HELP! Technical question about my gear!

D

dreallen

Active member
In my time here on the forum and two years of personal and extensive research I have come to a conclusion that is not really a conclusion...lol. But I think I am close. This is where I need some guidance before this $3000 investment. I am an AF100 shooter (obviously) and loyal to that because I think this camera is best for me personally. But I love the look of the Red and BMCC. I want to acheive that REAL PURE motion picture look and latitude with my camera and I KNOW I can do it flawlessly. Am I wrong or is the key in me buying a Convergent Design Nano Flash so I can film 180-280mbps (close to 4k)? Because I saw a link recently with the use of an 0.95 25mm Nokton (cinemodded) and a CDNF and the footage was more filmic to me than ANY Red footage I have ever seen. I don't think my eyes could deceive me so completely, but am I on the right path to having a completely capable cinema tool that could stand on it's own against Red or Arri Alexa footage with a theatrical release in mind (hopefully) for my upcoming feature film? Thanks for your attention...

Dre
 
As for comparing the AF-100 with an external recorder to a RED? Thats just not in the same league. The BMCC would be closer. Now using a RED would require a whole lot more money than just the camera body and a lens. I'm talking $10,000 more easily. The BMCC has it's own issues and requirements but it does have nice IQ. The Nano flash wont give you a 4k image. It will be a higher bit rate HD image that can be graded harder in post and overall give the best image the camera is able to put out. That's it.

I've seen some great footage from the AF-100 and lighting is what makes any camera including RED , Alexa and the BMCC look great or cinematic. Great camera with bad lighting will always look bad.

A good story wins over a great camera every time.
 
Erik Naso said:
As for comparing the AF-100 with an external recorder to a RED? Thats just not in the same league. The BMCC would be closer. Now using a RED would require a whole lot more money than just the camera body and a lens. I'm talking $10,000 more easily. The BMCC has it's own issues and requirements but it does have nice IQ. The Nano flash wont give you a 4k image. It will be a higher bit rate HD image that can be graded harder in post and overall give the best image the camera is able to put out. That's it.

I've seen some great footage from the AF-100 and lighting is what makes any camera including RED , Alexa and the BMCC look great or cinematic. Great camera with bad lighting will always look bad.

A good story wins over a great camera every time.
Click to expand...
+1

I hear you, Dre, but your story is your story.
 
dreallen said:
http://vimeo.com/26944314

Particularly the scenes of the soldier walking in the green...I think this footage is stunning and then gets ruined by the black and white scenes.
Click to expand...

Wow. You right about the shots in color. That stuff looks pretty amazing. I'm surprised that the blown out highlights don't look gross. I'd bet my money that there was some significant clean up going on in post. Most likely some chroma smoothing/noise reduction and and highlight tweaking amongst other things.
 
dreallen said:
I want to acheive that REAL PURE motion picture look and latitude with my camera and I KNOW I can do it flawlessly. Am I wrong or is the key in me buying a Convergent Design Nano Flash so I can film 180-280mbps (close to 4k)?
Click to expand...

No.

They key is learning to light and compose. Nothing else will get you there.
 
What you're probably loving about the BMCC, Red and Alexa is most likely the 13-14 stops of dynamic range they're capable of recording. The AF100 just can't capture that much latitude no matter what you might do with camera settings or record options. The shots in the link were done in flat lighting within a range the AF could handle. Keep the ratio's tight with this camera and it will look great.....not Alexa great though.
 
f44876 said:
Wow. You right about the shots in color. That stuff looks pretty amazing. I'm surprised that the blown out highlights don't look gross. I'd bet my money that there was some significant clean up going on in post. Most likely some chroma smoothing/noise reduction and and highlight tweaking amongst other things.
Click to expand...

I saw some colour fringing in the blown-out out-of-focus areas. But think they did a good job with the AF.
 
Matthew B said:
I saw some colour fringing in the blown-out out-of-focus areas. But think they did a good job with the AF.
Click to expand...

Yeah I noticed some too. But nothing like the hardcore chroma clipping I'm used to seeing in AF footage where skies are overexposed. What's the best way to minimize that in blowouts? What if, say I wanted to blow out a portion of the frame as a stylistic choice (not that losing information is my style, but hypothetically)? What's the best way to keep those blowouts in the sky white and not a sickening hue of green or blue like I've noticed at times?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top