mercer

Pavel, I know very little about lenses that resolve 6K, but I know a lot about vintage lenses. When I bought my first camera for video, I could not afford any expensive lenses, so I bought vintage. And I bought a lot of them. I spent days upon days reading and watching reviews, looking at sample images and videos. So, with my credentials behind me, I think you should be fine with those lenses. If you have some money to spare on some really good lenses, then I would recommend it with the NX1. The sensor is demanding. I own the NX500 and I found that you can get a good image with many different lenses, but you can get very clean clinical images with more modern glass. So, the next question is, what type of video do you plan on shooting? Is this a hobby for you and you plan on shooting the best family get togethers and birthday parties? Do you plan on shooting pro events or weddings? Do you hope to shoot narrative or documentary pieces?

Hi Pavel, in that post I was quoting Kidzrevil. He has the Zeiss Milvus lenses that are supposed to be capable of resolving 6K. He has gotten some great results with them. But a lot of other NX1 users have been using various other lenses that work very well with the camera. What kind of lenses are you looking for?

Yeah it does!!! I have it in Nikon to m43 and it is an amazing product. I also am waiting on a used/mint ef to m43 from fotodiox clearance, so I can use it with every other lens mount I own. I like the product so much, I am probably going to hold off on a speedbooster for the time being.

Yes, I love vintage Tokinas. I also have the RMC 17mm f3.5, and the RMC 25-50mm f4. And the AT-X 24-40 and AT-X 35-70, both f2.8. All of them are great lenses. obviously, I meant to type Cosmicar in the description, but damn auto correct... but i agree, that lens really holds its own for a 40-50 year old TV, c-mount lens. The only reason I think I am leaning toward the Tokina is I think the bokeh is weightier than the Cosmicar... the Cosmicar has a lighter, almost nostalgic look to it, which may be perfect for a short I plan on shooting later in the year. Btw, I have that Pentacon lens... picked it up for 5 bucks a while back, but I never got around to using it... I'll have to give that a test one of these days.

Yup... Yet Another G7 Test. This time I am really trying to decide between a couple lenses for my upcoming movie project... the Tokina RMC 35mm f2 lens vs. the Cosmical 25mm f1.9 lens. I adjusted the curves and threw a couple LUTS on the footage to get close to the kinda "look" I will eventually want. The technical info is... this video was shot in CineLikeD with everything dialed down. With my tests I have found I like this setting the best. Eventually, I would like to test the Leeming LUT, as TheRenaissanceMan suggested a couple weeks ago, with the advised Leeming LUT in camera settings, but I am waiting until he has a fully developed G7 version. I am sure there are flaws all over the place in this video, but since it is merely a lens test, I decided to let them roll. As always... any tips or criticisms are encouraged and if there are any other G7 users, please feel free to post your work as well. I am really hoping to have a thorough discussion about this awesome little camera.

Have you thought about selling your nx1, picking up a used nx500 for stills and some of that NX video you like and a speedbooster gh4/g7 as your primary video camera?

With the XL you are getting a .64x as opposed to a .72x... So, in full frame terms, if you have a 28mm lens on an m43, the full frame equivalent FOV would be 56mm when you add the regular speedbooster the same 28mm lens, you would get a FOV equivalent to a full frame 40mm and gain a stop of light. With the XL you would get a 36mm and gain a little more than a stop. The XL glass may be of better quality as well, but I am not a hundred percent sure of that?

Which Contax Zeiss did you decide on?

Were these tests with your new lenses or with your Nikkors?

1. FS5 2. D5500 3. 1DC

Did you get rid of the NX500?

This conversation occurs once every 6 months and it usually ends with disagreement. Digital has not surpassed film. Cinematic and filmic are different and independent of one another. A movie can be cinematic but not filmic. A movie can be filmic but not cinematic. Or it can be both or neither.

Once I've discovered 28mm and 35mm f2 lenses, I can see why someone may use only one lens. You can get tight for close ups with some nice depth, or pull back and focus to infinity for your wider shots. I am going to be testing this one lens solution out in an upcoming project.

I have the Magic Bullet film demo and it is great. I was able to get a lot of the "looks" I am after and I tried the same thing by attempting to emulate what Film did. It definitely helped me. And I actually learned a little trick. By using the demo, you can use FCPX Color Match to closely emulate the processed footage through Film and then tweak it a little more to get it closer. To be honest, I have no problem using one of these "looks" programs. My only concern is the quality of the look. I have a plug in called cinelook from color grading central that I like a lot, it gets the image to that stylized look I am after, but it seems like it may be degrading the image, I don't know. For instance this shot... That is directly from the camera and when I add the cinelook plug in to it, I get this... I also added a layer of curve adjustments. It seems like this tutorial will help me to get there, without using the plug in. We'll see. Thanks a lot for replying, I find coloring to be extremely difficult, so any pointers or tips are greatly appreciated!!!

Hey, I wanted to thank you for giving me the link to that tutorial. I had watched the first part of it about 6 months ago when I first got the Color Finale demo, then when I upgraded to the full version, I forgot to go back to it. I just watched the first 20 minutes of it and I swear I have gotten better in the last 20 minutes than I have tinkering with Color Finale for the past 5 months.

I like the look, but I assume that plug in will degrade the image quality, so I have been trying to reproduce it by using conventional grading. Plus that CineLook plug in brings my Mac to a grinding halt. Thanks for the tips, and interest in my neverending tests... It's really appreciated!

They look really good. Great job!!! Davinici seems like an amazing program. My problem is that I am not that serious about grading. I am a screenwriter that also loves shooting, so I am looking for an outlet for my writing and a look for my films. For instance, here is a grab from a recent test shot with the same Tokina lens. CineLikeD with everything dialed down... Here it is with a minor curve adjustment and a little hue adjustment with red and yellow... And here's the next level adding the CineLook plug in. That last one also has a touch of gorilla grain.

Thanks a bunch. I have always wanted a pocket cam and I may have a little extra money in a couple weeks, so I've been contemplating picking one up. But I'm not sure. Do you shoot Raw with it or prores? Are the raw files dramatically better than the prores?

I agree, my goal is not to fix in post, I am trying to get it as flat as I can, without ruining the image, so I can pull as much information as I can from the footage. I really love the subtle nuances in shadows. Like many, I started with Canon as well using Prolost Flat. On most occasions, I'd only need to add a little contrast and that was it, and even lens choice played a bigger part in the look. With these newer cameras, there is so much more latitude and that extra stop or two is like fool's gold. Anyway, thanks for your help, I'm going to use that tutorial series to help with my next round of tests.

Thanks jagne, that helps a lot.

I noticed the same thing too. I had a good bit of latitude, but then... One more little tweak... and it fell apart... quick. And you are so right about the light. The problem I had with these shots were it was just bright enough to use an ND, but there was just enough pockets of shadow that I really had to be careful what I decided to blow out. Do you use zebras? I have mine set at 100, but I remember reading somewhere that you should set them at 80 or 85 when filming people. When your filming a person outdoors, do you set them at 80 or 85 and then use the histogram to help expose the rest of the shot?

Bio, do you have the BMPCC? If so, do you think it is easier to learn to grade with a more robust codec? Or is it better to sow your oats with 8 bit and learn how to manipulate a more fragile codec?

Yeah, I think I'll give that a go. Thanks!!!

Cool, thanks. I'll keep at it. I swear the more I try, the worse they turn out.

Yeah, he has a Scottish/Irish heritage. He isn't red headed or anything but he has freckled, blotchy (for lack of better word) skin.