Finally Bloom's review!

[Michael Olsen]

That wasn't a great example of using skill and technique over expensive equipment and resources.

Of course you can't take fantastic pictures for free. This is the reason professional photographers exist in the first place...

But it perfectly fits my argument - if you are a successful professional photographer you will have access to proper lighting, models, makeup, and post. This gives you creative choice in the use of your camera. And you could take that image using anything from a 617 land camera to a Diana, to a coolpix or a webcam and, chances are, it will look great.

 

[Multi-Media]

Shoulder mount would be a different camera. Maybe there'll be an AF370 some day, like the HPX370. If so, I would expect the VF front-mounted on something like that. But that's not this camera, this is a handheld model.

Coming from the DVX, I don't want a shoulder mount "newsguy" cam. I shoot mostly on sticks or fly on the Steadycam & some handheld with OIS. For sticks, I'm glad to have the viewfinder... it means I can use the diopter to correct for the glasses that I started needing in my mid 40s. It's also good for bright outside conditions. I have no complaints about the lack of weight. The Cobra crain is made for a camera under 6lbs and the Steadycam JR just holds the DVX. I figure it'll still work with the AVX (our new nomenclature) I can use the pancake lens and the smaller battery that comes with it to reduce weight further after I remove the handle and grip.
I have no complaints... since I didn't go for the HVX because of low light sensitivity or lack thereof... I'll be going straight from the DVX to the AFX and know that I'll be able to make it work for me. I can't wait!

 

[Mark Smith]

cool. what cameras does she use now? What cams do top photogs like her use canon5dmkii or is that considered low end? Do they all use hasselblads at that high end level?

Most of Liebowitz's work as I saw it was getting the set right,getting the people in the photo right , and pulling the trigger at the right moment. Think Vanity Fair covers with 15 Music Luminaries all crammed into a little recording studio looking like they all hanging out together. When the scene in front of the camera was completely crafted: art direction, wardrobe, people, lighting , postures, then she would start shooting

 

[Chris Messineo]

In fact, I've already committed to JDS a (for me, fairly) HUGE amount of dough to back a real feature film, and it'll be shot on the AF100 in the first part of next year. I am totally prepared to put my money where my mouth is. It's go time, baby.

I'm so excited for you both about this. I know it's going to be amazing!

 

[Homunculus]

In fact, I've already committed to JDS a (for me, fairly) HUGE amount of dough to back a real feature film, and it'll be shot on the AF100 in the first part of next year. I am totally prepared to put my money where my mouth is. It's go time, baby.

wow. i must say that IS putting your money where your mouth is. you guys have been at all top film festivals tribeca, sxsw, sundance (?) and can probably shoot on anything you want so to choose af100 over the likes of Red is pretty big. where are ya'll shooting this? Texas?

 

[Barry_Green]

wow. i must say that IS putting your money where your mouth is. you guys have been at all top film festivals tribeca, sxsw, sundance (?) and can probably shoot on anything you want so to choose af100 over the likes of Red is pretty big. where are ya'll shooting this? Texas?

Where the incentives and geography are most appropriate. Interiors may be in Michigan, exteriors in NM or Oklahoma.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

image quality / major festival debate ender: Duplass bros.
Known as great filmmakers but not great DP's. And definitely not known for production value. Anti-production value if anything.
I'm not even going to tell you what these were shot on. For the most part it wouldn't matter. They're fare from stunning looking.

THIS IS JOHN -- short, SUNDANCE '03
Duplass bros short shot for $3 in their kitchen
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/this_is_john/
(full short)

SCRAPPLE -- short, SUNDANCE '04
Duplass brothers short, this time graduating to the dining room.
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/scrapple/
(full short)
Story goes Duplass bros got a call from Sundance:
"Hey are you guy sending us anything this year, we love your stuff."
"Yeah we're editing it now" (gets off phone) "Quick we have to shoot something,"

INTERVENTION -- short, BERLIN 05 -- WINS SILVER BEAR AWARD!
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/intervention/
(full short)
This time in ... the living room!

THE PUFFY CHAIR -- feature, SUNDANCE '08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cmTNBH42k
(trailer)

BAGHEAD -- feature, SUNDANCE '09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWrZWJ5v2cU&feature=related
(trailer)

CYRUS -- first Studio feature, SUNDANCE 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G0bYpMQ-fI
(trailer)

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

I think every new camera that seams fresh and can be used to achieve filmic look Will trigger many DPs to try it out. Thats why AF101 is this winters hottest camera. And it Will be preferd over technical better camera.

 

[pix2pixels]

On the Canon it is one press, then rotate the dial. Pretty simple. That said, I'll just have to wait and see and adapt to whatever they give me, obviously

When shooting film it is pretty hard, much harder. One has to load a different magazine, swap the other one, set the light meter and spot meter....
And nobody blames Arri, Panavision, Aaton for not implementing voice activation for ISO changes.

Sometimes making some settings more difficult to change is a blessing. Nobody wants to to see after the scene was wrapped, that the ISO was 1200 instead of 320, the shutter speed 1/180 instead of 1/50, or audio settings way above or under, just because a little button or dial was touched by the operator or some assistant.
Even on video cameras, once the some settings were agreed on, the buttons are covered with camera tape and marked very visibly.

 

[Simon Höfer]

image quality / major festival debate ender: Duplass bros.
Known as great filmmakers but not great DP's. And definitely not known for production value. Anti-production value if anything.
I'm not even going to tell you what these were shot on. For the most part it wouldn't matter. They're fare from stunning looking.

THIS IS JOHN -- short, SUNDANCE '03
Duplass bros short shot for $3 in their kitchen
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/this_is_john/
(full short)

SCRAPPLE -- short, SUNDANCE '04
Duplass brothers short, this time graduating to the dining room.
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/scrapple/
(full short)
Story goes Duplass bros got a call from Sundance:
"Hey are you guy sending us anything this year, we love your stuff."
"Yeah we're editing it now" (gets off phone) "Quick we have to shoot something,"

INTERVENTION -- short, BERLIN 05 -- WINS SILVER BEAR AWARD!
http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/intervention/
(full short)
This time in ... the living room!

THE PUFFY CHAIR -- feature, SUNDANCE '08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85cmTNBH42k
(trailer)

BAGHEAD -- feature, SUNDANCE '09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWrZWJ5v2cU&feature=related
(trailer)

CYRUS -- first Studio feature, SUNDANCE 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G0bYpMQ-fI
(trailer)

 

[Postmaster]

image quality / major festival debate ender: Duplass bros.
Known as great filmmakers but not great DP's. And definitely not known for production value. Anti-production value if anything.
I'm not even going to tell you what these were shot on. For the most part it wouldn't matter.

Maybe I´m a bit old fashioned and I´m sorry to say that, but in my book those flicks are some of the worst BS I ever seen on video.
And this is what they show on Sundance and gets Silver Bears?

Bleeding Christ, if those flicks where mine, I would not dare to even think about submitting them to a local village festival.

Production value, shooting style, lighting and all technical issues aside, I think they are totally flat, uninspired, unenlightened, boring and dull.
No substantial story or dialogue, mediocre acting nothing that gets me involved or care. They ignore everything I know about filmmaking, directing, and writing, but they get screened at respected festivals. I´m totally stunned - I just don´t get it.

Be honest guys, am I a total off the track retard, that does know nothing about filmmaking or is there something wrong?

Frank

 

[Barry_Green]

When shooting film it is pretty hard, much harder. One has to load a different magazine, swap the other one, set the light meter and spot meter....

Hah! Totally! Sometimes we forget how good we have it now.

(and I'm ordering some film for my next shoot nearly as we speak... it's so primitive, but yet so compelling...)

 

[Barry_Green]

Oh, and back on the subject -- Phililp's review of the AF100. I just went over there to check out the comments, and saw where people were asking him "hey, didn't you shoot on the NanoFlash and simultaneously on AVCHD? When are you going to post the stills of that?"

And Philip's response was "I'm not going to. I looked at them and they're identical. I can't tell the difference."

 

[Rick Burnett]

When shooting film it is pretty hard, much harder. One has to load a different magazine, swap the other one, set the light meter and spot meter....
And nobody blames Arri, Panavision, Aaton for not implementing voice activation for ISO changes.

Sometimes making some settings more difficult to change is a blessing. Nobody wants to to see after the scene was wrapped, that the ISO was 1200 instead of 320, the shutter speed 1/180 instead of 1/50, or audio settings way above or under, just because a little button or dial was touched by the operator or some assistant.
Even on video cameras, once the some settings were agreed on, the buttons are covered with camera tape and marked very visibly.

I know you have a smiley there but come on, that's the worst comparison I've seen given. New technology shouldn't be hindered by antiquated limitations. No one says, well I don't let you seek into your mp3 anywhere you want because tapes had to be rewinded or fast forwarded to get to that location.

I don't need to put tape over my controls because I actually look at what I am shooting. If my shutter speed is too fast I see strobbing, if my iso is wrong I'm under or over exposed. My f-stop used to control my dof mostly. I'm very dynamic in my settings because every scene can be so different. I check and set them all very often and I've very rarely been on the wrong setting.

Given that the AF100 uses analog gain with digital in their ISO settings, I'd like to dial in exactly what I need to minimize noise. Especially in outdoor settings where clouds are constantly changing my light levels.

Sure, I can change shutter speed, but I prefer differing noise to differing motion blur.

Like I said, I just have to live with it, but clearly for me this is an aspect where my 7D has a better implemention to me. And I still know I am going to be estatic with my AF100.

 

[SantaCruzMichael]

"Sometimes making some settings more difficult to change is a blessing"

"Sometimes making some settings more difficult to change is a blessing"

My personal favorite among "limitations that are a blessing in disguise":

Shooting on 8 or 16 gig P2 cards and having limited run time. It gave shooting on video an urgency and attention to detail that's old hat for DOPs coming from film.

For me, it made me shoot less, and shoot better. Instead of trying to get a little of everything, I learned to spend more time thinking about what shot was really important and how to do it right.

It can also be a motivator for on-screen talent. If I say, "ok, I've got a a minute of run time before we have to dump this card" the host of a show I work on often nails it the first or second time.

Then in the editing room, it is immensely more satisfying to have a few good takes than to sift through 64 gigs of footage that is merely passable.

 

[Barry_Green]

Agreed on all counts!

 

[f64manray]

My personal favorite among "limitations that are a blessing in disguise":

Shooting on 8 or 16 gig P2 cards and having limited run time. It gave shooting on video an urgency and attention to detail that's old hat for DOPs coming from film.

For me, it made me shoot less, and shoot better. Instead of trying to get a little of everything, I learned to spend more time thinking about what shot was really important and how to do it right.

It can also be a motivator for on-screen talent. If I say, "ok, I've got a a minute of run time before we have to dump this card" the host of a show I work on often nails it the first or second time.

Then in the editing room, it is immensely more satisfying to have a few good takes than to sift through 64 gigs of footage that is merely passable.

This is so true. There's alot to be said for limits. I think it creates a certain energy/anxiety in a photo shoot where people start to sweat in a good way to really try to nail it (I imagine it's the same for filming a scene as well). Certainly different when I'm working with two rolls of film as opposed to an 8gig card with 1000 exposures on it.

 

[f64manray]

Maybe I´m a bit old fashioned and I´m sorry to say that, but in my book those flicks are some of the worst BS I ever seen on video.
And this is what they show on Sundance and gets Silver Bears?

Bleeding Christ, if those flicks where mine, I would not dare to even think about submitting them to a local village festival.

Production value, shooting style, lighting and all technical issues aside, I think they are totally flat, uninspired, unenlightened, boring and dull.
No substantial story or dialogue, mediocre acting nothing that gets me involved or care. They ignore everything I know about filmmaking, directing, and writing, but they get screened at respected festivals. I´m totally stunned - I just don´t get it.

Be honest guys, am I a total off the track retard, that does know nothing about filmmaking or is there something wrong?

Frank

+1 Frank. I don't get it. I thought Sundance had these really high standards. Though within 7 years of their first short, they had a major studio film with John C. Riley that looks pretty good.

 

[Cory Braun]

Bleeding Christ, if those flicks where mine, I would not dare to even think about submitting them to a local village festival.

Funny that you say that because they only submitted that first short to two festivals, one was local a festival, which it got rejected from, and the other was Sundance.

 

[djkarn105]

They ignore everything I know about filmmaking, directing, and writing

I think that's kind of the point. They're doing something different. I think the attention paid them is more for their willingness to experiment with the form than the refinement of their screen plays.