AF100 vs the Rest shootout

Homunculus said:
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 ;-)
Click to expand...

I loved the wrestler! When 16mm makes sense, it just does! :tongue: But it's an expensive luxury.
 
16mm made sense for last year's movie of the year, "The Hurt Locker"! I loved it for "It Might Get Loud", but the interiors were very grainy. I think the AF100 will push 16mm to even more of a niche position, although Varicams had already had a hand in that.
 
I will compare the AG-Af100/101, the 5D MK II, the GH2, the 60D and the Red One for sure on Jannuary 2011.
So take a look at my blog www.filippochiesa.eu

Thomas Church said:
Is anyone planning a AF100/5D/60d/GH2/RED shootout soon?

I obviously want to get an AF100, but the price (and availability) of the Birger mount was a bit of a letdown for me, to be honest.

I wish we had someting cheaper (around 300 bucks) that I could just walk into BH and buy.

It's gonna cost a lot to be able to use the Canon glass we already have.
Click to expand...
 
I have a RED MX, a GH1(3), will be getting my AF100 soon, about to put money down on a F3, and I have access to an Alexa, a 5D, 7D, and t2i. Mybe I'll do something once I get the Af100 and the F3. It might be pointless tho since I'm sure we all know how things will pan out.
 
Brian@202020 said:
I have a RED MX, a GH1(3), will be getting my AF100 soon, about to put money down on a F3, and I have access to an Alexa, a 5D, 7D, and t2i. Mybe I'll do something once I get the Af100 and the F3. It might be pointless tho since I'm sure we all know how things will pan out.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we all know how things will pan out, but is interesting to know how and if all theese cameras can match together.
 
Brian@202020 said:
I have a RED MX, a GH1(3), will be getting my AF100 soon, about to put money down on a F3, and I have access to an Alexa, a 5D, 7D, and t2i. Mybe I'll do something once I get the Af100 and the F3. It might be pointless tho since I'm sure we all know how things will pan out.
Click to expand...
good god. who are you? Do you require a Slave?
 
I'm nothing like as technically minded as all you camera guru's on here, but for me we're getting past the point where other than at the very top-end it really matters what camera you use.

Other than some very specific limitations based on what you are filming (ie moire is going to be a major problem), almost every camera image looks first class now.

I'd happily shoot on just about anything now.
 
Agreed. For me it's much more about usable features, than it is about worrying about image. The image is there now, and has been for years.
 
The 16mm and AF100 reel is interesting to watch. I prefered the AF100 for texture - while I preferred the film for grade. Whatever the intention, people who don't understand the non-compete context of the reel are going to have the same reaction to the film's lovely, saturated grading.

Anyway, I feel like I saw better latitude in some shots from the AF100 - the wide shot of the horse running off with the woman on its back is one such example. The separation between the horse and the trees felt a lot better to me in the AF100. My brain tells me there should be better DN (even in 16mm) but what I see looks nicer from Panasonic.
 
Another thing regarding the grade....isn't the point of colour grading to match the mood of the piece?

In the footage shown the AF colder footage makes me think more about a hard edged western, something like Unforgiven, with harsh themes and a tough way of life. The 16mm grade would make me expect a more romanticised story.

I'm not really sure of the point I'm making here...I suppose just that any look is purely an aesthetic consideration for the film you are making and not really better or worse in any way.
 
I don't understand the hurt feelings over this footage? The AF100 was simply graded differently - the underlying footage is fantastic. Seeing more of Verse, I keep thinking it could benefit from having a little grain added?
 
I'm unaware of any "hurt feelings" about any of the footage; I think the comments, other than praise, were that the very different grades made it unhelpful as a comparison between 16MM and the AF100.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
...I have to say that I like the look of these "A Verse Before Dying" shots much more than the previous trailer. Very cool indeed!

I don't think any comparison can be made between film and the AF-100 here, as the film color-saturation completely overwhelms you, while the AF-100 feels kind of "flat" when shown side by side.
 
I'm really desapointed by the quality of the AF100 . So far the vidéos around are really not that great.
I mean its probably a great camera for events and any kind of documentary, really good. However , what ever moire, shutter speed, xlr, sdi problems it solves, for movies or short cut it just doens't seems to have that thing that makes our imagination work.
Maybe we can't compare whatever technical point with the 16mm but at the end , yes we can compare which makes you dream more. Because at the end, that's what is the only important thing.To me the 16mm makes me dream and the AF100 brings me back straigh down.
Don't get me wrong its a great camera, I would love to make a wild life doc with it, but for movies, from what I have seen so far, no.
 
In my opinion I can' t understand the aesthetic (grading) choice made for this film. After what could be called the Japan fiasco with the questions on the dynamic range and skin tone highlights etc question marks for the af100. We see a western piece with a desaturated green ala post apocalyptic war terminator salvation style. Where you can' t judge the skin tone etc... then you get a look at film with it gloriuos skin tone, highlight roll off and saturation and colorimetric (warm, red/yellow) that I find much more pleasing when dealing with the dry desert type country side. On the contrary the first Sony F3 video I saw had some good to great skin tone, natural human being which I guest what will be in 90% shot for narrative work. It is true that it was shot in Grey London thus not challenging the dynamic range. Guest I will have to wait just a little because people are taking delivery of there af100 as we speak and we will see much more example.
 
Alarch,

...I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with you here. For me what makes imagination work is TALENT and the DRIVE to create what ever you can dream up.

Watching "A Verse Before Dying" it's obvious to me that the only limitation with the AF-100 is going to be YOU. I love some shots, I am "meh" about some others, and like many other people here I might have done some things a little differently, but its obvious that the camera is not getting in the way at all.

...So the bottom line is: If the AF-100 doesn't float your boat, what's a better camera that's in the same price range ?

DSLRs ? : Tons of imaging problems along with crappy audio ?

RED : The Epic looks to be a beautiful camera, but it's more than $20,000 over what an AF-100 costs. ( The RED ONE is gigantic and weighs as much as a good boat-anchor, and still costs 4-5 times what an AF-100 does )

SONY F3 : Looks like an interesting camera with a great sensor, but we are still in the RED price range, so again it's a NO GO for many of us.

...What's your idea of a better solution?

alarch said:
I'm really desapointed by the quality of the AF100 . So far the vidéos around are really not that great.

I mean its probably a great camera for events and any kind of documentary, really good. However , what ever moire, shutter speed, xlr, sdi problems it solves, for movies or short cut it just doens't seems to have that thing that makes our imagination work.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top