Could anybody guide me towards getting good results with the AF100?
- Thread starter Sttratos
- Start date
John Andersson
Well-known member
I don't know if I'd call it defective but there are image issues you have to deal with to make it look good. When you pixelpeep or look at each aspect like clipping and noise it can look bad but I always though it came out nice in the end when taking a step back and looking at the final result. I had far more concern about the lack of resolution and image detail than anything else.
Adamsenoj just revels in threads like this, same old story. No advice on what the OP is looking for just same old bashing, clueless and just lives in this forum.
Post some work up and let's see what your able to achieve in 24p land with your full set of CP2s connected to the GH2, anything to justify your constant drivel of highlight complaints.
have you heard of lights?
Post some work up and let's see what your able to achieve in 24p land with your full set of CP2s connected to the GH2, anything to justify your constant drivel of highlight complaints.
have you heard of lights?
You know the funny thing about the whole frame grab thing? It's a bit like you are just doubting the guy and think he's lying or making things up. Why does he have to post a frame about a very well known problem with the camera when there are hundreds of clips in this very site that illustrates exactly what he is describing? The whole frame grab pushing sometimes comes across a bit insulting and I think is just an excuse to look the other way. If the problem described was something never heard before, definitely, post a frame so everybody understands. But the problems described are what AF100 owners who want to see have seen thousands of times. Basically any time you point the camera at something. So I really fail to see your point.
Why not? How is that invalid as an example of the types of shots the AF100 can't handle? Because it's Coppola? Because it's Gordon Willis? I wasn't comparing the AF100 to film and I left that very clear. I said it can't handle shots like that and other also digital cameras such as the 5D can. The frame was an illustration so how is it not valid? Would it have been valid if it was a frame with the same lighting conditions but from an independent film instead of The Godfather? I don't understand your logic, sorry.
Again, if the problems are the very same, and people have already posted examples why do every individual need to post the same? You really think people get fantastic footage from the AF100 and come here with fake complains just for fun? Because this is what it looks like you're saying. Calling people liars.
I thought was asking for help. But I may be wrong.
When I read the thread I knew right away what he was talking about because I need to deal with it in a daily basis. I'm sure as an AF100 user you did too. So why this nonense post an example or we don't know what it is?
See. Here you are contradicting yourself. If everything in this thread has been covered before and is known, why is there a need to post an example?
Maybe people do and all they can find are threads with people saying the camera is fine and it's all operator error and they just want to seek for a different opinion? Because this is what these threads used to boil down to. People started pointing fingers and saying it was operator error. I think it's great that there are some now willing to accept the fact.
But what I find amusing is you say the this is a throw away thread when so much good info came from it. For example Editman's suggestion to underexpose and pull the mids up in post comes to mind. Also the simple fact of discussing the camera limitations and where it fails teaches people how to work around that. We have all been telling how we do to get acceptable images from this camera and what it can't do. I don't see how this is not helpful to the topic.
So this is really what bothers you? Maybe if the "the AF100 is this way because it meets a price point" argument wouldn't be thrown around so often, people would not bring up cheaper cameras that can do a better job with the problem in question.
The funny thing is that you act like Papa, I and the others talking about the GH2 don't also own an AF100 and are just "GH2 extremists" (as I have seen people referring to GH2 shooters here) out to make our little camera look better than the big camera. We all shoot and own both and yes, the GH2 does way better in highlights and since I know you value screen grabs, examples have been posted not only in this thread but all over the web. And it costs way less too. It's just to illustrate a point man. Try to get over it please.
See, I have a way better time to accept the lower resolution because I think the camera is really sharp enough. You can also sharpen a bit in post. But bring blown highlights back is not really possible. Also it's not just blown highlights but how they are blown. Nasty yellow. But I have to disagree that you only see this problem if you pixelpeep. To me it's there on your face.
See, this is the type of nonsense that goes on around here. Unless you have only praise you might as well be bashing. You say I had no advice for what the OP is looking for? What is this then:
If you read the thread you will see I was saying when the camera fails AND where the camera does well.
Clueless? So how come that some agree with me here? Are they also clueless?
Just bashing? Really? How is that possible when I go through the trouble of posting AF100 frames that I like. Isn't that a compliment? Oh yes, I know, if one is not just praising he might as well be bashing. I get it.
You seem to be really bothered by the fact that I can afford a set of CPs. You keep bringing this up in a tone of hate. You should really not concern yourself.
My highlight complains are justified by dozens of clips and frame grabs in these forums and all over the web and by several people saying the same. That the GH2 handles highlights better you can see examples in this very same thread.
Last edited:
John Andersson
Well-known member
Well, I've come back from each shot with good looking footage and I've shot in all kinds of weather and lightconditions and all of the productions have looked good. Nothing other than clips I've done bad have been discarded but these had more to do with other things than the image quality.
I'm not saying that anybody is lying about what they see. I know because I've done my fair share of tweaking with the AF100 and at times it has been frustrating but I also see users who discard the camera before they know how to make it look good. It's far from a perfect camera and frankly I believe most will have it easier shooting with a GH2 or similar camera because it demands less of the shooter.
I'm not saying that anybody is lying about what they see. I know because I've done my fair share of tweaking with the AF100 and at times it has been frustrating but I also see users who discard the camera before they know how to make it look good. It's far from a perfect camera and frankly I believe most will have it easier shooting with a GH2 or similar camera because it demands less of the shooter.
hscully
Veteran
"Could anybody guide me toward getting good results with the AF100." That is the title of this thread by the OP. I was needling the OP for screen grabs. Others have contributed substantively by showing examples. It's not unheard of.
I showed him a grab with a blown portion for discussion and included a screen grab of the scopes so that we could have a discussion on how to "get good results with the AF100." Sorry Man, if you need a bunch of posts to tell you why you should buy another camera then say that. "Could anybody give me reasons to shoot with another camera." Then I would pass. If you REALLY want help then I agree strongly that it's incumbent on you to SHOW us what you're talking about.
As to the godfather picture.. I get that. It is an example of a type of shot that might define a problem he might have been talking about but I don't really know what he was talking about. You said highlights, he says "Yeah, that's it" but also "washed out pictures".... yak yak yak... if you want help then join the discussion with some intelligent information about the nature of what it is you want help with. Using that picture if gwillis1972 wrote, "hey the hightlights look great but man that background behind Pacino is noisy." You could say don't shoot ASA 50 film with only a practical in the 1970s gwilliis, thanks for the screen grab!
I agree with Erik that if you practice your craft well, provided you can and you're not run and gunning on a beach in July with no grip equipment, then you can get good results with the AF100.
Anyway... It's breakfast at the AF100 Defenders Retirement Home ... ooh, pancakes!
Last edited:
Sure. I thought we had already agreed that the camera can indeed turn out good looking footage if the conditions are right or if you are willing to live with the underexposed flatter look. But if you want to shoot something a little more contrasty or have hotter highlights in your shot for an effect it is frustrating as you mentioned bellow. The argument is not whether the AF100 can produce good images in some situations. It definitely can and will. It's about it's inability to handle highlights. If the shooting condition is low contrast then it's obviously not a problem. If one is happy with always having to kill any highlights to get decent looking skins even at the expense of flatting his image, then that person doesn't have a problem.
I think somebody discarding the camera would not be here. He would be at the forums for his new camera. If he is here is because he is not discarding the camera and still trying to deal with it. At least this is how I see it.
I find this statement can be interpreted in two ways. One way is that the shooter doesn't know what he is doing and can get better images from the GH2 because the camera does more for him, which I don't think is the case at all. The GH2 is in many ways harder to use than the AF100. The other way is that it demands less of the shooter because it can deal with the problems in a more efficient way, and the shooter doesn't have to go out of his way and through hoops using workarounds to get good results. If this is what you mean I fully agree.
I didn't have the impression anybody was telling him he should buy another camera. Just telling him that certain types of shots are just not possible because the camera is unable. He will have to make the decision if because of that he will have to buy another camera or not.
About showing the problem he is having, have you never had the highlight problems with the AF100? So you know without seeing a frame what he's talking about.
About washed out footage I have a hunch it's just too much light into the lens. This is something I came to learn about the camera. You get the best results with a mattebox to make sure no light hits the front element. Pointing it at a bright scene even if corrected exposed will make washed out images if that brightness is hitting the lens. For some reason this is a bigger problem with the AF100 than for example with my EX3. But it's easy to fix. Always have something covering the lens element.
hscully
Veteran
Exactly! You are left to guess that that is what he is talking about. I said the same thing about light in the lens... nothing... crickets... A simple screen grab from an honest enquirer would go a long way to help define the problem and so help solve it. Why not? If you really want help? That's all I'm saying.
hscully
Veteran
I don't know without seeing a frame grab or at least getting a decent description of the problem. I posted a grab with a blown out portion where the skin was still exposed well, positing that, IF that's your problem that "to get good results" you can live with blown highlights, as in a brightly lit background, if you expose skin properly.
You suggest that it's blown skin highlights because of your experience. Good assertion. No problem, but is that what the OP means? I have no idea because he never showed us or described it that way.
John Andersson
Well-known member
What I meant was if you find the AF100 difficult to get what you want out of a camera then there are cameras like the GH2 which is more forgiving. I shot extensively with a 7D and 5D before I bought the AF100 and they were so easy to set up when it came to exposure.
Not hate, scepticism. Just can not fathom why you are here or still (apparently) an AF100 owner. In fact I don't believe you are in any shape or form.
You talk the talk but then slip up by saying "maybe not having light directly hit the lens will help?", of course that will help, you blundering idiot, that's the first step towards low contrast images and more widely known than the highlight issues of Panasonic cameras and even more know than under exposing and raising the mids, I've been doing that since Sony Vegas 8!. If he's using an older non coated lens it will be even worse, the 14-140mm will still give him low contrast issues but if he's using cine glass and a matte box it will be less of an issue, check out Magnamous Productions on Vimeo for a video test of canons new cine glass on the Scarlet, AF100 and 5DMk3 to see how a pro can get good results shooting almost directly into the sun with out additional lighting, add lighting in the mix and you have a high dynamic range. It's the DPs job to compress the dynamic range into the spectrum of the camera, simple cinematography 101 don't you know.
A screen grab would identify if above is the case but then because there is the universal claim that the AF100 can not control a highlight then we don't need screen grabs? But he will need to be told the universal knowledge of raising mids and not shooting into direct light?.
I read this thread to start with as an opportunity to help the OPs cinematography as much as the camera setup but all I can get is that when he points the camera at a high contrast scene he has issues. Sorry to be so childish but duhhhhh?
Now dude, you say you rent REDs, Alexas and own a full set of CP2s, there is no hate for this from me as i would have the same opportunity as you but with this information I would expect different responses from you and it's always the same old rubbish, a cinema camera is used mostly in controlled environments that are geared towards the cameras plus and away from the minuses, if I could see the scene he is try to create then i could help but if this entire thread is just going to be about you and your issues that are "widely spread around the globe" with the AF100 then I'm not interested.
You bore me.
You talk the talk but then slip up by saying "maybe not having light directly hit the lens will help?", of course that will help, you blundering idiot, that's the first step towards low contrast images and more widely known than the highlight issues of Panasonic cameras and even more know than under exposing and raising the mids, I've been doing that since Sony Vegas 8!. If he's using an older non coated lens it will be even worse, the 14-140mm will still give him low contrast issues but if he's using cine glass and a matte box it will be less of an issue, check out Magnamous Productions on Vimeo for a video test of canons new cine glass on the Scarlet, AF100 and 5DMk3 to see how a pro can get good results shooting almost directly into the sun with out additional lighting, add lighting in the mix and you have a high dynamic range. It's the DPs job to compress the dynamic range into the spectrum of the camera, simple cinematography 101 don't you know.
A screen grab would identify if above is the case but then because there is the universal claim that the AF100 can not control a highlight then we don't need screen grabs? But he will need to be told the universal knowledge of raising mids and not shooting into direct light?.
I read this thread to start with as an opportunity to help the OPs cinematography as much as the camera setup but all I can get is that when he points the camera at a high contrast scene he has issues. Sorry to be so childish but duhhhhh?
Now dude, you say you rent REDs, Alexas and own a full set of CP2s, there is no hate for this from me as i would have the same opportunity as you but with this information I would expect different responses from you and it's always the same old rubbish, a cinema camera is used mostly in controlled environments that are geared towards the cameras plus and away from the minuses, if I could see the scene he is try to create then i could help but if this entire thread is just going to be about you and your issues that are "widely spread around the globe" with the AF100 then I'm not interested.
You bore me.
Specially for you with your angry childish post on the screen in the background:
Yes, I really do not own an AF100 and am here just to troll.The above is a mirage.:huh:
Really, are you really that desperate to discredit me? You have outdone yourself with that desperate comment. Welcome to my ignore list.
Oh or was that what I said? What are you on about? You make no sense. When did I say that? I thought I said IF his problem is being caused by that it's an easy fix. If that's not his problem it will not help. I don't know what is causing his problem. Maybe he is already doing that and avoiding light on the lens and still get washed out images. So what was slip? Trying to guess what the guy's problem is? I may bore you, but you crack me up. I never said maybe not having light directly hit the lens will help. Everybody knows this will help. But is that his problem? I said if that is his problem then it will help him. Distorting words much? Desperate for a point much?
But you don't always need a mattebox for example with the EX3. The lens shade is more than enough and you don't get washed out images. But with the AF100 it seems to be more prone to that. You don't need to have a light directly hitting the lens like with other cameras. Just ambient lighting can cause images to come out washed out. I don't know why that is but it's much more sensitive to that than others. So you will do well to have your lens buried deep in a mattebox.
Oh, we are calling names now? Very mature, professional and the best way to make a level headed point.
This is definitely not how you come across.
If that's the way you think you clearly have never been on a film set. You think the whole production would bend over around the camera to make it work? The camera is supposed to perform and if it doesn't you just use a different camera. Nobody will go out of their way and waste precious time to make a less capable camera work. This is most likely why the 5D gets more set work than the AF100. But if you think the problem is only under uncontrolled lighting situations you are just missing the point. The AF100 is incapable of rendering the frames I posted with hotter highlights whether in sun light or in a studio. It will not make a difference in the highlights. The difference is that in the studio it's easier to reduce the contrast and get around the problem. But you will still not get those highlights!
I honestly missed the part that I signed a contract to entertain you.
Last edited:
David W. Jones
Veteran
Well I guess I'm just a different bird, because I happen to agree with Erik.
Is the AF100 perfect? No! But neither was the ARRI 35BL-IV I shot with so many years ago, or even the Alexa I have been shooting with lately. Every camera has it limitations! One of the cameras I happen to own is the AF100, and use it to shoot low budget TV commercials where it is an appropriate tool. When I have a shooting situation which exceeds the limitations of the AF100, I simply select the right tool for the job. That is where experience makes the difference, knowing your tools, their limitations, and then making the right choice. Would I select a $3500.00 AF100 as my camera of choice to shoot a feature film I was serious about? Absolutely not!
All the Best!
Dave
Specially for you with your angry childish post on the screen in the background:
Yes, I really do not own an AF100 and am here just to troll.The above is a mirage.:huh:
Really, are you really that desperate to discredit me? You have outdone yourself with that desperate comment. Welcome to my ignore list.
Ha! I'm on the ignore list of a forum addict, oh how will I move on with my life. Making pot shots at your credibility was no desperate attempt to make a point but to generate a reaction which it did in the form of a photo, Shame there are no CP2s in your pictures? Or any links to your work? Just pixel peeping ignorance and AF100 highlight moaning with a touch of GH2 for desert, just go and shoot something.
You've not seen Act Of Valor (5D2 at 30p?) or The Raid (AF100) then? Even Nolan worked around the failings of the IMAX camera to obtain its benefits and Skyfall went for Alexa and up-resing the film for IMAX screenings. Any where you look there will be a compromise to obtain a positive and the AF100s failings can largely be overcome by a skilled DP in order to free up the budget for multiple cameras, better sets, costumes, actors etc. I was on a short flim set as a grip, they had obtained the Red One and Zeiss primes but hadn't the budget for NDs lol, turn arounds where longer as we tried to tweek the lights for them but most of the image was in focus which wasn't what the DP was looking for and they had noise in the blacks, a skilled DP with a lesser camera would of done a better job.
Yes yes yes, when you are on the set of the hobbit or Star Wars 7 we just grab the best camera going or in your case the GH2 but the rest of us on planet earth who have realised what the AF100 is good at use it accordingly. When a director can't afford to do what you are suggesting they use lesser cameras and hire skilled DPs and gaffers to make the most of the platform but I doubt anyone here bought the AF100 for well budgeted features. I would guess they do more news/events and corporate gigs and earn a decent living but also dip a toe ino the narrative world?
Any hoo, I'm on your ignore list now so this is a pointless discussion.
Erik Naso
Veteran
That is just plain rude. I use the same tools as any DP would use when I shoot. Your judgement of me is way off and is insulting. Tell you what. Post your feature film so we can have a discussion on each others work. I doubt you will.
Yet again. Rude. You clearly don't know what I do for a living. Again show me what you've done and gain some credibility.
It's a known fact you have to protect the highlights. Do your job as a skilled DP and its workable. Your on a witch hunt. Editman states this without being rude and obnoxiousness. But then he has credibility because he shares his work as well as helps others with issues. You should try his style.
Wrong. A DSLR is an option and I use them when I need to for certain situation. The AF-100 has also taken work away from the 5D.
What? It's not all about me? I'm so disappointed now. Oh what I get it. It's all about YOU and your constant whining and no proof to even back up your skill with your feature film projects. Only a keyboard and your internet access.
Midst all the blathering from someone who appears to be an immature troll desperate for attention, no one has yet pointed out another large sensor video camera that meets the following needs at anything less than 3x the price of an AF100:
HD-SDI Out
Built-in ND Filters
Waveform Monitor
Apparently, getting attention for being clueless is better than no attention at all.
I thought this thread was supposed to be about helping the O.P. get good results from the camera. Since there are many people who have gotten quite good results from an AF100, perhaps they should be left to dominate the conversation.
HD-SDI Out
Built-in ND Filters
Waveform Monitor
Apparently, getting attention for being clueless is better than no attention at all.
I thought this thread was supposed to be about helping the O.P. get good results from the camera. Since there are many people who have gotten quite good results from an AF100, perhaps they should be left to dominate the conversation.