Jump to content

GXAlan

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GXAlan

  1. I am going to be exiting out of the NX system and was Backer #1 for the Nxl. If anyone is interested, let me know before I start posting it on the usual for sale forums. I am based in the USA.
  2. I don't think full control is necessary for EF. What you really want is to be able to supply power to the Focus-by-wire and ST-M and then understand the protocol for aperture control (can use the depth-of-field preview). It wouldn't be autofocus, but it would be aperture control. You could then have the battery/controller be something that would mounted to the hotshoe or tripod jack. That might not be the Holy Grail, but would be step #1 in terms of getting a return-on-investment. If we look at Luca's NX-L labor of love, he has 4244 euros for the speedbooster. All of those own
  3. The RX100 looks good, but I think the NX1's low light performance is unfairly criticized based upon nominal ISO versus actual performance. The NX1 has a very sharp look to the 4K which allows for noise reduction to be applied later. It is NOT A7S class, but for APS-C, I think it's hard to beat. Not my video, but if you look at this clip, you really see the 4K quality that the NX1 offers.
  4. ​This. But also offer it in groups. Maybe give options for 9 zones and 3 zone mode. Similar to: http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2014/eos7dmk2_afGuidebook.shtml
  5. ​Like all Mirrorless cameras, you can adapt non-active mounts to the NX with ease. No Leica M. The 16-50/2-2.8 is just about as good as Canon 24-70/2.8L II (sharper in the center, worse at the edges). Based upon average MTF at Popular Photography, the Samsung is even better. Autofocus and image stabilization is great for run-and-gun 4K shooting. Similar to the difference between the Leica and Cooke (https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/03/why-do-we-want-flat-glass/ ) the distortion in the S-lenses aren't horrible. You can adapt Leica R, EF, Nikon F, Contax, etc.
  6. ​Who knows. If heating is the limiting factor *and* somehow magic lantern team (or equivalent) can do this, the best solution would probably be to do what the astrophotography enthusiasts do and do a complete retrofit. http://www.centralds.net/cam/?p=7911 Example of a A7s that has been modded with active cooling and converted to a passive EF mount. Cooling is typically needed for long-exposure astrophotography, but I could see its value in video as well.
  7. ​Agreed. But not impossible -- if the clock generator is purely software driven, you potentially could overlock it at the expense of heat and battery life and get a slight improvement in performance. It also depends if the sensor readout is at full performance or not. If the memory or other CPU is the limiting factor then software improvements can work. Because if 1080p is still reading the whole sensor and not line skipping the actual sensor read could be faster than what we're seeing right now.
  8. ​ It's not just Premiere. Transcoding into ProRes can cause that problem too. #1 challenge with the NX1 is workflow. The price/performance makes it a worthwhile effort. TBH, the NX500 is going to be the better deal for 4K/UHD 24p
  9. What were your settings in-camera for the NX1?
  10. @wulf: Haha, no hard feelings -- you have to have thick skin to participate in online forums. You bring up good points -- all valid. It's just hard to test everything comprehensively. My goal was to generate discussion and back it up with objective facts. You hit it spot on. I bought the A7R hoping it would augment my Canon, and to be frank, I don't like the colors from the A7R that much and the Canon is just 100% more consistent. What's pretty cool is that the Samsung is doing pretty good in my hands with the bonus of 4K and maybe the bonus of novelty, but the results are just as worka
  11. Come on now -- it's a first look, not a definitive review. EOS HD is really about video, and honestly, Andrew is going to do a better job looking at the NX1 than anyone else. The SLR Lounge article was really for the photographers who dabble in video as opposed to the EOS HD crowd. @tupp: The A7S is a better camera for video, but the A7R is the better camera for still images. Look at DXOMark's scores. So for low-light high-res images, the A7R (and D810) is the camera to beat. The A7S does a very good job with low-light video, but actually the leap over the competition in low-light stills
  12. Well, I *was* shooting in auto mode -- so it may not be 100% a bug. The flickering is happening faster than I would expect a traditional auto-exposure mode to deal with... Those numbers quantify how much flickering there is. The signal only dips by 1.18%. So even thought it LOOKS bad visually, electrically* the difference is 1.18%. We can see those differences thanks to the precision of the HEVC encoding, and it's possible that other cameras have similar problems which we just aren't noticing.
  13. ** Since I cannot edit the earlier post. The first set of 3 images are EXAGGERATED with a stretched histogram to highlight the differences visually. The second set of 3 images are the true linear difference from the subtraction) *** But TBH, with exposure drift I was imagining more of the auto-exposure effect -- we should probably call it "flicker" instead of exposure drift so people understand that it's a tiny difference. I sometimes think of flicker as shutter issue. What's interesting is that you're looking at only 3 points of brightness a 0-255 scale which is TINY. The Samsung is prob
  14. Ok, exporting the HEVC to TIFF directly, skipping the ProRes. 1) All channels DO show 0-65535 range. So ProRes is making it worse. 2) The flicker is visible on source HEVC as well. Here are the median values L/R/G/B (i'm skipping the standard deviation) TIFF A 48059 / 44461 / 46260 / 47545 ProRz A 48059 / 44718 / 46517 / 47545 TIFF B 48059 / 44461 / 46260 / 47545 ProRz B 48059 / 44718 / 46517 / 47545 (overall brightness is the same, but it is slightly higher on ProRes. Would be one tick in 8-bit 0-255 scale) TIFF C 47288 / 43690 / 45489 / 46774 ProRz C 47288 / 43497 / 45746 /
  15. You know, I didn't even put flicker and exposure drift together -- I just thought it was a flicker and had imagined the exposure drift as being something different in my mind. There's definitely exposure drift. I ran some numbers on the still frames from ProRes clips exported as 16-bit TIFFs. Two bright frames (L / R / G / B average + SD). The total range is 0-65535 A. 48059 + 17964 / 44718+17233 / 46517+17824 / 47545+18283 B. 48059 + 17967 / 44718+17235 / 46517+17824 / 47545+18285 So it's pretty close. Then you get to the flicker. First, the brightness drops by 1.18% C. 47288 + 17952 / 43
  16. ​Seems like it was posted and then pulled. Unclear if they're just waiting to launch it or if there was a bug that required it to be pulled.
  17. I then tried H265->ProRes 422 HQ using ffmpeg. That's been the best workflow for me so far, but you definitely get some weird artifacts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYFBuDUbVaQ or https://vimeo.com/116520230 If you look at 2:19, there's a dark spot in the center of the sun. That gets introduced by the ProRes transcoding. It's not present in the original HEVC or Samsung H264 converted files.
  18. ​ Thanks. Using your command line arguments, on a Windows PC, you can do PowerShell to get the same effect. This is how I convert all MP4 files in a directory to ProRes HQ with 8 CPU threads.
  19. Wow! There are a few other things which would be really cool. 1) Allow peaking to be "ON/OFF/Always" so that we get peaking without zooming in (Sony style) 2) For the intervalometer, allow extended exposures beyond 30 sec for astrophotography. Arbitrary is best. But 60 / 90 / 120 / 180 / 240 / 300 sec would be golden
×
×
  • Create New...