Andrew Reid

  Maybe you should try the camera first. All the test shots I did with the V1 in-store had the shutter nailed at 1/60 and it never budged. The camera controlled exposure purely with the ISO and chose the lowest shutter speed and widest aperture available. In very strong light you will need NDs as the camera may try and choose a high shutter speed to control exposure but it definitely isn't impossible to make it stay around 1/60.

  It works with manual AI lenses too according to Nikon's specs   AI Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AI Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/lenses/mount_adapter_ft1/compatibility.htm   It is pricey for an adapter - maybe I will get it, maybe not. I want to keep it simple on the lens side for this camera until I know I'm going to make full use of it in my filmmaking, then I'll invest. I've ordered the CX 50mm F1.8 because it is $180 and to lock focus so quickly using AF and then just get on with the burst of shots is very useful. The images it produces are incredible, take a look at this - http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/12/05/the-nikon-18-5-f1-8-cx-lens-review-for-the-1-series-by-craig-litten/

So it's $200 per second.   130 seconds per $26,000 :)   Joking aside, yes we are being taken for an almighty ride by the corporations.   I would like Blackmagic to consider Aptina as a sensor partner.   This chip gives us a better image than their current one and they should explore how to give it the cooling and memory to shoot continuously.   The sensor can't cost close to the RRP of the original Nikon J1 (which shares the sensor with the V1) otherwise Nikon would have made a loss.   So it is is a $100 part at best.   Canon and Sony risk having their asses handed to them if they're not careful. They could see an entire $20,000 market driven to the $500 price point unless they face reality. Electronics are cheap. It happened in the music industry.   They're all trying to 'add value' - which is corporate speak for mark-up. The premium range of cameras adds value at $26,000 by enabling what is already possible for under $3000.   I think the reason Nikon didn't add a larger buffer is that the limitation is really the card write speed. Raw to SD card is a slow process. You really need an SSD. But again, the SSD interface is a $10 part at best. USB SSD docks retail for $30.   The next time a company like Blackmagic or Ikonoskop source a sensor, we are looking at 4K for $4K definitely.

When my V1 arrives I am going to try covering the metal contacts on the mount with tin foil and see if I can get a combination of pin contacts that will fool the camera into thinking a lens is attached... Worth a shot :)

M43 to Nikon 1 won't go, so no Voigtlander fun but pretty much any other lens imaginable adapts to it.   Consider the Nikon FT1 adapter - expensive but it will allow you to use Nikon DSLR glass in burst mode on the V1, so still cheaper than having to get the V2 for more lens choices.

He FTPed me some files. I'll see if I can share the originals. Will ask him!

  4MP rather than 4K (which is 8MP to 10MP depending on aspect ratio). It only does the 40 frame burst for 1 second and outputs some rather dodgy looking downscaled JPEGs.   The beauty of the V1 is that it outputs full res raw!

  GH3 also has an electronic shutter mode. It does 2.5K JPEGs for 5 seconds but only at 20fps.   You can shoot in 4:3 for a tall vertical resolution in that mode - good for anamorphic. But 4 frames per second shy of usable!   Other cameras have fast 30fps burst modes but no raw and their buffers can barely hold 10 or 20 crappy resolution JPEGs before stopping!

  Oddly no! Well - by definition raw is the full res of the sensor. You can even enable JPEG only or JPEG + RAW and the number of frames it stores are the same. I think the sensor always has to drive those 30 raw frames to the buffer for the JPEGs to exist, which is why simply enabling small JPEGs in the menu doesn't help jam more frames into the tiny buffer.   Having said that let's give the little V1 some credit - most high end DSLRs have even smaller buffers!

  You're right.   We've had some emails back and forth and he kindly uploaded the original files. They're much better.   A follow up article is in the works...

I said ALL that in the article dude! It is the V2 you need for manual exposure controls in burst mode and adaptable lenses.   Considering the clips are so short and exposure is locked for the shot I am fine with the P mode burst of the V1 for now.   Not considering the V2 until I try this first - it is 3x more for practically the same thing.

Easy to find everywhere. Check the eBay link on the article.

Yes it does the same but adds nothing new apart from the manual control in burst mode. Video mode and 400fps are the same and they didn't increase the buffer size. Another disturbing trend - yearly follow up models that don't progress the technology.

It's a very nice creative tool as it is. For the price it is a must-have.   It is about time someone gave us Aptina Unchained though.   This sensor in a consumer camera is a tragedy.

I believe it is 14bit off the sensor, 12bit in the file.

http://vimeo.com/61441075 Above - the compressed 2.4k version of 4K raw from the Nikon V1 by Javier Sobremazas There's a dark horse in our midst which very few know about, a camera which can shoot 4K raw at 60fps for $200.   Full article

GH2 and cage :) http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/1371-first-look-at-the-new-rewo-blackmagic-cinema-camera-cage/page-2?hl=top+gear#entry19312   Do you have a link to this episode on BBC iPlayer? Which series, episode number?   I'm going to watch it later today.

  Talking with the Ikonoskop guys yesterday, an interesting observation came up.   One of the reasons CCD looks so film like is that the noise pattern is completely randomised.   On CMOS it is uniform and you can always notice the fixed pattern of noise imprinted on the image.   A CCD sensor has grain like film and it moves in the same way as film grain.   Leica should be careful with this sensor - the DXOMark results don't look good (putting it below some $800 cameras).

It's becoming harder for full frame photographic cameras to compete with dedicated video cameras.   Once F0.95 on full frame was unique for video.   Now with the Metabones Speed Booster I am shooting with the FS100 at F1.0 on an almost full frame imaging circle.   I think Leica need to be careful - if the video quality is sub-par then it shouldn't be on the camera AT ALL. Don't just bolt it on because they can. Leica's whole business depends on delivering the best possible image.   Video is very hard to get right on such a heavily photographic orientated product. The sensor and image processor just don't seem optimised for both.

  Thanks, I'd be interested in doing that. You will have mail soon.

http://vimeo.com/61304882 Catch the EOSHD interview with Leica's Jesko von Oeynhausenand and hands-on with the Leica M type 240 here The new Leica M (dubbed type 240) has a CMOSIS full frame sensor, and a first for a Leica camera - video. Not since the Leicina 8mm camera (EOSHD article) has a Leica product been viable for cinema. The Leica M of course is primarily a photography tool, but it is interesting to see if Leica have taken the same no-compromise approach to image quality in video mode as they have always done with stills. Furthermore Leica are a company with no high end cinema camera range or video camera market share to protect from themselves (yes - never did make sense that did it?)  

The tint you can compensate for in post, but somehow the response of the sensor has an influence even on raw.   We went into the test knowing how to expose the Ikonoskop - it is true that you expose for the highlights, whilst the BMCC is the other way - it benefits from being exposed more to the right.

  Partly yes but look at the 2nd shot in (the musicians). That is more towards magenta.   Like I say there is a very fine line in the colour tint in Resolve with Ikonoskop footage compared to the Blackmagic raw.

  Weird isn't it... The BMCC's sharpness and dynamic range seems to work against it in this comparison.   It just seems too smooth and broadcast like.   The Ikonoskop is a bit quirky and not just when it comes to the image, which is why I love it.   But it is VERY hard to put your finger on exactly WHY the image is so cinematic.   We used a very nice Zeiss 16mm lens on it which will contribute, but the colour and feel of the image is mainly down to the camera.

  Certainly more than the other blogs who leech from 100 RSS feeds and sell ads around other people's content :)