Sekhar

Here's a simple shot of a flower with my NX500 I just did as a comparison. I basically followed the workflow I gave earlier and it's on Vimeo too, so the difference comes down to the lens and H.265 conversion. IMO this clip has much better resolution and color. I will submit a comparison with NX1 on a separate thread, but wanted to post this to track down where mercer's issues with resolution and color are coming from. Edit: I just realized I had the sharpness and contrast at default 0, but the clip should still help as a comparison, certainly on the color side.

I'm on Windows, but here's my workflow in case it helps: Shoot with manual focus at UHD 23.98 and all camera settings to default except for DR gamma (on NX1), sharpness -10 and contrast -5Plug in card to PC and check directly from card using PotplayerIf good, copy to PC and convert to ProRes at UHD res with FFmpeg (this is the engine that does the real work, I use it directly but you can use front ends like RockyMountains)Import to Premiere Pro onto a 1080p project or UHD project, editColor correct and grade in SpeedGradeOther than the tools themselves, you seem to be following a similar flow. Perhaps it's the settings at each stage. IMO your lenses are also contributing to the IQ problems. Anyway, as I was writing this, my NX500 just arrived at the door. I'll shoot some with it, compare with my NX1, and upload to see how that turns out.

Something wrong here. For one thing, it's way too soft. Not sure if it's the lenses or the H.265 conversion or something else. Colors are also odd, possibly CA and other artifacts from the lenses (especially the Tokina). Could you give full details, like camera settings, conversion params, grading/post details, etc. You should be getting a way better image out of the NX500.

I did some tests on NX1 some time back and came up with these as the best: DR gamma, sharpness -10, contrast -5. See my post NX1 DR settings thread for examples and discussion. Given that NX500 is so similar, I'm pretty sure the same settings apply (except for DR gamma, which I believe NX500 doesn't have...yet anyway).

Wait, I thought they were going to include the charger? The eBay ad has it included. Did you check the whole box, sometimes they have it under a flap, well hidden.

Or take some cool lens-less photos!

Well, those 7 negative comments are vs. 826 positive ones. You're never going to get 100% of the buyers satisfied, some of those may well be competitors. Besides, there are a million protections these days: we have the 14 day money back protection, the eBay protection, the PayPal protection, and the credit card protection. Not to say all said and done we're talking about $344 bucks, so the thought of risk didn't even occur to me. But buyers, note that this is just the body (they're taking out the lens), it isn't same as the retail packaging that goes for $799 regular.

Thanks, bought one. I think it's a great second camera for those with NX1 (I have one) and makes one heck of an ultra zoom out of your regular 70-200. With the APS-C crop, the 4K crop, and then the 2x 4K->1080p crop if you use that, it will be massive - there is no way to get that kind of zoom at that price. I will post some of these ultra zoom shots as well as some comparisons and cross-cuts once I get the camera, especially for the benefit of others thinking of getting this.

Agreed, and you will never be wrong. Not sure why I bother.

Who said hybrid video is driving the stocks??? We have no idea what's driving it, that was the point!!! My beef was that you can't on one hand say you need all the facts before coming to a conclusion and then make an assertion like "Hybrid video is not driving these stocks" because you wouldn't know that either without all the facts. Your conclusion is flawed. Saying "you can't say X is false" does not mean "I believe X is true."

OK, you clearly didn't get my point. Which was that we'd pick the Alexa guy if WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ELSE. Once again, the point is to consider with all else being equal when making this analysis: ceteris paribus.

That's because nobody with a strong viewpoint/conviction ever wants to talk "all else being equal" because it's just inconvenient. The same thing played out in the (too) long discussion on whether education is important and most recently in the discussion you started on digital cameras and film look. Talking about some other extraneous confounding factor is an easy way to deflect. IMO it is disingenuous to say that clients don't weigh the gear when picking a DP, "all else being equal." To those believing that, I have a thought experiment. Imagine two new forum members you know nothing about. One talks of his work with Alexa and the other with t2i. If you were forced to select your next DP with no other info (i.e., all else being equal), would you pick the t2i guy? I didn't think so.

Well, you can say "it's not that simple," and be right in almost any discussion of merit. Sure, we need all the facts before jumping to conclusions, but then you can't make statements like "Hybrid video is not driving these stocks" either. In any case, it's not just about video: Andrew is talking of decline of the DSLRs in general. We may like video here, but most DSLR buyers actually shoot stills. Bottom line though, I agree we don't know for sure why Canon's profits declined, but like all good forum members, we must speculate! And Andrew's argument fits the prevailing narrative and common sense.

I don't think Andrew's post is about Canon struggling in general, he's specifically highlighting the impact DSLR decline (and possibly Canon's lack of innovation in the area) is having. Others may also be having problems, but this is not about schadenfreude.

Obviously skill matters more than gear, but when clients don't know your skill they go with what they see. Like a cool package for a product, expensive suit in business, fancy car to impress girls...so is high end gear to impress clients. The sad part though is: just like the bad product in cool package, dimwit in expensive suit, playboys in fancy car, we also have clueless DPs showing up in high end gear. But, yes expensive gear can be a great marketing tool if not anything else.

Got to the Vimeo page, and you'll find the original 4K version under Download.

Mattias, nobody is saying NX1 is the winner; we're just pointing out an area in which NX1 is doing better since this is a head to head comparison. Ebrahim, if you see the image I posted, you'll note that it is a closer crop and shows the differences in detail much better than what Andrew posted. Please do take a look.

We're talking better resolution for NX1, NOT sharpness. You can sharpen the 1Dc image all you want, but you aren't going to get the detail that just isn't there. See below a grab from your video to see what I mean. I've sharpened the 1Dc image to look similar, but you can see it doesn't have the same detail.

You can't be serious. Did you watch the original 4K download? NX1 stood its ground beautifully and even topped 1Dc in resolution (not sharpness) in several spots. To say 1Dc annihilates NX1 is serious hyperbole. The only place I thought NX1 looked cheap in comparison was the garden (trees and bushes) shot.

The problem is in the "not yet as good as film" part. The point is: that is not a fact, but an opinion. Perhaps shared by many, but clearly not everyone. In any case, every time a discussion comes up about digital cameras and the film look, why do we go off on extraneous stuff like movement, and lighting? Obviously we're talking CETERIS PARIBUS. I'm really looking forward to Mattias' comparison since he'll be holding everything else constant.

Since a good part of the look comes from the post work, it'd be great if you could shoot the same scene and (a) try to match the digital to film on your end and (b) post the ungraded digital footage so we can try to match on our side. Even if we don't get a match, it'll be a good educational exercise in understanding the source of the film's appeal.

Great point, probably the best I've seen to date on the film vs. video debate. You always see the technical differences (colors, DR, roll off, grain, whatever) cited, but your point highlights the creative intent. I don't see though why you can't achieve the same dreamy unreal look with the tech we have these days in video cameras.

Yes, I saw multiple comparison reviews/tests that put Tiffen variable ND as the best bang for the buck (I have the Tiffen 77mm). But it adds flare when you shoot into bright areas. See my post at the top with images without/with the filter. It's not terrible, and it may be lesser than in other filters, but it's still there. Perhaps it's a variable ND thing. Still, it's bad enough that I don't use the filter much these days and instead reduce shutter angle. I used to shoot with 6D but am now using NX1, and you can see every tiny difference in 4K unfortunately, so may be variable ND is just no good for 4K.

I actually find the idea of a tip jar quite demeaning. If artists want to charge for their work, great, good work will get sold. Since they typically don't have big names to market with though, I hope Vimeo (a) lets us sample a part and (b) makes it real easy to buy.

Hey, nobody is going to argue that story isn't the most important thing. But let's get real. If you grab attention even for a month these days, you have a win. If people talk about your video for a year, you've hit it out of the park. The attention span is so short these days, it doesn't really matter if your work has a shelf life of one year or one decade. Of course, we all want to make masterpieces that last a century or more, but that ain't gonna happen. So, what do you do? You use gimmicks and technical wizardry. There was a night-for-day short posted recently that shot the whole thing in moonlight and looks like a day shot, except with stars. Gimmick? Absolutely. But it got coverage. In terms of story, there are a dime a dozen other shorts like that, and I doubt it would have grabbed any attention (it did have some good acting though). I'm afraid we'll be seeing more and more of the technical showpieces, especially in short work, where you don't have much time to build up a story. Imagine this. If you have two minutes to grab people's attention, which do you think will succeed? (a) Gorgeous Victoria's Secret models in lingerie doing nothing but walking on the runway (b) Two average looking dudes building up to a powerful story? There is no way people will sit and watch the models walking for 90 minutes, but for 2 minutes, sure!