agolex

http://www.samsungimaging.com/file/download?fileIdx=3147&file=customer/data/remotestudio/win/SRS_v1.0.0_setup.exe
other downloads: https://samsungnx.herokuapp.com/software

Can't even take a few weeks off from the interwebz nowadays – horrible. Thankfully, I don't have a following.

“Nobody knows anything...... Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one.” - William Goldman

Don't take advice.

Don't take advice.

Don't take advice.

Don't take advice.

Every half-decent artist knows how to irritate people by dropping a few unintelligible, chaotic remarks/symbols.

Every half-decent artist knows how to irritate people by dropping a few unintelligible, chaotic remarks/symbols.

Absolutely agree, Liam. It's horrible how the forums burst with self-proclaimed master critics who have to get their word out about almost everything. The movie is several years old, don't you think Matt would have noticed shortcomings by himself by now? I don't believe in criticism in general, I can answer questions about something critically when asked, but I doubt people can be taught anything. They have to see and want to change it for themselves. I liked the film as well, sure it has flaws, but it's highly personal and individualistic, not some shiny 'I'ma do it like da pros' shit. I could really relate. And I liked the chubby girls.  Geekdom is on the decline, nowadays everyone is a nerd, if you know what I mean. I pity that.
Kudos, Matt, don't get discouraged, just do your thing, you don't need any forum's approval for that.

Absolutely agree, Liam. It's horrible how the forums burst with self-proclaimed master critics who have to get their word out about almost everything. The movie is several years old, don't you think Matt would have noticed shortcomings by himself by now? I don't believe in criticism in general, I can answer questions about something critically when asked, but I doubt people can be taught anything. They have to see and want to change it for themselves. I liked the film as well, sure it has flaws, but it's highly personal and individualistic, not some shiny 'I'ma do it like da pros' shit. I could really relate. And I liked the chubby girls.  Geekdom is on the decline, nowadays everyone is a nerd, if you know what I mean. I pity that.
Kudos, Matt, don't get discouraged, just do your thing, you don't need any forum's approval for that.

Absolutely agree, Liam. It's horrible how the forums burst with self-proclaimed master critics who have to get their word out about almost everything. The movie is several years old, don't you think Matt would have noticed shortcomings by himself by now? I don't believe in criticism in general, I can answer questions about something critically when asked, but I doubt people can be taught anything. They have to see and want to change it for themselves. I liked the film as well, sure it has flaws, but it's highly personal and individualistic, not some shiny 'I'ma do it like da pros' shit. I could really relate. And I liked the chubby girls.  Geekdom is on the decline, nowadays everyone is a nerd, if you know what I mean. I pity that.
Kudos, Matt, don't get discouraged, just do your thing, you don't need any forum's approval for that.

This is another existential filmmaker post spawned by a few recent threads. You've been warned. Also spoilers for a film.
Recently I saw a film that articulated a question I didn't know I was asking. That film was "Frank" the story of a talentless, wannabe songwriter/keyboard player who is recruited to join a band led by a man who wears a fake head at all times. You might have seen it floating around Netflix, and maybe you even disregarded it because it sounds gimmicky, or the poster looked like quirky nonsense, but I decided on a lark to watch it, and it was absolutely devastating. The "protagonist" of the film seems like a nice, sweet guy in the beginning, until he starts exploiting Frank's talent by secretly filming and posting videos of their rehearsals to youtube, eventually earning them a slot at SXSW. He tells Frank "People love us." to which Frank replies "People love us?" The pressure of the show, and pleasing an audience cause Frank to have a nervous breakdown. This film resonated with me in a major way. I watched it once, over a week ago, and I'm still thinking about it. I thought about how fame and success never occurred to Frank. He just created music for the art and expression of it, and when faced with the pressure of a major debut performance at a festival, he creates a terrible song that he thinks is his "most likeable song ever". The entire experience breaks him.
The whole film forced me to think of my goals as a filmmaker. I've wanted to be a filmmaker since I saw the Making Of Jurassic Park on TV when I was six years old. In high school, I got serious about having a career in film after seeing Pulp Fiction and El Mariachi. I then discovered the French New Wave and John Cassavetes, and I wanted to make honest, devastating, achingly truthful and beautiful masterpieces of cinema. I made my first feature at 21...and now I'm almost 28, with not many shorts, and not a single follow-up feature since my first. My first feature was extremely disappointing to me. I was obsessed with it for years, and even tried to make a quasi-remake of it, which was a disaster. I've been struggling to come up with an idea for another film that I like. I haven't been able to finish even a first draft in two and a half years. I used to be able to crank out script after script, draft after draft with all the blind confidence in the world. And since my feature, I've come to the realization that I only really have a few basic themes that I keep going back to, and I keep trying to force myself to think of something different, to be a different filmmaker, but I'm not. And now I'm questioning my goals.
I've wanted a career making indie films so I wouldn't have to work a crappy day job. I've been working the same crappy day job for almost four years straight, except for the nine months where I moved to LA to pursue my career. I could't even find a day job to pay the rent. Toys R Us interviewed me twice and wouldn't hire me to work in the stock room during the holidays. I sold a bunch of my lenses, and the DVX100 I didn't use anymore, for rent money. I moved back to my hometown a year ago, broken and miserable. A year later I'm in a great relationship with a woman I'm moving in with in a month. She also has a three year old daughter, and though I thought I never wanted kids, now I can see myself raising this child with my girlfriend, and marrying her. We both see it. She's extremely supportive of my filmmaking, and doesn't want me to give up. But I just feel discouraged. Discouraged that my films will never look good enough, have good enough acting or be important enough. And I still want to make films, but I'm wondering why I want, or need, to be successful at it. Before I got "serious" about it, I used to have fun making movies. The same group of friends and I would get together and film shorts on the weekends. Most people here I'm sure had the same experience. I think all I want now is to form a troupe of actors/crew members and make cheap movies in our spare time for fun, and perhaps never even show them to anyone else. I'm accepting that I'm nowhere near the level of talent as Francois Truffaut, Paul Thomas Anderson, or David Lynch, and it's okay. I'm giving up on success. I just want to make shit.

(I'm in no way an authority in this area)
I thought Carte Blanche has some nice dialogue and complicated emotions and relationships. Enjoyed the oddities. I honestly understand where you're coming from with some of your own criticism of it, but that's you learning or developing your own style. and I think in some ways people really aren't supposed to be corrected when they make something artistic with a vision. we only really get amazing films when someone breaks all the rules and ignores the authorities or doesn't know what they're doing anyway. I'll have to check out more of your stuff

​Good time to ask then.  If it is, how so?  
Because most stuff here is gear talk.  I always thought EOSHD was mostly (not all) for people that were trying to do low-budget cinema with this new era of consumer cameras; so very tech-centric.  I mean, I don't mind that, but threads about the artistic side of things don't seem to generate much discussion.
Seems more about the technical craft.  After all, talk about dynamic range and skin tones on some upcoming new camera and a 10 page thread is likely.
Hey, if I'm wrong, no problem.  Just curious to hear from the head honcho.

If it's true, it's probably more likely they're going into the raw direction after working with the Magic Lantern folks. What an awesome and unique step that would be. We'll see.

If it's true, it's probably more likely they're going into the raw direction after working with the Magic Lantern folks. What an awesome and unique step that would be. We'll see.

If it's true, it's probably more likely they're going into the raw direction after working with the Magic Lantern folks. What an awesome and unique step that would be. We'll see.

I'm just talking from my own POV, obviously.  You don't have to apply this to your own reality.  Everything I'm writing is conditional to my anecdotal experience, but I'll add this:  
In my opinion there's nothing special about great IQ.  
You may like it.  You may want it.  You may value it... but it's become something of a commodity now.  Great IQ is now everywhere and only getting better.  Being part of film fests on and off for 15 years illustrates this to me all the time; wandering the inter webs even more. 
I just think if you're running on the IQ track, you're in a race that everybody is going to win.  You, the guy doing this for decades --and you, the middle-school school newbie.  You're all pretty much at the same pace with a huge crowd.  The guy with a T2i is really only a few paces behind the guy with a Black Magic cam who's only a step or two behind Alexa dude.  And more people join that crowd of racers everyday.
Now, if you chase composition, cinematography, editing... motion picture storytelling --and learn how to do it better than most, you might be able to put some distance between yourself and the competition.  You're by yourself, ahead of the pack.  People are more likely to pay attention to you; if, for no other reason, it's because they can see you better. 
None of that means you shouldn't pursue an awesome new imaging tool.  Heck no, having great gear is awesome!  But (if you're in this career at a non-specialized level) covet gear above skill at your own peril.  And it's so easy to focus on gear.  It's tangible, factual, logical.  No problem.  1+1=2.  Easy math.  Easy is fun too.  
Difficult and rewarding artistic endeavors are typically not.  They're ethereal, metaphorical, ideological, messy, frustrating.
Again, just my perspective/experience.  And I'm not terribly artistic, honestly...just wish I would have had the sense to try and develop that skill/craft/art earlier in my career rather than concentrating on acquiring cameras.

Why is Blackmagic spelling RAW all caps? Don't they read EOSHD?

Instead of putting into action my most ambitious plans, I keep planning, postponing their actual realization. I 'm making plans, I'm performing tests. That means I actually distrust my ideas, I don't really believe in them. At the end of the day, they are hot air.
Because creativity is all about solving problems, finding ways to overcome constraints - with wit and spirit and with what you have, not with 'specs'. Improvisation is better than unobtainable (mostly hollow) perfection. If I think, I can only do it with this or that piece of equipment, I will fail, always. Once I have that precious gadget, I reckon the bar rose again. It's me.
Any camera is insufficient to capture my fancies, if I am. Any camera will do, if I do.
The first sentence:
 

This thread doesn't address one of the greatest issues of choice vs. creativity - which is partnership vs. control.
For the last year or so, I work work work with macs and digital... but my creative work, my play? Film, 60's era metal cameras, an enlarger and lith developer.
Every step of that process means working within the confines of the medium. Particularly lith printing, which is very hard to replicate across 2 prints, and is packed with "ghost-in-the-machine" oddities based on chemistry and temperature and the fact that every print you make changes the chemical composition of the developer. You simply can't "control" any step of the process with any sort of totality, from exposure to final print, like you can with a digital camera and Photoshop.
But once you decide you are a "partner" with the media, the game changes. Why do we make partnerships? Usually to add unique strengths which we don't possess or aren't remarkable at, to our creative, business, romantic, or fun pursuits. When you allow chance and surprise into the process, its like being handed a very active and very able muse.
I shot about 200 frames, digital, of a nude for a friend who wanted to get a sense of "how she looked" in that scenario. I shot 3 or 4 frames with an old Minolta rangefinder, and one of those just had lots of the mojo I want from a shot. Printing it was work - to get those tools to sculpt the print into what I wanted, while making room for the oddities of the process and making them work together. It's probably my favorite bit of creative output this year. And those things inform my "controlled" work as well.

Does downgrading your equipment to simpler, more basic models make you more creative?
I went to find out.
Read the full article

​It's a storm in a yorkshire teacup!
It goes without saying bullying and fist fighting are unacceptable. You're absolutely right, if the producer had hit Clarkson he would be dead and buried. Career over.
But if the Queen smacks Prince Philip in the mouth if he hasn't cooked he goose properly, you don't throw out the entire royal family.
The producer and Clarkson until last week had had a happy working relationship for a decade.
James May says he can't remember what happened because he was "blind drunk" as a result of that drink in the pub on an empty stomach.
 
In the 70's and 80's we had professional snooker players swigging beer on TV during the world championship. In the modern professional climate, a hellraiser or firebrand is considered someone who pops outside for a cig break occasionally.
The BBC needs its hellraisers like Clarkson. Otherwise blandness will ensue. I'm tempted to say it already has looking at 99% of their presenters.
The BBC are indeed between a rock and a hard place politically on this one, they had to act.
Agree 100% for them to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour now would be political suicide given the current climate.
However you have to give creative license to your hellraisers and some leeway morally, as inevitably they occasionally throw a wobbly or cause a fracas.
He's not the pope. He's not an Ambassador for Good Manners. Clarkson's responsibility to us is to entertain us, not morally reinforce our values.
He should absolutely 100% apologise to his producer, take him out for a lunch and have a hug in front of the cameras on the next episode as well.
It really should be that simple. Otherwise, he will be off to Sky like half the BBC F1 team. Jobs will go. Extreme Facilities supply Top Gear with GH2 / GH4 drones for example and their contract is with the BBC. Sad to kill such a consistently creative and popular show over a bit of bad behaviour.
If Clarkson is not bigger than the show, as the BBC claim, then pulling the show because of Clarkson implies the opposite.
Also I was really looking forward to the Ferrari vs McLaren vs Audi shootout
I'm not even a petrol head. I like the humour. I like the bravado and the journeys. It's a travel adventure and spectacularly filmed in parts.
Of course some of the blog post is speculation, none of us are truly a first party to what went on. We get our info through the papers and the internet. Therefore we have to remember that there's a whole section of the left wing political spectrum out to get Clarkson because he's a buddy of Cameron. Most of the earlier Top Gear controversies were hyped in just the same way, in order to damage Clarkson and Cameron's popularity with the public. In some ways, Clarkson actually doesn't deserve the reputation of oaf. In real life I expect he's a caring dad. He's playing it up for the cameras in the same way an actor would play a character. At this rate we'll be hanging Eastenders characters in the street when they murder someone! Occasionally a flippant remark will be attributed to him rather than to the script. Nobody is going to be pitch perfect over a thousand hours of scripted television especially when it's also improvised on top of that. You are going to have a joke go wrong or cross a line or go creatively wrong and it's simply unreasonable for the BBC to have no tolerance and to pander to every person who might be offended because they claim "Clarkson's a racist dickhead". That isn't a sustainable way to run a broadcaster. They had 150,000 complaints over the way a dog was handled on Crufts! A bloody dog show!! Looking at the numbers, you have to say Crufts is cruel and should be taken off the air. At this rate the BBC will have a lot of empty spaces in their schedules....