Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mars

  1. If you want to see how this looks like: 

    Would be interesting to see if the Sony solution is better... Btw, does it really "bypass" amp gain in the camera? On the NX1 I set mic level to 1 or 2, auto mic control off and the gain on the juiced link to max. Works quite well if your sound source not too far away.
    For the attachment underneath I'm using a quick release mounting plate.

  2. 53 minutes ago, mercer said:

    How's the juiced link work? Does it really help to get useable audio?

    Yes, much better than any in camera solution obviously. As fuzzy writes you need to be close enough though, otherwise Sennheiser g3 lavalier is the way to go. I also have the Sony PCM-D100 which is probably better than the H1. The juiced link solution is not much worse than the Sony.

  3. It seems they haven't rolled out that "feature" to everybody yet...


    In theory this sounds good... "What is adaptive streaming? It means that viewers will no longer need to choose the quality of the video they're viewing. Instead, the player will intelligently choose the highest quality possible based on the viewer's network connection, graphics processing ability, and other factors."

    "Viewers won't have to worry about the HD toggle anymore. Over the course of viewing a video, the quality will change (hence the term "adaptive streaming") to accommodate any changes in network connection or graphics processing. We'll make sure they always receive the highest quality video possible, whether that's 720p, 1080p, or even 4K."

    In practice it's them who decide which quality arrives at your viewers displays. And in doubt, i.e. if it is poorly implemented, the quality will be lower than necessary. The uploader is not in control any more.

    Would be better if the uploader could choose between Auto and a specific default quality he thinks is appropriate.

  4. 58 minutes ago, DPStewart said:

    Oh, it's more crazy than that.

    Here are 3 links that 'try' to explain it. 
    I'm still looking for a workflow method that completely accounts for any possible error in the whole 16-235/0-255 thing.

    Oh dear - thanks... 

    Yes, I see: over the web there are many opinions and posts on the whole 16-235/0-255 thing. One (of the many) basic explanations (probably well known to everybody here anyway):

    In this blog the main take away message seems to be that the information used is the same for both settings and that only the information how to display the image is conveyed to the output-application (if I understand it right): 

    Here at eoshd, Andrew suggests 16-235 (the above link contained there as well):

    If 0-255 using i.e. rocky mountains movie converter (which is equivalent to ffmpeg) leads to clipping then I think I'd rather follow his advice...



    Umm, that's a review of one filter. Taking that one review and saying that it also applies to ALL high end variable ND is a huge leap of logic


    No, the logic is different: As variable ND filters work in a similar way as very strong polarizers, of course they inherit all their drawbacks as well. Regardless of how much "high-quality" they are. Since polarizers show uneven polarization with wide lenses, it´s quite clear that two filters stacked on each other can lead to quite bad results on wide lenses. This is due to physics and has nothing to do with the quality of the filters.

    See i.e. here:

    ...and many more on the web.

    So my personal conclusion is to get one variable ND filter for work with "normal" lenses and a set of fixed filters for wide shots. 


  6. I agree, it's not for every shot. No reason to use it indoors where you can control your lighting, but for outdoors, when you want a shallow depth of field, and you're using multiple lenses with varying front lens diameters... It's a god send!!! But to tell you the truth, I have noticed zero loss in iq using this adapters, even if a "variable ND isn't really an ND at all."

    Honestly, I think it depends on what you consider proper film making? If you have a multi million dollar budget... sure get the best image you can even if it is only incrementally better, but for micro budget to no budget film making, a variable ND is perfectly fine. IMO.

    Hm, i was also looking for a viable ND solution but found that:


    "problem is that the filter makes the image very soft as well as introducing new chromatic aberration. And it’s not the kind of softness that some careful sharpening can overcome. In short, it’s nowhere near the quality I need for images for clients or publication."

  7. Ok, interesting. For stills (in RAW) you rather underexpose to avoid blown out highlights and brighten up even 4-5 stops in post. Possible because the dark parts of the picture retain enough practically noise-free information nowadays... For video, since the engine can and does compress dark parts more, "uncompressing" them for viewing can lead to artifacts or lost colour. Thx. But I understand right that monochrome areas in the picture are not compressed more heavily? Asking because using lenses more open could lead to bigger out-of-focus areas which are more evenly coloured...

  8. Darkening a bright image in post gives the lowest noise, lowest compression and best colour image while lifting a dark image in post gives much more noise, comoression and very poor colours, in some cameras like Canons it can result in an almost black and white colours if you lift up a dark image, really destroys colour.

    Is it really that way round? I'm asking because what I've learned most recently from stills photographers I value quite high is that you nowadays - in the time of ISO-less sensors used by Nikon - may safely underexpose by, say, even up to 5 stops and get perfect pictures. Would be interesting to understand why for video this doesn't apply any more. Is it really just the codec and its compression?

    See i.e. here:


    Left is the unprocessed picture from the D810, 4 stops difference.


    The other key to a really lovely look on this camera is glass. I don't own the S zooms, but my go-to glass for years has been these:

    Nikkor 28-70 2.8; Nikkor 85mm 1.8 (just a greek god of an interview lens, generally use at 2.8 to 5.6); Old push-pull 80-200 2.8 (LUSCIOUS at the long end!!! And you can get a beater for $350 or so); Series E 100mm 2.8. The NX sensor is loving these lenses. I have a wide Nikkor zoom but rarely use it for video. The Samsung 16-50 kit zoom is really a nice lens wide open - stop it down much and there is some freaky sharpness stuff going on.

    My fav lens on Nikon cameras at the longer end has always been the old AF-D 180mm ED. Not to heavy, really really nice rendering, gains a bit when stopping down to f4. Highly recommended. Have also the push-pull 80-200 you mention and agree with your assessment - used it recently a bit less though, especially since the 70-200/4 VR found its way into my bag. But on the NX1 should be certainly a good choice if you need the flexibility.

  10. Thanks for the advice, very much appreciated. Will get an NX1 next week and thinking about the rather pricey Novoflex adapter as I'm heavily invested into Nikon glass of all sorts. But probably getting one of those cheap China adapters as backup is a sensible insurance...

  11. Sometimes less is better.

    ​Yes but of course not if quality is concerned. That's why I absolutely love my Sony RX1R for stills - only 35mm but gorgeous files. If the D810 video quality existed in the same body I would probably buy it on the spot.

  • Create New...