Art Aldrich - AF100 Impressions in Real World Production

Yes, I think I did say mounting the camera and lens to a head "at a single point" which in the case of some 35 mm zooms (and only in those cases) would be the lens. What if you were shooting with a Canon 150 -600 ? that lens is a beast. Hanging the AF 100 ( which weighs a couple of pounds) off the back of the mount, wouldn't be such a big deal Certainly no worse than having an unsupported 2 lb lens hanging off the front of the camera.
With some of the camera/ lens combinations that are possible with the AF100 and a PL mount, getting the camera mounted and balanced on a head at the nodal point for panning will be just about impossible in a practical sense because in the case of big zooms so much of the weight will be forward of the sensor plane.
 
I'm also interested in this - specifically in terms of the Oly 35-100 (with tripod collar) using the DMW-MA1 adapter - because I have no need for rails at this point unless that combo needs supported more than "at a single point", i.e. the tripod collar. My interest is not only from the weight factor in terms of stress on the lens mount, etc., but also from the instability and sensitivity to touch that Shooter mentioned.

So, if there is no follow focus, matte box, etc. involved - only the camera and lens, could one safely hang the AF100 off the above setup? My gut feeling is I'm probably going to need to invest in some rails. :(
 
I guess the only way you will find out if mounting a long lens to the head and the camera to the back of it works for you ....is to try it.

My experience with long lenses is they are very sensitive and show the slightest of "touch and vibration". We always mount up on very heavy heads / legs and even geared heads.

I have never seen any long lens mounted to a motion picture camera without plates rods and supports.

Not even sure where you would get a support device that fits a PL cine lens that did not have facilty for rods. (They dont have a threaded bolt hole AFAIK)

FWIW: Stills photographers do it with tele stills lenses all the time but they dont have to deal with any movement issue due to high shutter speeds.
 
Hi Art

Thanks for sharing your information.

I have a couple of questions as to how you shot that Id like your opinion on.

Firstly just curious as to why you shot at iso800? Was it just a lack of light need rather than choice?

And also wondering - "The footage was converted to ProRes LT " - your reasoning for not going with Prores HQ?

Cheers
Noel
 
I had a question as well, you mention not going with the 5D due to concerns about judder. I thought judder was due to shooting at 24p and then converting to a broadcast framerate, as in, what you see on movies that have been converted for television on pans and such. I would think you'd have the same problem with the AF100 unless you actually were shooting in the same framerate as the broadcast standard you were targetting.
 
There really aren't any motion picture cameras as small and light as the AF 100, which is why you haven't seen this idea of mounting the lens and hanging the camera off the back. I've seen it done with Video cameras before but ultimately I think you'd want to have a physical connection in addition to the lens mount between the camera and the lens just for safety's sake.
 
Mark Smith said:
There really aren't any motion picture cameras as small and light as the AF 100, which is why you haven't seen this idea of mounting the lens and hanging the camera off the back. I've seen it done with Video cameras before but ultimately I think you'd want to have a physical connection in addition to the lens mount between the camera and the lens just for safety's sake.
Click to expand...


Why I havent seen it is no AC or grip would allow me to do it ....and I wouldnt suggest it because I know it wont work without degrading the image by vibration and wobble.

(Have you ever operated or seen the effect of wind on a totally locked off rig using a 300 - 600mm ?)

I would be interested to see a picture of any rig that mounts a long lens directly to a head without camera support as well.

When a long lens is supported by a cradle and the adjustable pillar to rods...it is hardly secure or tight enough to avoid some movement. It relies on the camera being absolutely locked in place on a base plate as well as the lens support to give it rigidity.


.....and the "physical conection" you mention above is actually "rods and a base plate".


As said before ..its easy to do it properly and professionally so I wont be trying your idea , thanks.
 
>Firstly just curious as to why you shot at iso800? Was it just a lack of light need rather than >choice?

Lack of lighting, slow lens, and the desire to shoot wide open.

>And also wondering - "The footage was converted to ProRes LT " - your reasoning for not going >with Prores HQ?

I have found that ProRes LT handles the 8 bit raw footage just fine, and without the extra storage penalty of ProResHQ.

If I was shooting in 10bit from camera, then I would consider ProRes or ProRes HQ.
 
Doesn't ProRes LT sub-sample the horizontal resolution from 1920 to 1440? I don't believe using ProRes HQ is necessary, but regular ProRes would seem to be useful as it records full raster. I'm not clear on why bit depth difference of 8 vs. 10 bit would have a bearing on luminance resolution.
 
Dino said:
Doesn't ProRes LT sub-sample the horizontal resolution from 1920 to 1440? I don't believe using ProRes HQ is necessary, but regular ProRes would seem to be useful as it records full raster. I'm not clear on why bit depth difference of 8 vs. 10 bit would have a bearing on luminance resolution.
Click to expand...

ProRes LT is full rastor, like the other flavors of ProRes, just limits the bit rate to 100Mbps.
 
Hey Art, I was still curious as to what you meant about Juddering on the 5D, was that because of using 24p framerate and then converting to a television standard?
 
grimepoch said:
Hey Art, I was still curious as to what you meant about Juddering on the 5D, was that because of using 24p framerate and then converting to a television standard?
Click to expand...

I felt it had more to due with the line skipping on the imager, not the 24 frame recording.
 
ArtAldrich said:
I felt it had more to due with the line skipping on the imager, not the 24 frame recording.
Click to expand...

Strange, I don't ever see this. When I record in 60fps 720p it's extremely smooth, which is even more line skipping. What I wonder though is if it is just the rolling shutter movements in the scene, even when subtle, gives a strange motion to the image that comes across as a feeling of lag to me.

Compared to the 5D, did you feel the rolling shutter was less noticeable on longer lenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top