Pavel Mašek

Line-skipping  or subsampling are options as well...
Potentially he could scraping the live view feed just like ML does

C'mon.....Its been Monday for 10 whole hours now @Arikhan

After an extensive test in Alaska...I found that the Canon 6D Mkii SUCKS BALLS!
Casey Neistat and Peter McKinnon are SO wrong. This camera is total garbage. 
I can't believe Canon would even release a camera like this with the price being what it is. Totally unacceptable. 
No ALL-I, worse ISO performance than 80D, No headphone jack. 

Its a total POS.
 Let me know your thoughts. 
 
 

I think it terms of stabilization it's important to have a realistic expectation when it comes to real world use. Nothing is a silver bullet solution.
Using stedicams and motorized gimbals are not an end solution, considerable practice and correct posture (knees bent) are still very much part of getting smooth shots, even coupled with OIS and IBIS. 
Even using optical and digital stabilization the camera can still pick up micro vibrations, which becomes more pronounced on longer lens'. That's why most ppl prefer to use wide as it produces less preceived parallax on the X and Y in your image. Also, infinity focus is prefered on systems that don't have good AF. 
The truth is if you're after that "Hollywood level smooth" you need to be on dolly/slider cranes/jibs, and drone systems.
I couple my Zhiyun crane mounted on a shock absorbed boom connecting to a vest. I also use the native Samsung 16-50mm S lens with OIS (quite good) and use good posture techniques. Even with all this, I will still get occasional vibrations that naturally come with walking.
Don't assume Warp Stabilizer in post will solve all issues, in fact it can often make your footage look worse. Serious jello. It's to be used lightly. 
Practice and multiple takes are key. I think if you set yourself up with the expectation that stabilizers and OIS/IBIS are going to be all you need to deliver buttery smooth shots you're in for some disapointment. 

It is an interesting article about mirrorless cameras, and a confirmation of my view that one of the major strengths of the NX system were the -not so many, but most quite good- lenses.
"Sony — NEX is history. But so, it appears, is the A5xxx. Really? The crop sensor Sony line is now a series of three cameras each of which is a "stick more sensor tech in it" version of the former? I fail to see how this is a useful strategy. Things that were wrong with the A6000 are still wrong with the A6500 (and A6300 in between). And when all is said and done these cameras seem a lot more GameBoy than anything else on the market. Don't get me wrong, I like them, but...
Note to Sony executives: You're making the same mistake Nikon made with DX, and  Canon made with EF-S and is making with EF-M. Samsung made lenses for their NEX-clone that clearly bettered what you put out. You can put all the tech you want at the sensor, but it's the optics out front that are hurting your image quality, not the sensor. What I'd give for Samsung's 16mm f/2.4, 20mm f/2.8, 30mm f/2, 45mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8, and 85mm f/1.4 in a Sony E-mount.  And no, your Sony 16mm, 20mm, 30mm don't even come close."
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-latest-state-of-mirrorl.html
unfortunately, even someone mentioning the NX system is news for us! It would be interesting if anyone could make a similar evaluation for the NX system in the end of 2017, almost 2018. I see the system being used from some of us until 2020 at least.
 

At CES a rep said it's an "all new sensor," which got me excited... but finally found a video where a rep says 12MP stills so it's not looking like a 1" 
EDIT: Looks like there will be two sensor options!
 

Self appointed LOG police here.  A camera's normal gamma profile is designed to maximize color saturation across an 8/24-bit gamma curve.  As soon as you shoot LOG, you accept a trade off between gray-scale DR and chroma.  The improvement you'll get shooting external 422 (if the camera shoots internal 420) has nothing to do with the banding from chroma spread out too thinly on a gamma curve, it is about compression.  To reduce data 420 substitutes more color than 422.   Two different types of banding (or color loss).  I'm just extending what @Don Kotlos said above.  My 2-cents is don't shoot a LOG profile that will give you noticeable banding (which depends on what you shoot) and expect a more lossless CODEC to save you

Why sell your external recorder?  Was that what I suggested?  I only said that banding can be a result of an aggressive LOG profile, as Don said, or from too little color information due to a high compression CODEC that uses 420.  We both have different roles, right?  You shoot and grade real stuff I assume.  I'd hire you over me to go shoot something.  I test stuff, a more scientific approach.  We're here to educate each other, I hope   Just so the OP can make sense of this I will explain some of this stuff in more detail, as I understand it!
Many filmmakers believe their cameras record color just like our eyes/brains do.  But they don't.  Cameras can only see in gray-scale actually.  The manufacturers put color filters over alternating pixels and then composite a "color".  But it's not really a color.  It's just a brightness value of light through a filter with the noise floor of the silicon as a reference/floor.  Too much brightness, and the value doesn't change.  The #1 confusion I see is the belief that these values have an implied relative brightness; that is, that the brightness difference between 100 and 200 would mean double the brightness as we see it.  That SHOULD be the case, but isn't.  The camera records linear, we see exponentially.  But even that is IN THE WEEDs.  The fact is, as YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST TO POINT OUT, the real world of grading is getting an image that looks right to the viewer, or conveys the feel the filmmaker wants.  That will  mean adjusting the relationship of brightness across the image... 
But but but..., you must have enough color data to fit your display gamma or you will notice where you don't have enough color, which is banding in smooth color gradients.  You can't widen your gamma (LOG) in a fixed data color space (8-bit) and assume that you will always have enough color information in your image to fully saturate a gradient.  Don was basically saying, the less aggressive LOG you use, the less chance you have to run into banding.  AGREE!!!!  And he'd know more than I about which LOG profiles do what in the real world.
Let me say this again in other words.  Extending a gamma beyond the amount of color data you have can increase banding.  Similarly, forcing more color into a narrow gamma will result in an image that has no discernable visual difference, which is why LOGs can have benefits in certain circumstances (they exploit what may be unnecessary color data). But you have to really know your shit to know when that is!  What I learned in my experiments is I did NOT know my sh_t
As for the external recorder, I was just pointing out that its benefit can affect banding, but is a separate issue from how it happens when using a LOG gamma for shooting in an 8bit space?  The OP should really be clear about the differences, right, before assuming one will fix the other?  If he was, I don't believe he would have asked the question because it's very subjective, or too variable to give an objective answer, right?
Are we friends again?

(Above, shot on the NX1 & full frame NX-L).
The Samsung NX1 is at this moment in time the best value for money 4K Super 35mm camera with the best ergonomics and autofocus.
I still end up using my NX1 more than my Sony A6500 and Fuji X-T20, which pale into insignificance vs what Samsung did nearly 3 years ago.
Now the NX-L speed booster has developed further since my last article and I've been shooting a lot more with it.
Read the full article

I shoot with GH5's every day at work while all of my personal and side projects are shot on the NX1 and NX500. 

Obviously the 4k 60p on the GH5 is fantastic. And I quite like V-Log as well, it's far easier to grade than Sony's log profiles, and nicely preserves the dynamic range without destroying colors. I haven't really shot/graded 10-bit footage that much, as it is just overkill for the kind of work I have been doing, and the 8-bit is fine. I like how big the EVF is, and how you can switch between viewfinder and LCD screen easily while recording. There are lots of great and easily re-mappable function buttons, and you can program and save shooting modes in the custom profiles dial much easier and more effectively than you can on the NX cameras, which don't even save the video data at all. Of course, you can also move the zoomed-in focus checking area, unlike NX, and the tilty/flippy screen is preferable to the tilt-only screen. And you can't forget about the IBIS, which is just fantastic for handheld shooting, truly a game-changer for my kind of work, I need a monopod for my NX1 at all times. 
That being said...
I far prefer the NX cameras' photo/video implementation; it is still the simplest, best camera I have ever used for switching quickly between stills and video. No specific mode dials needed. Tap the shutter button to take a picture, hit the record button to record. The NX1 seems to have quite a bit better battery life than the GH5 in my experience as well. It is also lighter and feels better in the hands- the NX1 is an insanely comfortable camera, in the fact still the best I have ever used ergonomically, while the GH5 is surprisingly heavy and a bit bulky. The GH5 also has this very annoying tendency to hesitate for just a split-second or two when you hit the record button, which doesn't sound like a big deal, but it hesitates just long enough that I have double-pumped many, many times, while the NX seems immediately responsive. I do prefer the the menu system on the NX cameras as well. 
As far as out-and-out IQ comparison, I have one of Luca's speedboosters on my NX1 pretty much all the time, so I have actually gotten quite used to the full frame look, especially DOF-wise, so it almost feels limiting sometimes to only have a super-35 equivalent with a Speedbooster on the GH5. Color-science wise, I can't say I prefer the one over the other - - in good light, I think both cameras look fantastic, with great skin tones and malleable colors -- basically you'll be able to get the look you're going for in post with either camera. The autofocus on the NX cameras is far, far better than the GH5, if that's important to you. And the NX1's internal 6.5k to 4k downscale is still unbeaten, detail-wise. The image is always just unbelievably sharp and detailed. The GH5 doesn't quite match that. And while the low-light and noise on the GH5 is probably preferable (clean at 1600, useable at 3200) I rarely, if ever, need these ISOs anyway, especially with the speedbooster and some fast glass to boot. 
Of course, I'm not mentioning stills quality at all, I haven't shot many stills on the GH5, but obviously the NX is going to win that competition hands-down, it is still, even several years later, one of the best APS-C sensors ever made, with insanely good dynamic range, especially when pulling shadows. 

So, bottom line, should you switch?
I think that depends. If you're pure run-and-gun, then yes, the IBIS (and the 4k 60p, if you need high-res slo-mo, with the benefit of a good log profile) is a pretty unbeatable combo for video right now. Throw in the 10-bit, and it's future-proofed for quite some time. The low-light IQ is more than enough. I think the GH5 is easily the best bang-for-the-buck camera around right now, and will remain so for quite some time. But if you're already invested in the NX system, which has its own fantastic native lenses (16-50S, wow), IQ wise I really don't think you're gaining that much. Not enough to go through the hassle of trying to sell and offload all my Samsung gear. I quite enjoy the GH5. But I still love shooting with my NX cameras, and don't feel like I'm losing out of for most of the kind of work that I do.

So take that as you will.  

As it is said before in static scenes it is hard to see any difference. But I have seen horrible macro blocking in some sky scenes before the hack. Also there is some stange "macro block flashing" sometimes in even shadow surfaces ( grounds, roads, walls...), there can be little with hack too but much more without. Can't explain it, but it seems to me some kind of macro blocking. I have also seen really horrible  macro block, color kind of flashing when shooting snow during snowing. I have not seen it with the hack yet. I have no words to explain it correctly, sorry my english. All in all, simply the picture seems more "peacefull" with the hack. I use it all the time. Nowadays  at 140 mbps (AF and IS on)

I always use the hack. Big improvement, especially in 120p. I feel like it holds fine detail in the shadow areas a lot better, but where I really notice it is on a gimbal, with a wide angle and deep focus... I mainly shoot weddings, so that means lots of trees, fountains, small, detailed and busy backgrounds with lots of movement. At the much lower stock bitrate (especially on the NX500, which only offered 60mbps as opposed to the nx1's 80mbps pro setting) there is a huge, noticeable difference for me. 
I always shoot my b-roll without sound anyway, since it's all 60p or 120p and I know I'll slow it down, so I usually shoot at 200mbps, and drop down to 180 or 160 with sound when I shoot interviews and talking heads. The files still aren't that big. Why not use the best image quality possible, all the time? 
That's my advice though. If you really want to see the difference, point the camera at a fountain, or run down a road with big, leafy trees gently blowing in the wind, and I'm sure you'll notice a difference. 

In static scenes you will not see much difference - maybe only in shadows details. But I always shoot 4k/30p in 160Mbit:
I remember one situation in past when I have recorded  video with my NX1 (withou any hack that time) was poiting on building against sun (so building was in shadows), there were trees, waving branches in the wind, moving grass, chaning brightness ... that image was full of macroblocking and absolutely awful to me. 
However I saw also macroblocking on the sky in static landscape shots too so I will never return back to 80Mbit.
Below are frame grabs from 160Mbit footage - all done from gimbal in movement (so there is also some motion blur), no grading - just "converted" from 0-255 to 16-235 in Premiere (I am Ok with 8bit colors ;-)), Vivid settings with some tweaks, MBL 0.
I have not tried 80Mbit but details would not be so detailed and there would be much more macroblocking - I think image would fall apart completely without hack. You will see macroblocking even here (face, road ) if you will take closer look (I should push it at least to 180Mbit but I was worried about frame drops).
If you plan share footage on YT then it is completely different story
 

Gave it a try over the weekend. Works surprisingly well.
4K 24fps shutter 1/50
NX1 50-200 OIS III AF:
 

I thought you have already switched to some of competitiors (A6500?)  ;-) So NX1 is still better?

NX1's AF was the second best back then, not that further away from Canon's, and still I prefer it from Sony's for video (so in my opinion, it is still the second best!). Samsung was nothing to Canon back then, the smaller players were afraid the most (Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic mainly; Sony was worried, and Nikon would have been doomed). Olympus and Fuji haven't the resources to fight Samsung, Nikon can't compete in the new digital age, and even Panasonic is much smaller than Samsung.
Sony is powerful, but Samsung had some amazing R&D breakthroughs, and the capacity to manufacture EVERYTHING you need for a photo/video camera (CPUs, RAMs, lenses, Super AMOLED touch screens, everything). First 28mpxls BSI sensor (A7Rii was the second big sensored BSI actually) etc etc.
Samsung just decided that they didn't want to compete on a declining market, and pro video/photography was a long shot. NX1 was too late in the game.
It is just a pity that we didn't see a NX1mkII, they did the first version SOOOOO good, without any prior real practical experience. The NX team had some truly talented and passionate people (just check some of their older corporate videos), something that a huge capitalistic and autocratic mega-trust, couldn't allow to exist.

Even if you do think it's over sharpened at -10 (I don't - it looks similar to a Canon JPEG on default sharpness and no photographers are rounding on Canon claiming their photos are 'over sharpened') then it is a rather easy problem to fix.
Downscale to 2.8K then upscale to 4K again.
And if you want to fix your shooting style to get a less 'sharp' result there are numerous techniques, easiest being -
Black Mist Pro on the lens and softer light, more diffusion.

Hi guys! New user here from Italy. Next week, after many thoughts, I'm going to have the NX1 and I'm pretty excited. This forum was critical to my final decision and I have to thank you for all the opinions and settings that you've posted through all these years about this amazing camera.
I've just found a short movie from Vimeo filmed with the NX1 and I think it looks great (sadly I don't know the author's settings).
 

These days I wanted to test the maximum bitrates with hack NX/KS.
I've found that to get the maximum bitrates you need to turn off all the functions that require memory and cpu:
So if I turn off bluetooth, all the automatic functions, and close the display by going on EVF can go up to 220Mbit/s without interruption and up to 240Mbit/s for about a minute.
The benefit that is obtained is that the macroblochin is reduced in size, transforming itself from small squares into a noise-like grain.
What I think is that if the hack could turn off the display and the EVF being recorded, the NX1 could go over 250Mbit/s without any recording time limit.

I've had the NX1 for about 6 mos or so. The images it produces has become one of my favorite. 
Mostly shot on Nikkors  Ais and Rokinons. 
Gamma: Normal, -3 Contrast, -2 Sat, -10 Sharpness, 
16-235 for some and 0-255 for others. 

Great....
 

I use the Lexar 2000x 300MB/s UHS-II and the Sandisk Extreme Pro 95 MB/s which also works just fine for me. Plus it's cheaper.
I generally shoot at 160 Mbit/s or 140 with audio and it is completely reliable. I'll leave it going for 30-40 minutes during wedding ceremonies.
I was having a lot of issues with macro blocking in shadows and backgrounds with uniform color with the standard bitrates, but the hack completely eliminated those problems for me.
The bitrate hack + Luca's NX-L redeemed the NX1 for me. I've been shooting it in tandem with the GH5 lately and the footage is actually matching pretty well for me.

@Andrew Reid First of all I am glad you are more active with your blog and forum. Most of us we are here because we trust and value your independent thinking and opinions.
To add some things to the discussion.
GH5 batteries are the same as GH4s while the camera needs more power to operate (a lot of extra features and processing power). I have read that power consumption in real life is much bigger than GH4s were. I can not be certain of course. I week ago a shot a 3 hours continuous performance with my NX1/NX500/NX3000 with only one battery each, and I own the cameras (and the batteries) for a couple of years now (the NX1 a bit less, and in the end I changed the NX500 battery, just to be sure).
There is a whole thread about the NX1 EF speedbooster in your NX sub forum, people reporting great results, but it is a somehow specialized, and limited edition item so the price is to the higher side (600euros was it?), and it is called NX-L (it also has a Nazi thunder logo on it! Just kidding, but it does)! The main reason I didn't care, was the fact that I am covered with native lenses 100%. I used to use a 18-135 EF-S with a plain adapter, but no need for that anymore.
In the Philip Bloom video, he added the NX1 probably just for fun, and in my opinion it was the second best after Dual Pixel. I have expressed my opinion, that even Dual Pixel canon in spec sheets seem less than Sony's latest AF trickery, in real life is the best AF system and the one and only for pro video, but in my experience NX is working sufficiently good (Great results with Ronin and sliders), and better than Sony's (yesterday on a short that I was doing sound, an a6500 on gimbal and slider was extremely unstable so the camera men could use AF).
Plus, GH5 seems (and probably is) bulkier, and has almost 40% more weight than the NX1 (550 vs 725gr), if you add a cage, mic and a few extras, those 175grms are something.
GH cameras are pretty reliable cameras and highly recommended for "serious" videographers.
Something that is not mentioned a lot, and it should, is that H265 workflow right now is much easier than GH5 10 bit one, and 10 bit is demanding in both hardware and software, but mainly hardware!
 

To Sandro, the NX1 is far more enjoyable to shoot with than the A6300 and the A6500 didn't solve any of the rolling shutter issues and just papered over the overheating problems in firmware. Less crop? I assume you mean in the 4K 30p and 1080p 120fps modes... no still crops in a bit like the A6300. But in 4K 24p there's no crop (again same as before).
MountneerMan GH5 vs NX1 -
They overlap in some areas and have pros and cons, with some things I prefer on the GH5 and some things I prefer on the NX1, so here goes...
The NX1 is of course Super 35mm in terms of sensor size and the look, and GH5 needs Speed Booster to get that look. The GH5 is also double the price and Speed Booster will add to that. The advantage though is you might save money on the lenses if you already have Canon stuff. The GH5 is great for Canon lenses. The NX1 has no adapter that controls aperture of EF lenses yet and no Speed Booster (what happened to the third party one?)
The image quality is quite close between the two, with the GH5 + Speed Booster having about 1-2 stops better low light performance, but still a maximum of ISO 6400 really, whereas NX1 is 3200, 1600 to be safe. Take into account 1 stop extra light from Speed Booster and GH5 is definitely comfortable at 3 stops brighter than the NX1. That's the difference between 1600 and 12,800 but ask yourself if you really need usable 6400 at F0.95... rather than usable 3200 at F1.4! It'll cost ya!
Colour is a strong point of both, but the GH5 has the option of proper LOG. The NX1 stores a LOT of dynamic range in the standard non-LOG files and there is option to raise blacks, reveal more shadow info, prevent highlight clipping and adjust gamma curve so it's pretty good in this respect - and a LOT easier to grade.
Rolling shutter is a big win for the GH5. Ergonomics are a big win for the NX1.
Battery life is good on both but GH5 wins. There is a battery grip for the NX1 which sensibly doesn't require you to take the battery door off the camera or the battery out, it slots into a pin-out on the base of the NX1. ALL battery grips should be designed this way!
Both weather sealed, as long as you also use a weather sealed lens.
Samsung S 16-50mm OIS is weather sealed and one of the best zooms ever made. F2.0-F2.8 and super sharp.
Stabilisation on the NX1 in DIS can be hit and miss but when it works, it uses very advanced custom hardware chips to completely lock down a shot, more effectively than Warp Stabiliser. It's 5 axis and amazing if not much is moving in your shot. Sometimes exposure changes and sudden movements in the frame cause it to lose track and have to regain its composure within a few seconds, but that can spoil a shot for sure. The GH5 is all-round more consistent with the 5 axis in-body sensor shift but surprisingly for locked down shots the NX1 is less floaty and completely still like on a tripod. You don't need to enter the focal length for manual lenses and it is even more effective when using a Samsung lens with OIS. I find it works best with 35mm lenses if you are adapting a lens with no optical IS.
On the stills side, NX1 is superior for resolution and has very good dynamic range in the RAWs. GH5 is superior for continuous burst rate, stabilisation and adaptability to Canon EF glass.
I use a Novoflex Sony Alpha mount adapter with my NX1 and the 35mm F1.4 G, 85mm F1.4 Zeiss Planar. The 35mm is an evolution of the brilliant Minolta design and the 85mm is an evolution of the Contax Zeiss 85mm F1.4, one of my all time favourite lenses. These are the only two lenses I find myself needing on the NX1 as I have the Samsung 16-50mm F2.0 to cover the rest and when I need AF. One important point about the Sony Alpha 35 + 85 I mentioned is that they are much lighter and smaller than the Sigma ART equivalents for Canon and Nikon mount. Of course you can get a Nikon adapter for the NX1 which adjusts aperture, just like the Sony Alpha adapter does, but I think Sony Alpha glass is a bit undervalued on the used market, with some real gems in the lineup.
Video AF, I believe Philip Bloom did a big test of this and included the NX1. I rate it quite highly for this. The NX1 has phase detect pixels on the sensor so AF is really rather good in video mode - not quite Dual Pixel AF good but close. Sony's on the A6500 is hit and miss, sometimes works well, sometimes does stupid things. The GH5 doesn't have phase detect AF pixels so it relies on a very fast sensor scan of 240fps in stills mode and Panasonic's DFD technology to analyse focus and in that mode it is very fast. In video mode it falls back to the frame rate you have selected for the recording so in 24p the AF is really rather dog-slow and in 60p still not as good as the NX1.
On the codec side they are quite different. 10bit and superior 1080p codec, 4:2:2 on the GH5. The 10bit 4K really is lovely and 8bit 4K 60p very nice to have. The NX1 is of course an 8bit camera but the image quality is right up there, like a JPEG still, it just doesn't quite grade as well and there's still some macro blocking even at 160Mbit in H.265 with the hack, although I still rate it as a good performance. The Canon 1D C's 4K is also 8bit and this eats image quality for breakfast. 10bit on the GH5 really comes in handy for improving Panasonic's colour science (although it's not just 10bit responsible but a lot of other nice stuff going on) and for LOG it helps too. However it does make for files that are almost impossible to edit natively straight off the card at the moment, so you will have to transcode. Then again you should do that with the H.265 files from the NX1 as well, although Premiere does now support H.265 you will get smoother editing performance by using EditReady to convert them to ProRes.
Anything I've missed, let me know...

Ever since I gave up my Nikon D5200 a few years ago for the Panasonic GX7, I've been dearly missing one lens. The 17-50mm f2.8. I tried the 12-35mm f2.8 on the Panasonic but didn't like it. Then the Samsung NX1 came out along with the 16-50mm f2-2.8. At the time, it was way above my budget. So I've since considered other systems such as the Sony but for one reason or another, they didn't fit my needs. But now, over 2 years later, I've finally been able and willing to pick one up. Luckily as well, the camera body is entirely unused. The manufacturer sealing was still in place. 
One of the first things I do when I get a new camera is to compare it to my other camera(s) for things like colour, dynamic range and noise. I've made many such tests before but never usually post them. This time I've taken the time to do it properly and edit it together for all to see. 
First up is the X-T2 vs NX1 shootout. The main point of this was to see the differences in colour and tonality. See the video description for all the fine details on settings.
And next is this high iso comparison with two other cameras I currently have. Again, you can see the video description for all the setting details.
Some thoughts on the differences between the X-T2 and NX1:
AF-C and focus pulling with AF works much better on the older NX1 than the X-T2; in video anyway.  The 16-50mm f2-2.8 is a ridiculously good lens, image wise. And the focus rings works just like a classic lens. The grip and button layout of the NX1 is far better. I've always felt the retro styling of Fujifilm were a detriment to their functionality. The downside to the NX1 is that it is far inferior to the XT2 in low light. The last shot in the shootout was shot at ISO 800 on the NX1 and 1600 on the XT2, yet the NX1 shows less detail and more muddiness due to the noise reduction.  Also the NX1 is far sharper in 4k and HD but has more aliasing and moiré in the latter.  
Anyway, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the difference between the images I'm yet undecided of which system to keep, even though the NX1 would finally fulfil my want.. or need of a 16-50mm f2.8.