And people thought pros would NEVER use AF!

I’d say pros won’t use AF till it’s indiscernible in story telling terms from the “performance” of a person operated focus system.

It’s not about the tech. It’s about storytelling. Timing. The speed of the change. Take to take variations.

Like acting. Like camera operating. There’s elements of performance and that is the difference.

My current focus puller is using this and it’s amazing because it generates a false colour FOCUS map.

It CAN track objects. But it still requires an element of performance.

https://cmotion.eu/page/cvision

JB
 
When video was SD you couldn't tell if it was really in focus or not anyway. With HD it became more difficult and with 4K more difficult still and critical. I'm sure there'll be a market for this.
 
About half a decade ago, ARRI came out with a sonar aided AF system. $70,000.

Prices are coming down.
 
John Brawley said:
I’d say pros won’t use AF till it’s indiscernible in story telling terms from the “performance” of a person operated focus system.

It’s not about the tech. It’s about storytelling. Timing. The speed of the change. Take to take variations.

Like acting. Like camera operating. There’s elements of performance and that is the difference.

My current focus puller is using this and it’s amazing because it generates a false colour FOCUS map.

It CAN track objects. But it still requires an element of performance.

https://cmotion.eu/page/cvision

JB
Click to expand...

What I find exciting about this technology is that it allows your focus puller to put their emphasis on making specific shots have creative and interesting focus, but for the workaday drudgery of tracking subjects with a 105mm t/2.0
this makes tracking shallow DOF shots simple and easy. The advantages are the same as me using DPAF on our C200 and C300 MKII, it makes tracking certain quick moving subjects like dance or fashion easier and at any time, it can be overridden. DPs will still
need ACs for the foreseeable future and this tool makes the ACs job simpler and more efficient. I don't think it replaces the artistry and feel of a focus puller at all, but as all of us who have shot narrative know, much of the work
just involves locking onto a subject and keep them in focus, not creative rack focuses from one subject to another with stortelling timing about when to shift the focus field. Those shots are fun but not the majority of shots in a shooting day. Seems pretty cool to me.
 
John Brawley said:
I’d say pros won’t use AF till it’s indiscernible in story telling terms from the “performance” of a person operated focus system.

It’s not about the tech. It’s about storytelling. Timing. The speed of the change. Take to take variations.

Like acting. Like camera operating. There’s elements of performance and that is the difference.

My current focus puller is using this and it’s amazing because it generates a false colour FOCUS map.

It CAN track objects. But it still requires an element of performance.

https://cmotion.eu/page/cvision

JB
Click to expand...

^ this

I used to AC and there's definitely elements of mood that go into focus-pulling.

That being said, I could see tools like this being used as a supplement. For example, if someone is running full-tilt towards camera and stopping abruptly in a CU, then it might be useful. The AC could nail the beginning and end but the stuff in the middle is trickier.

Or if you're doing a quick-paced walk and talk at shallow DOF handheld or on steadicam. There was a shot in The Great that I paused to screenshot and it was soft. I had to pause in a few places to find a sharp frame. Of course, I didnt notice the focus buzzing while in motion because things were moving so quickly, so it didn't matter much. And I'm not making a dig at the AC, it was nearly impossible to nail. If memory serves, it was when Orlo and Catherine were discussing regicide and walking briskly by some hedges. So, if you're just trying to keep a moving target in focus while not needing to rack to anything, I could see the usefulness of having a device like this that you can toggle on and off. Especially if your AC isn't as good as JB's! (Like me back when i still AC'd.)
 
Here we have the familiar story of resistance to technology. The "I'll never use (fill in blank)" has been repeated over and over. How many 35mm film stock aficionados said they would never use a digital camera?

It's early days for affordable external auto-focus units. I'm thrilled to see this and the DJI unit. Being able to select any lens and have it adapted to autofocus is wonderful. Sure, they are pretty basic in capability now. I look forward to the improvements they make with these types of systems.

If you want nuance, you buy Stradivarius. If you don't, you buy a used violin on ebay. It's a matter of the right tool for the project. Sorry James, I couldn't think of a car analogy.
 
I'm not a pro. I'm a hobbyist in disguise who is writing invoices.
I'm happy with the C300iii and R5 DPAF. I never shot with ARRI or RED so far.
But what do I know. Im just a hobbyist with a business tax number.
 
And honestly, the bulk of what most people on here are doing, they just need "brute force AF". Meaning they JUST need to lock onto and keep a subject or object in focus while the camera, subject/object or both are moving.

And I tip my hat to every AC/focus puller out there. That is one job that I definitely would not want and could not make a living doing. Especially now with 40+ year old eyes... Lol.
 
There are hundreds (probably thousands) of shots out of focus in Hollywood (mostly soft but sometimes either completely missed or late), and the audience never cares because their connection with the actors/actresses/story is much more profound.

IMO, the older generation is still in control but eventually as life moves on, MF will eventually fade out as there is barely any point in doing this labor anymore. Eventually all "pros" and "artists" will be able to tell their story however they would like by changing the focus and timing in post.

Obviously not true art, but we move forward.
 
I dont think that AF will replace MF any more than gimbals have replaced steadicams.

Some people strictly use gimbals. But it's not the same as a steadicam and each has its advantages. Even in the low end, there are people sticking with steadicams for the same reason they do in the high end. I've seen posts of wedding videographers saying that they stick with steadicam for the fine framing control and less robotic feel of the motion.

There are some thing that are really difficult to do manually and effortless to do with good AF. But there are also things that are easy to do manually and impossible to do with AF. So you have to either be prepared to go manual or you have to forego the types of shots you can't get with AF, which is probably what we'll see from amateurs and noobs. Technology often drives and/or limits creative expression.

As for focusing in post - maybe. But not useful for live or quick-turnaround shooting. But sure, if light field cameras advance far enough, I could see post-focusing replacing all other types of focusing. But I doubt that will happen within 15 or 20 years.
 
If I had autofocus that knew what part of the frame was the one I was looking at and tracked that, I'd use it all the time. In truth we all would, but until that day comes, it's too blunt or specialist a tool.

When I was a teen I read a book by a bbc cameraman 'gerald millerson, the technique of the tv cameraman' and his tips on how to focus have stayed with me. Some wouldn't work nowadays. One technique back then relied on the fact that the camera viewfinder was so much sharper than people's to sets at home, so you saw it start to go soft before viewers did, so you knew which direction to focus to fix it. That doesn't work any more, with 4K viewers and HD viewfinders (or less!)
 
Having the ability to switch a focusing tool from actual automatic focus pulling to simply telling you where the focus should be via display is not only a pro concept, it has been around for much longer than one might think. The current Preston Light Ranger 2 follows in the footsteps of the original Light Ranger, which dates back to the late 90's. That systems was famously used for extreme telephoto shots of the lead character running on a track towards camera, an incredibly difficult pull for even the most skilled focus puller. https://theasc.com/magazine/sep98/leader/index3.htm

A few years ago one of my focus pullers nailed a super-challenging version of this that combined the unpredictability of animals with the enhanced complication of high frame rate (where a tiny buzz that might normally be acceptable is now stretched out much longer when played at speed). He didn't use a focus readout device, but he did pull off a monitor as all of my AC's have done for many years now (including those who came up with the classic methodology judging distances by eye/tape measure/marks etc): https://www.dropbox.com/s/6r9szhukyw30blc/dogpull.mov?dl=0
 
CharlesPapert said:
A few years ago one ...
Click to expand...

this is the thing. A few years ago. The development of AF in the past two years has made such a fantastic progress. I am quite sure the eye animal detection of a Canon R5 would have nailed that shot. Don't get me wrong I tip my hat for the skills of a focus puller. And of a colorist, audio engineer, drone pilot, long list.. But what do I know. I'm just a hobbyist with a business tax number and specialised in everything.
 
Last edited:
I remember buying a Canon AE1. It was, I think, the first auto exposure still camera. A few “pros” (which usually means someone who gets paid but might not be the best at it) thought it was unnecessary, cheating or a sign I was a hopeless amateur, none of which were true IMHO. Times they tend to change...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top