kidzrevil

1) 4K center of sensor readout, for a reduced rolling shutter option for 4K. Hell this is technically already in the camera with DIS, just keep that crop!
2) Samsung's own flat profile. No messing around to find the ideal, have the engineers make one. No noise reduction in this mode. 
Agree with your macroblocking, but I think a Samsung created flat profile it would fix the issue. Also wouldn't mind the 200 bitrate option for only certain cards. 

No, the values are re-mapped.  So black is 16 and white is 235.  So you have the same dynamic range but it is represented by 220 discrete steps instead of 256.

(Do let me know if I'm posting too much NX stuff… but for those on the fence…)
Did a real-world shoot and a tough one - school for severely - and I mean severely - cognitively disabled kids. No lights, rooms were not very bright, mix of flos and skylights. So, nightmare. (I'll be doing interviews with the directors and parent testimonials that will be properly lit down the line). Shot with these lenses:
Old Nikkor 80-200 2.8 AF push-pull, wide open - bought it used maybe 18 years ago, pre-D version and mojo for days;
More modern Nikkor 28-70 2.8 (aperture ring lens), wide open;
The little 16-50 Samsung kit zoom - wanted to try this for handheld stuff and mimic a steadicam using the AF and OIS.
Other than the day being sort of emotionally devastating (can't recall how may times a kid would absently take my hand if was standing still - sweet, beautiful kids who are mostly non-verbal) I was really psyched - I've never shot sony DSLR, only Canon and Nikon, but this thing is by far the best DSLR I've used. Never stuck a loupe or monitor on it, and only used the EVF outside -  the OLED with peaking gave me great focus, even at 200 2.8 (I wore a pair of reading glasses when shooting). I was constantly hitting custom WB and looking for something white - very mixed lighting and it really came through, with the usual light casts to highlights that are the norm in those situations - yellow/pinks that clean up easily in post. Shot from 800 iso to 2200, mostly from 1200-2000, all day. I can't tell the shots apart today. Was not thinking of this as a low-light (or mid-light) beast, but I'll be damned - it is crazy clean up to 2200 at least ( I didn't have murky, black shadows to deal with, lighting was dim but even).
Images below - 
200mm 2.8 - really pretty character, yet sharp as hell where needed - just a touch of color correction in Photoshop;
70mm 2.8 - 100% detail crop, ungraded or sharpened;
The kit lens, wide open - cleaned the highs a bit in PS.

A note about that kit zoom - I really dug it for wide & stabilized stuff… wide open. We shot out in a playground and I didn't know we'd be outdoors, so shot at F16-F22. It is a weird-ass lens stopped down like that. The sharpness is simply bizarre (and I had sharpness dialed all the way down). It's a lovely piece of glass wide, the OIS isn't earth-shaking (or earth UN-shaking) but will give warp stabilizer a head start), but the AF is freakishly, crazy useful for that sort of shooting. I see these going for as low as $140. If you don't have the big S zoom (hell, even if you do) it's a useful lens. I need to research the wide 2.8 pancake primes for these sort of shots now.
Very impressed with the camera so far. Battery life was reasonable, and I was 2nd-nature, not really thinking about anything but the image, on my first gig. Damn it Samsung, don't give up on the NX!!!

Zoom vs prime... well that's certainly a fair test for sharpness... Next!

Do you disagree? Honestly up until a short while ago I was not an NX1 owner... but after all the footage, pictures and reviews of the NX1, I became convinced that it was worth a shot. And now having owned it, I can tell you it's a great camera. Granted it's not perfect... no camera is. But it is an awesome value for money. It's 1080p is better than the 4k of many cameras. And it's 4k is among the clearest that I've seen. Colors are good also. It's amazing that there can even be a debate relative to cameras in a totally different class... that alone should stand as testament to how good a value the NX1 is. Truth be told, you could spend a lot more and still end up with an inferior camera in many ways.

Why so amazed? NX1 convinced me. It's punches way above is weight. 

Heres some new ones of a wedding im editting right now, theres still some stuff to fix on the curve, reduce the sharpness and will probably add some grain, but here it is :



Let me know what you guys think !

Loving these ! They look great

Gorgeous!

I've said this a thousand times, I'd rather an interesting lens give me an in camera look than relying heavily on post... Especially since I am not that good at it yet. Anyway, the Nikons sound awesome. There's a bunch of articles online that specifically state... if you don't have Zeiss or Leica, old Nikkors will give you a nice cinematic look.
Thanks for those vivid settings... Will give them a go the next time I go out. 

Those Nikon lenses sound awesome! You will need to post some footage/stills with them. Sounds like a really winning combo!

I am not a tech head, but I think it might be the codec or something. There is no reason why these lenses... Your FDs or my MDs wouldn't have enough resolution for 4K video. With the G7, I am having no issues with old c-mount TV lenses. 

I am really pleased at this!
Premiere now cuts through H.265 like butter. I get full res 4K playback smoothly just like with H.264
Only occasional lag when scrubbing crazily through a timeline
Not tried adding effects yet though... might slow down with that, but so far seems to work just like GH4 footage.
Zero quality difference to my converted ProRes.
NX1 just got a whole lot more attractive.

Playback is smoother than with 4K ProRes even with adjustments. This is amazing.

If you're looking at Milvus and Sigma Art, definitely add Contax Zeiss to the list. There's a bunch of guys over on REDUser getting great results with them on the Epic Dragon at 6K. 

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide

Or if you prefer a warmer, prettier look, Leica Rs and Minolta MDs should be on your radar. 

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92246-Minolta-Rokkor-Survival-Guide 
It depends more which Nikkor/FD lenses you're comparing than any hard and fast rule between the brands.
 
Personally, I find Nikons to have more contrast and hate that their focus rings turn the wrong way. Canon FDs tend to have a little more CA, but nicer colors and a very organic look to the highlights. YMMV.

Worthwhile reading: 

http://www.personal-view.com/faqs/camera-usage/nikon-lenses-faq
http://www.personal-view.com/faqs/camera-usage/canon-fd-lenses-faq 

They're just different.
Pick up a 50mm and see what you think.
I have a really nice AIS set, and have just expanded my FD set last week when I picked up the 85 1.8, 200 2.8, and 35-105 3.5
My FD's aren't as fast as my Nikkor equivalents, but give me some time this week and I can go grab some comparison footage with each

I'm dying for the H265 Premiere update, it was supposed to be the Fall update and we are almost in December already!

I like the exterior shots, the look reminds me of the cinematography in this season of Fargo.

Just started shooting a music video this weekend, only test shots though, grading isnt final either, here are a few : 


 

Why can't Sony fix this obvious defect in several of their cameras? They have to know about it. I mean you can't use the camera in most situations dealing with bands, plays or club scenes and definitely not Disney world at night.

Personally I tend to overexpose to protect the highlights - which aren't great on the NX1. But the shadows tend to retain more info than on other cameras (i.e GH4).

Totally, 
Having a white sky/bright sky, totally bring down the quality of the NX1, it really "shines" when its darker, and then fix it in post if you need it. Coming from a canon, im still getting used to it, but the more I use it, the more I love it, every single frame of a video can be a photograph.

Thx Kidzrevil, my NX500 arrived yesterday. I will test it this weekend wtih your settings.

here's the answer from another thread
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1005361
I need to put in a color chart again to see what captures color the most accurately.
I think playing with both, FC and Visioncolor and seeing what works for what you need is a good idea.  I go back and forth a lot.

Yep, those Impulz LUTs sure look good!
However, I'm not a sharpness freak, so I take all talk of that with a huge grain of salt - just does nothing for me, a bit like 8bit 4K.
Really liked VisionColor for their Canon Picture Profiles - still use them for stills, as they are just the best. So no surprise that their LUTs are amazing.
I only bought FilmConvert because at the time FCPX had no way of loading in LUTs. I think the mistake most people make with FC is leaving the sliders at 100% & the grain for Web upload has to be 150% or over for it to actually show up in any meaningful way (best grain out there, as kidz has said). And Ed was a life saver recommending the ARRI profiles, as the BM ones just annoyed me no end.