Hene1

NX1 has way better colors straight out of camera. Panasonic users can't even imagine.

NX1 has way better colors straight out of camera. Panasonic users can't even imagine.

Looks really really nice. Could you share some info about camera settings and grading? You made it look really filmic and organic for NX1 material.

Looks really really nice. Could you share some info about camera settings and grading? You made it look really filmic and organic for NX1 material.

No way NX1 is there, none of them looks that good. 1 is useless via lack of resolution, 2 is best and 3 has strong aliasing issues.

I use Samsung 85 mm f/1.4 for 95% of the time.

all great points.
But opinions are based on knowledge in art.  There is no right or wrong.  It's emotional.
The dialogue is indeed in our heads, between doubt and belief in ourselves.
I still think the concept of competitive awards giving out for art is bizarre.  I can understand an award for a scientific project - but to say "Crash" was a better film than Lost in Translation, both competing for best picture - and being such different films is a bizarre fact of our modern "filmmaker" community.  Apples and oranges.
What people value at the time vs what people later value.
For instance, Schenededty, NY, by Charlie Kaufman I think is a masterpiece.  And look at the reviews of it at the time.  They made it seem as if the film was total trash.
 

I’ll admit it, I use camera forums a lot.  Too much, probably. I use them to check out the latest cameras and lenses and lights and accessories. I waste about two hours a day on them.  Time I could spend watching “the View.”
When I started out shooting part-time in 2005, I got a DVX100 because a juggler who was a featured extra on a tv show called “Sons of Saddam” told me to.  “Cause it does 24p.”  I didn’t know what that meant, but I plunked down $3,000 - all the money I had in savings on this camera.  
The camera could have been a bust.  But I did it because a juggler who played one of Saddam’s sons goons said so.  That’s how easily influenced I am.
Then I bought a HVX200, not even testing it first.  “Cause it can do HD.”   I bought the Redrock micro adapter because I watched the work of MacGreggor and some other DPs back then do stuff on a Gorilla 35 lens adapter that hadn’t even come out.  I hadn’t even tried it first.  Just sent in my credit card info.  
Rinse and repeat.
All these periods of time I bought things just based on videos I saw shot on them. No tests - I didn’t understand tests.  Just videos shot with them and the opinions of people I respected.  I could look at screen grabs but just scroll down to their opinions.
Well finally 11 years later, I am seeing what I was doing - buying based on people’s emotions.  Based on the emotions of people whose work I liked.
This is fine to do, but it’s not always the smartest thing to do.  
There are several, maybe twenty influential figures online in the cinematography world.  David Mullen, Shane Hurlbut, John Brawley, Art Adams, Geoff Boyle, and of course Andrew Reid, come to mind as leaders who people follow and listen to.
Even the opinions of the above people and the other influencers are, in the end, just their opinions.
When someone says, “this to me screams filmic” or “this looks digital” - again, that’s all an opinion.  If they say, “that grade is terrible” or “man you nailed the skin tones” - again, that’s all opinion.  Even looking at test charts and camera tests, the results are subjective.  Aesthetic is subjective.  There are scientific tests, but they lead to opinions.  This isn’t pure math - this is an art form.
There is no such thing as filmic.
Everything is digital.  Film emulsions see the world differently, but they go through a digital intermediate.  They become digital .  And I think that’s probably about 99.9% of all films shot on celluloid.  Maybe a few hipsters shoot film and use a steinbeck, but they still upload their results to vimeo, which converts this to a h.264 file.
I have very strong opinions, and a lot of people have very strong opinions.  That’s why we work in film.  It’s an art form that is full of passionate people.  But I also have low self-esteem.  My whole nature of existence is based on others approval.  I’m getting better at trusting my own self, but this is my basis.  
I think maybe most artists have low self-esteem or why would they want to share their art?  Is it ego?  Or the attempt for others to connect?  Yes that’s part of it.  But whether you want to admit it or not, we love when people love our work.  We live off the feedback, or why would we check vimeo 5 times a day to see if someone commented?  Why else would we have awards?  Especially in an art field where awards are just based on opinions of a community who may or may not get your work?
Something is beautiful if you think it is.  You don’t need an oscar in cinematography to be happy with your lighting or camera movement or angle, or have your opinion mean anything less if you aren’t in the ASC.  Everyone brings something unique to the art form.  Everyone brings a new perspective that is needed, especially now, when everything feels pretty much the same.  

I use Samsung 85 mm f/1.4 for 95% of the time.

This would also be cool:
- a tiny (300g) body
- medium format sensor
- global and rolling shutter
- record internally 8k pro res 14 bit 4.4.4 from 1 fps to 480 fps (to sd card)
- built in ronin
- 600 euros price

You need to use protector or similar filter before your ND filter, to give it distance. Your lens can't fully close itself when youre using only ND filter, becouse its too wide.

Biggest drawback is very digital looking image with thin colors. It's hard to get natural image out of it. Also zooming feels weak, becouse its via wire and the motor isn't very powerful.

LX100 is anything but cinematic. It has bad colors and very digital look.

Lowering contrast breaks the colors. Leave contrast at 0 and you will be much happier with the camera. I too tried contrast -10 when I got the camera and the results were unusable.
 

I used 5D Mk2 for three years and its poor resolution was a big problem. I wouldn't use it anymore (except maybe in Magic Lantern RAW mode, but I don't have experience with that). NX1 and GH4 are both good, NX1 is cleaner and has very bright, vivid and beautiful colors, but GH4 is more "filmic". GH4 is easier to post process, becouse it doesn't need to be converted to ProRes. If you have GTX960 or similar HEVC supported video card, you may be able to edit native NX1 files.
It's really hard or impossible to get bright good colors from GH4, so you are forced to go with more "filmic" style. With NX1 the colors are superb, but you can't hide its digital look.
GH4 may be better for conservative short films. For commercial stuff NX1 is superior in that group.
Personally I wouldn't buy NX1 anymore becouse there seems to be no future for it. But after using NX1 I wouldn't be able to transfer back to GH-world either. I hate Sony colors, Canon lacks resolution, Nikon lacks resolution, GH4 isn't vivid enough, NX1 is perfect for my use but has no future. If I was forced to buy camera at this moment, I would be most interested in Blackmagic.

I used 5D Mk2 for three years and its poor resolution was a big problem. I wouldn't use it anymore (except maybe in Magic Lantern RAW mode, but I don't have experience with that). NX1 and GH4 are both good, NX1 is cleaner and has very bright, vivid and beautiful colors, but GH4 is more "filmic". GH4 is easier to post process, becouse it doesn't need to be converted to ProRes. If you have GTX960 or similar HEVC supported video card, you may be able to edit native NX1 files.
It's really hard or impossible to get bright good colors from GH4, so you are forced to go with more "filmic" style. With NX1 the colors are superb, but you can't hide its digital look.
GH4 may be better for conservative short films. For commercial stuff NX1 is superior in that group.
Personally I wouldn't buy NX1 anymore becouse there seems to be no future for it. But after using NX1 I wouldn't be able to transfer back to GH-world either. I hate Sony colors, Canon lacks resolution, Nikon lacks resolution, GH4 isn't vivid enough, NX1 is perfect for my use but has no future. If I was forced to buy camera at this moment, I would be most interested in Blackmagic.

If A7r II has "good battery life", then NX1's battery life should be "mindblowing battery life from different galaxy". It's just joke that you gave them both "good battery life" when A7r II is so much worse.
Cinema4K with NX1 is softer than UHD, so that shouldn't be plus, and 4K with A7r II is cropped which should be huge minus.
A7r II also requires good color grading to get useful results, while NX1 looks awesome straight out of box.
Screenshot from NX1 video (4K@1080p):

If A7r II has "good battery life", then NX1's battery life should be "mindblowing battery life from different galaxy". It's just joke that you gave them both "good battery life" when A7r II is so much worse.
Cinema4K with NX1 is softer than UHD, so that shouldn't be plus, and 4K with A7r II is cropped which should be huge minus.
A7r II also requires good color grading to get useful results, while NX1 looks awesome straight out of box.
Screenshot from NX1 video (4K@1080p):

I also wondered what this might mean. I haven't noticed anything strange with my NX1. I like to always keep shutter speed 1/50 (or 1/125 when shooting 100 fps slowmotion) and use ND filter. In my eye the motion seems very natural.

If A7r II has "good battery life", then NX1's battery life should be "mindblowing battery life from different galaxy". It's just joke that you gave them both "good battery life" when A7r II is so much worse.
Cinema4K with NX1 is softer than UHD, so that shouldn't be plus, and 4K with A7r II is cropped which should be huge minus.
A7r II also requires good color grading to get useful results, while NX1 looks awesome straight out of box.
Screenshot from NX1 video (4K@1080p):

My settings:
Normal Gamma, 0-255, Standard picture mode (0.95x green, -10 sharpness)

My settings:
Normal Gamma, 0-255, Standard picture mode (0.95x green, -10 sharpness)

My settings:
Normal Gamma, 0-255, Standard picture mode (0.95x green, -10 sharpness)

My settings:
Normal Gamma, 0-255, Standard picture mode (0.95x green, -10 sharpness)

My settings:
Normal Gamma, 0-255, Standard picture mode (0.95x green, -10 sharpness)