neosushi

I dont think that in the end it changes anything regarding dynamic range. I think it is just a way of communicating info to your nle. There was an article that described that very well I'll see if I can find it and post it :/

​Thanks for sharing this knowledge with us BTW fast color correction in premiere pro works very well for me to get the blacks back

​Maybe we could try with the fast color correction, setting the output to 16-235. This did the trick wit the GH4... I'll see if it works

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned in this post, but Edit ready is also based on FFMpeg.

Thanks for sharing that with the community ! I've been a user of iffmpeg AND shooting 0-255... so thanks a lot ! ^^

​Had this problem a lot. White walls is complicated for the NX1. But I had more macroblocking than banding :/

Jay_rox: most people complaining about the A7s refer to skin tone... Personally I haven't used it, but I think the footage available online looks great. I just got the NX1 because I needed 4k and I also like the colors. But it feels like the A7s has more room for grading.

Thanks Andrew ! Any chance you can compare it against iffmpeg (with last update) ?? Thanks again

Aliasing can happen, but it's really no big deal. And you can really manage to get rid of most of it by turning down sharpness. Even at the minimum this camera gets you tons of details !

Policar I appreciate your input and agree with 99% of what you said. And yes all the other specs you mention are as important, or maybe even more, depending on the kind of movie you make, the kind of contracts you have, etc. And lots of technological advances are marketing - because if you don't have the market(ing) you don't sell, thus there is no advance in technology -. In the end I think it is just a matter of context: the job, the client, the budget, and the brodacast (web, tv, cinema, etc.). Because this debates about 4K very soon disappear if you have the budget to shoot with an Alexa or Red Dragon...

Thanks, it is really interesting. However there is another parameter I think is being left from the equation, imo: Viewing full hd on a 4k screen. Meaning upscaling. Choosing a resolution based on the distance of an audience and a screen size is one thing. It means that you have a controlled environment. But 99% of the time you won't. And by controlled environment I mean for example the fact that more and more of our customers / consumers will be watching our work on 4k and more screens. I know I have said this several times now on eoshd.com, but most of us when we debate about 4k vs full hd, we don't take into consideration the fact that in one year, most people we will be showing our work to, will be watching it on a 4K or even 5k monitor (imac for ex.). Prior to having my 5k imac I didn't think much of 4K except for the stabilisation, global increase in quality, etc. But if I start to think in terms of: my work will be seen on a 4K or 5K screen, then there is no way, that I'm delivering 1080p. But I agree that if you compare a 1080p footage on a 1080p screen vs a 4K footage on a 4K screen, you will see the difference only from a certain distance / screen size. It is logic and it is also something I notice on my screen. Thanks for sharing this table with us btw

​Could you give a source for this statement please ?

Just a precision: in Europe all cameras have a limit of 30min :/ And I went through hardware issues with both my gh3 and gh4, but not with my NX1 yet - I think it's a matter of luck also, and early adopter being treated as "beta testers"... (for both companies) - Also to be fair, the customer support in Paris is very good concerning panasonic's camera. Haven't tested the samsung service yet. Also my NX1 fell on the concrete when I was shooting in a rainy day in NY and nothing happened to it. It continued filming in the snow, in the rain, in the sun. I can speak highly of the NX1 reliability. - Don't wanna sound like a NX1 fanboy, I still can't sell my GH4 - I'm really attached to how small and easy to use it is.

I feel like using extreme settings on the NX1 tends to crush your skintones - makes them grey... But personally I'm not after a 15+ stops dynamic range... I'm quite happy with what I get from my NX1 even with normal settings and contrast around -3

Personally I don't convert my H264 before grading unless I'm working with FCPX.

"- The OIS of the lumix 12-35 is better (compared to the NX 16-50mm S)." Ah yes the Stabilisation might be better on the 12-35mm. But for the optical quality the 16-50mm is better than the 12-35mm.

Well for instance the lens option is not really a "con". Because since you have a super 35mm you have better wide angle options. And because Samsung pro lenses are really fantastic. Since I have both of them I would tell you that I think the main difference - the one that makes you pick one camera rather than the other - is the "look". And personally the image I get from the NX1 I find it to be so much better than the GH4. Also the battery runs forever, the videos are highly compressed (H265 takes little space on your hard drive) etc. And yes H265, you have to transcode for now (but iffmpeg or rocky mountain converter are fast and very easy to use). For me right now the debate is more about macroblocking and banding (NX1) vs noise (GH4). But considering that, I still always pick up my NX1 rather than my GH4.

Get both, try them and return the one you like less

Wow Mattias I'm super impressed by your 4K super slow motion ! Would you care to share your technique ?? Thanks

​Hey j_one, I had the exact same experience with the GH4. I was absolutely crazy in love with my GH2 and GH3. But when the GH4 came around it just didn't work for me anymore. And to be honest if the NX1 did/does a fantastic job to me it also lacks something: 10 bits 422 / Prores etc. Anything that would make it show less banding / macro blockings. All these cameras have their trade offs in the end. And to me the trade offs I have with my NX1 are ok, because I get those colors I need / love. So the compromise is fine. I couldn't really get those colors right with the GH4 and it was also too noisy for my tastes (and its noise doesn't look filmic at all). Good luck to you to find your next "tool" or should I have said "instrument" . It is quite the never ending road !

​I don't mean to be disrespectful at all, so please don't take this the bad way. I don't know about theater 4k projection etc. But I can tell from what I have in front of my eyes, on my imac 5k. And the difference between Full HD and 4K isn't incremental at all. And the video you posted just looks blurry on my screen. And in the next months, a lot of our customers will have 4K screens at home, retina on their laptops and 5k if they get a new imac. And they might, or might not see the difference. Now I totally respect and agree to the fact that resolution is just one aspect of the image quality, among other aspects like details, color science, skin tone, dynamic etc. It is not the alpha and omega of all. But for professional work - depending on your needs of course, for my part I'm in the middle of editing a 4K movie for a 4K projection - the choice will be the same than with DV to HD/FULLHD. But this is just a projection, and only time will tell. I'm happy that you like your Nikon I heard great things about it and I'm convinced it is a great camera. Just like a lot of DV camera were when HD came around. And I don't want to sound dictatorial but for professionals 4K will soon not be a choice anymore... (and I don't have shares in any 4K company ^^). Now that I have said that, I also saw that an iphone movie was awarded at Sundance. Still I'm not filming anything for my client with it (and of course I'm not comparing a D750 to an iphone ). In the end there are just tools, and it's just a matter of matching with our vision and skills. I'm pretty sure that with a 1000000k camera I'll never do as well as Spielberg with a 1970's film camera. But I gotta do what I gotta do !

Until you watch it on a 4K screen and find it a bit blurry. And worse when you compare it to a 4K video again on a 4k screen. But for Full HD work it is nice. But its all a matter of what you want/need. I'd rather anticipate now and start shooting 4K right away. I remember what happened when we started switching to HD and Full HD and a lot of professional waited to switch and found their footage to be unusable for future work. But it also depends how long you plan on keeping the camera: 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, etc.

Sorry - duration is 30s

So I ran a few tests to compare Rocky vs iFFMPEG (latest update). I converted à 30s long video shot with my NX1 (PRO 4K) - Converted in PRORES Standard Quality (SQ) and High Quality (HQ) Here are my results: Original File Size: 273MB Duration: 30"50 Standard Quality conversion : Rocky Mountain: 2min03s / File Size: 2,56GB iFFMPEG: 1min28 / File Size: 2,52GB High Quality conversion: Rocky Mountain: 2min10s / File Size: 3,87GB iFFMPEG: 1min34s / File Size: 3,77GB So for now I'm going back to using iFFMPEG - also the GUI is much easier to use - although output folders are still not practical in neither one of these apps.

​I feel like the grass is always greener... For me its difficult to compare if you are just going to watch peoples videos on internet... Their talent, budget, equipment isn't always the same... Cities don't look the same, dont project the same feeling, aren't as cinematographic. I got an NX1 but kept my GH3 & GH4. If the A7S had internal 4k I wouldn't hesitate to get one. In the end it is extremely difficult to chose ONE camera. But it can quickly become a budget issue if you"re going to start a collection