mercer

What is the 4K crop again... 2.7x?

I have never used higher end Sony or Canon cameras, so I can only base my experience with the t2i/eos-m vs NEX 3N/a5100. And from that experience I think the Canon colors require much less work to get true to life colors. Even a simple FCPX preset will grade the Canon nicely with one click, and the Sony is not as easy, but I really like Sony colors, it's just not as simple to get true to life.

I use neutral, everything turned down but saturation... Which is two clicks to the left... I think. I used Stu's Prolost Flat settings.

I have the a5100 and shoot only in the x-avc s codec. My other camera is the eos-m. From my limited experience using the a5100, I've only had it a few weeks, I have found that the image is much flatter using the portrait profile -3, 0, -3 on the Sony than it is using prolost flat profile on my eos-m. But it is much easier grading the Canon footage for real world color.

Video when not handled properly looks bad, even on a great camera. Film when not handled properly still at least looks like film. I think in some ways we are all talking about the same thing and btw, I am no one to talk because most of my stuff looks bad too.

Good points I recently saw Rear Window in the theater and it was amazing to see. Everything from the title card to Hitchcock's master of shadow was a sight to see in the theater. I, honestly, like the aesthetic of video with a filmic look and appreciate the skill set involved in working with both mediums. I don't like to be put down for thinking film looks better or trying to obtain the most cinematic look, especially since the dawn of digital video, every camera innovation was made in a quest to achieve the filmic holy grail. So, if the OP likes modern video, in essence, it is because the development of the technology has been reaching to emulate film as close as possible, since it's invention.

But all of the things you are describing are inherently organic to film. I don't think anyone is saying video is bad, it's just not yet as good as film. But one thing it does have, which I am grateful for... It's a helluva a lot cheaper and affords me the possibility to make movies... For that, and that alone... Video trumps film.

I don't think it's the "past" when a good portion, if not the majority of Hollywood films are still shot on film. I think it's cool you like the look of digital video more than film, that is very convenient for the times, but video does not look better than film... especially if sharpness is your only reason. There are ways to manipulate digital to look more filmic, but it doesn't look better. I really like filmic video, it's a different but similar compromise, and of course the future. I do find it sad, though. We always talk about the technological advancement with resolution or processing, but rarely do people speak about how film has advanced through the years and how there will probably be no major, further advances in film stock.

I think this is where the problem lies... that footage does look filmic. I can see why you like it.

that's a test i want to see I think, tech wise, we can obtain a look, with video, akin to older film stocks, or aged movies, pretty well, but modern stocks are still out of our reach. Of course, I like the "filmic" aesthetic that is possible with modern cameras. It's not the same, but it's similar. But I couldn't agree more with Mattias, the closest I have seen is from Raw footage, either from the Digital Bolex, or the Pocket Cam, or some ML Raw footage. Or maybe it's possible to achieve a filmic look, but not a cinematic look?

great info, thanks I'll check it out. I will probably never use it... When I was younger, I spent a few nights loading 16mm film into an old Bolex inside a changing bag... That was basically my only job, other than a little acting, but it was a bit tedious. Am not sure if I'll ever really shoot film with it, so the gate change could be a smart move to get me closer to my Pocket Cam.

never thought of that, does s16 only have sprockets on one side?

Nice, I just picked up a nos Miranda 28mm 2.8. Haven't gotten it delivered yet though. I, also, have a Krasnogorsk, it was in a photography lot I bought off eBay years ago for 25 bucks. I didn't even know it was part of the lot until it came in the mail... Imagine my surprise. Of course it didn't come with the Meteor lens, but is the M42 version. I need to buy some 16mm film one of these days and test it out... Or sell it. Btw, did you ever sell that Pocket Cam?

Also, is that a krasnogorsk?

25mm? What brand?

Smart move. Everybody swears by Schott Glass on the B+W, but if it's on a sub $50 variable filter, all of a sudden it's cheap? Well, I hope you like it. I love mine.

I think it's even simpler than that... When you go to a store, Canon has more camera models displayed and on the shelves than other brands do. Also, the Canon and Nikon names are synonymous with photography. Panasonic and Sony and Samsung have products in so many different electronic arenas that it confuses your average consumer. If your average, everyday consumer decides to buy a camera, they go to the store and look at all of the cameras. They see Sony and think... I have a Sony TV and headphones. Then they see a Panasonic and think... I have a Panasonic electric razor or I have a Panasonic microwave... Then they move down the aisle and see a Canon or a Nikon and they think... My Dad had a Canon or... my Grandpa had a Nikon...

RitzGear variable nd filter. They're made with Schott Glass, which I believe B+W filters are made from as well. They cost between 30-40 dollars on Amazon. Can't be beat for the price.

I know, I went off topic and me and Renaissance Man were discussing the new NX-Mini 2 that is soon to be released. http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/13271/samsung-nx-mini-2-4k-little-mouse-/p1 Earlier I had asked about stacking a c-mount to m42 adapter, then an m42 to an NX adapter to the NX-500, and wondered how close to infinity I could get... is that what you are referring to? Sorry about the confusion.

I know c-mount goes to the NX-Mini mount.

I think Vaga was unsure about the G7, and wanted to do a comparison between the 3.

I found adapters for c-mount and d-mount lenses to the NX-M. I assume you could adapt m43, if they make adapters, but I haven't looked for any because I don't have any m43 lenses. Yeah, I was thinking it could be the poor man's pocket cam. It seems like once a Samsung camera is leaked with photos, then the announcement happens within a month and the camera is out within two... So it should be out sometime in September. The specs say it will have 24p 4K, let's hope they don't cripple it by not having manual video controls.

Could be an awesome little run and gun camera to use old d-mount and c-mount lenses. For fun, if nothing else.

Actually, I just read that the NX mini 2 was leaked last month with photos and specs... And supposedly will have 4K on their 1" BM sensor recording in h.264. http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/13271/samsung-nx-mini-2-4k-little-mouse-/p1

All good points. I actually really like the video quality, at a cheap enough price point the crop doesn't bother me too much. Of course, I am only interested in it as a 3-400 dollar manufacturer refurb. At that money, even if I shoot one short with it, it was worth it. I wonder if an upcoming NX mini will have the 2.5k preproduction function.