A Little Theory Of Mine

KyleProhaska

KyleProhaska

Veteran
This is NOT an AF100 bash thread...so please keep it civil.

OK so I just got my AF100 today and took some shots. It was a choice between this camera or an XF300 with SGBlade. I took a stab at the AF100 because I figured if I was wrong and didn't like it, it would be A LOT easier to sell then another 35mm Combo, even a new one. There were several reasons why the 35mm Adapter was still appealing to me. I shot my last feature on the A1 with Letus and found the image it gave to be amazing and organic. Here comes my theory, and if I'm wrong that's fine but it seems to make sense.

My AF100 (or even my 5D) puts an image together that is pretty clean overall, and suffers from some banding in a lot of situations. This is based on my tests under lighting today. When I look at my A1 + Letus footage one thing I always knew helped was the Letus ground glass giving the overall image a wash of grain that made the image pretty organic looking and filmic (in its texture). Granted, I couldn't stop down past F4 with that.

As I got my 5D I tested it out and did noise tests where I would do complicated noise addition in After Effects that took horrendously long to render, in order to help offset some of the nasty artifacts and some of the banding. Issue being is although it helped, I'm still working with footage with banding in its source footage. You can only hide things so much.

Why am I saying this? When I was using my A1 with Letus, although 420 and HDV at a low bitrate...the overall wash of grain across the image you'd think would choke the codec to DEATH, but in fact since the grain was apart of the original image before the camera compressed it to tape, it actually handled it very well and gave me something adding grain in post could never do. This was my reason for thinking about the XF300 and SGBlade again. It seemed to me that what I needed to do was simply update the camera at hand and a newer adapter that allowed me to stop down, and I would have a similar image but cleaner and have more functionality. But I opted for the AF100.

The AF100 is like a normal video camera in a lot of ways, and a DSLRish feel to it. I found the DOF to be pleasing, the robustness of the body satisfying and comforting, lens mount options awesome, etc., but the initial footage I took was pretty shocking. I was checking exposure, had my ISO in a healthy range (400 or so) and my lens at about 2.8. It was just ducks in a pond outside my apartment, and the codec got SLAUGHTERED. Yes, I setup a good scene file as suggested by others here, and YES I was sure I checked to shoot in the highest quality format. Yes, this camera was absolutely dying on this footage, with nasty blocks all over the place. A real disappointment for my first shots in broad daylight! NOTE: I SHOT SOME CLOSEUPS OF WELL LIGHT FLOWER FIXTURE AND STUFF INDOORS AND IT LOOKED PRETTY GREAT...SO I KNOW IT CAN DO THE JOB IF GIVEN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES. My A1 with Letus would'nt have handled the light I had very well, but if properly exposed the old HDV codec would've handled this extremely well, I'm sure of it as I've shot over 100 hours on that setup at least. I think I know why...

There are other factors at play here, and I could be wrong about this, but isn't it possible if you somehow attached a 35mm Adapter to the AF100, and put the same lenses on it...isn't it possible that it would've handled it differently?...with the adapter giving it a wash of slight grain BEFORE the image hit the sensor and then the compressor? I think so...I'm certain of it. It would've helped vary each pixel it had to compress together of the water I was shooting, and because of that not group them so easily giving me less artifacts and larger blocks. It's the same reason adding noise in post can work, because it's making every pixel slightly different, helping smooth out gradients and stuff. In this case the adapter on my A1 is doing that BEFORE it compresses...not after.

Anybody else understand what it is I'm saying here? I want to get the KiPro Mini to see just how much it'll effect the banding especially of the picture, and I know the bit-rate will help significantly...but I wonder just how good the footage will turn out? Since it's an uncompressed signal to a virtually lossless codec and 422, I hope for some really good results compared to what I saw today and compared to what I see my really old HDV camera with 35mm Adapter pulling off.

Please anyone with an AF100 I'm NOT bashing the camera at all so don't take this that way. You're right I'm not seasoned on it and I could've messed something up, but try to comment regarding the idea I had, and not "you're such an idiot" or "you haven't used the camera enough" type of posts.

The ultimate question is: Is adding a slight grain pattern (spinning or vibrating) over the image BEFORE it hits the compression (whether it's 420 or 422) create less or no banding and better comopression? According to my tests and the footage from my old film, I would say yes.
 
Last edited:
Interesting theory. Rather than a 35mm adapter, you could see if a diffusion filter on your lens effected anything. That's a trick I used to use on an old Sony HDV camera that was overly sharp. Heck, you could do the really old school trick and stretch some panty hose over the lens for diffusion.

If you are already considering a KiPro Mini, than all of this testing may be a moot point. I haven't used my AF100 much yet but everything I have shot has been to a nanoFlash. I have yet to use the internal codec at all. I haven't seen any banding but I also haven't shot much outside of the studio. If there is something specific that is causing problems for you, I can try to duplicate the setup here and compare the shot using the built in AVCHD vs. the MPEG on the NanoFlash.

I'm still using a 35mm adapter myself as I do like the look it produces. Being a part of Letus though, that is easy for me to do! The new cameras like the AF100 are fantastic but sometimes I just want that look you can only achieve through an adapter. I haven't attached an adapter to the AF100 yet but that is an interesting idea that I may have to try out. Another advantage of an adapter with a camera like the XF300 is you always have the option to remove the 35mm adapter and the shallow DOF that comes with it if you need the deeper DOF (live action, etc.). That is the main reason I was using my Sony EX3 so much. If I needed shallow DOF, I would throw the Ultimate/Relay lens on. If I needed deep DOF, I would swap it out with the stock lens. A 30 second process and an incredibly versatile setup.

Anyway, please let me know if you want any test shots from the nanoFlash vs the built in AVCHD. Always up for helping out a fellow DVXuser member!
 
I actually forgot I could hook up my HDMI to my Blackmagic Intensity Card to ingest the footage that way. Obviously I'm stuck at my computer but I grabbed what I could. Footage was stunning, smooth, and exactly what I was hoping for. KiPro is going to be a must, might order it ASAP. Thanks for responding also, the post was a long read. I think the adapters can give you a certain look you don't get anywhere else, and honestly even with clean footage from the AF100 I might add a slight noise pass just to give it that organic feel. I even got ahold of some footage of 35mm shot at 50% grey so it's perfect to loop over footage and layover it with a SCREEN layer style and really give it a filmic feel.
 
I endorse your theory. I still have an xha1 setup, and recently got another, with an M2 encore, Which by the way is a nice dof adapter, a bit dated, but it's pretty good as far as lightloss goes, and with it's spinning GG, Enables me to stop down the lens usually to where I need it without to many issues. I do shoot with Dslr's as well, and have wrote many posts about using a promist black filter to add some grain, and help even out the image. I also think it helps some with moire, but thats only me seeing it and have not done any real testing. I have fallen in love with the new sony s35 chips, and plan on purchasing one as soon as their available. But until then I will shoot with my dual xha1's and dof adapters.

I was interested in the xf300, but after seeing it in person, and studying the footage, I was wrong about a few things. It's noise filters are no where near as good as I originally thought. And the image isn't really that much better than the xha1, at least not 5,000 worth in my eyes. And with a blackmagic card I can get 4;2;2, like the xf300. Plus I still like the archieve of tape. Call me crazy, but I just lost my first hard drive with footage, It just died, and thank god I still had the original tape to back it up. So yeah, I like your theory, and feel much the same way. Not to mention, I strip the cams down and use them stock for event work, which I couldn't do with some of the other new cams, that don't have wide enough, or tele lenses, and pro features.
 
If you don't mind me asking, why did you decide to go with the KiPro over the nanoFlash? Just curious.
 
Very interesting theory, I myself have been thinking about that. The question is, what lens would you use on the camera to attach to the 35 mm adapter? would a 50mm prime be enough zoom in?

One thing I need to say about the grain: If you adapter gives any type of extra grain to your footage, then something is wrong, an adapter should never add extra grain.
 
The vibrating ones do...to a degree. Even if it's moving, it's definitely adding to the grain or altering the way the camera handles the noise. Spinning adapters do it too but way way less. This is just from what I experience. Some of the best footage I have from my vibrating adapter properly exposed, proper F-stop, and the adapter working as it should give the noise structure a look that it doesn't have without the adapter.

I think with my new AF100...getting used to the kind of noise it produces could take some getting used to. My biggest concern at this point is how well my old setup handled noise and even low light noise because it had the adapter altering the image before it hit the compression. That's something I can't do on my AF100...it's made to have that DOF right away and just compresses the footage as is.
 
Could you please update us once you did the AF-100 + SGBlade trial..a quick video would be great as I have the same thinking before on this. Just didn't have enough money to get the AF100 right now. Maybe will wait for the Sony NX-FS100..
 
And why don't you get Atomos Ninja or Samurai as the HD-Recorder. Much cheaper. They preview it at NAB but need to wait for another 1-2 week before they will release the final products I believe.
 
do not take it as a seller advice

do not take it as a seller advice

I used to be a 35mm adaper manufaturer

Today, may 2011, the manufacturer is stoped, and I do not know if it will start again...

What I an say is:

for shure a good hd camcorder with a good 35mm adapter will give you the best film look.

I downloaded lots of raw samples from t2i, 7d, 5d, gh1, gh13, gh2 and so on...

they are great, better than the 35mm adapter in resolution and workflow

but... if you want the magic texture, the hd camcorder with 35mm adapter is the way to go. It look so filmic in the big screen, and if you clean the mpeg compression noise, tweak color, brigth, contrast, apply little (sligtly) sharp, and apply a film grain (like the "match grain" effect) it will shine even more...

It will recover you the emotions you want to feel...
 
Actually I will disagree about the comparison between DSLR & 35mm adapter. Depends on the adapter and camera combo, but my EX-1 with an SGBlade has much better resolution and contrast than a DSLR and even better than an AF100 which I compared head to head. I went to an F3 tho.
 
Last edited:
dslr x adapter

dslr x adapter

yes, the comparison between adapter and dslr must take into acount wich equipment are been used.

I think some adapters/camera combos can be better than canon dslr in resolution, but not better than gh2 and af100 resolution

but for add a film grain in match grain filter the 35mm adapter gives better film look in the tests I did.

If i need to choose, i would go for gh2 for clean and high resolution image and low light situations and I would go for adapter to reach filmic texture and add film grain.

Also, a test I would like to do is to use my apefos gem with panasonic TM900 and canon HF-M400, these camcorders have great low light results and resolution and can be a great low budget combo. I am using today the HV20 and it is great, no moire and aliasing, and good resolution also. I love the image texture I can get with this combo. I do not change it for a canon dslr for good light situations. but the GH2, humm, temptation...
 
I've had my AF100 for a while now. I've done a lot of tests to match filmic grain and the results are good enough for me. The adapter still have their own mojo but for now I'll need to stick to shooting without one.
 
tired about...

tired about...

To be honest, I started to became a little tired about equipment from some time ago...

I think the equipment and technology are so tempting and people keep drolling about it too much time... I confess this happened to me and I am taking care to stop it from some time.

If image and sound are average good, who cares wich camera was used to do a film when people watch it? Of course we must use the best equipment we can get, but there are lots of more important things to take care about...

I prefer to see a good script and good direction done with an old VHS or Super8 camera instead of a boring film done with the most expensive and up to date film or digital camera in the world.

All available HD cameras are good enough to do a narrative today... And if the budget is too low, why not work with a cheap used consumer camera? If you have talent, your talent will be shown, no matters the equipment... a camera, a tripod, an external mic, a light source... If I say I can't do a film with this there will be something wrong with me...

But I will go on about equipment and technology in the way I can because I believe in image and sound beauty, artistic and estetic feeling, but not so hungry anymore.
 
Last edited:
"The hand is the tool of dreams, the great value of a person is in how and how much use your hands." - Adriano Apefos
 
I belive that the only 35mm adapters and manufacturers that will survive are simply the best ones. There is no longer room for the small companies and their adapters. To be honest, most of the adapters out there are not that good, they are too soft, to much CA, vignetting, soft edges, visible grain, or simply have a really unpleasing type of bokah.

Before when they were popular people would use anything as a DOF adapter and they saw it as eipic stuff. Today, when DSLRs and AF100's, and many other camcorders are on the way with some really great footage, people compare it to the 35mm adapters. And that's why only the best adapters will be around, because many of them suffer from stuff that other new cameras with the same abilities don't.
 
I completly agree, only quality will survive. due to this I developed the apefos gem model, it is a 10 elements optical system to deliver a perfect image. I still receive some emails about it, not the same amount before dslr arrive, but there are people who likes it, but I stoped manufacturing it and the main reason is I want to use the time for other tasks, I used to do all the job alone and it was to much time comsuming and I could not do anything else. Also I did a drop down in the price to compete with the dslr and other adapters and the gain becames to low to deserves the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top