JPNola
Veteran
The thing that jumps out at me, to the negative, is the lack of focus-shift. The AF was more detrimental than beneficial, imo.
I gave AF a try
- Thread starter JPNola
- Start date
The thing that jumps out at me, to the negative, is the lack of focus-shift. The AF was more detrimental than beneficial, imo.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
can you explain?
or are you just persuing your own agenda?
or are you just persuing your own agenda?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Most of my "artful" human errors in focus-pulling end up on the cutting room floor
JPNola
Veteran
The piece would be more cinematic if focus led the viewer’s eye around the frame. In the shot with foliage in the foreground I would have liked the focus to shift to the foliage at some point. Maybe at start of the shot, then shifting to “reveal” the person in frame. The focus was almost always fixed at one plane throughout, never “speaking”. Imo the piece would be better with more active focus: focus intentionally going soft and operating in narrative manner. Focus is never used artistically in the piece.
JPNola
Veteran
With the best-performing AF system, when you want to send focus to a foreground element, how is that performed? By use of a joystick? Is it possible to direct focus with a joystick and remain in the eyepiece? I assume so, by use of right-hand operation of a joystick on a hand-grip. Having to use left-hand would be problematic since it takes the hand away from riding iris and operating manual zoom. With touch-screen directing of focus you cannot be in the eyepiece, it would seem. Which, if the case, means having to deal with the downsides of operating sans eyepiece. For myself it would mean having to wear reading glasses to operate, which is a pain in the rear.
What if you desire the speed of the rack focus to foreground to be different than the speed of focus shift back to main subject? Is that even possible? Can different speeds be assigned to different assignable buttons? What if I want to rack to foreground object to intentionally miss, momentarily, shifting to short of foreground object then correcting to good focus on foreground object? How does one instruct any AF system to purposefully miss and then correct?
What if you desire the speed of the rack focus to foreground to be different than the speed of focus shift back to main subject? Is that even possible? Can different speeds be assigned to different assignable buttons? What if I want to rack to foreground object to intentionally miss, momentarily, shifting to short of foreground object then correcting to good focus on foreground object? How does one instruct any AF system to purposefully miss and then correct?
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Yes the C200 has a joystick accessable with the right hand which could push the focus area to the background.
Overall these example seem to be to be designed to know/feel/agree that AF is bad.
Conversly there might be an award ceremony with 25 recipients. Or a cycle series where you need shapr finishline for mens, womens and juniors and junior girls where the af is going to take the stress away.
Of course you may not think those jobs to be cinematography and you might be right
JPNola
Veteran
I see where AF is useful. And I do shooting where it is useful. I just think the usefulness is often overstated. And I have apprehension regarding technology that diminishes the role of Operator, if not resulting in elimination of Operator altogether as has occurred with robotic studio cameras that are Operator-less. I do not personally think I will ever be out of a job. But if I worked exclusively as an Op I might be. I know of individuals who have been replaced by automated cameras, losing their livelihood.
I also have concern that increased use of AF results in image-making being less expressive / less “cinematic”. Like any tech, it can be abused. Used out of convenience or laziness. Just engage AF and play on your phone, letting AF do the work, and Operator barely paying attention to the shot. Operator unaware that the media-card ran out, because AF removed them from having to pay attention they would otherwise have paid when having to ride focus.
I also have concern that increased use of AF results in image-making being less expressive / less “cinematic”. Like any tech, it can be abused. Used out of convenience or laziness. Just engage AF and play on your phone, letting AF do the work, and Operator barely paying attention to the shot. Operator unaware that the media-card ran out, because AF removed them from having to pay attention they would otherwise have paid when having to ride focus.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I guess it is just a tool.
One thing I litterally find it hard to get exact focus for 4k from a 1080 monitor. That is fact and cant be argued with (IM0)
BUt the rest is basially down to art/style.
Its like handheld. Sometimes its looks shonky and inapproprate (real estate product ?) , while sometimes it gives 'life, dynamism, organic' whatever producer word you want.
That nice video abouve he is all 'organic' and it looks good. But do some other things and AF will clearly win.
One thing I litterally find it hard to get exact focus for 4k from a 1080 monitor. That is fact and cant be argued with (IM0)
BUt the rest is basially down to art/style.
Its like handheld. Sometimes its looks shonky and inapproprate (real estate product ?) , while sometimes it gives 'life, dynamism, organic' whatever producer word you want.
That nice video abouve he is all 'organic' and it looks good. But do some other things and AF will clearly win.
G
Guest
Guest
auto focus is a skill and something that requires experience and understanding of how it works. saying auto focus doesn’t work, is almost as bad as saying manual focus doesn’t work.
Back when the modern "consumer level" auto focus first appeared on Canon cameras (70D and C100), Philip Bloom did a test. At least, I think it was Philip Bloom. He used Canon's Dual Pixel auto focus on a ping pong ball. Well, on closeups, the ball traveled too quickly in and out of the frame and the AF was mostly missed or captured for only a portion of the shot. As he zoomed out, the accuracy improved.
Samsung NX-1 had added auto focus tracking where one could choose the subject and track it across the frame itself. It wasn't perfect but it was a sign of things to come. In 2021, AF on A1 can track the bird eyes, if you can keep the bird in the frame. If it flies out of the frame, you're SOL.
Samsung NX-1 had added auto focus tracking where one could choose the subject and track it across the frame itself. It wasn't perfect but it was a sign of things to come. In 2021, AF on A1 can track the bird eyes, if you can keep the bird in the frame. If it flies out of the frame, you're SOL.
JPNola
Veteran
That’s expected when need of something is lacking or absent. Can’t blame you.
JPNola
Veteran
annnnd James takes down his own straw man. Handily.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Really? That post got 4 upvotes
JPNola
Veteran
That doesn’t speak well of upvotes, then.
I began the thread talking about the percentage of time I think AF works. No one said it never works.
this is really getting to the point & a fair bit of jpnola's gripes seem to be attributable to not understanding the settings & various capabilities of af in these newer cameras. that being said, I think there is a lot to what he's saying regarding the downsides & appeal to the mediocre out there looking to get into this. but really so what, people interested in those qualities are going to continue their craft based on the techniques & sensibilities they base their stuff on. the audiences who want it will seek that work out.
from a pragmatic, single-operator trying to make a living shooting things...af is a godsend for plenty of work
JPNola been temperate in everything he said, and it has nothing to do with not understanding settings and capabilities. I can appreciate that af is godsent for your work but not his work. In narrative, focusing manually is the skill. Tech is not going to change that because focus is not just a technical decision to make.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I think “giving it a try” then rejecting it may be short sighted.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Here's an example of AF doing right by me on A7SIII tamron 70-180 @f/2.8 ungraded:
I could have taken this shot with manual focus but I would definitely have buzzed focus sometimes. And it's really, really nice for me to concentrate solely on operating the camera.
The thing is that weddings have like a 100:1 ratio of raw footage to edited footage, so all I really care about are nailing cool shots vs taking more reliable safety shots. And when AF isn't as well-suited, such as dark, backlit, or busy frames, or when I want to do expressive focus pulls, i just switch back to manual. But of course, the A7SIII has a more sophisticated AF system than the FX6/FX9, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.
I could have taken this shot with manual focus but I would definitely have buzzed focus sometimes. And it's really, really nice for me to concentrate solely on operating the camera.
The thing is that weddings have like a 100:1 ratio of raw footage to edited footage, so all I really care about are nailing cool shots vs taking more reliable safety shots. And when AF isn't as well-suited, such as dark, backlit, or busy frames, or when I want to do expressive focus pulls, i just switch back to manual. But of course, the A7SIII has a more sophisticated AF system than the FX6/FX9, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.
Last edited: