Happy Daze

At least they acknowledged there is an issue, and promised to replace all that are faulty. That's a pretty good response in my books. I guess so, but call me old fashioned, a simple courtesy is cheap but can have a lasting impression. These companies like to see themselves as a well oiled machine but these faceless mechanical responses piss me off a little and are all too common.

Someone (Jim Kopriva) left this comment under my review video: After seeing several reports if this issue, I inquired with Zoom: "Hello - We have received reports about the issue you mentioned and we will replace any affected products with a new tested unit. This issue should affect only a small number of units already on the market. At the same time, we are implementing changes that will ensure this issue is not present for all future units." Sincerely, CUSTOMER SUPPORT Zoom North America What? No apology? If I buy again I am going to wait for the unit that has gone through the process of "implementing changes" We'll see.

This is my experience with the Zoom F2. Please understand that I tried so hard to love it. This video was meant to be a full review of the F2 but frustratingly I gave up and published my babble up to the point where I conceded. I call it the unfinished review. I don't think Zoom will be sending me products for free any time soon. But, if they solve the issues then I'm happy to revisit the review. https://youtu.be/86K8xH3MfCM

Good move, what they don't know, can't hurt them.

Sorry, I thought that a forum was a suitable place for this discussion, I am not arguing with you and if this is the wrong place for this discussion then please feel free to remove it. The same way that this very forum discussed in detail the pitfalls and limitations of a Canon R5 camera. That discussion was never going to change the outcome with Canon to any great degree, and was also in a minority, so was that purely futile? I hadn't seen the video or that article from Andrew before so this post has proved fruitful for me and may be informative to others, so for that I thank you. The fault IMHO lies with the lack of support that people obtain with purchases such as TV's, they generally buy them from people who either don't know, don't care and don't bother to inform. It's an important part of the viewing experience and some documentation to that effect or other ways to educate people about their purchase and it's possibilities can only be a good thing. You never know maybe an internet search will bring an unsuspecting member of the public or two to this forum, and then this entire rambling may be of use to someone and make them more aware, happy days. Yes, some monitors do come calibrated with calibration certificates and yes I would trust them, my experiences with calibrating and calibrators have not always been positive.

Yes, some TV's have settings such as this but most people are unaware of the existence of such settings and they don't understand the benefit of using them, you know because it's something that interests you. Wouldn't it be good if all TV's were delivered this way?

I had a recording studio for a good few years. It was back in the day when we crammed 24 tracks on to a roll of two inch tape. We spent thousands on monitoring equipment so our mixes would be as good as possible. It was the time when music was mostly listened to on am radios or if you were posh Stereo FM. The Sony Walkman Cassette Player was popular and CD's were only an option for those that could afford them and the players. CD-Recordable was a new emerging practically unheard of technology that was also very expensive. We pressed to Vinyl in those days and had to watch and limit dynamic range (i.e. compression) so we quite often did several different masters depending on it's eventual destination. Those days are over. My computer is now a much more powerful recording studio than equipment that cost tens of thousands back in those days, and in general most people enjoy music on devices that are of much more Hi-Fidelity than technology would allow back then. I agree that letting any creation to the public will change the way you view it forever and if you are anything like me then any project is personal and letting it go can be a tough challenge. But, most audio media players these days or Hi-FI systems are not delivered with the bass and treble on full, the loudness button activated and the graphic EQ set to a smile. TV's in my experience are set with everything "full on" and because there are no knobs to twiddle very few people change the settings from the state in which it is received.

This post is not particularly about my friends and family. My main point was that people are generally ignorant about frame rates, dynamic range, calibration etc. I feel that the TV manufacturers should spend more time calibrating the TV's they sell to a similar standard to what the creative industry sees as a standard. TV's out of the box can be set to ridiculously bright/saturated levels, I assume they do this so that when they are on sale in retailers they want them to stand out as bright and beautiful against all of the other sets that are up for sale. TV's these days are technically superior and are very capable of mostly being calibrated to look the way that creators intended there material to be viewed and I know that a lot of people find their TV's quite complex and feel a sense of achievement if they can just take it from the box connect to WIFI and start watching Netflix, Amazon and Youtube. When you consider that as a result of Covid it is likely to change the way people view going to the cinema (assuming that cinemas can survive longer than the current pandemic which I think is unlikely). So most people will consume their media choices on the TV or other devices in the home. It wouldn't hurt manufacturers to calibrate their TV's sensibly so that the experience is as close to the original creation as possible out of the box. Then those that want can ruin the experience as they desire but I feel that a calibrated look should be the starting point. As for frame rates, again the standard appears to be interpolated out of the box (should the TV support it), my question is why? During setup a simple question such as "would you prefer to watch your movies and programming in the way it was intended or would you prefer the enhanced experience" along with a message explaining how to change that decision in the future. There is a lot of discussion surrounding shutter angles etc, with interpolation the whole point is mute. Presently the only people that are going to appreciate the effort and the financial commitment you make to your creation are other people who create, the public will happily consume hours of Youtube videos filmed on a 720p Chinese action cam or reruns of low res TV shows from the 70's & 80's. So my point is if TV's were calibrated properly from the box more people may get to be able to appreciate the difference a little more easily. So it's not about taste or the sub-conscious, it's about people accepting what they have bought into because they probably don't know any better and they trust that the expensive TV that they just unpacked must be set up OK, right?

I feel like I am wasting my time in the pursuit of nice looking, quality, well graded footage. The majority of people that are in my social circle have no idea what a calibrated TV looks like. Most have the colour and contrast set to "Irradiate" and sit within 6 feet of their 60-85 inch TV's whilst they tan. The sharpness is set to "stun" exhibiting awful halos and because they sit so close you can practically define each pixel. And... because frame rates used by filmmakers are not smooth enough for TV manufacturers the TV's now interpolate a few extra frames between the original frames making for a "much smoother viewing experience". On Christmas day I was watching "Singing In The Rain" on a relatives 85 inch TV, it looked dreadful with the interpolated frames and over-sharpened image but when I pointed this out it didn't go down to well, so I kept quite for the rest of the day and suffered in silence as so many classic films were simply ruined. I've tried to explain the problem to my friends and convince them that an adjustment is required but it falls on deaf ears, they simply don't care. I have never seen one of my videos look remotely the way it was graded with my calibrated monitor on any TV owned by people within my circle or any of the customers that I visit within my profession. I have to blame the TV manufacturers, but I also believe that the public is generally ignorant with regards calibration, either way a lot of painstaking creativity is currently going to waste. If you made it this far, thank you, I feel better for the rant. Cheers.

Hi Fletch, "Flashing", "Reinstalling" same thing. Before or after firmware flashing did you reset the camera? You will find "Reset" in the fourth Menu (The Cog). I would suggest that the best practice for any firmware upgrade is to reset the device before and after flashing, can't hurt to try. If this does not improve things then it is probably a hardware fault and from what you say it is most likely that the Mode switch at fault (as reported by others around the inter-web). Some say squirting switch cleaner under the dial has helped but I have serious doubts that the fluid will reach the right place and instead run where it shouldn't (even though a decent switch cleaner should evaporate). Likely the camera is sealed at this point to fluid intake anyway as part of the weather-proofing, so best advice is don't try it. Good luck, and I hope that the Samsung customer service comes through and does not continue to disappoint NX customers with their apparent complete lack of support. It would be nice to hear about a happy outcome so please keep us up to date.

Hi Fletch Seriously, why not try resetting and re-flashing the firmware? Are you actually looking for a cure? It could save you a lot of unnecessary pain and grief. I can pretty much guarantee that if you have to send this camera to a service centre this is likely the first thing that they will try. It's very easy to do and would eliminate software as an issue and may point towards a hardware fault for which you will not find a cure in this forum, regardless of how many tests you undertake or videos that you produce. I don't get why you ask for help and then completely ignore advice that you are given.

Personally I would reset the camera and then re-flash the latest firmware 1.41, it seems that you have a software glitch that hopefully this will correct. https://matteverglade.com/cameras/nx-firmware/ Good luck.

You are correct Pavel, as far as negative RGB is concerned highlight control is a problem. The histogram shows that the highlights are well within range but they are in reality clipping at a lower level than 255 more like 235/245 that's why everything above these levels is a flat grey.

My Observations. This is just my take on the colour boost setting. I set up a small high contrast studio scene to judge the affect of full colour boost and have come to this conclusion: At colour boost 1.99 (with -1 exposure compensation) compared to 0.00 (standard exposure) the highlights and Blacks actually increase fractionally, therefore decreasing the dynamic range slightly. To combat this I have set the colour boost to 1.90 and the Master Black Level to +5. I still expose at -1 stop which has centred the histogram with no clipping for the scene that I created. Now the weird part: with these settings I am able to to turn the exposure compensation way down (-2 to -3) without it appearing to affect the blacks/shadows too badly, it only appears to mostly affects the whites/highlights/gamma. This means that I can achieve a massive dynamic range by exposing for the whites and not worrying too much about the blacks. There is also the added benefit of gaining more stops with this method. Please tell me that I am not the only one! These are my settings: R, G & B 1.90 Contrast -5 Saturation -1 Sharpening -10 Master Black Level: +5 Luminance Level: 0-255 Exposure compensation: Expose for whites (0 to -3.00) All else standard. I must of course be wrong, as I can not see how this is possible, it's a complete mystery. I would be grateful for your feedback with the above settings/method. Cheers, Paul.

Yes, but I only tried it briefly, much prefer the standard colour gamma.

Yes you are right. As I said in an earlier post the highlights are actually blown/clipping but at a lower level than 255, even though the scopes appear fine. I believe that the method of lowering the color settings and increasing exposure is failed, BUT in reverse: take color settings to +1.99 and reduce exposure (-1, -1.30) then this proves to have benefits, which you can read from the other posts in this thread. I normally adjust colour as well to be different form standard as I found some colours were just over the top, so sure you can vary them slightly for the same benefit. But I have found that the colours improve when on full +1.99 and I find the colour variance is now not necessary. It may be April Fools day, but think of this as an Easter present, much better than an egg.

That is exactly what happens. You get 1 extra stop which reduces the ISO required for the same exposure and the noise reduces accordingly.

Very pleased that you like the discovery. It may be my imagination but I am also noticing an improvement in auto-focus speed/accuracy and a reduction in cadence. The colours for me are a definite improvement and there is most surely an improved dynamic range. A much more pleasing picture in many respects. I feel like I have new camera, weird!!?? The exposure compensation varies with lighting conditions, but I do find that -5 contrast is also quite flattering. Cheers, Paul.

Testing outside using the new profile, it's very overcast here at the moment, I found my self switching between negative 1.0 and 1.3, but compared to the same scene with Picture Wizard off there is more dynamic range. Also there is at least 1 stop more to be gained which could prove invaluable in failing light. I hope that you test this and share your results. I have not tried adjusting any other settings which I have left at standard. This may also work for the gamma DR profile as well, more tests are needed. I will be using this profile for the next few weeks just to see if it is reliable.

OK, so I strongly believe that you can gain an extra whole stop in low light by using method 2. Profile settings: color R G B +1.99, contrast -5, Saturation -1, Sharpness -10 (the contrast, saturation & sharpness are to taste but I find the contrast at -5 produces flatter more realistic results). Once you set the profile you can achieve a similar exposure to standard by using negative -1 exposure compensation. Note how the ISO drops as a result of the negative exposure compensation yet when scenes from standard and this custom profile are compared there do not appear to be any disadvantages just lower noise! Obviously you will need to adjust exposure compensation for different scenes to protect the whites as much as you probably would in standard exposure but you will need around an extra stop of negative exposure using this profile.. Next to test externally.

Method 2 is producing some surprising results indoors. Just for fun turn the color in the profile to full 1.99 on all 3 colours. Now use a negative exposure comp to bring the scene to the same level as would be the standard exposure profile. The ISO for capture is much lower and the noise is much less using the custom method compared to standard exposure. Anyone else?

I have just had a chance to test outside. It's very overcast so contrast between ground and sky is wide. What I have noticed is that the highlights are still clipping but at a lower level than with standard exposure which seems to fail the process. BUT.... Try turning the colour controls in the profile to a POSITIVE figure +1.20/1.30 (or whatever) and then use negative exposure compensation to protect the highlights. This give a smoother curve than both the first method and standard exposure. The shadows appear brighter whilst the highlights don't appear to burn and the scopes look smooth. There might be a sweet spot somewhere, so I am going to carry on playing for a while.

I have lately been experimenting with video capture settings on the NX1 and I have been exploring a method of increasing dynamic range which I don't think has yet been touched upon. It's really no big deal and I am not making any great claims but it may be of interest to some so I produced a quick video How-To. Take is as fun, I have done very little real-world testing and it may be of little use, but over to you.

If you are editing your NX1 files in Premiere then your blacks are looking crushed because it is expecting a luminance level of 16-235 and there is no way to inform Premiere that this is not the case. You can compensate for this by changing the levels at both ends or I have found that applying the brightness and contrast filter to all clips using these settings brings it back fairly close to the original exposure: brightness -3, contrast -15. (Video Effects, Color Correction, Brightness & Contrast). I now use Davinci Resolve which allows you to stipulate the luminance levels of a clip which it adjusts accordingly. Why this is not a feature of Premiere still puzzles me. Of course if you are not using Premiere then you may find a similar issue with your editor of choice.

A random/chronological selection of over 200 video clips that I have captured with the NX1 over the past two years using an assortment of legacy Tamron Adaptall II lenses. Looking back through terabytes of clips was great fun, I hope that you enjoy this selection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRPGebe80l0 My other Youtube channel - WTF - What's This Fing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In5kFNd6g2E