C100: Best way to make sure a subject is in focus?
- Thread starter tobyhoffman
- Start date
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I'm not sure I understand the question. You mean how do we use it or how does the technology work? I don't know the technical answer to how the technology works.
As for how we use it, on the C100 it's center frame only, so when auto-focus is turned on, it very quickly makes in focus whatever is in the center of the frame. So say I'm shooting b-roll of a guy painting. I quickly crash zoom in to the paintbrush, tight shot, it's out of focus, so I turn auto-focus on with my thumb (which is always resting on the auto-focus button), and within .5 seconds, the shot is now in focus, quicker than the 1-3 seconds it would have taken to manually focus. Then I want a shot of his face. Now rule of thirds is particularly important for most face shots. So I quickly zoom out on my non-parfocal lens, and his face is out of focus. I center frame on his eye, since auto-focus only works in the center on the C100, I turn it on with my thumb, and in .3-.5 seconds, his eye is in-focus; I immediately turn off auto-focus, and take another .5 seconds to reframe for rule of thirds. So in one second, I'm in focus and properly framed. Quicker than the 1-3 seconds to manually focus. And often more accurate, too. Plus we're outside and I don't have a sunhood with me, so I can hardly see the LCD screen as it is, but I know the auto-focus is working so I'm confident the shot is in focus.
Next, I want to get a Glidecam shot of him, but there's no chance I have time, an AC, and the budget for a wireless follow focus. I want to do a push-in on the painter, but I need the shot to stay in focus. So, I turn auto-focus on. At this point I'm forced to center compose my shot, but depending on what it is, that may be fine, or, it's a sacrifice I have to make in exchange for being able to do a push-in shot that I wouldn't be able to do without auto-focus.
Next, I want to get a tight slider shot of some of his tools, and I want a really shallow depth of field for an artsy look. I try focusing manually, but find I just can't keep up with the depth of field so shallow. So, I switch on auto-focus, and it keeps the small objects I'm filming in focus faster and more accurately than I'm capable of.
Even the best professional ACs struggle with shallow depth of field on certain shots. I'm sure there's many situations on 100 million dollar budget movies where the director or DP wants a shallow depth of field for a moving shot, but the AC can't keep up, so they have to stop down some to make keeping the shot in focus possible. As focusing technology improves, those limitations will lessen.
Now, on the C300 Mark II, you're not limited to center frame; you can focus anywhere in the image, and you get face-detection. So, it makes things even quicker since you don't need to reframe as much. So, 1 second to focus and reframe becomes .5 seconds simply to focus. In run and gun, .5 seconds is a lot of time when you're trying to as quickly as possible get several 3-5 second shots for the editor to use.
At the end of the day, for a lot of situations it's quicker and more accurate than manually focusing. And that's why it's an important feature.
scorsesefan
Veteran
OK, thanks for your informative answer... I was asking about the technology, but I can look that up. It appears as if it can be used as a "focus assist" of sorts. Your eye focus example points to this. My perception of AF is that you focus roughly on a face and the press AF, thus the computer is making decisions. I don't think I would use it in the latter scenario...
Walter Hergt
Active member
This is exactly why I use the white with the lower resolution DP4 - the right amount of pop to an image that otherwise looks like what I'm looking at, not overwhelmed by red or yellow.
A Ninja Blade is pretty much an essential item for the C100 Mk1, IMO. Doubles as the perfect external recorder and a reliable field monitor. I've never used the Mk1 without DPAF, but my standard operating procedure is to hit the focus button on my subject and then keep an eye on the Blade to make sure nothing changes.
Many on here have said the benefits of the external recorder with C100 Mk1 are negligible except in a few specific circumstances. When I think "run n' gun", I think moving around quickly handheld (though of course it could mean sticks too). Do you guys not find a 7" monitor unwieldy/precarious for running around handheld? Seems like it'd be a miserable experience at a crowded event.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I can just imagine dying, going to heaven, and God revealing to all those who used external recorders for their C100s that the benefits were negligible, and only offered a placebo effect of image quality enhancement. As for the people in hell, they'd still be using external recorders.
If you want a better quality monitor do it right and skip a lackluster screen like the Ninja Blade which has useless extra large file size external recordings and get a quality screen like the SmallHD 502 (which is also smaller and lighter) or 702 instead.
If you want a better quality monitor do it right and skip a lackluster screen like the Ninja Blade which has useless extra large file size external recordings and get a quality screen like the SmallHD 502 (which is also smaller and lighter) or 702 instead.
Last edited:
I agree an external recorder can have limited use and be cumbersome in run-n-gun situations, and ProRes isn't necessarily essential or even all that much better than the AVCHD codec in many situations. That said, even if I record AVCHD, I convert to ProRes before editing for ease of use on my timeline. Not sure if it's the same in other editing suites, but in Premiere CS6, AVCHD files are clunky and problematic on my timeline, but Prores works flawlessly. ProRes also has benefits with grading. I've seen this first hand.
All that aside, cumbersome or not, if you want clear focus on your C100 Mk1, you really need an external monitor. Or maybe you can get away with a Zacuto viewfinder. Both are pretty clunky for constant handheld work.
Also, the Blade is only a 5 inch monitor. Fairly low profile if you mount it right.
All that aside, cumbersome or not, if you want clear focus on your C100 Mk1, you really need an external monitor. Or maybe you can get away with a Zacuto viewfinder. Both are pretty clunky for constant handheld work.
Also, the Blade is only a 5 inch monitor. Fairly low profile if you mount it right.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I still disagree. My shots are in focus and I don't use an external monitor. An external monitor is on my list of things to buy, but is rather lower on my list on the account of me not having much trouble with focusing from the LCD screen. I'm sure it would help some, just not a whole lot as the C100 LCD and focus features (auto-focus, peaking, magnify) are generally good enough.
Well, I'm not saying I'm God, but I was one of the ones who had said it, so...draw your own conclusions.
Last edited:
If it works for you, that's what matters. Maybe you use autofocus most of the time and you're the only one using the camera? If so, I can see your point. My C100 stays in manual mode 90% of the time, I have to pull focus or have an AC pull focus for me regularly, and the LCD on my C100 simply doesn't cut it for me if I want things to turn out well. Based on the complaints of the OP who started this thread, it doesn't sound like it's working for him either. Also -- what do you do when your camera is on sticks, you're in a tight spot, and your focus puller, director, or whoever can't see the LCD from their position (because of its very limited range of motion)? Again, maybe this isn't a consideration for the kind of work you do, but I haven't been on a shoot in the past 12 months where the C100 LCD could have been the only thing I relied on.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I had a C100 Mark I for a good year or two before the auto-focus feature was available, and still use my first model which doesn't have the auto-focus upgrade, as well as using manual focus Nikon lenses sometimes. And I was still able to get shots in focus. With auto-focus now, I probably use it 60% of the time on my C100 Mark II, and 80% of the time on my C300 Mark II, so I still use manual focus a good amount.
Well of course if you have an AC pulling focus, then you really need an external monitor for the AC. I thought we were talking about run n gun. For narrative or commercial work with an AC pulling focus, it doesn't really matter how good the on-camera LCD is; the AC needs a dedicated monitor. Even better if they have a Teradek or Parralinx so the monitor can be mobile.
As a one-man-band, I'm generally the director, focus puller, and cam op in one. Sometimes there's a producer on set, other times not, but when there is, they rarely are looking over my shoulder to judge my shots, particularly when I'm filming b-roll (they'll often look at an interview setup).
The OP was talking about reality TV. B-roll for reality TV, you typically don't have an AC, director, or producer monitoring your b-roll shots.
You made a generalized statement saying, "if you want clear focus on your C100 Mk1, you really need an external monitor." For one-man-band work, you don't need that. Your statement was not, "If you want clear focus while working with an AC, the AC really needs an external monitor."
But yeah, over in the commercial world, you often need lots of monitors. Recent shoot I did Steadicam for we had four monitors on set...
So, we've got camera monitor (which I happen to be using for this shot), Steadicam monitor, SmallHD 502 in the director's hand, with the client watching as well, and in the background we have a larger 19" Panasonic monitor which we viewed playback on.
Last edited:
You're right, I made an overly-generalized statement. Of course it's possible to get clear focus (even manually) with the Mk1. It's more of a consistency issue, in my experience at least. If I rely solely on the stock LCD, even for one-man-band shoots (very rare with what I do), I always end up with at least a few soft takes. Especially if I'm outside in bright conditions and I can't see the LCD as well as I would like. For the OP who's running B-roll, he's in an even tighter spot without the autofocus upgrade. I can see where you're coming from, but without a little something extra (a Ninja, the Zacuto, the upgrade, whatever), then you're really taking your chances just using the stock LCD as you're sole monitoring solution. Especially if you're new and inexperienced with the cam.
One of my colleagues recommends the Zacuto Z-finder pro for outdoor work (I think that's the right model). It's a loupe that snaps onto the LCD. I know Eric doesn't like it cause you have to have your eye right up to it to see the LCD, no good if you're on a slider or something. Would be fine for me for handheld. I can see a 4-5.6" monitor being okay handheld, those usually aren't too heavy/bulky compared to a 7".
Yes, for some reason the peaking on my friend's Small HD DP6 is much easier to read/judge than any of the various options on my Odyssey7, in my opinion.
Yes, for some reason the peaking on my friend's Small HD DP6 is much easier to read/judge than any of the various options on my Odyssey7, in my opinion.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Peaking set to Red and the right frequency settings do it for me. I forget what mine are, but I set mine so finding finer details like the reflections in someone's eye is easier...since that's what I'm hunting for most of the time with a subject on screen. The default settings are never good enough for me...and I rarely use magnification since I can lose my framing quickly (if I'm run/gunning).
scorsesefan
Veteran
Telling us your settings for peaking to find eye reflections would be super helpful
KarlSutton
Well-known member
I wanted to chime in a vote for the AC7 for focus & I've used the Ninja2 & Blade as well. My last setup was Ninja2 for recording & AC7 for monitoring - I just stacked them on the camera (5D3) & it worked out great.
I'd be interested in those peaking settings as well, kyle. I agree punching in you lose your framing but at certain wider focal lengths or other conditions (softer lens, low light) the peaking can still be too "generous" and youll have to ride it back and forth several times to see when peaking on the part you want in focus "glows" the hottest. the punch in can help with that issue.
nedcam
Well-known member
I'm a manual guy and if the OP is fretting about doc exteriors, I feel one needs a loupe on an external monitor, especially if it's a sunny day. I have the DP4 with a loupe and I need to get my eye firmly on the loupe so I can exclude any leaking daylight to SEE if I'm in focus, I also swear by hats: Baseball or Booney, to keep daylight off the monitor. This way I can run around 360, if in doubt about focus I will stay wide angle, stop down, when there's no time to adjust. I now know my DP4 so well that I don't have any focus assists, I judge exposure and focus by that BUT only when I am using the loupe. Indoors: No Problem and I often use the Mag with Red peaking on to double check and I have the Small HD AC7 OLED, but it's solo run and gun exteriors that are more challenging and then I just have: DP4, Loupe & Hat.
I tend to use the same three lenses so I have an innate feel of when I am in a challenging situation and I know their sweet spots are NOT wide open. Depending on how fast I am moving will determine if I doubt my tight shots and if possible I will slow down and even punch in and refocus even though I know they are non-parfocal, they get me in the ball park. Fortunately for us the Johnny Depp style of big eyeglass frames are popular so when someone is wearing those I fixate on them for determining my focus.
When in doubt on a doc I may take a giant step back and go wide just to have a cover shot I know is definitely sharp, besides, it's in my nature to give the editor their establishing shot. I believe it's only by constantly reviewing your footage, which the OP seems to do, can you learn in which situations you're going soft. I was trained to avoid wide open, that a lens is sharpest a couple of stops down from it's maximum aperture, it works against you in terms of tack sharp to be 1.4 or 1.8, but today's style of shallow DoF everyone wants to shoot wide open. The tech answer on why wide open goes softest is in the way the blades lay on each other, but here's two articles that address the topic for still shooters:
http://photographersconnection.com/shooting-wide-open-why-its-such-a-bad-idea/
http://digital-photography-school.com/sweet-spots-why-your-f1-8-isnt-so-great-at-f1-8/
So OP, do some tests with a chart of your favorite lenses wide open, then 1 and 2 stops down and see if that may be the issue? The cheaper the lens, the blades of the aperture may be your problem. And zooms, which we tend to use because we're shooting so fast, are always softer, especially wide open. Every lens has a sweet spot and if you're in the habit of rolling in ND, choosing the lowest ISO, to always shoot wide open for a shallow DoF, you may be fighting yourself in terms of being sharp?
That's just my thought. I have DPAF on my Canon 70D and did not enjoy the reframing that Eric mentions, but I suppose on tights it helps.
P.S. AFTER THOUGHT: On your post monitor look at the shots that are soft then cue up the card in the camera to compare the same exact shot on your C100's EVF and any external monitor you were using. Is it also soft on your field monitor and EVF? If not, then you may have Sharpness on your monitor turned up so high that in the field you think you are sharp when you are actually soft. Makes sense? I use this technique to figure how to set my field monitors colors and brightness/contrast, which I know is not the scientifically approved method but works 100%. So you can do that with determining focus settings also. That may be why you think you are sharp while shooting yet once it's imported it looks too soft.
Hey Eric: Did you shoot Spring Break Zombie Massacre? Made the Chicago Tribune today.
I tend to use the same three lenses so I have an innate feel of when I am in a challenging situation and I know their sweet spots are NOT wide open. Depending on how fast I am moving will determine if I doubt my tight shots and if possible I will slow down and even punch in and refocus even though I know they are non-parfocal, they get me in the ball park. Fortunately for us the Johnny Depp style of big eyeglass frames are popular so when someone is wearing those I fixate on them for determining my focus.
When in doubt on a doc I may take a giant step back and go wide just to have a cover shot I know is definitely sharp, besides, it's in my nature to give the editor their establishing shot. I believe it's only by constantly reviewing your footage, which the OP seems to do, can you learn in which situations you're going soft. I was trained to avoid wide open, that a lens is sharpest a couple of stops down from it's maximum aperture, it works against you in terms of tack sharp to be 1.4 or 1.8, but today's style of shallow DoF everyone wants to shoot wide open. The tech answer on why wide open goes softest is in the way the blades lay on each other, but here's two articles that address the topic for still shooters:
http://photographersconnection.com/shooting-wide-open-why-its-such-a-bad-idea/
http://digital-photography-school.com/sweet-spots-why-your-f1-8-isnt-so-great-at-f1-8/
So OP, do some tests with a chart of your favorite lenses wide open, then 1 and 2 stops down and see if that may be the issue? The cheaper the lens, the blades of the aperture may be your problem. And zooms, which we tend to use because we're shooting so fast, are always softer, especially wide open. Every lens has a sweet spot and if you're in the habit of rolling in ND, choosing the lowest ISO, to always shoot wide open for a shallow DoF, you may be fighting yourself in terms of being sharp?
That's just my thought. I have DPAF on my Canon 70D and did not enjoy the reframing that Eric mentions, but I suppose on tights it helps.
P.S. AFTER THOUGHT: On your post monitor look at the shots that are soft then cue up the card in the camera to compare the same exact shot on your C100's EVF and any external monitor you were using. Is it also soft on your field monitor and EVF? If not, then you may have Sharpness on your monitor turned up so high that in the field you think you are sharp when you are actually soft. Makes sense? I use this technique to figure how to set my field monitors colors and brightness/contrast, which I know is not the scientifically approved method but works 100%. So you can do that with determining focus settings also. That may be why you think you are sharp while shooting yet once it's imported it looks too soft.
Hey Eric: Did you shoot Spring Break Zombie Massacre? Made the Chicago Tribune today.
Last edited: