Hene1

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)

Why is it so popular (in EOSHD) to emulate "dirty" look of 70's and 80's movies? Wouldn't be more beneficial to emulate something like The Martian? Clean image with beautiful colors.
Is it becouse it's so much harder to make image look actually good, and it's easy to make images look crap and then say it's artistic?

Why is it so popular (in EOSHD) to emulate "dirty" look of 70's and 80's movies? Wouldn't be more beneficial to emulate something like The Martian? Clean image with beautiful colors.
Is it becouse it's so much harder to make image look actually good, and it's easy to make images look crap and then say it's artistic?

Why is it so popular (in EOSHD) to emulate "dirty" look of 70's and 80's movies? Wouldn't be more beneficial to emulate something like The Martian? Clean image with beautiful colors.
Is it becouse it's so much harder to make image look actually good, and it's easy to make images look crap and then say it's artistic?

It's much more pleasing to watch something thats not flat and gray, but full of beautiful colors and contrast. That is why I usually shoot with Gamma C, sometimes normal, but almost never with Gamma DR. I think this dynamic range hype (which EOSHD is full of) is mostly nonsense, as long as it leads to overall bland image.

It's much more pleasing to watch something thats not flat and gray, but full of beautiful colors and contrast. That is why I usually shoot with Gamma C, sometimes normal, but almost never with Gamma DR. I think this dynamic range hype (which EOSHD is full of) is mostly nonsense, as long as it leads to overall bland image.

It's much more pleasing to watch something thats not flat and gray, but full of beautiful colors and contrast. That is why I usually shoot with Gamma C, sometimes normal, but almost never with Gamma DR. I think this dynamic range hype (which EOSHD is full of) is mostly nonsense, as long as it leads to overall bland image.

It's much more pleasing to watch something thats not flat and gray, but full of beautiful colors and contrast. That is why I usually shoot with Gamma C, sometimes normal, but almost never with Gamma DR. I think this dynamic range hype (which EOSHD is full of) is mostly nonsense, as long as it leads to overall bland image.

Surely I know that:) If you like standard colors, you should try Gamma C. Colors with it are truly amazing. I think DR is the most overrated thing, and with these low bitrates it's better to get closer to final result in camera instead of that flat look, which may break your footage.

Standard gamma uses photo picture profiles which may cause the problem? So I would test with Gamma D or Gamma C. Also it has been speculated that 4096 mode is just upscaled 3840 (becouse 4096 is softer than 3840) so maybe upscaling causes other issues as well.
I personally use 3840x2160, 25p, Gamma C, 0-255, sharpness -10, green x0.95, PRO bitrate, and I haven't had any issues.
Sidenote: converting to ProRes (at least with Rockymountains Movie Converter) adds banding, while converting to H.264 wont.

Convert the files to ProRes instead of H.264 and you will be fine.
Samsung's own software is limited and slow, this is better: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rockymountainsmovieconverter/

Convert the files to ProRes instead of H.264 and you will be fine.
Samsung's own software is limited and slow, this is better: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rockymountainsmovieconverter/

I had LX100 before I bought NX1. It was hard to get colors look natural with the LX100 and I was forced to use different LUTs and other methods to cover up poor image quality. With NX1 colors are great straight from the camera and I actually don't even use LUTs anymore, becouse usually simple curves are enough to get material look amazing.
I don't know how much FZ1000 and LX100 are similar in image quality/colors, but I wouldn't mix LX100 material with NX1 material, becouse it would be really hard to get LX100's image look even close to how good NX1 image looks.
 

I had LX100 before I bought NX1. It was hard to get colors look natural with the LX100 and I was forced to use different LUTs and other methods to cover up poor image quality. With NX1 colors are great straight from the camera and I actually don't even use LUTs anymore, becouse usually simple curves are enough to get material look amazing.
I don't know how much FZ1000 and LX100 are similar in image quality/colors, but I wouldn't mix LX100 material with NX1 material, becouse it would be really hard to get LX100's image look even close to how good NX1 image looks.
 

Sad answer: It's RED.

Sad answer: It's RED.

Sad answer: It's RED.

Samsung NX1 is the correct answer.
UHD, ISO 100, 85 mm f/1.4.
It's actually a screenshot from Premiere's fullscreen preview, so that's why it's 1920x1080 (display is using that resolution). I don't know if print screen + pasting into photoshop + exporting for web made any difference in terms or banding or anything.
I personally like it really much how this camera handles the colors. I've used GH3 and LX100 before it, and it was really difficult for me to get natural look out of those cameras. Lips were always purple.

Samsung NX1 is the correct answer.
UHD, ISO 100, 85 mm f/1.4.
It's actually a screenshot from Premiere's fullscreen preview, so that's why it's 1920x1080 (display is using that resolution). I don't know if print screen + pasting into photoshop + exporting for web made any difference in terms or banding or anything.
I personally like it really much how this camera handles the colors. I've used GH3 and LX100 before it, and it was really difficult for me to get natural look out of those cameras. Lips were always purple.

Most LUTs don't support Rec709, so converting into LOG "flatness" gives you access to wider variety of LUTs (like DeLuts or Arri Alexa profiles in FilmConvert).