FS7: I hate to bring this up but.... why does not everyone go for the URSA MINI PRO?

[Donny 123]

Yes this is a tough crowd to pitch AF to. The older tech AF was mostly a gimmick and got bad rep. The latest from Sony and Canon featuring PD pixels built into the sensor itself are really working well- AF has become a feature. But the years of the sales departments lying about it have taken their toll. You know what they say- easy to ruin ones (AF in this case)reputation, difficult to restore it...

I dont
think its so much about if its good or not.. it could be perfect.. but fundamentally a machine/software is "deciding" what should be in focus.. ok sure you can set some parameters .. but you the camera operator are not in control.. I would think in a doc,uncontrolled situation its exactly when you need that control.. somethings happens in the background.. you want to pull there.. then back to something foreground .. there is no AF that can "think" like that.. unmanned B camera.. gimbal .. sure all for it.. but otherwise its a non starter surely for any professional ..

 

[NorBro]

The two biggest camera companies in Hollywood (or super high-end productions any where in the world) both do not offer advanced auto-focus/tracking in their cameras, so it's a moot point for people using those cameras until the companies implement the technology into their systems (if they decide to do so).

Everyone else using a capable Canon or Sony (it honestly comes down to only them two at this time) who dislike AF will continue to use manual focus for what they are doing or trying to do until they realize they cannot technically satisfy their visualization.

It's as simple as that.

Human beings are greatly limited and less efficient with the technical task of holding focus on an unpredictable moving object with a specific set of hardware (big sensors and large apertures).

Continue to grow the sensors and try to shoot at f/1.2 or f/1.4 (etc), and you will lose against the robot every single time.

Creatively speaking? Totally different conversation.

But for accuracy and consistency, it doesn't matter if you're the best focus puller in the world, humans will never be able to compete with highly advanced hardware/software with the aforementioned set of circumstances. The human touch is beautiful and I'm not sure if computers will ever be able to perform those perfectly-timed or even impromptu pulls based on our human emotions and movements (even by programming them), but for accuracy and consistency there is no competition.

We have mostly witnessed S35 filmmaking with f/4 - f/5.6+ apertures, and if you choose to search for error, you will find it in practically every film that introduces difficulties (shallow images and complicated movement). Because that's basically what it comes down. You want to shoot shallow and you want to move a lot, you're going to have to make a compromise and adjust your technology or do the best you can (slightly miss focus here and there - the timing of the focus - or simply get lucky).

Sure, some people are super talented...but not consistently. Not for multiple takes, not for hours straight.

If you choose to shoot shallow and you'd like to add dynamic movements and complicated creative runs on limited resources, I think many people will very quickly realize the benefits of superior AF assistance and utilize the technology (if available).

Because if we don't...nothing will change; we'll continue to compromise (sensor - aperture - movement), continue to accept human error (missing focus/timing), and/or continue to hide human error via post-production.

 

[optitek]

Unfortunately the two most popular companies in Hollywood are not big enough or experienced enough to develop proper modern AF system. But, as difficult as it seems to conceive (especially for someone living here and doing business for 28 years)- there is life and business outside of Hollywood studios.

 

[Donny 123]

Norbro

Yeah but the public is not going to see movies to rave over the precise focus pulls.. they will accept some soft focus.. there is no actual precise focus anyway.. its whats within perceived acceptable focus .. do we want precise "machine made films.." all we have is CGI super hero,s movies now anyway ..I have been shooting with Sigma T2,s mostly wide open recently on a s35mm sensor camera.. its actually easier to see focus at very shallow DoP ..its very precise.. its tough but you get used to it.. same as you get used to walking hand held with the camera not jumping around.. I mean its part of the skill of being a camera op.. isnt it.. would I say to the dir.. oh sorry we cant shoot here on this lens because the focus is too hard !! sure you can tell them focus will be tough.. but isnt that why we can charge our day rate ??

 

[NorBro]

...there is life and business outside of Hollywood studios.

ha. Sometimes when I say Hollywood, I mean high-end productions with lots of money and resources. Any where in the world.

I added that note for our friends outside of the USA.

 

[Doug Jensen]

The thing is, how many cine lenses even offer AF? I'm talking Canon CN-E or Ziess CP.2 as a minimum. Even the Fuji MK series don't offer AF. On the 2/3" front there are very few lenses that offer AF. And most operators would opt not to use that feature anyway. If happy using DSLR lenses more power to you. Many of us are not.

YES!!!

In my experience teaching, a lot of people start off saying they need AF, but then have a totally different attitude once they have experienced the pleasure of a true fully-manual cine lens. They suddently "get it". But if your scope of experience is just with SLR lenses then yeah, you probabaly would hate manual focusing. It's all about having the right lens.

 

[optitek]

Norbro

Yeah but the public is not going to see movies to rave over the precise focus pulls.. they will accept some soft focus.. there is no actual precise focus anyway.. its whats within perceived acceptable focus .. do we want precise "machine made films.." all we have is CGI super hero,s movies now anyway ..I have been shooting with Sigma T2,s mostly wide open recently on a s35mm sensor camera.. its actually easier to see focus at very shallow DoP ..its very precise.. its tough but you get used to it.. same as you get used to walking hand held with the camera not jumping around.. I mean its part of the skill of being a camera op.. isn't it.. would I say to the dir.. oh sorry we cant shoot here on this lens because the focus is too hard !! sure you can tell them focus will be tough.. but isnt that why we can charge our day rate ??

I'm not sure about that. All the signs on earth and in the sky point at precise, tack sharp focus becoming more and more critical part of the delivery and consequently , acquisition. True 4K for starters is coming, some places and homes experience it already. That combined with massive size screens viewed at traditional distances to get the immersive cinema experience. Add to that HDR, maybe some interactive AR and I think poor focusing will be more and more apparent. This is not our parents CRT home viewing anymore....

 

[NorBro]

...they will accept some soft focus...

They have for the past half-century because that's what they are used to and they also have no choice.

Just like most (I'd say all) movies don't have the choice of re-shooting scenes because focus was missed.

That is the reality of this; the acceptance of error.

But as optitek mentioned, I think this cannot and should not continue with higher-resolution images (and larger sensors/apertures).

Side note:

Watching 'The Equalizer' on TV as I'm writing this.

Ending scene: Denzel's walking out of the mansion after killing everyone. That entire Steadicam shot must have been @f/10+. EVERYTHING is perfectly in focus. The LAST shot to end that scene is a static close-up of him walking towards the camera (slight slow-motion, thinking 48fps)...it's shallow but not that shallow.

THEY COMPLETELY BLEW THE SHOT.

He's walking and focus is slightly moving...and just when he's about to walk into focus, the puller pulls a little more and they miss it.

THIS HAPPENS IN EVERY MOVIE!

So I get disheartened hearing people not wanting to give AF a shot because you know what...even if you both mess up, the auto-focus may still look better than the manual focus!!!

 

[NorBro]

Also just would like to mention if necessary...I'm mainly taking Canon's DPAF and Sony's AF from only their new mirrorless cameras (a7III, a9, a7RIII...a6300/a6500 is okay too).

Because if auto-focus behaved how it does on everything else, I would never use it.

And I would choose to miss the focus myself if there's a chance it's going to be missed.

 

[Viscount Omega]

I use both AF and manual. A lot of new filmmakers and Youtubers act and shoot themselves with no crew nowadays and so they need the AF.

I can always manually focus on a coffee mug on a desk and then go sit in the field of focus but sometimes there's nothing to reference.

For instance, here I am alone in a graveyard where I had to use the AF twice for close-ups. There was nothing for me to stand or sit beside to focus on. (One of them includes a fake focus pull with AF, LOL.) Does it look that bad?

 

[optitek]

But as optitek mentioned, I think this cannot and should not continue with higher-resolution images (and larger sensors/apertures).

Of course as NorBro says, the larger and larger sensors, combined with outrageous claims of sensitivity prompted producers to use minimalist lighting which became norm and trend. That in turn limits the aperture closure and , consequently- depth of field. Combine these with higher resolution delivery to larger screens and it would seem we have the perfect storm. "Acceptable focus " has just became 5-10 times more critical. Sure the best focus pullers can keep up most of the time.
But there are a dozen of them and thousands of programs, events, documentaries, music video, movies are made every day.

 

[Donny 123]

I'm not sure about that. All the signs on earth and in the sky point at precise, tack sharp focus becoming more and more critical part of the delivery and consequently , acquisition. True 4K for starters is coming, some places and homes experience it already. That combined with massive size screens viewed at traditional distances to get the immersive cinema experience. Add to that HDR, maybe some interactive AR and I think poor focusing will be more and more apparent. This is not our parents CRT home viewing anymore....

Yeah I see your point..and for certain shots.. sure it would be a bonus.. and actually yes maybe more on dramas .. where separate shots are "set".. but for doc,s when you are deciding focus on the fly and intuitively .. there is no way I would want the camera deciding where focus should be..

 

[Josh Bass]

That's the beauty of something like the C300 M2's touch screen tracking AF. Want to focus on this thing? touch it. Boop. Want to now focus on this? Touch it. Boop. Am I jealous? Yes.

 

[NorBro]

The C200 is great, but the DSLRs - 5D Mark IV and 1DX Mark II - are even better. Highly optimized for superior AF.

It's too bad everything else (or the lack of) is not...at least for video.

The new C700 Full-Frame with DPAF is probably a hidden monster but no one knows about it...(or only very few mortals).

 

[morgan_moore]

.. its actually easier to see focus at very shallow DoP ..its very precise..

You realise that DSLRs (when taking stills) you focus wide open but then often the iris closed for the actual exposure - a lot of really fast lenses were actually designed to give a great bright ground glass with snappy focus.. those lenses were not actually really designed to be shot at those open irises. Stills togs have had the pleasure of focusing at 1.2 while shooting at 4 for 5 decades

 

[Viscount Omega]

The problem with some of these auto-focus cameras and lenses is that they are constantly re-calculating; re-adjusting while you're holding on a shot. The background, the subject--everything is shifting almost imperceptibly and it looks like trashy, reality tv video.

One slight bonus when using the older lenses and using something like a Sony LA-E4 is that once the lens and camera find the focus point, they lock on it and don't move. It's rock solid.

Until they move--then they really move.

CUT!!!

 

[Donny 123]

I'm not sure about that. All the signs on earth and in the sky point at precise, tack sharp focus becoming more and more critical part of the delivery and consequently , acquisition. True 4K for starters is coming, some places and homes experience it already. That combined with massive size screens viewed at traditional distances to get the immersive cinema experience. Add to that HDR, maybe some interactive AR and I think poor focusing will be more and more apparent. This is not our parents CRT home viewing anymore....

You realise that DSLRs (when taking stills) you focus wide open but then often the iris closed for the actual exposure - a lot of really fast lenses were actually designed to give a great bright ground glass with snappy focus.. those lenses were not actually really designed to be shot at those open irises. Stills togs have had the pleasure of focusing at 1.2 while shooting at 4 for 5 decades

No I didn't know that..never done any pro stills.. or used stills lenses on a video camera.. well I guess the Sigmas are .. re housed art series .. but they have been cinefied.. if thats a word.. I mean I like that slightly hunting focus for a second or so.. and its a style thats all the rage now.. luckily !! of course the whole thing soft is not good.. but super shallow DoF is alot easier to see when it is out.. if thats not the look its easy enough usually to get to T4/5.6 on cameras these days.. then you have tons of depth .. its actually pretty hard to keep it T2.. ND,s etc.. but just fundamentally.. as the camera op I want to decide where the focus is.. not some software .. except maybe gimbal which would be fairly wide angle anyway.. honestly I dont get why anyone wants AF in the professional field

 

[NorBro]

The problem with some of these auto-focus cameras and lenses is that they are constantly re-calculating; re-adjusting while you're holding on a shot.

This is the unusable AF we talk about from yesteryear...no one can use these kind of rudimentary options.

Have to use a Canon with DPAF -- totally different experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3YfRqGZ6C4

The video pretty much summarizes the entire world's view on AF from both sides, ha.

[And sure, it's not perfect and messes up too, but nothing like anything else.]

 

[Viscount Omega]

Thanks, Norbro.

I didn't watch the video yet. Maybe later. I'm late to the game but as soon as I saw the word Canon, you lost me.

But the AF is not what really pisses me off about Sony. We all know that.

Sometimes I feel like flying over to Tokyo and beating the hell out of a Sony engineer but that doesn't help, does it? What about stuffing wads of cash down the CEO's throat?