Bring on the 444 M4/3!! Jan! Do something, Quick!
- Thread starter Wilbur Eddings
- Start date
Lumiere
Well-known member
That's interesting, as far as i know AVC-Ultra should be announce in London Olympics, but disappointed to not see anything about AVC-Ultra.
A version of the AF100 shooting AVC-I would be great. 422 color and intraframe compression would suit me fine. By the time Panny releases the next gen of the AF100 I'll probably be in the market for one. Not in the budget at this point.
On a side note. I have seen a lot if interviews lately shot on DSLR's by newspaper photographers that are now shooting video for online content. I wouldn't be surprised to see the AF100 used more for that purpose in the future as journalists using DSLRS for video acquisition shows that the lack powered zoom etc is not as much a detriment as it once was. A dedicated run and gun news crew though, IMO is still better served my 2/3" or even the 1/3" market. Of course Newspapers still require photographs.
On a side note. I have seen a lot if interviews lately shot on DSLR's by newspaper photographers that are now shooting video for online content. I wouldn't be surprised to see the AF100 used more for that purpose in the future as journalists using DSLRS for video acquisition shows that the lack powered zoom etc is not as much a detriment as it once was. A dedicated run and gun news crew though, IMO is still better served my 2/3" or even the 1/3" market. Of course Newspapers still require photographs.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Because "indy film making" does not necessarily mean NOT using a proper crew.
It's difficult to express, but you are doing yourself and the film a disservice by being a crew of one. You can't possibly pay enough attention to the (literally) 300 things that a dp needs to pay attention to. The indie film worldis great, but there are positions and protocols / chain of command for a reason, and none of them are vanity.
Collaboration is the name of the game. Noone builds a house by themselves.
Collaboration is the name of the game. Noone builds a house by themselves.
The intent of a camera like the AF100 isn't to eliminate crew. The crew serve the same purposes no matter the camera. Sure, some functions may change a little, but definitely not the need for a DP and his crew.
If the camera is the most important thing on your shoot, then you're doing something wrong.
If the camera is the most important thing on your shoot, then you're doing something wrong.
A small budget production can run with a smaller (even a tiny) crew but that is a budget restraint (and the better trained the crew is the better off you are). This could be true when using ANY camera. If anything I would think that a "cheaper" camera would equal more $$ for crew in the budget.
Anyway, aren't we getting off topic?
Anyway, aren't we getting off topic?
Wilbur Eddings
Well-known member
And herein lies the biggest reason I love the Af100 and it's M4/3 format.
The film vs digital debate begins to die down and the age of the thirteen year old, one man crew draws nigh.
Think on this:
Interchangeable lenses on a fully cinematic VIDEO camera with auto everything...
Modest low light capability, enough for a novice to experiment until his scenes are suitably lit.
A camera so cheap that you can buy it for less than the hire price of it's big relatives and spend almost unlimited time setting up your scenes without the fear of rental overtime or heavy budget harnesses.
I am a bit old to try it, but I can guarantee you that a patient, focused youngster with access to the DVXuser forums can shoot an award winning full length feature all on his ace.
No one in their right mind would do this if they they had access to a large crew and epic equipment, but to deny it's possibility is either the fruit of stubborness or plain ignorance!
The game changed with HDSLR shooters popping up all over the place, the Af100 just made that game professional.
The film vs digital debate begins to die down and the age of the thirteen year old, one man crew draws nigh.
Think on this:
Interchangeable lenses on a fully cinematic VIDEO camera with auto everything...
Modest low light capability, enough for a novice to experiment until his scenes are suitably lit.
A camera so cheap that you can buy it for less than the hire price of it's big relatives and spend almost unlimited time setting up your scenes without the fear of rental overtime or heavy budget harnesses.
I am a bit old to try it, but I can guarantee you that a patient, focused youngster with access to the DVXuser forums can shoot an award winning full length feature all on his ace.
No one in their right mind would do this if they they had access to a large crew and epic equipment, but to deny it's possibility is either the fruit of stubborness or plain ignorance!
The game changed with HDSLR shooters popping up all over the place, the Af100 just made that game professional.
Wilbur Eddings
Well-known member
Please send me the 'Indy Film making manual' so that I may educate my ignorant ass. Oh wait, there isn't one.
No-one here said they were a vanity, you have to concede that they are a luxury to the majority of independent film makers though! The Af100 is a tool that does not remove the need for professional crews but rather creates a plaform to raise more - More shooters means more work.
But we need those shooters to start somewhere! Be it solo, duet or micro...
Film making is becoming less and less of an exclusive craft and this excites me to no end!
You don't shoot a movie with three guys and an amateur actor because you have to... you shoot that way because it's what you have available.
Rule one of stewardship: Use what you have to create what you want.
As for the camera, I wish your sentiments were shared by TV stations and exhibitors but alas, they demand certain picture quality which cannot be wrestled from my wife's SD 3ccd handycam.
If I could get away with it, I'd be shooting on a pen cam with interchangeable lenses!
But I can't, so I don't.
Of course you do. But only because you have to. If anyone thinks the camera gives them license to dispense with it, though, then they're in for a world of hurt.
You missed the entire point of what I said. Of course there are times when you need a particular tool. But the tool still doesn't make the production. It's what you do with it and the skill of the people involved. I'll say it again -- if you look at the camera as the most important thing on the shoot, then you're doing it wrong.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
And herein lies the beauty of the concept. Cameras like the 16mm CPR's did allow people like Leacock/Pennebaker to develop and execute what they did. Cameras like the AG-AF (from which manufacturer such cameras may come in the future) can maybe do the same thing.
They will be no surrogate to "grown up" cameras or established work flows for bigger budgeted projects but they may be able to allow other forms - aesthetical & budget wise. Just more possibilities to tell a story. What doesn't change though is: Do we have a story to tell?
Wilbur Eddings
Well-known member
Ok.
Apologies for missing your point.
Let me state this and see what you think; lots of text above us and some facts may have been clouded in the fog up there.
1) I agree that it is madness to shoot without the best crew you can afford.
2) I think it is madness to try to create something without the best equipment you can afford.
3) But I also think it's madness to NOT shoot because you cannot afford a professional crew when you have something as effective as the Af100 at your disposal.
4) I like the Af100 (and M43 lenses) because it lets me do what I was destined to do without selling my soul.
Where do we disagree?
I don't disagree with any of those four points. I'm simply saying that the camera doesn't make the production, and it doesn't eliminate the need for DPs, etc. It's the people who make the camera work for the production, not the other way around. (You'll note, though, that I wasn't specifically challenging anything you said in my first post, so it wasn't necessarily directed at you. 
)
In fact, I don't even think the AF100 particularly makes it easier to have the proverbial one-man crew, either. If it does anything, it makes it easier for you to work with a crew.
)In fact, I don't even think the AF100 particularly makes it easier to have the proverbial one-man crew, either. If it does anything, it makes it easier for you to work with a crew.
groveChuck
U-matic Member
Thanks, David- I brushed up on my film history. I knew much of the later stuff, not as much of the earlier, ie Edison.
Which all comes down to budget. If you only have the budget for you, your AF100 and 3 manikins to make your movie..then.. you do so.
hscully
Veteran
I have to agree with David that the AF100 doesn't make it easier to shoot by yourself. The beautiful thing is that it enables the kinds of techniques and lens choices that let you express your work in the grammar of film. You'd do better with an EX1 if you're shooting yourself, something with auto focus and exposure. Put a manual lens on an AF100 and you need to manually adjust your exposure and you still need a follow focus and a good AC to pull focus and you still need a dolly grip to move the dolly and you still need a decent sound person to send great sound into the camera. It is precisely those challenges that make the camera great for me IMHO
Paul Hudson
Vacuum Tube Member
I did a shoot yesterday that used both my RED ONE and AF100. It takes the same crew to correctly shoot either, but wow it is so much easier to move the AF100 around. Just to (safely) raise or lower the sticks on a fully rigged RED it takes three people. With the AF one guy can easily manage this task. BTW, after spending some time with the menus of the two cameras the two images looked great together.
Barry_Green
Moderator
There is definitely the possibility to trim down the crew some, and the support equipment some, when using the smaller camera. It does, to some degree, depend on your tolerance for what is "good enough", but I think you can get a perfectly satisfactory tripod for an AF100 kit for maybe $1500, whereas when I had the Red One the cheapest satisfactory tripod was a $6500 O'Connor. M43 lenses like the f0.95 Voigtlander are downright tiny, and to get a lens that does what the 14-140 does, on the Red, is just not possible. And to come close, would cost 30x as much, minimum.
Within the context of "good enough", I find 1600 ISO perfectly satisfactory on the AF100, whereas on the Red it really is an ISO 160 to 320 camera (MX notwithstanding, I haven't used an MX). And that does mean needing 5x as much light -- which means bigger fixtures, heavier-duty stands, more power draw, etc.
So -- can you lighten up on your crew and move faster on an AF100 shoot than on a Red shoot? Certainly you can. Just like phudsontx said, it does take more effort to manhandle a Red around, than it does with something like the AF100.
Now, if you were willing to shoot the Red like the AF100, as Kholi will undoubtedly argue for, you could minimize some of that.
But if the question is the threshold of "good enough", I think you can certainly dispense with some of the UNSKILLED labor on your crew. Unskilled meaning -- guys who move big heavy stuff, meaning -- not that they're necessarily unskilled, but that the specific position could be filled by someone who is unskilled.
The skilled positions stay the same. You still need someone doing the job of DP, you still need someone doing the job of AC, you still need someone doing the job of director, you still need someone doing the job of 1st AD, you still need someone doing the job of sound. The camera changes nothing about all of that -- whether it's a $600 DSLR or a $300,000 Panavision, you still need all those jobs to be done.
I believe Wilbur is saying that wiht the smaller camera, he thinks it is practical to consider doing all those jobs by oneself. And I would agree that it is possible -- but I would point out that when you divide your attention among six jobs, none of those jobs will be done particularly well. Certainly nowhere near as well as having a dedicated skilled worker handling each of those jobs.
Using something like a Panavision Millennium, it just really isn't even possible to consider doing it by yourself. Using something like an AF100 on a light tripod, it's not only possible to consider doing it, there's a certain appeal in actually wanting to give it a try. I doubt the results will be all that great; I mean, for an unrelated example I would ask you to review the studio single version of Paul McCartney's "Coming Up", on which he did absolutely everything, played every instrument, and even played every role in the music video (except for a couple that were played by Linda McCartney), and compare the sonic quality against the live concert version where the full band played. Sure, the concept was neat, the idea of one guy doing absolutely everything, but the actual reality was kinda ugh.
While I agree with you Barry, your music comparison might not be the right analogy. What you described is the same with a lot of recorded music vs live concert recordings and is indicitive to over producing bands now a days. Also, Lenny Kravitz did the solo recording thing in the 90's with much success.
I had a shoot a few months ago where I could not find a decent operator (all volunteer gig) and ended up DP'ing, Directing and Operating a cumbersome shoulder mount wired into a monitor (cables!). Nightmare. It's way to easy to miss things. I know I missed a few things that I would NOT have normally missed if I hadn't been stuck having to operate as well as the rest of it. I can handle DP/Directing, but even then you spend less time with your actors than you should.
Shoot turned out OK, but it could have been even better than it was.
I had a shoot a few months ago where I could not find a decent operator (all volunteer gig) and ended up DP'ing, Directing and Operating a cumbersome shoulder mount wired into a monitor (cables!). Nightmare. It's way to easy to miss things. I know I missed a few things that I would NOT have normally missed if I hadn't been stuck having to operate as well as the rest of it. I can handle DP/Directing, but even then you spend less time with your actors than you should.
Shoot turned out OK, but it could have been even better than it was.