at least native 1080 monitors these days. It also would have been nice to see c-log as well, but I'm glad you tested wideDR. The following comments are from viewing on firefox. From what I could see at this resolution (colour and tone), ungraded, the FS7 looked about equal to 5d3 raw. The c100 looked video-like in tone and sharpness and skin looked pink. Graded I thought the 5d3raw looked best. The c100 actually looked ok graded. The FS7 looked the worst particularly in the first shot. Obviously I just didn't like the grade. Always useful to see these tests, so thanks. If it comes available at 1080p I will give it another look.

​UHD is Ultra high definition or Quad HD. Its 4 times the resolution of 1080. twice as wide, twice as tall. When the vast majority of people say 4k they mean UHD. As for what the difference is specifically in the NX1: UHD will give an extremely detailed picture even when down-scaled to 1080p in an editor. It will also be a cleaner image mostly free of moire and aliasing. The downside is the rolling shutter, which will result in things slanting when you pan and micro jitters if the lens isn't stabilized. 1080p will give a noticeably less detailed image, but still ok compared to a canon dslr. There will be more aliasing and some moire in certain circumstances, but the upside is that there will be virtually no rolling shutter problems so it will be fine to move the camera about quite freely.

​​I agree that a flawed image feels more real. A film shot on a bad digital camera looks like a back stage access documentary watching actors at work rather than giving the impression of a fictional world. So it depends what you are going for.

​I purposely didn’t write “quest for knowledge” as I realised it sounded douchey. But passion for knowledge isn’t really right either. What I mean it that I want to know all the fine details I can about a camera. I don’t want to sell it short or give it praise without being totally aware of what it is and isn’t capable off. Maybe that is being too picky, I couldn’t say. But given that is my goal, I want people to be as particular and specific as possible. So any comment that dissuades that goes against my interest which is why I took exception to your comment. It struck me as the typical kind of “why do you care?” comment I see on forums which always seems pointless and just throwing a spanner in the works for no reason. I always think “oh, fuck off” when I read comments like that. And this time I said what I thought. From your previous comments relating to transcoding I take it that you have the NX1. Your angle seems more understandable with that in mind. You would rather hear praise about it than criticism. I get that. You are also right that many, if not most people will not produce anything fantastic. So I suppose I can’t fault you for saying that. Although if anyone ever does produce something fantastic I would rather see it shot on a camera with an impeccable image.

​Although it looks as if it makes a difference, I took screenshots into photoshop and it turns out you can make the 0-255 look just like the 16-235 by (you've guessed it) setting the output levels to 16-235. So Samuel H is right. So the transcoding process must be working full range. So there is actually no reason not to shoot 0-255 if you are going to grade.

​I am here because I’m interested in the minutiae of technical camera specifications and capabilities. That was sort of the point of my response. That you are criticising behaviour that is the entire purpose for most people even being here. Its like going to an antique website and saying “What do you care how old it is”? It’s perfectly acceptable to hold that point of view, but then why go to an antique website? And you could hardly expect to go to an antique website with that point of view and not be told to fuck off. It doesn’t matter why I want to learn about the minutiae of technical camera specifications and capabilities. I do it for my own reasons. I certainly do not do it with any concern to providing you with material you may or may not care about. Your comment was supercilious and a pathetically transparent attempt to belittle peoples interests and curtail their passion for knowledge. Therefore, it deserved nothing but antipathy.