First AF100 shoot (and also, image zoom?)

nyvz

nyvz

Veteran
Just did my first shoot with the AF100. Went very well. Used the 14-54 which has a look I really like. After a bit of testing with charts and some natural light situations last week, i settled on these scene file settings:

Gamma: Cine V (best highlight gamma in my opinion)
Matrix: Fluo (Found the other matrices too saturated and generally too sensitive to green/magenta shifts, which seemed to especially cause issues in skin tones)
Master Ped: -2 (Like with my EX1, black was was reading as more than 0 according to the marker function, this brought it to 0; went to -3 or -4 for Greenscreen scene just because it was a low key night scene so I wanted blacks to be very solid)
Detail: -5 (no need to tax the 24Mbps codec more than necessary compressing ugly edge filtering; went to -7 for Greenscreen for obvious reasons)
Chroma Level: -5 (everything looks way too saturated at 0, and the yellow highlight color shifts I was seeing needed reducing a bit, overall -5 gave me the look I wanted in rough ~1/2stop mixed temp lighting tests; went to -7 for Greenscreen not for the green but for the desaturated night look I wanted)
DRS: 0 (had high hopes for DRS, but it seems to do some weird stuff that looks like a high radius sharpening filter, like what you might see in bad fake HDR, and it each level seems to do very different things, some of which darken highlight detail but not necessarily in the prettiest way)

Just checked out the dailies and am happy with the way color/gamma came out after judging on-set only with the onboard LCD.

The 14-54 lens seems great optically, but problematic mechanically. Focusing is a bit odd due to its servo controlled focus mechanism, it takes a little getting used to, but the long focus throw is nice (*but it is a long throw if you are moving slow, short if you are moving fast, so that is unusual and would never hold to marks). BTW it also automatically changes aperture while zooming, and clicks when changing aperture. The manual iris wheel and readout seemed, for the lack of a better word, buggy during use as well. When rolling the wheel, the aperture would jump around up and down a lot, and a lot of f-stops were missing from the readout. When stopping down my f2.8 lens, it would click around a bit and read f2.5 (14-54 is f2.8-3.5 wide open, so you dont expect to see f2.5) and other odd numbers on the way to the number I wanted, and it wouldnt do f4 and some others, it would go straight from F3.8 to f4.2 or something.

One of the most annoying things I found was the lack of 1:1 pixel image zoom. Is it there and I just couldnt find it? There doesn't seem to be one, so there is no way of really seeing if you are in focus at full res unless you hook up to an external 1080p monitor which I did not have... The focus assist options are nice, but there was at least one shot that turned out to be a bit soft in the dailies that I had used the focus-in-red function for, which further cements the feeling I have that I cannot trust that function or really of the other ones for precise focusing. I use image zoom to set focus on my EX1 and 7D, so I kept wanting it on the AF100, seems like a pretty basic and very important function to me. Anyway, this time its no big deal since only one shot was slightly off and the PUs were in focus, and it looks in focus in SD which should work fine since it is for web (AOL video). I'd be surprised if the director/editor even notice it.

I also tried to see if I could put a couple of my old c-mount lenses on the AF100 at the end of the day, but none of them fit due to the glass cover in the m4/3 mount. I was surprised there is a glass cover. I wonder if this is an issue with any cine lenses built for digital cameras that take advantage of all the space the lack of shutter leaves?

Also, saw a little moire in dailies, nothing terrible, but its funny to shoot 7D/5D for years and finally use a AF100 and the first shot I shoot with it has some moire in it. The first shot was a wide slider shot and I got a little moire on a lowel light case that was re-purposed in the scene by art department. The ridges danced a little. It's pretty slight and probably wont even be noticed unless viewed in 1080p, though.

Here are links:
http://video.aol.com/video/kids-act-out-inception/26943668

http://video.aol.com/video/kids-act-out-true-grit/569525748

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=690822728577&oid=36142538638&comments (contains some BTS not shot on af100)
 
Last edited:
The 14-54 lens seems great optically, but problematic mechanically.
Click to expand...

After much consideration I ordered this lens (I don't even have an AF100 yet, I'm still on the fence). I decided on it because it's very inexpensive, has generally good reviews, my wife can use it on her Olympus still camera, and will fill the gap in my Leica-R primes. I assume that a lens specifically designed for the 100 (ie - better focusing, iris control, 5:1) will eventually become available, and I will wait for that before spending more money. The 14-35 isn't versatile enough.

Have you used the 14-54 with an electronic controller? I understand that it works pretty well that way.

Also, is there no way to turn off the focus servo so the lens manually focuses the way it does when its not mounted to a camera? That would be a simple fix it seems. Even if it was a piece of tape over the contacts.
 
swanny said:
What are your "obvious reasons" to have -7 detail for green screen?
Click to expand...

Any "detail" artificially lightens and darkens either side of edges to bring out fine contrast, but when keying out a green screen this often leaves a false white line around the subject. This appearance of the white line is not always consistent and may in some cases be removed with a simple matte choker, but more often than not, it is not so easy to remove without a fair amount of work as its strength is relative to the original contrast of the edge which clearly varies depending on the foreground lighting and values. Also, less artificial detail will tax the codec less, possibly resulting in less artifacting, such as edge mosquito noise and blocking, which are also problematic for keying. Considering "detail" generally only adds artificial sharpness that can be added in post and the points previously mentioned, its best to skip adding it until as late as possible in your post chain, especially for greenscreen content which is inevitably destined for a fair amount of post work anyway.
 
Last edited:
Mac said:
After much consideration I ordered this lens (I don't even have an AF100 yet, I'm still on the fence). I decided on it because it's very inexpensive, has generally good reviews, my wife can use it on her Olympus still camera, and will fill the gap in my Leica-R primes. I assume that a lens specifically designed for the 100 (ie - better focusing, iris control, 5:1) will eventually become available, and I will wait for that before spending more money. The 14-35 isn't versatile enough.

Have you used the 14-54 with an electronic controller? I understand that it works pretty well that way.

Also, is there no way to turn off the focus servo so the lens manually focuses the way it does when its not mounted to a camera? That would be a simple fix it seems. Even if it was a piece of tape over the contacts.
Click to expand...

Even despite some of the issues I've mentioned, it is still a rather nice lens for the price as long as you can get by with some of the mechanical issues. I'd still consider buying it myself if I cant find a better option by the time I get my GH2 or decide whether I want to get my own AF100. It's a great range and good stop, and I really like the look.

I haven't used any electronic focus controllers with the AF100, but I know there is another thread about them and I believe this lens may have been mentioned. If they work well with it, that could be a good option.

That is a good point about the contacts. I am a bit skeptical though since it really seems like in normal operation the 14-54 only works at all with servo focus in such a way that the focus ring is not directly connected with the actual focus mechanism, but I could easily be wrong about that. This would be easy to test just by turning the focus ring when the lens is not connected to a camera and seeing if it actually changes the focus of the lens at all, or using the method you mentioned about the contacts. Unfortunately i don't have it in front of me now to test, since the one I used is owned by a company that hires me occasionally.
 
that the focus ring is not directly connected with the actual focus mechanism
Click to expand...

I think you're probably correct about that.. as I turn the focus ring (off the camera) it doesn't seem as if anything is moving - oh well, I've got a FOXI. so I'll try that when and if I get a camera...
 
I bought a SmallHD DP6 which has a built in 1:1 assist if you want it, plus several other great options for achieving focus. So while it may not be ideal that the AF100 doesn't have it built in, for most productions having an external monitor mounted to the rig isn't a big deal. Does seem silly they didn't build that function in though given everything else...
 
nyvz said:
Any "detail" artificially lightens and darkens either side of edges to bring out fine contrast, but when keying out a green screen this often leaves a false white line around the subject. This appearance of the white line is not always consistent and may in some cases be removed with a simple matte choker, but more often than not, it is not so easy to remove without a fair amount of work as its strength is relative to the original contrast of the edge which clearly varies depending on the foreground lighting and values. Also, less artificial detail will tax the codec less, possibly resulting in less artifacting, such as edge mosquito noise and blocking, which are also problematic for keying. Considering "detail" generally only adds artificial sharpness that can be added in post and the points previously mentioned, its best to skip adding it until as late as possible in your post chain, especially for greenscreen content which is inevitably destined for a fair amount of post work anyway.
Click to expand...


I actually got a great key with the detail set to zero:


-7 is too soft to pull a useable key with sharp edges.
 
Matt,

Can you give me details on your actor in front of white screen set up( size, material, lights, etc)? I'm looking to do a future shoot w/ actor full body in front of a white background such as the many Apple commercials...thanks!
 
mcgeedigital said:
-7 is too soft to pull a useable key with sharp edges.
Click to expand...

Clearly your experience and preference is your own, but are you basing that on having tried? You may feel you find it easier to get a matte from an image with more edge artifacting, but I'm not convinced unless you can provide an reasonable explanation. Are you saying you feel the Panasonic "detail" is doing something you cannot achieve in post?
 
mcgeedigital said:
I actually got a great key with the detail set to zero:


-7 is too soft to pull a useable key with sharp edges.
Click to expand...

Why the luminance shift in the background between the two cameras? Also, there wasn't the same shot on both cameras but when the (AF100) actors arm traveled through the dome of the building the key looked pretty bad.

There are so many variables and its difficult to judge quality online, the AF100 appeared have better detail in the skin, but the Red seemed to have better color which could be a byproduct of post. Interesting to see, thanks.
 
mcgeedigital said:
I actually got a great key with the detail set to zero:
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you can't get a great key with "detail" set to whatever you want, I'm just saying there are certain artifacts that will be difficult to deal with in keying that are caused by the "detail" function and that it's positive effects can be achieved in post anyway, so why not just save it for later?

These artifacts may be relatively minor when viewed at 720p or lower, but at full res you may start seeing them, especially for certain kinds of content. They may not even seem that huge, but I would generally suggest that they be avoided since there should be no significant issue with to running the camera at detail -7 and sharpening your final composited image later.

Untitled-1.jpgUntitled-2.jpg

In particular, look at the white lines along the left side of his face and dark line on the right side of his neck. Also the edge of the sweater on the left shows both a white line and a black line along its edge. In the second image the white line is quite visible along the edge of the sweater, it is worse here than in other parts of the image, so it would be tough to choke out. These would also all be more visible and noticeable if more of the subject's edges coincided with background contrast/detail. Solid white/grey backgrounds are going to be the least likely to see the "detail" artifacts I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
nyvz said:
Clearly your experience and preference is your own, but are you basing that on having tried? You may feel you find it easier to get a matte from an image with more edge artifacting, but I'm not convinced unless you can provide an reasonable explanation. Are you saying you feel the Panasonic "detail" is doing something you cannot achieve in post?
Click to expand...

Yes, I also shot the same scene at -7 detail and it was too soft.
 
boo said:
Matt,

Can you give me details on your actor in front of white screen set up( size, material, lights, etc)? I'm looking to do a future shoot w/ actor full body in front of a white background such as the many Apple commercials...thanks!
Click to expand...

4 2ks going through a 12x white half diffusion from the right, 1 2k from both the back left and right with diffusion, and a 2k on the grid as the back light.

Thanks
 
mcgeedigital said:
Yes, I also shot the same scene at -7 detail and it was too soft.
Click to expand...

What does too soft mean? You do mean you tried shooting at -7 detail, processing your chroma key and composite similarly, and then sharpening the comp, and found the result was noticeably softer than one shot with 0 detail? Did you have any findings relating to edge artifacts?

I agree that you should do what you feel works for you and gives you results that you prefer, however I would be very skeptical that baking in artificial detail and the artifacts that come with it would be beneficial for green screen shooting. To me, it does not matter if my original footage looks sharp if it has artifacts that will make a good key harder. It's important to think of it that "detail" adds sharpening, not that turning it down will make your footage soft, if it seems soft, it is because that is what the sensor is seeing.
 
Last edited:
Not the green screen, the white scene I shot briefly with the detail all the way down, then with the detail on 0.

Watched them both on the 17" production monitor and thought the one with the detail all the way down was too soft.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Not the green screen, the white scene I shot briefly with the detail all the way down, then with the detail on 0.

Watched them both on the 17" production monitor and thought the one with the detail all the way down was too soft.
Click to expand...

Oh, the discussion up to this point was really just in regard to setting "detail" level for shooting greenscreen. The original question I was answering was about why I used -7 detail for the greenscreen shots I did. As I mentioned, I also used -5 detail for other, non greenscreen scenes. I just wouldn't want to have to deal with some of its edge artifacts when pulling a matte from a green screen. I have no doubt that -7 detail would look soft compared to 0 detail and there probably wouldnt be much downside to it especially for white cyc shooting where edge contrast is already very high and chance of oversharpening noise is low.

Especially when shooting greenscreen that will be handed off to an as-of-yet-undetermined compositing artist, I'd rather just shoot as clean as possible since, having worked in post/VFX, in my experience that is the best you can do given no guidance otherwise.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top