iamoui

I filmed this last year with a Sony A7sii + 28mm F2 and a 50mm f1.4 + Phantom 4. Let me know if you have any questions!
 
 

Meanwhile, in the real world:




(All full frame. Flat profile. Sharpness on zero)

The science is far from settled, for example on the topic of renewables and the management of food, land and the agricultural economy. Further research is needed there to gauge the impact losing all that land to wind farms will have on food supply. Furthermore, it's interesting to hear what Freeman Dyson says in the film about the computer models - that they are a good tool for understanding the climate but a bad tool for predicting it.
I'm no climate change denier but the discussion is getting way too dogmatic on both sides of the fence.

Dude, just retire from all camera and color testing and shoot a feature film with whatever you just did there. I keep saying a modern day Mean Streets with your visuals would be awesome and this 80s film look is phenomenal!!!
PM me the special sauce though. 
What iso did you shoot that at?

Well start with this: Best price performance ratio. In that case I'd argue it was the Samsung NX1.

If Samsung could see the potential

Hey Salim.
Thank you! I will do my best to outline some of what I experienced. First off, I looked at making the film as my film school. I had done short doc work and commercial work before, but nothing as big and complex as this. We are fortunate in the middle of America that a lot of people love to be involved in filmmaking. We had a ton of volunteers, but we signed contracts with each of them offering everyone a piece of the pie, if the film made money. For me, it's really about creating enough revenue, so that I can keep making films and share with the people who help make it happen. When we first started we had many delays, we would shoot one weekend and then it was two weeks before we could get back together. Everyone had their regular jobs, so it took us about 6 months to complete the film. If I had any type of budget I would have everyone take off two weeks and we would knock it out, but I didn't have that option. The cameras were great, but I did have a few issues with the lenses and NX1 manual mode when I first started. We finally got it down properly and it was good to go. We only had a Arri 1K and Arri three light kit when we first started. I bought a ton of c-stands and 2 Digital juice Flag kits. That really helped control our lighting setups. Most of the lighting on actors is bounced light, which I love the most. I wish I had known more about actually directing talent. That was something I have studied ever since. Jason Levering and I co-directed and that was complicated as well, but we both adapted and kept pushing each other. 
When it comes to festivals, I would say enter the festivals that you think the film will fit in the best. Have people watch it and have them give you their honest opinion. I had a fantastic editor give me some amazing insights and I ended up re-cutting part of the film. It's nothing personal and you have to look at it that way. We were fortunate to sign with Circus Roads Films who is a sales agent. They reviewed the movie and liked it. I would recommend them if you have a solid film. They took it out and got us a couple offers, but they didn't fit what we needed, so we went back to the festival circuit to build the film. Then we signed a deal with Indie Rights. They have a fantastic reputation with treating their filmmakers well, so we were happy to sign. There is never any guarantee on money. I think if you are going to make any kind of money you need someone taking your film to AFM and Cannes, which Indie Rights will do. They will sell the rights to different countries and that can be a nice revenue stream. On the other hand, if you have a massive following, it could be better to self distribute online. It just depends on the film and where you want to go with it. I hope this helps out. It is a little vague, because I have no idea how much money the film will actually generate. 
Best!
David
 

Ok, so how does that all add up? Simple, I started reading Andrew's site a few years ago and learned everything I needed to know about the Samsung NX1 and SLR Magic Anamorphot 1.33x adapter. I decided to use them on our first feature film. After numerous film festivals and special events our film, Black Luck, signed an International distribution deal with Indie Rights. Yes, we probably would have done the film without this knowledge, but I'm not sure it would have had the same look or feel. The camera and adapter worked amazingly well and proved that a no budget indie thriller can still have a high production value. I can't thank Andrew enough for educating me and so many other filmmakers about the possibilities of shooting a feature film with these great tools.
Cheers!
David 
P.S. If you want to check the film out, it just launched on Amazon Prime. Read the reviews as well. This isn't some masterpiece of cinema, but it is a satisfying movie created with passion. 

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Luck-Garrett-Sheeks/dp/B0764KD2K8/ref=sr_1_2?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1507185936&sr=1-2&keywords=indie+rights
 

So if you guys made a documentary about Nyquist for Netflix have to be shot in 8K or 4K ?
 

Indeed, the NX1 (with 16-50S/50-150S) produces the best video quality i have ever seen.
I like my GH5 for IBIS, 6K video, V-LOG etc but i prefer the 4k video from the NX1 (color, sharpness and contrast).

I am 100% that there is no scientific proof of G(g)od's (or plural Gods) existence, or the opposite. For me both are equally possible.
In anyway, if they/he/she/it exists is beyond human comprehension, so they/he/she/it will know what to do with me, without expecting much!
I prefer to concentrate on humans, and their behavior, animals, plants and this planet. Whatever it is, this is it. You can not put any more coins, but you can just eat a few mushrooms I guess, they can make you bigger and blinking in retro NES quality!
Also is true, something we don't know yet, can become common knowledge and a scientific law, not much later. Alchemists and wizards were scientists of the past in primitive cultures. 
Imagine your grand grand parents visiting you from the past. My grand mother is 95 years old, they were litterally living in utterly poverty. They had limited primitive tools, her father fought 4 wars and her husband (my grand father) 3. 
Just watch the last Simpsons episode to get a glimpse of a few centuries back.
We are living in exciting times, the best ever in knowing history. 

I'm actually comfortable with being ignorant of information that we'll never understand.
Not sure how any being in this universe is going to be able to answer the "why/how are we here?" question.  
Even if the species learns all else, it stills leads to that point where once there was nothing, then there was something. And how do you answer a question of nothingness?  It's like trying to multiply with a zero.
Knowing the other nuances is all good though.  Discovery is fun.
BTW, this discussion seems like something I'd say when I was younger, stoned, and eating a loaf of WonderBread with grape jelly.  Therefore, for whatever it's worth, I deem it worthwhile.

As I went with my humble NX1 in the previous post, the 16-50s is my natural selection. OIS, 2f to 2.8f, very fast focusing, 24-77mm. 

Video is my profession, but photography is my hobby, so I would choose a true hybrid. Samsung NX1 ticks the most boxes for me.
H265 video, 4K/30p, 1080p/120frames, DIS, a nice collection of native lenses (10mm fish eye, 30mm pancake, 45mm, 16-50S the ones I most use).
28mpxls BSI APS-C sensor, 15frames, great ergonomics (if not best in class), a modern AF system (even for video, but it starts to getting old now, still relevant though), great battery life, great touch screen, UI.
That's why I have two!
 

I signed the petition about a year ago.
I am happy to hear they got a response from Samsung.
My question is would you guys be willing to trust Samsung again after leaving us hanging like this? and if not what kind of commitment would be needed from Samsung for you to trust them.
 
For me, I would need to see a 2-3 year lens release roadmap schedule similar to what Sony did. It's not that I need a lot of lenses I just need to know they are committed to developing the line and that an NX3 would follow after the NX2.
 
Actually, who am I kidding I like my NX1 so much I would probably buy an NX2 no matter what lol. I can only imagine if they made the NX2 today it would probably have some ridiculous specs like 4k 120p and 1080 @ 480

You understand that the US Government didn't do the actual scientific work? They just paid for it. And they didn't pay for it by imposing a big new tax (which is how governments remove money from the economy), they spent money -- thereby injecting money into the economy. And even if you argue the bulk of that money went to government agencies like NASA, NASA had to hire a ton of new engineers and scientists and admin/support staff, who then spent their money on food and living and other stuff, thereby spreading all that extra money the government was spending into the wider economy. I mean I suppose if you looked hard enough you would find some area of study that fell by the wayside because funding was diverted to the space effort, but when people have jobs they tend to spend money, and when there's a lot of money moving around freely that's when companies make more money and can spend more money on R&D. 

I have no idea how you can quantify unseen un-discoveries in the 60s directly due to the space race, but I think the giant leap in technological advances in medicine, computing, aeronautics, materials science, telecommunications, geology, not to mention the huge cultural impact and the inspiration it gave to a whole generation of kids to work in science and engineering... I think it was worth it.
But they were expensive. The USPS made it cheap enough for people to try it out to understand how convenient it can be.

Yes.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/16/apollo-legacy-moon-space-riley
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/hidden-figures/technology-from-the-space-race/
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/10-tech-breakthroughs-to-thank-the-space-race-for-617847
And so much more. The space race drove an a huge wave of technology and miniaturisation that made it possible to have cell phones, laptops, GPS, and digital cameras. Whatever the US Government paid in grants and funding and investing in innovation it is still being paid back for in taxes paid by companies, employees of those companies, and the sales taxes for each product sold. In fact the space race is government spending at its best -- private enterprise can't take the risks that governments can in exploration, and without discovery we won't open new markets.
 
And without the USPS you wouldn't have eBay or Amazon. Without cheap, (relatively) reliable delivery internet shopping might not have caught on the way it did as quickly as it did. 

I would disagree with you on the points that Samsung's own store did not sell them and the employees who worked there never heard of NX1.
I worked at Samsung's OWN store as a sales associate in London where we have seen the NX1 and got trained on it month before the release of this camera. I was the first person to sell the NX1 on the launch day.
I bought the NX1 (display unit) that was being used in the store as training purposes by us and to show customers after the store shut down on December 23rd.
I'm still using it and I bought another NX1 just few months ago to use it as backup or B-cam.
Used the NX1 last month on a wedding. The footage came out astonishing. I also had the Sony A7S II, but it was resting inside the bag most of the time. Prefer to shoot with the NX1 more.

This guy gets a lot of stick (probably for his young age) from the NoFilmSchool trolls and facebook camera police, but I have to say he brings up much more interesting knowledge and talks much more wisdom than the majority of other camera / filmmaking Youtubers. 
Simon Cade of DSLRguide:
https://www.youtube.com/user/DSLRguide
The channel has these qualities: 
Doesn't talk very much at all about camera specs and new gear, more what you do with what you've got.  Gives his own insights into his thought processes and inspirations.  Gives well illustrated creative and technical tips to his "beginners / enthusiast" target audience. Doesn't bullshit and is very open about the purpose of his Youtube channel. Very genuine and authentic fell to his content. and many more..... He also still films on a t3i / 600d - and does a bloody great job of using it for his Vlogs. He raises the point that he doesn't need another camera yet and would rather spend the money on other areas of his filmmaking. 

Proven by who? Where is the source? 
And.. I'm sure bean counters in big corporations know better where profit comes from than some random Gender Studies professors. 
I don't believe Apple hire males because they are male! Its Apple you're talking about.. a completely liberal company. 

in DPR forum I know only 3 or 4 female active users (one of them has the most accurate knowledge about optics), and its the most popular photography website! virtu signaling about equality and diversity solves nothing, they can add few females photogs next time and survive the PR disasters. That's what companies are doing, even in the west. Apple ad contents look super inclusive, liberal and cover almost any minority in the American society, but their work space is noticeably male dominated. No, Apple is not sexist, they hire whoever they think is capable of increasing their profit, it's not their fault that many of them are still male, but they advertise in a way you think reality has changed dramatically! I don't want corporations fool me about social issues. I want higher "real" engagement from women in photography community, and I don't think women necessarily need a woman to tell them they can engage more.   

JCS: I think you need to step back and reflect a moment. As, I suspect, you well know, there is no way to answer your question - it is impossible for "me" to prove anything to "you" if you are suggesting that everything exists only in your imagination. Reductio ad absurdum. That isn't profound philosophical discourse, it is merely rather silly. Not dissimilar to a child asking "why is the sky?" Why do you ask the question here I wonder. Why not join a philosophy forum and debate the issue (although simply quoting Cogito ergo sum might not impress!). If you are genuinely interested in this and similar questions why not study on a mooc or enrol on a philosophy programme? (Yale offer one which is closely linked to cognitive science which is, I recall, another interest?)
To some extent you actually do answer your own question - the very fact of posting such a (in my opinion, ridiculous) question indicates a need you have to receive external stimuli. The "fact" (it's not really a fact because you are imagining it) that you ask the question presupposes that there is an "outside".
Or, rephrase your question - If nothing external to "me" actually exists then does anything matter? (So why post?)
Jonesy asked you a question - are you alive yes or no?

Oh, I see...Discrediting people, only because you don't agree with them? Mattias, it's NOT you who define the term "sexism"...I simply communicated my and my moms non-mainstream opinion.
BTW: @Andrew Reid knows about my real identity, so no worries....
In one of your posts you say, you were teaching marketing...that's probably your problem in this case: you simply refuse to understand, that journalism is NOT the right place for emotional investment and activism. Journalism should be impartial (marketing and PR guys don't like this, as they want to manipulate) - a journalist can not be an activist, as - by doing this - he would give up his objectivity and credibility. 
This "article" we talk about should have been called "column" or "opinion"...
@Andrew Reid
OMG...I bought things from you and by my mail adress with which I registered here, you should know my website and real identity. But it seems, your culty credo doesn't allow any objectivity. No problem.

Hehe...And your claim sounds as you were caught in the scandalization trap of frustrated editors who always offer solutions for problems people don't have.  (BTW: Next week I'll get 17 years old...so no old man out here...)
My mom works for more than 20 years in the health industry. My grandma - till retired - worked as physician in Bavaria. Every 2-3 years armchair editors wrote about "discrimination" and "sexism" against women in the health indistry. The truth? There was none...Brainwashing at its best...
I understand, that it might be some sexism in our society. BUT it is not a general / major problem without artificially constructed scandalization.
"No scandal? Let's create one..." 
My mom took a look at this thread...She was laughing. Her claim (she could confirm this by sending you a mail from her official real name mail account): "I didn't meet sexism. Neither in the health industry, nor in photography...That might be some singular cases in Central Europe, but I didn't EVER have any problem with sexism. I have more problems with exagerations and hallucinating media editors."
EDIT: She will create an own account @EOSHD in some days to officially express her opinion (mainly photography and filming)...