First paying job with the AF100

D

dlpark

Member
check it out.... my first paying spot.... low budget , but overall very pleased with the results.
This is a rough cut.... NO CC/grading.
Even though I've been shooting with the Letus Extreme and the HVX200 for years, I still feel there is much to learn with the AF100.

http://vimeo.com/19305627


dave p.
 
Good job, the camera seems to have a really organic feel to it. What scene file were you using if you don't mind me asking?
 
Congrats on getting a paying gig! The spot looks professional and the editing works. I will offer a little advise, try to adhere (not always) to the 180 degree rule. The viewer can get a little disoriented otherwise. Also, in the opening shot, the actors eye line is so close to looking right at the camera that I wasn't aware he was actually talking to someone off frame. Color grading was a bit on the warm side for me. Again, nice work!
 
Nicely done!

btw, the last couple frames of the line transition is a bit distracting (where the left side pops up). Not sure if it's too late to clean that up before delivery...

Regardless, great job, glad to see the cameras getting put to good use!
 
Let me ask you this. Coming from the dof adapter world, do you like the image from the af100 as much or more than the hvx and letus. I know the Af100 is far superior in low light, but it looks so videoish to me in certain clips. Im having a hard time understanding why so many people sold off their dof adapter setups to go with dslr's or the Af100 when the hvx and letus have such a beautiful organic look. And not so videoish looking. Yes size, and light loss are key factors, but besides those. why?
 
maranfilms said:
Im having a hard time understanding why so many people sold off their dof adapter setups to go with dslr's
Click to expand...

Adapters require a bit of DIY abilities, some adapters a lot, some not so much. The whole adjusting backfocus, cleaning imaging elements, dealing with collimation, etc. doesn't quite appeal to everyone. The only appeal to me with dslrs over adapters, besides low light, is that the lens qualities actually affect the image. With DOF adapters, it was the imaging element that affected the bokeh quality. With DSLR's you actually see the intricate differences between different lenses and brands. But you are correct with the whole film quality thing. I just recently looked back at old brevis and sgblade footage and was suprised at how filmlike they look compared to my canon 7d footage.

but back on topic. Nice work dlpark!
 
Last edited:
Thanks ! I don't use the scene files at their existing settings. I evaluate the scene as I'm starting to light it and then tweak out the camera. A few things that are consistent with my look are : Gamma setting - I'm a big fan of Cine-V (emphasizing contrast). In the 80s & 90s I shot a TON on Sony's D30/35/50 Beta rig (I could practically take them apart and rebuild them). One thing they had was a gamma setting where you could change the value from -99 to +99 ! A HUGE tool for developing look. Panasonic's gamma short cuts kinda scared me at first with the DVX100 (you only have 7 choices), but they did a great job in spacing the curve out in the choices.
Matrix : Cine-like. I just like the way this setting handles skin tones.
From there I paint away to get a look I like.... very subjective.

dlpark
 
bgundu said:
Congrats on getting a paying gig! The spot looks professional and the editing works. I will offer a little advise, try to adhere (not always) to the 180 degree rule. The viewer can get a little disoriented otherwise. Also, in the opening shot, the actors eye line is so close to looking right at the camera that I wasn't aware he was actually talking to someone off frame. Color grading was a bit on the warm side for me. Again, nice work!
Click to expand...

Oh man, busted ! I've been shooting for over 23 years now and am a stickler for the 180 rule. It's usually me that is explaining to the client (or even director!) what it is and why we should obey it. Well, I slipped on this one.... maybe it was the excitement of the new camera ! Well, one factor was that we were supposed to have a much larger tree, so to make this one look bigger, I put the camera on a hi hat and on the ground.... to look up at our not-so-big tree. I'm a big fan of the dirty shot, but since our camera was so low, we would be shooting past the Mom's waist or knees .... giving away that we were hiding the height of the tree. So with all this in mind, I lost track of screen direction.... crap ! Good eye !!

dlpark
 
maranfilms said:
Let me ask you this. Coming from the dof adapter world, do you like the image from the af100 as much or more than the hvx and letus. I know the Af100 is far superior in low light, but it looks so videoish to me in certain clips. Im having a hard time understanding why so many people sold off their dof adapter setups to go with dslr's or the Af100 when the hvx and letus have such a beautiful organic look. And not so videoish looking. Yes size, and light loss are key factors, but besides those. why?
Click to expand...

I had an interesting shoot this week... shot wide with the AF110 and tights (ECU) with the Letus/HVX rig. (haven't sold the Letus yet!) I had to really knock back the detail setting (both general AND Vertical) to get the AF100 to kind of match the Letus. Leads me to my conclusion (at least so far.... I've only owned the AF100 for 3 weeks). If you had to boil it down to look (forget all the PIA with adapter setup), the Letus/HVX has a look that I would describe as more like 16mm film.... somewhat grainy. The AF100 (believe it or not, I skipped over shooting with DSLRs!) has more of a 35mm or RED look.... sharper (hence why some people think "video"). I have a bunch of old Nikon primes that aren't as crisp as super high end lenses, but have a great feel. I also shoot with a Zeiss 50mm Planar and have now purchased the Olympus 11-22 and Lumix 14-140. So far I'm impressed with the AF100 and will probably shoot with it much more than the Letus. I do a fair amount of handheld work... nothing crazy, but just a little "side to side" as I call it. The AF100 gives me the freedom to execute this SO easily.

dlpark
 
dlpark said:
See my post #6.... forgot to include your quotes.
Click to expand...

I must be missing something... post #6 is by josiv. Just curious about your scene file settings.

Again, great job.

Correction: it just popped on my screen, your post with the scene file comments. Thanks.
 
I thought i looked pretty good. There were certain shots that screamed "video" more than others, such as the opening shot.

The problem I have is the severe mix in color temperatures and then the ratio of the subject lighting versus the background. I become overly aware that there is lighting.

Opening shot: The ceiling on the other side of the tree is dark. Not a fan of the mix of daylight and tungsten across his face, lighting is a little too hard
Second shot: Her lighting is absolutely great. I love love love the quality and exposure on her face, but then the ratio of her exposure compared to the background makes me expect a much brighter surrounding.
Third shot: Backlight is a little too strong for me, and is generally a little on the warm side
at 13 secs: I really like this shot, but again, a little too warm, a little too contrasty and orangy. You have lit your characters but not your backgrounds and it just makes it look very staged.

Good work though!
 
PaPa said:
I thought i looked pretty good. There were certain shots that screamed "video" more than others, such as the opening shot.

The problem I have is the severe mix in color temperatures and then the ratio of the subject lighting versus the background. I become overly aware that there is lighting.

Opening shot: The ceiling on the other side of the tree is dark. Not a fan of the mix of daylight and tungsten across his face, lighting is a little too hard
Second shot: Her lighting is absolutely great. I love love love the quality and exposure on her face, but then the ratio of her exposure compared to the background makes me expect a much brighter surrounding.
Third shot: Backlight is a little too strong for me, and is generally a little on the warm side
at 13 secs: I really like this shot, but again, a little too warm, a little too contrasty and orangy. You have lit your characters but not your backgrounds and it just makes it look very staged.

Good work though!
Click to expand...


yes - your observations are correct.... only, I was trying to achieve these. Agreed, I'm no a fan of the skin tone color temp on the first shot. Believe it or not, he was lit with a daylight Kino and a 1200 HMI.... all daylight, so the inconsistency in c-temp, I need to figure that one out!
The rest of your comments I agree are correct.... but that's what I like. I like a forced look... a little warm, strong backlight,... I like my characters to pop out from the background.
I'm a fan of Tim Burton, John Waters, Luis Bunel, Hitchcock... and while I can't force that much of a stylized look in my projects, my clients for 23 years now have liked what they see.... so I'll continue to light them as I like them. Thanks for the comments though! I'm glad to see there are perceptive eyes out there ! Youtube and phone cameras have really dumbed down how people look at video/our visual medium.

dlpark
 
Well done! And dont bite your nails about the 180 degrees, you were just 3-5 degrees over :-) I found the focus pulling shot on the couch a bit too obvious and too quick. Still good job!
 
Just a little thought FWIW.

My clients would be really pissed if I ever posted an edit (especially ungraded and unfinished work ) up on the web .

If it hadnt been aired ( broadcast) ....they would have me.... murdered in my bed!
 
Shooter said:
Just a little thought FWIW.

My clients would be really pissed if I ever posted an edit (especially ungraded and unfinished work ) up on the web .

If it hadnt been aired ( broadcast) ....they would have me.... murdered in my bed!
Click to expand...

Yes ! thanks for the concern..... but,

I asked all around.... producer/director/editor and agency.... no one minded. I explained to them this was a technical forum used to discuss camera techniques, photography methods, and gear banter.
I thought it would be good to see an ungraded, straight-from-the-card edit.
Having shot P2 since the beginning, I've found that color temp is a bit more tricky.... perhaps due to different lenses/coatings and the way they react with different light sources.

dlpark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top