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

D

dreallen

Active member
I see ALOT of cinema worthy images from the AF100 and at the same time alot of debate about whether or not it is a viable broadcast and cinema level camera. As an owner I have my own ideas but I want to know everyone's honest opinion. Do you think you can make competitive, sellable, potentially theatric releases with the Panasonic AF100? If so, with what equipment and under what circumstances? And if you don't think so, please tell me why you believe Red, Arri, Panavision, Canon, DSLR's, or BMCC are the only ones to hold that distinction in your opinion.

Thanks!
 
You shoot with the best camera package your budget can comfortably afford. If you can only afford an AF100 camera package, take solace in the fact that, in the hands of a capable operator who knows it well, it can produce terrific imagery. But if your budget could comfortable handle a fully loaded Red Epic or Alexa package, why would it matter?
 
You can make a feature with the AF100 that sells. Look at Raid Redemption as an example. However, I think that the AF100 needs to work in your genre, the look and the budget. I mean you can't shoot ANY feature with an AF100 but you could shoot one that matched it's capabilities. If you were shooting a sci fi thriller with a lot of vfx you may want something with more color depth and resolution like an Epic or Scarlet. If you're telling a character driven story with a "realistic" look, then I think you can definitely shoot it with an AF100. If you were going for something like climbing Mt. Everest or any movie with snow all the time you'd might want an f3 with Slog to keep the highlights right.

In any case the camera won't make it any of those things... competitive, sellable, potential theatrical release... your script will. Cameras don't make movies without your help ;)
 
Gary Huff said:
You shoot with the best camera package your budget can comfortably afford. If you can only afford an AF100 camera package, take solace in the fact that, in the hands of a capable operator who knows it well, it can produce terrific imagery. But if your budget could comfortable handle a fully loaded Red Epic or Alexa package, why would it matter?
Click to expand...

I've given Gary some guff from time to time, but here I think he's on the money. If your budget only allows for an AF100, then it's more then capable. If you have the bread something you'd be more comfortable using, go for it.

The reality is that camera/lenses should only account for a small percentage of your budget (particularly if you already own said equipment), maybe 10-20 percent. While this is mainly a camera dedicated website, the reality is that there are many other factors more important then what camera you used to most distributors.... Like who's in it? Is it a genre movie? Do you have clearances for everything? Is it 3D? How long is it? How's your press kit look? Did you have it QCed from a house they trust? Yada.

You should be able to make a movie with everything from a T2i and up. The biggest factors for camera choice (for me anyway) have to do with workflow - can my crew use the camera easily? Is it reliable/tough? Does it record to a media I want to use? Will my editing system of chose play nice with the footage when downloaded? Do you want a flat look, or (like me) prefer to try and get it in camera? What's the camera's strengths & weaknesses (most 8 bit cameras seem to fall apart on wide shots or shots with wide dynamic range)? I shoot horror movies, so a built-in ND filter means squat to me, but if you're shooting outdoors during the day time for most of the shoot, it'd be invaluable.

So does the camera fit the needs of the production and will it fit your particular workflow? I mean, if you're sneaking around shooting on the sly, an ALEXA is certainly not the camera you'd want to use. If you're shooting a drama with oodles of close-ups, then maybe a full frame camera would work best. One thing's for sure - don't blow all the money on the camera. If you have an AF100 already (and w/o knowing what sort of flick you're shooting), I can't see a reason not to use it.

Bottom line is that if it looks professional, then most (if not all) distributors will care much more about other factors.
 
Of course not. By definition a major film is MAJOR. It has a budget, stars, efx, pros on the set, great script, lights, production design, sound. I wonder how many filmmakers who stress over the minutiae of their shooting set up have the slightest chance of getting their movies on the big screen.
 
I don't mind at all Shooter. Thanks so much for the vote of confidence. I suppose it's all just first film jitters. I have mostly done music videos but opted for alot of storyline and dialog scenes. Thank you all for the comments. Makes me feel good about my chances. For everyone else in this string, I shot a video of all my gear laid out in my driveway to see if I was missing anything. Please watch and share any low cost options if you see something missing so I can take it into account. Muchas Gracias!

WATCH HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMgQOYZAmaI
 
We just sent off a feature film shot on Af100 to cannes submission. My fingers are crossed :) Also, if you're at NAB this year, I just dumped a hard drive full of footage for the panasonic booth. Check it out if you can.
 
"28 Day Later" was shot on a 480i (yes, interlaced, not progressive) Canon XL1 camcorder, screened theatrically, made millions that spawned a bigger budget sequel. "Paranormal Activity" was shot on a Sony FX1 prosumer camcorder and became the most profitable movie based on percentage of return on investment. "Open Water" was shot on a Sony VX-2000 and Sony PD-150 camcorders.

Showtime's longtime #1 series, "Dexter", uses Nikon D800s as their B-cam in addition to Arri Alexa. "Wilfred", another Showtime series starring Elijah Wood was shot with a Canon 7D as their A-cam and then moved up to shooting on Nikon D800 as their A-cam.

So yeah, you can use an AF100 with no problem. :) Would it be my #1 choice even near its price range? Nope, but it's better than the cameras used on some other big hit movies.
 
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
 
skital said:
"28 Day Later" was shot on a 480i (yes, interlaced, not progressive) Canon XL1 camcorder, screened theatrically, made millions that spawned a bigger budget sequel. "Paranormal Activity" was shot on a Sony FX1 prosumer camcorder and became the most profitable movie based on percentage of return on investment. "Open Water" was shot on a Sony VX-2000 and Sony PD-150 camcorders.

Showtime's longtime #1 series, "Dexter", uses Nikon D800s as their B-cam in addition to Arri Alexa. "Wilfred", another Showtime series starring Elijah Wood was shot with a Canon 7D as their A-cam and then moved up to shooting on Nikon D800 as their A-cam.

So yeah, you can use an AF100 with no problem. :) Would it be my #1 choice even near its price range? Nope, but it's better than the cameras used on some other big hit movies.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You can shoot a major film with any tool you feel is right for the job at hand.

That being said, if I were serious about shooting a feature film with the proper budget, I would likely rent the needed camera pkg rather than use my AF100.
 
David W. Jones said:
You can shoot a major film with any tool you feel is right for the job at hand.
Click to expand...
This.

That being said, if I were serious about shooting a feature film with the proper budget, I would likely rent the needed camera pkg rather than use my AF100.
Click to expand...
Depends on budget, obviously. There are better cameras than the AF100 out there, so if you have the budget for one (and all the associated support equipment for it) then there may be better choices. If the AF100 is right for the budget and scope of the project, then it can perform extremely well indeed.
 
Barry_Green said:
Close, but not 100% -- it was 3:1:1, not 4:2:2 (3:1:1 is worse), and it wasn't even 1920x1080, it was 1440x1080... HDCAM is 1440x1080 3:1:1.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I read different but take your word for it. Startling how good the natural scenes shot in Italy look. Not shy of a little green screen either ;0)
 
Barry_Green said:
Depends on budget, obviously. There are better cameras than the AF100 out there, so if you have the budget for one (and all the associated support equipment for it) then there may be better choices. If the AF100 is right for the budget and scope of the project, then it can perform extremely well indeed.
Click to expand...

Barry is of course correct, and brings up a good point, and that is budget, which will usually dictate which camera choices you have available as tools.

Funny thing I have noticed as of late, is that there are generally two very different camps when it comes to where budget items go producing indie features.

The first, are those who are serious. It's about the film, not the gear. They budget accordingly, rent lights, grip, electric, camera and lenses when needed, or will purchase the camera and then sell it after all photography has been completed.

The second, those who are not as serious about the film. The film is basically an excuse for them to purchase piece of gear X. Most of their film budget will go into buying this years hot camera, which will be passé in a year when they shoot their next feature.

Just my observation.
 
David W. Jones said:
Barry is of course correct, and brings up a good point, and that is budget, which will usually dictate which camera choices you have available as tools.


Funny thing I have noticed as of late, is that there are generally two very different camps when it comes to where budget items go producing indie features.


The first, are those who are serious. It's about the film, not the gear. They budget accordingly, rent lights, grip, electric, camera and lenses when needed, or will purchase the camera and then sell it after all photography has been completed.


The second, those who are not as serious about the film. The film is basically an excuse for them to purchase piece of gear X. Most of their film budget will go into buying this years hot camera, which will be passé in a year when they shoot their next feature.


Just my observation.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the directors you talk of are actually camera men/DPs? I know for the last film I worked on (for free) I bought the external recorder and V-Locks that i was intendeding to buy at some point while my friend (the director) bought the food, crew and cast expenses, paid for the location and rented/bought what the gaffer didn't have and took everyone for a beer after.


I think a lot of the time it's assumed that its "our" film we are working on and X purchase seems stupid. The few films I have worked on have been written, paid for and Directed by by one or two other people that have nothing to do with my camera department or purchases.


just my 2 cents
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top