AF100 vs the Rest shootout

I thought both examples were fine and it was the right decision to grade to what the source gave back. Film stocks have a look and so do digital cameras.

The pannys have a look I am very partial to. Don't try and make it what it aint.

One area the AF100 absolutely outs hone the film camera in , was frame stabilty (ie "gate float"). My eye went straight to it in the examples.

Done a recent steady test on your camera Barry?
 
We also have to take into account the cost and workflow issues of film. The lack of real monitoring and playback, coupled with the astronomical expense. A good solid day of shooting costs about as much as the AF100 and then there's the unforseen lovely aspects of the chemical process of film, and the lab to deal with. There's nothing quite like edge fogged film or a lab that scratches a couple of rolls, or shipping nightmares.. etc. IN my film career I had an entire days worth of film edge fogged by an AC, I had a lab scratch an entire weeks worth of film, and I had a shipping company loose all of our original workprints... Sure digital has its issues and film is still the best archival method, but it's not without its caveats... I personally wouldn't want to shoot on film again unless someone else is paying.. and even then, a couple of times in the changing bag and I'll be a huckleberry.
 
Shooter said:
I thought both examples were fine and it was the right decision to grade to what the source gave back. Film stocks have a look and so do digital cameras.

The pannys have a look I am very partial to. Don't try and make it what it aint.

One area the AF100 absolutely outs hone the film camera in , was frame stabilty (ie "gate float"). My eye went straight to it in the examples.

Done a recent steady test on your camera Barry?
Click to expand...

what is gate float?


edit: thinking about it, perhaps when the film strip sort of wobbles around a bit when it's scrolling through so that the frame becomes slightly unstable?
 
damn now that you mention it in the opening wide shot in particular the 16mm frame seems to be jumping around all over the place like the film is loose as it scrolls through the aperture. barry maybe that ebay cam is a clunker! i'l buy it off you for 50$ ;-)
 
attachment.php
 
Homunculus said:
what is gate float?


edit: thinking about it, perhaps when the film strip sort of wobbles around a bit when it's scrolling through so that the frame becomes slightly unstable?
Click to expand...

Yep thats gate float /weave and maybe a bit of wear on the claw. Gotta love the stabilty of digital acqusition. (Less distratction)

Agree with you Justyn. I never miss not working on film at any level. Shot some last week for first time in a while. Really seemed archaic.
 
There is one particular shot that always seems superior on film; the locked-off still life or table-top. On film it always has a little "life" to it because each individual frame is completely unique. The molecules are never in exactly the same place, so each frame is a bit different as opposed to digital where every locked-off frame is identical. Even an imperceptible bit of gate weave adds to the beauty of the film shot; of course perceptible gate weave is terrible and especially horrible if supers are added over the shot, which is common in commercials.

For this reason I try to keep a little camera movement on what would be a locked-off shot so the digital monotony of absolutely identical frames does not manifest itself.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
maranfilms said:
uhh, makes you realize how much better film is, and how much further digital has to go to compete. this bummed me out.
Click to expand...
Film keeps improving. Some of that was shot with the older Vision2 stock, and some was with the brand new Vision3. And, keep in mind, this was Ultra16 -- which is about 93% of the way to Super16, but nowhere near what 35mm film can do.

Also, keep in mind that when I first started loading the mag, I said... well, I should let the other guys tell you what I said, because there were several in earshot... I'm sure they remember quite clearly.
 
Shooter said:
Done a recent steady test on your camera Barry?
Click to expand...
No, that was the only footage that's been run through it. This was a recent ebay purchase, so I didn't know if we were gonna get anything out of it, or a big ol' scratched mess, or totally out of focus, or pristine and sharp. It was all a total gamble.
 
Good saturation is NOT a problem any Panasonic cameras have. I have seen my HPX2700 look very close to Super 16mm, Film-Rec gamma really does a good job of emulating film highlight information. The AG series cameras cannot compete with a 32 bit DSP of a P2 Varicam, IMO, but that doesn't mean the AF100 isn't capable of stellar imagery when highlights are controlled. The soon to be released large sensor P2 Varicam will offer first and foremost a more refined tonality and highlight handling capability, but aside from that and a better codec and SN ratio, I can't imagine it looking that much different than an AF100 in proper shooting conditions. In other words, it's doubtful that it will produce 6X better images.
 
For this reason I try to keep a little camera movement on what would be a locked-off shot so the digital monotony of absolutely identical frames does not manifest itself.
Click to expand...

How do you do this on locked off shots Leo? (thanks so much for posting here. I learn on every posts you make!)
 
Sorry not to be clear; take the example of a close up shot, something like a woman picking up a small picture or a table-top product shot; rather than actually locking off, use just a little subtle movement, a little pan and tilt to keep the movement in the frame. In general, moving shots are more interesting, but with digital, true locked off shots tend to look really dead.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Thanks for the clarification Leo.

Since we're in the digital age I wonder if that gate sway could be simulated with an After Effects random x-y wiggle every frame. I'd love to try this out on a locked CU shot.
 
Last edited:
LOL!

Been paying attention to this thread since its' inception and want to once again extend my gratitude. The professionalism, generosity, humor, humility, and grace that permeate this thread is just inspiring.

Thank you guys!

Dillon

EDITED TO ADD: Ugh, I just realized that it wasn't THIS thread that I bestow such gratitude, but the VERSE thread. But seeing Barry as Lion in Wizard of Oz with that chart just did something to me.

mcgeedigital said:
attachment.php
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ticheli said:
There is one particular shot that always seems superior on film; the locked-off still life or table-top. On film it always has a little "life" to it because each individual frame is completely unique. The molecules are never in exactly the same place, so each frame is a bit different as opposed to digital where every locked-off frame is identical. Even an imperceptible bit of gate weave adds to the beauty of the film shot; of course perceptible gate weave is terrible and especially horrible if supers are added over the shot, which is common in commercials.

For this reason I try to keep a little camera movement on what would be a locked-off shot so the digital monotony of absolutely identical frames does not manifest itself.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I don't lock off shots unless it's necessary for visual effects. I've had people tell me they thought a shot in one of my films was a freeze frame when it wasn't. Since then, I usually don't even use a tripod unless I need a very smooth pan or tilt. Otherwise, even for non-moving inserts or other non-moving shots I put the camera on my shoulder, on my knee, a sandbag, or something so that it doesn't seem like a freeze frame and there's always some kind of movement.
 
Steve Kahn said:
Thanks for the clarification Leo.

Since we're in the digital age I wonder if that gate sway could be simulated with an After Effects random x-y wiggle every frame. I'd love to try this out on a locked CU shot.
Click to expand...

I love how we now need to add imperfections to make our shots look "better" lol!
 
Barry_Green said:
Whoa -- hold your horses there... the AF100 can be configured to be way, way, way, way more saturated than any film stock! Our palette that we shot "Verse" with was very muted, I think the color level was set to all the way down to its lowest possible setting, -7. Set at +7, it would have blown the doors off the joint with color. Would have looked like The Wizard of Oz.


That's the thing about shootouts, and why I never really want to do one ever again -- everyone will always complain about how you did it. If we graded the film to look exactly like the AF100, people would then say "well what's the point in that? We want to see how the film can do more than the AF100" or, on the other hand, they'd say "what's the point in that? We want to see how the AF100 can do more than film" or ... whatever.

I have encountered no more thankless job than "the shootout"...
Click to expand...

Hey Barry,

Want you to know I was not trying to diss the footage at all-- I merely stated that both looked different for the reason that the AF footage was shot with a low saturation level, whereas the film was capturing its full color.

I did not mean to say the AF 'could not' do what the film was capable of... I simply said that you could not grade the AF footage (shot with these camera settings) to get the color saturation exhibited by the film stock.

But the reverse situation (getting the film to have a desaturated look like the footage shot with the AF100 (under the camera settings chosen by the DP)) would be possible.

I was not dissing your work, or the capability of the cameras (either one).

Cheers.

Paul Vicente
 
Adam J McKay said:
@retiring16mm
resolution, smesolution (technical terms).
Click to expand...

lol.

Hey, I love shooting film as much as everyone else. I don't even think shooting 16mm is a pain in the ass, but it's just not economically viable anymore. 35mm, is beautiful, and totally worth the cost increase over digital, but S16? Sadly, no. (unless I'm for a specific effect, like lot's of film grain).

My first short was S16mm scanned in HD and transferred to 35. It looks good, was shot in 7218, but even so, it's just too grainy for what it should have looked if I had a little more money (to shoot it in 35mm). One format remembers me of the films I'm used to watch on the big screen, the other, remembers me of old TV commercials.

And I'm not just that sad to see it go. (opposed to the grief I still feel for Kodachrome, for instance) :)
 
i agree. 16mm is cool but damn..just way too grainy. it's so distracting watching the black swan or the wrestler etc. 35mm is where it's at ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top