Matthew Hartman

Absolutely. It's my vision, I'm in control of how well (or not) I craft my image/scene. This is my rate, and my techincal requirements. This philosophy is hardly anything new. 
I don't typically place myself in artistically-circumstantial situations out of my control, largely speaking. There's always the tendency for small fails here and there, but those are usually logistical unknowns.  
Again, I'm the artist. If I have no control in what I place in my viewfinder, who does?
If I have a shoot scheduled outdoors and it suddenly rains and clouds block all my golden hour light, I wait, or adapt the setting to the narrative. I don't shrug my shoulders and capture subpar images because I feel like I should be shooting something or because my camera has near militaristic capabilities. 
Now, I'm not ignorant to the fact that not all shooters are cinematographers shooting narratives in a mostly controlled and planned environment. Some have to document the moment as it is because it doesn't typically repeat itself or reoccur often.
Sports, weddings, nature, I get it. But these subject matters have been captured long before digital ISO was a seed in anyone's mind. Ask yourself how this was done in those times. And I bet you will conclude it was done with really good logistical scouting, planning and set up. 
What high ISO has done is it allowed the removal of darkness as counterpoint to lightness as a narrative. It's traded a technological advatange in for an artistic disadvantage. Our we merely documentators?  
Is a good image about technically "seeing in the dark", or using darkness as a tool to envoke an emotional response and give light more meaning and context? You as the artist and curator of your vision must decide.
Each to their own indeed.

Absolutely. It's my vision, I'm in control of how well (or not) I craft my image/scene. This is my rate, and my techincal requirements. This philosophy is hardly anything new. 
I don't typically place myself in artistically-circumstantial situations out of my control, largely speaking. There's always the tendency for small fails here and there, but those are usually logistical unknowns.  
Again, I'm the artist. If I have no control in what I place in my viewfinder, who does?
If I have a shoot scheduled outdoors and it suddenly rains and clouds block all my golden hour light, I wait, or adapt the setting to the narrative. I don't shrug my shoulders and capture subpar images because I feel like I should be shooting something or because my camera has near militaristic capabilities. 
Now, I'm not ignorant to the fact that not all shooters are cinematographers shooting narratives in a mostly controlled and planned environment. Some have to document the moment as it is because it doesn't typically repeat itself or reoccur often.
Sports, weddings, nature, I get it. But these subject matters have been captured long before digital ISO was a seed in anyone's mind. Ask yourself how this was done in those times. And I bet you will conclude it was done with really good logistical scouting, planning and set up. 
What high ISO has done is it allowed the removal of darkness as counterpoint to lightness as a narrative. It's traded a technological advatange in for an artistic disadvantage. Our we merely documentators?  
Is a good image about technically "seeing in the dark", or using darkness as a tool to envoke an emotional response and give light more meaning and context? You as the artist and curator of your vision must decide.
Each to their own indeed.

Absolutely. It's my vision, I'm in control of how well (or not) I craft my image/scene. This is my rate, and my techincal requirements. This philosophy is hardly anything new. 
I don't typically place myself in artistically-circumstantial situations out of my control, largely speaking. There's always the tendency for small fails here and there, but those are usually logistical unknowns.  
Again, I'm the artist. If I have no control in what I place in my viewfinder, who does?
If I have a shoot scheduled outdoors and it suddenly rains and clouds block all my golden hour light, I wait, or adapt the setting to the narrative. I don't shrug my shoulders and capture subpar images because I feel like I should be shooting something or because my camera has near militaristic capabilities. 
Now, I'm not ignorant to the fact that not all shooters are cinematographers shooting narratives in a mostly controlled and planned environment. Some have to document the moment as it is because it doesn't typically repeat itself or reoccur often.
Sports, weddings, nature, I get it. But these subject matters have been captured long before digital ISO was a seed in anyone's mind. Ask yourself how this was done in those times. And I bet you will conclude it was done with really good logistical scouting, planning and set up. 
What high ISO has done is it allowed the removal of darkness as counterpoint to lightness as a narrative. It's traded a technological advatange in for an artistic disadvantage. Our we merely documentators?  
Is a good image about technically "seeing in the dark", or using darkness as a tool to envoke an emotional response and give light more meaning and context? You as the artist and curator of your vision must decide.
Each to their own indeed.

These images prove a few things about the NX1 and many cameras in general and I'm super happy you shared these to help me prove something I tell colleagues all the time.
1.) The secret to getting NX1 footage to look warm and or filmic to is first turn the sharpness down in-camera to -10. Samsung purposely uses sharpening algorithms in many of their products because their user research tells them that most people are attracted to it. It's the same for their tendency for bold contrast and saturation. While this is good for large screen 4k TV screens, it will make your footage look like video or broadcast quality. Even with sharpness essentially turned off, the NX1/500 image still is one of the sharpest images known to the entire industry. I implore anyone to test this assertion out against any Arri or RED.
There are times I will even put a fast blur on my on my footage in Premiere at .25/.5 just to give it that "emulsive" look. Some people may find the sharpening in the NX1/500 a turn off, but personally I like having the latitude. You can always reduce sharpness but it's very difficult to add sharpness to blurred pixels.
2.) The art of lighting separates amateurs from professionals. The sets of images above demonstrate this beautifully. This aspect has very little to do with the camera, if at all. Lighting your scene should be part of the narrative. It should tell it's own story while being a part of the bigger picture. In the whole high ISO craze Sony introduced to the industry, I feel many cinematographers or videographers have gotten lazy or simply forgotten the art of lighting a scene. It's more than just about proper exposure. Darkness is as much a narrative as light.
3.) Composition and setting the scene. This not only includes principles like the rule of thirds, but also wardrobe and even actor's micro expressions. Even in these stills you still get a sense of the character's motivation and persona. Trust me, even the crappiest digital cameras today can technically produce a better IQ than film cameras of even the 80/90s, but that means nothing if there's no story and art direction. It's not really all about the camera. It's about the narrative and everything in concert that supports that, which the camera is only part of.
I also wanted to add that no general audience would view this film (or stills) and think it didn't come from a camera the size and cost of a two-story house. If the movie is successful, the only thing they'll being thinking about is the emotional impact the story had on them. Good film quality is exactly what you DON'T think about.

"NX1 on a one-hand gimbal crane (the Zhiyun Crane) or on an Edelkrone slider."
My exact setup. I can't recommend both of these products enough. They work very well with the NX1.

Yep, I was afraid of this very occurrence myself. So many NX1 pros I respect, and in some cases were responsible for turning me on to the NX1 jumped ship not long after Samsung sort of vanished. I still can't find an official statement from Samsung on closing the market in North America, if anyone has that please share it with me. I'm talking official statements from Samsung, not speculative articles. Their US based website STILL advertises most of their NX cameras, and lens lineup.
First it was the Sony A6300/6500 hype which honestly didn't last very long due to Sony's notorious overheating issues, which quickly reared it's ugly head. In a manner of weeks I saw very excited users reduced to pulling out their hair at the end of it. Now the new wave is all about the GH5 and Fuji. And although some features of the GH5 sounds absolutely tempting, at the end of the day it's m4/3 and that's a hard sell for me and my purposes. I need to do some more research on Fuji.
I've held on to my NX1 since I purchased the system in late 2014 and I'm happy I haven't fallen for the hype because I've witnessed a lot of people jumping ship, yet holding onto and still quietly using their NX1s to this day. I know it's serving my and my client's needs, and seem perfectly satisfied with it's output. I feel "if it's not broken, why fix it"?
I think generally, many of us are easily dazzled by the latest shiny gadgets, and these manufactures understand this. I believe the NX1 was an experiment on Samsung's part, a "one off" if you will, backed by their insane R&D powerhouse. I think generally Samsung has been a bit underestimated everywhere around the world besides South Korea, and definitely within the photo/video industry at the time of the NX500/1's debut. However, to my eyes they are one of the top companies leading the charge in innovation with the capitol to back it up 10-fold.
As big as Canon and Nikon are as household names in the photo/video industry, Samsung as a brand, and as a whole company towers over them and most others. It's not hard for me to understand how capable they are that they could release a camera in 2014 that stills holds up almost 4 years later. Nor is it a surprise to me how some have regretted selling their NX gear because of the fear of becoming obsolete and irrelevant, and the impulse to posses the latest badge of honor. Yet, even in the face of buying back into a seemingly dead system, they still want their NX gear back. That's a pretty strong testament. I hope when the next "NX1" comes along the industry takes it more seriously.  
I think in a couple years we're going to see something revolutionary and ahead of it's time, like the NX1, which I feel will actually justify buying into that new system. I just don't feel there's been that huge of a leap in features to price point in the current offerings. It's as if the technology curve has crept incrementally. That's not a stab at the GH5 or Fuji, or Sony and the rest. It's just a peek into value vs. cost. The NX1 has spoiled many of us in this regard. 
I don't know what you guys are talking about when you say you can find cheap deals on Samsung NX1 products. The prices I see online are almost doubled what they were when the camera was first released. I saw an S lens for roughly $3,000 USD on Amazon tonight. That certainly wasn't the retail price 3 years ago, it was much less if memory serves me right.
This is a recent article on the front page of this site: "Nikon struggling to match Samsung NX500 stills quality with 2 year head start".
For a reminder, this petition is still receiving signatures to this day, almost 2 years later:
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/samsung-keep-nx-alive
 
 

Yep, I was afraid of this very occurrence myself. So many NX1 pros I respect, and in some cases were responsible for turning me on to the NX1 jumped ship not long after Samsung sort of vanished. I still can't find an official statement from Samsung on closing the market in North America, if anyone has that please share it with me. I'm talking official statements from Samsung, not speculative articles. Their US based website STILL advertises most of their NX cameras, and lens lineup.
First it was the Sony A6300/6500 hype which honestly didn't last very long due to Sony's notorious overheating issues, which quickly reared it's ugly head. In a manner of weeks I saw very excited users reduced to pulling out their hair at the end of it. Now the new wave is all about the GH5 and Fuji. And although some features of the GH5 sounds absolutely tempting, at the end of the day it's m4/3 and that's a hard sell for me and my purposes. I need to do some more research on Fuji.
I've held on to my NX1 since I purchased the system in late 2014 and I'm happy I haven't fallen for the hype because I've witnessed a lot of people jumping ship, yet holding onto and still quietly using their NX1s to this day. I know it's serving my and my client's needs, and seem perfectly satisfied with it's output. I feel "if it's not broken, why fix it"?
I think generally, many of us are easily dazzled by the latest shiny gadgets, and these manufactures understand this. I believe the NX1 was an experiment on Samsung's part, a "one off" if you will, backed by their insane R&D powerhouse. I think generally Samsung has been a bit underestimated everywhere around the world besides South Korea, and definitely within the photo/video industry at the time of the NX500/1's debut. However, to my eyes they are one of the top companies leading the charge in innovation with the capitol to back it up 10-fold.
As big as Canon and Nikon are as household names in the photo/video industry, Samsung as a brand, and as a whole company towers over them and most others. It's not hard for me to understand how capable they are that they could release a camera in 2014 that stills holds up almost 4 years later. Nor is it a surprise to me how some have regretted selling their NX gear because of the fear of becoming obsolete and irrelevant, and the impulse to posses the latest badge of honor. Yet, even in the face of buying back into a seemingly dead system, they still want their NX gear back. That's a pretty strong testament. I hope when the next "NX1" comes along the industry takes it more seriously.  
I think in a couple years we're going to see something revolutionary and ahead of it's time, like the NX1, which I feel will actually justify buying into that new system. I just don't feel there's been that huge of a leap in features to price point in the current offerings. It's as if the technology curve has crept incrementally. That's not a stab at the GH5 or Fuji, or Sony and the rest. It's just a peek into value vs. cost. The NX1 has spoiled many of us in this regard. 
I don't know what you guys are talking about when you say you can find cheap deals on Samsung NX1 products. The prices I see online are almost doubled what they were when the camera was first released. I saw an S lens for roughly $3,000 USD on Amazon tonight. That certainly wasn't the retail price 3 years ago, it was much less if memory serves me right.
This is a recent article on the front page of this site: "Nikon struggling to match Samsung NX500 stills quality with 2 year head start".
For a reminder, this petition is still receiving signatures to this day, almost 2 years later:
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/samsung-keep-nx-alive
 
 

These images prove a few things about the NX1 and many cameras in general and I'm super happy you shared these to help me prove something I tell colleagues all the time.
1.) The secret to getting NX1 footage to look warm and or filmic to is first turn the sharpness down in-camera to -10. Samsung purposely uses sharpening algorithms in many of their products because their user research tells them that most people are attracted to it. It's the same for their tendency for bold contrast and saturation. While this is good for large screen 4k TV screens, it will make your footage look like video or broadcast quality. Even with sharpness essentially turned off, the NX1/500 image still is one of the sharpest images known to the entire industry. I implore anyone to test this assertion out against any Arri or RED.
There are times I will even put a fast blur on my on my footage in Premiere at .25/.5 just to give it that "emulsive" look. Some people may find the sharpening in the NX1/500 a turn off, but personally I like having the latitude. You can always reduce sharpness but it's very difficult to add sharpness to blurred pixels.
2.) The art of lighting separates amateurs from professionals. The sets of images above demonstrate this beautifully. This aspect has very little to do with the camera, if at all. Lighting your scene should be part of the narrative. It should tell it's own story while being a part of the bigger picture. In the whole high ISO craze Sony introduced to the industry, I feel many cinematographers or videographers have gotten lazy or simply forgotten the art of lighting a scene. It's more than just about proper exposure. Darkness is as much a narrative as light.
3.) Composition and setting the scene. This not only includes principles like the rule of thirds, but also wardrobe and even actor's micro expressions. Even in these stills you still get a sense of the character's motivation and persona. Trust me, even the crappiest digital cameras today can technically produce a better IQ than film cameras of even the 80/90s, but that means nothing if there's no story and art direction. It's not really all about the camera. It's about the narrative and everything in concert that supports that, which the camera is only part of.
I also wanted to add that no general audience would view this film (or stills) and think it didn't come from a camera the size and cost of a two-story house. If the movie is successful, the only thing they'll being thinking about is the emotional impact the story had on them. Good film quality is exactly what you DON'T think about.

These images prove a few things about the NX1 and many cameras in general and I'm super happy you shared these to help me prove something I tell colleagues all the time.
1.) The secret to getting NX1 footage to look warm and or filmic to is first turn the sharpness down in-camera to -10. Samsung purposely uses sharpening algorithms in many of their products because their user research tells them that most people are attracted to it. It's the same for their tendency for bold contrast and saturation. While this is good for large screen 4k TV screens, it will make your footage look like video or broadcast quality. Even with sharpness essentially turned off, the NX1/500 image still is one of the sharpest images known to the entire industry. I implore anyone to test this assertion out against any Arri or RED.
There are times I will even put a fast blur on my on my footage in Premiere at .25/.5 just to give it that "emulsive" look. Some people may find the sharpening in the NX1/500 a turn off, but personally I like having the latitude. You can always reduce sharpness but it's very difficult to add sharpness to blurred pixels.
2.) The art of lighting separates amateurs from professionals. The sets of images above demonstrate this beautifully. This aspect has very little to do with the camera, if at all. Lighting your scene should be part of the narrative. It should tell it's own story while being a part of the bigger picture. In the whole high ISO craze Sony introduced to the industry, I feel many cinematographers or videographers have gotten lazy or simply forgotten the art of lighting a scene. It's more than just about proper exposure. Darkness is as much a narrative as light.
3.) Composition and setting the scene. This not only includes principles like the rule of thirds, but also wardrobe and even actor's micro expressions. Even in these stills you still get a sense of the character's motivation and persona. Trust me, even the crappiest digital cameras today can technically produce a better IQ than film cameras of even the 80/90s, but that means nothing if there's no story and art direction. It's not really all about the camera. It's about the narrative and everything in concert that supports that, which the camera is only part of.
I also wanted to add that no general audience would view this film (or stills) and think it didn't come from a camera the size and cost of a two-story house. If the movie is successful, the only thing they'll being thinking about is the emotional impact the story had on them. Good film quality is exactly what you DON'T think about.

If you like Samsung NX products and want Samsung to keep them alive sign the petition below and have your voice heard!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/samsung-keep-nx-alive

If you like Samsung NX products tell Samsung to keep them alive. Have your voice heard by easily signing the petition below:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/samsung-keep-nx-alive

If you like Samsung NX products tell Samsung to keep them alive. Have your voice heard by easily signing the petition below:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/samsung-keep-nx-alive