Samsung NX1 getting log-like setting

Samuel H said:
Of course: the dxomark numbers are always for RAW stills. What they reveal for me is how good is the potential in this sensor, i.e. how good this camera could be if they added RAW video, or (my favorite) a wider gamma curve that preserves in video mode all the DR from the sensor. According to those dxomark numbers, the sensor has around a stop more DR than my old NEX-5N, which (on RAW stills) was more than a stop better than the Pocket, which is a bit better than my a7S. Summary: shooting RAW video, the NX1 would be close to FS7 in terms of DR.
Click to expand...
I wish Samsung would have provided the Magic Lantern folks with 5 or 6 cameras and let them go to work. There is a ton of untapped potential in this powerful camera.
 
Having the cameras is not an issue: the tricky part is that they also have to provide a lot of documentation. They only gave them access to the UI and monitoring tools (which is more than any other manufacturer has done, in any case).
 
Darktide Media said:
We are using and loving the NX1, image is much better then a GH4 but I agree, A true Log Image like S Log or the new V Log would really help. The sensor is there is make an amazing image. Also one thing that I did not know is that H265 supports 10 bit 422, so mabye thats a big reason Samsung did H265 was to add that later, adding that and a LOG would be amazing.
Click to expand...

So does h.264 now.
 
Sorry if I'm not up on the latest developments, but has anyone tried this camera with an external recorder? If so, how did it look?
 
hgf4 said:
I wish Samsung would have provided the Magic Lantern folks with 5 or 6 cameras and let them go to work. There is a ton of untapped potential in this powerful camera.
Click to expand...


Could you just imagine this thing with M.L. RAW coming off it? Yowzaa!
 
Shenan, to my knowledge an external recording to prores test has not been done yet.

On a side note, I Played with the nx1 against the c300 and found the nx1 to my naked eye, to have a better highlight roll off when shooting with the samsung dynamic range to the c300 clog. The image imo is cleaner and looks better. I had a 1/2 black pro mist filter on my 16 to 50s zoom, so not sure if that was aiding in the nice highlight roll off, but that combo has a nice organic look to it. I also love the look of the c300 but couldn't justify keeping it after what I saw, since nd filters, and xlr are not top priority to me. Today the c300 found a new home.
 
reem12 said:
Ok, my new findings are using the rocky mountain transcoder with a 4k clip will cancel out the majority of any macro blocking the nx1 exhibits in the shadows as long your not asking the camera to do magic. But when shooting in 1080 under the same conditions is like using an inferior codec. so I'm thinking for those more tricky shots where I have to succumb to shooting in the shadow areas I will utilize 4k. But iso 100 to 800 even 1080 does well on the rocky mountain. I'm thinking a lot of the break down of the shadows is coming via inferior transcoders. Love this cam!
Click to expand...

Can anyone else confirm that Rocky Mountain is helping clean up the macro blocking in the shadows? I don't have my cam yet, but I wanted to know if the macro blocking is present in the H265 original clips. If clean shadows are dependent on the transcoder and not the camera itself, this is really good news.

I'm still hoping that those NX1 LX rumors are true. The rumor almost prevented me from buying the NX1 but I went for it after convincing myself that it sounds too good to be true. Are you listening Samsung? Please, please, please make an NX1 with less megapixels/bigger pixels, a log gamma and 60fps 4K readout with improved rolling shutter. I would pay 3 grand for that camera if necessary.
 
No need for all that. Just a gamma curve with all the DR the sensor can offer. Because yes, I often imagine how this would look, or how RAW from ML on the NX1 would look. And then I wake up and remember it's not here. And then I cry a little. Well, not really, but...
 
reem12 said:
Shenan, to my knowledge an external recording to prores test has not been done yet.

On a side note, I Played with the nx1 against the c300 and found the nx1 to my naked eye, to have a better highlight roll off when shooting with the samsung dynamic range to the c300 clog. The image imo is cleaner and looks better. I had a 1/2 black pro mist filter on my 16 to 50s zoom, so not sure if that was aiding in the nice highlight roll off, but that combo has a nice organic look to it. I also love the look of the c300 but couldn't justify keeping it after what I saw, since nd filters, and xlr are not top priority to me. Today the c300 found a new home.
Click to expand...
Thanks! That's quite something to hear about your comparison withe the C300!
 
Shenan said:
Sorry if I'm not up on the latest developments, but has anyone tried this camera with an external recorder? If so, how did it look?
Click to expand...
What does NX1's H265 come out in bitrate/file sizes to when transcoded to ProRes?

Andrew at EOS HD claims it to be a 26-fold reduction in file size compared to ProRes (I am just a tad skeptical of that claim) but, say, it's a 10x equivalent, making NX1's 40 Mbps functionally akin to 400 Mbps in ProRes or about half of 422 HQ.

PS. Surfing the net, there's a AVIutl software that allows one to edit in HEVC and apparently does quite well if you have a top of the line PC.
 
I shot an entire wedding day with it Friday, and only ended up shooting 13gbs of native H265 on a 32gb card. I did a transcode to Pro Res and it is 84gb.
 
C100Scottie said:
I shot an entire wedding day with it Friday, and only ended up shooting 13gbs of native H265 on a 32gb card. I did a transcode to Pro Res and it is 84gb.
Click to expand...
Which ProRes? LT or 422?

And, whichever it is, the ratio quoted above is ~ 6.5/1 ... bitrate wise, it's ~ 40 x 6.5, which comes out in the mid-200's ..

For reference, these are ProRes bitrates and file sizes in 4K DCI 24p -

155 Mbps for 422 Proxy - 70 GB/hr
350 Mbps for 422 LT -157 GB/hr
503 Mbps for 422 Standard - 226 GB/hr
754 Mbps for 422 HQ -339 GB/hr
1131 Mbps for 4444 - 509 GB/hr
1697 Mbps for 4444 HQ - 764 GB/hr
 
If Samsung gave us the full-DR gamma curve I'm crying for, this is what I would be doing:

* Record internal 4K H.265 (I believe it's around 70-80 Mbps) (that would mean around 50 GB for 90 minutes of footage, which is my daily record so far).
* Transcode to 754 Mbps 422 HQ for editing (those 50 GB become 500 GB; my PC would need a new and bigger SSD for this).
* When project is done, rendered and uploaded, delete ProRes files, and leave only H.265 on the backup drives (I'd need <1TB per year).
 
Anyone else think Samsung should take their awesome tech and make a pro cam in a form factor similar to the C100 with the rumored LX chip (less mp, bigger pixels, better DR, better lowlight)? Throw in two XLR's, a 5" monitor and an ND filter wheel, keep the price under 5K and you have a cam that would make even blackmagic sweat.People would buy it just to avoid the Cfast cards.
 
Samuel H said:
... Record internal 4K H.265 (I believe it's around 70-80 Mbps)
Click to expand...
Off a screen grab I saw posted, it was 36 Mpbs in HEVC, roughly the same speed as GH4 in 4K (around 80 Mbps)

shorty15 said:
Anyone else think Samsung should take their awesome tech and make a pro cam in a form factor similar to the C100 ...
Click to expand...
My take is that, considering their lens selection, they should have made something like DVX 200 or, alternatively, made a deal with Nikon to go F-mount. Alas, Nikon (and Olympus) has an existing deal with Sony (sensors), which keeps the Samsung ecosystem to itself.
 
Right now I cant agree more with Samuel, Samsung really really needs to do a NX-LOG for this camera. Everyday I use this im just amazing at how good it is, and the DR in photos is amazing and would be great to see more of it in the video files.
 
C100Scottie said:
i did standard pro res. files look amazing!
Click to expand...
OK, so you did 80 Mbps (aka Pro) and 80 x 6.5 = 500 Mbps, which is not so accidentally is ProRes Standard.

The visual difference of the first generation from the ProRes Standard and the ProRes HQ is presumably negligible.

And this renders the external recorder largely superfluous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top