PDA

View Full Version : Finally Bloom's review!



Pages : [1] 2

gustavo_viral
10-23-2010, 06:19 PM
http://philipbloom.net/2010/10/19/af100/

Paul Vicente
10-23-2010, 06:33 PM
http://philipbloom.net/2010/10/19/af100/


As is expected from Philip Bloom, he provides a quick look at this wonderful camera. For the price, if offers a large sensor, excellent quality, and a familiar layout for film and video work.

It is a camera definitely worth having.

I also found it interesting that he said this:

"... sensor size being micro four thirds means most of your 35mm lens are a bit telephoto. With a 2x crop from a full frame 35mm sensor you lose a lot on those lenses. So my 50mm gives me a field of view of 100mm. That is the biggest issue. ....Panasonic urgently need to bring out some fast wide lenses."

I have been concerned about this aspect only, so hopefully the Micro 4/3 format will deliver some reasonably-priced cinema glass that will make this camera shine.

Kudos to Panasonic, and a Thank-you to Philip Bloom.


Paul Vicente

mcgeedigital
10-23-2010, 06:56 PM
If someone (birger) came out with a nice adapter for the crop sensor Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens, well that would cover the wider end just fine.

Steve Kahn
10-23-2010, 07:09 PM
Bloom mentions he likes the Sigma 30mm f1.4 (a 4/3 lens) but says that would look like a 60mm on the AF100. I don't believe this is the case.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't 4/3 lenses have the same FOV as m4/3 lenses on the AF100?

Jesse Brauning
10-23-2010, 07:16 PM
Well in the sense, Steve, that all lenses that have a printed FOV have a 2.0x crop on a M4/3 camera when compared to that same lens of a FF camera. You can pop that Sigma 30mm on any camera that will take it, and the lens itself isn't changing. Each sensor just sees a different amount of world through the lens, depending on the size of the sensor. M4/3 is smaller than FF - so it sees less world.
To answer your question more directly: Yes, 4/3 lenses have the same FOV as m4/3 lenses on the AF100. A 50mm lens (all other things being equal) is a 50mm lens, no matter what mount it has on it. The difference in FOV is a function of the sensor size, not the mount.

Steve Kahn
10-23-2010, 07:23 PM
True, but what I'm saying is that the Sigma 30mm - that is a wide angle lens, as it is a proper 4/3 lens, has the FOV of a native m4/3 30mm lens on a m4/3 camera.

That is, I think Bloom made a mistake thinking it would look like a 60mm on the AF100 as there is NO crop factor with 4/3 lenses on a m4/3 body.

Duke M.
10-23-2010, 07:30 PM
That review didn't tell us anything significant and new. I hope that's not how the final day goes.

Jesse Brauning
10-23-2010, 07:32 PM
Ah, Steve, but you are SO wrong.
For example: the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 is a M4/3 lens. If you want to use FF as your standard, it like any other 20mm lens, would look like a 40mm on a m4/3 body.
Or, to use a 4/3 lens example, the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 lens, whether it is on a 4/3 body or adapted to a m4/3 body would look like a 50mm would look like on a FF body.
a 4/3 sensor will "crop" ANY lens you put on it from its advertised FOV to an actual FOV as presented by the the sensor. How much its cropping is subjective depending on your frame of reference.

Steve Kahn
10-23-2010, 07:37 PM
Ah, Steve, but you are SO wrong.
What? Are you sure about this? If true this is really horrible. So you're saying the 20mm f1.7 pancake looks more like a standard lens rather than an ultra wide? I don't think that is correct.

RGBaker
10-23-2010, 07:39 PM
Bloom mentions he likes the Sigma 30mm f1.4 (a 4/3 lens) but says that would look like a 60mm on the AF100. I don't believe this is the case.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't 4/3 lenses have the same FOV as m4/3 lenses on the AF100?

A 30mm lens on a 4/3 or m4/3 will give the same angle of view as a 60mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera. The focal length of the lens stays the same, the angle of view varies according to the imager size. I assume that is what is meant by the 60mm reference.

Cheers,
GB

Paul Vicente
10-23-2010, 07:40 PM
True, but what I'm saying is that the Sigma 30mm - that is a wide angle lens, as it is a proper 4/3 lens, has the FOV of a native m4/3 30mm lens on a m4/3 camera.


NO, a 30mm lens is a wide angle on a FULL FRAME sensor. On a 4/3 or m4/3 it looks like a standard lens on a full frame sensor.

Keep in mind that lenses are always compared to how they appear on a standard 35mm camera using film.

Anyways, the bottom line is that micro4/3 is a big sensor compared to 1/3 or 2/3 inch cameras, but it is much smaller than full-frame. Thus the crop factor of 1.89-2.0.

So we need fast, wide lenses pronto. The Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 is a good start for any lens collection (same as a standard 50mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera).

Paul Vicente

Paul Vicente
10-23-2010, 07:41 PM
What? Are you sure about this? If true this is really horrible. So you're saying the 20mm f1.7 pancake looks more like a standard lens rather than an ultra wide? I don't think that is correct.

It is correct. That is what many of us have been saying on here for weeks.

Steve Kahn
10-23-2010, 07:46 PM
OMFG... that really pisses me off. What a PITA. We need some wide lenses... fast!

CineStill
10-23-2010, 07:50 PM
Bloom mentions he likes the Sigma 30mm f1.4 (a 4/3 lens) but says that would look like a 60mm on the AF100. I don't believe this is the case.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't 4/3 lenses have the same FOV as m4/3 lenses on the AF100?

One easy way to understand focal length and aperture is that if you measure the distance between the front lens element when focused on infinity and the sensor you will find it will match the lens ie 50 mm distance on a 50mm lens. Now if I was able to put a 50mm Hasselblad lens on the AF100 it would perform like a telephoto, on a full frame 35mm stills, like a standard angle of view and on the Hasselblad a wide angle. It remains 50mm on all but only the Hasselblad is making full use of the throw of the lens, the others are only capturing the centre "sweet spot" of the lens. In regards to aperture (not T stops) say you put the 50mm lens on f8 you will notice that the aperture is 6.25mm wide ie 50 divided by 8 = 6.25mm
Philip Blooms footage looks great! gives me peace of mind - I have the same 80-200 Nikon and fully recommend it as a very sharp but reasonable priced lens

mcgeedigital
10-23-2010, 07:51 PM
That's why I just bought an open box Panasonic Lumix 7-14mm 4/3 lens from JR.

I NEED wide angles.

Lyris
10-23-2010, 07:52 PM
Great stuff that gives some insight into how the thing operates. Look forward to more. I can't wait to try one of these out.

mcgeedigital
10-23-2010, 07:53 PM
http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

mcgeedigital
10-23-2010, 07:54 PM
That review didn't tell us anything significant and new. I hope that's not how the final day goes.

I disagree.

The frame grabs of the menu structure alone were worth it.

Jesse Brauning
10-23-2010, 08:02 PM
What? Are you sure about this? If true this is really horrible. So you're saying the 20mm f1.7 pancake looks more like a standard lens rather than an ultra wide? I don't think that is correct.

Yes. This is exactly true. It looks like 40mm if you are thinking a full frame FOV.
However, I would argue that your frame of reference is just wrong. The FOV crop compared to S35 film is just 1.18 - an extremely minor crop difference. Think Hollywood, not photographer, and you'll be put at ease.
Canon's really spoiled everyone with the full frame sensor on the 5D. Stop using it as your comparison.

Steve Kahn
10-23-2010, 08:08 PM
http://www.abelcine.com/fov/
Thanks. I've seen it. Guess I didn't look deeply enough. It just bugs me that I have always thought of 20mm being a really wide angle lens and now... well not anymore. And, I know the 20mm is just a measurement but in my head it has always been a FOV.

Now I need to re-think my whole lens lineup... Oh great, the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 has now turned into a standard lens. Shoot me now.

Duke M.
10-23-2010, 08:24 PM
I disagree.
The frame grabs of the menu structure alone were worth it.

While menu structure may tell you how convenient an option is to locate, you can adapt to different structures.

If they aren't afraid of it, and now I think Canon was afraid (very afraid) on their DSLRs, someone will post some resolution, moire and aliasing tests. Even if only with the Nano if they agreed not to test the pre-production AVCHD codec.

Sorry, but menu struture doesn't end up in the recorded images.

Michael Olsen
10-23-2010, 08:29 PM
The FOV crop compared to S35 film is just 1.18 - an extremely minor crop difference. Think Hollywood, not photographer, and you'll be put at ease.


I hate crop factor. Hate, hate, hate it. It leads to so much confusion.

The FOV crop compared to Super35 is not1.18. It is much closer to 1.3.

Compared to a 7D sized sensor, it is 1.18.

--

Now, I happen to agree. People need to leave the photography mindset behind when they are shooting video. It has it's own standards.

Jesse Brauning
10-23-2010, 08:30 PM
Yeah, sorry. M4/3 to APS-C is 1.18. Not to S35. My bad.

Finster
10-23-2010, 08:54 PM
"The low light was really good, not full frame DSLR amazing, but MILES better than my GH1."

DSLR's have their shortcomings, for sure. But man, I've really been spoiled by their ability to shoot in low light. I'd definitely need in invest in some fast + wide glass for the AF100.

TheReverend
10-23-2010, 09:00 PM
For anyone coming with strictly video experience, the m4/3's FOV is a none issue. I know for me it will be plenty wide with lenses below 40mm. I'm gonna be stoked.

For all the photographers or 35mm adaptor folks, this the crop factor is gonna be a hard change. But honestly, for all those who HAVENT jumped to DSLR shooting, it's gonna be a beautiful beautiful breeze! I mean, there is LOTS of professional applications for this cam, and I think professionals will be looking at it. With the HDSDI out, it has everything a film, tv show, or advertisement needs.

VGurcu
10-23-2010, 09:09 PM
"... sensor size being micro four thirds means most of your 35mm lens are a bit telephoto. With a 2x crop from a full frame 35mm sensor you lose a lot on those lenses. So my 50mm gives me a field of view of 100mm. That is the biggest issue. ....Panasonic urgently need to bring out some fast wide lenses."
From a cinematographer's point of view THERE IS NO ISSUE HERE whatsoever. Can you imagine pros(especially those coming from film background) talking like "Man, we got a 25mm wide angle lens (cine) for the scene, and damn it has a crop ratio of 1.2 comparing to a still photography lens !!!"
I dont know whose brilliant idea was to compare cinema lens FOV to still lens FOV to judge a camera's abilities, but IMHO it is not a fair or rational comparison. When Canon makes a camera and call it FULL FRAME they are talking for the still photography community.

So as it is been told many times AF-100 has a crop ratio of appr. 1.2 COMPARING TO ACADEMY 35 MM standard, PERIOD.

If you cant live with that fact never herd the term 'taking a few steps back to reframe', no worries there will always be FULl FRAME still cameras for your need.

Coco Bermudez
10-23-2010, 09:35 PM
really spoiled everyone with the full frame sensor on the 5D. Stop using it as your comparison.

Best advice....

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
10-23-2010, 09:41 PM
From a cinematographer's point of view THERE IS NO ISSUE HERE whatsoever. Can you imagine pros(especially those coming from film background) talking like "Man, we got a 25mm wide angle lens (cine) for the scene, and damn it has a crop ratio of 1.2 comparing to a still photography lens !!!"
I dont know whose brilliant idea was to compare cinema lens FOV to still lens FOV to judge a camera's abilities, but IMHO it is not a fair or rational comparison. When Canon makes a camera and call it FULL FRAME they are talking for the still photography community.

So as it is been told many times AF-100 has a crop ratio of appr. 1.2 COMPARING TO ACADEMY 35 MM standard, PERIOD.

If you cant live with that fact never herd the term 'taking a few steps back to reframe', no worries there will always be FULl FRAME still cameras for your need.

Agreed!

I wish they'd make the attached photo a "sticky" to kill these endless crop discussions once & for all. (Photo credit: Glenn Przyborski (http://www.przyborski.com/).)

That's a strip of academy format 35mm motion picture film next to a GH1's sensor. The AF100 sensor is likely the same or very similar to the dimensions as the GH1 (or GH2) sensor. Compared to this popular 35mm motion picture film format, the crop factor is about 1.18.

24844http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/style_dvxuser_vb4/misc/pencil.png

Taylor Rudd
10-23-2010, 09:43 PM
While menu structure may tell you how convenient an option is to locate, you can adapt to different structures.

If they aren't afraid of it, and now I think Canon was afraid (very afraid) on their DSLRs, someone will post some resolution, moire and aliasing tests. Even if only with the Nano if they agreed not to test the pre-production AVCHD codec.

Sorry, but menu struture doesn't end up in the recorded images.

I'm sorry, does someone owe you something?

The preview is what it is, and it sure beats reading the press release again!

Steve Kahn
10-23-2010, 10:12 PM
Sorry guys. I feel really stupid about my not understanding. But Bloom is right. For indoors one needs wide and would like fast as well. I'm a bit disheartened that such a beast doesn't walk the earth...

Paul Vicente
10-23-2010, 10:19 PM
Sorry guys. I feel really stupid about my not understanding. But Bloom is right. For indoors one needs wide and would like fast as well. I'm a bit disheartened that such a beast doesn't walk the earth...

Like I said. Hopefully, a lens manufacturer will see this need and fill the gap.

Finster
10-23-2010, 11:06 PM
A 30mm lens on a 4/3 or m4/3 will give the same angle of view as a 60mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera. The focal length of the lens stays the same, the angle of view varies according to the imager size. I assume that is what is meant by the 60mm reference.

This helps me, but just to clarify - earlier today I was reading an article on the movie Road to Perdition. The article mentioned that Conrad Hall used "Panavision Platinums and Primo lenses ranging from 27mm to 150mm." So, I'm there and I'm looking through Conrad Hall's Super 35, and its the 27mm lens. What I'm seeing (the angle of view) is pretty much exactly what I'd see if I had a 54mm lens on my 5D. Is that right???

If so, then that really blows my mind. I mean, here we are crying out for 11mm. Conrad Hall got along just fine with 27mm.

Barry_Green
10-23-2010, 11:11 PM
Exactly. Look at cinema lenses to see what's used. The AF100's field of view is very nearly the same as the cinema frame.

There are fast & wide cinema lenses; they just cost a lot. You can rent them if necessary.

Finster
10-23-2010, 11:24 PM
On There Will Be Blood Robert Elswit used nothing but 40mm, 50mm, 75mm and 100mm lenses.

My world has been turned upside down.

BowiesInSpace
10-23-2010, 11:42 PM
Might be another amateur question...

I've heard things on here that if you're using a PL mount adapter on the AF100 with PL lenses there is no crop factor?

Someone correct me... I'll take a punishment of watching "Glitter" if the question makes no sense.

bgundu
10-24-2010, 12:11 AM
That's because people who use PL mount lenses are coming from a film background and are familiar with what the FOV will look like on a M4/3 sensor, which is close to the size of 35mm film frame. Not to be confused with full frame 35mm still photography FOV.


Might be another amateur question...

I've heard things on here that if you're using a PL mount adapter on the AF100 with PL lenses there is no crop factor?

Someone correct me... I'll take a punishment of watching "Glitter" if the question makes no sense.

bgundu
10-24-2010, 12:15 AM
Might be another amateur question...

I've heard things on here that if you're using a PL mount adapter on the AF100 with PL lenses there is no crop factor?

Someone correct me... I'll take a punishment of watching "Glitter" if the question makes no sense.

It has nothing to do with the PL mount. It's about mind-shifting :-)

f64manray
10-24-2010, 12:25 AM
Sorry guys. I feel really stupid about my not understanding. But Bloom is right. For indoors one needs wide and would like fast as well. I'm a bit disheartened that such a beast doesn't walk the earth...

I believe the Tokina 11-16mm should do ya. It's 2.8 throughout it's range. It's designed for APS-C Canon cameras. Once Birger makes their adapter, it should interface electronically just beautifully with the AF100, and FOV should be quite wide enough for nearly any application.

dcloud
10-24-2010, 12:37 AM
nikon g + tokina 11-16 is wide enough.

some people are just too spoiled by 5d mk II. bottomline, if there ever is a video camera with FF, it will be mighty expensive

Petros Kolyvas
10-24-2010, 12:42 AM
Bloom posted his other footage (more annectodal tests, aka "stuff we want to see") here:

http://vimeo.com/16130395

dcloud
10-24-2010, 12:45 AM
Sorry guys. I feel really stupid about my not understanding. But Bloom is right. For indoors one needs wide and would like fast as well. I'm a bit disheartened that such a beast doesn't walk the earth...

if your not lighting a scene, perhaps. its a cine cam after all

mountainradio
10-24-2010, 01:13 AM
if your not lighting a scene, perhaps. its a cine cam after all

I'm not a big fan of this line of reasoning that says it's a cinema camera so just learn to properly light a scene.

One of the great things about the HDSLRs is the ability to get great footage at available light. That's a huge boon for people who, whether for budgetary or practical reasons don't want to or can't lug around a big lighting set-up. I'm not really inclined toward an upgrade that forces me to give that ability back.

And I don't think the AF-100 is such a camera. To me, the missing links are not that elusive. Panasonic built a great 20mm f/1.7 and a great 7-14mm f/4 so I don't see any reason they or someone can't produce a great 10 or 12mm f/2 or whatever. Also no reason they can't produce something like a 12-60 f/2.5 with IS. And assuming this camera proves as popular as we all think it will I think there's a very high likelihood we'll see those lenses before too long. In the meantime we'll have a 14mm f/2.5 and several fast Olympus 4/3 zooms. Not really so bad.

dcloud
10-24-2010, 01:44 AM
I'm not a big fan of this line of reasoning that says it's a cinema camera so just learn to properly light a scene.

One of the great things about the HDSLRs is the ability to get great footage at available light. That's a huge boon for people who, whether for budgetary or practical reasons don't want to or can't lug around a big lighting set-up. I'm not really inclined toward an upgrade that forces me to give that ability back.

And I don't think the AF-100 is such a camera. To me, the missing links are not that elusive. Panasonic built a great 20mm f/1.7 and a great 7-14mm f/4 so I don't see any reason they or someone can't produce a great 10 or 12mm f/2 or whatever. Also no reason they can't produce something like a 12-60 f/2.5 with IS. And assuming this camera proves as popular as we all think it will I think there's a very high likelihood we'll see those lenses before too long. In the meantime we'll have a 14mm f/2.5 and several fast Olympus 4/3 zooms. Not really so bad.

af100 is not the end all be all. what you could do is bring a fast wide with the 5d and shoot with a fast tele with the af100 on the same scene.

if youre looking for fast wide lens right now, there is a few.. FOR NOW. wait for a couple of months and more will come... or you could wait for a full frame vaporware camera next year.


I know this is not a DSLR and has more features but what to you guys think about the image quality compared to a GH13 or even a GF13?

I'm neutral at this point, I'm not jumping for joy by any means but I don't think it is underperforming (subjective word btw). Again, I'm neutral but if the cam were priced at $2499 I'd buy one over a $500 GH1 body with the hack just so I didn't have to sync audio.

Anyone think it will be hackable? If it is, then it's worth the $4200 street price IMO.youre better off with a dslr. it fits your needs more than the af100.

also street price is 4700. id kill for it to be 4200 :P

philip bloom
10-24-2010, 06:12 AM
Bloom mentions he likes the Sigma 30mm f1.4 (a 4/3 lens) but says that would look like a 60mm on the AF100. I don't believe this is the case.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't 4/3 lenses have the same FOV as m4/3 lenses on the AF100?

a 30mm is a 30mm irregardless or what camera it is made for, therefore you need make allowances for the field of view being different. It's not a Sigma 30mm 35mm equivalent F1.4 (which would be a 15mm F1.4) it's the same glass as we use on the Canons, just with a different mount. Great lens though

philip bloom
10-24-2010, 06:13 AM
That review didn't tell us anything significant and new. I hope that's not how the final day goes.

There is so much info out there already. This review is my opinion. Not a big reveal of "hey it's shoot 160fps, ok it's 5k". Another opinion and some more footage. Better than just a PR release surely?

philip bloom
10-24-2010, 06:14 AM
That's why I just bought an open box Panasonic Lumix 7-14mm 4/3 lens from JR.

I NEED wide angles.

I used that lens a lot. t's amazing. A bit slow that's all

philip bloom
10-24-2010, 06:16 AM
I have some nanoflash footage to post as soon as I get a chance

dcloud
10-24-2010, 06:47 AM
when will you post the full rez side by side of nano with avchd? :-P

philip bloom
10-24-2010, 07:03 AM
when will you post the full rez side by side of nano with avchd? :-P

This week...just stills though...you won't see much of a difference with web compressed video

PaPa
10-24-2010, 07:08 AM
maybe you can host it somewhere to download? Or perhaps do large resolution side by side stills where we see the codec break up a bit? That might be interesting to see at what degree the difference really is and if it's acceptable or not.

Love the skew test. I shat myself when i saw how little skew there was on such a long lens!!!

roei z
10-24-2010, 07:18 AM
Phillip,
very interested to see your comparison of this against the GH2..
all the talk about the same sensor etc..
my budget is 1000$ max for now.. (saving my ZERO money for Scarlet)
nice review :)

dcloud
10-24-2010, 07:22 AM
yeah stills are good enough. i know avchd wont break.
the main difference would probably be in color...

mcgeedigital
10-24-2010, 08:09 AM
Thanks again Philip!

Duke M.
10-24-2010, 08:14 AM
Full size side by side stills would be great. Especially if there is a lot of motion like leaves or waves.

I finally found the clip with some informal tests. I was impressed with the lack of skew shown as skew is my only real complaint on the EX1.

We really need to see some trumpet charts. The shot of the cable bridge to show aliasing appears to show some moire, but a trumpet chart may reveal that it was only an illusion in a busy image or recompression artifacts.

Here's a crop section of the bridge I'm talking about.
24848

Taylor Rudd
10-24-2010, 08:31 AM
Thanks again Philip!

+1!

Bassman2003
10-24-2010, 08:39 AM
Thanks for your efforts Philip!

For me, the cost of the Canon adaptor will really influence my AF-100 purchase decision. I use a 5D & 7D for stills so overlapping purchases is a great plus. I am thinking the Canon 17-55 f2.8 would be a nice lens for the AF-100. It is a sharp lens, reletively wide, pretty fast and has IS as well. Or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8

My main concern with this 2x crop if distortion on wider lenses. Is the smaller image window a help given a 24mm (35mm eq) would need an 11mm (35mm eq) which is in the fisheye territory?

Barry_Green
10-24-2010, 08:56 AM
Depends on the lens. The 7mm wide on the 7-14 zoom is pretty much totally rectilinear, as is the 14mm on the 14-140. If you're using a fisheye, you'll get barrel distortion, but if you're using a fairly rectilinear lens in the first place, you should get excellent results on the 4/3 sensor. barrel distortion shows itself mostly on the edges of the frame, and the smaller sensor (as compared to stills 35mm "full frame") means the edges will be cut off.

Jarek Zabczynski
10-24-2010, 08:59 AM
What lens is used in Bloom's vids? Like on "South" and the one with the skew examples? There's some really nasty distortion going on there on the sides. It looks like that awful panoramic mode that many widescreen tvs have where they take a 4:3 image, keep the center portion relatively intact and then stretch the remaining side portions off to the sides of the screen.

Whoops, I guess Barry just kinda covered that. I personally can't handle that type for distortion. What's a decent wide angle I can get that won't distort the edges like that? I'm planning on getting a GH2 kit with the 14-140 along with the AF-100. Was also looking at the 7-14 and 100-300 to start with. Then I was gonna get a set of Dulcos Nikon ZFs.

Bassman2003
10-24-2010, 09:01 AM
Thanks for your reply. Sounds promising. Math correction 12mm instead of 11mm!

Finster
10-24-2010, 09:01 AM
My main concern with this 2x crop if distortion on wider lenses. Is the smaller image window a help given a 24mm (35mm eq) would need an 11mm (35mm eq) which is in the fisheye territory?

If it's a fisheye lens then it'll say it's a fisheye lens, right? I mean, when the Hollywood big wigs use an Arri Master Prime T1.3/12 mm, they're not having to deal with lens distortion, right? At least not like on a fisheye?

More in my price range - the Tokina 11-16mm wouldn't have much lens distortion, would it?

Bassman2003
10-24-2010, 09:05 AM
True, fisheyes are fisheyes. But you just don't see 50mm fisheyes.

Expensive wide lenses have less distortion. But as the millimeters get lower distortion is tougher and tougher to get away from. Finding the budget and not having rounded verticals is a fine balance in my experience. But as Barry points out, at least the 4/3rd's sensor is drawing the image more from the center which minimizes the effect.

studio1972
10-24-2010, 10:07 AM
I dont know whose brilliant idea was to compare cinema lens FOV to still lens FOV to judge a camera's abilities, but IMHO it is not a fair or rational comparison. When Canon makes a camera and call it FULL FRAME they are talking for the still photography community.

So as it is been told many times AF-100 has a crop ratio of appr. 1.2 COMPARING TO ACADEMY 35 MM standard, PERIOD..

I guess people use photo full frame as a comparison because most of the lenses people will be using are designed for full frame DSLRs (and SLRs). It would definitely be an advantage if the crop was less than 2, as you would be able to get better use from these lenses. There are some wide angle lenses designed for crop sensor DSLRs that people might find useful though.

One last thing. The sigma 30mm is actually designed for crop sensors and is a standard lens, not a wide angle for full frame. That is why it is much cheaper than the canon 35mm 1.4 which is a full frame lens.

AdrianF
10-24-2010, 10:23 AM
Expensive wide lenses have less distortion. But as the millimeters get lower distortion is tougher and tougher to get away from. Finding the budget and not having rounded verticals is a fine balance in my experience. But as Barry points out, at least the 4/3rd's sensor is drawing the image more from the center which minimizes the effect.

I'd sell a kidney for either of these lenses, that are optimised for the 4/3 sensor:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE714mm/page6.shtml
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1137/cat/15

Bassman2003
10-24-2010, 10:40 AM
The 14-35 f2.0 looks like the lens to get for general purpose shooting. 28-70 is a really useful range and f2.0 will yield plenty of light and selective focus if needed.

Bucknfl
10-24-2010, 10:47 AM
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1137/cat/15

(From Olympus lens literature) The ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 14-35mm ƒ/2.0 SWD, which covers a zoom range equivalent to 28mm to 70mm on a 35mm camera lens is the world's first standard zoom lens to feature a large ƒ/2.0 aperture.

Olympus 14-54mm ƒ/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital ~$450
Significantly less expensive, the 14-54mm offers a greater zoom range at the expense of the constant ƒ/2 aperture of the 14-35mm. Optically the lens isn't as sharp as the 14-35mm, getting its best results at ƒ/4; it also shows much more CA at 14mm. Corner shading is about the same, but the 14-54mm is better tuned to prevent distortion. Of course, the 14-54mm costs about a quarter the price of the 14-35mm.

Olympus 12-60mm ƒ/2.8-4 ED SWD Zuiko Digital ~$800
While we haven't yet tested this lens, the user reviews are very positive, and it's much less expensive than the 14-35mm. It doesn't match the 14-35mm for its constant ƒ/2, but does go both a little wider and longer.

Panasonic 14-50mm ƒ/2.8-3.5 ASPH Leica D VARIO-ELMARIT ~$900
Designed for the Panasonic Lumix dSLR, we haven't yet tested this offering from Leica and Panasonic, but it should work on Olympus bodies. Again, it's not as fast as the Olympus 14-35mm, but it does offer slightly more length in its focal range. This lens has optical image stabilization built-in to the lens, which has been shown to interfere negatively with Olympus' in-camera stabilization.

Olympus 25mm ƒ/2.8 Zuiko Digital ~$300
It's worth noting that the 14-35mm ƒ/2 is an all-around better lens than the 25mm ƒ/2.8 prime: whether it's for sharpness, chromatic aberration, corner shading or distortion, the 14-35mm does it all better. However the 14-35mm costs over seven times the price and weighs nine times more.

dcloud
10-24-2010, 10:48 AM
@bassman
14-35 & 35-100 2.0 by olympus is 4 grand. T_T ill get them eventually

Bassman2003
10-24-2010, 11:20 AM
Compared to 2/3" ENG lenses $4,000 is a bargain!

Camera Expert
10-24-2010, 12:00 PM
Panasonic did say that they have a fast zoom lens coming out.

It would be incredible if it ends up getting the specs of the rumoured lens that used to float around the net.

12-75mm, f/2.5-f/3.3. I'm not sure if such a lens is possible but for sure the price would definitely be in the 4 figures.

Rick Burnett
10-24-2010, 12:10 PM
Thanks so much for the review.

Question, when you talk about the H,M,L gain settings, if I want to just control the camera by ISO setting alone, do I have fast access to ALL the ISO settings always? I was a little confused by how it was described. I don't want to work with H,M,L as I am coming from the DSLR mindframe.

Second question, you mention that you cannot mix footage type on a card. I will be shooting mostly 1080p24. If I want to overcrank, can I do that on the same card, say if I want to do some 1080p60?

And thanks for taking some time out of your busy schedule to do this. MUCH appreciated. I've already pre-ordered mine and cannot wait to use it.

As per the questions on the Sigma 30mm F1.4. We use this lens more than ANY other lens. We don't consider it wide, we consider it standard (on a 7D). We also have a Tokina 11mm-16mm and a Canon 10mm-22mm wide as well, both works great.

What I would REALLY like for the AF100 is a 7mm lens that was at least F2.8 if not faster. That would be my ideal. I love the Tokina and I use it at 2.8 indoors all the time. Requires very little lighting typically which is nice. Given the AF100 seems to be A LOT cleaner at ISO3200 than the 7D at the moment from the tests I've seen, I think it might open up a little more range.

The lack of moire and aliasing almost made me cry :) I CANNOT wait!!!

robertrogoz
10-24-2010, 12:19 PM
If you cant live with that fact never herd the term 'taking a few steps back to reframe', no worries there will always be FULl FRAME still cameras for your need.
I think you'll have a bit of difficulty to "take a few steps back" while hanging on a rope or after being dropped off by a heli on a 55 degree snow slope. Also shooting tight interiors is the same ( a lot of indy films are done in less then ideal location), where the only way to frame the shot is to have a wide enough lens. And this is what I was saying all along- you'll have to spend a lot more then just 5K on body alone, count at least on doubling that for a decent glass.

Michael Olsen
10-24-2010, 12:33 PM
What I would REALLY like for the AF100 is a 7mm lens that was at least F2.8 if not faster.

Zeiss UP - 8mm 1:2.8

Aside from that, I think the <10mm category will be tough.

dop16mm
10-24-2010, 01:27 PM
Cudos to Phillip Bloom for shooting his test on lenses we might actually use, including an old push zoom, no budget breaking cine lenses in the mix.

No you can't put a push zoom in a matte box or rig follow focus, or even really zoom with it, but for long focal lengths for cheap, you can't beat them. Even crappy f4-5.6 units are fine for exteriors and can be found for almost nothing. I have a 70-210 that most would probably consider junk, but it took perfectly nice pictures and I'm sure would be fine for video.

My basically free lenses for the kit, (glass I already own) Nikon mount 24 2.8, 50 1.8, 70-210 f4-5.6; pentax mount 28-200, 400mm; all manual aperture. I would probably add the 14 and 20mm pancakes and would love the 7-14mm but may wait and see if something faster comes out starting around 10mm. I would love a fully functional video zoom, but need more speed and would take less range than the 14-140.

A set of fast variable primes (short zooms) would be the perfect set for this camera. You just can't get wide range and fast in the same package at the price we want to spend. Tamron, sigma and tokina all have reasonably priced 2.8 zooms, three of which would cover your full range from wide to telephoto, if they would develop versions that were native to this camera system, I think it would be an ideal solution.

Dan_Kanes
10-24-2010, 03:43 PM
Regarding wides, someone should petition samyang to create more video optimized lenses like this:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10092209samyangvdslr8mm.asp

fisherman1
10-24-2010, 03:45 PM
First of all i would like to thank Philip Bloom for testing this camara, and Jan for giving all the information needed for the community.

But...

As i had viewed Mr. Bloom test videos, my first question was : where the sharpness were gone ? On the crews.tv test video, the sharpess was excellent. On Philip's videos the video sharpness and details looks like an APS-C VDSLR, like a kit lens with Canon 7d.

So what was the difference ? The crews.tv team used very expensive cinema lenses. These lenses costs like 5-10-15 thousands dollar.

If the quality of the video will be the same on the final one, I can see no difference between this new pana cam, and a 7d/5d mk2 vdslr. So why the big hype ?

But, of course if you add very expensive lenses, the video will be okay (also means a good cinema lens on 7d or 5d mk2 really give some boost for the sharpness and resolution).

As the video quality is not better than a dslr if you add 500-1000 usd lenses, and a regular dslr costs like 2000 usd, we are paying 3000 extra dollars for the form, codec, sdi output, microphone, etc. Generally this test showed my that af100 is a vdslr with some extra camera stuff in a camera body. Nothing usual, game changer, etc. And definitely can't beat the FF sensor in low light videos.

So if anyone buys it for 5000 usd, you should use some expensive cinema lens to get the best quality. 5000 + an 15000 cine lens is about 20.000 usd.

My questions then:

- if you have 20.000 usd, wouldn't you buy a red one mx instread of this
- or if you have 20.000 usd, usually these is more in the 'pocket', so why not buy arri or some expensive sony camera then ?

I think the whole communication went wrong. It suggested that for 5000 usd and a regular lens will be fine. But this is not the case. I think it is another 'cheap for a start, but you need very expensive accessories and lenses to get the best output' camera. But then, why panasonic positioning this camera as a cheap cine-like camera ?

Matthew B
10-24-2010, 03:54 PM
I think the whole communication went wrong. It suggested that for 5000 usd and a regular lens will be fine. But this is not the case. I think it is another 'cheap for a start, but you need very expensive accessories and lenses to get the best output' camera. But then, why panasonic positioning this camera as a cheap cine-like camera ?

I think the reasoning behind that is that since the DSLR 'revolution' people have already invested in some pretty decent glass, so many of the AF's market may only need to buy the body and the 14-140mm Lumix lens (for general purpose shooting). But at the same time the camera is able to handle virtually any lens so for bigger budget projects you could hire some CP's or some Ultra Primes. In that respect it is a cheap cine-like camera.

Danielvilliers
10-24-2010, 04:02 PM
I think you'll have a bit of difficulty to "take a few steps back" while hanging on a rope or after being dropped off by a heli on a 55 degree snow slope. Also shooting tight interiors is the same ( a lot of indy films are done in less then ideal location), where the only way to frame the shot is to have a wide enough lens. And this is what I was saying all along- you'll have to spend a lot more then just 5K on body alone, count at least on doubling that for a decent glass.

I think people should think that there is not one camera or system that can be good at shooting everything. Perhaps you should have included why it can' t do 200+ image per second for super slow motion explosion. I think that if we go to every extreme example as " hanging on a rope or after being dropped off by a heli on a 55 degree snow slope " or the example I just gave this camera is surely not meant for that, as 95% of the other camera on the market. For these extreme example there are super specialize camera or some more normal ones that are adapted/customized to do very specific job.

I will talk about your last example as it is not to much extreme. For the lack of space argument that crops out on this forum time and time again by certain poster you have the tokina 11-16 at 2.8. It is not enough... you have the 7-14 f4 Panasonic lens. Ha ha I hear you say it is not fast enough. If you have a camera that seems to be able to do good 1600 iso (3200 iso) and, and, and.... you can light. Ha, ha I hear you say I am not going to lurk some big light rig... You just need to replace the original light by screw in high cri electronic ballast fluorescent light bulb in the 55 watt to 110 watt (equivalent to 200 to 400 watt incandescent bulb) that you can find below $ 50 on ebay. You even have adapters for two to four bulbs and you can even put them in china bowl.

If someone here find it too cumbersome to apply the last advice and go to a place and just shoot. Hey the camera should be able to do everything for me, I don' t need to adapt myself, just press a button and everything should work. I don' t know what he or she does on this forum. Any people that have been working professional in the world of imaging know you have to make the things work. In the end it is your work, your skill and knowledge that make you what you are. If else, they could use your accountant to press a button on the camera for the job to be done. I think that anyone with certain experience will know that each tool has it use. The last thing I would tell you, is that if you think that you would not have to invest in glass from the start and many thousand dollar worth depending on the shooting you want to do... You are really mistaken on the af-100 and that it is really not meant for you. I am not saying that it is the be all and end all camera, by any mean, but it does fulfill at least on paper now the needs of many filmmakers or aspiring ones.

PaPa
10-24-2010, 04:02 PM
i also presume that the sharpness settings on both cameras were different. Hence why we see a little bit of aliasing in the full rez shots of the crews tv footage.

Bassman2003
10-24-2010, 04:26 PM
I think PB mentioned he set the sharpness to -7 which would explain a lot.

OldCorpse
10-24-2010, 05:03 PM
I will talk about your last example as it is not to much extreme. For the lack of space argument that crops out on this forum time and time again by certain poster you have the tokina 11-16 at 2.8. It is not enough... you have the 7-14 f4 Panasonic lens. Ha ha I hear you say it is not fast enough. If you have a camera that seems to be able to do good 1600 iso (3200 iso) and, and, and.... you can light. Ha, ha I hear you say I am not going to lurk some big light rig... You just need to replace the original light by screw in high cri electronic ballast fluorescent light bulb in the 55 watt to 110 watt (equivalent to 200 to 400 watt incandescent bulb) that you can find below $ 50 on ebay. You even have adapters for two to four bulbs and you can even put them in china bowl.

Excuse me, but it's not so simple. There are plenty of situations where a small production simply must have a camera that performs, and you cannot easily compensate with light etc. I'll give you a concrete example, because this is exactly what I'm facing next year on a production. It's a micro-zero-budget. I'll be shooting deep in a national forest - i.e. no access to ac power - and I'll be shooting the exterior and interior of a small tent at night. Small space - need a small camera form factor, need a wide lens and need a fast lens. I cannot compensate with light. What am I supposed to do? This is where I need the very best low-light performance I can possibly get, on a very wide lens, small camera form factor. To me this says I must consider the 5D seriously, because - pending tests - it may still work technically better - than the af-100.

So please don't underestimate the range of realistic conditions a small production may face where the af-100 is outright inferior.

dcloud
10-24-2010, 05:13 PM
I think you'll have a bit of difficulty to "take a few steps back" while hanging on a rope or after being dropped off by a heli on a 55 degree snow slope. Also shooting tight interiors is the same ( a lot of indy films are done in less then ideal location), where the only way to frame the shot is to have a wide enough lens. And this is what I was saying all along- you'll have to spend a lot more then just 5K on body alone, count at least on doubling that for a decent glass.

Or use a 5d on just that specific shot.

To oldcorpse
Use a 5d.

These cams are tools. Dont get stuck with one option.

Michael Olsen
10-24-2010, 05:18 PM
It's a micro-zero-budget. I'll be shooting deep in a national forest - i.e. no access to ac power - and I'll be shooting the exterior and interior of a small tent at night. Small space - need a small camera form factor, need a wide lens and need a fast lens. I cannot compensate with light. What am I supposed to do? This is where I need the very best low-light performance I can possibly get, on a very wide lens, small camera form factor. To me this says I must consider the 5D seriously, because - pending tests - it may still work technically better - than the af-100.

If you can't find the budget to rent an LED light that supports up to 12V DC and a car battery, then you are likely going to be stuck shooting on a 5D ISO3200 with a 14mm f/2.8L. There isn't anything wider or faster for less. Which to me begs the question - you can afford a $2500 camera and a $2100 lens, presumably additional money to pay the talent to provide for transportation...but not a couple hundred to have at least a little controlled light in the scene? Is it not possible to postpone for a little while and raise at least a little additional money to shoot it properly? I think, even with the best DP and crew, having the ability to light an otherwise completely dark night scene would be a benefit to the end result - if not in the lack of nasty chroma noise alone.

In my opinion, there are times when it just isn't worth doing something unless it can be done right - or at least right-ish. Even with a 5D, I'm not sure that scene could be done close to right without some light.

dcloud
10-24-2010, 05:22 PM
@michael olsen... I wonder how they shoot before dslrs arrived. Seems like theyre crippled without sensitive cams.

RGBaker
10-24-2010, 05:33 PM
[I]So please don't underestimate the range of realistic conditions a small production may face where the af-100 is outright inferior.

So buy something different! Good grief -- I've been working in film and video for thirty years. I've spent ten of thousands fo dollars on equipment that delivered a fraction of what AF-100 will. I shot a feature on a Beaulieu camera thirty years ago that would still be a great camera today -- but it would require shooting Super8 film, and that has it's own drawbacks. I shot television programs for network national broadcast on $60,000 BetaSP cameras that wouldn't match the AF-100. There are terrific tools at amazing prices available today -- if this isn't the one for you, move along. Don't feel compelled to complain, explain how the perfect lens would free you from lighting, moving, focussing ...

I mean for goodness sake -- for the first twenty years I worked there was NO autofocus. For the last decade, I've used pro gear that offered that ... and once or twice I used it. I've had power zooms for most of that time ... and I have once or twice zoomed them while the camera was rolling. Mostly, I wished they could do snap zooms (for the occasional time I wanted to) or remarkably slow creeps (which I do by hand, using a zoom lever). And the scores of pros I've worked with across North America and the UK have pretty much been the same.

So rant almost over -- the AF-100 addresses desires most of the working pros I know have had for years. It is not perfect, and will not replace every camera built or in planning. But it does seem to offer a terrific value, and I will buy one. Some day, I will buy something to repace it ...

And please, if you don't understand crop factors, or depth of field realities, or how to light, or frame rates -- read more and post less.

Rant done.

(Thanks Phil for your efforts)

Cheers,
GB

Matthew B
10-24-2010, 05:38 PM
So buy something different! Good grief -- I've been working in film and video for thirty years. I've spent ten of thousands fo dollars on equipment that delivered a fraction of what AF-100 will. I shot a feature on a Beaulieu camera thirty years ago that would still be a great camera today -- but it would require shooting Super8 film, and that has it's own drawbacks. I shot television programs for network national broadcast on $60,000 BetaSP cameras that wouldn't match the AF-100. There are terrific tools at amazing prices available today -- if this isn't the one for you, move along. Don't feel compelled to complain, explain how the perfect lens would free you from lighting, moving, focussing ...

I mean for goodness sake -- for the first twenty years I worked there was NO autofocus. For the last decade, I've used pro gear that offered that ... and once or twice I used it. I've had power zooms for most of that time ... and I have once or twice zoomed them while the camera was rolling. Mostly, I wished they could do snap zooms (for the occasional time I wanted to) or remarkably slow creeps (which I do by hand, using a zoom lever). And the scores of pros I've worked with across North America and the UK have pretty much been the same.

So rant almost over -- the AF-100 addresses desires most of the working pros I know have had for years. It is not perfect, and will not replace every camera built or in planning. But it does seem to offer a terrific value, and I will buy one. Some day, I will buy something to repace it ...

And please, if you don't understand crop factors, or depth of field realities, or how to light, or frame rates -- read more and post less.

Rant done.

(Thanks Phil for your efforts)

Cheers,
GB

Very well said.

It seems there will always be people who find something to complain about. But at the end of the day 'a poor workman blames his tools'.

Dan_Kanes
10-24-2010, 05:43 PM
@oldcorpse:

Couldn't you shoot the tent interiors in your own backyard, or even inside your garage during daytime?

That's what the studio system has over some independent filmmakers. They occasionally Do things the smart way instead of bashing their heads against the wall and working 22 hour days with no food, or other amenities.

Dan_Kanes
10-24-2010, 05:48 PM
@oldcorpse:

Couldn't you shoot the tent interiors in your own backyard, or even inside your garage during daytime?

That's what the studio system has over some independent filmmakers. They occasionally Do things the smart way instead of bashing their heads against the wall and working 22 hour days with no food, or other amenities.

PaPa
10-24-2010, 06:19 PM
Phil:

The opening shot of "South" and the shot of the water at 2:26, what lenses were used? Im curious to know why the opening shot has so much more lens distortion than the one at 2:26 when they look to be about the same focal length??

f64manray
10-24-2010, 06:36 PM
I will talk about your last example as it is not to much extreme. For the lack of space argument that crops out on this forum time and time again by certain poster you have the tokina 11-16 at 2.8. It is not enough... you have the 7-14 f4 Panasonic lens. Ha ha I hear you say it is not fast enough. If you have a camera that seems to be able to do good 1600 iso (3200 iso) and, and, and.... you can light. Ha, ha I hear you say I am not going to lurk some big light rig... You just need to replace the original light by screw in high cri electronic ballast fluorescent light bulb in the 55 watt to 110 watt (equivalent to 200 to 400 watt incandescent bulb) that you can find below $ 50 on ebay. You even have adapters for two to four bulbs and you can even put them in china bowl.

Excuse me, but it's not so simple. There are plenty of situations where a small production simply must have a camera that performs, and you cannot easily compensate with light etc. I'll give you a concrete example, because this is exactly what I'm facing next year on a production. It's a micro-zero-budget. I'll be shooting deep in a national forest - i.e. no access to ac power - and I'll be shooting the exterior and interior of a small tent at night. Small space - need a small camera form factor, need a wide lens and need a fast lens. I cannot compensate with light. What am I supposed to do? This is where I need the very best low-light performance I can possibly get, on a very wide lens, small camera form factor. To me this says I must consider the 5D seriously, because - pending tests - it may still work technically better - than the af-100.

So please don't underestimate the range of realistic conditions a small production may face where the af-100 is outright inferior.

Doesn't matter if have no ac power. Just use Cool Lights LED panel lights powered by batteries. They will last many, many hours. I don't care how low light sensitive your camera is, your not shooting interior/exterior tent night scenes without light. I'm not sure why people think that because a camera sensor is very light sensitive, they now don't have to bother with lighting. Buy some Cool Light LED panels.

James Bridges
10-24-2010, 06:44 PM
Use a Aaton A-Minima, rent some S16 super speeds. get a few Cool lights or Flo Light LED's that run on batteries and off you go.
I shot a very low budget feature that way. For sound get a Zoom H2N, they're great.
If LED's cannot work, go to your local sporting goods store and buy a few Thermos lanterns (Gas, Flourescent or LED), they are cheap and can be seen in the shot without looking odd.
Good luck.

OldCorpse
10-24-2010, 06:53 PM
Three things. First, I'm not complaining about the af-100. I'm just objecting to the idea that it is necessarily a dslr killer in all situations. Some people seem to say that it's only some rare extreme situations where the dslr still has a place. My point is that it may be that there will be a lot of common realistic situations where the 5D f.ex. will be a better tool. Now, all this is theoretical to a degree. Until we have a production af-100 in hand, it's all speculation. I'm hoping for the best. Second, re: shooting the tent interiors in a studio etc. - yes of course we explored that, it's the first thing we did, but the problem is that there are a lot of interior/exterior transitions so the shooting style and for other practical reasons we'll end up having to do all this on location. Third re: budget... I guess you haven't worked on a micro/zero production for awhile :)... it's always a peculiar situation... and so it is here - the DP is buying the af-100, so he wants to do it all on the af-100, so it's not a choice "do I get the 5D or the af-100", merely, "actually, sadly, the af-100 may not be optimal for some situations and a 5D would be superior" - and budgetwise we we have nothing provisioned for the camera (like a 5D), because we were hoping to do it all on the af-100 that comes "free" with the DP. Anyhow, that's all boring "too much info" - bottom line, rest assured that this is not because we're some morons who can't figure out how to budget or provision for equipment. Anyhow, I'm not gonna get my panties in a bunch over this - instead, we'll wait for the af-100 and run some tests... if it gives us what we need, then fabulous... if not, well, we'll see if we can somehow wangle a 5D and see if that helps... if not the 5D, we'll keep improvising until we solve our issues - "there are no problems, only solutions".

Bottom line - not complaining about the af-100, but am somewhat complaining (or "cautioning" would be a better word) about those who claim that the af-100 is for sure a dslr killer and only extreme bizarre situations would call for the 5D instead - my point is, that you can be entirely rational and still pick the 5D for some jobs. Though again, this is all theoretical until we have a production unit in hand to test it all out.

PS. re: LED lights etc. - this is still possible, but the problem is that this depends on very careful blocking, because the scenes call for long handheld takes following people coming in going out of the tent, circling around it etc... tricky to make it look realistic with moonlight simulation and light placement so it doesn't come into frame anywhere. Anyhow, this is not set in stone, just anticipating difficulties, and the possibility that the 5D may work better here.

Rick Burnett
10-24-2010, 07:06 PM
The problem is, you are trying to hypothetical the argument and with that, it's really hard to EVER have a right answer. What's important to you in the ability you have may not be important to someone else.

I've used a 5D and the two areas that it does in fact outperform most other cameras is low light and wide angle, but, money not being a problem, I still chose the 7D and would still chose that in a heart beat between those two cameras. I like the options that I get from that.

I mean, WITHOUT question you are going to have to have light in the tent. When you watch major television or some movies without light in tents, what do they use? They use night mode on camcorders typically, like my Sony TRV used to have.

The BIGGEST problem I have with the 5D is moire and aliasing, and I'd be afraid of picking that up off of the tent fabric, or clothing, or backpacks, as the materials typically used I have seen these sensors rainbow like crazy on.

Second, you are going to be shooting in the woods right? Lots of detail moving across the sensor. The understanding I have is that the AF100 codec HANDS DOWN will handle this better than any DSLR out right now. Take it further, get a battery operated external recorder and you are going to have even higher quality.

I work on zero budget ALL THE TIME. I know the pain. There are a lot of unknowns right now, but if I were in your shoes from what you have told me, when the AF100 is available, I'd be setting up a tent in my backyard and testing it along with a 5D that I rented and just see what works best. In either case, for you, you are making a compromise and really only testing both situations will tell you what you can live or not live with.

I cannot live with moire anymoire :) At least, not at the level Canon sensors and their reductions algorithm and circuitry work. No thank you. Because of that, at least with these preliminary tests, FOR ME, the AF-100 is superior period.

mountainradio
10-24-2010, 07:09 PM
Just an observation, but it seems like there are a lot more people complaining about people saying this is a dslr killer than actual people saying it's a dslr killer.

OldCorpse
10-24-2010, 07:20 PM
This much we are agreed on: this whole thing needs testing in specific situations. So we'll test both the af-100 and the 5d, unquestionably. And until there's a production af-100, this whole discussion is more about hopes and fears than about reality. So, until then, I'm keeping all my options open.

Rick Burnett
10-24-2010, 07:33 PM
Agreed. One should keep their options open. :)

Homunculus
10-24-2010, 07:42 PM
Just an observation, but it seems like there are a lot more people complaining about people saying this is a dslr killer than actual people saying it's a dslr killer.

so true. i have personally not even heard a single person say it's a dslr killer. well maybe one, i forget his name. why so many complaints about that? no one is saying anything is killing anything

Ryan Patrick O'Hara
10-24-2010, 07:46 PM
Just an observation, but it seems like there are a lot more people complaining about people saying this is a dslr killer than actual people saying it's a dslr killer.


Probably because DSLR's are marketed and priced for people on lower budgets. People who bought into these cameras don't have lots of money, and thus it can be unsettling when something 'new' and possibly better comes out and threatens your bread and butter. It's like buying a computer and having a newer version of it released a few months later. People like their DSLR's and the backlash you describe is probably simply them defending their 'lady'. :P

Rick Burnett
10-24-2010, 07:50 PM
That would be true if the AF100 were in the same price range. :) My 7D isn't going anywhere, it's a nice camera camera that I've grown fond of. Just like my D90 which now I use for astrophotography with my fiancee's telescope as it makes better images than the 7D through the telescope adapter. The AF100 is just joining the group.

Steve Kahn
10-24-2010, 07:51 PM
Just an observation, but it seems like there are a lot more people complaining about people saying this is a dslr killer than actual people saying it's a dslr killer.
Perhaps because it's not. There's a lot of content these days that is intended solely for the net. dSLRs are perfect cams for that.

Michael Olsen
10-24-2010, 07:59 PM
Can't kill DSLRs because AF-100 is not 23 MP still photography camera.

Homunculus
10-24-2010, 08:06 PM
Can't kill DSLRs because AF-100 is not 23 MP still photography camera.

i know right. the people who buy DSLR's for videography are probably 1% of the market of DSLR's. probably not even that. maybe 0.01%.

thus af100 will probably not even dent that market in any appreciable or quantifiable way. it will dent EX1, 3, HVX200 etc perhaps though...

Taylor Rudd
10-24-2010, 08:07 PM
Can't kill DSLRs because AF-100 is not 23 MP still photography camera.

haha - lovely.

you all need to go outside now. it's a long way until december.

PaPa
10-24-2010, 08:15 PM
Phil:

The opening shot of "South" and the shot of the water at 2:26, what lenses were used? Im curious to know why the opening shot has so much more lens distortion than the one at 2:26 when they look to be about the same focal length??

bump, before my question gets lost.

VGurcu
10-24-2010, 08:28 PM
I think you'll have a bit of difficulty to "take a few steps back" while hanging on a rope
Use a jumar or prusik


or after being dropped off by a heli on a 55 degree snow slope.
Worry more about the possible avalanche and other dangers in the terrain...

And if you cant get the shot you thought you could, just adopt and get it another way.


Also shooting tight interiors is the same ( a lot of indy films are done in less then ideal location), where the only way to frame the shot is to have a wide enough lens.

There is never the 'only way'; to quote Sidney Lumet (from his book Making Movies):

"I once asked Akira Kurosawa why he had chosen to frame a shot in Ran in a particular way. His answer was that if he'd panned the camera one inch to the left, the Sony factory would be sitting there exposed, and if he'd panned an inch to the right, we would see the airport. Only the person who's made the movie knows what goes into the decisions that result in any piece of work. They can be anything from budget requirements to divine inspiration."

Ryan Patrick O'Hara
10-24-2010, 09:29 PM
Can't kill DSLRs because AF-100 is not 23 MP still photography camera.

Hahaha, very true. The implication was for video, but nonetheless, let's not forget the still camera. :P

Barry_Green
10-24-2010, 10:35 PM
I don't want to work with H,M,L as I am coming from the DSLR mindframe.
You'll have to change your mindframe then, because this is how it works. The gain switch lets you quickly switch among three ISOs that you have programmed into the switch position. It doesn't have some infinitely-adjusting wheel; they came up with a way to make it work for both video cameras (l/m/h gain) and for film camera operation (using the same l/m/h switch, assigning whatever ISO you want to each position).


Second question, you mention that you cannot mix footage type on a card. I will be shooting mostly 1080p24. If I want to overcrank, can I do that on the same card, say if I want to do some 1080p60?
Yes you can do that, you can record any and every NTSC mode on the same card. Bloom's comment was that you can't use NTSC and PAL footage on the same card. I didn't try that so I can't verify that one way or the other.


The lack of moire and aliasing almost made me cry :) I CANNOT wait!!!
Agreed, I have been shooting more and more wide shots just becaues they look great.

Lots of folks keep complaining that the m43 format doesn't have fast wide lenses, but ... on the SLRs, you can't shoot ANY wide shots that look good, because the wider you go, the more stuff is in focus, and the more that's in focus on an SLR, the more aliasing you get. Yes you can get a great wide field of view, but if the image sucks, what's the point? I would go so far as to say that the 7mm lens on an AF100, on f/4 at 200 ISO, will look not only better, but a hell of a lot better, than a 14mm lens on the 5D at f/2.8 and 100 ISO, because of the SLR's inherent low res and aliasing complications. I'd take a little bit of noise over that, any day.

David G. Smith
10-24-2010, 10:37 PM
Welcome to filmmaking, where the real creativity has ALWAYS been how to overcome the limitations of the tools, and resources, your budget allows you to use, to tell your story. Is the AF-100 going to be a perfect camera? Of course not. However, I think that it is going to still be one hell of a camera, at a great price point, until perfect gets here. ....And I ain't holding my breath waiting for perfect.

Justyn
10-24-2010, 10:39 PM
I think it's going to be an interesting mindswitch that we are all in. Might be time to once again bring out my cinematography manual and invest in a DOF calculator and possibly.... gasp..... have a setup for focus.


I think we need to all say thanks to Mr. Bloom and to Barry and all who share. We sometimes forget that they aren't paid to do it, but they do it out of the communal good and to share information. Not to be hounded and attacked or berated for a product that is in itself an evolution. There won't be a perfect camera 10 years from now, so till then let's just have a great time.


A bad craftsman blames his tools! Sure, we all want something cool, but it's still us on the other end that facilitates it and makes it happen. I personally was happen some 11 years ago when I bought my XL1 and all the way up till I bought my HMC150. We should all be happy that we can produce broadcast or cinematic visions on cameras that we can actually afford to own and not just rent. I shot my last feature on an Arri SR3, and I paid about 25K on film stock and transfer. I think for maybe 10K, I'll be able to buy all that I need... and viola... I'll own it when I'm done. NOt just a chemical process that I can never duplicate....


Let's relax and have a good time and say thanks for this site and for the people on it. After all... didn't the DVX change everything once before? Now this baby will do the same until something else comes out to knock it down.... Ce la vie!

Justyn
10-24-2010, 10:48 PM
Perfectly put.... We should try not to be fan boys and go with what is best for US... at a price that doesn't cripple us.. and that offers what we need in a camera. It's also kind of foolish to compare or contrast to the Red camera which isn't out, and who knows when and if it ever will be. Their history leaves one to conjecture but even with all of that, if it ever does deliver on the promises then I'll buy one. Till then... I'll wait.

Rolf Silber
10-24-2010, 10:54 PM
I think for maybe 10K, I'll be able to buy all that I need... and viola... I'll own it when I'm done.

And exactly this is where the beauty of the concept is.

Rolf Silber
10-24-2010, 10:58 PM
Can't kill DSLRs because AF-100 is not 23 MP still photography camera.

Absolutely right, but..... shouldn't we discuss a bit more, what it is then? And not what it is not? This becomes a semi-religious debate quickly about an entity not yet amongst us in metal and silicate. I think it won't kill and it won't not kill anything because it's not yet born. Christmas?! Okay, I hope a bit before..... ;-)

Honestly - and strictly metaphorically spoken - we should care a rodent's behind what and if it kills anything other than budget costs we have and other impediments in our creative work. It seems to be small, versatile, gives us lot's of options for a high but still nice price. It has issues? It better has because it is real (soon).

I know that there may be "canonical" ;-) equations that it won't meet. So what? It's a tool not a monstrance.

Rick Burnett
10-24-2010, 11:27 PM
You'll have to change your mindframe then, because this is how it works. The gain switch lets you quickly switch among three ISOs that you have programmed into the switch position. It doesn't have some infinitely-adjusting wheel; they came up with a way to make it work for both video cameras (l/m/h gain) and for film camera operation (using the same l/m/h switch, assigning whatever ISO you want to each position)

Hmmmm, I don't understand why they couldn't have supported dialing in the exact setting you want. I in fact use all my ISO settings a lot on my 7D, up to 1600, as I do a fair amount of found light work as well. Since it's just basically a digital setting in the camera, wouldn't people like to be able to dial up their ISO at ease? I know that I would. I realize in the film world changing ISO is like changing the actual film, but in the digital world, where analog gain comes into play on the signal path, I do like to tune it to get the most out of the sensor.

One thing I dislike about my 7D is that the ISO has to be changed with a button hit, then a dial. I'd rather switch the shutter speed to be adjusted that way since I set it less than the ISO setting. Is the shutter and F-stop each to change on the fly if need be?

I mean, if it is what it is, I'll deal, I'm just curious why something that is pretty basic to support isn't there. It's another "freedom" removed in the design.

eduk
10-25-2010, 05:19 AM
Absolutely right, but..... shouldn't we discuss a bit more, what it is then? And not what it is not? This becomes a semi-religious debate quickly about an entity not yet amongst us in metal and silicate.

Surely sounds like that... for me, as someone working with cinema, seems that the dslrs played an important role in developing the technology that is now affordable in a video camera like this one. I use a GH1 for video too (and probably will continue, as a B camera), but for video it lacks too many things that the AF100 now assembles. No need to be a parricide!

Jay Birch
10-25-2010, 05:26 AM
Finally managed to see the downloaded footage... very promising.

The 50p motion is so smooth!

Rolf Silber
10-25-2010, 06:35 AM
Surely sounds like that... for me, as someone working with cinema, seems that the dslrs played an important role in developing the technology that is now affordable in a video camera like this one. I use a GH1 for video too (and probably will continue, as a B camera), but for video it lacks too many things that the AF100 now assembles. No need to be a parricide!

Yes. My GH13 and the AG-AF will go along just fine I think. I just think it's somewhat besides the topic to discuss if something is or is not a killer - especially as no crime has been committed... yet.... ;-)

Duke M.
10-25-2010, 07:42 AM
thus af100 will probably not even dent that market in any appreciable or quantifiable way. it will dent EX1, 3, HVX200 etc perhaps though...

While it will compete with the EX1/3 and HVX200 for the Indie filmmaker market that is really a very small part of the market where people get paid for what they do.

Films may be what we love and aspire to, but I'd wager that most of the money earned is from weddings, sporting events, ENG and live events. There are features like the long range power zoom, auto focus, etc will keep the upper end prosumer cameras going for a long time.

The EX1/3 and HVX200 are getting long in the tooth and sales will diminish anyway. I'd bet that Canon is now going to release some thing that marries the XF300 to an APS-C sensor right around the time the Scarlet is finally released.

My guess is that the AF100 is the first introduction of the latest thing and is Panasonic's opening salvo.

Jan_Crittenden
10-25-2010, 09:12 AM
For example: the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 is a M4/3 lens. If you want to use FF as your standard, it like any other 20mm lens, would look like a 40mm on a m4/3 body.

Hi,

The above post had me confused and I just wanted to clarify, the 20mm MF 4/3 lens is the same on a 4/3" mount with an adapter. So the 20mm is a 20mm 1.7 for either the 4/3s or the micro 4/3s. Don't have my calculator to figure out anything else. So we do have a fast wide angle lens available for it.

From Italy

Jan

philip bloom
10-25-2010, 09:17 AM
Hi,

The above post had me confused and I just wanted to clarify, the 20mm MF 4/3 lens is the same on a 4/3" mount with an adapter. So the 20mm is a 20mm 1.7 for either the 4/3s or the micro 4/3s. Don't have my calculator to figure out anything else. So we do have a fast wide angle lens available for it.

From Italy

Jan

Hi Jan

I have that lens and it's not what I would call a wide angle lens, 35mm FF FOV equivalent of 40mm makes it just wider than a standard lens. We need something like a 9-18mm f.2.8 to match up with the APS-C crop and the full frame equivalent...It's the single biggest issue for me. Otherwise it's a stonking camera!

P

Jan_Crittenden
10-25-2010, 09:22 AM
Thanks Philip, wasn't sure where you were coming from.

Homunculus
10-25-2010, 09:35 AM
any brits here can define stonking for me plz

Stephen Mick
10-25-2010, 09:37 AM
stonking: an adjective or adverb meaning "fantastic"

ikander
10-25-2010, 09:38 AM
British colloquial: Impressive, wonderful. ;-)

And, yes it's looks pretty darn nifty. I don't think I'm ditching my HMC-150 just yet, but in due time...

Rolf Silber
10-25-2010, 09:42 AM
any brits here can define stonking for me plz

Main Entry: stonking Part of Speech: adj Definition: excellent, very impressive
Main Entry: stonking Part of Speech: adv Definition: extremely; also called stonkingly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stonkingly)Etymology: from stonk 'bombardment' Usage: colloquial


Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon
Copyright 2003-2010 Dictionary.com, LLC
Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=stonking&ia=dict21)

MadMonkFish
10-25-2010, 09:49 AM
'Stonking' - as in 'Stonkingly good' - it's like saying 'brilliant' or 'great'...

It's something we use a lot. I'm sure Mr Bloom (soon to be knighted as Sir Bloom) will agree.

Just googled it - here's something to confirm (however - read the full link for some 'Surprising' other meanings!!!).

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-sto3.htm



That, you will probably feel, comprehensively deals with one sense of the word, but as yet it doesn’t help with the way that it turns up in The Economist piece. That meaning is well known in Britain, as I said earlier, where a stonker is something which is large or impressive of its kind. Hence stonking, a word of vague positive emphasis: “That’s a stonking good idea”, what Tony Thorne called in his Dictionary of Contemporary Slang as “an all-purpose intensifying adjective”. It seems to have been especially in vogue in the late 1980s.

MadMonkFish
10-25-2010, 09:57 AM
LOL - looks like lots of Stonking definitions :cheesy:

And, as mentioned by Mr B himself (when asked what Stonking was)...



yes it’s corking


I'd say the AF101 is definatley not a Numpty :happy:

henryolonga
10-25-2010, 10:02 AM
I suppose it means great, fantastic, amazing - although I am not a Brit. Bit late on that - hadn't refreshed the page

Barry_Green
10-25-2010, 10:11 AM
Hmmmm, I don't understand why they couldn't have supported dialing in the exact setting you want.
Well, you can, just not with a dial. You take any ISO in 1/3-stop increments from 200 to 3200, and assign three of them to the switch. So if you like to use 320, 800, and 2500, you can have them, and flip the switch between them. If you like 200, 400, and 3200, you can set the switch positions to hold those ISOs.

It's not difficult, it's just not quite the same as rolling a dial.


Since it's just basically a digital setting in the camera, wouldn't people like to be able to dial up their ISO at ease?
It's a small user interface question. THere's a wheel on the back that can be used to dial in frame rate and shutter speed. If they added ISO control to that wheel, then you'd have exactly what you're asking. I think I requested it, but I doubt it'll make it into the first version. Maybe some later version, who knows?


Is the shutter and F-stop each to change on the fly if need be?
I don't know what you mean by this. The f-stop is on its own wheel and can be adjusted freely at any time. The shutter is done through a multi-purpose wheel, which also handles frame rate and something else - syncro scan I think? I don't remember.

Homunculus
10-25-2010, 10:12 AM
thanks for definitions i thought at first it was something bad like Stinking.

Barry_Green
10-25-2010, 10:16 AM
We need something like a 9-18mm f.2.8 to match up with the APS-C crop and the full frame equivalent
Olympus has an 11-22 f/2.8 for Four Thirds. That's about the closest I've found.

Homunculus
10-25-2010, 10:21 AM
just curious who uses such wide lenses? Hollywood to my knowledge rarely uses anything wider than 20's and you guys are asking for insane things like 9mm etc....what could you possible need that for? That's fish eye territory

MadMonkFish
10-25-2010, 11:04 AM
just curious who uses such wide lenses? Hollywood to my knowledge rarely uses anything wider than 20's and you guys are asking for insane things like 9mm etc....what could you possible need that for? That's fish eye territory

It's simply to get the lens/look/shot that people have become used to on FF cameras, IMO.

I don't think anyone uses a 9mm (unless for some really weird/special shots). The idea is everyone is used to FF 14mm (5D) or APS-C 16mm (say a Tokina on a 7D)... so it's about finding a lens that, once the sensor on the AF101 grabs a section of the lens image, will give an equivalent image (to a 14mm or 16mm).

The AF sensor won't see all of the image of provided by the lens, so a 9mm won't look like a 9mm - more like an 18mm.

There's a big relationship between the glass's ability to 'see' an image and the sensor's abilty to capture it. I think there have been some still image examples showing the different sensor 'crops' on the image from one lens (ie a 14mm on a 5D FF vs a 7D 'crop').

It comes down to wanting the same type of shot that you'd get with a particular body/sensor/lens. For example, a 14mm on a 7D will have a 'sensor crop' meaning that, despite the image being the same, the 7D just shows less of it. On a AF100/1, it'll be an even smaller 'crop' - meaning, if you want to get ultra wide angles (as in the FF 5D that acts like a 65MM style cine cam in terms of sensor) you need to start with the widest possible lens (as the sensor will crop out most of the fish-eye and only see a portion of the image projected onto it).

So, it all depends on what 'breed' of lenses you're planning to use... Canon L series (designed for FF) or APS-C or 4/3 etc. When buying m4/3's most places list the 35mm (still) equivalent.

Really, it lens choice vs crop for me. Otherwise the whole bigger debate swings into play about effective FOV etc and we don't want to go there!

MadMonkFish
10-25-2010, 11:15 AM
Quick update.

http://philipbloom.net/2010/08/20/which-lenses-to-buy/

Nice image that shows the crop of Canon sensors... now, imagine a smaller frame within it and then you've got the portion of the lens image that's resolved by the sensor. Look how all the wider (distorted) edges are completely missed by the 7D crop sensor... same goes for the AF100.

Maybe someone (not Phil B or Barry G - they do enough to spread the word!) should do a simple image set - showing how the crop is seen on differing lenses, as there still seems to be debate about this. If you want to get an 'equivalent' you just need to think about how much you're loosing in the crop and then consider a different lens.

Coco Bermudez
10-25-2010, 11:51 AM
by the way..I saw he was looking for some HCM 150 batteries to use...are these the same batteries as the ones used by the DVX100 and HVX200? I sure hope so

agcohn
10-25-2010, 11:52 AM
by the way..I saw he was looking for some HCM 150 batteries to use...are these the same batteries as the ones used by the DVX100 and HVX200? I sure hope so
No they're not.

Homunculus
10-25-2010, 12:17 PM
It's simply to get the lens/look/shot that people have become used to on FF cameras, IMO.

I don't think anyone uses a 9mm (unless for some really weird/special shots). The idea is everyone is used to FF 14mm (5D) or APS-C 16mm (say a Tokina on a 7D)... so it's about finding a lens that, once the sensor on the AF101 grabs a section of the lens image, will give an equivalent image (to a 14mm or 16mm).

The AF sensor won't see all of the image of provided by the lens, so a 9mm won't look like a 9mm - more like an 18mm.

There's a big relationship between the glass's ability to 'see' an image and the sensor's abilty to capture it. I think there have been some still image examples showing the different sensor 'crops' on the image from one lens (ie a 14mm on a 5D FF vs a 7D 'crop').

It comes down to wanting the same type of shot that you'd get with a particular body/sensor/lens. For example, a 14mm on a 7D will have a 'sensor crop' meaning that, despite the image being the same, the 7D just shows less of it. On a AF100/1, it'll be an even smaller 'crop' - meaning, if you want to get ultra wide angles (as in the FF 5D that acts like a 65MM style cine cam in terms of sensor) you need to start with the widest possible lens (as the sensor will crop out most of the fish-eye and only see a portion of the image projected onto it).

So, it all depends on what 'breed' of lenses you're planning to use... Canon L series (designed for FF) or APS-C or 4/3 etc. When buying m4/3's most places list the 35mm (still) equivalent.

Really, it lens choice vs crop for me. Otherwise the whole bigger debate swings into play about effective FOV etc and we don't want to go there!
'
yes but who uses full frame cameras in filmmaking? I just don't get it...I thought that's a photography thing?

Barry_Green
10-25-2010, 12:19 PM
by the way..I saw he was looking for some HCM 150 batteries to use...are these the same batteries as the ones used by the DVX100 and HVX200? I sure hope so

DVX/HVX/HPX170 all use the same battery, which is different from the
HMC40/HMC80/HMC150/AF100, which all use the same battery.

mcgeedigital
10-25-2010, 12:30 PM
'
yes but who uses full frame cameras in filmmaking? I just don't get it...I thought that's a photography thing?

It is and it is nonsensical to use FF analogy when talking about cine-style camcorders.

Homunculus
10-25-2010, 12:36 PM
It is and it is nonsensical to use FF analogy when talking about cine-style camcorders.
exactly photography has literally nothing to do with filmmaking. ZERO. it's like saying a rapper who makes beats in Reason or Fruity Loops can pick up Cubase and write a symphonic score, the two are not even related.

I have worked with several professional PHOTOGRAPHERS now who think just because they own a 5dmkii for their stills photos that makes them directors and they literally know ZERO about filmmaking and are absolutely awful.

This full frame nonsense has to stop it has zero to do with film and zero to do with the tenants of this forum which is about filmmaking

Barry_Green
10-25-2010, 12:38 PM
"full frame" has traditionally had practically nothing to do with cinematography. The "full frame" was used on the few vistavision movies that were made, and as a practical matter it just isn't used. No cinema lenses cover the "full frame" (except the Zeiss Compact Primes, and that's because they're derived from SLR lenses).

Cinema shooting is based off of the 35mm movie film frame, which is not the same size as the stills "full frame" -- in fact, it's half the size of the "full frame". And the AF100's frame is very close in size to the 35mm movie frame. Like it should be.

Homunculus
10-25-2010, 12:41 PM
if you're buying an AF100 for FILM MAKING or video graphy which I hope you're doing otherwise you're going to have an expensive doorstop, then cut all that full frame b.s. out of your vocabulary because it has zero bearing on anything. The AF100 sensor is just abuot same size as the 35mm cinema film negative and the Red One sensor, that means your lenses and your field of view and cropping factor and all that nonsense is fine so let's move on

MadMonkFish
10-25-2010, 12:47 PM
It is and it is nonsensical to use FF analogy when talking about cine-style camcorders.

I agree 100% - it's just the debate rages on as everyone is comparing apples to oranges (I think that's the saying!).

It's just that FF has been the driver in the HDSLR evolution/revolution - so people who have only ever used DSLR's (or are learning the craft on them now), presume that's the benchmark. If we're comparing FF to 65mm then yes - but, I think as many of us agree, it depends on which system you're comparing the results of.

Everyone wants to get all the benefits of one format on another - and the reality is that won't happen (for a while). The AF represents an interesting new route to creating 'stonking' (as Mr Bloom would say!) images... and really, that's what it's all about. :cheesy:

I remember shooting on cameras in the late 80's (for broadcast) that would make people weep at the quality in comparision to the tools/kit we have now. :cry:

It's all relative - but the 'lens fixations' that have developed since the 35mm adapter/DSLR movement started, seem to confuse issues as cine lenses are different in so many ways to stills.

Homunculus
10-25-2010, 12:50 PM
well what other cameras are 'full frame' other than 5dmkii? I thought that was the only black sheep?

Barry_Green
10-25-2010, 01:11 PM
well what other cameras are 'full frame' other than 5dmkii? I thought that was the only black sheep?
Well, I don't know that it's a "black sheep", but ...

Yeah, the 5DMK II is about the only "full frame" camera on the market that does video. All the others (7D, 550D/t2i, 60d, GH1, GH2, D90, etc) are all APS-C or smaller. The 1D Mk IV is larger than APS-C, but smaller than "full frame".

bgundu
10-25-2010, 03:26 PM
Well, I don't know that it's a "black sheep", but ...

Yeah, the 5DMK II is about the only "full frame" camera on the market that does video. All the others (7D, 550D/t2i, 60d, GH1, GH2, D90, etc) are all APS-C or smaller. The 1D Mk IV is larger than APS-C, but smaller than "full frame".

Nikon D3s is full frame but at 720P. All will change to 1080 by the next rev.

Homunculus
10-25-2010, 03:28 PM
Nikon makes cameras?


;-)

bgundu
10-25-2010, 03:34 PM
the best.... :) :)

Homunculus
10-25-2010, 03:41 PM
the best.... :) :)


at what....?

iHartVideo
10-25-2010, 04:05 PM
....at making you frustrated due to lack of video features.

Jesse Brauning
10-25-2010, 04:11 PM
Can we not get all Canon vs. Nikon in here? Totally unhelpful.

OldCorpse
10-25-2010, 04:31 PM
I don't understand the whole full frame photo vs film discussion. I mean, who cares - the only thing that matters is what delivers optimal performance for what you need. If I need the best possible low light performance and the widest possible FOV (without fisheye distortion etc.), then that's what I need, and I don't care if the FF on still photos don't correspond to the frame size of 35mm motion film blah, blah. I don't care. What I care about is what gives me what I need, and there's no point that I can see in getting hung up on what is called what and what historically was what. The only question in my mind is what lenses will be available and at what cost.

Homunculus
10-25-2010, 04:37 PM
Can we not get all Canon vs. Nikon in here? Totally unhelpful.
actually i was getting panasonic vs. nikon ;-)

Multi-Media
10-26-2010, 05:43 AM
Actually, I think the "reality shock" came from an earlier misunderstanding drawn from the Glass thread... It was stated there and thus we were under the impression that the increase in focal length was to be 1.18 and that the 20mm would act like or look like the equivalent of a 24mm. Now we find that it will actually double in aparent focal length to appear as a 40mm. This is a fairly significant shift in the perception of what folks are envisioning as they try to cobble together a lens kit in preparation for the release. This does not diminish my enthusiasm, it does however give pause and re-direction to the process. I'm so glad I was able to see the review... thanks so much to Phillip for providing the test info.

I don't think the comparison to "35mm still" film is limited to this forum... you will find it typically listed as a standard of comparison widely used wherever focal length is discussed... as in 50mm equals "normal" view even though filmmakers know that still 35mm (longways on the film and 8 sprocket holes) is twice the area of a movie 35mm film frame (sideways across the frame and 4 sprocket hole area).

So, moving forward... may we say that 25mm equals a "normal" lens in this new micro 4/3 environment? That would serve as a standard of linguistics for everyone to lock onto and move forward from there.

Ian-T
10-26-2010, 07:20 AM
I agree. A 25mm lens equals a "normal" lens in the micro 4/3 environment especialy when it comes to movie making discussions.

Paul Vicente
10-26-2010, 07:51 AM
Aye, I second the motion!

John Caballero
10-26-2010, 07:57 AM
I have no idea why people are figuring that out now when the subject has been discussed since the GH1 came out a year ago?

Ian-T
10-26-2010, 08:01 AM
Trust me... I had a lot more to say which is along the line of what you just said...I just decided to hold my tounge. :) But yeah....you're right.

John Caballero
10-26-2010, 08:02 AM
Lol!

Jesse Brauning
10-26-2010, 08:06 AM
Actually, I think the "reality shock" came from an earlier misunderstanding drawn from the Glass thread... It was stated there and thus we were under the impression that the increase in focal length was to be 1.18 and that the 20mm would act like or look like the equivalent of a 24mm. Now we find that it will actually double in aparent focal length to appear as a 40mm. This is a fairly significant shift in the perception of what folks are envisioning as they try to cobble together a lens kit in preparation for the release. This does not diminish my enthusiasm, it does however give pause and re-direction to the process. I'm so glad I was able to see the review... thanks so much to Phillip for providing the test info.

Dude. This is a total misunderstanding of crop factor. No one ever thought it was one thing and then discovered it was something else.
Some people compare the m4/3 sensor to s35 film, and some people compare it to the 5D Mk2. There was no "What, they told me it was one thing and then I found out it was something else".
You just heard two different points of view.

Jesse Brauning
10-26-2010, 08:08 AM
I don't understand the whole full frame photo vs film discussion. I mean, who cares - the only thing that matters is what delivers optimal performance for what you need. If I need the best possible low light performance and the widest possible FOV (without fisheye distortion etc.), then that's what I need, and I don't care if the FF on still photos don't correspond to the frame size of 35mm motion film blah, blah. I don't care. What I care about is what gives me what I need, and there's no point that I can see in getting hung up on what is called what and what historically was what. The only question in my mind is what lenses will be available and at what cost.

Okay, that's great. So just use a 5D?
I don't know if you are doing this or not, but please don't complain that the AF100 doesn't have a FF sensor.

Jesse Brauning
10-26-2010, 08:09 AM
actually i was getting panasonic vs. nikon ;-)

That's a little better. :P
At least it hasn't quite been beaten to death as badly.
Canon vs. Nikon? Talk about dead horses. Sheesh.

Homunculus
10-26-2010, 08:12 AM
That's a little better. :P
At least it hasn't quite been beaten to death as badly.
Canon vs. Nikon? Talk about dead horses. Sheesh.

i know. and at least for still photos, Panasonic is a foe that Nikon stands a chance against, so it's a more fair fight!



:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG):2vrolijk_08:

Barry_Green
10-26-2010, 08:14 AM
The AF100 offers a field of view comparable to a 35mm movie camera.

I think if there's any reality shock, it's among folks who are finding out that 35mm movie film is nothing like 35mm stills film, and their experience with 35mm stills cameras is irrelevent in the world of cinema. A 25mm on a cinema camera will look almost the same as a 25mm on an AF100. What a 25mm looks like on an FF camera is about as irrelevant as what a 25mm looks like on a 2/3" camera.

Jesse Brauning
10-26-2010, 08:14 AM
True. I wish my Gh1 was a wee bit more competent in the photo area. But it will never be a D3s. heh.

Homunculus
10-26-2010, 08:32 AM
True. I wish my Gh1 was a wee bit more competent in the photo area. But it will never be a D3s. heh.

get a gh2. a lot better at photos a lot more megapixels. probably equivalent to 7d or t2i or so

John Caballero
10-26-2010, 09:56 AM
For those who need a little more understanding:

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/crop-factor-explained

Jesse Brauning
10-26-2010, 10:03 AM
get a gh2. a lot better at photos a lot more megapixels. probably equivalent to 7d or t2i or so

As soon as it comes out. :)

Danielvilliers
10-26-2010, 10:53 AM
I don't understand the whole full frame photo vs film discussion. I mean, who cares - the only thing that matters is what delivers optimal performance for what you need. If I need the best possible low light performance and the widest possible FOV (without fisheye distortion etc.), then that's what I need, and I don't care if the FF on still photos don't correspond to the frame size of 35mm motion film blah, blah. I don't care. What I care about is what gives me what I need, and there's no point that I can see in getting hung up on what is called what and what historically was what. The only question in my mind is what lenses will be available and at what cost.

Yeah, it is as if the 5d makes the best wide shot around. Read a little bit before posting some non sense like this, the canons are considered very bad in wide shots. It been known for ages. If you browse some page before you will see a post from barry on it. What will happen in the next version of Canons is another thing.

Homunculus
10-26-2010, 11:10 AM
The 5d Moire II is not the standard of all filmmaking people. Stop judging all of cinema by what the 5d Moire II produces

DCTBradJohnson
10-26-2010, 11:27 AM
I sure do feel silly leaving my Cinematography class where I just listened intently to a two hour lecture on lighting, then get on this forum, and read everyone talking about how the DSLR's can shoot "amazing images" without having to "lug a big heavy light kit" to your location. And how every camera from now on will be judged by its low light settings. Perhaps I'm confused, or being taught old techniques, but when did "Photography" stop meaning "painting with light?" Or, perhaps the above methodology is the sole reason my properly lit scenes, shot on a proper HD video camera, continue to dominate the aliased low light images of the DSLR's at film festivals. Surely the judges aren't picking my work to reward me for lugging that big heavy light kit to EVERY shoot?

Barry_Green
10-26-2010, 11:40 AM
Painting with light will always mean exactly that. Sensitivity alone is meaningless as compared to the overall look. Of course, you know that, but I'm just backing you up. While a more-sensitive camera might mean you don't need as-powerful fixtures (a 150w HMI instead of a 575w HMI, for example) you will still need AS MANY fixtures as you did before.

I think there's conflicting ideas floating around with the DSLR community. DSLR shooters want to believe that they no longer need lights, that they can get the "Hollywood Look" on a micro-budget. It doesn't work that way. What the DSLR does, is open up a NEW look. Light, handheld, shoot-anywhere -- that creates opportunities for a new type of cinema. If you want to make footage that looks like traditional cinema, you're going to have to go through all the same work, with all the same equipment, at all the same pace, as traditional hollywood-looking work has demanded.

It's like the Dogme95 thing. The folks who started that wanted to create a new type of film, like a new "french wave" or whatever. But it got co-opted by no-budget folks who thought "great! shooting on a DV camera has now been legitimized, so I can shoot handheld with no lights and everyone will take me seriously." That wasn't what Dogme95 was about at all.

Philip Bloom talks about the DSLR opening up new opportunities like lighting more with practicals instead of dedicated light fixtures. In that way, you might not need to carry around quite as "big & heavy" of a light kit, but you're still going to need to place those lights where they belong, and control them, and augment them with lights from your "not as big & heavy" light kit, if you want it to look good.

Homunculus
10-26-2010, 11:44 AM
I sure do feel silly leaving my Cinematography class where I just listened intently to a two hour lecture on lighting, then get on this forum, and read everyone talking about how the DSLR's can shoot "amazing images" without having to "lug a big heavy light kit" to your location. And how every camera from now on will be judged by its low light settings. Perhaps I'm confused, or being taught old techniques, but when did "Photography" stop meaning "painting with light?" Or, perhaps the above methodology is the sole reason my properly lit scenes, shot on a proper HD video camera, continue to dominate the aliased low light images of the DSLR's at film festivals. Surely the judges aren't picking my work to reward me for lugging that big heavy light kit to EVERY shoot?

first of all you have to understand your audience here. no offense to the forum but let's be honest. a large percentage of people here are just hobbyist amateurs with no real cinematography experience or knowledge. to them what constitutes "amazing images" is quite different than what a professional in hollywood who utilizes proper lighting considers amazing. There's a lot of top notch guys here too who are absolute pros and do know these things so I'm not referring to them, but a huge amount of people here are buying these cameras not for this high end but to continue shooting home made looking hand held videos with no concept of lighting.
Yes these people will never garner festival honors. Honestly I have never even heard of a DSLR short being accepted into a top festival like sundance/tribeca/cannes, has anyone else? most top shorts are still shot on film or high end digital like Red, which generally means they are also shot with a competent crew and thousands of dollars of professional lighting and the professionals required to utilize that lighting to its highest advantage (DP, electricians, gaffers, grips...etc)

Ticheli
10-26-2010, 11:53 AM
All beautiful scenes are lit, always by the eye of the cinematographer, but not necessarily by the hand of the cinematographer. Available light can be very beautiful, but it has it's limitations; it's not available for hours, often only moments, and it limits camera placement to the sweet spot. Sometimes the architect has done the lighting for us; again, this has limitations of where we can shoot.

For scenes requiring the hands as well as the eyes, more sensitive films and sensors have indeed changed the lighting, but only the power of the fixtures; we still need exactly the same number in exactly the same places. There is no exception to this. None. So we may need only a 2k instead of a 5K Fresnel, but we can't simply omit it.

I might add that if we are shooting with a daylight window in the background, higher sensitivity has NO effect; we still need enough punch to prevent the window blowing out. Same thing with exteriors.

So, we may no longer lug a big, heavy light kit; we lug a somewhat lighter weight light kit!

Anyone saying modern camera obviate the need for lighting is too stupid to be allowed near a motion picture camera.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Barry_Green
10-26-2010, 11:58 AM
Honestly I have never even heard of a DSLR short being accepted into a top festival like sundance/tribeca/cannes, has anyone else?
Our short "Depth of Phil", shot on the GH1, was accepted into South By Southwest (SXSW), considered widely to be one of the top 10 film festivals in the world.


which generally means they are also shot with a competent crew and thousands of dollars of professional lighting and the professionals required to utilize that lighting to its highest advantage (DP, electricians, gaffers, grips...etc)
Of course, Depth of Phil was shot using a great crew, professional lighting, an awesome cinematographer, etc. Some of our equipment was a lot lower-grade than you'd need with a big camera (at one point we used a light stand as a tripod, fer cryin' out loud) but still, all the same techniques were there, if with less weight and cost sometimes.

Homunculus
10-26-2010, 12:18 PM
Our short "Depth of Phil", shot on the GH1, was accepted into South By Southwest (SXSW), considered widely to be one of the top 10 film festivals in the world.


Of course, Depth of Phil was shot using a great crew, professional lighting, an awesome cinematographer, etc. Some of our equipment was a lot lower-grade than you'd need with a big camera (at one point we used a light stand as a tripod, fer cryin' out loud) but still, all the same techniques were there, if with less weight and cost sometimes.

Ah wow... I did not know you were involved in Depth of Phil, I thought Jack Daniel Stanley did that? I have worked with someone recnetly who shot a film with JDS as well I know he's very good.

Yes Depth of Phil looked amazing for gh1 and the acting was top notch, that's very encouraging that it was accepted in SXSW but you surely must agree that's a huge anomaly! Then again I'm not super familiar with other top 10 festivals OTHER THAN the big 3 (cannes tribeca sundance) but from my experience those big 3 I'm not sure if a DSLR short was ever accepted into them though prior to DSLR revolution I know DVX100 shorts were like Tze Chun's Window Breaker etc.
Do you know of any other DSLR shorts accepted into any top festivals, and where can I watch Depth of Phil I've been dying to see it

Mark Harris
10-26-2010, 12:43 PM
Yes these people will never garner festival honors. Honestly I have never even heard of a DSLR short being accepted into a top festival like sundance/tribeca/cannes, has anyone else? most top shorts are still shot on film or high end digital like Red, which generally means they are also shot with a competent crew and thousands of dollars of professional lighting and the professionals required to utilize that lighting to its highest advantage (DP, electricians, gaffers, grips...etc)

You don't spend enough time at these festivals. Joe SwanBerg and the Duplass bros (two of the most adored festival darlings in recent years) have had films accepted shot on MUCH lower quality cameras than a GH1. And these films looked a LONG way from slick and professional. You think these fests have some mandate against DSLR? Why would they?

Besides which, if you see Depth of Phil, you would never know what it was shot on, nor would you ever care.

Barry_Green
10-26-2010, 12:43 PM
Jack and I are frequently a team, we've teamed up on quite a few films (Cold Calls... Unawakening... Little Mouth To Feed... Depth of Phil... Shady, Texas... and I may be forgetting some too).

Festivals don't know or care about what camera something was shot on. Cold Calls got into the Delta program of the Tribeca film festival, and that was shot on an HPX170 with a Letus Ultimate. Little Mouth To Feed played the opening-night red-carpet gala at Slamdance last year, another of the top 10, and that was shot on an HVX200 with a prototype Letus Extreme. Unawakening was an HPX500, and DoP and Shady were both GH1. (UN-HACKED GH1, I might add).

Jack's site at www.frenchquarterfeatures.com (http://www.frenchquarterfeatures.com) has at least trailers, if not full-length versions, of all his films.

If you want to see Unawakening and LMTF, you can see them on the order page for our Lighting For Film & Television (http://www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com/lighting.htm)DVD. We produced those films with cinematography legend Macgregor, specifically to document the making of and lighting of them, for our lighting DVD.

Homunculus
10-26-2010, 01:01 PM
You don't spend enough time at these festivals. Joe SwanBerg and the Duplass bros (two of the most adored festival darlings in recent years) have had films accepted shot on MUCH lower quality cameras than a GH1. And these films looked a LONG way from slick and professional. You think these fests have some mandate against DSLR? Why would they?

Besides which, if you see Depth of Phil, you would never know what it was shot on, nor would you ever care.

well depends what you mean. I'm not familiar with the films you mentioned were they shot recently or in "recent years" i.e. mid 2000's before the "DSLR revolution"? as I said there were films shot on dvx100 etc that were accepted into top festivals (some consider DVX100 of lesser quality than DSLR's). But nowadays I don't think you'll find much shot on DSLR at the top festivals, and certainly not in the Academy Award category of "Best Short Film" considering the Oscar has a strict stipulation that any short nominated must be on film (either shot on, or printed on 35mm).

Furthermore, I've personally spoken to a top short film programmer for sundance festival and they expressed to me the same sentiment that rarely if ever have they had DSLR shorts.

The reason? Is there a 'mandate against it' as you suggest? No ofcourse not. The reason is simply that there seems to be a natural order to things, which is that shorts that are that high in quality enough to be accepted at a top festival, are generally shot by very professional and top quality / talented people. And pro/top quality talented people generally shoot these shorts on top of the line equipment, i.e. film or high end digital whether it is Red or Cinealta, or whatever.
So no there's no mandate against it, it just NATURALLY seems to filter that way that you will not see DSLR shorts at a top film festival. Yes a few years ago you would see things that perhaps are regarded as lower than DSLR's right now (like DVX100) but that was a few years ago, it's irrelevant to what I'm talking about now because you could easily say well in the 1990's there must of been stuff accepted at Sundance that was shot on Super Hi-8 camcorders or whatever, and sure that may be the case but that's simply because the technology was limited back then.

So yes as Barry Green said festivals don't care nor even check what camera you used, so I'm not suggesting this dearth of DSLR shorts at top festivals has anything to do with the festivals themselves, it doesn't. It has to do with the naturally occurring fact that guys who are shooting these top shorts are not using DSLR's. Yes there's an odd exception here or there, rmemeber the saying exceptions don't make the rule, that is why they are called exceptions.

And yes Barry you cited Hpx, HVX, etc. That is rare also but far more common. These cameras are way above DSLR in quality. HVX with letus is the closest thing to Red One footage under 20k probably. So I'm not really talking about those as they are far more expensive and professional setups than a simple DSLR is considering the Letus adaptor itself costs more than most DSLR bodies.

But my point is that I am very much hoping that AF100 will become a festival staple and not be a red headed step child as DSLR's are at the highest level

Barry_Green
10-26-2010, 01:18 PM
I don't think you'll find much shot on DSLR at the top festivals, and certainly not in the Academy Award category of "Best Short Film" considering the Oscar has a strict stipulation that any short nominated must be on film (either shot on, or printed on 35mm).
Certainly not anything against the DSLR there -- James Longley had two films nominated for Oscars, one for best short, one for best documentary, and both were shot on a DVX100. Murderball was nominated for best doc, and it was a DVX100 film. Anything can be transferred to film...


The reason is simply that there seems to be a natural order to things, which is that shorts that are that high in quality enough to be accepted at a top festival, are generally shot by very professional and top quality / talented people. And pro/top quality talented people generally shoot these shorts on top of the line equipment, i.e. film or high end digital whether it is Red or Cinealta, or whatever.
EXACTLY. Why? Because it looks "better"? Not really. It's because shooting on a DSLR is a pain in the rectum. It's inconvenient and plagued with hassles, and I don't know many working pros who want or need more hassle in their life, so they go with what works.


I'm not suggesting this dearth of DSLR shorts at top festivals has anything to do with the festivals themselves, it doesn't. It has to do with the naturally occurring fact that guys who are shooting these top shorts are not using DSLR's. Yes there's an odd exception here or there, rmemeber the saying exceptions don't make the rule, that is why they are called exceptions.
This is exactly the case. Nobody's saying you can't do great work with a DSLR, but what we are saying is "why the hell would you?!??!" when there are other, better choices out there.

Why did I do Depth of Phil and Shady, Texas on a GH1? A few reasons. One, we wanted to see how good the GH1 could do, so that was a factor. And Jack wanted to experiment with the tiny-cam to see how it might work out if we wanted to do something with multiple cameras, opening up options. But neither of those were the reasons I wrote the checks to fund those films. I spent nearly five figures on those films because I intended to produce a training DVD for GH1 users on how to make outstanding films on one of these micro-cameras.

But you know what? I never finished it. Why? Well, one reason is because the market shifted and the Canons came along, which meant that fewer folks were looking at the GH1, but the main reason is: shooting with a DSLR-style camera sucks. I couldn't endorse it. I mean, sure, for some shots, you can do some neat things, but -- all too often it's just the wrong tool for the job. My opinion, and I'm entitled to it, so those who think the DSLR is the second coming of the messiah can have their opinion too. But I just couldn't, and still don't, see the point of trying to integrate one of those things into a film-style shoot. No thanks.

Now, while thousands of microbudgeteers have embraced the DSLR for its undeniable attributes (shallow DOF, low cost, and frequently outstanding footage), there's a lot more to it than that.

Heck, it's like 16mm film. Lots of guys used to aspire to shooting 16mm, back when the DVX was all the rage 16mm was thought of as this holy grail, of being a "real" filmmaker. But nobody who ever shot on 16mm, and then goes up to 35mm, ever goes back down to 16mm! It's just more hassle than it's worth.

That's why I say I don't really care if the AF100 has more dynamic range, or more sharpness, or is a quarter stop more or less sensitive, than a 5D. None of that matters. I wouldn't use a 5D because I don't want to use that kind of product in a cinema-style shoot. The AF100 solves so many problems that even if its footage was inferior, it'd still be the preferred choice. The fact that it happens to totally solve the aliasing and the purple/orange moire and is way sharper, is a bonus. But if someone comes along and "proves" that the 5D has 1/2-stop more dynamic range, I would not care one jot nor tittle. Because the AF100 still has SDI output, full-res 1080p 4:2:2 at 24PsF, and it delivers moire/alias-free footage, and it takes PL lenses, and it can record high-quality audio, and it does variable frame rates, and it even has a headphone jack, and two tripod screwholes so it'll actually stay straight on a quick-release plate, on and on and on and on...

But my point is that I am very much hoping that AF100 will become a festival staple and not be a red headed step child as DSLR's are at the highest level
I have no doubt that it will be exactly such. It really depends on how someone wants to work. For those to whom filmmaking is wandering around downtown and catching random people in random poses, then the DSLR will likely be king - and there's not a thing in the world wrong with that. But for those who are doing conventional narrative cinema-style shooting and have a little bit of budget and a paid (even $100/day) crew and insurance, I expect the AF100 to dominate that group.

mcgeedigital
10-26-2010, 01:56 PM
Spot on Barry, as usual.

Homunculus
10-26-2010, 02:06 PM
jeez he's a sticky generating machine. I must agree that is very accurate on all points. Yes it's the hassle of having to do all these ridiculous work arounds on DSLR that should be a given with a real camera made for CINEMA not stills.

I'm wanting to take my productions up to the next level and can no longer settle for no hdmi out, abysmal noise levels, inability to pull focus because of either poor LCD resolution or no hdmi out, and other things of that nature.
I don't even care about moire, aliasing as GH1 never had too much of a problem with that to be honest. I care about in order:

1. good dynamic range. to me this is the single biggest difference between film/red/alexa and low level digital/dslr

2. proper skin tones not compressed mush that turns everyone's face into nasty purple blobs.

3. low level noise levels

TheDingo
10-26-2010, 02:47 PM
Yes these people will never garner festival honors. Honestly I have never even heard of a DSLR short being accepted into a top festival like sundance/tribeca/cannes, has anyone else? most top shorts are still shot on film or high end digital like Red, which generally means they are also shot with a competent crew and thousands of dollars of professional lighting and the professionals required to utilize that lighting to its highest advantage (DP, electricians, gaffers, grips...etc)

...And then there is the documentary "Iraq in Fragments" which was shot with two DVX-100 SD cameras that won "Best Director, Best Cinematography & Best Editing" at the 2006 Sundance Festival.

Iraq in Fragments (http://www.iraqinfragments.com/)

People have to stop being so equipment focused and realize that Talent is NOT optional if you want to do something significant.

Homunculus
10-26-2010, 02:49 PM
...And then there is the documentary "Iraq in Fragments" which was shot with two DVX-100 SD cameras that won "Best Director, Best Cinematography & Best Editing" at the 2006 Sundance Festival.

Iraq in Fragments (http://www.iraqinfragments.com/)

People have to stop being so equipment focused and realize that Talent is NOT optional if you want to do something significant.

yes and 2006 is well before the dslr revolution just like i already mentioned. as I also mentioned that window breaker was shot in DVX100 and got huge sundance recognition around that same time.
DVX is a proper video camera, DSLR's are not and have to have huge work arounds to the many problems they present. This is one of the reasons as Barry already pointed out that top talent who get recognized at festivals rarely ever use DSLR's

TheDingo
10-26-2010, 03:00 PM
This is one of the reasons as Barry already pointed out that top talent who get recognized at festivals rarely ever use DSLR's

You are missing the point. The equipment really doesn't matter as long as you master what ever you choose to use.

Annie Leibovitz could shoot the cover shot of any top magazine with a $3 plastic Diana camera and the shot would be great. Not because of the camera, but because of the talent using the camera.

I see no reason why an award winning film couldn't be shot with a DSLR camera, but given the choice I think most of us would rather work with a camera made for professional video work right from the start.

Barry_Green
10-26-2010, 04:29 PM
I see no reason why an award winning film couldn't be shot with a DSLR camera, but given the choice I think most of us would rather work with a camera made for professional video work right from the start.
You're agreeing with him though. That's what he's saying. It's not that you can't do great work with a DSLR, it's that most of us would rather work with a tool that's designed for the purpose, rather than jump through hoops.

Like I pointed out, we did a couple of films that have done very well on the festival circuit, on a DSLR. But I wouldn't do it again if I had any other choice.

ZazaCast
10-26-2010, 05:00 PM
Annie Leibovitz could shoot the cover shot of any top magazine with a $3 plastic Diana camera and the shot would be great.

Short RANT:
If I hear this again, I swear....

It's just NOT true. Granted Annie is talented, but so are thousands of photographers out there....and like ALL others, she depends on extensive retouching of all her picts.
Being in the right place at the right time helps a career too. ;-)

If she could do as well with a $3.00 camera, why wouldn't she? Then she'd make thousands more per photo!

Ten to one if you had access to her studio, talent, staff and workflow, chances are YOU could shoot the cover of any top magazine too.

RANT end....

Thanks! I needed that. :cheesy:

Now move along.... there's nothing to see here people.....

TheDingo
10-26-2010, 08:51 PM
It's just NOT true. Granted Annie is talented, but so are thousands of photographers out there...

I'm not saying that Annie is the only one ( I chose her because she's a well recognized name ), just that if you have someone with talent of her caliber ( and yes there are hundreds, maybe thousands ) the equipment almost does not matter.

Good gear makes life easier, but it's nothing without the raw talent to use it well.

Rick Burnett
10-26-2010, 09:56 PM
Barry, thanks for the information about the ISO settings. As long as you mentioned it to them that it is desired to be able to dial in ISO values, hopefully it makes it as a firmware upgrade or something in the future. I understand what you are saying about how it works, just wanted to clarify, was just hoping I could use ALL the ISO settings easily instead of having to pick 3 of them and only switch between those three while shooting. Like I said, I use more than 3 with my 7D at the moment, and love that freedom as I tune the ISO all the time during shooting. I tend to leave the shutter speed constant (as close to 180 deg equivalent as possible) and just adjust ISO and F-stop. Hopefully it will come.

The other question I was trying to ask which I believe you answered was how easy it was to adjust the F-stop and the shutter speed. I figured they must be easy to change on the fly, I had just wanted to verify. Honestly, FPS I'd rather have not as accessible (like, 2 or more steps away) to replace for ISO control, but then again, maybe the way the AF100 is setup is for those coming from other Panasonic professional cameras and what people expect control and where.

Julienmassie
10-26-2010, 10:51 PM
I dont know, i dont think the iso setting for the low-medium-high will be so deep that it will be a mess to change it on the fly. Yes it will be longer and not as fast as the 5d but ... I worried more about if i will have to spend 3k on a good external recorder right now ...

Mark Smith
10-28-2010, 04:28 AM
HAve you ever been to a Leibowitz shoot? The camera is the smallest part of the process, almost an after thought.

heavyG
10-28-2010, 04:41 AM
Barry, thanks for the information about the ISO settings. As long as you mentioned it to them that it is desired to be able to dial in ISO values, hopefully it makes it as a firmware upgrade or something in the future. I understand what you are saying about how it works, just wanted to clarify, was just hoping I could use ALL the ISO settings easily instead of having to pick 3 of them and only switch between those three while shooting. Like I said, I use more than 3 with my 7D at the moment, and love that freedom as I tune the ISO all the time during shooting. I tend to leave the shutter speed constant (as close to 180 deg equivalent as possible) and just adjust ISO and F-stop. Hopefully it will come.

The other question I was trying to ask which I believe you answered was how easy it was to adjust the F-stop and the shutter speed. I figured they must be easy to change on the fly, I had just wanted to verify. Honestly, FPS I'd rather have not as accessible (like, 2 or more steps away) to replace for ISO control, but then again, maybe the way the AF100 is setup is for those coming from other Panasonic professional cameras and what people expect control and where.

The ISO 'Mindlink' will be present in the first revision of this camera - it "will be able to automatically adjust ISO settings, white balance, focus, & zoom; based on the mind will of the operator."

pietro jona
10-28-2010, 05:28 AM
Restrepo has been shot with Canon DSLRs and won Sundance (ans the stills won the World Press Photo). Not a short but a feature documentary movie.

http://restrepothemovie.com/

Homunculus
10-28-2010, 06:27 AM
HAve you ever been to a Leibowitz shoot? .
have you? i haven't

Homunculus
10-28-2010, 06:31 AM
Restrepo has been shot with Canon DSLRs and won Sundance (ans the stills won the World Press Photo). Not a short but a feature documentary movie.

http://restrepothemovie.com/

sorry a cursory search seems to find that Restrepo was shot with HDV tape and/or canon xha camcorder. perhaps a few shots were done with DSLR's but I doubt a large part of it. try again

pietro jona
10-28-2010, 06:52 AM
Won't try again since you are right. My mistake I was thinking about Battle For Hearts And Minds, http://battleforheartsandminds.com/about

pietro

Homunculus
10-28-2010, 08:04 AM
thanks

f64manray
10-28-2010, 09:56 AM
“Tiny Furniture” won the juried narrative film prize (essentially the best feature film) at the South by South West Music and Media Conference. It was shot on 7D. I thought someone would have mentioned that by now.

Homunculus
10-28-2010, 10:16 AM
“Tiny Furniture” won the juried narrative film prize (essentially the best feature film) at the South by South West Music and Media Conference. It was shot on 7D. I thought someone would have mentioned that by now.

the film looks great (visually) and was obviously done by top notch crew. if it was shot on 7d that's very cool but it's still a very rare exception though SXSW is also the fest where Depth of Phil (GH1) premiered (maybe this fest likes DSLR's more than others? lol)

agcohn
10-28-2010, 10:37 AM
the film looks great (visually) and was obviously done by top notch crew. if it was shot on 7d that's very cool but it's still a very rare exception though SXSW is also the fest where Depth of Phil (GH1) premiered (maybe this fest likes DSLR's more than others? lol)
Festivals do not care about what camera you use, only whether the film is good or has big actors who will bring more press to the festival.

If you shoot a great film on a DSLR, it will get into big festivals. If the film doesn't get into the big festivals, it isn't because you shot on a DSLR, it's because the film wasn't good enough.

Homunculus
10-28-2010, 11:03 AM
Festivals do not care about what camera you use, only whether the film is good or has big actors who will bring more press to the festival.

If you shoot a great film on a DSLR, it will get into big festivals. If the film doesn't get into the big festivals, it isn't because you shot on a DSLR, it's because the film wasn't good enough.
i know i already said as much several times in my previous posts. i was just joking when i said if sxsw likes DSLR's. the festival programmers don't even KNOW what camera a film is shot on let alone care.

Fotojorno
10-28-2010, 11:07 AM
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/style_dvxuser_vb4/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Mark Smith http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/style_dvxuser_vb4/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=2143212#post2143212)
HAve you ever been to a Leibowitz shoot? ."


have you? i haven't
My best friend worked for her full time for 3 years before the digital age. The single most important item on her sets is lighting equipment. She used Mamiya RZ's, Hasselblad's, Leica's, etc., what ever worked for the setting. Film was the constant and lighting made the shot. So many of her images look naturally lit but that's what made her great.

Homunculus
10-28-2010, 11:35 AM
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/style_dvxuser_vb4/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Mark Smith http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/style_dvxuser_vb4/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=2143212#post2143212)
HAve you ever been to a Leibowitz shoot? ."


My best friend worked for her full time for 3 years before the digital age. The single most important item on her sets is lighting equipment. She used Mamiya RZ's, Hasselblad's, Leica's, etc., what ever worked for the setting. Film was the constant and lighting made the shot. So many of her images look naturally lit but that's what made her great.

cool. what cameras does she use now? What cams do top photogs like her use canon5dmkii or is that considered low end? Do they all use hasselblads at that high end level?

_JD_
10-28-2010, 11:40 AM
Not to be morbid, but I read a while back that she was careless with her money and is now in serious financial trouble.

Barry_Green
10-28-2010, 11:51 AM
I dont know, i dont think the iso setting for the low-medium-high will be so deep that it will be a mess to change it on the fly.
Well, let's compare...

On the GH1, to change the ISO it's a minimum of three button presses: two button presses (ISO menu, and OK) plus however many button presses it takes to get to the ISO you want.

On the AF100, if you've pre-loaded your switch with 800 and 320, then it's one switch move, so much faster. If you haven't pre-loaded the switch with what you want, then it's a maximum of four presses (three to get to the menu, plus "ok"), plus however many to get to the ISO you want.

And, if you've most recently adjusted your ISO in the menus, then you can shave one button press off for the next time you go into the menu.

So as compared to the GH1, it's at worst two more presses, normally only one more press, and in many circumstances actually fewer presses because you do have the three-position switch that lets you change instantly.

While it may not work exactly like a Canon DSLR, it ain't no big thang either.

agcohn
10-28-2010, 11:57 AM
i know i already said as much several times in my previous posts. i was just joking when i said if sxsw likes DSLR's. the festival programmers don't even KNOW what camera a film is shot on let alone care.
Another thing to consider is that the 7D wasn't even released until the end of September 2009 and the 5D didn't receive 24p until March 2010.

Considering that Sundance submissions are due in September, it would have been impossible for anybody to have shot and submitted a short or feature film to Sundance 2010 with the 7D. And any 5D shooters would have been shooting at 30p, which would exclude practically all filmmakers (who require 24p or 25p).

Maybe we'll see if Sundance 2011 has any films shot on DSLR.

Rick Burnett
10-28-2010, 12:01 PM
Well, let's compare...

On the GH1, to change the ISO it's a minimum of three button presses: two button presses (ISO menu, and OK) plus however many button presses it takes to get to the ISO you want.

On the AF100, if you've pre-loaded your switch with 800 and 320, then it's one switch move, so much faster. If you haven't pre-loaded the switch with what you want, then it's a maximum of four presses (three to get to the menu, plus "ok"), plus however many to get to the ISO you want.

And, if you've most recently adjusted your ISO in the menus, then you can shave one button press off for the next time you go into the menu.

So as compared to the GH1, it's at worst two more presses, normally only one more press, and in many circumstances actually fewer presses because you do have the three-position switch that lets you change instantly.

While it may not work exactly like a Canon DSLR, it ain't no big thang either.

On the Canon it is one press, then rotate the dial. Pretty simple. That said, I'll just have to wait and see and adapt to whatever they give me, obviously :)

Steve Kahn
10-28-2010, 12:09 PM
While it may not work exactly like a Canon DSLR, it ain't no big thang either.
For some reason I get the inkling that you may be slightly jazzed about this camera, Barry.

You've been working with it so tell us: is this the most excited you've been upon the release of a new one? Looking back are you more excited than you were with the DVX? (how funny that 24p made us so giddy) To be honest, I think I am and I haven't even used it yet. I am just amazed after waiting so long it is finally coming.

Barry_Green
10-28-2010, 12:41 PM
I think in order, I was optimistic about the DVX, but not hyped. Because back then I was still drinking the "Sony: The One And Only" kool-aid. Panasonic would have to move heaven and earth to convert people from the ubiquitous VX2000/PD150. So while I was optimistic, I was still firmly living in the Missouri mindset - "Show Me." It came out in October 2002, but I didn't actually get one until March 2003. And yeah, the rest is history on that. They did indeed move heaven and earth, and turned the whole perception of Sony vs. Panasonic and stood it on its head. The DVX was that good. And, funnily enough, it's had its 8th anniversary of being on the market. What other video camera remains a current model after eight years?!

I think I was more amped about the HVX200. That was the exciting one. That was the revolution. Tapeless, 1080/24p, and variable frame rates, and 4:2:2... it just hit on all cylinders. And recently I found out that the HVX has sold twice as many as the DVX ever did, even though it's been on the market just five years instead of eight.

Then I was hyped out of my mind on the Red One. That was gonna be the mother of 'em all, that was going to be the greatest ever. But after getting it I quickly got disillusioned. It was disappointing on many levels that after all the hype, what I got was a marginally functional prototype that wasn't more than about 1/10th as functional as the AF100 prototype I've been using now, it was a real 160 ISO, it was noisy, the audio didn't even work yet and when it did work it was terrible quality and resulted in a recall of all existing Red Ones to replace the audio boards... And the attitude towards Windows users, and towards customers in general, had me moving that thing on ebay after only two months. Over the last two years it has matured nicely, but you only get one chance to make a first impression.

So now to the AF100 - do I think it's going to be bigger than the HVX? Yep. It hits on all cylinders and it answers the last remaining question, the cinematic DOF control. It really is the camera that fulfills on the promise that the original DVX made - "make a living, flip a switch, make a movie." In fact, I've already committed to JDS a (for me, fairly) HUGE amount of dough to back a real feature film, and it'll be shot on the AF100 in the first part of next year. I am totally prepared to put my money where my mouth is. It's go time, baby.

Homunculus
10-28-2010, 12:59 PM
Another thing to consider is that the 7D wasn't even released until the end of September 2009 and the 5D didn't receive 24p until March 2010.

Considering that Sundance submissions are due in September, it would have been impossible for anybody to have shot and submitted a short or feature film to Sundance 2010 with the 7D. And any 5D shooters would have been shooting at 30p, which would exclude practically all filmmakers (who require 24p or 25p).

Maybe we'll see if Sundance 2011 has any films shot on DSLR.

i must admit this is a very good point. i guess we will have to see the future to know. but i am interested to know myself. and can only HOPE what you say becomes true

Homunculus
10-28-2010, 01:04 PM
Barry not to be a debbie downer, I agree af100 will be huge but honestly it may be taking 2 steps forward but at least one step back as well. You said HVX200 was evolutionary and important and had everything DVX had but even more. Well AF100 has everything HVX200 does but ...oh wait no it doesn't, it doesn't even have 4:2:2. So AF100 sort of improves upon some things on a 5 year old cam, but also goes backwards for some strange reason in my opinion! This somewhat diminishes the momentous nature of its arrival but obviously no where near even comes close to making it irrelevant or anything like that. It will still be a milestone and Panasonic still must be lauded for being the FIRST ona consistent basis to bring to market what the customers want, but I'm just saying ...it's not exactly completely ahead of the HVX200 in every way as HVX was over DVX

Barry_Green
10-28-2010, 01:26 PM
Well, there's always things to argue about. If you want to argue that everything was a step forward, it wasn't. The HVX was 320 ISO, the DVX was 640. So among all the improvements, you had to deal with that. Plus the HVX was substantially bulkier and heavier. And the HVX's 480/60i had a lot of downconversion aliasing artifacts in it that the DVX didn't have. The 480/24p and 480/30p were magnificent, but the 60i conversion was kind of pooched. Even so, collectively, the HVX was a massive step forward.

So if the only thing we're missing is the change in the codec, I'm not stressed by that. Because in terms of sharpness and color resolution, the AF100 is doing just fine thankyewverymuch, and if you need that much more, it does provide the SDI output. HVX200s, when first released, were $5995 for at least the first three months. An AF100 with that Ninja thing will cost less, and I think the concerns about the codec are vastly overblown anyway. We've got folks comparing AVCI to AVCHD and saying that on the monitor, in motion, they can't even tell which is which. It's pretty good. It isn't AVCI, but it's good enough that most folks are never going to bother getting an external recorder.

Is 4:2:2 better? Of course it is. And I wish it had it. But it's 4:2:0 progressive, and that overcomes about 90% of the problems with 4:2:0 interlaced. And if you need more, it's easily accessible.

robertrogoz
10-28-2010, 01:43 PM
Codec, ale the other discussions aside I think 2 things Pansonic could have done better. Just looking at the ergonomics- looks like a very light camera, but the position of VF is awkward. That is also my biggest beef with EX1. I know there are workarounds, but why not make it shoulder mount from the start?
Second thing is the lens issue, which imo there should be a stock lens designed for this camera. And existing F4 kind of kills it as far as shallow DOF usability. F4 is most likely not really a "sweet spot", like shooting F1.8 with EX1 is not ideal for that camera.

Jaime Valles
10-28-2010, 01:46 PM
Is 4:2:2 better? Of course it is. And I wish it had it. But it's 4:2:0 progressive, and that overcomes about 90% of the problems with 4:2:0 interlaced. And if you need more, it's easily accessible.
I don't understand why people are complaining about the lack of 4:2:2 on the camera. I'm GLAD they made it AVCHD. It made the camera cheaper. And if I want 4:2:2, then I just hook up the Atomos Ninja for $1000 and I'm set.

"But the HDMI and HD-SDI output is only 8bit blah blah..."

The HVX200 records 4:2:2 in 8bit DVCPro. Nobody's complaining about the 4:2:2 on the HVX, are they? The AF100 + Ninja costs the same as the HVX did at time of launch ($5999) and it has 35mm depth of field! WHY ARE PEOPLE COMPLAINING?!?!?!

Barry_Green
10-28-2010, 01:48 PM
but why not make it shoulder mount from the start?
Shoulder mount would be a different camera. Maybe there'll be an AF370 some day, like the HPX370. If so, I would expect the VF front-mounted on something like that. But that's not this camera, this is a handheld model.

As for lens, there's not a whole lot that can be said more about that. You can buy the Olympus lenses if you want f/2.0, but they're $1800 apiece or whatever. There is no stock lens so the user can make their own choice on that. It is what it is.

Steve Kahn
10-28-2010, 01:50 PM
Codec, ale the other discussions aside I think 2 things Pansonic could have done better. Just looking at the ergonomics- looks like a very light camera, but the position of VF is awkward. That is also my biggest beef with EX1. I know there are workarounds, but why not make it shoulder mount from the start?
Because people would then complain: "why such a big camera!"


Second thing is the lens issue, which imo there should be a stock lens designed for this camera. And existing F4 kind of kills it as far as shallow DOF usability. F4 is most likely not really a "sweet spot", like shooting F1.8 with EX1 is not ideal for that camera.
Disagree here too. When I was thinking of buying the GH1 I looked around everywhere to get one WITHOUT the 14-140. Impossible to find. There was no way I wanted that lens.

I agree on the EVF issue but hey, you can't have everything. I agree with the codec issue. I kind of with Panasonic would get out of the codec business. I wish they let us have an api where we could specify our own codec. If that were the case I'd capter at 240Mb/s 4:2:2 instead of 24. But that's just me.

But, for the most part, especially after seeing images for the price, how does one complain???

Rick Burnett
10-28-2010, 02:02 PM
No shoulder mount for me thank you :) I like the camera small. I could do without the EVF honestly. The one from Red Rock looks awesome and would have rather added something like that where I can put it anywhere. But, that's not changing so I'll just deal with it :)

f64manray
10-28-2010, 05:12 PM
cool. what cameras does she use now? What cams do top photogs like her use canon5dmkii or is that considered low end? Do they all use hasselblads at that high end level?

Not low end at all. Greg Gorman turns down $20K weekend assignments just becuase he wants his Saturdays off. Big time? I think so. He shoots with a 5DII and 70-200 2.8L II for his portraits. Actually the last video I saw of him shooting was with the 5D and original 70-200 2.8L. I'm sure he's upgraded by now ;-) .

When I was shooting in LA, there were some pros even using Rebels. Really, at this stage of the game, I consider pretty much all sensors equal. I shoot with a 5DII & 70-200 2.8L II & 85 1.8 for most portrait work.

Michael Olsen
10-28-2010, 05:33 PM
Lighting > Camera

That 3G iPhone studio photography article (http://fstoppers.com/iphone/) makes it pretty plain.

Petros Kolyvas
10-28-2010, 06:07 PM
Lighting > Camera

That 3G iPhone studio photography article (http://fstoppers.com/iphone/) makes it pretty plain.

Not to nitpick, but a little bit of talent and hard work should go in there too no? ;)

Michael Olsen
10-28-2010, 08:46 PM
That's the whole idea. Being able to block and light something properly makes all the difference. If you have the skill and access to proper lighting, the camera itself isn't as important. That is most definitely a skill to cultivate.

illustcat
10-28-2010, 08:59 PM
Yeah sure, you can take great pictures/film with cheap equipment. All you need is expensive lighting equipment, professional models and of course access to a retouching studio....hey you can do this too!

I'm obviously joking but that video was hilarious. I was buying it until they said they sent out the picts to be retouched...lmao these days you can take a blank wall and built a whole scene with photoshop.

That wasn't a great example of using skill and technique over expensive equipment and resources.

Michael Olsen
10-28-2010, 09:15 PM
That wasn't a great example of using skill and technique over expensive equipment and resources.

Of course you can't take fantastic pictures for free. This is the reason professional photographers exist in the first place...

But it perfectly fits my argument - if you are a successful professional photographer you will have access to proper lighting, models, makeup, and post. This gives you creative choice in the use of your camera. And you could take that image using anything from a 617 land camera to a Diana, to a coolpix or a webcam and, chances are, it will look great.

Multi-Media
10-29-2010, 02:57 AM
Shoulder mount would be a different camera. Maybe there'll be an AF370 some day, like the HPX370. If so, I would expect the VF front-mounted on something like that. But that's not this camera, this is a handheld model.

Coming from the DVX, I don't want a shoulder mount "newsguy" cam. I shoot mostly on sticks or fly on the Steadycam & some handheld with OIS. For sticks, I'm glad to have the viewfinder... it means I can use the diopter to correct for the glasses that I started needing in my mid 40s. It's also good for bright outside conditions. I have no complaints about the lack of weight. The Cobra crain is made for a camera under 6lbs and the Steadycam JR just holds the DVX. I figure it'll still work with the AVX (our new nomenclature) I can use the pancake lens and the smaller battery that comes with it to reduce weight further after I remove the handle and grip.
I have no complaints... since I didn't go for the HVX because of low light sensitivity or lack thereof... I'll be going straight from the DVX to the AFX and know that I'll be able to make it work for me. I can't wait!

Mark Smith
10-29-2010, 04:50 AM
cool. what cameras does she use now? What cams do top photogs like her use canon5dmkii or is that considered low end? Do they all use hasselblads at that high end level?


Most of Liebowitz's work as I saw it was getting the set right,getting the people in the photo right , and pulling the trigger at the right moment. Think Vanity Fair covers with 15 Music Luminaries all crammed into a little recording studio looking like they all hanging out together. When the scene in front of the camera was completely crafted: art direction, wardrobe, people, lighting , postures, then she would start shooting

Chris Messineo
10-29-2010, 08:44 AM
In fact, I've already committed to JDS a (for me, fairly) HUGE amount of dough to back a real feature film, and it'll be shot on the AF100 in the first part of next year. I am totally prepared to put my money where my mouth is. It's go time, baby.

I'm so excited for you both about this. I know it's going to be amazing!

Homunculus
10-29-2010, 11:58 AM
In fact, I've already committed to JDS a (for me, fairly) HUGE amount of dough to back a real feature film, and it'll be shot on the AF100 in the first part of next year. I am totally prepared to put my money where my mouth is. It's go time, baby.
wow. i must say that IS putting your money where your mouth is. you guys have been at all top film festivals tribeca, sxsw, sundance (?) and can probably shoot on anything you want so to choose af100 over the likes of Red is pretty big. where are ya'll shooting this? Texas?

Barry_Green
10-29-2010, 12:59 PM
wow. i must say that IS putting your money where your mouth is. you guys have been at all top film festivals tribeca, sxsw, sundance (?) and can probably shoot on anything you want so to choose af100 over the likes of Red is pretty big. where are ya'll shooting this? Texas?
Where the incentives and geography are most appropriate. Interiors may be in Michigan, exteriors in NM or Oklahoma.

Jack Daniel Stanley
11-05-2010, 01:19 PM
image quality / major festival debate ender: Duplass bros.
Known as great filmmakers but not great DP's. And definitely not known for production value. Anti-production value if anything.
I'm not even going to tell you what these were shot on. For the most part it wouldn't matter. They're fare from stunning looking.

THIS IS JOHN -- short, SUNDANCE '03
Duplass bros short shot for $3 in their kitchen
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/this_is_john/
(full short)

SCRAPPLE -- short, SUNDANCE '04
Duplass brothers short, this time graduating to the dining room.
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/scrapple/
(full short)
Story goes Duplass bros got a call from Sundance:
"Hey are you guy sending us anything this year, we love your stuff."
"Yeah we're editing it now" (gets off phone) "Quick we have to shoot something,"

INTERVENTION -- short, BERLIN 05 -- WINS SILVER BEAR AWARD!
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/intervention/
(full short)
This time in ... the living room!

THE PUFFY CHAIR -- feature, SUNDANCE '08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cmTNBH42k
(trailer)

BAGHEAD -- feature, SUNDANCE '09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWrZWJ5v2cU&feature=related
(trailer)

CYRUS -- first Studio feature, SUNDANCE 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G0bYpMQ-fI
(trailer)

Osslund
11-05-2010, 03:53 PM
I think every new camera that seams fresh and can be used to achieve filmic look Will trigger many DPs to try it out. Thats why AF101 is this winters hottest camera. And it Will be preferd over technical better camera.

pix2pixels
11-05-2010, 04:17 PM
On the Canon it is one press, then rotate the dial. Pretty simple. That said, I'll just have to wait and see and adapt to whatever they give me, obviously :)

When shooting film it is pretty hard, much harder. One has to load a different magazine, swap the other one, set the light meter and spot meter....
And nobody blames Arri, Panavision, Aaton for not implementing voice activation for ISO changes.
;)
Sometimes making some settings more difficult to change is a blessing. Nobody wants to to see after the scene was wrapped, that the ISO was 1200 instead of 320, the shutter speed 1/180 instead of 1/50, or audio settings way above or under, just because a little button or dial was touched by the operator or some assistant.
Even on video cameras, once the some settings were agreed on, the buttons are covered with camera tape and marked very visibly.

Simon Hfer
11-05-2010, 04:44 PM
image quality / major festival debate ender: Duplass bros.
Known as great filmmakers but not great DP's. And definitely not known for production value. Anti-production value if anything.
I'm not even going to tell you what these were shot on. For the most part it wouldn't matter. They're fare from stunning looking.

THIS IS JOHN -- short, SUNDANCE '03
Duplass bros short shot for $3 in their kitchen
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/this_is_john/
(full short)

SCRAPPLE -- short, SUNDANCE '04
Duplass brothers short, this time graduating to the dining room.
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/scrapple/
(full short)
Story goes Duplass bros got a call from Sundance:
"Hey are you guy sending us anything this year, we love your stuff."
"Yeah we're editing it now" (gets off phone) "Quick we have to shoot something,"

INTERVENTION -- short, BERLIN 05 -- WINS SILVER BEAR AWARD!
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/intervention/
(full short)
This time in ... the living room!

THE PUFFY CHAIR -- feature, SUNDANCE '08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cmTNBH42k
(trailer)

BAGHEAD -- feature, SUNDANCE '09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWrZWJ5v2cU&feature=related
(trailer)

CYRUS -- first Studio feature, SUNDANCE 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G0bYpMQ-fI
(trailer)

O_o

Postmaster
11-05-2010, 04:54 PM
image quality / major festival debate ender: Duplass bros.
Known as great filmmakers but not great DP's. And definitely not known for production value. Anti-production value if anything.
I'm not even going to tell you what these were shot on. For the most part it wouldn't matter.


Maybe Im a bit old fashioned and Im sorry to say that, but in my book those flicks are some of the worst BS I ever seen on video.
And this is what they show on Sundance and gets Silver Bears?

Bleeding Christ, if those flicks where mine, I would not dare to even think about submitting them to a local village festival.

Production value, shooting style, lighting and all technical issues aside, I think they are totally flat, uninspired, unenlightened, boring and dull.
No substantial story or dialogue, mediocre acting nothing that gets me involved or care. They ignore everything I know about filmmaking, directing, and writing, but they get screened at respected festivals. Im totally stunned - I just dont get it.

Be honest guys, am I a total off the track retard, that does know nothing about filmmaking or is there something wrong?

Frank

Barry_Green
11-05-2010, 04:55 PM
When shooting film it is pretty hard, much harder. One has to load a different magazine, swap the other one, set the light meter and spot meter....

Hah! Totally! Sometimes we forget how good we have it now.

(and I'm ordering some film for my next shoot nearly as we speak... it's so primitive, but yet so compelling...)

Barry_Green
11-05-2010, 05:22 PM
Oh, and back on the subject -- Phililp's review of the AF100. I just went over there to check out the comments, and saw where people were asking him "hey, didn't you shoot on the NanoFlash and simultaneously on AVCHD? When are you going to post the stills of that?"

And Philip's response was "I'm not going to. I looked at them and they're identical. I can't tell the difference."

Rick Burnett
11-05-2010, 05:45 PM
When shooting film it is pretty hard, much harder. One has to load a different magazine, swap the other one, set the light meter and spot meter....
And nobody blames Arri, Panavision, Aaton for not implementing voice activation for ISO changes.
;)
Sometimes making some settings more difficult to change is a blessing. Nobody wants to to see after the scene was wrapped, that the ISO was 1200 instead of 320, the shutter speed 1/180 instead of 1/50, or audio settings way above or under, just because a little button or dial was touched by the operator or some assistant.
Even on video cameras, once the some settings were agreed on, the buttons are covered with camera tape and marked very visibly.

I know you have a smiley there but come on, that's the worst comparison I've seen given. New technology shouldn't be hindered by antiquated limitations. No one says, well I don't let you seek into your mp3 anywhere you want because tapes had to be rewinded or fast forwarded to get to that location.

I don't need to put tape over my controls because I actually look at what I am shooting. If my shutter speed is too fast I see strobbing, if my iso is wrong I'm under or over exposed. My f-stop used to control my dof mostly. I'm very dynamic in my settings because every scene can be so different. I check and set them all very often and I've very rarely been on the wrong setting.

Given that the AF100 uses analog gain with digital in their ISO settings, I'd like to dial in exactly what I need to minimize noise. Especially in outdoor settings where clouds are constantly changing my light levels.

Sure, I can change shutter speed, but I prefer differing noise to differing motion blur.

Like I said, I just have to live with it, but clearly for me this is an aspect where my 7D has a better implemention to me. And I still know I am going to be estatic with my AF100. :)

SantaCruzMichael
11-05-2010, 05:57 PM
My personal favorite among "limitations that are a blessing in disguise":

Shooting on 8 or 16 gig P2 cards and having limited run time. It gave shooting on video an urgency and attention to detail that's old hat for DOPs coming from film.

For me, it made me shoot less, and shoot better. Instead of trying to get a little of everything, I learned to spend more time thinking about what shot was really important and how to do it right.

It can also be a motivator for on-screen talent. If I say, "ok, I've got a a minute of run time before we have to dump this card" the host of a show I work on often nails it the first or second time.

Then in the editing room, it is immensely more satisfying to have a few good takes than to sift through 64 gigs of footage that is merely passable.

Barry_Green
11-05-2010, 06:46 PM
Agreed on all counts!

f64manray
11-05-2010, 06:53 PM
My personal favorite among "limitations that are a blessing in disguise":

Shooting on 8 or 16 gig P2 cards and having limited run time. It gave shooting on video an urgency and attention to detail that's old hat for DOPs coming from film.

For me, it made me shoot less, and shoot better. Instead of trying to get a little of everything, I learned to spend more time thinking about what shot was really important and how to do it right.

It can also be a motivator for on-screen talent. If I say, "ok, I've got a a minute of run time before we have to dump this card" the host of a show I work on often nails it the first or second time.

Then in the editing room, it is immensely more satisfying to have a few good takes than to sift through 64 gigs of footage that is merely passable.

This is so true. There's alot to be said for limits. I think it creates a certain energy/anxiety in a photo shoot where people start to sweat in a good way to really try to nail it (I imagine it's the same for filming a scene as well). Certainly different when I'm working with two rolls of film as opposed to an 8gig card with 1000 exposures on it.

f64manray
11-05-2010, 06:57 PM
Maybe Im a bit old fashioned and Im sorry to say that, but in my book those flicks are some of the worst BS I ever seen on video.
And this is what they show on Sundance and gets Silver Bears?

Bleeding Christ, if those flicks where mine, I would not dare to even think about submitting them to a local village festival.

Production value, shooting style, lighting and all technical issues aside, I think they are totally flat, uninspired, unenlightened, boring and dull.
No substantial story or dialogue, mediocre acting nothing that gets me involved or care. They ignore everything I know about filmmaking, directing, and writing, but they get screened at respected festivals. Im totally stunned - I just dont get it.

Be honest guys, am I a total off the track retard, that does know nothing about filmmaking or is there something wrong?

Frank

+1 Frank. I don't get it. I thought Sundance had these really high standards. Though within 7 years of their first short, they had a major studio film with John C. Riley that looks pretty good.

Cory Braun
11-05-2010, 07:18 PM
Bleeding Christ, if those flicks where mine, I would not dare to even think about submitting them to a local village festival.

Funny that you say that because they only submitted that first short to two festivals, one was local a festival, which it got rejected from, and the other was Sundance.

djkarn105
11-05-2010, 07:36 PM
They ignore everything I know about filmmaking, directing, and writing

I think that's kind of the point. They're doing something different. I think the attention paid them is more for their willingness to experiment with the form than the refinement of their screen plays.

bwhitz
11-05-2010, 09:25 PM
I'm on the same boat as well. That "mumblecore" crap pisses me right off. For some reason festivals and certain academies of people have a hard-on for these garbage movies... cough, The Hurt Locker, cough.

Is it because they are failed film-makers themselves and for some reason like to shun any film with decent production as some sort of deep-rooted spite for talent? Probably. Seems like anything that's decently produced these days get's tossed away as a "CGI crap fest" and "too corporate".


I think that's kind of the point. They're doing something different. I think the attention paid them is more for their willingness to experiment with the form than the refinement of their screen plays.

OMG. Please wake yourself up out this mind-state. They are not doing something different "in-spite" of the system... That's what they want you to think. The truth is that they were at that time, for whatever reason, not capable of producing what people would perceive as professional. They simply lacked the talent. Instead they relied on that hipster "it's cool to be in your mid-twenties and poor" bullshit. You know a real indie movie that did something different and still looked half-way decent with good acting? Resivor Dogs. Same with Pulp Fiction. Hell, even Clerks looked better in black and white, not to mention it actually had better acting and witty dialog.

You CANNOT be experimenting with the "form" for your first few films. That's such art-school BS. If they were putting out films with the production value of at least an Apatow film... and then came out with this absolutely no-value handy cam crap... then I could see it as experimenting with the "form". But not for your first film. That's called a f-ing cop-out.

Rolf Silber
11-06-2010, 01:21 AM
And this is what they show on Sundance and gets Silver Bears? .... Be honest guys, am I a total off the track retard, that does know nothing about filmmaking or is there something wrong?

Frank

No. But often decisions for festivals or film-prices are made by people who have some exquisite deficiencies - chose the one(s) that may apply:

Some have seen way too many films and are bored to death by any story so they go for non-story.

Some have seen too many well made films so they lust for down & out & dirty and forget to realize when they pass the point where the "anti-industry attitude" just becomes an excuse for lousy craft.

Some want to be cinematic iconoclasts but do not realize that the art form is called "the moving picture" (those are the ones I love the most.... ;-).

Some think they have to do something for a friend or the friend of a friend's friend.

And: Because they have a lot more free time than people who make films they can become important in the secondary or even tertiary field of film "making" - organising, writing, reflecting, criticising, sitting on boards and in committees and so on..... and so it's a bit like when eunuchs control a whore house: They live the antagonism of wanting to provide a service to the customer but also wanting the customers to not have the fun they themselves can't have..... ;-)

Yes, and some are indeed failed writers or directors or actors or DoPs.

Centro
11-06-2010, 06:22 AM
Like their style or or not (which I usually don't), "Puffy Chair" is a good movie.

Regarding nano flash/non nano flash... i don't know if to be happy or not that they looked identical : )

swanny
11-06-2010, 06:23 AM
Like their style or or not (which I usually don't), "Puffy Chair" is a good movie.

Regarding nano flash/non nano flash... i don't know if to be happy or not that they looked identical : )

Happy Centro! One less thing to have on the priority buy list.

Centro
11-06-2010, 07:32 AM
Happy Centro! One less thing to have on the priority buy list.

Yeah, you're probably right.

guess the difference between the Alfa footage (which i liked a lot) and Bloom's "south" (which i didn't like as much compared to his other stuff) had nothing to do with nanoflash! :)

mcgeedigital
11-06-2010, 07:36 AM
Oh, and back on the subject -- Phililp's review of the AF100. I just went over there to check out the comments, and saw where people were asking him "hey, didn't you shoot on the NanoFlash and simultaneously on AVCHD? When are you going to post the stills of that?"

And Philip's response was "I'm not going to. I looked at them and they're identical. I can't tell the difference."

The more I hear that, the more I am encouraged by Panasonic's implementation of the codec.

Bassman2003
11-06-2010, 08:38 AM
Upon first inspection, the Nano footage will not be that different than AVCHD or XDCAM 35mbps. This also depend upon if you are using a broadcast monitor or not. Where it shows up is when you push stuff around in post. If you are one to "get it right" in the field then AVCHD is pefectly fine, even with some simple color corrections. If you want to secondary color correct you will have more options with the 4:2:2 higher bitrate footage. Just more information to work with.

paulears
11-06-2010, 09:54 AM
Only a few years ago, we were editing by dubbing, and not that far beyond that we were glueing video tape together with mag fluid and razor blades. Image quality at best was subjectively vastly worse than what comes out of a $500 consumercam nowadays. Now the precision and repeatability of the technical equipment has improved out of all recognition. Panasonic have produced another useful tool, and the images that come out seem to be perceived as good. The quest for ultimate quality now has us almost deriding a product for a perceived quality difference that is tiny compared to anything we've had before in the quality level jumps each new product forces on us. Every new product now seems to have a battle with people with really polarised opinions. Proper camera shape v DSLR was a good one. Now we have bigger sensors so people are complaining about glass issues and ergonomics. Surely, we should just judge new products on what they are, rather than what they could be, or even worse criticising one product for being different. It does strike me that the new camera format will appeal to many, but not remotely all. Looking at the reviews just shows how they get biased by the reviewers opinion. I like Philip's attitude. Others seem to make statements that 'colour' the review. The small problems get ignored if the reviewer likes the product, or focussed upon if they hate it. People who review equipment of all sorts nowadays seem to be having real problems being objective. People are reading the differences in quality between nano and AVCHD and needing to see these differences - I really like the phrase "I can't see the difference". Is reading about the difference becoming too important?

Duke M.
11-06-2010, 10:14 AM
The difference between the AF100 codec (or the EX1 codec for that matter) and the Nanoflash are almost non-existant unless there are enough changes in the scene (usually through motion).

None of the images shown so far show any useful stress tests.

If the AF100 codec is as good or better than what Barry tested against the EX1 the AF100 should have a slight edge over the EX1, which has a very solid codec too.

For ordinary shooting the codec is not going to be an issue. However, the Nano will help both of them in those extreme situations, also back up recording, etc.

Ian-T
11-06-2010, 10:28 AM
Happy Centro! One less thing to have on the priority buy list.

I agree with that. Other than needing the HDMI out for critical green-screening the codec should be "good enough." But for most green screen work I would think one would still have no problems.

Homunculus
11-06-2010, 01:48 PM
I'm on the same boat as well. That "mumblecore" crap pisses me right off. For some reason festivals and certain academies of people have a hard-on for these garbage movies... cough, The Hurt Locker, cough.

Is it because they are failed film-makers themselves and for some reason like to shun any film with decent production as some sort of deep-rooted spite for talent? Probably. Seems like anything that's decently produced these days get's tossed away as a "CGI crap fest" and "too corporate".



OMG. Please wake yourself up out this mind-state. They are not doing something different "in-spite" of the system... That's what they want you to think. The truth is that they were at that time, for whatever reason, not capable of producing what people would perceive as professional. They simply lacked the talent. Instead they relied on that hipster "it's cool to be in your mid-twenties and poor" bullshit. You know a real indie movie that did something different and still looked half-way decent with good acting? Resivor Dogs. Same with Pulp Fiction. Hell, even Clerks looked better in black and white, not to mention it actually had better acting and witty dialog.

You CANNOT be experimenting with the "form" for your first few films. That's such art-school BS. If they were putting out films with the production value of at least an Apatow film... and then came out with this absolutely no-value handy cam crap... then I could see it as experimenting with the "form". But not for your first film. That's called a f-ing cop-out.

Thank you. My post of the month award goes to you.