Mozim

If you actually remember when you downloaded the trial version of Color Finale, you can simply set back the clock of your computer manually to the date you downloaded the trial version and it'll work again. It's a fantastic product and of course I strongly advise to support them by purchasing their product, but still, this will work.

The D750 is fantastic both for stills and for video. It's not as flashy on paper as other cameras but it's rock solid and the results are stunning... sort of like the Canon C100 / C300 – it simply gets the job done and footage looks great. Colors are beautiful and the flat profile is extremely easy to grade, yet dynamic range is really good. Which lenses do you already own? For video work the 24-120 mm F/4 IS is a really good option, too. Gives you 90% of the range you need for video, it has in-built stabilization and F/4 doesn't look too bad on a full-frame sensor.

That's great to hear, thanks. I shoot lots of action sports so 120fps continuous recording is a huge advantage. I usually don't have time to record sound with an external recorder, so recording 120fps with sound allows me to either slow down the footage quite a bit or play it back at realtime and use the original sound that I recorder. Makes sense? :D

Andrew, thanks for the info! Does the a6300 record sound when shooting 1080p/120fps?

I'm not expecting a tiny mirrorless camera for $1k (or 1400€) to be the perfect camera. I really wanted to like this camera – as a sports shooter 120 fps instead of 60 fps would have been awesome. I'm also not saying Canon build better cameras but in a way I feel like Sony is doing the exact opposite as Canon. They implement as many features that sound fantastic but in reality it's a bit of a letdown (at least to me). Canon on the other hand is very, very slow at implementing exciting features but when they do, they usually work really well. I'm not saying that either approach is ideal. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts about the a6300!

NX1 rolling shutter is pretty awful, too, and many people complained about it. Rolling shutter, 1080p is fairly soft, 1080p 120fps is very soft, no headphone jack, questionable button placement, no touchscreen, battery life. If it fits your style of shooting then that's great.

This looks like a fantastic camera for people who have a rolling shutter fetish. Between this and Jordan's honest opinion, I will definitely stay away from the a6300. It looks fantastic on paper but that's about it. It's not just Canon that is crippling their cameras on purpose.

In my experience with Panasonic cameras, you should avoid using LUTs. I haven't shot with VLog (I'm a GH3 owner) but whenever using LUTs I have to dial them down a lot in order not to destroy the footage. What happens is that your greens will turn into yellow / brown and your reds will look off, too. This is exactly what happened with the footage you posted the other day, too. I really enjoy the GH3 and other Panasonic cameras for the image quality, conveniance, battery life etc. but I'm getting to a point where I simply don't want to use the camera anymore because of the colors. I use Final Cut Pro X, Color Finale and IWLTBAP LUTs that you can purchase from benymypony. What I usually do is I do basic color correction (highlights, shadows and mids) and then apply a Delut that flattens the image (9090) and then use whatever LUT is pleasing for the particular project. I usually dial down both LUTs to around 50% opacity. After that I do a few minor tweaks. Keep in mind that the footage isn't LOG footage, so be careful using LUTs. It brings your footage to life when you have LOG footage but doesn't work well with regular footage. Color Finale is a fantastic plugin for FCPX in my experience but your results will strongly depend on the camera you've shot the project with.

Apologies for possibly taking things a bit out of context but I'm really, really hoping that you're not being serious. Drinking lemon water instead of coffee and cigarettes will affect your health positively because you don't consume caffeine and other toxic crap. It's not going to change your attitude towards your job, help you deal with insecurities, affect the social support you receive from friends and family etc. Working a regular 9-to-5 job doesn't neccessarily have to be sh*t. You're well-aware that it's not a dichotomy, right? There's surprisingly very little research about the way your psychological and physical health are affected by characteristics that usually go along with creative jobs. Lots of research has been done about job characteristics and their affect on health, happiness, work attitudes etc. but usually the sample consists of people working in regular jobs. That in itself is a big issue because "creative" people are extremely dependant on their personal health because you usually don't get paid when you're ill. Certain job characteristics are different compared to regular jobs as well and some of these characteristics will have a negative affect on your health, too. Plus job uncertainty most likely has a very negative effect on mental and physical health, job attitudes, job satisfaction and ultimately life satisfaction. As I said, there's surprisingly very little research about it but it doesn't mean it's an issue that should not be taken seriously.

I've used the Panasonic GH3 fairly extensively for Steadycam work. The 1080p/50fps looks fine. To be honest I never noticed any moiré or aliasing. I usually use it with a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 stopped down to f/4. The only things that really do bother me are the dynamic range (or lack thereof) and the colors. In fact I've used the Nikon D750 as my A-Cam for almost a year now and when shooting with both the GH3 and the D750, I find myself hating the GH3 image more and more. The colors look wrong and it's very difficult to match them. I love the D750 but it's not going to be as sharp or detailed as the GH3. You mention that the D750 doesn't have a very high internal bitrate or internal focus peaking. Both don't really matter when shooting steadycam stuff. The image grades extremely well, way better than it should anyway. And you're not going to need internal focus peaking if you're shooting at <24mm - unless you're doing super high end stuff, and in that case you're not going to rely on the internal focus peaking anyway.

@ Ebrahim: Would you choose your tweaked Standard PP over the Flat PP on the D750?

I've shot a bit of stuff on the Sony FS7 and as far as I know, the FS7 and FS5 share the same sensor. There are minor differences and the codec is vastly superior on the FS7 (or should I say the 4K codec on the FS5 is garbage?). Still, the FS7 delivers near-perfect 1080p in terms of resolution and I can't see a reason why the 1080p of the FS5 should look like this mushy stuff that was posted in here. When the NX1 was released, the 4K looked spectacular but the 1080p didn't look very exciting. I know there have been firmware upgrades that apparantly improved the 1080p quality since then. Is the quality now comparable to 4K without the ability to zoom in / pan / crop the image in post? If so, then that'd be fantastic!

I'm afraid you're wrong, no experience with the NX1 whatsoever. I'm not saying that the NX1 footage that was posted in this topic looks incredible, although I'm a bit shocked (in a positive way) how good the 1080p looks in comparison to the first few firmware versions. What I was trying to point out is that the FS5 footage looks really, really bad and I doubt that that's what the camera is actually capable of shooting. It simply looks like the focus is way off. There's very little detail, the branches in the foreground are out of focus, all the detail looks mushy. The 4K codec of the FS5 is awful so I never really considered it to be a 4K camera, but I was expecting the 1080p to look really, really good and it looks really, really bad for no obvious reason.

Well in the video that was posted above, the FS5 looks awful and the NX1 looks great, no matter what mode it was shot in. It's hard to tell the difference between NX1 4K and NX1 1080p and it's hard to tell the difference between FS5 4K and FS5 1080p. Both FS5 modes look way worse than both NX1 modes, even the FS5 4K looks worse than the NX1 1080p. The NX1 performs great but that FS5 footage is seriously flawed, so it's hard to compare it to the NX1 really.

I have a hard time believing that the NX1s 1080p looks better or at least equal than the FS5s 4K and 1080p.

Nice video Bror! I haven't seen any freestyle scootering videos before but the riding looks spot on, too. Some observations: - The song felt a bit too edited. I haven't heard that remix before so it may very well be that it wouldn't have fit your video otherwise, but the way it was edited was a bit distracting every now and then. - Some of the nature shots didn't fit the pace of the video in my opinion. They are very well-edited, I just felt like they were a bit too fast-paced. Give the viewer some time to breathe. - I understand the desire to show all your technical tricks in slow mo but personally I think it's cool to see them played back in real time. It's hard to understand how quickly everything happens unless you show it in real time every now and then, so I always like to see extreme sports videos that don't incorporate too much slow mo. The slow mo shots did look really cool, it's just personal preference! Are there any must see freestyle scootering videos? I shoot lots of mountainbike stuff and always like to check out video of other "extreme" sports.

The difference between 24p and 25p is minimal and I doubt anyone will notice the difference. If flickering lights could potentially be an issue then make sure to stick to 25p when shooting in Europe.

Thanks Nick! Yeah I guess I'll play around with it tomorrow when I get it and then see how it goes. I haven't had a lot of time to read about the FS7 but then again NDs, aperture and shutter speed aren't exactly rocket science. Going above ISO 2000 won't be an issue so I'm not worried about that. Is there anything else I need to pay attention to when I shoot in the Cine EI mode? As far as I'm aware, you can't change a whole lot when shooting in that setting. So my idea is to set the camera to the Cine EI-mode, then chose SLOG 3 picture style / color gamut, adjust exposure / shutter speed / white balance / ND and then start shooting. Does that sound about right? Also, what's the best way to expose when shooting in Cine EI / SLOG 3? So far I've always relied on the histogram of my cameras. I've read that I should set the Zebras to 66% when shooting in SLOG3, is that correct? And does the FS7 need to be overexposed by 2 stops like the A7s? Again, thanks for all the help!

I'll be shooting with a Sony FS7 that I just rented. It's a personal project and I'll have my Nikon D750 (which I love) with my but I'd like to experiment with 4K/60p and high frame rates, so the FS7 made sense. I'm not very familiar with Sony cameras. Are there any issues or quirks that I should be aware of and avoid? Also, as far as I understand there are several different picture styles with different color gamuts. I'd like to give SLOG3 a try and use the Cine EI, so if I understood everything correctly that will give me the most dynamic range and I'll shoot at the native ISO of 2000. What's the best way to set exposure then?

Similiar conclusions here after having used Premiere for a couple of days. I tried to cut an entire project (that I cut before in FCPX) in Premiere to get familiar with the program. Some things seem a lot less intuitive because I'm not used to the program, other things are a lot less intuitive because that's the way the program works. I think the overall color grading in Premiere is great but editing, clip organization etc. in FCPX suits my workflow much better. I'll stick with FCPX if I need to edit something quickly. Knowing the basics in Premiere will definitely be helpful in the future though! Color Finale is a plugin that I regularly use, mainly to apply LUTs to my footage. That's one of the things I hate about FCPX; you can't use your own LUTs. So I usually do my basic color corrections with the built in correction tools, apply a one of the IWLTBAP LUTs that suits the footage and set the LUT opacity somewhere between 30% and 70%. Another really cool plugin for FCPX is Oliver Color. It allows you to adjust exposure, contrast, saturation, highs mids and lows, hue and a couple other things... and it's free. https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/building-a-free-fcp-x-color-correction-filter/

Thanks for starting this topic. I just checked out Premiere for the first time and the Lumetri panel does look very good! Very easy and intuitive to use. I played around with Davinci Resolve as well, which while usable won't necessarily speed up or simplify my workflow. Lumetri reminds me of FCPX (in a good way), just a bit more advanced. I also like the fact that you apply LUTs very easily. One question though: When I set up a new project Premiere allows me to adjust the render settings (either with or without GPU acceleration). When I chose either one of the GPU acceleration modes, the preview image in the program will look like it's a corrupted file. It plays back fine but as soon as I pause the clip, the colours will look funky and I can't correct or grade the clips anymore. I'm on a mid-2013 15" Retina MacBoook Pro with NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1024 MB graphics and my graphic card has been acting really weird lately. Should I stay away from GPU-accelerated rendering with that setup?

I've been using the Nikon D750 for the past 8 months or so and I'm really happy so far. I picked it up with the 24-120mm F4 kit lens because I wanted to have a camera/lens combo that is suitable for almost all shooting scenarios. My other camera is a Panasonic GH3 and I've been shooting with that for almost two years now. When I compare them side-by-side, I find the GH3 image to be sharper and more detailed. That may be down to the lenses I use though (25mm F1.4 prime on the GH3 vs zoom lens on the D750). The D750 battery life is also a lot worse but that was to be expected. I just have to remind myself to shut off the live view when not shooting. Dynamic range of the D750 is incredible - highlight roll off is much nicer and there's a lot more detail and less noise in the shadows. I also prefer having a LCD viewfinder attached to the back of the screen as opposed to shooting through an EVF and pressing my nose into the back of the screen. When editing, I find myself using a lot more D750 footage than GH3 footage. This is completely unintentionally as I really enjoy both cameras. I wish there was peaking, 4K or higher frame rates. On the other hand, everything Nikon implemented works really, really well. I thought about picking up a Sony A7s or a Samsung NX1 but I'd rather have less features that work reliably than tons of features that are plagued with bugs or aren't really usable. One of the main reasons for picking up the D750 for me was how quickly the camera market is changing. The D750 may be outdated for video in a year or two but even then, it'll be an incredible camera for taking stills. I was hesitant to buy an A7s because I was afraid that the resale value would decline like crazy... guess what happened when the A7sII was announced? Feel free to check out some of my videos here: https://vimeo.com/moritzzimmermann/videos

Hey, does anyone know if the Nikon D750 can output 1080p/50fps through HDMI? I know the question is very similar to the one that was posted earlier about the A7s HDMI output but I don't want to derail that topic. I haven't been able to find any information about the Nikon D750 HDMI output at 50fps. Thanks! Moritz

Alright, so I just got back from a week of shooting a Downhill video in Sanremo, Italy. I shot the video with both the D750 with the 24-120mm f/4 lens and my old Panasonic GH3 with a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, a Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 and a Olympus 45mm f/1.8 lens. Some observations: - detail and resolution are very comparable, both shoot perfectly fine, detailed 1080p and I can't see myself needing anything more detailed, at least this season/year - the screen of the D750 is extremely nice and it's much better than the GH3 screen - dynamic range and colours are much better on the D750 - the flat picture style is great and very easy to work with - the D750 menu is fairly responsive and very intuitive - I had to remind myself to switch off the live view whenever I wasn't shooting video, otherwise battery would run out very quickly - GH3 is a lot better in that regard - Auto ISO is such a nice feature on the D750 - it is perfectly usable and I'm sure I'll use it a lot - it was very liberating to shoot with one lens instead of switching lenses between each shot and a f/2.8 on a GH3 simply won't give me a desirable look - in terms of stills performance, even with a fairly average and slow f4 kit lens, the D750 is such a huge step up from the GH3 - even if it sucked for video I would keep it because of the stills performance Overall I'm very happy so far. I would have loved to get an A7s, a NX1 or an FS7 but they all have some major drawbacks for my style of shooting (rolling shutter, ergonomics and price). I haven't done any scientific comparisons between the D750 and the GH3 but I'll upload some clips in a bit.

Thanks for the feedback! I pulled the trigger and bought the D750 with a Nikon 24-120mm F4 IS lens yesterday. I only got the chance to test the video performance very, very briefly but compared to my GH3, the dynamic range and low light performance is much, much better. ISO 1600 looks very usable and shadows and highlights look much more pleasing. So far I really like it!