KnightsFan

@Andrew Reid Exactly. And I think most of us count noise level as part of low light performance.

Yeah, exposure is the same. However, snip out a "crop" of the pic, and then blow that crop up to the size that the original was. Noise will be more apparent on the crop than on the original. If you wanted the noise level to be equal on the crop as the original, you lower the ISO, and open the aperture to compensate.

I looked at the E1 again recently, too, but I have no interest in it. I don't like the footage, and I don't need an extremely small camera. But if you do need something TINY for the occasional shot, the E1 seems like a great choice for the price, especially with a minuscule MFT pancake lens.

The cameras aren't out yet, but I downloaded test clips from the Z cam website and the facebook group. The 4k 120 fps is absolutely stunning, honestly looks like better quality than the 4k out of the NX1: perhaps less sharpening, and significantly less noise reduction. Z-Log is actually really easy to grade. And the best part is it was only 170 Mbps! As much as the P4K footage looks phenomenal, for 1/10 the data rate and very similar output, the E2 looks like the only camera I'd consider as an upgrade to the NX1 so far.

Ah, interesting, I didn't see this when I posted before. Good to know! Also, incidentally, I was just playing with the H.265 clips from the Z Cam E2 and they worked flawlessly in Resolve Free on Windows 10. So it seems that the color cast issue is specifically from NX1 footage.

It means a lot to some of us. Almost every project, I end up using an ultra wide (10mm on APS-C) on a few shots. Yes, I can put that 10mm on a cropped full frame for video, but then as soon as I want to take a picture I'm cropping half those 30 megapixels out, or changing lenses. I'd rather just buy an APS-C camera in the first place.

No problem! Glad we found out a bit more. I guess the question now is whether we can get rid of the color cast, seeing as it doesn't appear on Windows 8.1. I don't know if anyone else is still checking this thread, but those of you with issues on Windows 10 using Resolve Studio: do you have that "HEVC Video Extensions from Device Manufacturer" installed? I wonder if uninstalling it would help? My crazy thought is that maybe Resolve defaults to using builtin codecs, but if you don't have any, then it uses its own codecs? That could explain why my Windows 8.1 desktop has no issues whatsoever.

@mnewxcv Ah, I see, I misunderstood. So on this Windows 10 laptop there is a program called "HEVC Video Extensions from Device Manufacturer" in the Apps & features list, published by Microsoft. Seems like the one we're looking for, perhaps?

@mnewxcv Unfortunately I'll be away from my desktop for a few more weeks so I can't check until then. How would one go about checking which codecs are installed? I've never gone and installed a codec pack or anything, so I assume I've just got whatever generic ones Windows comes with. Although, I'm fairly certain Resolve Studio has native H.265 support, which makes me believe it should come with its own codecs.

I don't know, if they have really killer video specs for a lower price than Canon, Fuji could do really well. None of us really believe Canon will have 4k60p or 10 bit. Which makes me think, 4k60 at 10 bit seems like H.265 territory to me--could it be that Fuji is the one to implement an efficient codec? I think you're right on the first part. Soon, every camera will shoot very high spec video. However, the quality of each camera will be so good, the advantages of larger sensors won't matter and we'll be back to decisions based on ergonomics, lens investments, and brand loyalty.

True! But at some point, even the low end specs are good enough, a point which we hit a year or two ago for me (and probably many others). Some people really need/want 4k60p, but I'm happy with good quality HD, so ergonomics and usability are a real deciding factor these days. I'm really looking forward to seeing what Canon does, and let's be honest, I'm just as excited to see what the A7S3 is like.

I guess the popular dispute about whether Canon "couldn't" or "wouldn't" make something competitive might be finally put to rest. Yeah, I'm really curious about that part myself. It's striking that the 35mm prime lens has two control rings, almost like an EF zoom lens... hmm would it be too wild for them to have a digital zoom mapped to that control ring? With 30 Megapixels you could turn a prime into a decent zoom especially for video. I'm probably just dreaming haha.

Ah well, it was a cool idea anyway. Though, this caught my eye: It would be ridiculously cool if they added an electronic declicked aperture ring for EF lenses, though I suspect they simply mean a control ring for some sort of variable ND filter.

That's a really cool idea! I wonder how hard it would be to sell to the general public, though? I think people would balk at the idea of carefully inserting a ~20mm long lens rear element into their camera every time you change lenses. But it would certainly be innovative and make Canon's mirrorless much more appealing for the vast swaths of people who own EF or EF-S glass. EF mount is so common I adapted all of my Nikon lenses to Canon just to put them on a NX-EF adapter! Makes it so much easier to quickly use them on borrowed or rented cameras. On a more general note, while I'm excited to see what Canon has in store, I bet it will be another disappointment for me as my main hope is for H.265. The NX1's codec quality is all I need, and I don't want to double or triple my hard drive consumption for marginal returns on that front. Once the GH5 implemented it, I hoped the floodgates would open to H.265 in mainstream cameras, but we may have to wait a little while longer. Canon would have to pull off something truly spectacular for me to buy into it without H.265.

It was Studio and I was running Windows 8.1. (Afaik there was no native support for H.265 in Resolve 14 Free.)

Nah, I'm fairly sure the thread is about an Advertising Case Study. /spam

I think it looks fantastic! @mercer I see what you mean but I think that's mainly due to the lighting and compression--though YT's compression was certainly much friendlier to this clip than the one with lots of moving foliage!

I got the color shift in 15, but I did NOT get the color shift in 14 (though, as detailed before, this was on two separate computers, etc.) Perhaps the color shift only occurs on Windows 10? Can anyone offer any insight?

Wait, hang on--are we seriously comparing footage uploaded to YouTube? Doesn't comparing compressed sRGB files sort of defeat the purpose of having higher data rates and dynamic range? I think we should wait for files straight out of the camera before making any real judgments.

@noone That's fair, I agree once images are online there's no telling what is what. It's been processed by the user, and then compressed for web. Sometimes, comparing cameras is more a matter of "I can get the colors I want, but it'll take me twice as long in post," instead of "This camera simply CAN'T produce the image I want." And then once it's compressed, any subtle differences will be gone. Fine noise/grain preserved by shooting Raw? Flattened. 500 mbps ProRes 4k? Squished into 40 mbps. Deep rich colors? Oversaturated by an overzealous photoshopper, then smothered by an overzealous compression engine. I feel there is an important life lesson here but I'm too busy reading spec sheets to figure it out.

It's only in playback. When I hit play, it's fine for about half a second and then suddenly it sort of looks like a very light fog machine is blowing haze across the frame--really bizarre. And then if you pause it snaps back to a normal clean image. I tried making a picture to show the effect, but it's barely noticeable without movement. I suppose it is probably just that the computer is hitting some sort of processing limit, and automatically reduces playback quality despite my settings. But it's an oddly specific effect that I've never seen before.

Yes and no. "Color science" refers to the hardware and software that the manufacturer uses to define the output of their camera. For example, Arri's color science may include a dual gain architecture in order to make the highlights behave a certain way, whereas Sigma's Foveon color science involves a very specific type of sensor. The method of creating an image is certainly a science (specifically computer science) built out of objectively measurable variables. The subjective part is that one person may prefer the end result of a specific color science over another, and so a preference of one color science vs. another is not a science itself. And my argument is that having a preference about the subjective part is a perfectly valid way to decide which camera to get, especially now that almost every modern camera has high technical quality.

That's not entirely accurate. People have preferences on color science, and that is a valid reason to prefer one camera over another, even if there is no objective measure of which color/look is "better."

Huh, that's odd. What operating system? On a related note, my NX1 files are ALSO glitching out in Premiere on this laptop; there's this weird wavy noise pattern on top of the image. Again, these same files work perfectly in both Premiere and Resolve on my desktop. So maybe Windows 10 is to blame? Or maybe it's a hardware issue related to GPU acceleration?

It appears to be supported in Resolve 15 free, running on Windows 10. I know H.265 did not work in Resolve 14 free--in fact, H.265 support was the sole reason I bought studio in the first place! Edit: For clarification... when I first read this topic, I assumed everyone was running 14 Studio. Yesterday when I tried in 15 free, I noticed the issue, so I wondered if perhaps everyone here was using the 15 beta.