DPStewart

Yeah...and we have them... But that really doesn't hep much for using the NX1 for stills. I grew up shooting manual film cameras...but you still miss 90% of the shots you can get with a stabilized auto-focus lens. Without this my NX1 is of MUCH LESS value to me. Plus, the "S" series lenses can provide some of THE BEST video auto-focus of any video camera short of a Canon C300 mk II. And sometimes that DOES make a difference on a shoot. The fact that there are so few of the S"S series lenses available at all on eBay USA and that the lowest price I saw last week at all was $800....that shows that there in fact IS a pretty strong demand for these lenses...and it's going to get WORSE once the NX1 owners all find out that production of them has stopped and they realize they can;t put off the purchase any longer.

Well...sort of. Yeah. I STRONGLY urge anyone who has never shot a BMCC in RAW and then seen how far you can push the grade around in post to rent, borrow, whatever...TRY it. Just once or twice. It's a whole 'nuther world. Like I said - my NX1 with the same lenses can NEVER match it. I can get them close usually...bot NOT if it requires a lot of creative work on the grade. The NX1 image - even being 4k - WILL break apart much faster.

The current average price for the F3 with the RGB 444 upgrade is $3,000 on eBay. Add an external recorder that will record that RGB 444 signal and it's another $1,000. That's at least $4,000 The BMCC is $1,995. At $4,000 it's time to look at an URSA mini which will blow ALL of it away...$5,000. Or the Rock Solid Sony FS7 which is worth it's weight in gold. Could maybe be had used for $4,000...maybe. The OP did say "sub $4,000". Not that I don't dig the look out of the Sony F3...I most certainly do.. When recorded out to an external recorder. It's just sort of like getting an F23 or F35...you get yourself committed to a whole lot more MANDATORY rigging. That always equals costs that seem to creep...and creep...and creep. And the rig gets bigger and bigger and bigger. Now just try to get an F3 with the external recorder on a Gimbal or Steadycam - now you need to spend bigger bucks on a greater capacity system...it all just adds up and up and up. I have found that if someone says "sub $4,000" and they don't already have every other conceivable piece of rigging and lighting...that it's really best to not come near that max price if at all possible.

Already happening. Today on eBay-USA there are only about 8 of the 18-55mm "S" series lenses on offer. 3 of them are new from Korea and well over $1,000 USD. Of the used ones - the cheapest one is $800. yeah...this is not going to be fun.

But that's not because of image quality. It's because Sony is SONY. And the F3 has a bit more of a traditional form factor. But I agree it is an outstanding image. But once you've shot RAW...... man, it's night and day... All my other cameras are just little toys of convenience compared to the BMCC and BMPCC RAW image.

For narrative - no image from any camera under $5,000 will beat the BMCC 2.5K in RAW. The only ones that can match it are the BMPCC Pocket and a 5D mkIII running Magic Lantern in RAW again. And NO - the BMCC does NOT have "limited dynamic range" like Zack said above. It has 13-stops. Which is incredible at the price point and beats all real competitors. Certainly beat the NX1 by far. (No, the Sony A7s is not a competitor because their extended dynamic range is only available in certain modes, and the end result image quality - especially for narrative - has proven out to be a massive disappointment.) It's really not even close. The next contender up is the Sony FS7 for 3 times the price. I have: Panny GH2 (x2) Canon 6D, T2i Sony RX100 mkii Samsung NX1 (which I got for the slow-mo. it can never equal the BMCC image quality) BMCC 2.5k BMPCC Pocket (x2)

With fewer lenses out there than NX1 bodies - I'm worried it's going to be the opposite. If you happen to NEED the auto-focus or IS and want the "S" series lens...I could see them selling for twice retail because there are so few of them out there. Maybe 1 for every 10 bodies sold.

The "S" series lenses are already unavailable from B&H Photo and Adorama, and Adorama lists ALL their remaining Samsung lenses as "Closeout". So much for the "lenses being available for a long time".... How many of the good ones ever even made it out into the public I wonder... Bummer.

4k, 6k, 8k, 47k... 8-bit is 8-bit.

I'm curious about your in-camera settings as well, mate! And what diffusion are you using?

That film is gonna make ALL the money! I can't wait to see it. Is it "high art"? No, probably not. But it looks MASSIVELY entertaining!

The newest camera-phones are incredibly useful for a very large number of shooting scenarios. In just 2 more years they will be able to competently do even more types of shoots. This is why I hate the idea of spending even $1,500 for a camera anymore. At $1,995 the BMCC is the most expensive camera I have ever bought. Even the BMPCC really is no bigger than a phone. If you hold just the body in your hand and look at it - aside from the battery compartment and the lens mount, the guts really could fit easily into the body of an iPhone or Samsung phone.

Well...yeah... That point is true of course. But that in and of itself doesn't mean the OP is not still correct. Some things are pretty clear right there when you look at them. The example photos provided and the exact points in each that the author is asking the reader to look at are pretty clear. And it's also reasonably clear from the chosen examples that significant variations in lighting are not occurring - you'd see that right there on the faces. The "3D" effects of lighting almost never operate at the miniscule distances of someone's nose to their ears in a shot composed as all the examples are - especially when you can see clearly that the light AND THE FOCAL PLANE are reasonably even over the areas in question. As I originally stated in my first comment on this topic - I've been looking at this phenomenon for a couple of years and this is in no way the first I've heard of this subject. To be clear - the article DOES NOT say; "Lenses with many elements are bad", "Lenses with fewer elements are superior", or "this is a guaranteed effect inescapable by any lens no matter what." So anyone's reaction to this article should not lead them to conclusions such as those. I strongly urge anyone reading to just take note of it. Take note and stay aware of it - and see if you don't begin noticing the phenomenon more frequently once you know what you're looking for.

Hello DayRaven, I wanted to point out that the Article in the Original Post is not at all talking about subject separation from the background. What the article is talking about really has nothing to do with that at all. Not trying to flame you or anything I promise. Just trying to help keep the meaning of the O.P.'s article from being confused with an entirely separate topic.

It kinda sorta sounds a little like maybe you didn't read the article's words very closely because your choice of words here about the "myth of the full frame look" and the article you linked discuss the term "3D" a a function of subject relative to background. i.e. the whole "full frame" shallow depth of field discussion. But the article here is not talking about that at all. Am I choosing words that are clear here? The term "3D" in the Original Post here is not referring to the subject standing out from the background. The term "pop" is very frequently used BUT NOT ALWAYS USED to describe the subject having a lot of separation from the background. The Article in the O.P. is talking about an optical flattening of aspects of the image that should not appear flattened - like someone's nose vs. their ears of the rest of their face and hair EVEN WHEN ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE WITHIN THE FOCAL PLANE. Some people simply don't see the difference. Many do. I surely do It's like the motion cadence of video cameras issue. Most experienced people can see a difference between the motion cadence rendering of footage from different camera makers (with Panasonic's GH series consistently ranking among the worst and Canon and BMD often ranking among the best) yet many people just are not able to see the difference and will say "it's B.S. 24p is 24p. You're imagining it". No, we're not. They just aren't able to recognize it. Again - 3D in the O.P. article is NOT referring to the subject having separation from the background. Then again - it is ENTIRELY OKAY for some individuals to PREFER an optical flattening of the in-focus elements of an image. But that's very different from saying it's not happening.

Really? And what specific and exact information are you basing such a strong statement on? You'll need to provide some if you're going to make a heavy attack statement like that. Otherwise it appears that you are just yelling "Poo-Poo-head!" and then running away.

Foley (always capitalize 'Foley" because it's from his name. Otherwise the audio engineers send old gross fruitcakes to your house.) Foley is a NIGHTMARE to try to do with pre-recorded sound effects. Sure - it's completely possible - but it takes a horribly long time to do as compared to just grabbing a mic and doing the Foley yourself. And it's tedious. VERY tedious. And no matter how big your collection is - 95% of it won't work for whatever that project in front of you today is. Get a book on the art of Foley, and then invest in enough junk to do it yourself. WAY easier and actually FUN.

I like him. His tests are very methodical. And that super mellow way of talking that he has.. is hypnotic.

Here's your 2-handle holders:

Oh yeah - the Hacked GH2 with MOON T-7! Still blows me AWAY at how detailed an image it gives. POW! Shoot it like everyone else does - with the SMOOTH profile and everything set to -2. Then boost your saturation and balance out your contrast in post and it's pretty amazing. The only reason I don't use them more often is because I can get the higher dynamic range with my Blackmagic cameras. (That cost a lot more!) Yeah - Add a cheap Mitakon Nikon-to-MFT Version 2 speedbooster and it's ready to really rock! Beats my 2 canon T2i by an enormous amount. Not just a little. P.S. Make sure you get that speedbooster - it makes THAT MUCH difference. Simply monster. Oh - my camera list: GH2 (x2), Canon T2i, Canon 6D, Sony RX100 mkii, Blackmagic Cinema Camera, Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera (x3), Samsung NX1.

Yeah - I'd dig seeing some of this lens too. I have the 20mm and it's a very good lens - but it's not an "outstanding" lens. Almost no 20mm lenses are really...optical thing I guess.

Yup. FUBAR sums it up pretty well.

You do have to make all the physical adjustments to get it to balance, but it is within the weight limit and the 24mm is just within the size range of being too long to get a workable center of balance. A little wight added to the hot shoe on top of the camera can help too.

While I have tested the DS1 extensively with the NX1, I haven't compiled much footage yet as I haven't had the need. The bulk of my use has been with the Blackmagic Pocket Camera so I can shoot RAW. I can shoot some with the Samyang 10mm, which is bigger than the 16mm. Works fine. I've put the 24mm on it, but I don't own one.

If it's not leaned against your eye (or even if it is in many cases) - watch your hand when in that position. You hand is extremely free to make unrestrained movement in ALL directions. And when one has the gripping axis that close to the camera then any TINY movements of your hand can easily be 1-3 degrees - and that is enough to translate to huge amounts of shake in your playback. Think of a lever and your radius. This is the stabilizing principle behind a "Fig Rig". The further your hands are from the base of the camera the more amplified a 1-3 degree movement is - to the point where it's like a whole inch of movement by your hands if they are wide apart. And that is obviously much easier to avoid. What's easier to do - prevent your hand from moving 2cm? Or prevent your hand from moving 2mm? I looked into it when the Digital Bolex was released and immediately saw that a huge amount of the videos posted had massive ugly "1960's looking home movie camera" shake. It's a type of shake that is unique to pistol grips. This was a big part of why everyone quickly labeled the D.B. a "retro" camera. It was the yellowish and magenta colors a lot of people were getting, and that very specific type of shake. A type of shake really not seen since the 1960's and 1970's. It's all over the Zapruder film of President John F. Kennedy getting shot. It makes the film almost unusable as a historical record. Shake ruins shots. When you hold a camcorder or a DSLR style body - the weight is obviously pulling against your hand/wrist/arm on a flat circular plane to the left. That's just gravity becausae you're holding it from one edge. This sets up resistance for your muscles to start working with and against and thus starts to minimize some of the possible directions of free movement that will characterize the look of a pistol grip. So if you ever WANT to simulate 1960's or 1970's home movie footage - use a pistol grip! It will add an element that is very difficult to simulate otherwise.