AF100 vs the Rest shootout

I actually like the af-100 footage more. THanks barry for bringing your 16mm along. Regardless of the color or DR, I feel the af-100 holds its own. Sure, film would win anyday, but the af-100 was right there. Like Barry said, the af-100 can be saturated more than this test showed. But, here is where I think the AF100 blows away film... THE PRICE of a decent SD card vrs. purchase, process, scanning film! POW!
 
guys this wasn't a shootout i think it was just a rough comparison just for fun. everyone knows barry is capable of a true shootout if he wanted to but that's not what this was. it's really just a little perk for those of us who might want to see the two side by side.

now leo it's your turn to shoot the Red vs. AF100 shootout
 
Barry_Green said:
Would have looked like The Wizard of Oz.
Click to expand...

barry.jpg
 
I've already shot the Red and AF100 on a test, same lens, same everything except ASA: 400 on the AF100, 320 on the Red. What a big surprise the result was! Wait for it...

Yes, the Red was better! Amazing! The important question is just how much better was the Red? Ah, that's the burning issue. Shall I tell you? First, let me remind you that we had the AF100 for a limited amount of time, set it the way we thought looked best, and shot away. Add to that the fact that this was a pre-production camera.

OK, here's the answer; in my opinion, based on shooting a single test with a pre-production camera with which I was far from expert, I would happily use the AF100 for most commercial work and I doubt it would be obviously apparent that it was not my usual Red footage. I think that's saying a lot.

Will I ditch my Red? No. It's better in most ways, but not every client has the Red budget, nor is the Red the right choice for every job. When Epic appears, with higher frame-rates and a much more compact footprint and lighter weight, the AF100 will lose some of it's appeal, but certainly not it's price advantage.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Paul Vicente said:
At this point the footage from the AF100 cannot be pushed to the saturation of the film stock.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

I think that's exactly what he meant. Since it was shot already with the saturation down, the "Verse" footage can't be pushed up to match the film as well as it could if it were shot with more color initially.
 
Ticheli said:
I've already shot the Red and AF100 on a test, same lens, same everything except ASA: 400 on the AF100, 320 on the Red. What a big surprise the result was! Wait for it...

Yes, the Red was better! Amazing! The important question is just how much better was the Red? Ah, that's the burning issue. Shall I tell you? First, let me remind you that we had the AF100 for a limited amount of time, set it the way we thought looked best, and shot away. Add to that the fact that this was a pre-production camera.

OK, here's the answer; in my opinion, based on shooting a single test with a pre-production camera with which I was far from expert, I would happily use the AF100 for most commercial work and I doubt it would be obviously apparent that it was not my usual Red footage. I think that's saying a lot.

Will I ditch my Red? No. It's better in most ways, but not every client has the Red budget, nor is the Red the right choice for every job. When Epic appears, with higher frame-rates and a much more compact footprint and lighter weight, the AF100 will lose some of it's appeal, but certainly not it's price advantage.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...

very interesting. that is saying a lot indeed. we all know the average untrained eye will never tell the difference. hell most people i know can't tell difference between Red 1 and dvx 100 footage.

but can YOU as an esteemed expert easily tell the difference? I feel i would be able to but don't know for sure.

can you post any of this test(s)?.....................?
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
I think that's exactly what he meant. Since it was shot already with the saturation down, the "Verse" footage can't be pushed up to match the film as well as it could if it were shot with more color initially.
Click to expand...

This brings up a question I had when I saw Timur was desaturating so much in camera. Sorry if it is way off topic.

Is there really an advantage to do it this way and not in post? I mean you lose a lot of flexibility if you haven't captured the full color in camera and now can't do anything about it in post if you change your mind and wish you went with a more Technicolor look.
 
Stephen Mick said:
The grades were done by the same colorist, with me in the room at the same time. We weren't necessarily trying to match the grades. Instead, we worked with the AF-100 in the context of the edit, and worked with the film in a way that it "felt" it wanted to go.

If that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately if you really want a color correction. 16mm to AF100 they sort of need to be colored the same. Most folks are drawn to color, as am I and I found the more colorful shots(16mm) to be more of what I was looking for, and was very disappointed that the AF100 didn't match. I found myself wondering why especially after seeing the stuff you posted earlier that certainly showed that the footage could be shoved around a bit. The AF100 shots after CC really looked washed out in comparison. I would like to see if the shots could match.

Thanks,

Jan
 
This "little comparison just for fun" was very useful contrary to what some of you have said... It shows how damn good the AF100 looks being compared to 16mm film. Yes I noticed the lower saturation... but as Barry stated they could have over saturated the AF100 till your pupils pop... and I think we all knew that the AF100 was probably dialed down. This shows that the AF100 has opened up another avenue for low cost digital film makers to capture pristine images. After grading... most normal "civilian" viewers wouldn't or couldn't tell the difference between what was shot with an AF100 and what was 16mm film stock... To me that is the most important thing to remember and pretty damn exciting. I paid $4000 back in 1996 for a Sony VX1000 MiniDV camera kit. I don't think any of us could of fathomed what was to come back than.. especially at what is basically the same price point 14 years later... People need to stop comparing this to Red or anything else that costs over $5000. This is a another breakthrough film making tool at a breakthrough price...
 
@retiring16mm
resolution, smesolution (technical terms).

@everyone else
I think the test was nice and showed exactly what it needed to show and this is coming from someone who complains about everything. My biggest problem with the genesis/film test was that they made them look identical. I can almost guarantee they could have made the af-100 and 16mm look pretty damn close if they shot the 16 to look digi and the digi to look film and then in post added some of this, a little of that, and bam. I also like how you colour corrected the film to where it wanted to go. I just liked it OK. :)
 
Tomorrow I'll check to see if we have the footage; I think we do. You've seen the AF100 shot already; it's the table-top shot with the small objects and the twenty pound note in the center. If we have it, I'll ask Joe Walker to put it up so you can judge for yourself.

Now, as to your question, can I readily tell the difference. In a side by side; easily. Every time. Looking at a clip of something like a pretty girl sitting at the cafe; I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer might negatively affect the few remaining years of my career.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
uhh, makes you realize how much better film is, and how much further digital has to go to compete. this bummed me out.
 
The Table-top

The Table-top

Here it is. Wait! Is this the AF100 or the Red?

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 

Attachments

  • tabletop.jpg
    tabletop.jpg
    133.1 KB · Views: 0
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...

A little searching will lead you to valid film v. digital tests and do much to un-bum you out.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
I think the Zacuto tests also point to the lessening degree of difference between film and digital. There's a kind of film beret snobbery that goes into this concept of being able to tell what is film and what's better. They're so close and I'm happy in that. Now when I shot my last feature it was pretty much DV or Film and that wasn't in the same league... Now that I'm doing my 2nd feature, there's competive options that an AUDIENCE won't be able to tell.... Time to take the beret's off and finish that mocha late...
 
Some points:

- Looks like the grades WEREN'T made to match (as mentioned)
- A little too punchy blacks on the AF100, not much care with skin tones recovery also

Film holds highlights in a very classy way, damn. Film holds skin tones even with an overall cast applied to image, shows the advantages of rich color reproduction.

I think that with the AF-100 it would require much more attention to skin tones when grading.

Justyn said:
I think the Zacuto tests also point to the lessening degree of difference between film and digital. There's a kind of film beret snobbery that goes into this concept of being able to tell what is film and what's better. They're so close and I'm happy in that. Now when I shot my last feature it was pretty much DV or Film and that wasn't in the same league... Now that I'm doing my 2nd feature, there's competive options that an AUDIENCE won't be able to tell.... Time to take the beret's off and finish that mocha late...
Click to expand...

I'd say it's definitely closer, but not really close. Color reproduction is a very important part of image acquisition and by these grades you can clearly see that 4:2:0 is not very grading friendly. The muted skin tones were ugly. Perhaps some secondaries could save that.

Steve Kahn said:
This brings up a question I had when I saw Timur was desaturating so much in camera. Sorry if it is way off topic.

Is there really an advantage to do it this way and not in post? I mean you lose a lot of flexibility if you haven't captured the full color in camera and now can't do anything about it in post if you change your mind and wish you went with a more Technicolor look.
Click to expand...

I think it all depends on how accurate the camera saturation is. When I had me old FX7 I used to tone down because BBC tests showed inaccurate saturation on some colors and toning it down a little and bringing up in post would result in a more neutral saturation.

Personally on my GH1 I don't drop saturation at all. Like in this example: http://vimeo.com/17728149

Still very usable... Don't want saturated? De-sat... :D

Ticheli said:
OK, time to be a little more direct. As a 16MM film v. AF100 test, this exercise is of almost no value. You might be able to infer some aspects, such as resolution, but the most important attributes, color and dynamic range, cannot be determined by this footage.

When dealing with film v. digital cameras the job is complicated by the very wide range of settings on the digital camera. Film is easy; you expose properly on test charts and then transfer accordingly. You can then test the range of grade you can achieve without introducing unacceptable problems. With the digital camera, what settings do you choose? In this case, it seems the camera was not set for what might be considered "nominal" and then the grade was applied to create a look dramatically different from the film grade and not to show the color capabilities of the camera.

The AF100 was setup and the footage was graded to suit the director's vision; this is as it should be, but no valid judgement on 16MM v. AF100 can be drawn from this.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...

Agree.

Stephen Mick said:
The grades were done by the same colorist, with me in the room at the same time. We weren't necessarily trying to match the grades. Instead, we worked with the AF-100 in the context of the edit, and worked with the film in a way that it "felt" it wanted to go.

If that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't take it as an offense but if the goal was not to match the two footages than it's a little weird to present it as a comparison. Perhaps freezing some frames and having some split screens could aid in the purpose of a comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top