AF100 vs. Alexa
- Thread starter Dino
- Start date
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Meh, the "Howitzah" can do that.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Very cool. What did you use to shoot that video of the AF100 on there?
An HVX200. :thumbsup:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Maybe if you strung thirteen of them end-to-end... :thumbsup:
Hey, that just made me realize... next time I work with the truck, I'm gonna bring along the GH2. The 3.9x extended-zoom on top of the 2x crop on top of the 4,000mm optical length of the telescope, should result in a grand total of about 31,200mm in terms of a 35mm still camera. That would be quite a telephoto lens...
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Don't give me ideas.....
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Thanks for the estimation. We will test both soon. AG-AF would act as "the eye" for a second, slightly eerie level of the story - our "subtext" cam. So it will have to go to places where we might not want to send an ALEXA to. Given the broadcaster accepts the AVCHD material (transcoded to our work flow) this could be extremely helpful for short inserts.
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
maranfilms
Veteran
Too funny! Your humor was not lost on me.
+1
tflak
Veteran
Haha...reminds me of the craze back in the '60s in the States to put exotic fiberglass shells over VW Beetle frames. My neighbor actually had a Healy 3000 body with a 'vette engine. Never really saw him pull to the curb - just kind of suddenly appeared.
And while you take the enclosures.... I'll Gladly take those pesky internals off your hands....
Dino
Veteran
Steve, I'm not sure I agree about the codec being the biggest/only differentiator. The heart of an Alexa or RED MX/EPIC is the sensor and its processing, that's where the magic is. A great codec won't make a poor stills sensor to video mode implementation look good. If the stills sensor to video mode is pixel binning, line skipping, aliasing, skewing, limiting resolution and DR, then a good codec will only faithfully reproduce the artifacts.
There is a reason why the rear half of an Alexa is a big heat sink, even though the sensor has much less pixel count than a DSLR--it's much more sophisticated processing. Similarly, the image processing power/sophistication of a P2 Varicam is on a different level than an HPX170. This is a big part of the price difference.
Last edited:
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
You're probably right Jeff.
Still it will be fun to see how how things change when people start pulling 18bit raw images off the AF100 chip. Will it be Arri Alexa good? Probably not. But for conceivably under 10k we could have something pretty damn close in the near future.
Still it will be fun to see how how things change when people start pulling 18bit raw images off the AF100 chip. Will it be Arri Alexa good? Probably not. But for conceivably under 10k we could have something pretty damn close in the near future.
Not sure the "Andromeda" system can work with Cmos.....
The sensor will still be the same. Which means you'll still be limited in latitude in comparison to something like an Epic or especially Alexa...
I want to shoot Alexa for everything myself, or EPIC HDRx.
I kinda don't like the HDRX concept. Takes all the fun out of lighting. What's the use in lighting when it will capture deep into the shadows and highlights. I mean, yes control in post, but who wants an editor/colorist to light your scene and decide the mood of a shot. This is one thing I HATE about the red. Everything you shoot, and carefully light, color, expose for dramatic effect, gets erased in the "grading". This happens constantly, and it makes for very milktoast movies. I'm gonna start demanding final say over picture look in my contract.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
At 5k there will be many many AF100s sold. The incentive to hack and mod will be high and the low cost of the camera won't prevent many from voiding their warranties.
If Andromeda doesn't work something will.
This is very exciting to me. It really takes you back to old style film making where if the dp or director didn't have the tool they'd make it. That is why I like the diy Zasa slider. That is why I love this camera. It will be ripe for the diy crowd which is part of the essence of great old style film making.
Well, why would it take the fun out of lighting? That's where the fun is to be had with HDRx, not just setting the camera up to shoot what it sees. For me, HDRx is just allowing me to treat the image whichever way I see fit without losing detail in highs, mids or blacks. Kicks can be two to two and a half stops hotter but still see fine detail, dark hair won't disappear into itself, the list goes on.
I've never really had any of my lighting killed in the grade. Typically, in my experience, the most a colorist can do is balance the luma, but even then it can't change things that are baked into the image like rims, etc. But, then again, I've walked away from generating general ambiance in most cases and shape what exists, so there's a fair amount of contrast that you really couldn't get rid of in post.
HDRx is just another tool for controlling how light affects your image. It is that creative ability to manipulate the image in ways not possible with a video camera that I love about Red and RAW acquisition. One can establish a base look and light and shoot for it with Red just as with a video camera, but you are not locked into it later if you decide to go for a different look. Unless you are in a studio setting with accurate well calibrated monitors in a neutral control room environment, what you see on a camera LCD or viewfinder isn't going to provide a particularly good reference for what you actually capture anyway.
No self respecting creative still photographer these days would put up with the inherent limitations of an 8 bit or 10 bit encoded format for image capture.