Your ideal NX1 Settings

[kidzrevil]

are you turning your sharpness all the way down to -10?

yeah ! And albert fast keeps his at -5 and I cant seem to find the same issue in his vids. You don't notice it if the shot is locked down but handheld (the way i primarily shoot) you see it. Especially on shots like this. See if you notice it at the top row of the seating

UPDATE : I just contacted mosaic engineering (creators of the 5d anti aliasing filter) about possibly creating a custom aa filter for my nx1 body. Hope they get back to me

[Dean]

Anyone notice major moiré/aliasing like effect when shooting 4k ? Im noticing it even more when my shots aren't locked down like the image is oversharpened or something !

funny thing is I don't see it in any oF Andrew Reid's or Albert Fast nx1 footage

I rarely run across moire with this camera ... one of the features I really like about it. Compared to my old A7ii which went out of it's way to find moire and if none was found created it  out of thin air !!

[kidzrevil]

I rarely run across moire with this camera ... one of the features I really like about it. Compared to my old A7ii which went out of it's way to find moire and if none was found created it  out of thin air !!

im doing something wrong, ill figure it out

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Hey all,

I'm new to this forum today, but some of you know me from the Blackmagic forums or DVXUser.
I am shooting almost exclusively Blackmagic RAW these days but I got an NX1 for the high frame rates and for the occasion that some client may insist on 4K.

Lots of GREAT GREAT information being traded around on this thread here. These kooky codecs can drive ya mad, so I applaud those of you struggling through what must feel like endless testing. Thank you.

Right off the bat I wanted to add 2 points here:

First - Variable ND's do indeed all use two 'quarter-plates" (polarizers) against each other and that results in color shifts every time. EXCEPT the SLR Magic Vari-ND. This one is the exception. I have two of them and compared to the others I can assure you that the quality and freedom from color shift is far far better. Want some happy? Go there.

Second - I've read through this entire thread and looked at everyone's stills and videos and I just want to shout: "BIT-RATE!"
Meaning that almost all the image quality issues of this camera are coming from its low recording bit-rate. I've been through this exact routine already during the era of the development of the 'hack' for the Panasonic GH2. Dear lord...it's ALL in the bit-rate. I bring this up because if WE ALL get involved in pushing for a hack for the NX1 that will allow for a much higher bit-rate then it will stand a chance of happening. I haven't checked in with the N500 hack status recently, but it sounds like the ball is rolling. Masses of folks getting involved was what pushed the GH2 hack so far so fast.

All these image quality problems were the same on the stock GH2 - macro-blocking, color breakup, etc., and they are ALL gone now with the 150Mbps hack we ended up with. Yeah, you read that right - 150Mbps just for 1080p. Yeah, that's a card eater, but that doesn't matter anymore at today's memory prices, and watching all those problems vanish was just so delightful. 

Anyhoo, continue getting down wit' your bad selves!

 

Stewart! Good to have you here, buddy! Did you order your SLR Magic 50mm APO yet?  

Definitely agree on the bitrate issues with the NX1. It's exactly like you said--GH2 all over again. The problem is that with the future of the NX system up in the air, it's hard to get people invested in a hack. I'd love to be wrong, but personally won't be donating any money until actual hackers step up with a coherent plan.

[kidzrevil]

Totally was user error about the moire . I wasn't viewing the footage at 100% and the rendered video was shown on my iPhone. Damn camera has so much resolution if not viewed 1:1 it looks like moire. Wow

[Pavel Mašek]

Thank you  

Here are the settings for that look:

Lut : Sunderland (from Deluts) Intensity at 57,4 // Saturation at 87 // Fade 30,6, and heres the curve :

And here are two new pictures (not videoframes) : 

Hope you guys like =)

 

That is really wonderful, very nice. "Bus" picture is magnificent. It is Samyang 24 1.4?

[ricardo_sousa11]

That is really wonderful, very nice. "Bus" picture is magnificent. It is Samyang 24 1.4?

Thank you  

The first shot was using the Samyang 14mm f2.8 and the 2nd the 24mm f1.4.

[DPStewart]

Totally was user error about the moire . I wasn't viewing the footage at 100% and the rendered video was shown on my iPhone. Damn camera has so much resolution if not viewed 1:1 it looks like moire. Wow

LOL!
Well...I'm gonna say it....that was a "rookie error"! Like OUCH, that's gonna leave a mark! (I've done worse! )

But seriously - what you encountered is a really problematic issue. Guess how many viewers' monitor screens or other playback devices are NOT displaying 1:1?
It's a trick question - we CAN'T KNOW. And therein lies the problem. Because it's A LOT. 

I have FREQUENTLY run into this problem with things I've shot in 4k and almost as often with Blackmagic 1080p RAW stuff too. It's all effectively "TOO HIGH resolution" and there's all sorts of edge artifacting or aliasing that's coming from PLAYBACK, not the actual file. 
In these sorts of cases footage from my TOTALLY NOT SHARP Canon cameras looks BETTER. It is indeed a cruel and unjust world.
It looks better because the lower resolution tends not to result in edge artifacts being generated by the unlimited number of viewing situations and conditions that do not show the viewer the exact 1:1 display. And on monitors that are less than full 1080p (like smaller laptops etc.) you can't really get the full 1:1 no matter what you do.

The subtitle of this nightmare could be "How to produce higher resolution video that looks WORSE to the viewer" ...... great.

In small windows - like on a YouTube page or embedded on someones website - my stuff from the Canons will look just as good, and as I explained - sometimes even BETTER.
Now of course when you look at them full-screen at 1:1 the Canon stuff looks like crappy old Standard Def by comparison. There's just no winning...
(Oh, and I mean Canon T2i and 6D just shooting internal codec. A 5D in Magic Lantern RAW is a totally different story.)

Maybe I'll try to find some direct comparison stills to illustrate all this - but you probably already know what I mean.

[kidzrevil]

LOL!Well...I'm gonna say it....that was a "rookie error"! Like OUCH, that's gonna leave a mark! (I've done worse! )

But seriously - what you encountered is a really problematic issue. Guess how many viewers' monitor screens or other playback devices are NOT displaying 1:1?
It's a trick question - we CAN'T KNOW. And therein lies the problem. Because it's A LOT. 

I have FREQUENTLY run into this problem with things I've shot in 4k and almost as often with Blackmagic 1080p RAW stuff too. It's all effectively "TOO HIGH resolution" and there's all sorts of edge artifacting or aliasing that's coming from PLAYBACK, not the actual file. 
In these sorts of cases footage from my TOTALLY NOT SHARP Canon cameras looks BETTER. It is indeed a cruel and unjust world.
It looks better because the lower resolution tends not to result in edge artifacts being generated by the unlimited number of viewing situations and conditions that do not show the viewer the exact 1:1 display. And on monitors that are less than full 1080p (like smaller laptops etc.) you can't really get the full 1:1 no matter what you do.

The subtitle of this nightmare could be "How to produce higher resolution video that looks WORSE to the viewer" ...... great.

In small windows - like on a YouTube page or embedded on someones website - my stuff from the Canons will look just as good, and as I explained - sometimes even BETTER.
Now of course when you look at them full-screen at 1:1 the Canon stuff looks like crappy old Standard Def by comparison. There's just no winning...
(Oh, and I mean Canon T2i and 6D just shooting internal codec. A 5D in Magic Lantern RAW is a totally different story.)

Maybe I'll try to find some direct comparison stills to illustrate all this - but you probably already know what I mean.

yeah I get you ! I was convinced it was edge artifacts from the sensor and it was pissing me off ! My only solution right now is to use a light amount of the super 16mm sized grain on filmconvert. They add some sort of gaussian blur to the image and it looks nice to me. Im gonna use it with high contrast images though because low contrast and low resolution looks much worse than high contrast and low resolution. Sucks thats the selling point of the nx1 is the resolution but the screens we view it cant keep up. Confirms my theory that it was designed with their 4k tv's in mind. Im still looking forward to the massive resolution gain im gonna get when my zeiss milvus lenses get here

[DPStewart]

yeah I get you ! I was convinced it was edge artifacts from the sensor and it was pissing me off ! My only solution right now is to use a light amount of the super 16mm sized grain on filmconvert. They add some sort of gaussian blur to the image and it looks nice to me. Im gonna use it with high contrast images though because low contrast and low resolution looks much worse than high contrast and low resolution. Sucks thats the selling point of the nx1 is the resolution but the screens we view it cant keep up. Confirms my theory that it was designed with their 4k tv's in mind. Im still looking forward to the massive resolution gain im gonna get when my zeiss milvus lenses get here

Dude, you're gonna get such sharp images with those Milvus lenses that you're going to need to switch back to 720p.

Stewart! Good to have you here, buddy! Did you order your SLR Magic 50mm APO yet?  

Definitely agree on the bitrate issues with the NX1. It's exactly like you said--GH2 all over again. The problem is that with the future of the NX system up in the air, it's hard to get people invested in a hack. I'd love to be wrong, but personally won't be donating any money until actual hackers step up with a coherent plan.

Thanks Sir!
Ya know...funny you should mention the SLR Magics..
I really had it in my mind that I was going to put a whole set together, but then a big bunch of multi-cam work came my way, I bought three more Blackmagic cameras, and then I needed to get a bunch more lenses that matched the Nikkors and Samyangs I already had... so sadly the SLR Magics that I do have are now my "odd man out" so I'll probably sell them. They're still mint though - I take better care of my glass than I do of my ass.

[kidzrevil]

Dude, you're gonna get such sharp images with those Milvus lenses that you're going to need to switch back to 720p.

LOL just might ! Im going for a hyper realistic look with my work now. Hope i get the look im going for with these lenses  

[kidzrevil]

I've been shooting gamma c at default contrast -10 sharpness and -1 / -2 saturation and wow. Blown away. These were shot with 16-235 but Today i am experimenting with 16-255 as I've read technicolor cinestyle used that range to optimize the image for the encoder. 16-235 remapped to 0-255 automatically in premiere and I assume the same would apply to the 16-255 footage ! for this look I did NOT use LUT's aS I noticed LUT's were exaggerating compression artifacts in the image even when denoising before applying the lut. I went old school and just installed my own toe and shoulder using curves and kept the curve in the midtone region linear. Using the zeiss milvus lenses it looks my theory is true. You can beat the in camera sharpening if you use a high contrast lens that can resolve up to 6k. I assume the noise reduction and sharpening algorithim sees the areas of the image are true detail and leaves those areas filled with fine detail alone. This camera deserves the moniker "baby red" because the image quality is stunning WHEN TREATED CORRECTLY.

[mercer]

1 hour ago, kidzrevil said:

I've been shooting gamma c at default contrast -10 sharpness and -1 / -2 saturation and wow. Blown away. These were shot with 16-235 but Today i am experimenting with 16-255 as I've read technicolor cinestyle used that range to optimize the image for the encoder. 16-235 remapped to 0-255 automatically in premiere and I assume the same would apply to the 16-255 footage ! for this look I did NOT use LUT's aS I noticed LUT's were exaggerating compression artifacts in the image even when denoising before applying the lut. I went old school and just installed my own knee and shoulder using curves and kept the curve in the midtone region linear. Using the zeiss milvus lenses it looks my theory is true. You can beat the in camera sharpening if you use a lens that can resolve up to 6k and with a high contrast. I assume the noise reduction and sharpening algorithim sees the areas of the image are true detail and leaves it alone. This camera deserves the moniker "baby red" because the image quality is stunning. 

Never thought I'd say this, but... That pile of dung looks great. 

[kidzrevil]

49 minutes ago, mercer said:

Never thought I'd say this, but... That pile of dung looks great. 

Lmao an incredibly detailed pile of shit. The zeiss milvus lenses rock !

i think i am done with LUTs. The results i've been getting with gamma c and minimal correction are better. The color fidelity is incredible and macroblocking is no where to be found. 

[mercer]

2 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Lmao an incredibly detailed pile of shit. The zeiss milvus lenses rock !

i think i am done with LUTs. The results i've been getting with gamma c and minimal correction are better. The color fidelity is incredible and macroblocking is no where to be found. 

Yeah, your results are looking great. Can't wait to see some video. I need to learn how to properly color correct and grade, without LUTS I would have black people looking white.

[kidzrevil]

4 minutes ago, mercer said:

Yeah, your results are looking great. Can't wait to see some video. I need to learn how to properly color correct and grade, without LUTS I would have black people looking white.

Lmaoooo ! I've been spoiled by luts myself but I started off video learning how to use curves. You can get cross processed looks with curves too. These LUTs dig so deep into the image they will work better with 10+ bit footage. So yeah its important to learn to live without em.

btw i've been writing a guide on how to achieve film looks with and without looks. Taking the science of analog formats and applying it to the digital age

[mercer]

5 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

Lmaoooo ! I've been spoiled by luts myself but I started off video learning how to use curves. You can get cross processed looks with curves too. These LUTs dig so deep into the image they will work better with 10+ bit footage. So yeah its important to learn to live without em.

btw i've been writing a guide on how to achieve film looks with and without looks. Taking the science of analog formats and applying it to the digital age

That sounds interesting. Let me know when it's done, I'll be a buyer. I was just reading an article by Stu Mascwitz over at prolost.com about the differences between Raw and Log footage, a lot of it went over my head but there are some interesting parts involving the clipping of RGB channels and how you can post manipulate white balance by simply adjusting those channels... Or some shit... Like I said, it was beyond my knowledge. 

You'd probably get more out of it than I did. 

[kidzrevil]

9 minutes ago, mercer said:

 

That sounds interesting. Let me know when it's done, I'll be a buyer. I was just reading an article by Stu Mascwitz over at prolost.com about the differences between Raw and Log footage, a lot of it went over my head but there are some interesting parts involving the clipping of RGB channels and how you can post manipulate white balance by simply adjusting those channels... Or some shit... Like I said, it was beyond my knowledge. 

You'd probably get more out of it than I did. 

You got the link ?

[mercer]

7 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

You got the link ?

http://prolost.com/blog/rawvslog

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

12 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

I've been shooting gamma c at default contrast -10 sharpness and -1 / -2 saturation and wow. Blown away. These were shot with 16-235 but Today i am experimenting with 16-255 as I've read technicolor cinestyle used that range to optimize the image for the encoder. 16-235 remapped to 0-255 automatically in premiere and I assume the same would apply to the 16-255 footage ! for this look I did NOT use LUT's aS I noticed LUT's were exaggerating compression artifacts in the image even when denoising before applying the lut. I went old school and just installed my own toe and shoulder using curves and kept the curve in the midtone region linear. Using the zeiss milvus lenses it looks my theory is true. You can beat the in camera sharpening if you use a high contrast lens that can resolve up to 6k. I assume the noise reduction and sharpening algorithim sees the areas of the image are true detail and leaves those areas filled with fine detail alone. This camera deserves the moniker "baby red" because the image quality is stunning WHEN TREATED CORRECTLY.

This looks stunning ! Congrats !