Found this on Vimeo

RieniO said:
To me the whole clip looks very videoish. Maybe due to the hard spot lighting.
Click to expand...

I dont understand either "videoish" or your comment reffering to "hard spot lighting".

The lighting is far from hard. Note the lack of hard shadows.

Do not confuse the 50/50 Shadow to Highlight look with hard spot lighting.

It is created by excellent use of soft boxes.. wrapping light around the subject in a very controlled manner. The style of the lighting creates the excellent "rounded" tonal values that all the Panasonics love.
 
Shooter said:
Are you wondering if the AF images would look any different to any other camera images when a sepia or de-sat CC is applied?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking of that color scheme for parts of a project I'll be doing so I was wondering out loud how it would look on the AF100- how the grading would hold up, and how the camera would look with detail dialed down (and with Zeiss or Canon L glass).
 
Video has a straight line between absolute black and white. Film has a logarithmic curve that, while straight in the middle, tapers off at the dark and light ends. This all important transition separates expensive video--the "Panalog" format rendered by the Panavision Genesis, the Redcode applied to Red's 4K RAW images--from everyday video, where handycams etc routinely clip because the transistor is soaked with light.

When Barry and Leo talk about settling on the standard gamma curve for the AF-100, it's just what the engineers at Panasonic think will make highlights and shadow details look good. Is it the best the sensor is capable of? Probably not. Will people like Vitaly hack the gamma options and design amazing color profiled for the AF-100? Hopefully! Will this camera ever look like digital cinema cameras that shoot insane data rates, or film, which is alchemy and science and silver hallide electron magic?

No. This gamma is what we got, take it or leave it. If it's possible to get creamy, delicate highlights out of the GH-1 (with an inferior sensor, processor, codec, everything), it will be possible on the AF-100. Every example of someone letting it blow out because it looked good on the little monitor does not mean your videos will look the same.

For everyone terrified of highlights: it's got Zebra. For everyone who still looks at this and all the other AF-100 footage and thinks, "high-con be damned, that just doesn't do it for me... it's still video dammit!"

you are not alone.
 
Well I have to say I find this footage beautiful in every way. I can't really see any way of improving it. Not sure what others aren't happy with.
 
By videoish I mean hard light and very sharp image. Maybe this is due to the usage of Zeiss lenses. Sometimes we complain about cheaper lenses being too soft, in this case a soft lens would have added to the image quality in my opinion. But it remains a matter of taste. And the fact that the AF100 can produce a sharp image like this is a plus. It's easy to soften a sharp image, it's impossible to sharpen a soft image. But I would definitely have used softer light for this scene.
 
For those claiming the light is soft; look at the video again. The light is not equally distributed and the top of the guitar neck is clipped out, in other words, too light. Using softboxes is not a guarantee for achieving well distributed light. Thinking about it, forget my comment about the lenses. This is a lighting thing. But if the creator wanted to achieve this image on purpose then that's his choice.
 
Based on the rows of light I see reflected on the guitar, I thought it was lit with LEDs.

Nice, simple video that looks great.
 
Yes you are right, it's clearly visible on the photo that shows before you start the video (even though I only saw it after checking again after reading your post). So not softboxes but LED light(s). LED lighting is harder than softboxes or fluorescents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top