I eagerly await the AF100 I have ordered. But as I look at this ffotage, and many others, there's a word that keeps coming up when I describe the feel of the image; "cold". There a digital acuracy, almost harshness, that seems contradictory to the filmic, though quite soft, images rendered by my letus and hvx with Nikon glass. I will say that the color treatment in this final version is doing the camera no favors, though I know they were going for a look. Its nearly monochromatic, and overdone in my opinion. There are some shots with filmic dof, but many with a very long dof due to choice of f stop, which I would have prefered more open. Not 5d shallow, but a bit softer than here. The dream sequence looks quite nice, and the quickly grabbed shot near the end as the boy unties the horse by the fence is about the most filmic. I think in the saloon, less light might have created more depth. Easy to Monday morning quarterback. But I think this camera will need to be led into filmic images more than the camera naturally taking us there.
"A Verse Before Dying" - AF-100 Western Short
- Thread starter Stephen Mick
- Start date
Luis Caffesse
Admin
From what I've seen of the camera, I wouldn't worry about the ability to create filmic images.
You can DEFINITELY get a shallow DOF, and a more saturated and contrasty look.
What I think is most important to pull away from this piece is that many of the shots would have completely fallen apart with a DSLR (basically any wide deep focus shot).
In regards to the 'harshness' you see - that gets into a real subjective territory, obviously.
millerandmiller
Member
Thanks for allowing us to download some footage. Just looking at the Prores clip download on the link taken from Vimeo. Whats the jitters outlined in Red here? they dance all over the place. (Jpeg attached) Still taken at 00:13:11
Cropped
Cropped
millerandmiller
Member
Ok, just had a look at the MTS file, seems to be a result from knocking back the exposure or grading in post, as I can't see the effect.
Yes, I know for sure you can get shallow DOF. I guess I'm saying that with this camera and the effect the crop factor, a DP will need to be specifically aware of how lens choice and aperture will impact DOF in a particular shot against the same shot with a full or super 35 sensor. Persoanlly, I will want to maintain the expectation of a film dof while still working with a x2 crop. I don't think that this film, shot generally at f8-f11, does that enough to provide that feel. I think this camera, because of that, does better in the "feel" factor with a more shallow dof.
Futchibon
Well-known member
Matt, the sound on this piece is so well done, congratulations. I guess we're so used to top-quality "Hollywood" sound on TV shows that we often take sound for granted. And if there is an archilles heel in low-budget film production, sound certainly is it.
Could you please give me some advice on how to improve my sound equipment? I'm currently shooting gh13 and recording audio into my old DVX, using a rode nt3 for indoors and ntg2 for outdoors. The sound quality is quite good, but not quite to the level I want it to be, and I really have to compromise my shots by getting the mic right in close. It affects my shots in terms of lack of "headroom" as they're often tight. I always have the mic very well positioned and the room quiet.
Would a Sound Devices MM-1 be a good addition? I've heard the DVX has only average "preamps" although as I'm still learning about audio I'm not entirely sure what they do! Is the MM-1 able to output a line level to camera for a stronger signal? Or would you recommend upgrading my mics and or recording device? I'm prepared to make a significant monetary investment as I realise how crucial aduio is. Is the DVX similar to AF-100 for sound?
Also, I use SOUNDBOOTH to clean up audio and remove noise and it works ok, do you guys do much audio clean-up in post and would you reccomend any particular programs?
Sorry for all the questions, but this short has really inspired me and I want to learn how to get the great results you do.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
Last edited:
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
i keep rewatching it over and over and i can't figure out what it is that is bothering me about it. nothing major i don't think and i think i was wrong about camera height. but one piece of advice i think you could have subtlely smoked the set for that shot a tad to make the column of light coming through the opening 'window' as a big 'shaft' of light falling upon the bad guy. now that would have looked even more cinematic.
i think the light is a little even and undramatic uncontrasty perhaps in that shot. perhaps a slash of light (even if logically unmotivated) across the table, or across the wall or something just to give it a little more chaotic look/feel.
the set itself just seems fake and unnatural there to me. in that shot because that bottle of gin or hwatever it is, is obviously placed unrealistically far from the bad guy's reach on the table from his back shot, obviously for it to be in the frame. but by putting it artistically in the frame i feel it sacrifices realism because it just 'feels' like someone put it there deliberately to be perfectly in the shot and that makes it feel unnatural to me.
the rest of the bar scene seems strangely dead. there are apparently 2 other patrons or so, just sitting there not even moving as far as i can see, are they mannequins? lol. and then the bar tender has zero props, he seems to be standing at a stone slab and the only thing to speak of that makes him a bar tender is a rag in his hand. the whole scene just feels strangely stilted and bizarre because of this. i would hvae liked to see a little more commotion perhaps or something to spruce it up.
back to the opening push in on the bad guy. it just feels dead somehow. i feel like perhaps something moving in frame would give it life? That candle on the back ledge? maybe light it? I don't know? I just think this is a good exercise to try to see how to make something better and more cinematic. perhaps the lighting is too even and dead and it should be more contrasty and dramatic like having the bad guy swathed in complete shadow/darkness/silhouette somehow. the close up on 1:51 seems extremely cinematic at first glance, it's your first look at bad guy's face, and depth of field is real shallow etc. BUT i feel like this shot is ruined because of the plain white sound stage looking background behind him. i feel like things like that (even lighting, and this) take away from the grittiness and chaotic feel of that setting and make everything look too clean cut and modern. when his face is floating on a shallow depth of field of pure white cleanliness like that, to me it looks bad. I feel like behind him should have been blocked something, anyuthing that looks good or menacing within that shot. a grimey looking stone wall perhaps, or the door or anything. it just looks like one of those outtakes from a greenscreen shoot without the key being pulled yet. the lighting and acting is so good on the old bartender though that when the shot cuts to him at 2:07 it immediately looks like somethign out of a real hollywood production.
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
uhmmm this camera doesn't have 2x crop factor. stop comparing it to the 5d. it has negligible 1.1 or 1.2x crop factor to real hollywood films shot on 35mm film
I'm not. It has a 2x crop compared to my Letus HVX. I don't shoot on 35mm. I didnt compare it to a 5d. I'm talking about the fact that the way this camera deals with focal length and DOF IS ENOUGH to make subtle differences which a DP is going to have to deal with to create an image with a 35mm-like fall off. Jan herself acknowledged in one of her posts about the impact of this sensor size and adjustments to lens and DOF considerations.
Melvin Harris
Black Flag Member
Just watched the movie and I am blown away by the production. It has such an impact. All in all, a very accomplished, very important piece. I also think that it is important to note the talent that came together to create it in such a short time. Less than a month from "script to screen" is a big accomplishment given all of the goodies present in the final product.
I also think that the dialogue and critiques have been interesting if not a little presumptuous in some cases, but it shows that a great piece of work should incite dialogue, discussion, and debate (ohhh, score with the alliteration... playa!).
Oh, and thanks for the credit guys; it means the world- best Christmas present in history...
Wonderful job,
Melvin
I also think that the dialogue and critiques have been interesting if not a little presumptuous in some cases, but it shows that a great piece of work should incite dialogue, discussion, and debate (ohhh, score with the alliteration... playa!).
Oh, and thanks for the credit guys; it means the world- best Christmas present in history...
Wonderful job,
Melvin
TimTheFoolMan
Well-known member
In the previous post, didn't you specifically mention "full or Super 35"? In comparison to a 5D or DOF adapter (full frame), there is a 2x crop factor, which Jan has addressed. In comparison to cinema formats, the crop factor is negligible.
Unless I'm missing something really obvious, your argument seems valid only if your DP has experience only using a 5D or a DOF adapter. I would think most people attaching the title "DP" to their name would have experience outside of those formats. - Tim
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
bhdfield the point is, the vast majority of FILMS IN HOLLYWOOD are shot with sensor/frame/crop size that is almost identical to AF100, period.....this is fact. If you're worried about 2x cropfactor then you're a photographer not a filmmaker
The frame on the af100 is about the size of 3perf 35mm.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Not really, no. Because the difference in DOF between this camera and a regular 35mm film camera, is about 1/4 of a stop. The difference between this camera and Super35, in terms of DOF, is about 1/2 a stop. In other words, pretty much negligible.
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
by the way that shot on 2:08 or whatever it is on bartender's face really seems to be the first evidence i've seen from af100 that its dynamic range may in fact be quite good. presumably that's daylight balanced HMI blasting in the old man's face and his highlights are very cinematically held.
but please for the love of god remove that long shot at 2:08 i think everything about it is bad. the frame cuts off the bad guy's head, the frame is centered on his wedgie which we really don't need to see. the patrons in the back left looks dead and disinterested not even looking at the action despite the fact that this guy just pulled a gun. the whole thing is so bad please remove this cut and put some different coverage in it will improve it alot....
but please for the love of god remove that long shot at 2:08 i think everything about it is bad. the frame cuts off the bad guy's head, the frame is centered on his wedgie which we really don't need to see. the patrons in the back left looks dead and disinterested not even looking at the action despite the fact that this guy just pulled a gun. the whole thing is so bad please remove this cut and put some different coverage in it will improve it alot....
So is "pretty much negligible" what accounts for the DOF difference in Leo's test with identical lenses on the Red vs AF100 on the crayons and watch? If I'm not mistaken the same lens and lens aperture were used for both. If so, it is readily apparent that given all other variables equal (and I do not know for sure that they were), that the same lens, with the same aperture on Red's (Super 35 size?) sensor, and the AF100 sensor, result in DOF characteristics which are by my eye, pretty different. All objects in the AF100 sample were nearly perfect focus, while the Red sample seemed to be focused most sharply on the German currency. In a nutshell, I find the AF100 footage generally rather sharp and peaky for my taste, and am looking forward to how it looks my Nikon manual primes, and menu adjustments.
My point is that this camera produces razor sharp images that are best controlled through settings and managing DOF, in ways that MAY different on larger sensor cameras for a given lens. It's something to be managed, and in my opinion, many shots in the short film were done with DOF and aperture f8-f11, too long for my taste. You may feel differently. Again, I'm not talking 5D, that's generally too shallow for film when opened wide.
My point is that this camera produces razor sharp images that are best controlled through settings and managing DOF, in ways that MAY different on larger sensor cameras for a given lens. It's something to be managed, and in my opinion, many shots in the short film were done with DOF and aperture f8-f11, too long for my taste. You may feel differently. Again, I'm not talking 5D, that's generally too shallow for film when opened wide.
I watched the film a few days ago when it was first "released" and haven't commented yet. I think overall the film is nice and entertaining to watch, and it shows everyone that a film can be made with the AF100 and with a variety of lenses. I think those are the most important things anyone can take from this. All technical things aside, it tells a story and we all liked watching it. Maybe I would have made different choices if I was directing or was the DP or was the editor, but I think a lot (if not all) of us can say that about every film we see. The filmmakers made the decisions they made for a reason and none of us were there during the shoot or the post process. Overall, great job to everyone involved. It's nice to see a group from this community come together from all around the country and make a film. Exciting times!
I have a question about the production and camera. For the outdoor shots did you use a lot of ND, whether the built-in ND or in the matte box or a combination? I'm guessing not an extreme amount if you were at f/8-f/11 most of the time, but I'm curious if an IR Cut filter might be needed when using a lot of ND on the AF100.
I have a question about the production and camera. For the outdoor shots did you use a lot of ND, whether the built-in ND or in the matte box or a combination? I'm guessing not an extreme amount if you were at f/8-f/11 most of the time, but I'm curious if an IR Cut filter might be needed when using a lot of ND on the AF100.
Leo commented that he had to open up the lens by 2 stops ( maximum aperture ) for the RED, which accounts for both the DOF difference and the softness of the image. ( the lens is not sharp wide open )
It's too bad Leo didn't just use a 0.6 ND and keep the lens settings the same.
It's too bad Leo didn't just use a 0.6 ND and keep the lens settings the same.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
"A Verse Before Dying" - Lighting Setup #3 - "The Cabin"
The scenes between the priest and Acolito were shot in a cabin with a floor that may have looked like dirt, but sadly wasn't. It was goat crap. Old, dried goat crap. And if you see particulates in the air of those shots, it's not dust. It's crap.
Diagram
Camera Position A
Camera Position B
Camera Position C
The scenes between the priest and Acolito were shot in a cabin with a floor that may have looked like dirt, but sadly wasn't. It was goat crap. Old, dried goat crap. And if you see particulates in the air of those shots, it's not dust. It's crap.
Diagram
Camera Position A
Camera Position B
Camera Position C