Sekhar

Yeah, I presume that's why you lose focus so badly with the Mosaic VAF filter using the same lens.

I had a chance to cover an amateur fashion show over the July 4th weekend at a local (Anaheim, CA) cultural event. I had only my NX1 and thought I'd share a few of the interesting uses I found for shooting in 4K. My video is at https://youtu.be/PsHTzuANSHo. 4K on 1080p sequence will give you a free (and great quality) zoom. And that lets you go wide (by scaling the 4K at 50%) and then tight (by going to 100%). Which gives you: A way to fake a two-camera shoot. See the first part where the adults do the walk and you see the wide and tights shots back/forth.Or you get just go tight without a zoom, like I did in the girls (100%) or boys (~60%) sections.You can get just the composition you want after the fact by cropping as needed.You can also fake a zoom in/out and pan to cover the people you want as I was forced to do in a few places.What I'm saying is: even if you don't care for 4K, shooting in 4K can be of real/practical help/use. Let me know your thoughts. And please go easy on the models, they were just attendees and their kids.

Well, I never noticed this as an issue with Canon cameras and lenses. E.g., 70-200 is known to be really good even if not perfect. There's the auto-focus in video with NX1, but it seems to hunt while shooting (even when there's nothing moving in the scene), and I can't use it with the 70-200 anyway. A bit disappointed. I'd appreciate any workarounds you guys might have. I need to cover a small fashion shoot this afternoon for which I want to use the 70-200.

After mysteriously losing shots to bad focus, I tested my NX1 on how zoom is affecting focus. I found that with my Canon 70-200 and adapter, it's really bad. I guess that's to be expected because of the adapter and all. But then I found NX1 is also losing focus with the 16-50 Samsung lens! Try zooming in real tight, focus, and then zoom out. I never had an issue like this with any of my Canon cameras and lenses. Am I missing something? How are we supposed to zoom during video?

This a great checklist Ebrahim, and thanks for putting it together. Unfortunately it is also of mostly of just academic interest and is useful for reference rather than as a practical guide to making buying decisions. We're human beings and (rightly) prioritize on a few key aspects that matter to us. Surely nobody on this planet finds a partner based on a 128-point checklist even if it's probably the most important decision they'll make in their life? And several of the points in the list are nice and convenient to state but next to impossible to verify. I mean what on earth does "durability under various conditions" mean? And in any case how will you verify that for a hot camera that is just out?

​NX1 can shoot at 15 frames/sec burst at full 28MP. How may other cameras can do that? It can shoot great stills and is fully capable (I took it to Costa Rica recently, and let's just say I didn't miss my 6D). The reason you won't find many great shots on the Internet is because there aren't many good/pro photographers that use it (yet), like say a 5D3.

​I thought it softened the image a bit, though it's possible I just felt that way after it got rid of all the moire. Still, using the filter + sharpening in post would give a better image than not using the filter. Even if softer, the image was more organic. It all depends on what you want to do. If you do docs and events and can't control what's in the scene, then yes moire will be an issue, and you'll need this filter with 5D2. But then, why stick to 5D2 when you have much better options today? I got NX1 a month back, and the 4K video from that makes my 6D video look like garbage...with or without a filter. IMO even a $700 NX500 would be better for video even if it isn't FF. Also, if you plan to go back/forth between video and stills, you'll have a problem because you'll need to remove the filter to shoot stills. Bottom line, ff you're doing narrative work and can control what's in the scene, then getting the filter doesn't make much sense I think. I was using CineStyle with the corresponding settings on my 6D, and those alone did a great job in reducing moire/aliasing from the defaults. So either that with your 5D2 or a different camera would work better for feature stuff.

I bought one for my 6D but had to send it back. It removed the hideous 6D moire very well, so it absolutely works. But it had a fatal flaw for me: it loses focus each time you change zoom. If you shoot with primes or don't zoom much, then this would be great; otherwise, you might want to think this through.

​That is an odd thing to say in a discussion forum, where we should be sharing views/opinions without fear of derision/ridicule. Remember, it is also just your opinion that "the makers of this production are several orders of magnitude above (his) current artistic skill level," not a consensus. Even if it were, if we're to critique someone/something only if everybody agrees we're better (and therefore qualified to critique), then nothing constructive would ever happen.

I guess creatively, the weird "stars-in-a-day-scene" look does help the alien planet SF story line, but in my (cynical) opinion the real motivation for shooting in moonlight was for marketing/buzz reasons. I mean, isn't that why we're even talking about this short? And people discussing low light and A7s will likely cite this as an example, at least in the near future. Clever. Looked a bit too fuzzy though, probably from heavy noise reduction. Acting seemed better than what we see in shorts.

I wish the edit focused more on him. The way it is now, it seems more about her than the patient. Unless I'm missing something.

Sadly, it doesn't matter. Canon is so big, people (especially those not using their own money) will continue to buy it to cover their behind (the old "No one every got fired for buying IBM" argument). And rationalize their decisions with "best colors out of the camera (even if they all grade in post)," "it's the ergonomics, not resolution," and of course the ever popular "camera doesn't matter, it's the story." But dinosaurs do die out...who would've thought the almighty Kodak would go extinct?

Yes, contrast seems to be best at -5, see some test shots on this, along with other thoughts/conclusions in the NX1 DR settings thread. Basically: DR gamma, sharpness -10, contrast -5. I'm not sure why you'd want to increase the black level. I can see it helping if you're delivering straight out of the camera, but otherwise I see it as simply wasting the low end of the encoding range.

If you have the results, go ahead and post. This is EOSHD, and I'm sure quite a few here would be interested.

OK, how on earth would you know it "has sold poorly?" Samsung hasn't released any sales figures to my knowledge.

Looks great. Really pleasing, filmic, and interesting visuals. Congrats! Is this meant to be a profile on this person or the temple? Felt more like the former. Also, would have helped to use sounds/music of the temple, I didnt quite feel the ambience. Not too sure about the music either.

I highly recommend Neat Video, it gave me easily the best results across all the methods I tried. Unfortunately, I don't think they have a trial, but Dark Energy should still have one - the last time tried the DE trial though it kept crashing on my Windows 8 system, so could never see how well it works.

Samsung is apparently showcasing NX1 with four short films, starting with Yvonne. What do you guys think of this first one? To me, it was extremely painful to watch (took me three tries to complete): way too long/labored, too frivolous/banal/trite, had no rhythm/arc whatsoever that I could discern, etc. Overall, seemed like a complete failure as an engaging short film and wasted the talent. On the technical side, the resolution was awesome as you'd expect from NX1, as were the colors (not the grading). But the overall look was shockingly cheap and video-like, complete with blown highlights, banding, and even moire...almost like what you'd get out of a smartphone. May be I'm being too critical and may be I'd change my opinion, but those are my immediate thoughts. Overall, I don't see this in any way selling NX1 to filmmakers. The sad part is, I believe all the issues I mentioned have little to do with NX1. Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

NX1 stabilizes fine with Samsung lenses (I have the 16-50), in-camera is good if you plan to use say Canon glass. Not saying it isn't a plus, but only in some situations. Using non-Samsung lenses is a problem in many other ways for NX1 too, not just for stabilization, so I'd agree A7RII has an advantage if you plan to use a lot of other lenses. But I don't agree about high ISO or DR...yet anyway. We'll need to wait for more footage/tests before concluding that. It's certainly not evident from Sony's demo video in the release. And for log, I think there's a good chance NX1 will be coming up with some kind of log in a firmware update soon.

OK, I don't quite get the excitement here and on other forums. Isn't NX1 at $1,500 already doing much of what a7RII is doing at $3,200? Yes, a7RII has stuff like log and higher MP stills, but then only NX1 has 120fps 1080p. I take it the jubilation is over FF vs Super 35? Doesn't quite seem worth the over 2x price difference, especially for video. I'm sure there's more, can't wait to see hands-on reviews.

​True that Premiere lets you change only some of the RAW settings (WB, temp, tint, and exposure), but if your argument is for picking Resolve over Premiere, we should be looking at Resolve vs. Premiere. How much better Adobe Camera RAW is over Premiere is not relevant. In fact, by the same token an Adobe solution with Camera RAW + Premiere would make more sense than a Resolve only solution. Yes, Resolve gives you a few more controls with CInemaDNG over Premiere, but whether that is adequate in picking Resolve over Premiere as an editor at the cost of missing the editing features Premiere gives over Resolve is debatable and user dependent. It certainly doesn't look like a no-brainer or enough to make Premiere users switch to Resolve.

​FYI, Premiere has supported Blackmagic CinemaDNG import since October 2013. NFS had a tutorial last year on working with CinemaDNG in Premiere Pro, if you're interested. Also check out the Adobe article on all the formats that Premire Pro supports, including CinemaDNG.

Looks like any other "freemium" model to me that's meant to upsell/crosssell. There are tons of examples all over, most obviously in the free or super-cheap "educational" and the "personal" versions when it comes to creative tools. This model would especially work for tools like this as they take time to learn/perfect, which builds an automatic lock-in and loyalty. E.g., up and coming filmmakers (of which there are a ton) will try it, hopefully like it, preach/sell it (free word of mouth and social marketing), switch to the $$$ paid version themselves when they turn pro, buy/promote related products like the BMC cameras, etc.

​Seriously, are we in high school? You need to chill, Wolf, and treat the forum members with respect. In all fairness, Ebrahim did say "just really bad unless you spend serious serious fixing time" right at the outset, so clearly his issue is with the colors coming out of the camera and how hard it is to fix them in post. If you don't agree with that, please give an example, clearly explaining what was done in post (you need to be specific, just saying it's easy isn't enough). We're all trying to learn here, and if you can prove the A7s detractors wrong, great! But let's please be civil.

Go away for a year on vacation, no problem; disappear for a week without telling anyone, problem. Anyway, he must be ecstatic that we care!