Mozim

If you actually remember when you downloaded the trial version of Color Finale, you can simply set back the clock of your computer manually to the date you downloaded the trial version and it'll work again. It's a fantastic product and of course I strongly advise to support them by purchasing their product, but still, this will work. 

NX1 rolling shutter is pretty awful, too, and many people complained about it. 

Rolling shutter, 1080p is fairly soft, 1080p 120fps is very soft, no headphone jack, questionable button placement, no touchscreen, battery life. If it fits your style of shooting then that's great. 

In my experience with Panasonic cameras, you should avoid using LUTs. I haven't shot with VLog (I'm a GH3 owner) but whenever using LUTs I have to dial them down a lot in order not to destroy the footage. What happens is that your greens will turn into yellow / brown and your reds will look off, too. This is exactly what happened with the footage you posted the other day, too. I really enjoy the GH3 and other Panasonic cameras for the image quality, conveniance, battery life etc. but I'm getting to a point where I simply don't want to use the camera anymore because of the colors. 
I use Final Cut Pro X, Color Finale and IWLTBAP LUTs that you can purchase from benymypony. What I usually do is I do basic color correction (highlights, shadows and mids) and then apply a Delut that flattens the image (9090) and then use whatever LUT is pleasing for the particular project. I usually dial down both LUTs to around 50% opacity. After that I do a few minor tweaks. Keep in mind that the footage isn't LOG footage, so be careful using LUTs. It brings your footage to life when you have LOG footage but doesn't work well with regular footage. 
Color Finale is a fantastic plugin for FCPX in my experience but your results will strongly depend on the camera you've shot the project with. 

In my experience with Panasonic cameras, you should avoid using LUTs. I haven't shot with VLog (I'm a GH3 owner) but whenever using LUTs I have to dial them down a lot in order not to destroy the footage. What happens is that your greens will turn into yellow / brown and your reds will look off, too. This is exactly what happened with the footage you posted the other day, too. I really enjoy the GH3 and other Panasonic cameras for the image quality, conveniance, battery life etc. but I'm getting to a point where I simply don't want to use the camera anymore because of the colors. 
I use Final Cut Pro X, Color Finale and IWLTBAP LUTs that you can purchase from benymypony. What I usually do is I do basic color correction (highlights, shadows and mids) and then apply a Delut that flattens the image (9090) and then use whatever LUT is pleasing for the particular project. I usually dial down both LUTs to around 50% opacity. After that I do a few minor tweaks. Keep in mind that the footage isn't LOG footage, so be careful using LUTs. It brings your footage to life when you have LOG footage but doesn't work well with regular footage. 
Color Finale is a fantastic plugin for FCPX in my experience but your results will strongly depend on the camera you've shot the project with. 

I've used the Panasonic GH3 fairly extensively for Steadycam work. The 1080p/50fps looks fine. To be honest I never noticed any moiré or aliasing. I usually use it with a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 stopped down to f/4. The only things that really do bother me are the dynamic range (or lack thereof) and the colors. In fact I've used the Nikon D750 as my A-Cam for almost a year now and when shooting with both the GH3 and the D750, I find myself hating the GH3 image more and more. The colors look wrong and it's very difficult to match them. I love the D750 but it's not going to be as sharp or detailed as the GH3. 
You mention that the D750 doesn't have a very high internal bitrate or internal focus peaking. Both don't really matter when shooting steadycam stuff. The image grades extremely well, way better than it should anyway. And you're not going to need internal focus peaking if you're shooting at <24mm - unless you're doing super high end stuff, and in that case you're not going to rely on the internal focus peaking anyway. 

Similiar conclusions here after having used Premiere for a couple of days. 

I tried to cut an entire project (that I cut before in FCPX) in Premiere to get familiar with the program. Some things seem a lot less intuitive because I'm not used to the program, other things are a lot less intuitive because that's the way the program works. I think the overall color grading in Premiere is great but editing, clip organization etc. in FCPX suits my workflow much better. I'll stick with FCPX if I need to edit something quickly. Knowing the basics in Premiere will definitely be helpful in the future though!

Color Finale is a plugin that I regularly use, mainly to apply LUTs to my footage. That's one of the things I hate about FCPX; you can't use your own LUTs. So I usually do my basic color corrections with the built in correction tools, apply a one of the IWLTBAP LUTs that suits the footage and set the LUT opacity somewhere between 30% and 70%. 

Another really cool plugin for FCPX is Oliver Color. It allows you to adjust exposure, contrast, saturation, highs mids and lows, hue and a couple other things... and it's free. https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/building-a-free-fcp-x-color-correction-filter/

Thanks for the feedback!

I pulled the trigger and bought the D750 with a Nikon 24-120mm F4 IS lens yesterday. I only got the chance to test the video performance very, very briefly but compared to my GH3, the dynamic range and low light performance is much, much better. ISO 1600 looks very usable and shadows and highlights look much more pleasing. So far I really like it!

A recent rumor indicates that Samsung will implement a 4K crop mode (which should result in a faster readout speed & less rolling shutter) with the next Firmware update. 
Also, the NX500 seems to have a 240fps option. There's a picture floating around that clearly shows 240fps as an 1080p option in the NX500 menu. 

I wasn't saying it was unusable, quite the opposite, but I was pointing out the drastic limitation of a shallow depth of field, thus the naievity of justifying larger sensor sizes by that alone. Unless you are a focusing savant, and they do exist, your subject will be rather stationary in the frame, especially if it is a human face and unless you like the effect of part of peoples faces/the thing that is the subject of your shot being out of focus, which personally gives me a headache, then you are going to be shooting small (depth wise) flat or very far away objects. Yes a human face side on at the end of a 200mm length filling less than a quarter of the screen is small.
That's not a criticism. Your scene was gorgeous.
But try watching something that makes you desperate to pick up your camera, the thing you turn to for inspiration. You will find a variety of shots, 95% of which are equally as easy to achieve on any sensor size, from iphone through to 70mm +, and you may find those other 5% of shots are in fact easier to achieve on a smaller sensor, depending on the style of the artist.
FYI, my vote is for full frame, but the reason is perhaps surprising.
It is the budget option.
I know, I know, full frame cameras are very expensive when compared to crop frame cameras, but this is a genius of marketing over the consumers willingness to understand the product. If I want to achieve a specific look, it is almost certainly cheaper to achieve that look on a full frame sensor than a crop frame, because lens manufacturers lie when it comes to f numbers. They give the rating for the light gathered by a full frame camera, even on lenses designed only for crop frames. And because the consumer is either unwilling to do the simple maths - full open light gathered = diameter of lens opening/focal length or is willing to believe that their favourite lens manufacturer can somehow bend light into the front of their lens with magic. Thus that $1000 beautiful quality lens is not and f2.0 wide open, it's more like f4.
Go look up the price for that lens that can cover a full frame, with the correct f number and see just how many hundreds of $ you can save to get a similar lens. Then work out how many lenses you need to buy before it would have been cheaper to go full frame from the beginning.  With products like the A7s, it's getting close to 1 lens.
The real kicker is that if you leave the crop frame system to go full frame, your lovely, overpriced lenses won't cover the sensor. So you have to hand over more $ to the scum who lied in the marketing material in the first place.
It's important to note, not every company does this all the time, but every company has done this at one time or another.
Of course, in the real world, you aspire to have a variety of cameras with a variety of sensor sizes and technologies. Then, no matter the look you are after, you can choose the tool that will achieve it the easiest. Because that's all sensor size is, a tool. I find internet discussions on the merits of claw hammers vs wooden mallets far more relevant and interesting, which is why my contribution to the debate is often tongue in cheek.

What about 2.5k? Would be great for:
 
1) 1080p downscaling in pp
2) stabilization in pp
3) rolling shutter
 
 

Personally I'm looking forward to the D7200. I'm hoping for a photo camera that is as at least as good as the Canon 7D MkII, as in: 10fps burst rate, great autofocus, fantastic dynamic range, durable and rugged body, basically a small version of their D4s. I also expect the video mode to be at least as good as the D5300 / D750 video mode (which is very good already). Being able to change the aperture in live view is a must (and they'd be stupid not to include it). It'd be nice to see a high-quality 120fps mode, flat picture profile, Zebra, Peaking etc. 
It's going to be a photo camera first and foremost, but if it offers good video capabilities like they've done in the past, then I'm sure people who shoot both video and photos will appreciate the camera. 

​The camera doesn't record sound internally though, at least when shooting 96fps with a GH4 or 120fps with a Samsung NX1. There's nothing to sync the audio file of the external recorder with, so that's a fairly big problem. 

Andrew, is it possible to rename this topic? Or create a separate topic about NX1 feedback?  

Anyways, there are some improvements I'd like to see with the most important ones being on top... 
- improved 1080p quality
- proper manual focus mode on native Samsung lenses (they're fly-by-wire so they're not going to feel as good as lenses with a proper mechanical focus, but it must be possible to offer a linear focusing mode with a 90° or 180° focus throw!? As long as it allows for repeated focus pulls it's fine in my opinion and I know a lot of people who are hesitant to invest in Sony / Panasonic / Samsung lenses for video simply because of the non-repeatable focusing!)
- proper 120fps 1080p mode with sound
- cache record function, so as soon as you hit the movie trigger the last 4 or 8 seconds will be saved 
- tele mode / crop mode that uses a smaller part of the sensor, which should drastically reduce rolling shutter and result in a very detailed, downsampled 1080p image
- stepless ISO compensation when shooting in manual mode (not sure if it's already implemented)
- ability to switch between EVF and LCD screen while recording
- different zebra modes (not just 100% zebra)
- punch in focus assist WHILE recording (as it's found on the Sony A7s)
- implementation of h264 for the time being
 
​

​Wow, THIS. Have a MF setting in the menu : AUTO [current implementation], 90, 180, 270, 360 settings. You could change the focus throw to suite your taste. I would not hesitate to buy samsung lenses for video if this was a feature.

​Yeah right, we get it. This is a videography forum. F*ck those who might be interested in a camera that shoots very decent full frame video and takes pretty awesome stills. 

This topic is about the NX1 compared to the Canon C300 in terms of resolution, sharpness, dynamic range and colour reproduction. No one's saying that this camera will automatically make your movies better. Personally I shoot a lot of fast-paced action / sports stuff in forests, so to me dynamic range and highlight rolloff, rolling shutter, slow motion etc. aren't just geeky technical aspects but have a huge impact on the quality of my videos. 
Is there any option to record sound when shooting 120fps? I understand that the camera doesn't record sound internally when shooting at 120fps (only up to 60fps I think?). Sound recording doesn't have to be internal as long as there's a way to sync it in post. Any ideas? 

​Here is a test with the two modes (30fps and 120fps) and yes Pro mode is available with both frame rate :
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sidw6aoooo5a9af/SAM_0360%40120fps.MP4?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ssscqjv4sst344p/SAM_0361%4030fps.MP4?dl=0

Thanks Andrew for your tips, i will try it but i haven't seen difference between Gamma DR and Standard mode.

Hey guys, I just posted my new vid called GO Cuba. It was shot with an A7s in Cine4, Pro colour mode. Hope you like it.
 
PS. How do you embed videos again?
EOSHD replies: Just paste the URL in. If it doesn't work first time, edit the post, remove the hyperlink from the Vimeo URL and paste the URL back in again, then press enter to go onto a new line and the video should show up.

Samyang will release a new version of these lenses soon. In Germany they're supposed to come out in February, so I imagine they might be released earlier in other countries. The only differences are more markings on the lens body and the gears for a follow focus are in the same place on every lens. Not sure if they're already out in other countries but you might want to plan on waiting just a little longer to pick up these newer versions. 

Thank you Andrew for telling the world about this camera!
****UPDATE: CRITICSM addressed! And a lot of criticism. I guess "Uh-Oh" won't get me a cinematography Oscar! 
I should have exported as 4k pro res hq files, not 1080p pro res files - may explain Moire on some shots. Opps. Also shooting at 4096x2160- only option I have - doesn't give me the option to shoot at 3840x2160 at anything other than 30p - maybe NTSC version so messes it? In Pal I can shoot at 3840 x 2160 but I do like 24p more than 25p. and that's the only option.
Let's address criticisms:
1. the shutter, oh god the shutter! Hey, it doesn't look any worse than the Sony A7S in full frame mode or the Canon 5d Mark II - how do we get around this - same technique - shoot with a baseplate and make the camera a little bulkier. You can still work with Jello - just work around it.
2. the moire! oh the moire. probably because of downconvert I did in wondershare - should have kept it 4k files and downconverted via resolve. I will shoot some resolution charts to see. Wondershare is a consumer-y transocding program. So I don't have that much faith in it.
3. the blacks are too black! WHY? --This is my style. I like blacks that are black. Not raised black levels. I like rich blacks. Did they clip? I will go back into resolve and check and redo. Yes okay it's too black. Oh well. I got carried away. So sue me - this is a simple test video, I'll regrade once I'm done putting out fires on camera nerd forums.
4. The dynamic range is garbage - garbage. This is my choice. Again I'll post it ungraded. There is about the same dynamic range judging by my informal eyes as the Red Epic. 12-13 stops. Andrew as EOSHD says the camera may eventually get 14 stops because that's what it can do in stills mode. So there is hope, if you like HDR like 14 stops footage which to me I don't like - I personally think too much dynamic range looks CARTOONY. But that's just me.
5. The blow out on the globe! OH MY GOD THE BLOW OUT - I probably didn't protect for the highlights. If I had a light meter the direct insane sun hitting the globe I would rate at f/32 and the globe underexposed parts at 1/4 at 400 ISO. What is the NX1's native ISO? Does anyone know?
H.265. It is almost as good as Pro Res 444 but at 1% of the size. 
eoshd.com/2013/11/new-h-265-codec-test-prores-4444-quality-1-file-size/
The Samsung NX1 is a $1500 dslr that can record 4k to H.265 - pretty much the most important video compression algorithm of the past decade. This is what the HBO geek comedy Silicon Valley I think is kind of about, in an indirect way.
Thanks to Andrew Reid and EOSHD.com for telling me about this camera, I bought this little plastic bombshell. I bought it because of him.
I used Wondershare to convert to Pro Res HQ and then took into resolve and applied a Impulz Slog lut 200T tungsten FPE to it, lowered contrast, and messed with the gamma curve. I screwed up on this app. Oh well.
I shot using these settings:
1. Color - kept at default
2. Saturation - Minus 3
3. Sharpness - Minus 10
4. Contrast - Minus 10
5. Hue - 0 - kept at default.
White balance: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.
Lens: Nikon Nikkon AIS 35mm F/2 - old manual lens - work-horse.
I used Cloudy white balance which was dumb - everything was too warm, but not hard to fix in post at all - just slide in back down to that middle dot thingy.
I shot a lot at 100 ISO because I didn't have any ND - and also up to 400 ISO.
All the shots looked pretty damn good and clean so I could have gone up to like 800.
At first the "auto brightness" was on that changed brightness
I used neatvideo to sharpen up the footage - I love how neat video sharpens footage - looks so good and natural.
My conclusion:
This is basically looking like stuff I can get out of the Red Epic Dragon in terms of image fidelity . I mean, image and color and contrast wise. I use the Red Epic a lot and own 2 Red One MXs that I found in a dumpster - and this camera - the image looks better in some ways - well at least pretty much as good. I need to use charts but highlight handling and saturation feels better at this moment, in my gut.
Of course - the shutter - rolling shutter - it looks pretty bad. Pretty pretty pretty bad. Oh well. Get one of those stabilizer thingies. It looks as bad as the Sony A7S in full frame mode and as bad as the 5 D Mark II. But again, it's $1600. You get what you pay for. Smoke em if you got them. So it's a $1600 camera to my super informal test that feels on par with a $40k-$60k camera. Uh oh.
H.265 right now you have to use Wondershare to convert - they make it for mac and pc. Soon probably all NLE and Resolve and the sort will probably have h.265 as an option.
This camera is amazing. From Samsung - completely out of the blue. If you read Andrew Reid's reports on the sensor and the technology on EOSHD.com you'll see how groundbreaking this little plastic camera is.

What's your experience with the following lenses: 
 
- Nikon AF 35-70 f/2.8
- Nikon AF D 80-200 f/2.8
 
I currently shoot with a Canon (APS-C) and a Panasonic (mft) camera but would like to invest in future-proof lenses. I'll either get a Speedbooster or make the switch to a full-frame Nikon camera. 
 
If I decide to get a Canon to MFT speedbooster, can I use a dummy Nikon to Canon-adapter and use these lenses with the Canon speedbooster? 

Personally I'd get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 instead of the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 unless you absolutely need an ultra wide-angle lens. I own the Tokina 11-16 and for most shooting scenarios, 11mm on an APS-C body (1,6x crop factor) is too wide in my opinion. I like to use the lens without a Speedbooster on my GH3, so that's a 22mm full frame equivalent. Using the Sigma 18-35 with a Speedbooster and the wide angle converter, the result will be a 22mm full frame equivalent, too. Plus the Sigma is a lot faster, extremely sharp and very usable even when shot wide open. The Tokina isn't exactly sharp unless you step it down quite a bit. 

SSD prices have come down nicely lately.. At least in Euros.. 1000G 840EVO's were 500€ now they are about 370€

Plastic fantastic? Do yourself a favour and check out the lenses of the new Sigma Art series. Their build quality is as good as it can get. I only got to check out the fantastic 18-35mm f/1.8 Sigma Art lens but the 35mm f/1.4 is very similar. The build quality is fantastic. 
 
Compared to the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, the Sigma is supposed to be better in almost any regard and it's cheaper, too. There are tons of reviews of the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4, you should check them out. Bottom line of almost any review is that the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is as good, if not better than the Canon at a better price point. 
 
If you can live without AF, you should definitely check out the Walimex / Samyang / Rokinon (different brands but they're all the same lenses) 35mm f/1.4. It is fully manual, focus ring feels great and it also has an aperture ring. It also comes in a cine version with built in gears for a follow focus. And it's less than half the price of the Canon. Covers full frame, too, and the build quality is very solid as well. Optically it's supposed to be on par with the Canon. Build quality of the Canon is a bit better, and of course the Walimex lacks autofocus or any electronic connection to your camera. But for around 350€ used, this is the 35mm lens you should get when you're on a budget. 

Plastic fantastic? Do yourself a favour and check out the lenses of the new Sigma Art series. Their build quality is as good as it can get. I only got to check out the fantastic 18-35mm f/1.8 Sigma Art lens but the 35mm f/1.4 is very similar. The build quality is fantastic. 
 
Compared to the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, the Sigma is supposed to be better in almost any regard and it's cheaper, too. There are tons of reviews of the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4, you should check them out. Bottom line of almost any review is that the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is as good, if not better than the Canon at a better price point. 
 
If you can live without AF, you should definitely check out the Walimex / Samyang / Rokinon (different brands but they're all the same lenses) 35mm f/1.4. It is fully manual, focus ring feels great and it also has an aperture ring. It also comes in a cine version with built in gears for a follow focus. And it's less than half the price of the Canon. Covers full frame, too, and the build quality is very solid as well. Optically it's supposed to be on par with the Canon. Build quality of the Canon is a bit better, and of course the Walimex lacks autofocus or any electronic connection to your camera. But for around 350€ used, this is the 35mm lens you should get when you're on a budget.