Mixed AF100 and DSLR

[Exact]

Now that quite a few people have got their hands on the AF100 / 102 etc, how many of you have shot it in a mixed environment with DSLR, and how did that footage mix in post?

We shoot mostly weddings (and other events), and have migrated much of the shooting to DSLR from HMC151. I'm finding I'm less than happy mixing DSLR with the HMC151 because of how soft and noisy the HMC151 looks compared to the DSLR, even when we de-tune the DSLR as much as we do.

Having looked at things long and hard, the only camera we really need to record more than 12 mins at a time is the unattended camera we sometimes place near the altar is smaller churches. There's simply no room to stand there and in some case the clergy won't allow any one to stand there, so unattended is the only option.

The main considerations are :

1) Unlimited record time, 16GB cards are usually enough but don't mind going 32GB if needed. I'm not interested in a hacked GH1 and GH2 PAL doesn't shoot 25p and has a time limitation of 29:59 anyway.

2) Must be able to set white balance by K values (which rules out many other cameras). No more flaky custom white balance variations between cameras - I want to match all cameras to the same settings (or at least some known offset to compensate for manufacturer variations), or at least be able to fine tune things manually for different angles (e.g. different lighting).

3) Must be good in low light. I've yet to see convincing footage from the AF101, but I'm willing to keep looking. Please feel free to post comparison links if you have them. We're typically shooting the 7D & 5D2 at ISO800 - ISO1250 in churches. How does the AF101 look at these ISO settings? Can I get any sample raw files? I'm now editing with CS5 so just the video file should do.

4) Must be sharp enough (assuming reasonable glass) at 1080/25p to mix on the timeline with 5D2/7D footage shot with L primes and 70-200 f2.8L.

Given the sensor size, I'm thinking the AF101 may be the right option for us, but I'd like to get some feedback before selling our remaining HMC151s and putting the cash down on an AF101 and some good glass (probably primes - but we'll see).

Using the 14-140 is pretty much out of the question due to being so slow. With the HMC 151 we're usually wide open in these locations, sometimes even 6db, so a slow lens is not going to cut it (without going unacceptably high ISO). I was going to look in to adapters and/or some of the new m43 glass, but welcome suggestions on low cost options (the Oly f2 zoom may be out of budget).

 

[chrisccw]

I shot with my AF100 and a Canon 5D for a client the day after I got in my camera, both using L series Canon lenses---I can't post footage as it is proprietary for them, but they cut very nicely. We'd been doing this project with my EX3 and a 5D for months, and they cut together well, too, I have to say. It's all in the lighting to get a creamy DOF with an EX3 or any camera with a small sensor. I use HMI's exclusively. With the AF100 and 5D, we matched up ISO, f-stop, white balance, framerate; 200/2.8/5600/30p and they were a near perfect match in post. But, it's still very irritating to me to have to stop an interview every 12 minutes on a two cam with a 5D...breaks the flow, complicates the post, blah blah blah. I love the AF100. Wish I had two. Stick with fast lenses and you'll get good results in low light. Anything over 2.8 is not going to cut it if you have no light control in your locations. We've found 1600 ISO to be very clean, but frankly I wouldn't choose to go 1600 on a 5D, much less a video camera! If you can wait for the Birger mount to come out in a few months that will control the L series canons you already have, then do that. I am going to lose credibility here with this one, but I love the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, and the Sigma 30 and 50mm 1.4. All super fast, bright, and fully controlled by the camera's electronics (the Sigma's use the Olympus 4/3-m4/3 mount). I also have the 4/3 Leica version of the Lumix 14-50 2.8-3.5, which uses the m4/3 adapter, but it is iris ring controlled, and I won't be doing that again--the iris wheel on the camera is just an ideal thing to use and I won't buy anything that doesn't talk to the camera electronically again. All of this is IMHO.

 

[Exact]

Thanks for the reply Chris.

With the AF100 and 5D, we matched up ISO, f-stop, white balance, framerate; 200/2.8/5600/30p and they were a near perfect match in post.

Interesting, and encouraging. So, to clarify, using the same ISO, Aperture, frame rate and white balance made the footage intercut, without drastic color matching and sharpening?

But, it's still very irritating to me to have to stop an interview every 12 minutes on a two cam with a 5D...breaks the flow, complicates the post, blah blah blah.

Agreed, though for most weddings, when cameras are being operated manually, especially when there are 4 or more overlapping, it's not been a problem..... with the exception of the unattended camera

Stick with fast lenses and you'll get good results in low light. Anything over 2.8 is not going to cut it if you have no light control in your locations.

That was my thinking. We often have enough trouble getting the cameras in at all, so being able to set up HMIs would require that we walk on water

We've found 1600 ISO to be very clean, but frankly I wouldn't choose to go 1600 on a 5D, much less a video camera!

So your results showed the AF100 cleaner than the 5D2 at ISO1600? That would be... err... unexpected.

If you can wait for the Birger mount to come out in a few months that will control the L series canons you already have, then do that.

I'm watching and waiting...

I am going to lose credibility here with this one, but I love the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, and the Sigma 30 and 50mm 1.4. All super fast, bright, and fully controlled by the camera's electronics (the Sigma's use the Olympus 4/3-m4/3 mount). I also have the 4/3 Leica version of the Lumix 14-50 2.8-3.5, which uses the m4/3 adapter, but it is iris ring controlled, and I won't be doing that again--the iris wheel on the camera is just an ideal thing to use and I won't buy anything that doesn't talk to the camera electronically again. All of this is IMHO.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll certainly give those a try. Given that the fixed camera positions are usually 'less than flexible' I'm either going to need a good range of (fairly close) primes or a really good low light zoom.

Still in research mode at this point, so any more feedback from anyone who wants to chime in is very much appreciated.

 

[chrisccw]

We did no sharpening or color correcting in post, they were just that close. I suspect this had a lot to do with two matching L series lenses as much as anything. I'm no engineer, they are just SO crisp and clean. And no, I'm saying that neither camera is ideal at 1600, but I would trust them both at 1600 if I had no light control. But if you can find 1.4 to 2.8 lenses, you might be able to go 800, you'll have to test that. It is a work in progress with finding the right lenses for all of us. Keep in mind, that most of the lenses focal lengths are doubled on the AF100. So if you find a fast 100mm for your 5D, you now have a fast 200mm for your AF100. That part I like. But getting really wide is a whole other story, brother. Good luck. Keep reading. We learn something every day with these cameras.

 

[Benjamin Eckstein]

We used a 7D for profile cutaways during interviews on a shoot this week. Once I convert everything to ProRes I'll take a look. My guess is it will be a fine enough match given that the shots are distinctly different. From a quick glance I'd say it will take some color grading in post to really match skin-tones, etc. but this would be the case between any 2 cams. And I think if you use it in a setting where the shots are distinctly different minor differences won't be as noticeable.

 

[artyswiss]

I think this video answers it pretty well. It is possible for the footage to match well.

http://vimeo.com/16007277

 

[dcloud]

i just did some tests and its possible to match well

 

[Exact]

[......] But if you can find 1.4 to 2.8 lenses, you might be able to go 800, you'll have to test that. It is a work in progress with finding the right lenses for all of us. Keep in mind, that most of the lenses focal lengths are doubled on the AF100.

Thanks again. Yes we are typically using fast L primes, 14/24/35/50/85/135 L with the 24-70L as the mid range fill and the 70-200 as the long range fill in, so going with L primes would be ideal. What adapter are you currently using? Having Aperture control would be preferred, because 50mm f1.4 on an AF101 size sensor with the subject at approx 25 feet is only going to give about 18 inches wiggle room (in front or behind - total 3 feet approx) to keep in focus. F2.0 - F2.8 would be nice though.

So if you find a fast 100mm for your 5D, you now have a fast 200mm for your AF100. That part I like. But getting really wide is a whole other story, brother.

This is true. I'm looking forward in hope to the 5D3 having 100% crop mode, but somehow I think I may just be out of luck Meanwhile, I think the 14L on a 5D2 is plenty wide enough

 

[Exact]

i just did some tests and its possible to match well

Thanks

I think this video answers it pretty well. It is possible for the footage to match well.

http://vimeo.com/16007277

Thanks. I've seen this one before but remember saying to myself that there were no similar enough shots for a real comparison, but maybe I missed something?

 

[Filippo Chiesa]

Hi guys,

as i said for several times, although if you can see some differences, in my video http://vimeo.com/16007277, we used the 5D MK II only for BTS footage purposes, not for a real comparison test.

 

[chrisccw]

Exact, for now I am just using a fotodiox adapter, locking the L lenses wide open, and using a vari-ND filter to control aperture. Not ideal, but it's all we can do until an electronic adapter hits the market. I envy your L series inventory. And yes, focus is quite the challenge at f2, especially for my old eyes. I have a Cineroid on the way to help with that. The camera has a detail feature to help with focus, just a button to push and check quickly or for the whole time, doesn't go to the recorded image, but I can't live without it at super shallow DOF looking at the LCD. Quite handy.

 

[SPrimeau]

Now that quite a few people have got their hands on the AF100 / 102 etc, how many of you have shot it in a mixed environment with DSLR, and how did that footage mix in post?

We shoot mostly weddings (and other events), and have migrated much of the shooting to DSLR from HMC151. I'm finding I'm less than happy mixing DSLR with the HMC151 because of how soft and noisy the HMC151 looks compared to the DSLR, even when we de-tune the DSLR as much as we do.

Did you read this article about aliasing? Are you seeing real better resolution or fake aliasing sharpness.

I know that the HMC150 has an effective 1440x 810 resolution. But is it that worse than the DSLR? I'll have to do a side by side comparison of my HMC150 and 7D.

But for a wedding, I like the HMC150 during a ceremony or reception for the deaper DOF, manual stepless iris control and servo zoom.

 

[artyswiss]

Thanks



Thanks. I've seen this one before but remember saying to myself that there were no similar enough shots for a real comparison, but maybe I missed something?

I just ask myself If the subtitles weren't there could I pick out which shots come from which cam...I could not pick it out. Maybe some others could but I have trouble.

 

[Exact]

Did you read this article about aliasing? Are you seeing real better resolution or fake aliasing sharpness.

I know that the HMC150 has an effective 1440x 810 resolution. But is it that worse than the DSLR? I'll have to do a side by side comparison of my HMC150 and 7D.

Yes, I've read that article, and I have to admit I was more than a little concerned about this stuff before I started shooting with DSLRs on real weddings. By contrast, I've found that the HMC can show aliasing in situations where the DSLR didn't, probably because of the softer out of focus areas on the DSLR - so it's not all one sided.

The question about 'real' vs 'perceived' sharpness is one I've seen asked many times (sharpness / aliasing / moire etc). I've seen the threads and read the articles that point to the resolution charts, clearly showing the GH1 to be the winner (comparing GH1 to DSLR). I've seen the color moire from the DSLRs on the charts too but in the real world, which is where I shoot, the GH1 footage looked terrible compared to the Canon DSLR, and at times, even the HMC looked better than the GH1. The GH1 just looked ..err... muddy, even with the hacked firmware. I don't think I had a bad one either. The guy down the street had the same look to his footage.

If all I had to deliver was DVD then perhaps I'd stick with the HMCs, but more and more people are wanting 1080p Blu-ray and the HMC just isn't cutting it. Side by side, the DSLR footage just looks so much better, and honestly, despite the resolution charts etc, it also looks sharper too. There's a reason people are picking up DSLRs to shoot movies and TV programs and 'not' picking up HMC150/151. Think about it. If things are as bad as the articles and forum posts would have you believe, no one would be shooting with DSLRs professionally. If you really go looking for things to shoot to expose the flaws in a camera, you can show up any camera, DSLR, GH1/2, HMC, AF100, what ever. I like to shoot tests what I need to shoot in the real world, mostly weddings to be fair, and the DSLR is currently the tool that is giving me the best results (though as you can tell, I'm currently investigating the AF101 as an option). There ARE hoops to jump through with DSLRs, but the results are IMO worth it. Maybe the AF101 can depose the DSLR, but until I've shot with one, I can't say.

[slightly off topic here]
I've also looked through the threads (e.g. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...of-Shallow-DOF-High-ISO-and-Super-Wide-Lenses ) where we're told to stop thinking about low light, wide angle & fast lenses etc because it's a 'fad', a 'cult' and we're just plain stupid to even think about this stuff as being needed, or even useful. If I had the luxury of being in their position I would probably agree with them. Their point is valid, within the limited context of their shooting requirements. Being able to setup and control the shot, the lighting, direct the actors, check the footage, make changes, reshoot if required etc is awesome. I love it when I'm in that situation, but most of the time I'm not, so I really can't agree with the conclusions when the context is shooting live, non repeatable events, often in low light, in very crowded places with no room to manoeuvre to get a wider shot, and no option to add more light (let alone control lighting direction or gel the windows etc).

Some of us really do need kit that works without lighting for 98% of the time and have the option from go from medium to long to ultra wide without having the option to physically move the camera.

You can take just about any camera and make it look great in "controlled light", it's when you get to shoot in less than good light that problems really start to show. We mere mortals, often looked down upon from a great height by those in the movie & TV industries have to make things work on the fly, in real time, no retakes, no lighting adjustments, nothing. It's not about shallow DOF, it's about getting enough light to have good exposure without the luxury of a lighting crew, without the luxury of retakes, without the luxury of being able to move the gear back another 3 feet.

I had a guy and his wife come up to me at a recent wedding, he was (or claimed to be) a DP for TV dramas and she was an assistant producer. They started out pooh-poohing the wedding video industry and said they couldn't believe we were ever going to get anything worth having in the conditions we had available. Like every one else, they'd been on the band wagon of the DSLRs being toys and completely useless for video. His jaw dropped, and I mean literally dropped, when I showed him footage. There was a few moments silence followed by a rather amusing conversation between him and his wife about how they do this stuff at work (such as the room being full of gear and not many people, whereas we were shooting in a room full of people and not much gear!). He went on to say he'd be scared witless shooting events like this because without his crew & gear he'd assumed it simply couldn't be done. He'd have to stage every shot, maybe adjust lighting and do retakes. He'd want several days to setup and shoot the event we shot in real time. I'm not going to be blind to the qualities that can be achieved when you do that, and I'm absolutely sure that he would get a better shoot doing it his way, but then it wouldn't be live!
[/slightly off topic here]

But for a wedding, I like the HMC150 during a ceremony or reception for the deaper DOF, manual stepless iris control and servo zoom.

I completely understand, I started out thinking the same way. We'd just get the DSLRs for the arty stuff, then after we tried them, and then pushed them a little further, it dawned on me that we weren't seeing the problems we expected, in fact we've not had that much trouble at all. I'll be the first to admit that 200mm at f2.8 is not much fun, and this is where a smaller sensor comes in to it's own (for DOF) but at the cost of noise.... oh the noise from the HMC compared to the DSLR in lower light situations is just not in the same league.

We rarely use power zoom so it's really not an issue. Getting a full walk out by the Bride & Groom in a long church is the biggest issue because there is no AF to track them (which is literally the only time we every used the [slow] zoom and AF anyway), but that's one of the things you learn to work around. It's something that's not going to be there on the AF101 anyway. Having one camera with a longer lens and another with a wide (e.g. 14L set to hyper focal) pretty much covers it from the back as they walk out.

In terms of iris control, I see where you are coming from, but it's not really been a problem. 1/3 aperture steps have been Ok so far.

I'm not saying that DSLRs beat the HMC in all circumstances. That would be silly. The unattended camera is a prime example. What I am saying is that I like the look from DSLRs enough (plus the amazing low light capabilities) that I need a camera that will match them close enough to not worry about it - rather than trying to dumb down the DSLRs to match the lower quality of the HMC. In terms of low light (which if you do weddings you probably know about the low light situations you can get in to - e.g. small cosy rooms needing 12db and open IRIS) I can take the DSLRs anywhere now and not have to worry about getting the shot (and a usable shot) where there have been times in the past when the HMC+12db didn't cut it (not to mention the noise!).

So, if the AF101 will do the job (not is extreme low light - but in churches) then it's probably a no brainer. I've going to the BVE show this week so I'm hoping to get my hands on one to play with. We'll see.

 

[SPrimeau]

Thank you for your answers.

I began to make some tests with my 7D and think about trying to use it for the preparations of the bride and groom.

But I don't have many clients that choose my higher packages containing more than one cameraman. So, it would not be possible to film with a DSLR the whole time when I am alone!

And about the low light, I am using an on-camera light with a dimmer. So, I stay at 0 db most of the time.

I agree about the GH1. I filmed a show with 2 HMC150, one HVX200a and one GH1 and the GH1 was noisy and had banding when the light was low.

 

[Gnasher]

i just did some tests and its possible to match well

Apart from syncing frame rate iso and color balence do you need to change any gamma or other settings to get a closer match ?

 

[djrockadoo]

I've shot a couple things with 5D and AF100. As long as you account for inherent aperture differences and what not, i found matching ISO's, shutter speed etc to match really well. What does change is the look of course. The 5D even with turning everything down crushes the crap out of everything and gives strong S-curved (and beautiful) image. The AF100 has many more options. On Cine gamma the image is so down the middle its almost ugly to look at and will need color correction. I found even on B.Press it still wasn't as crushed as the 5D. This by the way is all praise for the AF100. The 5D gives a beautiful image, just as long as you aren't concerned with changing it all later because the information just isn't there. The AF100 gives you the option of going places with the image. Absolutely nothing like the RED, but far more than the 5D. But to match, you'll probably have to do some S curve crushing in post the make the AF100 look indistinguishable from your 5D footage, but its very possible.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

If you are not shooting a flat picture style with the 5d then the standard scene settings will be way to crushed anyway.

 

[dcloud]

the canons have a higher mid tones, lowering it down makes the image closer. canons do have a more saturated orange so adjust that up a bit to fix it. ill post a test image and see which one is which

 

[jay-rock]

Does anyone have the magic scene settings/color profile to match the 5D and Af100 I have done a few shoots and so far having a tough time.