Can you shoot a major film with the AF100...yes or no?

If you have Johnny Depp, Meg Ryan and a killer script, you can shoot a major film with a $29.00 camcorder from Walmart. Will it look better with a more expensive camera? Of course it will. Too much value is put on the type of camera we use sometimes. I think it's like worrying about what color curtains are in your house when the foundation is cracked and the roof leaks. Shoot with what you have, if you have money to buy a better camera don't. Use that cash elsewhere. As soon as you get a different camera someone will come along and say it's not good enough, and you'll go out looking for something better. Before you know it, you have a $200,000.00 camera, but you no longer have the desire to shoot a feature because your 90 years old.
As far as equipment goes, you have everything you need to get started. But if you have a million dollars worth of equipment and you shoot a dog taking a crap under a tree, it's gonna look like a dog taking a crap under a tree. Script, actor, camera setups, lighting, and a thousand of other things will give you enough to worry about. You have a very good camera, it's time to put it to use. If someone says different, move forward and prove them wrong.
Best of luck
 
dreallen said:
Helluva breakdown sir! I will be tucking these examples away for the next time I have the audacity to second guess my Panny AF100! lol
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm sure many of us at one point in time have suffered from camera envy causing second guessing oneself about a project and wondered if it's "good enough" without really considering what has made it shot on less than what is readily and easily available to us these days. Many times I'm sure some of us have had the following questions run through their mind at one point in time or another: "Does it look good enough?", "Does it look film like?", "Does it look cinematic?", "Does it look too much like video?", "Will the video quality distract from the story?", "Does it have enough dynamic range?", etc. These worries should be much less these days with what all is available today. We have many less constraints than in the past.


I remember not all that long ago people were paying $1,000 or so to attach an ugly pain-in-the-ass 35mm Lens Adapter to their camcorders with an upside down image that all began with vibrating or spinning ground glass to achieve that highly sought after shallow depth of field film look/movie look. I can't tell you how thrilled I was at the time, but now look at it like temporary insanity. lol. Before a forum DIYer showed people how it could be done the only released 35mm Adapter at the time cost $8,000, and it caused you to lose light that those tiny camcorder sensors needed. I remember asking myself back then why on earth digital still cameras didn't just add digital video to their cameras to bypass this need for a silly adapter with an upside down image that needed correcting in post. Some people scoffed at the idea like it was ridiculous or impossible. Now, the biggest explosion of indie films since the DVX100 was caused by the Canon 5D Mark II, a DSLR. Now, for about $500 you can have a camera with good low light, a large sensor, interchangeable lenses, pretty good dynamic range and the ability to achieve shallow DOF without an expensive light losing ground glass projecting adapter. Can you imagine what a T2i or 5D Mark II would have cost in the DVX100's heyday? You wouldn't want to. Back then people would be dreaming of owning these two cameras and they'd most likely be very unaffordable for most people. Now that they are available and affordable to many everyone wants something better. Just the way of the world I guess. lol.

The AF100 in the hands of someone creative and imaginative can make a movie no problem. Best of luck!

XSVpro said:
Great list, can I add Act of Valor, shot on the 5D pre 24p firmware at 30p with no manual control and Star Wars Attack of the Clones, that was captured in 8 bit colour space at 422, not to far removed from what the AF is capable of. Thing is, being a cheaper camera it often is used on smaller budget productions and sometimes the DP will put the camera in a stressful position with the DR or hasn't fully tested the camera and gets muddy blacks (I still do) but you only have to look at the work on here for how good the camera can really look with minimal lighting and playing to the cameras strengths.
Click to expand...

Another good example. :D
 
The Raid Redemption was shot with an AF100, I think it looks great for what it is... just noticed someone mentioned this already but I second it looking great and better than I would expect from the AF100 which just goes to show it's not so much about the tool.
 
I once saw Sweeney Todd, a packed cinema of about 400 people. The projection was all over the shop, it was hunting for focus for nearly the whole film. The sound started going near the end too.

Only three people went to complain. Me, and I'm paid to notice these things, and two members of the public. Of those two members of the public, one noticed the technical issues. The other wanted her money back because she didn't realise it was going to be a musical. That, sadly, is the people we argue over 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 for.
 
This short movie presentation was shot with the PANA AF 101 and the NIKON D800.
What do you think about.
Thank you.
 
Wow Zak! Ever since The Raid I have honestly been looking to see if there was a well acted, well directed, masterpiece of a film done on AF100. You hit me in that sweet spot. I have nowhere near $40k to do this film but yours inspires me to go for it in a BIG way. Now off of the inspiration...when the hell can I SEE the thing? Is there a dvd I can buy or are you guys still in the distribution process? You have created a fan and a customer.
 
pirate40 said:
But if you have a million dollars worth of equipment and you shoot a dog taking a crap under a tree, it's gonna look like a dog taking a crap under a tree.
Click to expand...

But take that dog into the street, have it take a crap and then the actor picks it up and eats it, and you have a masterpiece - "Pink Flamingos". A film that made millions and an enduring career and is still a cult classic.

Script, actor, camera setups, lighting,

Pink Flamingos - all actors amateurs (including the dog); camera setups and lighting - a joke... as was the sound, and pretty much each and every technical aspect. Made for almost no money, no permits and no insurance and so on.

But guess what?

Content. It had energy and the kind of courage and 'in your eye' defiance that DEMOLISHES the tens of thousands of films made with better technical means, bigger budgets, better actors, giant marketing efforts and so on. It prevailed on merit, on the passion of its fans and word of mouth. Personally, I prefer Pink Flamingos to Star Wars, but that's a matter of taste and opinion. But what is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact, is that Pink Flamingoes was a huge commercial success and launched a durable career for the director, and is a film that is still watched today - watched more than many Oscar winners of years past that have long since fallen into obscurity. The films that were mentioned so far, like Raid Redemption, Acts of Valor and so on? Let's see who talks about them - and watches them - in 10 years... heck, in 5 years! But guess what - people will still be watching and talking and loving Pink Flamingoes - as they have been since 1972, over 40 years now.

If you can have one millionth of the success of Pink Flamingos - shot on a camera you wouldn't even let a dog crap on today - with whatever you shoot on your AF100, you'd think you died and went to heaven. Unfortunately, few - if any - people reading this board will have anywhere near such success and subsequent career.

So what was the question? Oh, that's right - "camera"... HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!

The camera is about as relevant as you make it. If you focus your film on camera pyrotechnics, well, you'll need a nifty camera. If you focus on the content, then your camera merely needs to focus.
 
Last edited:
Zak Forsman said:
Myself and a crew of five made this feature-length movie with the AF100. I wouldn't call it a "major" film, but the camera was an inexpensive option that helped enable us to make the sucker on microbudget.

Click to expand...

Nice Zak! I can't wait to see this. The color grade is spectacular all the way around on that trailer. That walk up punch out is total bad ass! When can we see it? You're in festivals now, right? On demand soon?

congradulations Man, you're a freakin' inspiration. Damn!

To the OP; THIS! All you need to know... oh and also see bgunda's film for another beautiful feature on AF100.
 
I saw Pink Flamingos back in the 70's at a pack theater at the University of Illinois campus. The end was shocking!

OldCorpse said:
But take that dog into the street, have it take a crap and then the actor picks it up and eats it, and you have a masterpiece - "Pink Flamingos". A film that made millions and an enduring career and is still a cult classic.

Script, actor, camera setups, lighting,

Pink Flamingos - all actors amateurs (including the dog); camera setups and lighting - a joke... as was the sound, and pretty much each and every technical aspect. Made for almost no money, no permits and no insurance and so on.

But guess what?

Content. It had energy and the kind of courage and 'in your eye' defiance that DEMOLISHES the tens of thousands of films made with better technical means, bigger budgets, better actors, giant marketing efforts and so on. It prevailed on merit, on the passion of its fans and word of mouth. Personally, I prefer Pink Flamingos to Star Wars, but that's a matter of taste and opinion. But what is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact, is that Pink Flamingoes was a huge commercial success and launched a durable career for the director, and is a film that is still watched today - watched more than many Oscar winners of years past that have long since fallen into obscurity. The films that were mentioned so far, like Raid Redemption, Acts of Valor and so on? Let's see who talks about them - and watches them - in 10 years... heck, in 5 years! But guess what - people will still be watching and talking and loving Pink Flamingoes - as they have been since 1972, over 40 years now.

If you can have one millionth of the success of Pink Flamingos - shot on a camera you wouldn't even let a dog crap on today - with whatever you shoot on your AF100, you'd think you died and went to heaven. Unfortunately, few - if any - people reading this board will have anywhere near such success and subsequent career.

So what was the question? Oh, that's right - "camera"... HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!

The camera is about as relevant as you make it. If you focus your film on camera pyrotechnics, well, you'll need a nifty camera. If you focus on the content, then your camera merely needs to focus.
Click to expand...
 
Zak Forsman said:
Myself and a crew of five made this feature-length movie with the AF100. I wouldn't call it a "major" film, but the camera was an inexpensive option that helped enable us to make the sucker on microbudget.

Click to expand...

Looks really good. The grain looks awesome. What grain where you using?
 
Zak Forsman said:
Myself and a crew of five made this feature-length movie with the AF100. I wouldn't call it a "major" film, but the camera was an inexpensive option that helped enable us to make the sucker on microbudget.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's no major Zak, but it certainly has the look and feel of one! Very impressive.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubts that an excellent film can be made with AF 100 as A cam. Go into the shoot know what the camera can do, how you can break the look, ie what to avoid, and let it rip. There are better cameras available for certain but by knowing your camera you can certainly do exemplary work with the AF.
 
OldCorpse said:
The films that were mentioned so far, like Raid Redemption, Acts of Valor and so on? Let's see who talks about them - and watches them - in 10 years... heck, in 5 years! But guess what - people will still be watching and talking and loving Pink Flamingoes - as they have been since 1972, over 40 years now.
Click to expand...

To be perfectly honest, I have never even heard of Pink Flamingos until this thread. I'm thinking The Raid: Redemption and Acts of Valor (neither of which I've actually been able to see yet... my project for this week) will probably still be talked about many years from now. Cult classics, just different types of cults :)
 
Last edited:
Looks hella good, man. Crew of five! What were these crew positions? Focus puller, DP-Camera Op, Director, Sound mixer/boom operator and Script Supervisor?

Zak, what lens did you use? I'm guessing you had some good glass and an external recorder? What were those Zeiss CP2s? Where was your crowd funding campaign - ah, I see it - Kickstarter for $40K. Wow. Not bad at all.
 
Last edited:
thanks for the kind words everyone. I had a kit of nikons that i've collected over the years and had rented the 11mm-16mm tokina. here's who did what on our crew.

1. Zak Forsman. director, writer, cinematographer, camera op, make-up, fight choreography, props, special fx, visual fx, colorist, post sound effects editor and mixer.
2. Kevin K. Shah. producer, locations, props, rentals, scheduling, budgeting, lodging, food.
3. Randolph Scott. 1st assistant director, slate, call sheets, props, transpo.
4. Jamie Cobb. editor, location sound mixer & boom op, wardrobe, props, co-producer.
5. Sam Krueger. lighting cameraman, gaffer, grip, asst camera, dolly, jib, all around problem solver.
6. Erik Reese. transpo, grip, gaffer, asst camera, food, props, 2nd boom op, co-producer

I'm probably forgetting some of the roles covered. as you can see, if any of us had faltered, entire "depts" would suffer. fortunately these are all good friends, and one even happens to be my wife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top