And people thought pros would NEVER use AF!

stewhem said:
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...
Click to expand...

In this case it hasn’t changed:)
The pros I know use manual exposure included myself. Oh wait, I’m not a pro..
 
Pro sensors on high end cameras don't have AF because crewed sets have AC's and high end manual lenses.

Consumer and the low-mid sensors have AF - some are better than others, with Canon and Sony OEM's leading the way - but suffer from a need to build more affordable lenses that don't quite measure up to the high end in video.

Howevah ... with the electronics/camera prices falling precipitously, one should expect a mid-price combination of both a quality AF (on FX-6/9 and C300 MKIII/C500 MKII) and quality glass. Sony began to tease its E-mount Cinema line back in September, 2019 and is promising to finally release it by the end of 2020.

https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/camera-lenses/selc1635g

Canon should be following suit. At some point.

PS. Note to Conrad Hall - put your guy on a treadmill in front of a green screen. Set your lenses at F11. Will nail focus every time. Amateur.
 
Agreed, Clermond, I could have chosen a better example but my point was whenever something new is released there is often a negative reaction when in fact it could be useful to some people. I also use manual exposure, even when taking stills of fast moving theatre performance, and about 99.99 percent of the time when shooting video. But just occasionally it saves my bacon and in those moments I love it.
 
Last edited:
Clermond said:
I learned the Brit version at school. I gave the signature a new try
Click to expand...

No, you were correct - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specialized

Specialized also has its own definition:

"Definition of specialized
1: characterized by or exhibiting biological specialization
especially : highly differentiated especially in a particular direction or for a particular end
2: designed, trained, or fitted for one particular purpose or occupation
specialized personnel".
 
It wasn't correct the way it was written.

Nevertheless I think the current version is best.

Hobbyist and specialist have a nice ring to them in the same sentence.
 
Is there a term for a failed hobbyist who deluded himself he was a professional (like me)? Maybe the French or Hungarians have have a word for it that doesn’t sound as pathetic.
 
NorBro said:
It wasn't correct the way it was written.

Nevertheless I think the current version is best.

Hobbyist and specialist have a nice ring to them in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

I don’t get the public call outs/grammar police thing. Everyone comes from different educational backgrounds, or English is a second, third or fourth language, or they just don’t care.

Matt Allard’s newsshooter articles are riddled with technical errors but his fantastic information still gets across.

I doubt Clermont was offended but I don’t see the point?
 
The point is to teach and to be grammatically correct and technically accurate and detail-orientated so your brain continues to develop.

It wasn't a random call-out and it's not a big deal. The conversation turned toward the signature so I just mentioned it. I wouldn't have randomly brought it up in the middle of a conversation. (I see hundreds of errors daily.)
 
NorBro said:
The point is to teach and to be grammatically correct and technically accurate and detail-orientated so your brain continues to develop.

It wasn't a random call-out and it's not a big deal. The conversation turned toward the signature so I just mentioned it. I wouldn't have randomly brought it up in the middle of a conversation. (I see hundreds of errors daily.)
Click to expand...

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Develop away!
 
1995 I was at a hockey match sitting next to my hero, david ashdown. Girls come flying down the wing and collide with the defence. I hear davids shutter roll while I uselessly peddle on my focus ring. Lesson learned. AF rocks for sport! The next days back page prove it.

By 2003 Im on a hasselblad MF digiback.. and I tell you the problem is the final 1/8th of an inch. My eyesight (and I would suggest everyone else) just could not resolve well enough through the ground glass.

MOve on to 4k movies and monitor them at 1080 and you only see 1/4 of the pisxels - chance of good focus? nil.

AF has to come, but it needs sensitivity to the video/film process. Probably to drama last.

Id love a system external to the camera and external to MF lenses :)
 
This was just posted yesterday. A still unreleased LiDar from DJI, goes through pluses and minuses of the system.

Panasonic could nt be reached for comments.

 
morgan_moore said:
Id love a system external to the camera and external to MF lenses :)
Click to expand...

I feel like this is where the issue really hinges for conventional production - we need to be able to retain precise, repeatable manual focus at all times. So the introduction of autofocus capabilities has to function seamlessly in-and-around that requirement.

It can do so in two different ways. We either need an entirely new generation of cinema lens that integrate internal focus motors, with precise manual mechanics (like the Primo 70 lenses from Panavision). Or we need external systems like these ones we're discussing, that can seamlessly integrate with existing Wireless FIZ systems (WCU-4, Cmotion, Preston etc.) so they can also be simply turned on or off as required.

There are shots (like big dolly push-ins or pull-outs) that autofocus will make wonderfully simple to do (and save production a lot of time), and then there are other shots where it will be a distinct hinderance (as accurate tracking simply won't be viable) and in those situations you need to be able to switch instantly to manual control.

It's the speed of accessing AF within the structure of conventional production that's most important - if any rerigging of cameras, changing of lens mounts etc. needs to be done. Then the costs in time will outweigh any speed benefits they could offer to recording.
 
I think Grug really hit the nail on the head.

I think similar issues apply to OMB b-roll shooting in that sometimes you'll need to focus manually to get the shot, so being able to switch between autofocus and manual focus is critical.

And I definitely think there's a benefit to using an external autofocus system in that you can pick any lens you want. I'm struggling now with the choosing lenses for my A7SIII where the lens whose look I like best may not have the most reliable autofocus. So do I pick the best autofocus lens even though I'll enjoy the image less? Or is the autofocus speed/reliability GOOD ENOUGH of the lens i actually want?

If you could shoot with amazing autofocus and effortless auto/manual switching on a Mini LF but the only lenses you could use were a line of Sony cinema lenses, then in many ways that would be 1 step forward and 2 steps back. (Even if they're good lenses)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top