More AF100 footage...

Love it. Highlights look properly rendered in there and details in their white clothing holds too. Albeit in a controlled lighting scenario. 1/8 or 1/4 Classic Soft or 1/8 BPM can do a lot of good for the "video sharpness", btw. I'd love to know the settings!

e
 
RyanDeFranco said:
Agreed, but there's an upside to that. Agree or disagree: are modern audiences coming to see this "video-ish" look as "real?" Consider Herzog's The White Diamond: back in the days of the DVX, he used video to distinguish the realist segments of getting an airship off the ground with the breathtaking, practically surreal 16mm footage taken from the air.
Click to expand...

This is correct, of course. And there might be some techniques used to achieve a more film-like sharpness and motion blur (light black pro mist, probably). For ME...this footage leaves me wanting a bit more in the area of film-like look. I know, I know, "Want film? Shoot film!" Just giving you my opinion.

This comes from a guy that gets tense when I go to my Dad's house to see his new LED TV with the super-motion 120hz feature on he's while watching a movie. Gross.
 
Hmm... Feeling like there's something missing in the "feel." Maybe its the sharpness, maybe its just the fact that it looks ungraded. Not sure.
 
hmm must admit that was relatively impressive. at least compared to previous footage...let's hope there's more of this kind. perhaps i will get back on thea f100 bandwagon then
 
Looking better! Give this cam a couple months and I'm sure we'll start figuring out how to get the most out of it. I'd love a version of this clip that lists what lens was used...
 
In Boston today at a AF100 presentation, Jan Crittenden told us she thought is was shot with a Zeiss 35mm lens.
 
The "feel" as everyone keeps saying is still video, though you're also not seeing the depth of field that you're used to. The max that lens opens up is f4. The sharpness is fine, RED footage is supper sharp, its the image roll off thats important. Unfortunately it seems the image roll off within these videos are just not like the cinema look.

It is a lot better to see some more controlled shooting, it does make the camera look better. Though it feels video, and thats the main problem I see. Theres no roundness to the footage. Maybe some Master Primes could fix that look, but then again I don't think many people will afford Master Primes for this camera, even as a rental, this camera is much more marketed towards the people who own 35mm still lenses already. Maybe they should start testing with those... Say Nikon Primes at f2.
 
olof said:
In Boston today at a AF100 presentation, Jan Crittenden told us she thought is was shot with a Zeiss 35mm lens.
Click to expand...


If that was Zeiss Primes, I'd be very disappointing. Its their zoom lens.
 
I find it sadly amusing that those who keep lauding the most expensive lenses have to ask what lens was used in a clip. 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. Without a side by side comparison can you tell if a scene was shot with a Nikon or Zeiss lens?

I recall a test with large prints, half shot with a $40,000.00 Hasselblad, half shot with a little Canon G10 and photographers couldn't tell which was which. Do you really believe the tiny pocket camera lens is as good as the big Zeiss?

I'm not saying that we should not use the highest quality lens we can or benefit from the superior mechanics of cine lenses, I'm just sick of the refrain that a given scene looks superior because of the glass; it's 98% lighting; 2% lens. If your lighting is bad, no lens on earth can make it good; conversely, if your lighting is good, almost any decent quality lens will not hurt it.

Disclaimer: Opinions vary; that's why they have so many different flavors at the ice cream store.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Looks like it's been deinterlaced, too. Real 24p out of the camera untouched should look very pleasing.
 
To me the clip looks "video" because the faces are lit too flat. Take the fill down a stop or two and it would be a different story.

I agree with Leo. Lenses have nothing to do with it.
 
Looks like the 14-140, for what it is I think it looks great, can't wait to get my hands on it...hopefully before Christmas...any comment Jan? ;-)
 
If that's really the 14-140 for all those shots, I think this is very promising. It's not a fast lens, but we're still seeing some separation in longer lens shots. Looks like a decent 2/3" eng camera. Will look better (to me) with faster glass and softer depth.

My concern is that I don't know if the harshness in falloff and edge detail are due to settings, lens, or what. No way to know, but I've seen it in a lot of footage, especially wide shots with long DOF. One of the things I most love about the little HVX is the smoothness in falloff (cine-d), and its pleasing way of rendering contrast in the image, in a way that often mimics film quite well. I would love to see more of that from this camera. Yes I understand we haven't seen truly conclusive tests, and none on a complete camera. But these little Easter Egg videos popping up everywhere seem almost designed to entice speculation from people passionate about this art.

And I can tell you I can certainly see a difference in lenses in these early tests. I can see the razor (almost too sharp) sharpness edge to edge of the Olympus f2 zoom, with no bokeh. I can see the smoothness and bokeh in the Zeiss glass, as well as the Nikon primes of another test. Very different character, suited for different missions. Zoom can be a mutli-purpose catch-all. Primes for cine style shooting or sit-down interviews in the corporate or doc world. Now lens price may not always dictate how pleasing the image is, but lenses sure as heck effect the look and feel of the image.
 
Last edited:
Andrew J. Allsbury said:
Looks like the 14-140, for what it is I think it looks great, can't wait to get my hands on it...hopefully before Christmas...any comment Jan? ;-)
Click to expand...

The shooter responded to this question already, posed by groveChuck (see earlier post)...

OK, it's not 50i, though the Spanish Market was.

I asked him why 50i for the market, he replied: Porque era una prueba con una cámara de pre-producción. Simplemente quería probar la lente Lumix 14-140, para ver cómo se podía jugar con la profundidad de campo. El próximo vídeo lo haremos a 24p

or:

Because it was a test with a pre-production camera. Just wanted to test the Lumix lens 14-140, to see how you could play with depth of field. The next video we will do 24p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top