AF100, my first impressions and some questions.
- Thread starter Adamsenoj
- Start date
ulisses
Well-known member
That footage show some highlighted areas but great result, some are white too. Erik got nice images there.
Im only trying to show some good AF100 footage, I work with EX1, RED, 5D, GH2 and I personally like pana colors / texture.
Its not a perfect camera, but if EX1 were perfect you shouldn't have spent your money and time in a AF100
Looks like nobody will change your mind, so don't keep pushing it. I understand your type of camera, probably you'll be a Lot happier with a FS700.
EndCredits
Well-known member
I just shot a bunch of stuff for a client this weekend in the midday sun out at a racecourse. I got my af100 when they first came out, I was one of the first preorders here in Auz. Even now, over a year later I still am learning how to get the best out of the little camera. It can be frustrating but it can be made to work.
I think you are right that you shouldn't have to deal with workarounds to make it look good but the reality is you do.
I got a SmallHD dp6 and it has massively improved the usability of the camera.
Yes there is a evf and a screen but its not the first camera where its a bit **** and needs a monitor.
I set my zebras at 105 and 70. 70 for skin, don't want to see any on faces so I roll the iris till it only just disappears. 105 for highlights, again roll off till i don't see it.
I prefer the one zebra setting at a time, the EX3 way always give me the shits, so each to their own.
The zebras show on anything over the level you have set so if something is over 100 ire both the 100 and 70 settings will show zebras on that spot. This is unlike an ex3 where the 70 setting wont show.
I think you are right that you shouldn't have to deal with workarounds to make it look good but the reality is you do.
I got a SmallHD dp6 and it has massively improved the usability of the camera.
Yes there is a evf and a screen but its not the first camera where its a bit **** and needs a monitor.
I set my zebras at 105 and 70. 70 for skin, don't want to see any on faces so I roll the iris till it only just disappears. 105 for highlights, again roll off till i don't see it.
I prefer the one zebra setting at a time, the EX3 way always give me the shits, so each to their own.
The zebras show on anything over the level you have set so if something is over 100 ire both the 100 and 70 settings will show zebras on that spot. This is unlike an ex3 where the 70 setting wont show.
EndCredits
Well-known member
Actually looking over my stuff from yesterday, I really don't get the discolored highlight issue. All my highlights blow out to white aside from a red brick wall that when I rolled and had not exposed yet, it was very orange but that was massively over exposed over the whole scene.
fwiw, i dial in my white balance most of the time and use drs 1 for this kind of work.
fwiw, i dial in my white balance most of the time and use drs 1 for this kind of work.
mainstreetprod
Veteran
I'm shooting a feature with the AF and have only had a couple of times where things got ugly. One was when trying to shoot a shady area with a fully sunlit area in the background. Not possible with the AF, almost impossible with most other cameras. Zebras are at 70 and 100, no zebras on faces at 70 usually works fine. I would never depend on the LCD for focus assist, I got a Ruige 7" with magnification type focus assist that works just like the HVX did and I've never looked back. It even has a wired remote that lets me hit FA from the tripod handle.
The scene file I use is somewhere on DVX, labeled "Alex". It gives me a great look and handles highlights better than out of the box.
The scene file I use is somewhere on DVX, labeled "Alex". It gives me a great look and handles highlights better than out of the box.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Did it handle the shadows better? Doubtful. Every sensor is going to have a different sweet spot. Some will have more head room, some more room in the shadows. If you've shot on all you said you have, you should know this. Phone's especially are bias towards highlights normally anyways so you shouldn't have been surprised at what you saw. There's nothing different here with this camera then any other camera you've used. It just has a different bias. If you're using CineGammas as well there's no protective rolloff, so it's going to smack right into the top hard and harsh. If you're aware of that and you compensate exposure you should be fine.
That "mess" you're referring to is merely it's lack of headroom compared to some other cameras. It does however see into the shadows pretty well, so it just has a different midpoint sweet-spot as I said above. Some other cameras seem to have a better sweet-spot more suited to certain people's habits of exposing, and when someone picks up something with a shift in one direction or another they cry foul and blame it on the camera. There's no "mess" here, just a lack of education on your part using the camera. That's NOT an insult by the way, just going from what I see here. You're not familiar with the camera and need to get more familiar with it to know it's needs for a beautiful image, which it is able to achieve as Shooter and many others have proven.
How is this any different then shooting on film? Yes film has a wider dynamic range, but with typical 35mm film you would expose for the shadows (since that isn't film's strongpoint) and the film would be able to hold onto a lot of highlight detail for later. Think of the AF100 as the opposite...where you need to expose for highlights instead. Not sure what the issue is here, you should know this having shot on so many other formats all with their own needs in the high/low end's.
Also with some of the highlight colors you see (like yellow), a simple CC operation to desaturate it will help depending on the shot and how badly it's exposed. If you run into a situation where blowing out is very difficult to avoid and you're going to clip in your shadows no matter what because of the light (like outdoor uncontrolled) then you either have to A) deal with it or buy another camera for that particular job that can handle it more gracefully or B) expose for the highlights and fill. It's a simple A or B, it's not the camera's fault really.
I came to the AF100 a year and a half ago after shooting with my HPX500 for nearly three years. That 500 was the most bullet-proof video camera I've ever owned, you couldn't take a bad picture with DVCPRO HD - unfortunately after many (I think unwarranted) tirades on this and other sites about how "down-in-the-tooth" the codec and the camera in general were, I was forced by fund-raissing circumstances to change (true 1080 became a prerequisite).
For the first 6 months or so I didn't care much for the 100. It takes a lot of tender loving care to get a good picture from it. After dicking around with not only the scene files and exposure judgement, but the form factor (I handhold almost exclusively) now I am reluctant to give it up. I had pre-ordered an FS700 but cancelled it because I really don't want a poorly designed brick on my shoulder. True the 100 has highlight issues, just as it's HPX500, HVX200 and DVX100 predecessors did, but they only seem to be really objectionable to the techno-geeks. I've had 7 films projected from Blu-Ray at film festivals that were shot on either the 500 or 100 - all of which have several scenes with highlight or chroma clipping - and not once has anyone commented or been distracted by it. Now, admittedly, my films are documentaries with a verite flavor, so little problems like clipping and noise aren't as problematic, but still I have to take issue with the vehement attacks that are aimed at the AF100 - IT'S A (now less than) $5000 CAMERA! I know people with suits that cost more than that.
For the first 6 months or so I didn't care much for the 100. It takes a lot of tender loving care to get a good picture from it. After dicking around with not only the scene files and exposure judgement, but the form factor (I handhold almost exclusively) now I am reluctant to give it up. I had pre-ordered an FS700 but cancelled it because I really don't want a poorly designed brick on my shoulder. True the 100 has highlight issues, just as it's HPX500, HVX200 and DVX100 predecessors did, but they only seem to be really objectionable to the techno-geeks. I've had 7 films projected from Blu-Ray at film festivals that were shot on either the 500 or 100 - all of which have several scenes with highlight or chroma clipping - and not once has anyone commented or been distracted by it. Now, admittedly, my films are documentaries with a verite flavor, so little problems like clipping and noise aren't as problematic, but still I have to take issue with the vehement attacks that are aimed at the AF100 - IT'S A (now less than) $5000 CAMERA! I know people with suits that cost more than that.
A little update. Shot the whole day today with the AF100. Got better results by exposing skin tones considerably under while shooting with a flat scene file. Although you still get the odd nose or forehead shine and they blow UGLY, at least the rest of the face looks good. Dialed chroma all the way down to -7. Seems to be the only way. But still got ugly yellow blow outs in buildings in the background where I couldn't avoid unless miserably underexposing faces to the point of silhouette.
I think shooting flat for grading is the best workflow to get natural looking images.
Zebras are still driving me batty but getting used to them.
Focus assist was designed by somebody who never operated a large sensor camera or manual focus lens before and if you don't have good eye sight, forget it! Sometimes all you see is like a little red dot on a shirt button or 1/1000th of a hair in red. I went by that and focus came out ok, but boy does it give you a headache? Panasonic should hire video engineers and cameramen to design the AF200 instead of marketing gurus.
Interestingly I have not had any problems with the sharpness. Plenty sharp to me and I'm shooting with detail at -5. Was never a big fan or the over sharpened video look.
I think shooting flat for grading is the best workflow to get natural looking images.
Zebras are still driving me batty but getting used to them.
Focus assist was designed by somebody who never operated a large sensor camera or manual focus lens before and if you don't have good eye sight, forget it! Sometimes all you see is like a little red dot on a shirt button or 1/1000th of a hair in red. I went by that and focus came out ok, but boy does it give you a headache? Panasonic should hire video engineers and cameramen to design the AF200 instead of marketing gurus.
Interestingly I have not had any problems with the sharpness. Plenty sharp to me and I'm shooting with detail at -5. Was never a big fan or the over sharpened video look.
tommygdawg
Well-known member
I don't understand how you manage to always blow highlights into yellow. I've seen this, but only when pointing directly at a sky and purposefully overexposing. 9 times out of 10, highlights blowing into yellow isn't a problem for me.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Yes I'm confused by this also. The red FA is my favorite feature the camera has to offer save the internal ND. Shooting in all sorts of conditions including harsh sunlight where seeing the LCD was challenging, I also NAIL IT with the red focus assist turned on. If you turn on normal peaking AND red assist you can get it even closer. Not sure what you're shooting OP'er but I've never come home and found I missed focus when using those features. If I have it was my fault...lol.
On bright high contrast i tend to go low knee, low chroma and under expose.
Its not a work around, its a balancing act. You do your best to shoot a scene without letting the ycbcr go over the limit while making sure your subject is properly exposed. I think all subjectsaround 40-60 ire are very safe. 70% is pushing it.
Its not a work around, its a balancing act. You do your best to shoot a scene without letting the ycbcr go over the limit while making sure your subject is properly exposed. I think all subjectsaround 40-60 ire are very safe. 70% is pushing it.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
I've never had trouble with it when I've needed it. I might just be in situations that are ideal to use it that way...ah well. I wouldn't use it all the time because it's not necessary, but otherwise it's treated me well whether it be wides or long lens 200mm+.
I don't manage to blow highlights, they blow by themselves.
The camera's dynamic range is just not very good to begin with and when shooting outside in harsh sun light you have no choice but exposing for the people in the shot. Whatever is in the background, if they are over, they are over and they will blow and when they blow, it blows to yellow, even with the -7 chroma. Better with the -7 chroma, but still there.
The interesting thing, and sorry if I keep coming back to it, but the EX3 was my first non 2/3" broadcast camera, so it's my only reference in the small cheap camera world, the interesting thing is even thought the EX3 has technically a half stop less DR, the AF100 seems to actually have less because if anything blows at all it just look ugly while the EX3 can handle highlights way better.
Talking about skies, in a over cast day, if you expose to the sky your buildings and specially people in the shot will be dark. Nothing you can do, specially with this camera.
If it's a close up, then yes, it's much easier to see. But if it's a wide shot, it's much harder. Also, if the shot is lower contrast, forget it. The red outline just takes a break. With the EVF in black and white is easier but then you can't see the yellow blows outs showing their ugly faces. So I leave the EVF now in color. I don't use the LCD for anything but waveform. In daylight it's basically useless and I prefer the EVF anyway. Unless I'm shooting from the hip or something.
Yep. My opinion exactly.
dustylense
Veteran
Sounds like you're giving up to early instead of asking those that have used the camera successfully for the past year and 1/2.
First, drop the chroma level.
First, drop the chroma level.
Problem with the other gammas besides cine is the HD video look I don't much care for. If I wanted a HD video look I would shoot with a 2/3" broadcast camera instead of a cinema camera. It would be great if somehow we could have had knee control with the cine gammas.