Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6,217
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    ... I still think only sony and canon have access to the latest AF because they make it and then sell the older tech to thier rivals...
    They all have access to it. The Dual Pixels and the Phase Detect are becoming an outdated technology, as everything shifts toward the AI, as Sony calls it, or Deep Learning, as Canon does. This is all algorithm that recognizes a face and/or eye and instantly focuses on the subject (animals included, btw).

    PS. That BFD AF that Panasonic has been using ought to be struck from the conversation entirely.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,632
    Default
    So are panny currently delivering or in the position to deliver good AF ? Im confused by your post.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Frankfurt GER
    Posts
    1,464
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    I didnt say the camera was bad or worse than the FS7 (quite the contary) I just said the swap was not economically viable...
    I made the swap, sold the FS7 and went for the Panasonic route with GH5 / EVA1 and now S1.
    It was a very good decision under economic aspects. Due to the fantastic color science and custom WB in LOG
    I saved so much time in post. And I easily achieved a level of nice looking images I only reached with a lot lot more
    effort (or not at all) with the FS7
    I'd pay an extra grand for a FX9 like AF though
    Last edited by Clermond; 01-10-2020 at 02:57 AM.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6,217
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    So are panny currently delivering or in the position to deliver good AF ? Im confused by your post.
    GH-5 has been updating since its release and its AF is pretty decent right now, although the best settings vary from the static position such as an interview, where a slow response time and low sensitivity is better, to the moving subjects where the response time needs to be lowered. S1 and S1H AF is still pretty iffy. I remember asking Clermond about it ... and he shot manually.

    As to AI based AF, it's pretty much in every smartphone now. As to cameras, this was from last spring.

    KT: First of all, before talking about AI, I think the most important thing is our high-speed platform, no? On the top of a high speed platform, we can create AI, but if the platform is slow, the moving subject will be gone! But our platform has a very high speed. That is our special talent or unique technology.Then, on top of this high-speed platform, we have an AI engine. As the first step, we investigated what type of subject people realistically are shooting right now. The most [common] subject is the eye. And another one is animals, and the birds, of course the car kind of thing, that kind of an object, we can create the using deep learning. Just setup a dictionary on top of our high-speed platform, AI can calculate the subject position. So the first step is [recognizing] eyes, but of course, we will expand the subject types. Right now I cannot tell you, but we already have a kind of organization, to create a dictionary.
    There's more here.

    https://www.imaging-resource.com/new...e-aps-c-bodies

    Now, Samsung had "subject tracking" five years ago but it had its hiccups due to the processing power and memory limitations of the time.

    https://www.wimarys.com/samsung-nx1-...s-performance/


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    NJ / NYC
    Posts
    344
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    You didnt say it Onset did

    I still think only sony and canon have access to the latest AF because they make it and then sell the older tech to thier rivals.

    Im just saying, as this is a thread speculating about the EVA2 is that it needs AF at least as good as the Z6 - its not something Im aware of any Panny having. Wihtout decent AF in the pro solo/small crew sector a camera is a non starter if competing against canon and sony in the '$10k' sector.
    One point I was trying to make that seems to have gotten lost is that much of the 'high end cine glass' that's used for higher end productions does not have auto-focus capability -- so if you're designing a camera system for these productions (and lenses that don't auto-focus) then there may not be much demand for that feature.

    One other thing (that I was reminded about yesterday when shooting for a company that brought their FX9 and two FS7's) to keep in mind is just how difficult/impossible it can be to manually focus with the sony fly-by-wire lenses - they had brought G-series 24-70 and 70-200 lenses. For any critical focus adjustment situations these lenses make it extremely difficult to manually adjust -- and given the even larger sensor and reduced depth of field of the FX9, using these lenses in certain situations almost require auto-focus.

    So the question I'm really asking is whether sony's 'improved auto-focus' for the FX9 is as much a feature as it is a band-aid to 'fix' the problem of fly-by-wire lenses that do not lend themselves to proper manual focus.

    Interestingly enough the companies I work for that bring their C-series canon cameras shoot almost exclusively on manual focus canon-mount cine primes...

    And of course don't forget - now that so much of our shooting is done in 4k, many producers seem to go on the assumption that blowing the frame up 50% - 100% to reframe a medium shot to a MCU or CU will be no problem at all -- thus making perfect focus twice as critical!


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,882
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by OnSet View Post
    One point I was trying to make that seems to have gotten lost is that much of the 'high end cine glass' that's used for higher end productions does not have auto-focus capability -- so if you're designing a camera system for these productions (and lenses that don't auto-focus) then there may not be much demand for that feature.

    So the question I'm really asking is whether sony's 'improved auto-focus' for the FX9 is as much a feature as it is a band-aid to 'fix' the problem of fly-by-wire lenses that do not lend themselves to proper manual focus.
    This is something that can be adapted to easily, in my opinion, especially with today’s tech available. They build the camera with an output to control an FIZ servo, then it just controls that servo to control the manual lenses focus. Standardize the output connection to work with standard cables and FIZ motors. It shouldn’t be that hard or complicated, it’s just whether anyone will choose to make it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6,217
    Default
    The high end pro productions - think Alexa and Cookes - with professional focus pullers deploy an ultrasonic range detector system, which give a very precise distance to the subject. The system is remote controlled for the manual adjustments by the focus puller working off a monitor. Pro grade glass is, naturally, all manual ...

    ... which is why Sony is coming out with the "cinema quality" AF/MF E-mount glass. It may not effect the prime time TV and features for a while but it surely helps the one man band types.

    PS. My personal opinion is that FX-9 is good enough for a low/medium budget TV/independent feature production.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,632
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by OnSet View Post
    One point I was trying to make that seems to have gotten lost is that much of the 'high end cine glass' that's used for higher end productions does not have auto-focus capability -- so if you're designing a camera system for these productions (and lenses that don't auto-focus) then there may not be much demand for that feature.

    One other thing (that I was reminded about yesterday when shooting for a company that brought their FX9 and two FS7's) to keep in mind is just how difficult/impossible it can be to manually focus with the sony fly-by-wire lenses - they had brought G-series 24-70 and 70-200 lenses. For any critical focus adjustment situations these lenses make it extremely difficult to manually adjust -- and given the even larger sensor and reduced depth of field of the FX9, using these lenses in certain situations almost require auto-focus.

    So the question I'm really asking is whether sony's 'improved auto-focus' for the FX9 is as much a feature as it is a band-aid to 'fix' the problem of fly-by-wire lenses that do not lend themselves to proper manual focus.

    Interestingly enough the companies I work for that bring their C-series canon cameras shoot almost exclusively on manual focus canon-mount cine primes...

    And of course don't forget - now that so much of our shooting is done in 4k, many producers seem to go on the assumption that blowing the frame up 50% - 100% to reframe a medium shot to a MCU or CU will be no problem at all -- thus making perfect focus twice as critical!
    Lots of points that can be chatted indefinitely

    High end cine is not realy the place for an EVA2 - its primary for smaller productions.

    I have FS7 and have manual lenses,I would not go near the fly by wires Ive tried (maybe a couple of years ago)

    Its interesting that the sony lenses 'need AF' - canon and nikon AF glass is not horrific to manually focus - bad but not horrific - but the reason I feel AF is needed is that the humans are not good enough (even the best) because it just requires too much accuracy - for example monitoring in HD you cant even see 4k focus even a genius cant get it completely right because they are not being given enough data - only 1 in 4 pixels

    Lots of people shoot manual.. because that is the big mans way of doing it!

    Producers expecting is a 4Xpushin really relies on AF, but hopefully its not a reasonable ask of focus pullers without specialised monitors. In my world a digital crop can be required as the frame needs to be loose to cover facebook, bus shelter uprights and maybe a web letter box!


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •