No, really, there aren't areas that have become featureless, and I don't know how you could tell from a web reduced file. I'm wondering if your monitor isn't calibrated, or if it is, it has too high a default brightness. The processing does push the brightest highlights towards white, as it's the look I wanted for the image, but there's still detail there.
Jman13 wrote:
No, really, there aren't areas that have become featureless, and I don't know how you could tell from a web reduced file. I'm wondering if your monitor isn't calibrated, or if it is, it has too high a default brightness. The processing does push the brightest highlights towards white, as it's the look I wanted for the image, but there's still detail there.
The bottom "base" file does indeed show the detail I would normally expect to see in that particular area and the processing choice you made in the original file - subjectively - looks over the top and a bit blown in that area to me. I would likely choose something in between myself.
Jordan, any chance you could post a link for the raw?
..many times tied to people themselves and less to subject at hand (or somewhere else). But then, no wonder, since people do everything because of them. And its not that easy to separate "what you want to see" vs "what you really see".
About resale value of Samsungs, I suspect with NX1, it will be very different. Old NX gear unfortunately plummeted down in price. But so do older m4/3s (due fact that both manufacturers work hard on overloading market with new and new .. and a lot of time pointless, updates of cameras).
Issue with old Samsungs is that not only they lose almost whole value, but nobody actually buys them.. (Fuji, m4/3 and Sony usually at least move back and forth from second hands/buy n sell etc.).
If I see any issue with Samsung, its thats impossible to create SpeedBoosters and its one of pretty alt-unfriendly brand. So if you buy into system, you are pretty much locked into system.. and it might be very hard to get out without spending a lot of cash (if you find someone to buy your gear).
All others are pretty much, buy whatever you want, adapt what you want and play. And since we are bit spoiled with A7x systems, Samsung with their closed system isnt exactly "cool" today.
I am sorry if I am repeating myself a bit too many times on this topic but lets review some basic facts about the sensors:
1. In digital sensors something becomes blown out when it saturates the sensor i.e. the pixels hits 255 (or more precisely 16383 in 14-bit data). Once that happens you can't bring that back.
Highlight recovery / highlight headroom deals with pixels/regions which are actually not saturated in the raw sensor data, but have been rendered as say 255(or a very high value such as 254 etc) by the raw conversion engine. So the recovery is bringing back the detail which was originally there in the raw file but had been hidden by the raw conversion.
--
2. Sensors capture light more or less in a linear fashion. So if you set the exposures of two sensors in a manner that they hit the saturation point at the same light intensity then their response to the scene would be identical to the first order. If something is blown in the first one, it will be blown in the other one. If something is at say mid-gray in one sensor then it will be more or less the same in other one.
Therefore if you give two sensors identical exposure their highlight retention (in the raw data) will be pretty much identical regardless of what their DR etc is.
---
3. From the perspective of highlight recovery the major difference between cameras like A6000 and NX1 is that A6000's default raw conversion has a more contrasty tone curve which will bunch together more of the highlight pixels to very high values making them appear blown, and as a result giving you greater chance to "bring them back". NX1 conversion on the other hand will not blow them at the first place, leaving less to be "recovered".
---
4. The practical consequence of this is that A6000 will encourage you to go for a lower exposure. Lets say you are taking the shot of a scene and increase your exposure until things blow out. A6000 with its more contrasty histogram will start showing you blown regions at a lower exposure making you stop at that point (even though things may not actually be blown in the raw data). NX1 will not show those details as blown at that point and will encourage you to go to a higher exposure. By the time NX1 starts showing you some regions as blown they might actually have been blown in the underlying raw data and past the point of recovery.
So the moral of the long story is this: Under identical exposures A6000 / NX1 will have pretty much identical highlight retention. However NX1 is more likely to give you blown highlights in real world usage because its flatter tone curve will encourage you to go to higher exposures.
curious80 wrote:
By the time NX1 starts showing you some regions as blown they might actually have been blown in the underlying raw data and past the point of recovery.
So the moral of the long story is this: Under identical exposures A6000 / NX1 will have pretty much identical highlight retention. However NX1 is more likely to give you blown highlights in real world usage because its flatter tone curve will encourage you to go to higher exposures.
Yes, that seems to be the case. It appears one should underexpose more than one normally might do so with the NX1 to protect those highlights when going by the displayed histogram to set exposure. It answers the speculation I brought up back on page 2 of this thread (which traces back to what you initially said about the Samsung tone curve): https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1344209/1#12825186
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, that seems to be the case. It appears one should underexpose more than one normally might do so with the NX1 to protect those highlights when going by the displayed histogram. It answers the speculation I brought up back on page 2 of this thread: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1344209/1#12825186
Yes or alternatively play with the pictures styles (or whatever they are called in samsung lingo). I would imagine that by setting a more contrasty setting for the jpegs in the camera, you could make the histogram look more like what say an A6000 would show. Though not sure if the camera metering takes the pictures style into consideration or not.
Mescalamba wrote:
Fascinating what people see sometimes..
..many times tied to people themselves and less to subject at hand (or somewhere else). But then, no wonder, since people do everything because of them. And its not that easy to separate "what you want to see" vs "what you really see".
Didn't Kodak, Fuji, etc., focus a lot of research and product development on 'memory colors'?
In regards to camera/lens reviews, it would seem a fine balancing act. Or not. Show straight OOC images and they'll probably lack some impact, appeal, and not necessarily match the photographer's vision or PP capability. Process images to taste and risk confusing viewers (potentially deceiving some) about the equipment's base capability and character.
Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but over the years working at a newspaper photography department and processing a lot of staff photographer images, it got to the point where I could ID the photographer based on the technical look of a given image. Each had varying levels of PP skill and preferences (which sometimes complicated my work), combined with their preferences in equipment set up. They all shot essentially identical kits. Same cameras, same lenses for the most part. They could all be shooting the same event (theoretically) yet each would 'embed' their own look in their images. From some you might be convinced the gear was unimpressive, while from others you'd want whatever they were using for your own work. BTW, this was completely separate from their abilities as photojournalists. In this respect all were/are very, very good/excellent photographers. I mean, to work at a 100K circulation daily paper, there has to be some skill.
Bottom line is equipment reviewers (including myself) are going to be somewhat subjective, which I think everyone here knows and agrees. You have to filter and interpret the reviewer's points and preferences in an attempt to determine how the gear will work for your needs, including how they process images to taste.
I think Jordan does a great job sussing out the pertinent equipment points and I am familiar enough with his image processing style to have a good feeling about how it would translate to my needs and preferences.
Ratty: FWIW, I understood your comments about Fuji resale values as I think you meant them. You've stated before that you're a long-time Fuji user, which I interpret to mean you are very familiar with Fuji equipment history, both the good and the bad. You were adding a data point based on your first-hand observations about equipment that is of personal interest. Likewise, I can see why you are seen as bashing Fuji, because it depends on each reader's interpretation of words chosen (and how much they do or don't know about you on the forum).
When I review stuff, I see how it works in my regular workflow. I never have (nor will I) just shot straight 'test' type shots for my reviews (well, I do test type shots, but just for personal clarification for what I'm seeing in real-world scenarios, as I did with the DR test I posted). For me, how a camera fits in with regular shooting, my regular post-processing workflow, etc. is more important than how things look in 'ideal' circumstances. I think it's funny there's an extended discusssion on the one courthouse photo, as it's not exactly crazily processed. It's mildly desaturated, with the building pushed a bit high key and that's pretty much it. Anyway, I'm finishing up my review here in the next few hours.
Ratty: I honestly wasn't meaning to state that I thought you were a hater...just that you often comment that it baffles you why people often have that opinion in your posts...I was pointing out that that was the sort of post people see that leads to that opinion, since it injected Fuji into a discussion where it wasn't before. It may be because you're close to it, but I meant no ill will.
Anyway, the discussion above about not exposing to the right is something I had already written about in my review (of course, it hasn't been published yet, but I've written large parts already).
I know there have been some questions on video, and I'm really not the person to ask. I did shoot a handful of video clips at both 1080p and 4K, though I haven't seen most of them yet...I'm transcoding them now. The NX1 records in h.265 only, and virtually nothing plays it right now, so I am right now (as I type) transcoding them to h.264 so I can actually play the files. I don't comment too much on video because as a videographer, I'm a pretty big noob. I know for typical video to set shutter speed at twice the frame rate, and that's about it. If you've read my reviews, I don't go in-depth on video because I don't feel I'm particularly qualified to judge the finer points of what makes one camera's video capabilities better than anothers, aside from easy focusing, manual adjustment, etc.
curious80 wrote:
So the moral of the long story is this: Under identical exposures A6000 / NX1 will have pretty much identical highlight retention. However NX1 is more likely to give you blown highlights in real world usage because its flatter tone curve will encourage you to go to higher exposures.
That was a very helpful post. Is it far to say that at some ISOs higher exposures will equate to less noise?
Also, to Jman13, you might already know PowerDirector 13 supports h.265. It is not free but is a very highly rated video editing program.
Thanks....unfortunately, the trial version doesn't support h265. Samsung has its own 'converter' program, so I'm using that at the moment. I understand the quality won't be quite as high as native h.265, and I understand this'll be a great compression codec for 4K video...but it's not in widespread use, so why Samsung didn't offer h.264 encoding as an OPTION is something I really don't get. It makes the user jump through hoops just to see video.
RandyV wrote:
That was a very helpful post. Is it far to say that at some ISOs higher exposures will equate to less noise?
...
Sure everything else being equal, with a longer exposure you would get more chances of highlights being blown but lesser noise in your shadows. As always you have to trade one for the other.
Nevertheless I don't want to hijack jordan's thread any further, looking forward to reading the review!
rscheffler wrote:
Didn't Kodak, Fuji, etc., focus a lot of research and product development on 'memory colors'?
In regards to camera/lens reviews, it would seem a fine balancing act. Or not. Show straight OOC images and they'll probably lack some impact, appeal, and not necessarily match the photographer's vision or PP capability. Process images to taste and risk confusing viewers (potentially deceiving some) about the equipment's base capability and character.
Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but over the years working at a newspaper photography department and processing a lot of staff photographer images, it got to the point where I could ID the photographer based on the technical look of a given image. Each had varying levels of PP skill and preferences (which sometimes complicated my work), combined with their preferences in equipment set up. They all shot essentially identical kits. Same cameras, same lenses for the most part. They could all be shooting the same event (theoretically) yet each would 'embed' their own look in their images. From some you might be convinced the gear was unimpressive, while from others you'd want whatever they were using for your own work. BTW, this was completely separate from their abilities as photojournalists. In this respect all were/are very, very good/excellent photographers. I mean, to work at a 100K circulation daily paper, there has to be some skill.
Bottom line is equipment reviewers (including myself) are going to be somewhat subjective, which I think everyone here knows and agrees. You have to filter and interpret the reviewer's points and preferences in an attempt to determine how the gear will work for your needs, including how they process images to taste.
I think Jordan does a great job sussing out the pertinent equipment points and I am familiar enough with his image processing style to have a good feeling about how it would translate to my needs and preferences.
Ratty: FWIW, I understood your comments about Fuji resale values as I think you meant them. You've stated before that you're a long-time Fuji user, which I interpret to mean you are very familiar with Fuji equipment history, both the good and the bad. You were adding a data point based on your first-hand observations about equipment that is of personal interest. Likewise, I can see why you are seen as bashing Fuji, because it depends on each reader's interpretation of words chosen (and how much they do or don't know about you on the forum)....Show more →
Was directed more in "general direction and certain people", not towards mr. Reviewer here. I mostly agree with him (at least in case of NX1). And as I wrote few pages ago, I much prefer his approach over certain webpages which "also do reviews", but unfortunately are incapable of producing at least technically right shot.
And you are right about memory colors. Probably reason why even when Im not a fan of X-trans, today Fuji cameras produce still pretty nice colors. But it could be much better.. (as it already was, back in ancient history).
Jman13 wrote:
Thanks....unfortunately, the trial version doesn't support h265. Samsung has its own 'converter' program, so I'm using that at the moment. I understand the quality won't be quite as high as native h.265, and I understand this'll be a great compression codec for 4K video...but it's not in widespread use, so why Samsung didn't offer h.264 encoding as an OPTION is something I really don't get. It makes the user jump through hoops just to see video.
From what I catched, h.265 is supposedly kinda tied to HW of NX1 or something, so going back to h.264 isnt an option..
Jman13 wrote:
Thanks....unfortunately, the trial version doesn't support h265. Samsung has its own 'converter' program, so I'm using that at the moment. I understand the quality won't be quite as high as native h.265, and I understand this'll be a great compression codec for 4K video...but it's not in widespread use, so why Samsung didn't offer h.264 encoding as an OPTION is something I really don't get. It makes the user jump through hoops just to see video.
h265 feels like something to fatten up the spec sheet - 4k internal would have been more than adequate, Samsung overdid things a bit IMO. h265 really offers nothing beyond smaller file sizes right now, later this year that won't be the case, but by then we'll probably be looking at the NX2.
It supposedly takes more processing power to encode h265, and the DRIMe processor looks to be pretty powerful since its sampling the entire sensor. I don't think anyone would complain if the NX1 offered bitrates similar or slightly larger than the GH4. The NX1's 4k image, from the samples I've seen, is as good or better in many areas - but it gets pretty noise above 1600. I would personally prefer a less noisy image over h265, since there's no practical way to deal with it outside of Powerdirector - which is windows only - or endlessly transcoding.
Btw. I think part of that high resolution feel is cause its AA-less 28 mpix? Only Pentax K-3 and some newer Nikon lower end dSLRs are AA-less I think. Sony is still bit reluctant in abandoning AA filters. And none of them actually has much lens (especially "kit" lens) good enough to actually use advantage of not having AA.
OK, Jordan, I'm going to stop championing your cause in every new thread you post (but they've just been so damn good lately). After this: I think you've essentially provided the model for how to both run your own review site AND strengthen a community like this at the same time.
Good stuff, great review, killer thread. Keep on keepin on!
Great review. Thanks for all the effort. With the announcement of the NX500 which drops at $799/w a kit lens, trying the new Samsung sensor just became a lot more affordable. You do lose the EVF, mic input, 120fps video and only 9fps instead of 15 -- but you retain 4k video, the great LCD and the new AF system. Looks like a good, compact backup option for a DSLR.
Jordan, very good and honest review. One minor thing, you mention the NX1 does 1080/60 video, but I did not see the 1080/120p option mentioned. Maybe I missed it.
If you've read my reviews, I don't go in-depth on video because I don't feel I'm particularly qualified to judge the finer points of what makes one camera's video capabilities better than anothers, aside from easy focusing, manual adjustment, etc. 