MarcTGFG

Obviously a scam, Amazon seller accounts have been hacked. Not legit :-((((

Amazing how you guys have improved on the original firmware. That made me buy a used NX1 with 16-50 PZ lens through Amazon market place today for 460 €. Too good to be true? I am a little bit anxious whether this is a scam or I got really lucky... Keep up the good work and thank you for putting so much energy in this project!!!

Samsung UK isnt Samsung International, they might simply not have knowledge oft the deal yet. Also look at the wording: Could mean lots of things! 1. The media reports about it are not true (inaccuracies) 2. The term "buying" (not buying, but licensing 3. The term "NX technology" (maybe only technology not related to the NX mount itself, just sensor and processor) Lots of ways to spin themselves out of such a statement. Also remember, that Samsung UK denied "having plans" to pull out of the camera market, to confirm it a while later.

Yeah, why would professionals want to use all the glass they already own for different cameras and mounts if they could just give them to charity and "buy real lenses" ;-) <3

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.

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.

I was looking for current box office figures to maybe backup my feelings, but they aren't split into 2D/3D or SFR/HFR, unfortunately. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit3.htm But I found this report on the first Hobbit movie: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/17/3776250/reactions-to-the-hobbit-in-HFR-3d-48fps

Andrew, I can see it now too, the 1DC seems to have a slight edge in DR. BUT the much more obvious lack of detail in the 1DCs footage is VERY distracting, so it might be a good idea, to choose lenses and focus in a way to get the maximum resolution out of both. Just to make sure we can discuss dynamic range without any distraction. :-)

interesting thought, fuzzynormal. I'm not sure I can test this setup properly though.

I was sitting in the sixth row in Colognes biggest cinema theatre, so I was pretty close, maybe too close. But I am also shortsighted, which should have blurred the image for me. I thought the picture was too detailed and sharp. I guess those things are a matter of taste which is hard to argue about. I believe we can agree on this: A movie is failing, if the technical characteristics poke you in the eye!

Andrew, you say that it's 3D and HFR and not 4K that destroys the filmic experience. Maybe so. But maybe its a conflation of all three aspects!? I'm actually tempted to watch The Hobbit again in 2D 4K 24p to be able to compare.

Last night I watched the much anticipated conclusion of the Hobbit trilogy. And sadly I have to concur with all the people who said, that 3D HFR looks absolutely dreadful. Look, I have been a huge fan of "Lord of the Rings", I love fantasy, I love the feeling to be swept into another world, taken to another time and led to magical illusionary places. The Hobbit fails on all counts, at least in 3D HFR. For the whole movie I was so distracted by the technical aspects that I couldn't build any "relationship" with the protagonists. Whereas in LOR I would tend to empathize and even cry, many scenes in the Hobbit are rather cringeworthy, even those that were probably meant otherwise. The look reminded me of computer games which might be the reason, why younger movie goers I spoke to, showed a distinctly different response. But the overly photorealistic, plasticky impression makes me concentrate on the tons of make up instead of the facial expressions, on the visibly artificial scene and furnishings instead of the grand (?) tale, on the sheer plethora of detail and resolution instead of the plot. The 3D distracts from the main things happening in the movie, instead leading viewers to get lost in the multiple planes of view. The HFR destroys the filmic impression, by taking away 24p motion blur, which really lends itself to fantasy and accentuates its magic potency. Besides that, The Hobbit is also a rather mediocre motion picture IMHO. Flat, almost comical dialogues, very few unexpected turns and a main actor thats simply not as likable and convincing as in LOR. And of course, the trilogy could and should have been conflated into one movie. Now, why am I posting this? Just to vent? No, because, as many camera nerds around here, I was so excited to read all information about the new 4K cameras (especially the NX1) and got all worked up about getting more resolution. But after watching The Hobbit I have concluded that more resolution and sharpness is mostly not needed (at least not for fantasy, drama, comedy, maybe for documentaries, news and porn) and that it can actually subtract from the viewing experience. Insofar the Hobbit has been an epiphany for me: I will now concentrate more on color science, dynamic range, lowlight abilities, stabilization, handling and highlight roll off among other things. 4K is certainly not dead, it has many uses, especially as an aquisition format (in-post stabilization, zoom, downscaling, green screen work), but I don't see it as the be-all and end-all of cameras. End of rant.

Overall very very impressive, though I clearly noticed banding on the wall in the background of Kawsar Ahmeds YT-video. How about 10 Bit output, Samsung?

The only quality options are still 360p and 720p and I am logged in to YouTube.

I did that but I cannot see any "Download" option at the respective YT page.