AF100 - First Screenshots

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.

tomatosm.jpg


chris24sm.jpg


Cherrywater1sm.png
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Shooter said:
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"
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.

perfect_sm.jpg


View full 1080p grab: http://www.kyleprohaska.com/af100/perfect_lg.jpg
 
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
 
Sparky874 said:
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
Click to expand...

What was posted in this thread would have all been at Default Scene File 1
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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).
 
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...

af100_deniseext1.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top