Jump to content
kidzrevil

Petition for Samsung NX1 hack

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Am looking to sell my NX500, so I thought someone on here might be interested in a lightly used NX500 to use toward the hack. I could sell just the body, or for a little more I'll throw in some vintage lenses and adapters... I have a bunch, so if you're interested in the body plus lenses let me know and I will give you a list of the lenses I have.

Pictures available upon request. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long time lurker, first time poster, NX500 owner. First off, thanks to the folks that know what they are doing. Y'all are really doing all of us a huge service, and it is greatly appreciated.

I just tried Vasile's record limit trick with some initially disappointing results. I'm hoping that these are due to my SD card. I don't want this to come across as complaining, just what I've observed with my attempt.

NX500 w/ Transcend 32GB SDHC Class 10 UHS-1 600x card (this one)

I followed Vasile's directions. No problems there. When I hit record on any of the settings it initially will give a large number for total record time (for about a second) and then the number suddenly changes to a much lower value. Here are my results with different "Movie Quality" settings:

  • FHD 24P - Quality Pro - At beginning record time reads "00:00/35791394:0" then one second goes by and it reads "00:01/09:30"
  • FHD 24P - Quality HQ - Again, at beginning record time reads "00:00/35791394:0" then one second goes by and it reads "00:01/22:43"
  • FHD 24P - Quality Normal - Again, at beginning record time reads "00:00/35791394:0" then one second goes by and it reads "00:01/43:37"

The results for FHD 30P are exactly the same, and FHD 60P predictably produces lower total record times and also does the tease with the higher number appearing for the first second of recording. Also, I did let the record run a number of times and it did indeed stop recording at the 9:30, 22:43, and 43:37 marks.

Is anyone else having similar results?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vaga said:

what lenses do you have?

I have some Minolta MD lenses. Some Pentax M, Some Sigma in FD mount. Some Canon FL, a couple Takumar, some vivitar M42, a couple Pentacon m42, Chinon m42, a Contax Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.7, an Olympus om 28mm f2 and 50mm 1.8, a Tokina 24-40 in OM mount and a Tokina RMC 25-50 in PK mount, etc, etc, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vasile said:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57461650

By the way, I'd like to ask you all to NOT name the bitrate and let everyone download the file if they want to know it.

It would be an interesting thing to see how long you can keep it under wraps and only discuss "around it" but without naming it explicitly.

I have no way to enforce this [oops, I just realized I do :-) and you know it too] but I do ask you to play by this rule, at least until I am back.

 

Sweet Jesus and Lord in Heaven, I wonder what happens when you do GammaDR with that stuff, because I tried screw around with the clip in post and imao the range, the range! 

I hope there is a way to use the MJPEG codec for 2160p as well in high bitrates, that would be sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vasile said:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57461650

By the way, I'd like to ask you all to NOT name the bitrate and let everyone download the file if they want to know it.

It would be an interesting thing to see how long you can keep it under wraps and only discuss "around it" but without naming it explicitly.

I have no way to enforce this [oops, I just realized I do :-) and you know it too] but I do ask you to play by this rule, at least until I am back.

 

 Can't wait to try this myself. I have the UHS-II card if I can give it a go for testing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vasile said:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57461650

By the way, I'd like to ask you all to NOT name the bitrate and let everyone download the file if they want to know it.

It would be an interesting thing to see how long you can keep it under wraps and only discuss "around it" but without naming it explicitly.

I have no way to enforce this [oops, I just realized I do :-) and you know it too] but I do ask you to play by this rule, at least until I am back.

 

Oh. My. God. 
You did it! :o

Looks so awesome!!

Premiere doesn´t like this clip  :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@amanieux brings up an interesting question: If the 2560*1440 is downsampled from the entire sensor, shouldn't it take less work for the proessor do downsample to 4k instead? In which case, full sensor 4k may be possible. Otherwise, if 2560*1440 is lineskipping, is there any moire? Is there a way to lineskip 4k on the entire sensor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YESSS! Incredible!  

I am also surprise that playback is realtime in full resolution in Premiere (it was choppy but I had to move the file to SSD, then it was fine). (i7 3,2Ghz, SSD, Nvidia GTX960 with h265 support). 

I think it is not against Vasile's rules - here are just 2 images - default and graded. The shadows noise is very usable - my opinion: it is not fine noise, but look at that - default was completely black in shadows!

 

 

 

 

 

nx1.00_00_17_05.Still003.jpg

nx1.00_00_17_05.Still004.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to pop in and say I got the NX1 because of this thread and I might just pick up the NX500 as well.

Amazing job from everyone here! Also, Vasile, took a look at the clip and that bit-rate is simply amazing, given it being hevc.

Will throw teh monies at this. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Pavel Mašek said:

YESSS! Incredible!  

I am also surprise that playback is realtime in full resolution in Premiere (it was choppy but I had to move the file to SSD, then it was fine). (i7 3,2Ghz, SSD, Nvidia GTX960 with h265 support). 

I think it is not against Vasile's rules - here are just 2 images - default and graded. The shadows noise is very usable - my opinion: it is not fine noise, but look at that - default was completely black in shadows.

 

 

Did a similar test. Ridiculously over and under exposed. I'm astounded. Given the lighting source I'm guessing we are looking at 800 iso or higher.

origional.jpg

underexposed.jpg

overexposed.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...