Sekhar

Looks great, nicely shot too. Nice colors, e.g., love the group shot at 1:56. Indoors look good too, though they had extra lights so it's hard to tell. There's some moire at 1:10, not sure if that will be an issue (didn't see it anywhere else in the video).

Oh no, not another "camera doesn't matter" threads. It's like the central limit theorem in math: all discussions of tech will eventually degenerate to a "tech doesn't matter" discussions given enough member participation.

The nice thing about low quality YT 720p video launches is: If people like it, "Imagine how great it would be in full Q!" and if it's lousy, "Hey, it was YT 720p, what did you expect?" Sorry, couldn't help the cynicism.

It seems kind of small, seems like it will reduce stability compared to a large base plate. Could you try some slider shots at long focal lengths with and and without this one resting on a large base plate? Also, why would you be moving the camera on and off different tripods in quick succession (especially between tiny and massive ones like in the video)? On a demo floor, may be; but in real life?

I'm talking of saturation, not the hues. If I remember right, the early test you did had odd colors with one or two lenses, and I thought it was more an issue with lenses. In any case, I'd put fixing color casts and hues in a different category from saturation level. If you have a lens that's consistently giving a bad cast, you might want to try a custom hue setting just for that lens or create a look or LUT in your color correction tool to apply each time in post. Also, it looks like you're relying a lot on the LCD display for effect of different settings. It's only approximate, so if you want experiment, I suggest you actually capture with different settings and check. May be that's what you're doing, but wanted to confirm that. I'm saying that because I'm not seeing any of the artifacts you're describing with my NX500. BTW, you're right, I guess I was thinking of NX1 when I said 16-235.

First, I would leave the saturation at 0. If you find it over-saturated you can always turn it down in post, but turning it down in the camera and then pushing them back up in post doesn't seem like a good idea. Next, sharpness -10 and contrast -5 work well, but based on my experience, with both NX1 and NX500 you really need to protect the highs more so than the lows. If you have critical highs, consider using 16-235 instead of 0-255, though in the footage you posted I only see the shirt, which isn't critical, so lowering the exposure should have sufficed. Finally, try working with gamma in post rather than offset or gain, and within specific regions (lows/mids/highs). But as TheRenaissanceMan said, it really depends on what you want to communicate. Below is a test I did with your video, with three variations: First part is just with color correction, it will give a good starting point and is more a technical stage. A standard way to correct for skin is to mask just the skin area and then adjust till you get the line on vector scope to align with the skin line. That is what I did here, with increase in overall saturation.Next, I reduced the saturation just for the greens (secondary color correction) to highlight the person, might be useful if you want to bring focus to the person rather than the background. Just to give an idea of the creative step that typically comes after color correction.Finally, I warmed up the footage to give an overall look. This usually applies for the entire video (i.e., the final cut with all the clips).https://vimeo.com/138867742

All the grades seem contrasty to me. In terms of colors, I prefer the last one, but it has way too much contrast for my linking. I would have tweaked the colors in the original footage without messing too much with contrast. I also agree with liork, the blue shadow on the shirt is pretty distracting, but it's tough to have such a white shirt in the shot. BTW, are you behind the camera here or in front of it?

Congrats on landing the budget for the doc! What's your project like? The a7 pair will work better for low light, but NX1 will definitely give you better colors (e.g., for nature work).

NX500. Great 4K video, NX1 tech.

Another telephoto capture, this time of the full moon today here in Pasadena, CA.

OK, I don't get it. Looks soft, contrasty, and over-saturated. Sadly, even the models look like addicts, usually they make up for the footage. Those of you wowed by this, could you explain in specific terms what you liked? I mean specific terms, not generic stuff like "pleasing," "filmic," or "natural."

It's shooting at 5 fps and interpreting as 25 fps to deliver at 25 fps as a convenience. If it delivered at 5 fps you'd have had to interpret it as 25 ftps manually in the editor, but the result would be the same. The point is that it's capturing at 5 fps, not 25 fps: it's impossible to capture any faster than 5 fps because by the time it's time to capture the next frame it'd still be capturing the first one.

I see this (bouncy movement when walking) with most if not all gimbal stabilizers, even the big ones. My understanding is that only Steadicam like systems can compensate for the up/down movements, though I've seen perfect glide movements with say Ronin as well. Sure, skill in walking/running helps, but I'm talking about doing it easily. Could folks with experience/knowledge on this issue pitch in please on what stabilizers are best for easily minimizing bounciness? This has been the biggest spoiler for me.

Yes, we know both capture the same info (nothing gets dropped at the top or bottom), the difference is in how they get ENCODED. I.e., which part (lows, mids, highs) gets preference in terms of space on the 8 bits. See comments on the page for the difference and effect on banding. Here's my summary and recommendation: 0-255. Works for most situations, especially recommended when mids are more important than lows and highs. Uses the entire 8 bit range, so it's the best you're going to get for mids and overall image. Not good if you aren't planning post work.16-235. Necessary when delivering out of the camera without post work. Also good on high contrast scenes where you want to preserve details in lows and highs at the cost of mids.16-255. Good when you have critical info in the lows and can't lift the overall exposure because it will blow the highs.

This is really good: DIS is clearly reducing the micro movements, the last example is especially impressive. OIS itself doesn't seem too effective though, which is surprising.

Thanks, turns out the update comes up if you use the Samsung iLauncher, go figure. FYI for others interested. In any case, Samsung's sites seem like a mess. There's samsung.com, samsungimging.com, samsungimaging.net, samsungcamera.com, etc. samsung.com doesn't have firmware updates, but samsungimaging.com that does have them simply forwards to samsung.com. And samsungcamera.com has breaking news that NX1 firmware update 1.3 is now available!

Thanks, confirms what we've been advocating: shoot in 0-255 unless you plan to skip post. To throw another option out, if you'd like to capture fine gradients on the low end, you might want to also try the 16-255 option (not 16-235). It spreads the low end info out a bit more at the cost of the mids/highs, but might help you with banding on the lows.

Thanks Marco, looks like it isn't online yet (at least where I am in US). Neither the Samsung site nor the download setup on the camera shows it. I do see it at http://matteverglade.com/lenses/nx-firmware/ but would rather not download from a non-Samsung site. Samsung support says there is no 1.03 update (but then they never seem to know anything). Where did you find it? On a different note, could you post the video you shot (the one that came out super steady)? In what way is the AF better? Hope it's not hunting anymore, that has been the biggest annoyance for me in AF (does it even when there is no movement in the scene).

Yeah, but trying to nail down the specifics, like what lens (Samsung vs. other, OIS vs. no OIS, 1.02 vs. 1.03, etc.), what situations (long vs. short), what kind of movements, etc. I will experiment myself and post, and hopefully we can put all the experiences together to come with a guide of sorts. Everyone with NX1: please test and post your experiences/footage!

Is there a new lens firmware? My 16-50S version is 1.02 (has been since I bought it a few months back), is that the latest? The download has nothing new.

Yeah, if pros pick up NX1, they will do wonders, as this video shows. Its quality is so good, it comes down more to skills, techniques, and support equipment. Glad NX1 is finally getting the attention it deserves and not being dismissed as prosumer stuff. I'm sure we'll see more examples, which can only help adoption.

Yes, it is dependent on a lot of factors and how you use it. I shot some test footage, and it was barely noticeable in some cases and was pretty good in others. In this particular video Andrew referred to though, the guy had an OFF clip, followed by the ON clip, and then chose to put the ON clip on the LEFT in the final comparison - it is really confusing and can lead people to think DIS made no difference because we're looking the part on the right as the DIS shot. Happened to me anyway.

Actually, Premiere does not clip footage shot in 0-255. You have a broader range to work with, so it might look like you lost info. The only reason I see for shooting in 16-235 is if you need to turn in your footage directly without post work because feeding a 0-255 image directly to TV monitors for example is going to lose info at the top and bottom. If you do post work though, you will always have the opportunity to make it broadcast safe after all the processing, no need to shoot in 16-235. As an extreme example, here's a clip from footage I shot of some mangoes we just bought. I transcoded to ProRes 422 with FFMpeg and imported to Premiere Pro (the waveforms you see are from SpeedGrade). As you can see, by default it looks like the image is hopelessly clipped at the top and crushed at the bottom. But adjust the lift and gain a bit, and you see that the info is all there.

Uh, what?

I think it's newbie thing. I remember the first time I wanted to edit to music, I too went the marker route (and feeling quite proud for coming up with the thought!), only to quickly realize it was a bad idea. IMO even waveforms aren't always enough, I end up playing to feel (hear) the precise point.