I think this is the perfect shooting conditions for the AF100 actually. That's when you can get good footage out of it the easiest.
Could anybody guide me towards getting good results with the AF100?
- Thread starter Sttratos
- Start date
I think this is the perfect shooting conditions for the AF100 actually. That's when you can get good footage out of it the easiest.
John Andersson
Well-known member
Yes there's some extra headroom in Cinelike D if you don't overexpose but with hypergamma on the F3 it gracefully goes into clipping and it is much better and easier to work with than either Cinelike V or Cinelike D. With the limitations within the AF100 I suspect Cinelike D is as far as Panasonic could push it without introducing weird things due to a more logarithmic curve.
This frame would have been impossible with the AF100. Hard sunlight blasting through the window creating very harsh contrast. But with hypergamma 4 on the F3 there's still details to 109%
Attachments
hscully
Veteran
would the highlights on his left cheek been over 100IRE on that frame grab? I'd love to see the wave form on that
John Andersson
Well-known member
Actually this is not even 100% in the brightest part because the highlight roll-off just keeps on rolling and it takes a while before it really clips thus the clipping is very soft. But would this frame been shot with s-log it would have even more details in the highly exposed parts. On the AF100 the closest thing would have been to shoot with Cinelike D and chroma dialed down to -6 or so. My example is not of a good exposed clip. It's way to overexposed but still there's nothing strange going on, it just gets overexposed.
Yep, exactly. It's overexposed but it's perfectly useable if that's the effect the shot calls for because there are no funky things happening to it. This shot is basically impossible with the AF100. Sadly.
This is what I meant. I was replying to Hscully's request to Panasonic to listen and give us something like the Hypergammas. I was saying that they already tried and this is the Cinelike gammas but it didn't help any because the AF100 just can't do it.
Last edited:
What about the GH2 and 5D? Are they also more expensive? By your logic they should then be much worse in highlight handling but yet they are superior to the AF100.
I knew somebody would jump in with the old price point argument when the F3 was brought up. But yet, everybody was silent when we were talking about the GH2 or 5D being superior in highlight handling, because they defeat the price point argument.
John Andersson
Well-known member
True that the F3 is a more expensive camera and offers much more over the AF100 but I showed how F3 handles overexposure just to highlight the difference between these two cameras and that you really need to work within the limits of the AF100 to get nice looking footage. Still it's no magic about it, just never overexpose or put skin tones to hot with the AF100 and it looks good. Not as good as the F3 but it can still look good.
hscully
Veteran
Huhn... so if you ran out of the sdi output of the F3 into a waveform monitor, then that high white on his cheek keep sloping up to 110 IRE because the camera set to this gamma will gently keep rolling it off asymptotically? Wow... that's pretty good. Thanks.
Last edited:
John Andersson
Well-known member
hscully
Veteran
I guess it becomes a subjective matter at some point. My strategy has been to keep the skin tones under 70% no matter what, and I'm always good with the AF100. I've seen some plasticy orange shiny 5D stuff where the faces are nasty but I don't know where it has been exposed so who knows how bad it has to be blown on that camera before it craps out. I don't really use my GH2 enough for video to have a very strong opinion about highlights on it but it seems that you've had a good experience with it so, that's cool. Hell, I'm still not sure on how to read the histogram
I guess it becomes a subjective matter at some point. My strategy has been to keep the skin tones under 70% no matter what, and I'm always good with the AF100. I've seen some plasticy orange shiny 5D stuff where the faces are nasty but I don't know where it has been exposed so who knows how bad it has to be blown on that camera before it craps out. I don't really use my GH2 enough for video to have a very strong opinion about highlights on it but it seems that you've had a good experience with it so, that's cool. Hell, I'm still not sure on how to read the histogram
For GH2 highlights Papa posted a good example a couple of pages back. Just compare how much of the highlights he was able to bring back.
Yes, plastic looking skins can be a problem with the Canons. It kind of makes people look like they are using bad make up if you don't know what you are doing. As I said the images are not perfect, but it has a big following despite that. I'm not a big fan of the Canons and sold my 7D a while ago. I much prefer the GH2. But regardless of the faults the Canons or even GH2 may have, they do handle the highlights better and this is what I was talking about. That the notion that we need to accept the AF100's incompetence in handling the highlights because it costs less than a F3 is BS, sorry. Because there are cameras which costs less and do a better job at that. They may have other faults off course, but then again the highlights is far from being the only fault the AF100 has.
If you have a GH2 you're really missing out in not exploiting it's video capabilities. A GH2 hacked with Ipowell's flowmotion is a great tool.
Last edited:
hscully
Veteran
It's on the list! I have to spend some time with it. I love the GH2 as a still camera. As soon as I can get some time install flowmotion and have some fun.. maybe post some grabs. Yeah that 5D is very popular indeed. Producers ask for it and people like it. I was on a commercial where they had a couple of them. It was a good shoot and the final grade looked damm good. It was very saturated and rich. They did a nice job lighting and it was pretty impressive. I just remember the sound guy grumbling when he was wiring me up, no way to jam synch. It was all up to him... grumble .. grumble.. but it worked!
Last edited:
John Andersson
Well-known member
I do think you have to accept the less than ideal highlight clipping and skew if you already own the AF100 but there are other, cheaper cameras, that are better in this regard if you are looking at a new camera. I moved on for a reason and that was because I came to an end with what I could do in my line of work - doing commercials. Recently we have moved to shoot most higher budget stuff on the Alexa so I wanted to have a camera for all the other projects which didn't loose that much compared to the Alexa.
Erik Naso
Veteran
Here's the deal for me. I've had success with my AF-100 as well as the F3 and i don't think the AF-100 is as bad as it is described in this thread and many others lately. If you use basic skills as a DP you will get very good results. Comparing it to a DSLR doesn't work for me either because I don't work with DSLR cams as my main camera so it's not an option. They have issues that the AF-100 doesn't. The reality is the AF-100 is kind of done and if it doesn't get replaced with a better all around camera soon most wont be using it anymore and moving to a new camera that probably wont be a Panasonic model. Complaining about it really is a moot point. It is what it is.
Cinesota
Active member
+1 on what Erik said.
As for the rest of this thread? Ugh! It's threads like this that have led me to rarely visit DVXUser anymore. As usual the OP didn't have a single frame grab to illustrate his problem (just as the last guy who started a thread on this subject didn't have any footage to show either). Instead we get a frame grab from the Godfather?!!! Jeebus! To be fair, Papa and HScully threw up some grabs to show what the AF100 can do but where is the footage from the guys complaining? What was the point of this thread? If you haven't got a clip, a framegrab, a still, something to illustrate your problem how do you expect to get any help? Just about everything that has been said in this thread has been covered in countless threads before. Does anyone even bother to do a simple search before they start a new thread? Most of what I know about my AF100 was gleaned by a search of the AF100 forum and I owe a debt of gratitude to the well meaning, knowledgeable folks that contribute to this forum every day. I'm just annoyed they get drowned out by nonsensical threads like this one.
...and of course someone had to mention the GH2. How could we possibly get through a discussion of the AF100 without mentioning the GH2? I need a drink.
As for the rest of this thread? Ugh! It's threads like this that have led me to rarely visit DVXUser anymore. As usual the OP didn't have a single frame grab to illustrate his problem (just as the last guy who started a thread on this subject didn't have any footage to show either). Instead we get a frame grab from the Godfather?!!! Jeebus! To be fair, Papa and HScully threw up some grabs to show what the AF100 can do but where is the footage from the guys complaining? What was the point of this thread? If you haven't got a clip, a framegrab, a still, something to illustrate your problem how do you expect to get any help? Just about everything that has been said in this thread has been covered in countless threads before. Does anyone even bother to do a simple search before they start a new thread? Most of what I know about my AF100 was gleaned by a search of the AF100 forum and I owe a debt of gratitude to the well meaning, knowledgeable folks that contribute to this forum every day. I'm just annoyed they get drowned out by nonsensical threads like this one.
...and of course someone had to mention the GH2. How could we possibly get through a discussion of the AF100 without mentioning the GH2? I need a drink.
Yes, there are serious limitations involved in shooting with a DSLR. But I think the reason people put up with it is because the end result, the final image, which is the whole reason you are pointing a camera at something, looks great. I think this is why the 5D is still being used a lot over for example some other cameras with better features and better form factor. Even if a camera is a delight to work with, has all the features to make your life easier, even focus assist, if the final images leave a lot to be desired it kind of defeats the whole purpose. Unless all you care is about getting the shot no matter how and getting paid. If you are into ENG, definitely. This is what matters, getting the shot no matter how. But the AF100 is marketed as a cinema camera where getting the shot is not the only thing matters, at all.
Well, I think if you want to keep the AF100, it's not like you have to accept the less than ideal highlight clipping and skew, you just have no other option but to deal with. So I agree with you.
But what I meant is all the people who say we can't complain because the camera is cheaper. This is where the nonsense starts. If people were complaining about the AF100 not having S-log for example I would say yes, for that price it's probably asking too much. Same thing if they were asking internal 4:4:4 RAW recording. But asking for a basic thing such as being capable to deal with light doesn't fall in this category. It's what cameras should do, deal with light. Handling highlights is a basic point in a camera. This is not something special, extra or high-end. I'm not even asking for more dynamic range because that's not the problem. There are cameras which have less dynamic range that can do a better job. The problem with the AF100 is not DR, it's a defect, a flaw. The notion that one must accept a defect because it's a cheaper camera baffles me.
Eric, with all due respect, I respect your work and you are a very talented shooter and valuable member of this community. But the reason I think you are so cool with the AF100's limitations may be because your work just doesn't demand more. Try to shoot a feature film on location with this digital cinema camera and then lets talk. For all I have seen from your work you shoot mainly things for news, TV and other things where image quality is much less important than in cinema or commercials or music videos. Who cares if the skin is a little blown for ENG?
If not that then, I have no idea why even after several different users said the same thing you still refuses to accept it. Even after several examples all over the internet have clearly show the problem. Because it's not only me, or the guy who started this thread, or Editman saying this. There are a lot of people saying the same thing and many have moved on from the AF100 because of that. So how are we imagining this?
A DSLR may not be an option for you, but it's obviously an option for other people including producers. I'm sure the 5D has taken many jobs off the hands of an AF100 and it has been reported in these forums. So just because it's not an option for you it doesn't mean it needs to be excluded from the discussion. We are not all talking about you here. I think people get irritated when DSLRs are brought up because they defeat the whole price point nonsene, which seems to be the AF100 last line of defense around here.
I don't think anybody has said the AF100 is only capable of bad images. I definitely did not. We are all just saying that it's very limited and limited because of a design flaw. But we have all said it can make good images and I even quoted some of my favorite AF100 frames in the thread which I think look really nice. I just don't understand why some people act like we are just bashing. I guess around here, if you are not just praising you might as well be bashing.