tupp

A speed booster in front of an APS-C sensor allows the sensor to utilize almost the entire image circle of full frame lens -- that means you are getting the full resolving power from that lens, plus you are getting shallow DOF on wider views, plus you are gaining about one stop in exposure! If you use full frame lenses on smaller sensors without some kind of speed booster or focal reducer, you are just throwing away resolving power of the lens. Also, as many have stated in different ways, shallower mounts on the camera allow a lot more versatility.

Yes. That's right! Professionals never use speedboosters/focal-reducers! Likewise, professionals would not care to have a mount that takes tilt-swing/tilt-shift adapters nor adapters that allow behind-the-lens filtration. Furthermore, a professional would never want a camera that can be adapted to Canon EF, Nikkor and PL (and almost anything else). I mean, think of all the pros who own Canon and/or Nikkor glass -- why would such pros ever want to be able to go to a rental house to use high-end PL lenses? .../s

If this rumor is true, I find it troubling for two reasons. Firstly, Samsung is a member of the open source Tizen consortium and Tizen is the open source OS used on the NX cameras, and Nikon is not a member. Samsung has binary blobs that deal with most of the cameras' functionality, but given that the OS is open source, there is hope that code/functionality could eventually be modified and enhanced by end users. I doubt that Nikon sees the potential of open source, and it is possible that they might even take measures to thwart attempts by end users to modify/enhance functionality. Secondly, consolidation is generally a bad thing for end users, in that it removes competition and innovation and breeds manufacturer complacency and hubris. There has been entirely too much consolidation/mergers in this and many other industries. The more players in manufacturing, the better.

@Gonzalo Ezcurra This rig is great! I hope you keep shooting with it and keep posting videos. Somehow, I missed your May 2014 post showing the "street" version. Did you remove the motorization? By the way, have you ever played around with the swing/tilt on the Omega View stage?

Thanks for expediting the release of the Micro Cinema Camera with your BMPCC order! Just curious: How much was the shipping from Paris to L.A.?

Probably there are many lenses that will give such blurred highlights. Here is a shot from a US$24 Fujian 35mm f1.7: This image came from this page, and here are some Ebay listings for the Fujian 35mm. Here is a screen capture from a test I did with a tilt/swing adapter and an old (1960s) Nikkor 50mm f1.4 lens: It seems that the size, brightness and focus of the highlights affect their appearance as "soap bubbles." In the dragonfly example that you gave, note that there are two bright bokeh highlights on the left side that appear more like overlapping, solid, bright circles (rather than like "soap bubbles"). Their bright "rim" also appears to be thicker. In the tilt/swing example directly above, note that the smaller, more distant, out-of-focus and dimmer, green signal lights look more like soap bubbles than the brighter and closer (bigger), and less blurred headlights and signal light. So, ideally, the highlights should be small (tiny points) that are relatively dim and, of course, as out-of-focus as possible.

I have the Lilliput 5dii/o/p. It has peaking and false color, and it is inexpensive (US$239 on Amazon). Works great with the BMPCC. With a GH2, evidently the monitor must be set to "underscan" to get the entire frame. In regards to this monitor's cons, the colors aren't the best (nor brightest) I've seen in a field monitor, and the included lens hood is extremely delicate -- don't let anyone open nor close it who is not familiar with how it works. Also, the included battery died after a couple of charges, and Lilliput customer service here in the USA is not very good.

Of course, a lot depends on the "resolution" or graininess of the film stock. Off the top of my head, the two extremes on the film resolution scale would be two discontinued Kodak stocks from the still photography world -- Royal-X Pan (1600ASA, extremely coarse grain) and Technical Pan (25ASA, extremely fine grain). Royal-X in a 65mm format might have a resolution comparable to less than 4K. Technical Pan in a 65mm frame would probably exhibit a resolution comparable to 12K and higher, especially if it were pulled one stop. That certainly would be wonderful. Second to that, it would be great if someone made a medium format speed booster with highly optimized optics behind the ground glass.

The Canon EOSM2 with an 18mm-55mm lens is $297 at Amazon.

I understood that the focus changes when you stop recording. I was giving you some work-arounds in lieu of a proper NX1 solution from someone familiar with the camera/lenses. If there isn't a better solution, you could just focus after each time you press record or try covering the contacts with electrical tape, as I mentioned. Of course, you could also just use a manual lens from some other manufacturer. Be careful using peaking with tight apertures -- critical focus might not be where you would like.

Don't have an NX1, but, if there is a menu setting to disable auto-focus, you might try doing so. If you have a few seconds to manually focus after you press record, it should be easy to solve your problem, especially if you can use any of the NX1's focusing aids during recording. With one or two seconds, I can get critical sharpness without focus aids (years of experience focusing on ground glass). There is an easy trick to this that takes just a little practice, which I am happy to share. However, you can of course use the focus aids on an external monitor while recording. I prefer digital zoom over other focus features (such as peaking, or momentary auto-focus), because one can see exactly where critical focus falls on the subject, especially when using tighter apertures. Another possibility is to put a tiny strip of tape over the lens' contacts.

Not sure it's that simple. There certainly must be generally shared image processing methods, but, no doubt, some cameras process their images differently at various stages. Actually, I am not sure if their is an agreed-upon definition of "color science."

Some older light sources using low frequency ballasts will flicker no matter what you do (unless you can change the frame rate to jibe with the light's output frequency). There still remain fluorescents, sodium vapor, mercury vapor, HMI (magnetic ballast) that are driven by such low frequency ballasts. LED sources are also sometimes driven at lower frequencies and cause flicker.

A friendly reminder: Keep that infected lens away from your other lenses/gear. Don't put it in the same bag/case that you use to carry uninfected lenses/gear.

If I could collect a dozen of the 1000-krona bills, I'd get an NX1. It's all about the "Hammarskjölds!"

Wow! That's spectacular currency!

Agreed. This is a cool bill. What will be the denomination of the Garbo bill? Thanks for posting that cool, historic photo of Eastman and Edison! By the way, it was shot at a 1928 demo of Kodacolor film (motion picture cameras weren't really "new inventions" at the time). Here's footage of the same event. The camera is a Bell & Howell 2709, which first appeared in 1911. Here's Sam Dodge with a 1928 version of of the 2709.

Don't know if this unit has been discussed here, but I imagine that in the near future we will be seeing a few more of these single-handled gimbals with semi-dedcated cameras.

I was about to make these very same suggestions. The only drawback to this path for the OP is that he is evidently already significantly invested in Canon glass (no aperture control on lens). So, unless there is an option for a powered EF speed booster that enables aperture control, OP would probably have to get/rent new lenses (and sell his Canon lenses).

Don't belittle Lukas' crucial foundation work. He did most of the heavy lifting for those that followed, and he did it only May of last year. Obviously, the NX hacks moved farther because of his work. The Lukas rooting of NX cameras led to this work (and this work), which led to the simple work of your boy on DP Review disabling the video time/file-size limit. Your boy acknowledges the immediate upstream source, and that source acknowledges Lukas. From the comments on Lukas' page, there are evidently others who are also hacking the NX cameras, thanks to him.

"They" got to root level.

Okay. I think we agree that archival optical disks, such as the 1000-year Millenniata disk, will outlast film by centuries and will also survive an "über-sunstorm." Thus, film is already soundly trumped by digital in archival scenarios. However, I would still be interested in hearing about any incident in which a magnetic field from an über-sunstorm has ruined a disconnected hard drive.

You don't have to take my word for it. Just consider this -- how many times have you heard of "sunstorms" ruining DVDs or disconnected hard drives? I can't recall ever hearing of such a problem.

That would definitely have to be a strong "sunstorm." Not only would it also probably melt your film, but people would probably spontaneously combust.

Not exactly. If you keep a hard drive disconnected and in cold storage, the data on the discs should last a very long time, as should the mechanical components. No one knows for sure how long a hard drive will last in this scenario, as we have not yet reached the point of failure in such a case. With a stored, disconnected drive, I would imagine that the capacitors in the hard drive's circuitry will go bad sooner than a breakdown in the mechanics or with the info on the disk. Those tapes are digital, not analog. And that tape suffers the same deterioration problems as regular audio tape -- the magnetic layer separates/flakes-off the base layer as the tape ages. By the way, there used to be countless "digital/analog" computer tape systems. I still have one. The computer encodes digital files into analog audio beeps/tones (similar to modems) which can be recorded almost any audio tape recorder. That system is different than the digital tape system that you mention. With film, the image/dyes still progressively fade during that 100+ years (and the base becomes more and more brittle). And, again, film cannot be copied without generational loss. Actually, there exists digital media that have already lasted for centuries (and that still work!). Music boxes using pins and spaces on cylinders (as their digital "ones" and "zeros") first appeared in the 1200s. By 1800, music boxes using metal disks (with holes and lack of holes) started to appear and became popular in that century. Metal discs from the 1800s are still being played by enthusiasts today, and they sound exactly as they did in the 1800s. So, digital mediums can last for a very long time and not suffer any degradation of quality. (It is also kind of cool that digital audio recording existed centuries prior to the arrival of analog audio recording.) Certainly, it would be cumbersome and inefficient to try to encode video files to music box cylinders and disks. On the other hand, there exist long-lasting digital media that can do so compactly and efficiently. The Millenniata disk is expected to keep digital data up to 1000 years, as it uses microscopic engraved pits to record data, instead of dyes that can fade. Likewise, "pressed" CDs/DVDs use physical pits to store data, in contrast to common "burned" CDs/DVDs which use dyes. Pressed disks are projected to last up to 300 years. Of course, the average eoshd.com poster won't have a disk press connected to their laptop. but some "burnt" optical disks have stable dyes that are estimated to last 100-250 years. And again, it is difficult to know how long a hard drive will last stored and disconnected. However, it is immaterial that all of these digital mediums have a superior lifespan to film, merely due to two facts: 1. digital files can be repeatedly copied with absolutely no generational loss; 2. there is no automatic, progressive fading/degradation of the information as a digital file sits in storage. These two abilities allow digital files to last forever exactly as they were originally. If the same could be done with film, then it could last forever, too.