AF-101 'on the set': some pics

ultra high def 8k? That ain't squat. Red is already planning and/or developing like a 28k resolution camera that will blow this thing out of the tub
 
bwhitz said:
Yea, that's the problem. The Cinema style work-flow... how can I eloquently put this? ...sucks balls. Giant camera systems are a paint in the ass. That's the main reason the DSLRs are being compared to Red. They give you the "look", not necessarily the quality, that Red and film have in a tiny package that all the sudden drops the cost of production by 100 fold. You can throw them on a steady-cam with no need for a $10,000 vest and arm system... you can use lighter less-expensive cranes... cheaper car mounts... they go in tighter spaces... the list goes on. Overall the DSLRs ARE a much better film-making camera. They just give the lower quality image at the moment, but still... it's an great image. That's why the Epic is going to rock the shi* out of Alexa and all other cameras for that matter. You get a better image... plus it's small and modular like a SLR.
Click to expand...

None of this is a problem for 'crewed' films done properly.
 
ROne said:
None of this is a problem for 'crewed' films done properly.
Click to expand...

Amen to that!
Even when shooting web video I hire in the same crew members that I use on Big Budget TV commercials, there is no substitute for qualified technicians that know how to get things done. (and done properly)
 
Homunculus said:
I dunno Hurlbut has also stated some very 'interesting' things, like particular lenses increase his dynamic range by like 2 stops or more. Sounds fishy to me, he seems a tad eccentric with his claims of the 5d. He also claims to love 5D compression and what it does to skin tones, saying the compression gives it a film like quality. (WTF??)
Click to expand...

I just want to see "Acts of Valor" on the big screen. If it looks incredible, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
ROne said:
None of this is a problem for 'crewed' films done properly.
Click to expand...

Just because it's 'not a problem' doesn't mean it can't be improved. Just because you have a crew doesn't guarantee a quality production. This is all part of that "Pro" fallacy... where people think that if they have a 'pro' camera and a 'pro' crew than their result must therefore be 'pro' as well... even if it sucks. "Well we did it all like the pros! It must be pro!" In fact I think it's been observed over the last 20 years of indie cinema that the 'ones who made it' did it differently and definitely didn't have 'proper film crews'. Innovation is the only way for an indie to succeed... To take the route that a big production crew would never think of taking. They simple cannot match the scale and numbers of a real film production, so why try? If you think that just because you crew up and 'look' and act professional that you're gonig to get acceptable results then you're heading down the wrong road. People watching your film don't care if you had catering and assistants... just like they wouldn't care if you had a dildo strapped to your head while performing oral sex on a dog... as long as the result is interesting.
 
All talk about DR numbers with regards to DSLR cameras made me think on how I handle video from a DSLR. It's pretty much spot on exposure and colours and often only slight adjustments to the image.

This is the way I shoot, to make it look like final result in camera rather than doing heavy grading afterwards. I don't think any DSLR with the poor codec is a good choice for grading. Get it right in camera and it looks great. A hassle to work with these cameras but the final result is rewarding. So it does look great from a 7D or 5D mkII but I doubt it can touch real RAW or decent codec 10-bit when it comes to number crunching DR.
 
"None of this is a problem for 'crewed' films done properly"
Please keep in mind that from a producers point of view Crew is the biggest chunk out of the budget.
(unless Harrison Ford stars in it)
So offering a camera solution with less crew gets their attention.
On the other hand, having 20+ crewmembers staring at an actor, chewing gum, while texting at the same time and discussing
overtime rates, makes some Directors think it would be nice to shoot a movie on a small intimate set with few people.
So it gets their attention too.
There is more to movie making then camera's and image quality, as a DP you always have to keep that in the back of your mind.
 
bwhitz said:
Just because it's 'not a problem' doesn't mean it can't be improved. Just because you have a crew doesn't guarantee a quality production. This is all part of that "Pro" fallacy... where people think that if they have a 'pro' camera and a 'pro' crew than their result must therefore be 'pro' as well... even if it sucks. "Well we did it all like the pros! It must be pro!" In fact I think it's been observed over the last 20 years of indie cinema that the 'ones who made it' did it differently and definitely didn't have 'proper film crews'. Innovation is the only way for an indie to succeed... To take the route that a big production crew would never think of taking. They simple cannot match the scale and numbers of a real film production, so why try? If you think that just because you crew up and 'look' and act professional that you're gonig to get acceptable results then you're heading down the wrong road. People watching your film don't care if you had catering and assistants... just like they wouldn't care if you had a dildo strapped to your head while performing oral sex on a dog... as long as the result is interesting.
Click to expand...

I dunno about all of this, 20 years experience has told me (starting off in the real no money end of things) that there is little point trying to emulate the big-boys without actually doing what they do. I chose my path which was to dig us out of the bottom end, invest, improve and become more professional that way I can earn more put more back in and so forth. I see many film-makers who set there sights on the indie side of things and then become so obsessessed with doing things on the cheap that I can't help but notice their films reflect it.

I'm far far from the high-end but I've always moved up aiming high and keeping professional and charging likewise. That attitude has took me from Hi8 to RED One. It's a progression in my eyes. Again personal philosophy.
 
A couple of thoughts

The AF has a small sensor compared to the 5d or 7, they would have to have better technology to equal the low light performance, it is likely that they dont

DR is one thing but IMO there is a second element to usable DR, and that is the characteristics of the 'roll to clipped' it no good having a wide DR that then just stops making an image look like it has been cut out with scissors

IMO my 5 and 7 clip in a more attractive way than my EX1, and you cant mesure 'attractive' on a chart

The canons have more usable DR than the EX1 IMO whatever the charts say (not to mention the superior glass on the canons see below)

---

Hurlburts wide DR..

So a cheap lens flares all the time, creating a fog of grey across the image and clipping information from the bottom, slip on that $50k glass and the problem is less = more DR

And I include L glass as 'cheap' at that level, Im talking about a very subtle effect not a visible fog unless the lighting is very 'contra'

Less flare gets you more DR in practice - that how his expensive glass 'gives more DR'

---

My guess is that the 1ds and 5 will have better lowlight than the AF100

My guess is that the AF100 will beat the canons in 90% of other situations , maybe 99%

My guess is that there is a risk that the AF100 will not clip in an 'attractive' manner
 
morgan moore. i thought hurlbut uses L glass, or at least used it for his last 3 minutes short or whatever it's called so when he talks about his lenses giving more DR I would assume he's referring to L glass
 
Homunculus said:
ultra high def 8k? That ain't squat. Red is already planning and/or developing like a 28k resolution camera that will blow this thing out of the tub
Click to expand...

Actually its a bit more than squat. 8k is shaping up to be the standard in around 20's. NHK Japan are also working to Ultra High Vision 8k. That means cameras the shoot 8k will be in high demand as it moves to become the broadcast standard (in about 10 -15 years).
 
I know this is a bit off-topic, but 8k broadcast standard in tens years? Bandwidth limits and compression schemes are nowhere near that capable and won't be for sometime. I mean you've got to consider how long HD has been around and it's still not even close to 100% broadcast implemented (in US). I mean 8k is a great number to throw around, but really it's not going to have any place for 15-25 years outside the cinema world. Displays capable of this kind of res are, well, basically non-existent other than multiscreen formats, but even then not close at all to 8k. Acquisition is easier to get up to speed than distribution.

HD is the public standard and it most likely will be for a long time. If anything, we'll probly see a 1080p120/3D standard sooner than anything else.
 
morgan_moore said:
The AF has a small sensor compared to the 5d or 7
Click to expand...
Compared to the 5D, yes, all cameras have a small sensor.
Compared to the 7D, no. The sensors are nearly the same size, the effective crop factor is 1.18. Not exactly the same, but very close, and certainly close enough that it's unfair to say one has a "small sensor" compared to the other.
 
Jeez this turned into a DR fest then rez fest. all i can think of reading through all this is why? Why debate what isn't in stone yet? and why oh why talk about 8k?....

But really, DSLR's don't have real curve profile abilities, the af100 will, i'll bet any of my cameras that the af100 will be less contrasty than the 5/7d. and does anyone here really need 8k? or 4k? or ANYTHING over 1080? if resolution is the most important thing to you, i'd never want to watch your films

It looks like DSLR fanatics are cradling their cameras and defending them against anything that could 'possibly' be better
 
Actually, yes, I'd want 3k or 4k if I could get it on something APS-C sized. The reason being, going higher means when I pull it down to 1080p, I will eliminate even more aliasing and actually get closer to 1080p resolution since with a bayer pattern, which most of these cameras use, you can only get something like between 70 and 80% resolution. I'd be okay with it even getting downsampled in camera to 1080p.

I worked with some Red footage and it was really nice for VFX work. Working with my 7D footage has been PAINFUL. I am of course getting better at knowing how to work around the 7D and make my life easier.
 
4K is coming, and coming fast, at least to theaters.

And, as was stated above, broadcasters have been laying the roadmaps for 8K broadcast.

And considering that some compression schemes can deliver almost flawless 4K motion with 5.1 surround sound at 15Mbps - that's Megabits...and they have been publicly demonstrated...
 
Barry_Green said:
Compared to the 5D, yes, all cameras have a small sensor.
Compared to the 7D, no. The sensors are nearly the same size, the effective crop factor is 1.18. Not exactly the same, but very close, and certainly close enough that it's unfair to say one has a "small sensor" compared to the other.
Click to expand...

My quote was .. "My guess is that the 1ds and 5 will have better lowlight than the AF100"

No mention of the 7,

S
 
Michael Olsen said:
4K is coming, and coming fast, at least to theaters.

And, as was stated above, broadcasters have been laying the roadmaps for 8K broadcast.

And considering that some compression schemes can deliver almost flawless 4K motion with 5.1 surround sound at 15Mbps - that's Megabits...and they have been publicly demonstrated...
Click to expand...

Are you sure, it has taken a while for theaters to get into digital 2k and many place are still film base. Now many are doing the transition to 3d, I don' t see the movement to 4k in any near future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top