Jimmy

Can't wait to snap one of these up on eBay in 5 years

One month has passed since i bought my NX1 and i thought i would share my thoughts so far.
Coming from full frame as my main camera i was hesitant to the change in the beginning. I started my hobby with a Canon 550D/t2i and then later upgraded to a 5D Mark 3 which was really pleasant, i loved the full frame look. The choice to abandon both Canon and full frame did not come easy but a Panasonic G6 (Micro 4/3 entry level camera) helped a lot in the transition.
The NX1 really fits well in my hands and after a not so steep learning curve of the controls i feel comfortable to just pick it up and shoot. I have pretty large hands so when i changed from a 550D/t2i to a 5D I pretty much decided to never again buy a smaller camera. That didn’t work out as I later bought, tried and sold the A7s as i was reminded why i don’t like small cameras. This is of course a very personal opinion, i know that many people prefer portability. Somehow the NX1, being smaller than a 5D, feels really good to hold for hours.
 
Image quality of both stills and video are great, just great. You can throw whatever specs and lab test at me you want saying that the NX1 is inferior in dynamic range and what not but i just love the sensor and the colors it produces. With that being said, im not a professional and i don’t have professional needs. What i also like to point out that this is a $1500 camera, not an Alexa. And what you're getting for your $1500 is in my opinion a very capable camera.
 
On a lot of videos posted from the NX1 there have been comments on banding and macroblocking, including my own. As there is no/almost no banding or macroblocking in the raw files this is a result of transcoding. I use Samsung Movie Converter which comes with the camera and it’s clearly not the best option yet every other software i’ve tested seems to fail me in some way (Maybe i should invest in a new computer?). Still waiting for Adobe to support H265!
 
To sum it up. I feel that i have finally found a camera that will stay with me for a long time. I'm not over the "wow i have a new camera let's see what it can do"-phase but i have high hopes for this plastic monster. This camera has been discussed a lot on this forum but if there’s any questions i'll be happy to answer them.
 
Here’s my latest video shot with the NX1, 16/2.8, 30/2.0 and 45/1.8. Shot in both 4K and slow motion 1080p. Standard picture profile with sharpness and contrast set to -5. No change to luminance or master black levels. Edited, stabilized and graded in Adobe Premiere with Visioncolor LUTs Osiris M31 and KDX as base and then RGB Curves. No sharpening in post.
 

Can't wait to snap one of these up on eBay in 5 years

​Great, we will be in Reykjavik for a day before hitting the south coast. This is my 3rd visit now, I love the country like it is my home! We even spent a month there for our honeymoon, camping... (-2C in a tent was not very romantic, haha)

​Great, we will be in Reykjavik for a day before hitting the south coast. This is my 3rd visit now, I love the country like it is my home! We even spent a month there for our honeymoon, camping... (-2C in a tent was not very romantic, haha)

​If you are in Reykjavik send me a message. Happy to assist a fellow EOSHD forumist.

I really need to get my hands on one. 
I need a lightweight camera for my trip to Iceland in March and, on paper, this ticks some serious boxed. As you can imagine though, Iceland can be unforgiving in terms of lighting (sun on ice against lava black rock, for example)... Which is why I am obsessing over the DR.
I'll be taking the BMPCC too, so I guess DR is covered on some shots.
As it stands, the decision is between the NX1, 1DC, A7s or possibly a BMPC(4K) 
Decisions, decisions.

The old Red One MX - still a workhorse - forgotten piece of old tech that still gets a really beautiful image
Shooting in Havana as Americans was not easy
 
 

There are alot of valid reasons that most films are shot digitally.... But if a crafted film maker wants to use film and knows what they are doing, how is that a bad thing? It is like wanting to stop making pianos because it takes longer to tune, is heavier to carry and a digital piano can now recreate the sound (debatable).
To me, The Dark Night was, visually, one of the most stunning films of a generation.... Maybe it would look just as good in digital (if a 65mm digital cam even existed then). Why take away the choice though or be unhappy that the choice is now going to be available?

​You make a lot of good points but if you're concerned about the environment as a whole, you also have to consider the amount of carbon produced to keep all the - always on or charging - servers, devices and infrastructure running 247, since that's the macro environment that has made digital viable and also how it will be consumed. As more people come online with broadband, our media consumption has gone through the roof, which takes more servers and more electricity to deliver. I know there's no going backwards, but I just want to emphasize that digital is not clean, you just don't see the pollution when you create it. 

Was the making of 'The tree of life' or 'The new world' all planned by Lubezki and Malick? Was the butterfly landing on Jessica Chastaing's hand planned? Does the Joker really looks like a guy with a plan? Was '2001' emotionaly warm or scientificaly and cold as space movie. Are the actual movies (Avengers like..) artistic and unplanned like 'Dancer In the dark' thanks to digital? Nolan is known to keep the filming way all within the budget, with a relatively small crew, and 'Interstellar' was finished weeks before the original schedule, thanks to Nolan organisation. I was deep into that one and the only question that comes to my mind was that i liked watching it, and luckly on Imax screen, thanks to the 4K digital projector next to my home. You make the point for a lot of things in your article, but for the cold vs warm(?) - plan vs unplanned - superior vs inferior - more dynamique range vs less parts, this was an heartbreaking article i've just read.

Why the hate for people who shoot weddings? As if you can't be an artist and also make money (a lot, in fact) with a not-necessarily-as-artistic job that just so happens to sharpen your skills as a shooter. Shooting weddings has allowed me to quit my shitty, irrelevant part-time day jobs and focus way more on my art since I can make the same amount of money in 1/5 of the time. So yeah, shooting a wedding might not stimulate my creative side quite as much as, say, an abstract non-narrative documentary, but at least I'm getting some damn good shoulder rig and glidecam practice during those 8-10 hours. Does that strip me of the title of cinematographer or artist? Or do those terms only apply when I'm actually working on an 'actual' film?
mtheory - you mentioned working on a commercial as an accepted use of the word 'cinematographer.' Where's the cinema in that? Sure, I'll admit that there's definitely more creative leeway, but you're still just selling something. A wedding and a commercial can both be infused with some strong creativity. They can just as easily be flat and boring, like the days when 'wedding video' meant shooting to VHS with lots of slow zooms and awful dissolves on every cut. By the way, if you can figure out a way to think creatively during a boring wedding, then you're probably going to fare well when you actually have some interesting content on your plate.
Ok, so maybe you don't actually have a disdain for those who film weddings (though I know plenty of people who do), maybe it's just the term 'wedding cinematographer.' But is it really so offensive for someone to use such words to market themselves to brides who probably don't know the first thing about video? They don't care that a wedding video is not technically 'cinema.' They want to know that you understand how important their wedding is and that you can capture it in an immensely beautiful and artistic way (at least to them). If someone calling themself a wedding cinematogropher helps them get hired, then so be it. If they happen to also be a crappy videographer, then so be it. I'm more worried about the over-saturation of the market than the degradation of the word 'cinema.' And honestly, the word has already been degraded in my mind by douchey film school kids who can't frame a shot but love to spew pseudo-philosophical garbage about 'pure cinema.' Nothing against film school, but man, I can't stand some of the people who come out with no experience, thinking they've already 'made it.' 
 
So there's my rant. I hope I'm not missing the point.

Your argument seems to be that there is no difference.... in which case, why care if something is shot on film or digital?
It's not your money or time.

There are alot of valid reasons that most films are shot digitally.... But if a crafted film maker wants to use film and knows what they are doing, how is that a bad thing? It is like wanting to stop making pianos because it takes longer to tune, is heavier to carry and a digital piano can now recreate the sound (debatable).
To me, The Dark Night was, visually, one of the most stunning films of a generation.... Maybe it would look just as good in digital (if a 65mm digital cam even existed then). Why take away the choice though or be unhappy that the choice is now going to be available?

​You answered your own question... The magic of having a film camera on set is the image quality and the feel.

A couple of years ago, you were championing shooting 1 second 4K raw with a Nikon v1 and said it was a good way to get focused on the art.... Now 12 minutes of film is too restrictive and cold?
I'm happy that film is going to be available. The more options the better....... In the right hands, it is still the most visually appealing image in the world, with a certain magic that I have yet to see with digital. I only had the pleasure to shoot 16mm at college, but it was and still is special.

Someone really needs to sit people down and explain that a DSLR is not a video camera. Apparently a lot of people still don't seem to understand that.
You don't complain about video cameras taking crappy stills, why do you continue to complain about stills cameras taking poor video?

Your argument seems to be that there is no difference.... in which case, why care if something is shot on film or digital?
It's not your money or time.

You realise that film gets digitized right? You can stretch that image any which way you want.
Each film stock is just another "sensor", at the end of the day.. Just an analogue one with a look that some people think is right for them. Choice is good.

Andrew, I just couldn't let this post go.  I guess I would fall into the category of the "privileged few" having been a "film" director for over 35 years and having shot film almost exclusively.  Let me start by saying while I do have a certain sense of nostalgia for film,  I'm not someone who doesn't enjoy and in fact embrace new technology.   I've been happily shooting "video" for the last 5 years with a ML equipped Canon 5D Mark 2.  I have been waiting for the "perfect digital cinema camera" to come along before I upgrade.  That has yet to happen.  Because I'm an old  guy, perhaps I may have a different prospective on this issue.  The fall of film (in my demented perspective) is not that digital is better.. but because its cheaper.  The seeds of the fall of film I think began in the early 80s.  When I made my first film, I shot it in 16mm.  At the time, a 400' roll of film (about 10 minutes running time) cost $34.00. Because of the Hunt Brothers trying to corner the Silver market, within a few weeks, the price of Silver went through the roof.  Kodak raised the price to $76.00, which of course also included raising the price of print stocks.  After a few more weeks, the price of Silver collapsed.  Kodak never adjusted the price back down.  Since then the prices of film and processing continued to rise until film and lab work fell out of reach of all but high end users.  This left a huge hole in the market that video filled. In todays economy film cannot survive.
Regarding Film versus Video;  I made a film for Warner Bros in 2001.  It was shot on an Arri 535 (Super 35mm) and was posted completely digitally.  It was only the second film ever done that way at the time.  The very first was the Cohen Brothers "Brother Where Art Thou?" The film completion bond company called it "Voodoo Technology".  Now looking back on it all these years later, I still think this marriage (Film Capture/Digital Post) was the best it ever was.  Let me be clear, you can get some terrific looking images with digital cameras but if you look at films made 10-15 years ago there are still looks you just can't get with an electronic sensor. There is a smoothness.. a silkiness that's just wonderful.  
For me digital has three big problems.  
Number 1  Rolling Shutter.  LISTEN UP CAMERA COMPANIES!!!  Don't even think about putting out another video camera with this problem... This is NOT a minor issue.  (Yes I know some of the cameras are coming out with global shutters...and I know there are work arounds).   You shouldn't have to rethink how you shoot something to accommodate the camera.
Number 2  6 O'clock News Syndrome  - I guess that I'm the only one who sees this as I've never heard anyone else mention it but it drives me crazy. During some action scenes you suddenly become aware you're watching "video" and it takes you out of the story.  The movie suddenly looks like the 6 o'clock news and the illusion of film is suddenly gone.  This seems to only happen during moving or action shots.  I wish I could finger the culprit here but I just can't tell what's going on. Maybe someone can tell me. 
Number 3 And this one is HUGE.  Archiving of Images.  Many of the major film studios still do Black and White film separations of their movies including motion pictures shot on digital.  Film has a shelf life of at least 100 years.  This is now a proven fact. To date there is no safe and foolproof way to ensure what you shot will survive longer than a few years. I believe this era will be a period of the greatest loss of photographic images... It saddens me deeply... 
So will I go back to film? Probably not (except for shooting some art projects with my old 4x5 Grapflex). Do I miss it? Yes.  There is something very tactile and wonderful about it.  You open the side of the camera ... " I love the smell of Silver Halides and Acetate in the morning.... Smells like ... Victory". 
PS sorry for being so long winded.
WM

Back to why the Sony F35 may be the most closest to film from a digital camera.  How it handles highlights.  CCD - global shutter.  I have 2.  I love them.  But it's all subjective/  Just like in the film days we would be having these same exact arguments over fuji vs kodak - which one did you like better?  Same shit, different decade.

http://vimeo.com/83774924    here's a director dp working with (super cheap) super 8mm  (i support the artist and whatever choice he or she makes)
 
for me kodak film...watching first dailies...well it was love at first sight...the unexplainable...
 
for practical reasons use both digital and film keep them both competitive and evolving

Hi, I am selling this great, well looked after 4K package. I'm sure if you are looking, you know the power of this combo! Everything you need other than glass. Located in Bewdley, near Birmingham. Reason for sale, moving to RED Dragon.

Package total new is £8467 (according to prices on CVP).... Looking for offers around £6500

FS700 £4435
Metabones EF to E mount - £328

Odyssey 7Q £1449
2 x 256GB SSDs - £672
Sony RAW Upgrade - £496
PEC Charge Plate - £37

SSD Lead - £20
H-SDI Lead - £20
2 x NP-F970 - 2 x £115
2 x NP-F770 - 2 x £40

Manfrotto 503 head and tripod- £700

I've only ever shot 120 or 240fps in 2K mode.... That has some aliasing.
I will try a 24fps test and let you know.

I ran some tests when 4K prores came out (non scientific)..... Judging by eye, raw has at least 1 stop on the ProRes. Helps with the highlights.