Ed_David

From my blog, eddavid.tumblr.com
 
On a recent thread on an unnamed camera nerd user-board, a user, I will call "Johnny-Five," wrote a beautiful little message about how brand loyalty doesn't work in the world of cinematography.
At the end of the day, you have a camera, lenses, and accessories, and grip and lighting and sound and they all come from different companies, from different countries.
Your lights can be German, American, French - all different brands and you mix them together and they work great just as you can mix HMI with fluorescent with tungsten fresnels.  Same with your lenses or monitors - on some jobs I use English lenses and on some German or Japanese lenses.  I don't look at brands, I look at how good something is.
"Johnny-five" got flogged on the board.  "What? How can you say that?  I love my company - it's my family."  This is because these nerds have spent thousands of dollars and hours of time on their camera toys.  Thousands of dollars investing in products.  And they don't want to hear this.  Imagine if someone told you that your car or your house could have been made differently.  You don't want to hear it.  You just spent a lot of money so don't tell me the windows can be switched out with better windows.  No thank you.
But it's important to hear.  And hence why rental houses are so important in cinematography.  Because not every camera or light or lens is the right one for each job. These companies own a variety - and they are prepared for how it all changes.  Ten years ago Zeiss Standard speed lenses and other uncoated vintage glass were not as desired, but now with super sharp sensors, they rent like hot-cakes.  Who would have known back then?
Now part two.  Everyone is drooling about two new cameras - one is named a "weapon" -  the other a "mini".  Both cameras don't exist.  Well the mini is a prototype.  But why drool until that camera exists?
The same thing happened a few years ago with a few screengrabs of a camera named after a fictional mythic creature - which I will call the "Lockness Monster."  It was promised to have 16 stops of dynamic range and beautiful new color and make it the greatest camera ever made. 
I drooled.  "This is it," I mumbled to myself as I typed on internet camera nerd forums.  But it wasn't.  
It had low light issues and the color isn't that much different than the original camera. 
But the biggest problem with the Lockness Monster is the same thing that plagued that camera company since they switched to a smaller body - the fan. 
It's loud - it's on really loudly when you rehearse takes.  This is when you need intense concentration to think - to light, to block, to work with actors.  You don't need a giant fan on.  When you shoot a long beautiful interview at minute 20 it gets loud - really loud - and it's over - the moment.  And you can't focus and concentrate because it's blowing in your ears.  Who would thought the thing that makes me the most upset is a minor issue that probably could have somehow been solved?
The Lockness Monster's fan may be better once the Weapon comes out - but for me, I don't care right now because it doesn't exist.  
I rather just keep my money and buy an older camera on ebay and figure out how to make it good.  It's a lot cheaper to not be an early adopter.  To let other people figure out the quirks.  
Because at the end of the day, any camera that can shoot log - you can make it look good with the right composition, angles, creativity, and grading.  Some will look better, but at the end of the day, it's not how good something looks - it's whether there is a good story, good acting, and if you have something to say.  Cinematography is always secondary to story.  So please weapon, fix that fan noise.

From my blog, eddavid.tumblr.com
 
On a recent thread on an unnamed camera nerd user-board, a user, I will call "Johnny-Five," wrote a beautiful little message about how brand loyalty doesn't work in the world of cinematography.
At the end of the day, you have a camera, lenses, and accessories, and grip and lighting and sound and they all come from different companies, from different countries.
Your lights can be German, American, French - all different brands and you mix them together and they work great just as you can mix HMI with fluorescent with tungsten fresnels.  Same with your lenses or monitors - on some jobs I use English lenses and on some German or Japanese lenses.  I don't look at brands, I look at how good something is.
"Johnny-five" got flogged on the board.  "What? How can you say that?  I love my company - it's my family."  This is because these nerds have spent thousands of dollars and hours of time on their camera toys.  Thousands of dollars investing in products.  And they don't want to hear this.  Imagine if someone told you that your car or your house could have been made differently.  You don't want to hear it.  You just spent a lot of money so don't tell me the windows can be switched out with better windows.  No thank you.
But it's important to hear.  And hence why rental houses are so important in cinematography.  Because not every camera or light or lens is the right one for each job. These companies own a variety - and they are prepared for how it all changes.  Ten years ago Zeiss Standard speed lenses and other uncoated vintage glass were not as desired, but now with super sharp sensors, they rent like hot-cakes.  Who would have known back then?
Now part two.  Everyone is drooling about two new cameras - one is named a "weapon" -  the other a "mini".  Both cameras don't exist.  Well the mini is a prototype.  But why drool until that camera exists?
The same thing happened a few years ago with a few screengrabs of a camera named after a fictional mythic creature - which I will call the "Lockness Monster."  It was promised to have 16 stops of dynamic range and beautiful new color and make it the greatest camera ever made. 
I drooled.  "This is it," I mumbled to myself as I typed on internet camera nerd forums.  But it wasn't.  
It had low light issues and the color isn't that much different than the original camera. 
But the biggest problem with the Lockness Monster is the same thing that plagued that camera company since they switched to a smaller body - the fan. 
It's loud - it's on really loudly when you rehearse takes.  This is when you need intense concentration to think - to light, to block, to work with actors.  You don't need a giant fan on.  When you shoot a long beautiful interview at minute 20 it gets loud - really loud - and it's over - the moment.  And you can't focus and concentrate because it's blowing in your ears.  Who would thought the thing that makes me the most upset is a minor issue that probably could have somehow been solved?
The Lockness Monster's fan may be better once the Weapon comes out - but for me, I don't care right now because it doesn't exist.  
I rather just keep my money and buy an older camera on ebay and figure out how to make it good.  It's a lot cheaper to not be an early adopter.  To let other people figure out the quirks.  
Because at the end of the day, any camera that can shoot log - you can make it look good with the right composition, angles, creativity, and grading.  Some will look better, but at the end of the day, it's not how good something looks - it's whether there is a good story, good acting, and if you have something to say.  Cinematography is always secondary to story.  So please weapon, fix that fan noise.

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/
It's a form of Relativity Theory. We each have different cameras for eyes, we see color differently, and our life experience colors our perceptions differently. This generalizes to all of our senses, all of our experiences, and all of our perceptions about what is true reality. In the dress example, some people truly see the colors one way and some the other. Without any objective analysis, of course people are going to argue, as they don't understand what is going on. In essence, we are all the same in that we perceive reality differently. People who haven't learned this yet rely on ego to defend what they perceive to be truth, and leads to heated arguments. Once everyone realizes this we can use math, tools, etc., to objectively agree on what reality really is, with the understanding that everyone will perceive everything differently. On internet forums, the worst that might happen is perhaps someone spilling their drink on their keyboard. In the real world, this leads to oppression and war, and is the root cause, sometimes intentionally as an exploit for power, of the major conflicts going on in the world today.

From http://eddavid.tumblr.com/post/111
I was told I had to redo my W9 income tax form, because the form I filled out was the Nov 2013 form, which was expired.  So I went and filled out the Dec 2014 form and noticed something new - a whole extra page of paperwork - It went from a three page document to a four page document - and that’s our government, the king of bureaucracy, in action.
Bureaucracy was the big theme in this month’s Harpers, currently my favorite magazine of all time, up there with the Atlantic and the Week and the New Yorker as what I read (sorry novels, I haven’t read you guys in a while and maybe that’s another essay to write about next).  
In this issue, they mentioned that bureaucracy also bleeds into the arts, which is my field of work as a cinematographer.  The use of credentials - like a police chief or military commander or certified doctor -  a practice that exists in places like Soviet Russia have fallen into our field.  The highest esteemed titles, like DGA or ASC even go after your name on a movie title (also the only art industry in the world where you put the credits on an advertisement for the product - does Colgate Toothpaste do that?)  Saying “Joe Schmoe, ASC” does that make Joe Schmoe more certified than his name without that title?  Does it make the film any less beautiful?
At what point in the arts are you certified as an artist?  At what point can you say, “yes I know what I am doing.”  Some great artists do their best work before they “become” recognized. A lot of famous artists reminisce about how much easier it is for them to create good art before they are lauded, such as Jackson Pollock.  Once he was called by Life Magazine, “is this the greatest artist of our generation?” his life suffered immensely.
My theory is, you are an artist when you create art.  So anyone is an artist, if they put pen to paper, dirty finger to keyboard.  But in our filmmaking industry my whole life I have felt guilty because I didn’t go to a film schoo, I didn’t get certifiedl - I went to a liberal arts college and was an anthropology major and almost a film studies minor, as well as one point a music major.  I didn’t have the training everyone seemed to be whispering that I needed.
I felt so guilty,  that I didn’t know how to load a film mag, that I didn’t ever sit down and learn lighting or even lenses.  I had no photography background - that was my sister. I didn’t know the difference between a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens, surrounded by many people who did. I didn’t know soft light vs hard light, or the angle of lighting and how it changes on a face in shadows.
I grew up shooting documentaries and prank videos on VHS-C cameras - made one in high school called “perspective” and interviews young people, older young people, and my parents about various historical issues like the Vietnam war, trying to show how our age affects how we interpret history, as well as education level, etc - bigger issues I didn’t address like race and class, because, well, I grew up in the wonderful safe bubble of Fairfield, CT.  I didn’t light it - I didn’t think about the aesthetics of it at all, just what I was trying to say.
But that guilt of me not having the credentials for filmmaking has haunted me for so long.  I would show up on set and be so nervous that I didn’t know anything about lighting - or 35mm film or real lenses - that I would call for the wrong lens - that I was being judged by everyone.  I remember about 7 years ago or so I was on a low budget tv spec spot and an electric asked me my age and I think I said I was older than I was so I could pretend that I knew what I was doing.
But the more I do cinematography, the more I know that whatever unique perspective I have is an advantage.  Not going to film school, coming from an anthropological and philosophical perspective gives me strength, a different way of seeing.  And it is skills that can actually be learned on the job, online on forums, by talking and observing and learning from others.  I  have learned so much about filmmaking from a vimeo series called “Every Painting a Frame” that is just some passionate film editor named Tony Zhou doing it on his own time as from a youtube series spoofing George Lucas, and of course on set mentors like the great DP David Tumblety I shot with a few times.
Everyone who brings a fresh perspective to filmmaking is so needed - we can not just have people do films all the same way.
 I think more and more there is a gluttony of film set behaviors that rewards the same and bureaucratic method of making “films” - traditional, boring, waiting - not just trying to find moments and capture little tiny ideas and bigger thoughts - but this route system of regimented military-like crew that does things traditional ways that people like Paul Thomas Anderson rally against - no marks - no lets go overt here instead - untraditional approaches that open up wonder again.
But also that wonder is not anything without intense concentration and commitment and hard work.  You can’t be lazy and successful.  It’s sweat.  My Puritanical work ethic was at one point rewarded vastly by my former boss and greatest mentor, Joe Baron.  He runs Attitude, Inc - a post house in New York City.  He taught me about perseverance  - about going for perfection - “crossing the finish line” - which would sometimes be at 3am to get a piece to a level of standard he believed in.  To not be mediocre, no matter what anyone else believes - to put one’s full heart into anything.  To not get upset and bogged down by bureaucratic methods - to just be a part of a small group of people and be passionate.  He found my strengths, and didn’t make me feel bad about my flaws, my quirks.  
I didn’t learn this in school, and this mentorship under him, as I assistant edited under him for two years.  And his voice has been guiding me ever since, as I navigate through my adulthood. And whoever I get down because maybe I switch a lens too late or change my mind too suddenly (all artists need to be open to changes that can occur at any moment - spontaneity) - I always think of him there, watching over, making sure I’m okay.  

I think what I wrote relates deeply to a lot of people - that we seem to feel we need to be "accredited" to be artists, when the reality is that you are an artist if you do art - just as you are a runner if you run.
And I think this is an issue to speaks to many people.  This isn't purely navel-gazing.
Also it's about the psychologogy behind filmmaking.
But one could also argue that all personal essays or biographies are better left to oneself.  And that's fine to feel that way.  It's a topic that has existed since human communication started.

​I agree completely John - I think following textbook examples of how to do things vs developing a style of doing things are different - it's dogmatic "filmmaking" vs "untraditional" and sometimes both ways can lead to a different product.  One can be more "factory-line" and the other more "artistic" - whether one is better is completely subjective.
But each director and crew work differently, and I am saddened by on-set behaviors thinking that there is only one way to make a movie.  There is not.  And many of the best doc filmmakers fell into it.  For instance, Errol Morris, started as a private investigator.
 
Creativity happens at all levels - and the give and take between an actor and director is highly important, as well as the collaboration between crew and director.  And yes a good script can get by with weak performances, and vice versa, but it's only when all the elements come together - story, acting, cinematography, sound, editing - that I feel one is watching a film of brilliance.
 
All art may or may not follow these principles.  But again there is no right way - it's art.  It's in the realm of the subjective.  I think that Lawerence of Arabia is one of the greatest films of all time, as well as the 400 Blows - but on several occasions I have had friends tell me how boring they think both films are.  And that's the point - that no one can say in art what is good art and bad art.  It's all a matter of opinion.

From http://eddavid.tumblr.com/post/111
I was told I had to redo my W9 income tax form, because the form I filled out was the Nov 2013 form, which was expired.  So I went and filled out the Dec 2014 form and noticed something new - a whole extra page of paperwork - It went from a three page document to a four page document - and that’s our government, the king of bureaucracy, in action.
Bureaucracy was the big theme in this month’s Harpers, currently my favorite magazine of all time, up there with the Atlantic and the Week and the New Yorker as what I read (sorry novels, I haven’t read you guys in a while and maybe that’s another essay to write about next).  
In this issue, they mentioned that bureaucracy also bleeds into the arts, which is my field of work as a cinematographer.  The use of credentials - like a police chief or military commander or certified doctor -  a practice that exists in places like Soviet Russia have fallen into our field.  The highest esteemed titles, like DGA or ASC even go after your name on a movie title (also the only art industry in the world where you put the credits on an advertisement for the product - does Colgate Toothpaste do that?)  Saying “Joe Schmoe, ASC” does that make Joe Schmoe more certified than his name without that title?  Does it make the film any less beautiful?
At what point in the arts are you certified as an artist?  At what point can you say, “yes I know what I am doing.”  Some great artists do their best work before they “become” recognized. A lot of famous artists reminisce about how much easier it is for them to create good art before they are lauded, such as Jackson Pollock.  Once he was called by Life Magazine, “is this the greatest artist of our generation?” his life suffered immensely.
My theory is, you are an artist when you create art.  So anyone is an artist, if they put pen to paper, dirty finger to keyboard.  But in our filmmaking industry my whole life I have felt guilty because I didn’t go to a film schoo, I didn’t get certifiedl - I went to a liberal arts college and was an anthropology major and almost a film studies minor, as well as one point a music major.  I didn’t have the training everyone seemed to be whispering that I needed.
I felt so guilty,  that I didn’t know how to load a film mag, that I didn’t ever sit down and learn lighting or even lenses.  I had no photography background - that was my sister. I didn’t know the difference between a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens, surrounded by many people who did. I didn’t know soft light vs hard light, or the angle of lighting and how it changes on a face in shadows.
I grew up shooting documentaries and prank videos on VHS-C cameras - made one in high school called “perspective” and interviews young people, older young people, and my parents about various historical issues like the Vietnam war, trying to show how our age affects how we interpret history, as well as education level, etc - bigger issues I didn’t address like race and class, because, well, I grew up in the wonderful safe bubble of Fairfield, CT.  I didn’t light it - I didn’t think about the aesthetics of it at all, just what I was trying to say.
But that guilt of me not having the credentials for filmmaking has haunted me for so long.  I would show up on set and be so nervous that I didn’t know anything about lighting - or 35mm film or real lenses - that I would call for the wrong lens - that I was being judged by everyone.  I remember about 7 years ago or so I was on a low budget tv spec spot and an electric asked me my age and I think I said I was older than I was so I could pretend that I knew what I was doing.
But the more I do cinematography, the more I know that whatever unique perspective I have is an advantage.  Not going to film school, coming from an anthropological and philosophical perspective gives me strength, a different way of seeing.  And it is skills that can actually be learned on the job, online on forums, by talking and observing and learning from others.  I  have learned so much about filmmaking from a vimeo series called “Every Painting a Frame” that is just some passionate film editor named Tony Zhou doing it on his own time as from a youtube series spoofing George Lucas, and of course on set mentors like the great DP David Tumblety I shot with a few times.
Everyone who brings a fresh perspective to filmmaking is so needed - we can not just have people do films all the same way.
 I think more and more there is a gluttony of film set behaviors that rewards the same and bureaucratic method of making “films” - traditional, boring, waiting - not just trying to find moments and capture little tiny ideas and bigger thoughts - but this route system of regimented military-like crew that does things traditional ways that people like Paul Thomas Anderson rally against - no marks - no lets go overt here instead - untraditional approaches that open up wonder again.
But also that wonder is not anything without intense concentration and commitment and hard work.  You can’t be lazy and successful.  It’s sweat.  My Puritanical work ethic was at one point rewarded vastly by my former boss and greatest mentor, Joe Baron.  He runs Attitude, Inc - a post house in New York City.  He taught me about perseverance  - about going for perfection - “crossing the finish line” - which would sometimes be at 3am to get a piece to a level of standard he believed in.  To not be mediocre, no matter what anyone else believes - to put one’s full heart into anything.  To not get upset and bogged down by bureaucratic methods - to just be a part of a small group of people and be passionate.  He found my strengths, and didn’t make me feel bad about my flaws, my quirks.  
I didn’t learn this in school, and this mentorship under him, as I assistant edited under him for two years.  And his voice has been guiding me ever since, as I navigate through my adulthood. And whoever I get down because maybe I switch a lens too late or change my mind too suddenly (all artists need to be open to changes that can occur at any moment - spontaneity) - I always think of him there, watching over, making sure I’m okay.  

From http://eddavid.tumblr.com/post/111
I was told I had to redo my W9 income tax form, because the form I filled out was the Nov 2013 form, which was expired.  So I went and filled out the Dec 2014 form and noticed something new - a whole extra page of paperwork - It went from a three page document to a four page document - and that’s our government, the king of bureaucracy, in action.
Bureaucracy was the big theme in this month’s Harpers, currently my favorite magazine of all time, up there with the Atlantic and the Week and the New Yorker as what I read (sorry novels, I haven’t read you guys in a while and maybe that’s another essay to write about next).  
In this issue, they mentioned that bureaucracy also bleeds into the arts, which is my field of work as a cinematographer.  The use of credentials - like a police chief or military commander or certified doctor -  a practice that exists in places like Soviet Russia have fallen into our field.  The highest esteemed titles, like DGA or ASC even go after your name on a movie title (also the only art industry in the world where you put the credits on an advertisement for the product - does Colgate Toothpaste do that?)  Saying “Joe Schmoe, ASC” does that make Joe Schmoe more certified than his name without that title?  Does it make the film any less beautiful?
At what point in the arts are you certified as an artist?  At what point can you say, “yes I know what I am doing.”  Some great artists do their best work before they “become” recognized. A lot of famous artists reminisce about how much easier it is for them to create good art before they are lauded, such as Jackson Pollock.  Once he was called by Life Magazine, “is this the greatest artist of our generation?” his life suffered immensely.
My theory is, you are an artist when you create art.  So anyone is an artist, if they put pen to paper, dirty finger to keyboard.  But in our filmmaking industry my whole life I have felt guilty because I didn’t go to a film schoo, I didn’t get certifiedl - I went to a liberal arts college and was an anthropology major and almost a film studies minor, as well as one point a music major.  I didn’t have the training everyone seemed to be whispering that I needed.
I felt so guilty,  that I didn’t know how to load a film mag, that I didn’t ever sit down and learn lighting or even lenses.  I had no photography background - that was my sister. I didn’t know the difference between a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens, surrounded by many people who did. I didn’t know soft light vs hard light, or the angle of lighting and how it changes on a face in shadows.
I grew up shooting documentaries and prank videos on VHS-C cameras - made one in high school called “perspective” and interviews young people, older young people, and my parents about various historical issues like the Vietnam war, trying to show how our age affects how we interpret history, as well as education level, etc - bigger issues I didn’t address like race and class, because, well, I grew up in the wonderful safe bubble of Fairfield, CT.  I didn’t light it - I didn’t think about the aesthetics of it at all, just what I was trying to say.
But that guilt of me not having the credentials for filmmaking has haunted me for so long.  I would show up on set and be so nervous that I didn’t know anything about lighting - or 35mm film or real lenses - that I would call for the wrong lens - that I was being judged by everyone.  I remember about 7 years ago or so I was on a low budget tv spec spot and an electric asked me my age and I think I said I was older than I was so I could pretend that I knew what I was doing.
But the more I do cinematography, the more I know that whatever unique perspective I have is an advantage.  Not going to film school, coming from an anthropological and philosophical perspective gives me strength, a different way of seeing.  And it is skills that can actually be learned on the job, online on forums, by talking and observing and learning from others.  I  have learned so much about filmmaking from a vimeo series called “Every Painting a Frame” that is just some passionate film editor named Tony Zhou doing it on his own time as from a youtube series spoofing George Lucas, and of course on set mentors like the great DP David Tumblety I shot with a few times.
Everyone who brings a fresh perspective to filmmaking is so needed - we can not just have people do films all the same way.
 I think more and more there is a gluttony of film set behaviors that rewards the same and bureaucratic method of making “films” - traditional, boring, waiting - not just trying to find moments and capture little tiny ideas and bigger thoughts - but this route system of regimented military-like crew that does things traditional ways that people like Paul Thomas Anderson rally against - no marks - no lets go overt here instead - untraditional approaches that open up wonder again.
But also that wonder is not anything without intense concentration and commitment and hard work.  You can’t be lazy and successful.  It’s sweat.  My Puritanical work ethic was at one point rewarded vastly by my former boss and greatest mentor, Joe Baron.  He runs Attitude, Inc - a post house in New York City.  He taught me about perseverance  - about going for perfection - “crossing the finish line” - which would sometimes be at 3am to get a piece to a level of standard he believed in.  To not be mediocre, no matter what anyone else believes - to put one’s full heart into anything.  To not get upset and bogged down by bureaucratic methods - to just be a part of a small group of people and be passionate.  He found my strengths, and didn’t make me feel bad about my flaws, my quirks.  
I didn’t learn this in school, and this mentorship under him, as I assistant edited under him for two years.  And his voice has been guiding me ever since, as I navigate through my adulthood. And whoever I get down because maybe I switch a lens too late or change my mind too suddenly (all artists need to be open to changes that can occur at any moment - spontaneity) - I always think of him there, watching over, making sure I’m okay.  

From http://eddavid.tumblr.com/post/111
I was told I had to redo my W9 income tax form, because the form I filled out was the Nov 2013 form, which was expired.  So I went and filled out the Dec 2014 form and noticed something new - a whole extra page of paperwork - It went from a three page document to a four page document - and that’s our government, the king of bureaucracy, in action.
Bureaucracy was the big theme in this month’s Harpers, currently my favorite magazine of all time, up there with the Atlantic and the Week and the New Yorker as what I read (sorry novels, I haven’t read you guys in a while and maybe that’s another essay to write about next).  
In this issue, they mentioned that bureaucracy also bleeds into the arts, which is my field of work as a cinematographer.  The use of credentials - like a police chief or military commander or certified doctor -  a practice that exists in places like Soviet Russia have fallen into our field.  The highest esteemed titles, like DGA or ASC even go after your name on a movie title (also the only art industry in the world where you put the credits on an advertisement for the product - does Colgate Toothpaste do that?)  Saying “Joe Schmoe, ASC” does that make Joe Schmoe more certified than his name without that title?  Does it make the film any less beautiful?
At what point in the arts are you certified as an artist?  At what point can you say, “yes I know what I am doing.”  Some great artists do their best work before they “become” recognized. A lot of famous artists reminisce about how much easier it is for them to create good art before they are lauded, such as Jackson Pollock.  Once he was called by Life Magazine, “is this the greatest artist of our generation?” his life suffered immensely.
My theory is, you are an artist when you create art.  So anyone is an artist, if they put pen to paper, dirty finger to keyboard.  But in our filmmaking industry my whole life I have felt guilty because I didn’t go to a film schoo, I didn’t get certifiedl - I went to a liberal arts college and was an anthropology major and almost a film studies minor, as well as one point a music major.  I didn’t have the training everyone seemed to be whispering that I needed.
I felt so guilty,  that I didn’t know how to load a film mag, that I didn’t ever sit down and learn lighting or even lenses.  I had no photography background - that was my sister. I didn’t know the difference between a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens, surrounded by many people who did. I didn’t know soft light vs hard light, or the angle of lighting and how it changes on a face in shadows.
I grew up shooting documentaries and prank videos on VHS-C cameras - made one in high school called “perspective” and interviews young people, older young people, and my parents about various historical issues like the Vietnam war, trying to show how our age affects how we interpret history, as well as education level, etc - bigger issues I didn’t address like race and class, because, well, I grew up in the wonderful safe bubble of Fairfield, CT.  I didn’t light it - I didn’t think about the aesthetics of it at all, just what I was trying to say.
But that guilt of me not having the credentials for filmmaking has haunted me for so long.  I would show up on set and be so nervous that I didn’t know anything about lighting - or 35mm film or real lenses - that I would call for the wrong lens - that I was being judged by everyone.  I remember about 7 years ago or so I was on a low budget tv spec spot and an electric asked me my age and I think I said I was older than I was so I could pretend that I knew what I was doing.
But the more I do cinematography, the more I know that whatever unique perspective I have is an advantage.  Not going to film school, coming from an anthropological and philosophical perspective gives me strength, a different way of seeing.  And it is skills that can actually be learned on the job, online on forums, by talking and observing and learning from others.  I  have learned so much about filmmaking from a vimeo series called “Every Painting a Frame” that is just some passionate film editor named Tony Zhou doing it on his own time as from a youtube series spoofing George Lucas, and of course on set mentors like the great DP David Tumblety I shot with a few times.
Everyone who brings a fresh perspective to filmmaking is so needed - we can not just have people do films all the same way.
 I think more and more there is a gluttony of film set behaviors that rewards the same and bureaucratic method of making “films” - traditional, boring, waiting - not just trying to find moments and capture little tiny ideas and bigger thoughts - but this route system of regimented military-like crew that does things traditional ways that people like Paul Thomas Anderson rally against - no marks - no lets go overt here instead - untraditional approaches that open up wonder again.
But also that wonder is not anything without intense concentration and commitment and hard work.  You can’t be lazy and successful.  It’s sweat.  My Puritanical work ethic was at one point rewarded vastly by my former boss and greatest mentor, Joe Baron.  He runs Attitude, Inc - a post house in New York City.  He taught me about perseverance  - about going for perfection - “crossing the finish line” - which would sometimes be at 3am to get a piece to a level of standard he believed in.  To not be mediocre, no matter what anyone else believes - to put one’s full heart into anything.  To not get upset and bogged down by bureaucratic methods - to just be a part of a small group of people and be passionate.  He found my strengths, and didn’t make me feel bad about my flaws, my quirks.  
I didn’t learn this in school, and this mentorship under him, as I assistant edited under him for two years.  And his voice has been guiding me ever since, as I navigate through my adulthood. And whoever I get down because maybe I switch a lens too late or change my mind too suddenly (all artists need to be open to changes that can occur at any moment - spontaneity) - I always think of him there, watching over, making sure I’m okay.  

From http://eddavid.tumblr.com/post/111
I was told I had to redo my W9 income tax form, because the form I filled out was the Nov 2013 form, which was expired.  So I went and filled out the Dec 2014 form and noticed something new - a whole extra page of paperwork - It went from a three page document to a four page document - and that’s our government, the king of bureaucracy, in action.
Bureaucracy was the big theme in this month’s Harpers, currently my favorite magazine of all time, up there with the Atlantic and the Week and the New Yorker as what I read (sorry novels, I haven’t read you guys in a while and maybe that’s another essay to write about next).  
In this issue, they mentioned that bureaucracy also bleeds into the arts, which is my field of work as a cinematographer.  The use of credentials - like a police chief or military commander or certified doctor -  a practice that exists in places like Soviet Russia have fallen into our field.  The highest esteemed titles, like DGA or ASC even go after your name on a movie title (also the only art industry in the world where you put the credits on an advertisement for the product - does Colgate Toothpaste do that?)  Saying “Joe Schmoe, ASC” does that make Joe Schmoe more certified than his name without that title?  Does it make the film any less beautiful?
At what point in the arts are you certified as an artist?  At what point can you say, “yes I know what I am doing.”  Some great artists do their best work before they “become” recognized. A lot of famous artists reminisce about how much easier it is for them to create good art before they are lauded, such as Jackson Pollock.  Once he was called by Life Magazine, “is this the greatest artist of our generation?” his life suffered immensely.
My theory is, you are an artist when you create art.  So anyone is an artist, if they put pen to paper, dirty finger to keyboard.  But in our filmmaking industry my whole life I have felt guilty because I didn’t go to a film schoo, I didn’t get certifiedl - I went to a liberal arts college and was an anthropology major and almost a film studies minor, as well as one point a music major.  I didn’t have the training everyone seemed to be whispering that I needed.
I felt so guilty,  that I didn’t know how to load a film mag, that I didn’t ever sit down and learn lighting or even lenses.  I had no photography background - that was my sister. I didn’t know the difference between a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens, surrounded by many people who did. I didn’t know soft light vs hard light, or the angle of lighting and how it changes on a face in shadows.
I grew up shooting documentaries and prank videos on VHS-C cameras - made one in high school called “perspective” and interviews young people, older young people, and my parents about various historical issues like the Vietnam war, trying to show how our age affects how we interpret history, as well as education level, etc - bigger issues I didn’t address like race and class, because, well, I grew up in the wonderful safe bubble of Fairfield, CT.  I didn’t light it - I didn’t think about the aesthetics of it at all, just what I was trying to say.
But that guilt of me not having the credentials for filmmaking has haunted me for so long.  I would show up on set and be so nervous that I didn’t know anything about lighting - or 35mm film or real lenses - that I would call for the wrong lens - that I was being judged by everyone.  I remember about 7 years ago or so I was on a low budget tv spec spot and an electric asked me my age and I think I said I was older than I was so I could pretend that I knew what I was doing.
But the more I do cinematography, the more I know that whatever unique perspective I have is an advantage.  Not going to film school, coming from an anthropological and philosophical perspective gives me strength, a different way of seeing.  And it is skills that can actually be learned on the job, online on forums, by talking and observing and learning from others.  I  have learned so much about filmmaking from a vimeo series called “Every Painting a Frame” that is just some passionate film editor named Tony Zhou doing it on his own time as from a youtube series spoofing George Lucas, and of course on set mentors like the great DP David Tumblety I shot with a few times.
Everyone who brings a fresh perspective to filmmaking is so needed - we can not just have people do films all the same way.
 I think more and more there is a gluttony of film set behaviors that rewards the same and bureaucratic method of making “films” - traditional, boring, waiting - not just trying to find moments and capture little tiny ideas and bigger thoughts - but this route system of regimented military-like crew that does things traditional ways that people like Paul Thomas Anderson rally against - no marks - no lets go overt here instead - untraditional approaches that open up wonder again.
But also that wonder is not anything without intense concentration and commitment and hard work.  You can’t be lazy and successful.  It’s sweat.  My Puritanical work ethic was at one point rewarded vastly by my former boss and greatest mentor, Joe Baron.  He runs Attitude, Inc - a post house in New York City.  He taught me about perseverance  - about going for perfection - “crossing the finish line” - which would sometimes be at 3am to get a piece to a level of standard he believed in.  To not be mediocre, no matter what anyone else believes - to put one’s full heart into anything.  To not get upset and bogged down by bureaucratic methods - to just be a part of a small group of people and be passionate.  He found my strengths, and didn’t make me feel bad about my flaws, my quirks.  
I didn’t learn this in school, and this mentorship under him, as I assistant edited under him for two years.  And his voice has been guiding me ever since, as I navigate through my adulthood. And whoever I get down because maybe I switch a lens too late or change my mind too suddenly (all artists need to be open to changes that can occur at any moment - spontaneity) - I always think of him there, watching over, making sure I’m okay.  

From http://eddavid.tumblr.com/post/111
I was told I had to redo my W9 income tax form, because the form I filled out was the Nov 2013 form, which was expired.  So I went and filled out the Dec 2014 form and noticed something new - a whole extra page of paperwork - It went from a three page document to a four page document - and that’s our government, the king of bureaucracy, in action.
Bureaucracy was the big theme in this month’s Harpers, currently my favorite magazine of all time, up there with the Atlantic and the Week and the New Yorker as what I read (sorry novels, I haven’t read you guys in a while and maybe that’s another essay to write about next).  
In this issue, they mentioned that bureaucracy also bleeds into the arts, which is my field of work as a cinematographer.  The use of credentials - like a police chief or military commander or certified doctor -  a practice that exists in places like Soviet Russia have fallen into our field.  The highest esteemed titles, like DGA or ASC even go after your name on a movie title (also the only art industry in the world where you put the credits on an advertisement for the product - does Colgate Toothpaste do that?)  Saying “Joe Schmoe, ASC” does that make Joe Schmoe more certified than his name without that title?  Does it make the film any less beautiful?
At what point in the arts are you certified as an artist?  At what point can you say, “yes I know what I am doing.”  Some great artists do their best work before they “become” recognized. A lot of famous artists reminisce about how much easier it is for them to create good art before they are lauded, such as Jackson Pollock.  Once he was called by Life Magazine, “is this the greatest artist of our generation?” his life suffered immensely.
My theory is, you are an artist when you create art.  So anyone is an artist, if they put pen to paper, dirty finger to keyboard.  But in our filmmaking industry my whole life I have felt guilty because I didn’t go to a film schoo, I didn’t get certifiedl - I went to a liberal arts college and was an anthropology major and almost a film studies minor, as well as one point a music major.  I didn’t have the training everyone seemed to be whispering that I needed.
I felt so guilty,  that I didn’t know how to load a film mag, that I didn’t ever sit down and learn lighting or even lenses.  I had no photography background - that was my sister. I didn’t know the difference between a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens, surrounded by many people who did. I didn’t know soft light vs hard light, or the angle of lighting and how it changes on a face in shadows.
I grew up shooting documentaries and prank videos on VHS-C cameras - made one in high school called “perspective” and interviews young people, older young people, and my parents about various historical issues like the Vietnam war, trying to show how our age affects how we interpret history, as well as education level, etc - bigger issues I didn’t address like race and class, because, well, I grew up in the wonderful safe bubble of Fairfield, CT.  I didn’t light it - I didn’t think about the aesthetics of it at all, just what I was trying to say.
But that guilt of me not having the credentials for filmmaking has haunted me for so long.  I would show up on set and be so nervous that I didn’t know anything about lighting - or 35mm film or real lenses - that I would call for the wrong lens - that I was being judged by everyone.  I remember about 7 years ago or so I was on a low budget tv spec spot and an electric asked me my age and I think I said I was older than I was so I could pretend that I knew what I was doing.
But the more I do cinematography, the more I know that whatever unique perspective I have is an advantage.  Not going to film school, coming from an anthropological and philosophical perspective gives me strength, a different way of seeing.  And it is skills that can actually be learned on the job, online on forums, by talking and observing and learning from others.  I  have learned so much about filmmaking from a vimeo series called “Every Painting a Frame” that is just some passionate film editor named Tony Zhou doing it on his own time as from a youtube series spoofing George Lucas, and of course on set mentors like the great DP David Tumblety I shot with a few times.
Everyone who brings a fresh perspective to filmmaking is so needed - we can not just have people do films all the same way.
 I think more and more there is a gluttony of film set behaviors that rewards the same and bureaucratic method of making “films” - traditional, boring, waiting - not just trying to find moments and capture little tiny ideas and bigger thoughts - but this route system of regimented military-like crew that does things traditional ways that people like Paul Thomas Anderson rally against - no marks - no lets go overt here instead - untraditional approaches that open up wonder again.
But also that wonder is not anything without intense concentration and commitment and hard work.  You can’t be lazy and successful.  It’s sweat.  My Puritanical work ethic was at one point rewarded vastly by my former boss and greatest mentor, Joe Baron.  He runs Attitude, Inc - a post house in New York City.  He taught me about perseverance  - about going for perfection - “crossing the finish line” - which would sometimes be at 3am to get a piece to a level of standard he believed in.  To not be mediocre, no matter what anyone else believes - to put one’s full heart into anything.  To not get upset and bogged down by bureaucratic methods - to just be a part of a small group of people and be passionate.  He found my strengths, and didn’t make me feel bad about my flaws, my quirks.  
I didn’t learn this in school, and this mentorship under him, as I assistant edited under him for two years.  And his voice has been guiding me ever since, as I navigate through my adulthood. And whoever I get down because maybe I switch a lens too late or change my mind too suddenly (all artists need to be open to changes that can occur at any moment - spontaneity) - I always think of him there, watching over, making sure I’m okay.  

Last shot is 4k UHD - look at that wobble on the last shot. 
The last shot spinning - now we are talking - now the Samsung NX1 can be used for more doc settings - I don't mind the resolution loss and the minor blockiness - it's not as bad as the A7s in 1080p mode.  I think this camera at $1500 with crazy fast firmware updating and the support of camera hackers - will become a serious contender.  $1500 vs $2500 - that's $1000 savings you can put into your pocket and spend on more important things, like feeding the homeless.  

Last shot is 4k UHD - look at that wobble on the last shot. 
The last shot spinning - now we are talking - now the Samsung NX1 can be used for more doc settings - I don't mind the resolution loss and the minor blockiness - it's not as bad as the A7s in 1080p mode.  I think this camera at $1500 with crazy fast firmware updating and the support of camera hackers - will become a serious contender.  $1500 vs $2500 - that's $1000 savings you can put into your pocket and spend on more important things, like feeding the homeless.  

Agent Provacateur, that Andrew Reid.  "Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One" is one of the most honest, beautiful films I've ever seen -that captures life and what happens on and off set so much better than any other movie I've ever seen. Shot in 1968 on the Eclair to film stock. I have never seen another movie so similar. It's not flim that's limits Chris Nolan, it's Chris Nolan. Memento was a wonderful film.
 
A lot of Dogma '95 films were shot on film. As Shane's test shows - film has perfect motion - has a certain softness and sharpness that feels natural, not cold or clinical. It renders highlights better - shadows better - tungsten stock much better - richer colors. Film is still the best. Until a digital camera comes out that is superior, I still will love film. It's a struggle - it's a pain in the ass. But sometimes doing things the easier way is not the better way.

This is a test shooting the Samsung NX1 in UHD mode 23.98 FPS and 1080p 23.98 FPS - both in PRO mode to see how it handles rolling shutter and resolution loss. My test chart was one of those magazine insert things that always fall out of your magazine when you are trying to read in the subway and someone comes up to you and says, "hey you dropped your thingy." and they want you to pick it up because it's littering but they say it like maybe you want to hold onto the magazine insert, to avoid confrontation. I wonder if the world still needs these magazine insert thingies? Maybe it's time to stop littering, magazine people? Actually I shouldn't be so hard on the magazine people, I love magazines and I need them to keep existing and if it requires them to have these annoying insert thingies, let them be. I need to accept other people for who they are. I am working on this. But anyway back to the test.
I transcoded using wondershare at -25 contrast - sorry guys I can’t figure out iffmpeg!
Shot at 800 ASA, 1/60 shutter, 23.98 FPS
Shot with Leica R 50mm f/1.4 lens at F stop 2.8. Focued on center text with zoom tool.
I lit it with some weird LED light so that it would flicker a lot and cause even more rolling shutter shenanigans - to see what's going on with the rolling shutter from a scientific perspective. But I'm not a scientist, I'm mostly just faking it till I make it.
Shot at Gamma DR with master per up +10 and contrast down -3.
Then I increased resolution 200% then 300% then 400%
Results - the rolling shutter is so much better in 1080p mode, and the loss of resolution is there - is it enough to bother me ? No, actually I’m not that into resolution anyway - I think rolling shutter is a much greater evil.
How does 1080p affect the image beyond rolling shutter and sharpness - highlight handling looks similar from this weak test. Color looks similar too. Less resolution and maybe edges less defined might make the image more organic and smoother.
Woo hoo
- thanks to EOSHD.com and DVXUser.com for all your work on this matter. Especially Andrew Reid for telling the world about this camera and Samuel H for his work on rolling shutter!
I think we can help make the world love the little Samsung NX1. The little engine that could. The outsider.
Next test - Sony A7S 4k to Odyssey 7q in Full frame mode vs Samsung NX1 in 1080p mode. Resolution and rolling shutter and dynamic range and highlight handling.

​Yes it's definitely not log.  I wonder if they didn't allow log because since it's 8 bit 4:2:0 codec they thought it would add too much noise to the image.  I spoke to the Samsung PR person about this - we'll see if they do include a log setting in a future firmware update.

This is a test shooting the Samsung NX1 in UHD mode 23.98 FPS and 1080p 23.98 FPS - both in PRO mode to see how it handles rolling shutter and resolution loss. My test chart was one of those magazine insert things that always fall out of your magazine when you are trying to read in the subway and someone comes up to you and says, "hey you dropped your thingy." and they want you to pick it up because it's littering but they say it like maybe you want to hold onto the magazine insert, to avoid confrontation. I wonder if the world still needs these magazine insert thingies? Maybe it's time to stop littering, magazine people? Actually I shouldn't be so hard on the magazine people, I love magazines and I need them to keep existing and if it requires them to have these annoying insert thingies, let them be. I need to accept other people for who they are. I am working on this. But anyway back to the test.
I transcoded using wondershare at -25 contrast - sorry guys I can’t figure out iffmpeg!
Shot at 800 ASA, 1/60 shutter, 23.98 FPS
Shot with Leica R 50mm f/1.4 lens at F stop 2.8. Focued on center text with zoom tool.
I lit it with some weird LED light so that it would flicker a lot and cause even more rolling shutter shenanigans - to see what's going on with the rolling shutter from a scientific perspective. But I'm not a scientist, I'm mostly just faking it till I make it.
Shot at Gamma DR with master per up +10 and contrast down -3.
Then I increased resolution 200% then 300% then 400%
Results - the rolling shutter is so much better in 1080p mode, and the loss of resolution is there - is it enough to bother me ? No, actually I’m not that into resolution anyway - I think rolling shutter is a much greater evil.
How does 1080p affect the image beyond rolling shutter and sharpness - highlight handling looks similar from this weak test. Color looks similar too. Less resolution and maybe edges less defined might make the image more organic and smoother.
Woo hoo
- thanks to EOSHD.com and DVXUser.com for all your work on this matter. Especially Andrew Reid for telling the world about this camera and Samuel H for his work on rolling shutter!
I think we can help make the world love the little Samsung NX1. The little engine that could. The outsider.
Next test - Sony A7S 4k to Odyssey 7q in Full frame mode vs Samsung NX1 in 1080p mode. Resolution and rolling shutter and dynamic range and highlight handling.

The old Red One MX - still a workhorse - forgotten piece of old tech that still gets a really beautiful image
Shooting in Havana as Americans was not easy
 
 

The old Red One MX - still a workhorse - forgotten piece of old tech that still gets a really beautiful image
Shooting in Havana as Americans was not easy
 
 

No moire in 4K on the NX1.

Just remember, NX1 isn't perfect, you're gonna get your moire and jellovision. Not perfect. 

The old Red One MX - still a workhorse - forgotten piece of old tech that still gets a really beautiful image
Shooting in Havana as Americans was not easy
 
 

I love this review - amazing work Andrew!!!!!!!  Yes, you did it man.  You did research and a thorough test to show how a little small camera can beat the image out of a camera 10 times its cost.  Well done, well done!

I shot on film for a few years when I started out. I've shot on a variety of video formats for quite a few years. I'd definitely choose to shoot celluloid if I could on my next film. I worked differently on film. It made me think differently about how to approach what I'm doing. I think shooting on digital has taught me heaps of bad habits, to be sloppy, and not value the moments I shoot. 
And that quote from Andrew Wondlan regarding Kodak Vision 2 could be equally applied the progress of HD/4K and the pursuit of more pixels and dynamic range. I don't give a ****. GH4 looks like garbage no matter how many pixels it has, and I have never felt my pulse quicken when I look at it. I remember the first time I saw 4K projected, at a test screening of King Kong in Auckland. it made me feel sick. I feared for the future because I doubted that a beautiful film would ever be made on 4K. Nothing has changed my mind. So yeah, cheer for the democracy of digital. But I'll shed a tear for the beautiful films that made me want to pick up camera in the first place.

Let's remember all the wonderful things about celluloid:
1. The lovely "bob and weave" in the image, as each frame never lands exactly in the same place as the previous one as it goes through the camera or projector gate.
2. All the sparkling dust and dirt in the image which gives it that nice "real world" feel.
3. The fine lines of scratches that appear if you dare to run your film through a projector more than once.
4. The fun of having no idea how your shots came out until a day or two later when your film comes back from the lab.
5. The marvelous megatons of toxic waste generated by photochemical processing.
6. The joy of your footage turning yellow or pink if you store it in a hot place. The fun of having to store film stock in refrigerators to stop it from going bad.
7.   The ecstasy of spending about what a Canon 5D costs to buy thirty minutes of film stock and get it processed (workprint or video transfer not included).