PDA

View Full Version : AF100 - First Screenshots



KyleProhaska
03-24-2011, 07:31 PM
Just got my AF100 today. I took some shots outside but honestly that on-board codec got chewed up pretty good. I see where it can be of use, but I'm ordering a KiPro Mini ASAP. Luckily I was able to get an idea of what advantage the KiPro can give me since I hooked up my camera via HDMI to my Blackmagic Intensity Card to ingest into Final Cut Pro.

Loving the results...banding removed almost completely, and artifacting is a thing of the past. All these shot at ISO 200 with a 55m Micro Nikkor @ F2.8-4. I had a Lowel Softbox in the room, the shot of the light was with the lights off except that bulb to give it a situation where banding would definitely show up.

Added image from recent shooting outside. Did the best I could exposing her skin, but it didn't come out so great. Color corrected with grain added:
http://lifeofkyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/af100_deniseext1.jpg
http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/kyle1.jpg
http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/denise3.jpg

Shooter
03-24-2011, 08:18 PM
Very nice...but what did you mean by....?


but honestly that on-board codec got chewed up pretty good.

KyleProhaska
03-24-2011, 08:25 PM
I threw a few situations at the camera today while I still had daylight. I made sure I knew to check my waveform, made sure I had a good scene file setup, etc. and pointed the camera at a few things including a pond with some geese in it. The codec didn't handle it very well at all. Most of the footage was very milky and honestly if I hadn't shot the footage I would've guessed it was from a 7D or something similar. It handled it a bit worse though IMO with lots of wonderful blocks in the footage. Sometimes the onboard was fine, and other times it was unusable (or what I call unusable). I could use it if I absolutely had to, but I would never shoot anything of importance with it. Just my personal opinion having seen how it handles certain things. I would rather be safe and have the best quality I can for almost any situation. I'm not dealing with quick turn arounds or anything like some might.

Shooter
03-24-2011, 08:46 PM
Can you post screen grabs of anything unuseable?

I am really curious and alarmed about "very milky", "wonderful blocks", "unuseable" .

I have already shot a lot of material of "importance" successfully on the internal codec ... so I am keen to see what I may be missing here that you are seeing.

Also aware you have only had the camera 2 minutes but like to see where the "buzz" is with you.

KyleProhaska
03-24-2011, 08:55 PM
Here's the worst from today...the whole frame is broken into pieces. Granted this IMO is a worst case scenario for the camera and any DSLR would've moired like crazy. Either way even my old HDV camera would've handled this much better than this shot shows. Static shots in decent light seem fine to me, which is expected but it seems like anything mildly complicated gives it more problems. The onboard codec makes the camera look very much like my 5D, with the way the codec compresses. The "milky" thing I referred to is just how it seems to handle and group things together as it compresses. I hear people all the time talk about how the 5D handles skin a lot of the time. It takes on a weird plastic appearance and the compression for the AF100 onboard looks to do the same. I won't post a picture of my wife because she doesn't want me to, but that had that problem in it. In motion the shot below is awful.
http://www.kyleprohaska.com/problem.jpg

Shooter
03-24-2011, 09:10 PM
The shots you posted in your original post look like great shots deserving of a production style camera.

Your problem shot looks like a "snap" shot to me. It is probably over exposed by 1 to 1.5 stops.

I can tell from the other shots you have a nice feel for photographic exposure.

but I think you need to do some more tests and learn a bit more about controlling the AF100 (native codec or external codec) .

We have seen many examples of straight out of the box "test shots" in this forum and an accompanying comment that this camera sucks or the codec sucks or it's noisy,
bandy etc.....

Good things take time.


I won't post a picture of my wife because she doesn't want me to, but that had that problem in it.

Hope you are not saying here that your wife is a problem!

KyleProhaska
03-24-2011, 09:47 PM
Yea, here's a test I just shot a second ago of my wife. It's about 12:40am here so I tried to get it looking like the living room does when it's daytime. There's normally a big sliding door to the left of her that blasts light in. Granted the window behind her should be more blown (if the sun was really out) but I don't think you can tell. Just a simple Lowel Softbox on the left of her with a little 150w kicker bouncing off our white ceiling for fill. All other lights off.

Onboard codec still reminds me of my 5D. The way the codec makes the image feel really is like the DSLRs. For a shot like this it's more manageable. I did take other shots today that were OK too in good light. It's not so bad, but I still wouldn't use it very much unless I was forced to. I'm not paying all this money to be stuck in 420 color space and such, no way. I'm hoping to use this on a feature and the onboard simply won't do IMO, no matter how well my lighting is. Just personal satisfaction I guess! Got permission to put this one up from her, haha.

Better quality: http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/denise_cu.jpg

http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/denise_cu2_sm.jpg

Shooter
03-24-2011, 10:00 PM
Post back once you get your external recorder and have tested that. Many will be keen on seeing the comparative

Hope it does it for you... but I am kind of thinking...you need an Alexa.

BTW: I am not disagreeing in principle. I also wish this camera was I- frame and 4:2:2

KyleProhaska
03-24-2011, 10:01 PM
LOL why do I need an Alexa? It's a little outside my price range... ;)

Shot from my feature and shot from the Crews.tv thing...very comparable with that old HDV cam.

http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/a1_af100.jpg

astigmatic
03-24-2011, 10:17 PM
when you did direct capture, did you see the blocky compression clear up? nice shots btw. Love the 35mm adapter look, as always.

KyleProhaska
03-24-2011, 10:20 PM
Absolutely...the footage was nice and smooth. I honestly can't wait to get the Ki Pro so I can take this thing all over the place with no fear of how the codec will handle things. One of the other benefits of the camera that was a reason for getting it is the size. For some reason this thing just feels like something I can pack up and take out really easy and shoot with. I think I'm going to end up shooting more stuff this Spring / Summer than I ever have before, sorta like how the DSLR's got some people out of their shell a little.

astigmatic
03-24-2011, 10:35 PM
very cool. I'm excited about the atomos now. thanks!

KyleProhaska
03-25-2011, 11:30 PM
Some more shots...the flower pot one testing a new preset to get me 80% of the way to where I like my contrast to be. I shot my whole feature like this last time on my A1 and most CC only required me to fix a white balance problem, or boost the mids a little using Curves. It made things much better and IMO the image much cleaner since I wasn't stretching the HDV on the camera too hard. Very pleased with how clean these shots are. B.Press is a great gamma. Barry's book really helped a lot here to get me familiar with what's affecting what.

http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/af100test.jpg
http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/af100test2.jpg

Shooter
03-26-2011, 12:44 AM
Lack of detail in the blacks would worry me a lot... if I had to take those shots into a CC & grade. (Over crushed black)

Image feelsa wrong also becaue the eye never would see shadows like that in that scene. Its obviously a white room.

Nice highlight (white) and mid levels though.

KyleProhaska
03-26-2011, 08:38 AM
I setup the scene file to crush them a little Shooter. Actually the Master Ped was only -1...the amount of crush you see really is a result of either B.Press as a whole, or the lighting. I didn't light the scene to look how my eye would see something, I just wanted a shot with varying degrees of light/shadow to test the preset. Everybody's a critic, LOL...

I spoke of in the Scene File thread that I might still use B.Press but raise the Master Ped to like +2 or +3 instead to bring out a bit more in the blacks.

SplitFieldDiopter
03-26-2011, 12:24 PM
Lack of detail in the blacks would worry me a lot... if I had to take those shots into a CC & grade. (Over crushed black)

Image feelsa wrong also becaue the eye never would see shadows like that in that scene. Its obviously a white room.

Nice highlight (white) and mid levels though.

My biggest problem with this camera is how hard it is to get blacks black.

So far I've gotten fairly mushy results, but that's due to my lighting most likely.

I understand preserving details in the shadows, YET, I don't get this predisposition against pure black in the frame.

For example: 32009

Shooter
03-26-2011, 12:44 PM
I saw and posted a comment in your other post after I saw this one.

My comments (not criticisms) were about leaving your self some room for CC and Grade. I do understand that your intention for this image was to crush and burn in the absolute black to the clip. Thats o.k if you like it like that. A Colorist would hate you (or any D.P) for doing so....but I guess this is only a test and part of your familiarisation with the camera.

If thats "80% of the way to where I like my contrast to be" what else will you do to that in grade and CC. You cant crush the blacks and you cant lift any detail out of them (noise) so where would you go to get the 20%? (Just asking)

Something I take out of this forum in all the many discussions about Scene Files is that they are "Looks" and that they replace lighting and exposure control like a "magic bullet".

Have you done any tests using the Default scene file settings yet?


the amount of crush you see really is a result of either B.Press as a whole, or the lighting.

BTW: I shot a TVC the other day using B-Press . Heres a couple of frame grabs that dont seem to display the blacks crushed.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u262/shooterbucket/coke-fringe.png

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u262/shooterbucket/dave-key.png

KyleProhaska
03-26-2011, 01:16 PM
Typically where I end up doing a boost is in the mids and I get the darkest darks and the lightest lighest where I want them. I CC my own stuff so the only person to hate on me is me if I screw up. A simple curves adjustment of the dead center is all I have to do most of the time to get a lot of shots I want after I use a setting like this. It's not an excuse to light poorly at all, and that example I gave was supposed to be dark and super contrasty. The B.Press doesn't automatically give you what I was talking about, but it does as Barry presents in the book "leaves the highs alone, and press the lows down a little, but raises up the midtones." This gets me very close to what I want but I don't push it so hard that I don't leave any room for me to adjust the mids myself in post. As I had said before I lit the shot for the specific purpose at hand.

I understand your concern about "looks" overtaking proper lighting, exposure, etc. but for a lot of projects getting what you're absolutely sure you want as quickly as possible is a great solution. Lighting will always be key, but I never intend to ever shoot a really flat image with intentions to make it what I want in post, not to the degree some do. Depends on the project I guess...

Nice grabs by the way, top notch stuff.

This is from my last film. It had a pretty rich and more contrasty feel. There's more detail in the blacks there than this little 640px wide image might let you see. On a properly calibrated NTSC monitor it looks as it should IMO. All each of these images had was a slight lift in the mids...the rest was in-camera + lighting.

http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/a1notaf100.jpg

Shooter
03-26-2011, 01:43 PM
My biggest problem with this camera is how hard it is to get blacks black.

So far I've gotten fairly mushy results, but that's due to my lighting most likely.

I understand preserving details in the shadows, YET, I don't get this predisposition against pure black in the frame.

For example: 32009

There is no "predisposition" against pure black in the frame at all... but most D.Ps approach it with caution and skill. I suggest that the example you posted is not how the D.P shot that scene and there would be detail in the black of the cinema frame. ( BTW: that sample is most likely a still for a poster . Wrong aspect ratio is a clue)

Just me maybe... but my thoughts (imagewise) on Kyles test shot of the vase and flowers ...

It "denies the eye" information. The black holes in the scene serve no purpose as information, drama or composition.
It does not frame or focus the eye to any particular part of the image except the holes. It does not make the flowers beautiful or otherwise.

The black comes across as underlit in context of the rest of the space and how we perceive the rest of the room. (ie white ambience)

The shadows in the Godfather scene is exactly opposite and masterful use of contrast , light and shadow.

I know Kyle was testing so its unfair in some ways for me to comment this way...but I dont believe in "contrast for contrast" sake (ie. without purpose or reason).

"Horses for courses"

KyleProhaska
03-26-2011, 02:06 PM
Good post all around. :) I agree, my shot stinks haha.

Shooter
03-26-2011, 02:12 PM
There you go Kyle.

Your film....Great shots and masterful as well. Nice grabs.

Here are the various screen grabs I mentioned (PM) . Shot with a "single light source" situation such as yours.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u262/shooterbucket/tomatosm.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u262/shooterbucket/chris24sm.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u262/shooterbucket/Cherrywater1sm.png

PappasArts
03-26-2011, 02:48 PM
You have two shots of your wife- one you linked to and another one that you didn't. However one of them is soft while the other is not bad at all. What are the differences between these two- how they were captured? The left side of her face which is darker- the "cu2.jpg" pic looks so much cleaner/less soft vs "cu" pic. Albeit the "cu2.jpg" has a fine noise, it's better then "cu.jpg" slightly mushy look.
http://kyleprohaska.com/af100/denise_cu2.jpg
http://kyleprohaska.com/af100/denise_cu.jpg



Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com

KyleProhaska
03-26-2011, 03:16 PM
Pappas, I added a grain filter to "cu2.jpg" while "cu1.jpg" is straight from the camera.

This might look insane to you but this shot is my 5D right out of the box. Ingested into FCP to Prores, nothing but a contrast filter added and saturation dropped. The second shot in the file is the same shot, but with a noise filter added BEFORE the contrast/saturation adjustment. Granted, I added way more noise than was needed just so people could see that it's what made the difference. http://kyleprohaska.com/5d/bwtest_x264.mov

I'm not a big fan of super-clean images for narrative work. I like that little bit of grain in an image, it's much better than the digital noise I typically see. Adding slight grain to that shot and playing it back gives a totally different feel to the footage, even when it's exported to 853x480 before compressing to a DVD because it averages all the pixels together and since you added the noise...all the pixels are slightly different...there's no grouping from the compression. There will be when you create the DVD file, but it'll handle things much differently than it would've if I left the footage alone. This isn't always the case if the footage is REALLY GREAT, but I find it gives a result I'm happy with.

Some think I'm nuts but hey, I gotta do what I gotta do LOL.

PappasArts
03-26-2011, 03:37 PM
Ok..... I like the one with the filter too. Your not nuts, it makes sense- Also Adding that slight grain is dithering the AF100's 8bit image which is a technique that many use in all sorts of post work. That 5D clip is exactly what I have been doing for years. I learned that technique many years ago from post printing work. It works, and as you, I have many test clips proving it too. I'll take the grain/noise over that banding/Posterization any day.



--
Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com
http://www.facebook.com/PappasArts
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com

KyleProhaska
03-26-2011, 04:04 PM
What was great in my old 35mm Adapter setup is because of the adapter, it gave the footage a wash of grain before it hit the sensor, something I think I'm honestly going to miss. Since it wasn't digitally applied it just gave things a certain feel. People throw the word "filmic" around a lot, but the texture it gave was unlike anything I think I'll ever emulate.

Benjamin Eckstein
03-26-2011, 04:49 PM
are you using a grain filter straight from FCP/Premiere/etc, or is it a third party plug-in? The filtered shot of your wife definitely looks nicer as a still, in my opinion.

KyleProhaska
03-26-2011, 05:23 PM
For that I just used the Add Noise filter in FCP but for important stuff I use the Noise & Grain Filter in After Effects which is what gives me results comparable to 35mm. I've tried everything from a 5 second long 35mm scan of 50% grey to overlay on the footage, and filters dialed in to match grain structure of normal films shot on 35mm (I pull 1080p signals off of blurays...best image I can get to look at). Render times are a pain if it was a lot of footage, but it's worth it in the end. Here's the grain structure my A1 + Letus gave me, and the more digital noise the AF100 can give sometimes (pulled from the Crews.TV AF100 tests). http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/a1_af100.jpg

SplitFieldDiopter
03-26-2011, 06:57 PM
There is no "predisposition" against pure black in the frame at all... but most D.Ps approach it with caution and skill. I suggest that the example you posted is not how the D.P shot that scene and there would be detail in the black of the cinema frame. ( BTW: that sample is most likely a still for a poster . Wrong aspect ratio is a clue)

Just me maybe... but my thoughts (imagewise) on Kyles test shot of the vase and flowers ...

It "denies the eye" information. The black holes in the scene serve no purpose as information, drama or composition.
It does not frame or focus the eye to any particular part of the image except the holes. It does not make the flowers beautiful or otherwise.

The black comes across as underlit in context of the rest of the space and how we perceive the rest of the room. (ie white ambience)

The shadows in the Godfather scene is exactly opposite and masterful use of contrast , light and shadow.

I know Kyle was testing so its unfair in some ways for me to comment this way...but I dont believe in "contrast for contrast" sake (ie. without purpose or reason).

"Horses for courses"

While that may be a still shot from the set of the last scene in GODFATHER PART 2, the film looks like that throughout. Especially the murder in the hallway. A MASTERFUL use of light with the light bulb.

Obviously I'm using the most famous and best example of chiaroscuro photography.

Shooter
03-26-2011, 08:52 PM
Gordon Willis....the "Prince of Darkness".... absolutely .... but he has also stated on occasions..that he went too far with it at times.

Another thing he states is that every image gets and needs a look of its own depending on what it is and what it is meant to convey incontext.

KyleProhaska
03-26-2011, 10:20 PM
Did more tests again today under a single lighting source. Found some moire for the first time in a shot but it only lasted for a second or two on the item I was panning across. Still I was surprised to see it since I haven't seen much evidence of it on this camera until then.

This shot is the cleanest image I've taken with this camera so far. It's the best exposure I've been able to achieve as well which definitely helped the noise. It was done using Detail and Detail-V at -4, Coring -7, B.Press, Norm1, Knee at Mid.

http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/perfect_sm.jpg

View full 1080p grab: http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/perfect_lg.jpg

Barry_Green
03-30-2011, 04:58 PM
Interesting follow-up to this thread...
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?244171-I-m-now-a-Panasonic-convert...&p=2295791#post2295791

Sparky874
04-06-2011, 01:10 PM
Hi there shooter. I must say, your screen grabs look incredible - really very impressive. I am still finding my way around the scene files but would really appreciate if you could share what you used for these grabs please. Many thanks in advance, Sparky

Shooter
04-06-2011, 01:37 PM
Hi there shooter. I must say, your screen grabs look incredible - really very impressive. I am still finding my way around the scene files but would really appreciate if you could share what you used for these grabs please. Many thanks in advance, Sparky

What was posted in this thread would have all been at Default Scene File 1

reem12
04-06-2011, 06:12 PM
Actually is it me or does that a1 accompanied by the letus look far more organic and pleasing to the eye than the crews tv shot.

I would be also interested in seeing your direct comparison to the kipro, since most people are reporting a similar quality resemblance to that of the onboard codec.

KyleProhaska
04-06-2011, 06:31 PM
The A1 + Letus does indeed give a very organic feel. Unfortunately there's plenty the A1 + Letus doesn't do as well as the AF100, so it's a trade off yes. The organic feel to the image is mostly due to the grain structure and how it altered the image before it hit the camera. I think I can replicate this with the AF100 and have done it with a test or two. I would say as well the lighting in my shot was better (just a personal opinion) than the Crews one. Hard to really tell which image is more organic when one has a distinct white balance issue and a few other things. The A1 + Letus gave a very filmic noise while the AF100 gives a more digital noise, which makes sense. I think though if I put the AF100 under the same conditions as my shot, or the same shot altogether, they would look much more comparable.

Also the KiPro and on-board might look the same to the eye, but after doing my own tests with my AF100 attached to my computer via HDMI to Prores, I can tell you that it will absolutely not be the same in the banding department, or in the grade. If you're getting basically what you want in-camera, the on-board codec is totally fine, and it seems just great for a lot of uses and grades. The KiPro will add the 422 color space, less (but not zero) banding, and a better handling of any noise you have.

I would also like to point out the AF100 with Mattebox, Rails, FF, etc. is only 11lbs, much lighter than the other setup. I can hold it at my side by the top handle with one harm like nothin. Again, pros/cons.

Andrew J. Allsbury
04-06-2011, 10:16 PM
I had an XHA1 + Letus...and now I have an AF100...I would NEVER go back...ever

reem12
04-07-2011, 05:36 PM
Hey kyle,

I use the 5d & final cut as well. Can you pass on the grain in final cut you used as well as the settings used for your test with the pictures on the wall. Also I was wondering if I applied this effect after all post color correcting was done, could I still acquire the same results. Thanks man, this was very imformative.

KyleProhaska
04-07-2011, 05:57 PM
The settings were Neutral on the 5D (the neutral preset), and I just for the sake of example used FCP's built in Add Noise filter, film grain setting, not much else. That wasn't how much noise I would likely add to a shot like that, and it was BW just to exaggerate what's happening in the shot when you add it, so don't take it as what you should do. Also, something VERY important...add the noise BEFORE you add your CC filters. Noise it just layed on top of things if you put it on afterwards. Putting it on beforehand varies each pixel in the shot before the CC takes effect helping smooth out the banding before the CC filter starts messing with the color (or in that shots case...the contrast).

KyleProhaska
04-10-2011, 09:56 PM
Random shot from today. It was the only decent one I could get and I'm not that happy with it. For some reason I couldn't expose anything to save my life today. Color-corrected and grain added...

http://lifeofkyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/af100_deniseext1.jpg

Shooter
04-10-2011, 10:47 PM
Why are there two suns ( light sources)?

KyleProhaska
04-11-2011, 07:16 AM
Reflection off the water as the sun went down? We were just outside and the only light source was the sun...

bgundu
04-11-2011, 07:21 AM
Strange. Her eyes have two hot spots.

KyleProhaska
04-11-2011, 07:27 AM
The reflection off the water was VERY bright...totally blown out. Even with my ND's all the way up to 4 I couldn't expose it so that's why. The sun was in the direction she was looking as was the large water reflection so that's where it comes from.

bgundu
04-11-2011, 07:33 AM
The double water reflection makes sense!


The reflection off the water was VERY bright...totally blown out. Even with my ND's all the way up to 4 I couldn't expose it so that's why. The sun was in the direction she was looking as was the large water reflection so that's where it comes from.

tflak
04-11-2011, 08:19 AM
This is why I now always carry a Singh-Ray Vari-ND to put on the lens when the built-in NDs aren't enough. I didn't have it with me the other day and got bitten by diffraction when I stopped the lens down to avoid clipping the highlights. Not sure which would have been preferable; clip the highlights and get a sharper image, or preserve the highlights and go soft. Subjects were wearing white forensics outfits in bright sun with a white wall behind them so it was very bright and wasn't like just clipping out a bright sky or something. Needed to preserve detail so you could tell they were in front of a white painted cinder block wall and also didn't want to lose detail in the suits. So I went for preserving the highlights. Definitely a judgement call. Have only looked at the raw footage so far. Hopefully, I can add some sharpness in post.

Lessons learned were to always have something to supplement the built-in NDs and be aware of diffraction.

Shooter
04-11-2011, 02:48 PM
The double water reflection makes sense!

Doesnt make sense to me.

The reflection and the source are the same size and they throw two different nose shadows in different directions. (One shadow is hard and one is soft. One is long and one is short) Weird physics!

Nice large scrim (diff) 6' x 6' frame would have been handy to have had in your pocket Kyle. Full lighting truck and crew even better.

KyleProhaska
04-11-2011, 03:32 PM
Shooter I was just at a park with my wife...cut me some slack, LOL. I got what I could get with what I had.

I was there, and I can assure you the sun off in the distance, and the very bright reflection on the water is where the light was coming from.

bgundu
04-11-2011, 03:34 PM
Let's call the Scotland Yard! We need to get to the bottom of this.... Maybe some big dude with a white coat walked by acting as a reflector? Let's hear some other theories?

Shooter
04-11-2011, 03:53 PM
Shooter I was just at a park with my wife...cut me some slack, LOL. I got what I could get with what I had.

I was there, and I can assure you the sun off in the distance, and the very bright reflection on the water is where the light was coming from.

Relax Kyle.
I am not doubting you or having a go at you at all . I know the sun is very bright.
(Only a joke about carrying a lighting rig around with you.)

Bgundu thought it made sense...I didnt. I wanted to analyse it. Simple as that.

So what was the solution to your exposure issue anyway?

bgundu
04-11-2011, 03:55 PM
I was just kidding too. Strange things can happen in the real world.

KyleProhaska
04-11-2011, 04:46 PM
Just didn't seem that way I guess. The internet sucks when it comes to context/emotion.

I honestly was never able to figure it out until I got home. I think my camera settings themselves weren't helping me. B.Press was the gamma I was using which lifts the mids and presses the darks a little, and the mids is where her skin was (upper mids on the left side) so I think it was making it harder for me to find a happy medium. If I exposed her face the background went away too much. That wouldn't have happen had I thought to change my gamma to something like Cine-V for a moment.

I was a little frustrated at the time anyways over a few things so I just wasn't thinking clearly.

KyleProhaska
04-16-2011, 10:51 AM
A few random shots from the other day. Just using the light coming in from the side porch window of our apartment.

http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/denise3.jpg
http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/kyle1.jpg

Barry_Green
04-16-2011, 11:33 AM
Nice...

Shooter
04-16-2011, 06:25 PM
Very nice in fact.

dustylense
04-17-2011, 09:46 AM
Straight up top notch.

KyleProhaska
04-17-2011, 02:02 PM
Thanks. :) I'm getting more and more comfortable with this camera as times goes on. I'm notorious for having buyers remorse so I'm happy now LOL.

KyleProhaska
04-21-2011, 03:53 PM
I really need to do some more tests in the kind of light I had in the screenshots above...because it's really shown me what this camera can REALLY do with the human face. I shot my face because I know it's like a moon (lol) and has all sorts of little things the camera (and light) would need to define. I was actually a little shocked at how sharp and awesome it looked. Perhaps I'm making too much of it, but it sure does make me excited to own one of these. Especially amongst talk in other threads about how this camera sucks at exposing faces. ;)

My TV Logic monitor is on its way, so I look forward to taking this camera out with a bit more confidence in my exposure, color, etc. The on-camera LCD is great, but it's just tough to judge focus for me and I need something a little bigger that I can shade (got a hoodman for the TV logic). Indoors the on-camera LCD is much more adequate though...

http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/kyle_big.jpg

http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/kyle_big.jpg

KyleProhaska
06-01-2011, 06:57 PM
Here's a few from the past few days. Most of them shot on the spot very quickly but I'm trying my best to learn how to expose in harder sunlight or with subjects that aren't as easy to handle.

The one of my friend Anthony that's first here was probably one of the hardest with it being about 3pm on hot memorial day. We were in total shade while the background was burning bright with sunlight. I did have to recover a little bit of the highlights (not from being blown out but simply too hot) and boost the mids only a few notches, but it looks really amazing. I was shocked to see how much dynamic range I got.

The last one of the cityscape was tough to expose too. I wanted the sky but the stuff in the middle of the buildings too. Granted it's pretty dark but on a proper calibrated monitor you can see quite a bit in there in my opinion. I think I'm finally getting the hang of using this thing outside with confidence. Still, most of the time while I shoot I keep feeling like I underexpose even while using zebras and the waveform, and then I come home and find there's a lot more detail in there than I think.

http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/dr/dr2.jpg
http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/dr/dr1.jpg
http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/dr/dr3.jpg
http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/dr/dr4.jpg
http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/dr/dr5.jpg

Shooter
06-01-2011, 11:18 PM
Nice.

You have to trust the waveform. Its all you got to go on. You have exposed very well for the scenes under the conditions that presented to you. You had no supplementary lighting so well done.

All those images would grade and cc very well Kyle. eg you could pop ( separate) Anthony off his bg very easily. You have retained detail in the shadows and have full tonal range across your images.

We all struggle with those situations. Some of us are lucky enough to have a truckful of lights etc to control the situation.

PaPa
06-02-2011, 07:26 AM
Nice.

You have to trust the waveform. Its all you got to go on. You have exposed very well for the scenes under the conditions that presented to you. You had no supplementary lighting so well done.

All those images would grade and cc very well Kyle. eg you could pop ( separate) Anthony off his bg very easily. You have retained detail in the shadows and have full tonal range across your images.

We all struggle with those situations. Some of us are lucky enough to have a truckful of lights etc to control the situation.

Ditto, well exposed imo.

KyleProhaska
06-02-2011, 07:56 AM
Thanks guys...very encouraging. I was talking to a friend and told him the reason I get a little worried when I look at the waveform is it's not uncommon to see the majority of my shot end up int he 55IRE or below range. For some reason my brain sees something at 50IRE or 30-40IRE and goes (ahh! It's gonna be dark!). But, I get home and find that it's really not that dark at all. It's not black but it's not bright, it's just well exposed. It seems a good rule of them depending on the subject is to have 20% or less of the image in the 70IRE+ range...because it's likely you're overexposing (unless you have a ton of sky or something specific that would make this statement false).

Is that fair to say?

PaPa
06-02-2011, 09:07 AM
I have been noticing the exact same thing. I expose an image i find pleasing on the lcd, nothing bright, but nothing dark, because i find skin too bright on video looks really videoish. Then i click waveform and notice the same thing, most of the image is under 60 ire or sometimes around 50 ire. So i take a couple of seconds of video and then for fun bring everything up to around 65 70 ire. When compared in the editor, with some minor color adjustment, the darker image both holds up better, looks more natural and more "film like". Learning learning :)

marlontorres
06-02-2011, 12:34 PM
DO NOT TRUST the image on the LCD. I did the first day I tested the camera and everything was at least a stop overexposed!

Barry_Green
06-02-2011, 01:06 PM
Definitely don't trust the LCD image; trust the zebras and the waveform. And yes, I think the early rounds of AF100 shooters were addicted to shooting overexposed for whatever reason -- either the LCD was showing the image darker than they liked, or whatever. And overexposure is just bad bad bad bad bad on video. It's what causes the blown-out highlights and the yellow skintones and all that. So don't do it! Expose properly. All your skintones should be BELOW 70. Only the very hottest reflections of direct light on the whitest/fairest skintones should even hit 70. Everything else should be in the 50's-60's. Keep it there and you'll probably start loving your AF100 footage.

KyleProhaska
06-02-2011, 01:49 PM
Keep it there and you'll probably start loving your AF100 footage.

Way ahead of you ;) I've dialed in my EVF to be more proper exposure wise so in the sun when my LCD will show me something darker I can get a more trustworthy picture of my image. I still don't trust it but it's good for occasional reassurance that things are fine. I haven't been able to figure out a way to see the Waveform on the EVF, is that possible? Out in the sun it's tough to even see the waveform let alone anything else.

Shooter
06-02-2011, 02:02 PM
It seems a good rule of them depending on the subject is to have 20% or less of the image in the 70IRE+ range...because it's likely you're overexposing (unless you have a ton of sky or something specific that would make this statement false).

Is that fair to say?

I dont think thats quite correct or the best way to think about it. Its subject dependent and also what you are trying to achieve creatively.
Shooting inthe snow will be diiferent to shoting in a coalmine for example.

High key, low key, noire etc are creative decisions and exposure requirements are different. Therefore the wfm will appear different.


Excuse me if you already know this Kyle but heres a tip:


Start thinking and seeing everything tonal (and forget color.) Look at the subject / scene and consider the parts of it and where everything appears as part of the tonal range.

Black, Mid (grey) , White. ie.Shadow , mid tones, highlights. All these are represented accurately on the wfm so you need to make the decision where you place the specific tone on the scale. ( EXPOSURE) .

Do a bit of test time shooting a correctly exposed Grey scale card and a include a subject such as a face. Bracket your exposures and watch where the tones shift.

Familiarise with tones and the gray scale.
Its the key to exposure and control. Its the key to shape and modelling. Its the key to CC and grade.
Its the key to our abilty to see things.

(You can see something that is not colored but you can not see something that has absolutely no tones.)

KyleProhaska
06-02-2011, 03:47 PM
Yes I understand, thanks for the tip. I did mean that comment of mine on a "by subject basis." The only reason I said it was that in almost every circumstance I've found myself in outside, 70 and lower has been the greatest compromise for exposure/dynamic range with this particular camera. Higher and it starts to emphasize hot colors / tones on things like sidewalks or anything in direct sunlight. I've found it really rare even when I've lit something specifically to expose much higher than 70 because most of the time there's a face in the shot. If I had 100% control that's a different story but I'm mixing an uncontrolled source with a controlled one a lot. Only on shots of objects where it's completely my light have I been able to push it a bit more and touch the top and bottom of the scale really well.

My older camera setup I had used for so long that I learned exactly how it would respond to what kinds of light and what values. Most of the time I nailed exposure without a ton of effort and no waveform to speak of, just basic zebras and by eye on a calibrated monitor on set. It probably would've looked crazy to some who use waveforms but now I don't have much choice. I'm totally okay with that though as the AF is the camera I've chosen and provides me with that kind of tool. I would be stupid to NOT use it and learn how to read it properly. Color-correction and a waveform were always like PB and J for me but adding it to my shooting side of things has taken some getting used to.

Thanks again for the information. It's all a learning process.

analog_addict
10-06-2011, 04:45 PM
What detail levels did you use for those screenshots on your porch?

KyleProhaska
10-06-2011, 08:31 PM
I'm not sure what shots you're referring to specifically...but I keep my detail level -5 or less.