More AF100 footage...

I think the range here is actually quite remarkable. The highlights as previously stated are held very well. Looking at the 720p version I can tell the sharpness setting on the camera was far too high. It's apparent the most in the wide shots. The one at 0:39 that everyone is mentioning shows lots of sharpening around the edges. This will be fixed with the settings being dialed in. Calm down folks, this is no different than the DSLR's where you drop the sharpness. It's the same problem and it's not really a problem at all. Easily fixed with settings :)

I do really like the skin tones. I keep finding it tough to get the skin tones I want with my footage. It's so tough to fix in post if you get it wrong or want to edit it. Also the footage does seem a bit lower rez than I thought, but it might be looking worse because of the sharpening? There's a bit of noise in a lot of the shots as well. Again, all of this will likely be minimized by the different settings that can be altered to pull out the best quality possible.

We'll see how things turn out...
 
Ticheli said:
I find it sadly amusing that those who keep lauding the most expensive lenses have to ask what lens was used
Click to expand...

Yeah...but I think a lot of us are asking cuz we wanna know what focal length and how open the lens was. At least there is a value in judging the footage by knowing the physical specs of the lens.

Certainly, the lens isn't what made this footage "better" than whats been posted previously.
 
Still feels like video to me.
Highlights are burning out in typical way and sorry folks but some of those skin tones look absolutely horrible.


And what's with that awful matte of the camera and lenses at the end?
Is this actually an advertisement for Panasonic?
 
Ticheli said:
I find it sadly amusing that those who keep lauding the most expensive lenses have to ask what lens was used in a clip.
Click to expand...

We aren't asking about the lens because we can't tell. We ask about the lens because we see problems, and wondering if its the LENS or the camera. A Master Prime 50mm is burned into our (cinematographers) minds, we know exactly how it should look. If the image is suffering from something we ask what the lens is to make sure its not the lens's fault. If there was a Master Prime on that camera than clearly we are seeing the fault of nothing other than the camera. If there is a lesser cheaper lens on there, then the fault may be of the lens.

You clearly do not understand why we use great lenses, and there for do not understand that its not 2% lighting. Lighting is EFFECTED by the LENS. You have a crappy lens and the light within bounces around inside the lens, making the image soft, washed out, makes color fringing, the list goes on and on. The lens is VERY important to the image you're looking at.


yoclay said:
Still feels like video to me.
Highlights are burning out in typical way and sorry folks but some of those skin tones look absolutely horrible.
Click to expand...

Agree I dont like the skin tones at all.
 
I agree with you Giuseppe. Every bit of light that falls on the sensor must go through the glass to get there. The lens is critical, and can create problems. I have seen this even on my Letus adapter.

I have to reflect on Philip Bloom's shots with his Zeiss for Nikon 50mm and/or 85mm of the man sketching in the park. Take a look again at the closeups of his face, the medium closeup on his two hands resting on the paper. Or the closeup of the leaves on the trees. These were done with the Zeiss lenses, and those shots looked far better to me than the ultra sharp looking f2 Olympus Zoom. Glass is critical to knowing the reasons for the things we're seeing in the image. Too much mystery at the moment. Speculation is plentiful, information sparse.
 
yes, i agree bhdfield. the zeiss 85mm shots were by far the best "filmic" if you will throughout blooms footage. and as a previous user stated, adding some light and playing with the scene will drastically change the feel of the image. that aside, i think this has been, quality wise, one of the best thus far. there are going to be plenty of settings to play with and lenses to choose from that i cant wait to configure and see what works. that plus the normal production value that goes in to a narrative shoot of course. i think the image will be far exceeding the vast majority of shooters.
 
yoclay said:
And what's with that awful matte of the camera and lenses at the end?
Is this actually an advertisement for Panasonic?
Click to expand...
That was the footage that was shown in the IBC booth. It was the first footage shot by anyone, anywhere. It wasn't an ad, but they probably put the panasonic name in it because it was being shown in the booth.
 
If that is the 14-140 then that is good stuff.I am sure the settings will have to go extreme low in colorphase, sharpness and colorgrade. then play around with the matrix and we will see nice Pana-Mojo images soon.
Shoot the 7D in Standard Mode (will look much worse than this film) and then with your settings (mine are neutral, low sharpness, low contrast) and it will look a little better than this. Of corse the 7D might have moire in his hair and aliasing in the wide shots ;-)

Can´t wait for the next film to pop up on vimeo.
 
yoclay said:
...some of those skin tones look absolutely horrible.....
Click to expand...

...which has more to do with an established actor & theater-boss'es very (very, believe me) full life.... a fullness he shows both on the stage and - as we see - in front of this camera.

So what you may attribute to the camera has more to do with an elder artist's self-assured way to display the - seemingly - unflattering signs and scars such full a life has put onto his face....

You may perceive this as a fault of technique - I see it as a sign of greatness of an artist's life, truthfully & rather faultlessly registered by a camera.

The very one I am even more happy to give myself as a Christmas-present..... ;-)
 
Last edited:
I like some shots, but others seem kinda soft. I still have not really seen nothing amazing, but regardless it still looks good and it's a good start for panasonic.
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
You clearly do not understand why we use great lenses, and there for do not understand that its not 2% lighting. Lighting is EFFECTED by the LENS. You have a crappy lens and the light within bounces around inside the lens, making the image soft, washed out, makes color fringing, the list goes on and on. The lens is VERY important to the image you're looking at.
Click to expand...

The contribution of a particular lens is subtle; my argument, which should be clear to anyone with any experience, is that great lenses can't improve bad lighting and ordinary lenses can't destroy great lighting. Long before the Master Primes saw the light of day cinematographers were, and still are, making beautiful pictures with far lesser lenses.

Thinking that you can greatly improve or damage the images from the AF100 by switching lenses is folly. I'll put my Cooke and Zeiss Standards on the AF100, as well as an odd Nikon or two, and no one will be able to tell the difference in the shots. I use cine lenses because they are good optically, but more importantly, have the same front diameter and proper rotation and gearing for cine use.

My point is clearly proved because you CANNOT tell which lens was in use as evidenced by the questions and surprises posted here. What really bothers me is the crutch I see here, the "I could make great pictures if I had an expensive lens." This is wrong on so many levels. It's the LIGHTING ladies and gentlemen; it always has been and it always will be.

Obviously the small difference in good quality lenses is important to the cinematographer, that's why tests are shot, but to the audience the difference is imperceptible, whereas great or bad lighting is immediately apparent. Are you ignorant of the test of the Hassleblad and little Canon G10 published by Luminous Landscape? You should read it; it clearly shows that even pretty savvy people cannot tell the difference, even when looking at identical scenes.

More to the point of this particular discussion, a Master Prime will not correct a bad curve into clip, nor will a good Nikon or Canon lens cause it.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
If you've done any signal processing theory, you'll know that you can't improve a signal with later stages of processing but you can surely screw it up. That's why we used to spend a fortune on the highest quality detectors and pre-amps we could get hold of for our particle physics experiments. It doesn't matter how beautiful and clean your final signal processing is if there's crap in the signal at source.

The same thing applies to movies, I think. Later stages can, at best, do full justice to the earlier stages.

So, if you have an awesome script, you can film it well, or mess it up with crappy technical cockups. But the best camera and film making technique in the world won't lift a rubbish script.

In pure image terms that means you have to:
1) Find the most interesting and attractive ideas to be shooting in the first place
2) Position the things or people you are shooting and the camera you are using to show them in a visually interesting and beautiful way
3) Light them to best effect
4) Capture that image well (e.g. no shaky cam unless you're aiming for that deliberately!)
5) Using a lens which delivers the sorts of result you want. A crappy lens can cock it up.
6) Using a sensor which delivers the sort of result you want.
7) Recorded using a codec which records that faithfully enough for your purposes.
8) Which is then post processed to bring out the vision you had in the first place
9) Which is then offlined so other people can see what you intended.

(And many stages between- like capturing clean sound if you need it).

You can cock up at any point in the chain, but the earlier your cock up, the more serious a waste of time the rest becomes! So yes, lenses matter, and matter quite a lot as they are fairly early up the chain, but if your idea, script, lighting or camera technique is awful, a good lens won't help!

Cheers, Hywel.
 
Last edited:
Ticheli said:
The contribution of a particular lens is subtle; my argument, which should be clear to anyone with any experience, is that great lenses can't improve bad lighting and ordinary lenses can't destroy great lighting. Long before the Master Primes saw the light of day cinematographers were, and still are, making beautiful pictures with far lesser lenses.

Thinking that you can greatly improve or damage the images from the AF100 by switching lenses is folly. I'll put my Cooke and Zeiss Standards on the AF100, as well as an odd Nikon or two, and no one will be able to tell the difference in the shots. I use cine lenses because they are good optically, but more importantly, have the same front diameter and proper rotation and gearing for cine use.

My point is clearly proved because you CANNOT tell which lens was in use as evidenced by the questions and surprises posted here. What really bothers me is the crutch I see here, the "I could make great pictures if I had an expensive lens." This is wrong on so many levels. It's the LIGHTING ladies and gentlemen; it always has been and it always will be.

Obviously the small difference in good quality lenses is important to the cinematographer, that's why tests are shot, but to the audience the difference is imperceptible, whereas great or bad lighting is immediately apparent. Are you ignorant of the test of the Hassleblad and little Canon G10 published by Luminous Landscape? You should read it; it clearly shows that even pretty savvy people cannot tell the difference, even when looking at identical scenes.

More to the point of this particular discussion, a Master Prime will not correct a bad curve into clip, nor will a good Nikon or Canon lens cause it.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...

can you please post that test yous peak of. hasselblad and canon g10?? thnks
 
The truth is that aside from a maximum aperture cue or a really bad characteristic of an inferior lens, virtually no one can discern what lens was used for a given shot.
Click to expand...

Again the expensive lens fallacy. No matter how anybody defends the more expensive are much better, $20,000 much better, no way. The piece looks excellent. In the hands of pros this camera will excel. That is a no brainer.

We aren't asking about the lens because we can't tell. We ask about the lens because we see problems, and wondering if its the LENS or the camera.
Click to expand...

Precious.
 
Homunculus said:
can you please post that test yous peak of. hasselblad and canon g10?? thnks
Click to expand...

Very happy to; here's the link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Look, there are very good reasons for choosing a particular lens; sometimes the subject matter at hand pleads for something softer, or colder, or with more or less flare; for the landing scene in Saving Private Ryan, the coatings were ground off, but these attributes are subtle.

We all know that there are cinematographers who insist on Master Primes and then glue a piece of silk stocking behind the rear element! I'm not saying this does not work for them, but it is instructive.

Image making is what it's always been: Lighting, Lighting, Lighting, then everything else.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
tipota said:
...which has more to do with an established actor & theater-boss'es very (very, believe me) full life.... a fullness he shows both on the stage and - as we see - in front of this camera.

So what you may attribute to the camera has more to do with an elder artist's self-assured way to display the - seemingly - unflattering signs and scars such full a life has put onto his face....

You may perceive this as a fault of technique - I see it as a sign of greatness of an artist's life, truthfully & rather faultlessly registered by a camera.

The very one I am even more happy to give myself as a Christmas-present..... ;-)
Click to expand...

No, it has to do with the way his skin tones were rendered.

I make the necessary distinction between life, and how life is represented.
 
Last edited:
I did not care for the esthetics of some of the shots either; much too flat for me, and really directionless, except for the shot of the actor sitting at the end, which looked like just the window lights. Also noted what looked like pretty bad color mix on some, with blue daylight and ugly yellow trying to play in the same ballpark.

I would have been inclined to use a very small softbox to reveal the character lines in the face, and certainly not light up the neck, but I'm a fan of drama and shadow. Not saying my vision is better or worse.

What I did like was the more gentle transition into clip; not nearly so abrupt and explosive as the Japan shots. I become increasingly sure I can make pretty pictures with the AF100; some of the footage, including the Japan stuff, we've seen has been really beautiful.

Give me a day or so in the studio with my charts and a model to play with the settings and I should be ready to rock.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
I really recoil a bit with the notion of "give me a studio to make this camera look good". I've used many cameras, and the best ones are able to handle all kinds of lighting situations, and if properly exposed, and shot well enough, they can look terrific without spending an hour setting lights on each shot. Problems are problems, period. What I've seen here, searching for what's making some of this footage look so "video", is a lot of excessive edge enhancement. Dark ghosting at areas of high contrast, as though the detail or edge enhancement were much too high. Later on I can post frame grab samples of this. What really concerns me now, is that this footage was shot, commissioned by Panasonic Europe, to show the virtues of the camera presumably. But I found a lot of the feel very cold and harsh. It seems a little under-saturated, though. Hope it's the lens or settings or both. Since this was done for Panasonic, is this the best Panasonic thinks this camera will do? (btw - I know it was done for them as I asked the person who posted it for lens and settings, and he told me he didn't do it, Panasonic had it done.)
 
Umm, I don't know about Leo... but I really like to learn a camera under controlled studio conditions first. I find it easier to figure out what each menu option does on the camera and how they interact when all the other variables are under as tight a control as possible. So I'm intending to take my AF100 into the studio for a day first, figure out how to make a model* look great on a white infinity cove or a black studio corner. Then figure out how those settings interact when I put her in front of a window, or in a room set. Then figure out how it all looks with natural light in the rest of the house, then figure out how it all looks in the garden (weather permitting).

Once I've played with as many settings as I can and looked at all the footage in full size on a decent monitor, I will begin to see how to use the camera to shoot the sort of stuff I like to shoot.

* actually, traditionally I start with our collection of cuddly toys and teddy bears, making a short story bouncing them around like puppets. They complain less than my girlfriend does when I take forever to play with settings. Then I branch out to seeing how good we can make her look, before starting to book other models. There ARE advantages to living with one's leading lady...! :-)

Cheers, Hywel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top