AF100 vs the Rest shootout

It all depends on what the actual NxCam HD turns out to be. I had high hopes for the Sony NEX-VG10 consumer camera until I saw how much Sony had done to cripple it.


Danielvilliers said:
The Sony Nxcam hd with 10 bit 4.2.2 hdmi with the Sony F3 sensor could be a real alternative to the Af-100.
Click to expand...
 
I am an old film shooter, who vowed never to shoot video. But of course the DVX100 and later the HVX200 followed by the Canon 5D changed all that.
I have to say that in most of the comparisons I saw in this post, I preferred the AF-100 to the 16mm.
I'm sure it would have been different with 35mm, but the point is, we've come a ling way in digital cinema that a $5000.00 camera is capable of so much.
I am really excited about getting my AF-100 soon.
Merry Christmas everyone.
 
TheDingo said:
It all depends on what the actual NxCam HD turns out to be. I had high hopes for the Sony NEX-VG10 consumer camera until I saw how much Sony had done to cripple it.
Click to expand...

I think we are talking about two different beast comparing the Nxcam hd to the Sony NEX-VG10. If you factor out the lens the Nex would be a $ 1300 camera. In fact it is a scale up version from sony consumer nex line of photo camera (less than $ 700). While the NXCAM is the little brother of the Sony F3 $ 13 000 cinealta camera. They are sharing the same dedicated video sensor and probably a lot of the electronic internals. The big difference in the image side is that one will have 4.4.4 slog hd-sdi output while the other will be 10 bit 4.4.2 .
 
16mm vs af100

16mm vs af100

By my rough estimate the cost of an af-100 would rent a 16mm outfit for a week and pay for about 3-4 hours of film and processing and then it's gone.
 
Danielvilliers said:
I think we are talking about two different beast comparing the Nxcam hd to the Sony NEX-VG10.
Click to expand...

Daniel,

I wasn't comparing the NxCam HD with the NEX-VG10. What I was commenting on was that the NEX-VG10 was supposed to be a top of the line consumer video camera, and what Sony delivered was extremely underwhelming. Most of the high end consumer video cameras from Canon and Panasonic offer 24P mode with a proper mic input and headphone output. Worst of all the NEX-VG10 has horrible moire, which is something I would have expected Sony to take care of. I honestly don't know what the market is for the VG-10, as the camera appears to be too complex for the the average consumer, but offers none of the features that more advanced consumer / prosumer users want.

The reason I brought up the NEX-VG10, is that I fear that Sony will also cripple the NxCam HD to make sure that it won't effect it's prosumer camera market in any way. But if they do this, then the NxCam HD won't stand a chance against the AF-100.
 
Someone on the vimeo thread commented, "There's just something so lovely about film weave that makes static wides look really organic and cool."

While I've shot almost exclusively in full Cine-D w/ cinelike matrix for the past few years, I haven't much focused on emulating the organic feel of film down to the molecular level. I've worked on projects shot on 16 & 35mm film, but I'd be interested in the thoughts of others on this topic. I wonder how it would translate taking 1080p AF100 footage captured to ProRes or AVC-Intra, transferring it to 35mm film and grading in the telecine suite, for a 720p ProRes delivery. Or alternatively, taking the same 1080p ProRes/AVC-Intra source and simply applying The Foundry's ReGrain before down-converting to 720p.
 
TheDingo said:
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?
Click to expand...

Talent helps a lot to make imagination work, yes your right but the right tool also helps developping your talent; and also few little tricks. that's another discussion. What I meant is that in this film shot by the same talented person I feel more with the 16mm rather than the af100. The Af100 as great and maybe better technical points; great for "reality shots" . Any great talented person might want to use diferent tools for a diferent effect. In this exemple shooting à cowboy movie with a 16mm seems more acurate to my feelings. Shooting street documentaries , the af100 would probably be better. This is not a question of value or talent or best camera, but choice in différent situations.

as for your question "what better camera in the price range":
So far, I would stick to a dslr for movies (xlr is not a prblm when you shoot a movie and moire and aliasing can be avoided) just simply because its well under the price range and also because in my expérience and from fiction shots on dslr I've seen, I was very pleased with this tool.
On the contrary I would deffinatly swap my Sony ex3 and drop my dslr for the AF100 for non fiction work .
That's just my opinion and I might be wrong but so far the exemples of AF100 for a movie situation doesn't interest me , that's why I'll wait.
 
From an audience point of view, I would say AF100. Maybe the camera models shouldn't be written at the beginning, then we see who pick up 16mm and who af-100:)
 
alarch said:
What I meant is that in this film shot by the same talented person I feel more with the 16mm rather than the af100. The Af100 as great and maybe better technical points; great for "reality shots" . Any great talented person might want to use diferent tools for a diferent effect. In this exemple shooting à cowboy movie with a 16mm seems more acurate to my feelings.
Click to expand...

This seems to be a personal emotional response that you are having with regards to 16mm film, which is fine, you have every right to feel that way.

I come from 10+ year of studio still photography background, shooting everything under the sun with 35mm Nikon, 6x7 Mamiya RZ, Sinar P2 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. Despite having a long history of shooting film, I have no love affair with film. To me film and digital are simply tools that you use to achieve what ever you want to create. I know from experience that digital media can look every bit as good as film but you have to master your tools, so you are able to control exactly what the finished result will be.

Just like film, standard digital settings will create standard results, so if you want to achieve something more, you have to know your entire production process inside and out, and reach a point where you can pre-visualize what the final result will be while you are shooting. It takes a lot of practice to reach this point. ( I'm still working on it with my own digital process )

While I've seen some nice work shot with DSLRs, I don't see any place where they are better than the AF-100. ( The 5D may have better low-light ability and shallower DOF, but it comes with a ton of problems that the AF-100 does not have )

I also don't see why the AF-100 would be a good choice for street documentaries, as it's NOT and ENG camera, and seems like a bad choice for ENG run'n'gun style shoots.
 
TheDingo said:
This seems to be a personal emotional response that you are having with regards to 16mm film, which is fine, you have every right to feel that way.

I come from 10+ year of studio still photography background, shooting everything under the sun with 35mm Nikon, 6x7 Mamiya RZ, Sinar P2 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. Despite having a long history of shooting film, I have no love affair with film. To me film and digital are simply tools that you use to achieve what ever you want to create. I know from experience that digital media can look every bit as good as film but you have to master your tools, so you are able to control exactly what the finished result will be.

Just like film, standard digital settings will create standard results, so if you want to achieve something more, you have to know your entire production process inside and out, and reach a point where you can pre-visualize what the final result will be while you are shooting. It takes a lot of practice to reach this point. ( I'm still working on it with my own digital process )

While I've seen some nice work shot with DSLRs, I don't see any place where they are better than the AF-100. ( The 5D may have better low-light ability and shallower DOF, but it comes with a ton of problems that the AF-100 does not have )

I also don't see why the AF-100 would be a good choice for street documentaries, as it's NOT and ENG camera, and seems like a bad choice for ENG run'n'gun style shoots.
Click to expand...

I have no emotional thing with 16mm film, in fact I don't care about 16mm film, I've allways worked with digital video. Is it just possible for somebody to say what he FEELS as an experienced viewer when he see's images regardless of the confort or problems for the cameraman?
We have here a film shot by the same guy with 2 cameras, with the same conditions, in the same environment. that's a great exemple and sorry, but the AF100 is less interesting to me, and believe me I wish it was.
You know, for decades some great documentaries which were broadcasted have been made without ENG cameras. some by choice , some by budget prblms, some because they didn't exist yet.
 
alarch said:
I have no emotional thing with 16mm film, in fact I don't care about 16mm film, I've allways worked with digital video. Is it just possible for somebody to say what he FEELS as an experienced viewer when he see's images regardless of the confort or problems for the cameraman?
Click to expand...

...But if you can't define what you mean in technical terms ( sharper image, better color, smoother tonal range, wider dynamic range, smoother motion blur, less image noise, smoother hi-light shoulder, better separation of darker gray tones, etc... ) then it sounds like you are taking an emotional stance, not based upon any form of empirical logic.

I'm sure lots of people are not going to be fans of the AF-100 camera, but I hope they can describe in technical terms exactly why they don't like the camera. Otherwise discussion is meaningless.
 
TheDingo said:
Ha!

...I see a lot of AF-100 smack-talk from Sony fans that just can't wrap their heads around the idea that Panasonic's AVCHD might actually be a pretty good acquisition CODEC.
Click to expand...

The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is out there. They can see for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top