kidzrevil

The armwrestlers look 'big and bad' while the monstars girls look cute :-P  great footage!

The banding in that clip is present in the ungraded half too and is just due to compression.
 
You can avoid banding to an extent by using grain. The noise forces the encoder to add more data to those areas of the image. However, with h264, dark areas of the image will always become blotchy unless it's at 30mbps or above.
 
One thing I've found is that some 3D LUTs (especially Osiris) causes banding where others don't.

Walkthrough for removing time limit. Might redo this in english.
 

Just finished my first Music Video, not exacly as I planned it would go, had some setbacks on filming and what not, but yet still pleased with how it turned out. Everything was shot on the NX1 and the aerials on the P3. Was a great challenge, doing something as "big" with such a tight budget, but loads of fun ! Let me know what you guys think =) 
 
 
Also, to anyone interested, heres the band iTunes page, they got some great songs =) https://itunes.apple.com/pt/album/new-dawn/id953049235?app=itunes&ign-mpt=uo%3D4

Guys- if there is a real effect, it can be measured and clearly A/B demonstrated. Folks argued endlessly that the full frame look was real. After I did the A/B tests with backing math folks stopped arguing. Not one person presented a single counter example (this applies to medium and large format too). Folks argue that it's easier and cheaper (FF) to get shallow DOF with larger sensors, however everyone agrees with that point.
Caldwell designed the SpeedBooster...
No one is disputing that old/different lenses look different. Only that the article is pseudoscience...

I probably should have stayed away from this topic, but I found the article so utterly revolting that I just couldn't help myself.  Its difficult to even begin a thorough critique, and I'm not going to do it here.  Suffice to say that he relies almost entirely on non-standard,  non-optical terminology (e.g., 3D, tonality, micro contrast, flat), and he never bothers to define these terms in a precise and unambiguous way.  Lenses can be fully characterized by things that are well-defined and can actually be measured, such as MTF, veiling glare, distortion, transmission vs. wavelength, etc..  Why rely on pseudo-scientific nonsense when proper characterization methods are well established?  He then goes on to show images that supposedly illustrate his points, but none of the images are actually carefully done comparisons under fixed lighting conditions, post processing,  etc., so they are absolutely worthless as far as I'm concerned.  He also makes a bunch of ternary diagrams that make absolutely no sense at all - "line of realism"??? WTF???  And his obsession with the number of elements in a design is absolutely bizzare.

I just went through severAL layers of vimeo support about the new auto quality playback. I am a vimeo pro and want to be able to set the default quality myself. They basically said they will now never support that and offered a refund. I will leave them once I move stuff over to youtube.
I hate youtube because of the ads. But youtube has 15 times vimeo viewers. And I won't have to pay.
 

I turned off my auto-repeat pay function & have until september to see if they will get anymore money out of me. They have some serious work to make their new system hum, but perhaps this is only a first step & they will start to encode with a newer/better codec so that the streaming is smoother?
The real problem is that more & more people are just watching on their phones - this is the whole internet & most websites are more mobile friendly than desktop kind. With the new update to their mobile app, it really does seem that they are trying to copy YouTube - but they are so far behind the curve that they will end up driving people away, instead of getting them to switch.
All they have to do is put back the buffer for those that want/need it - YouTube has a buffer, goddamit!

Im uploading a video to Vimeo tonight with lots of grain. Then we can compare to the youtube version.

I'm considering moving all of my videos to YouTube.
That's coming from someone who actually loves Vimeo.
I still pay for my account to provide the download option so people can download the ProRes file to get a better idea of quality, and the community there is better quality too which tends to lead to a more constructive thread under the video in terms of comments... although sometimes a little TOO polite!
Sadly I don't think Vimeo have had their eye on the ball recently in terms of growing the site in an interesting way. Facebook groups have sucked the life out of the Vimeo groups and YouTube is sucking away the traffic. I know that if I upload something to YouTube it's going to get double or triple the attention.
So yeah, challenges ahead for Vimeo and they need a more interesting direction... but let's not knock what they've created.
Vimeo On Demand was interesting too... good to be able to make money from our work this way.

Here is a quick video showing the brilliant work Otto has been doing on the NX500 and NX1 using the SD Card hack.
All details can be found on https://github.com/ottokiksmaler/nx500
 

Thats funny. I think you were trying to trol but that is actually the angle i was thinking. 
The article would talk about how exactly samsung has abandoned their camera system yet dispite this their cameras are/were so good that people continue to use them and that people are even able to improve them. The article would also talk about how easy people are finding them to hack and how much potential these dead cameras have. 
My hope is to draw in more people to hacking these cameras to help unlock things like higher bitrates and removing the recording limit. 

NATURAL Picture Profile
Noise Reduction -5
Sharpness -3
Contrast -3
Saturation 0
 
Given its only 8BIT I wanted to retain as much colour information as possible so didn't touch the saturation and didn't shoot too flat.

Some great work here
Thread is now a sticky topic.

Sharpness / resolution / microcontrast / local contrast / global contrast are all the same thing at different frequences. Resolution/sharpness represent the highest frequencies up through larger scale contrast at lower frequencies. An image is a composite of all the frequencies, from lowest to highest. This can be visualized by looking at the discrete cosine transform (used in JPEG, H264 etc.):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform#/media/File:Dct-table.png
The MTF is one form of lens performance measurement: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-quality-mtf-resolution.htm
I noticed in the Nikkor vs. Sigma examples, the Nikkor lost a lot of detail in the shadows, and the shadows were also blurrier (less fine detail, along with an overall lower detail image. Less detail/sharpness can help make images look more organic (digitally sharp images look less real)). To generate a similar look in post, we could write code to blur pixels based on luminance level.
If one prefers the look of, for example, a particular Nikkor over a Sigma, comparing their MTF charts might be helpful in understanding why. Not all frequencies are captured the same, and performance variation through the spectrum can explain why one lens is preferred over another, for a particular use. If "imperfect" lenses have desired character, these imperfections can be measured, and then used in marketing material to help people get a desired, and known look. Without hand-waving, internet arguing, and pseudoscience
 

Here is a quick video showing the NX1 and NX500 SD Card Hack for Focus Buttons.
This program allows you to record up to 6 focal points, these are stored on the SD card and will work after a camera restart.
This works for photography, especially good for storing infinity focal point to re-use when it is dark for Astro Photography.
Works in video allows you to do focus pulling from one focal point to another.
Thanks again to Otto for all the hard work, All details can be found on https://github.com/ottokiksmaler/nx500
 

There has been a few stating that they would like to tip/donate, which would of course be muchhelp,, as I seem to be doing this more than my 9-5 haha! But it is not at a quantifiable stage at the moment, What I have found out is pretty much just a key, and if the key can open the lock is not yet determined. Even with the sdk things of this nature are not 100% 
At any step of the way if they did something undocumented it can halt progress to a point the modification cant be done. Ive been lucky so far with things is all!

But if knowing that what Im doing may not bring a firmware mod to light people still wish to donate then I can put something together. But I started this not knowing there was anyone wanting this camera modded, and I would still do this if no one wanted to tip/donate.

That being said the next stages of what I am doing are copious research. There are white paper behind paywalls but my local university seems to have most of the books on file so I will be acquiring those to get a better idea of the way samsung chose to code.

Personally I am also interested in the lens mount for a working adapter to other lens systems. So the control files are something I am also looking into. As well as if hevc is the best choice for encoding or if something like the redcoderaw would be more suitable which is just their modded version of mjpeg2000. dct vs wavelet is something interesting to read about. 

I'd still be interested to see how Leica R, Contax Zeiss, and Minolta Rokkor glass performs on it. All three brands resolve famously well for video.
Geoff, he's not saying they're bad lenses, period. I'd be hurt if he knocked my FDs. But as has been discussed in other NX1 topics, the sensor just doesn't play nice with a lot of glass--a combination of the camera's high pixel density and "worked over" video processing/encoding. 
Kidzrevil isn't trying to insult anyone. I think if his FDs looked awesome on the NX1, he'd be pretty stoked. We're all just sharing our experiences as honestly as we can.

I know you probably did not mean it that way, but many of your posts seemed to say that other glass were not even worth consideration with the camera. You said you "had to get rid of" your Canon FD's because of the sensor. I don't want people to think the NX1 isn't an option unless you purchase the most expensive glass possible, because I don't find that to be true.

Aside from lowlight- and frankly you can compensate for that with fast lenses, I think the nx1 image is better.
I have no plans to get a a6300 because if ýou have an nx1 and don't need something specfic that the sony has, there's no reason to.
The examples I've seen don't do much for me. The test in my hands is always how well the image grades.
Can I get it to where I want it, even when the footage isn't perfectly lit and all that? The nx1's 4k footage is pretty flexible, it's not raw, but you can push it around. I have no issue getting "cinematic" looking footage out of the color grade.
The only thing I still struggle with is some of the darker areas can lose detail, a black level thing. I've been shooting mostly under the colorless slate gray swedish winter skies and frankly if I can get a pleasing image out of that swill, sunlight should be easy.
The nx1's detail surprises me every time. It is too sharp, but that's way better than not being sharp enough. It's fixable. I've shot with both samsung and manual lenses, although nothing older, and the image is always stunning.
 

I just picked up an nx1, because for the price it has nice color and so sharp.
Skin looks alive, not so much in most of the other cameras these days.

Threw this together this morning. Settings in description.

NX1 feels like the better bang for your buck unless you shoot a lot of nightclub stuff or wedding receptions.  Or you could simply invest in faster glass.

Yes, Sony E.
I'd personally take an NX1 for ergonomics, color, and battery life, but it depends more on your tastes and priorities than anything.

It should perform way better than the Nx1 in Lowlight, but I rarely need to go up to ISO1600 on the NX1, I have fast lenses, and it works fine enough. However for lowlight performance, it should be better, yes.