Brian@202020
Veteran
Many years ago when I had an M2 before I got my Letus Ultimate, someone suggested doing this to match adapter footage with non adapter footage on the Redrock forum.
My Af100 vs 35mm adapter Ex1, can I get the AF as filmic?
- Thread starter Matt smith
- Start date
Many years ago when I had an M2 before I got my Letus Ultimate, someone suggested doing this to match adapter footage with non adapter footage on the Redrock forum.
On the topic of images being "too sharp" on the AF giving it a video look. I own a EX1(not with a adapter) that I use with the sharpening turned down, a 5D with the sharpness down that I use Nikkor lenses on and for the past month a AF100. I've been using my older Nikkors and one Zeiss ZF on the AF with Detail set to -5 and found the results very pleasing sharpness wise. Last week I bought the Zuiko 14-35 f2 and used it on a job, last night I was reviewing the footage closely and it slapped me in the face how sharp that lens is. A nice problem to have but it definitely gave it more of a video look that Im not really after. My first conclusion was that I need to run the detail at -7 when using the Olympus. After reading this thread the Black ProMist sounds like it might help. I could keep the camera at -5 for the the other lenses and keep the ProMist on the Oly. Would this 1/2 promist fit the bill?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/55660-REG/Tiffen_77BPM12_77mm_Black_Pro_Mist_1_2.html
Thanks for any advice on this. In my 20 years of still and 4 of video I've never researched or used these filters.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/55660-REG/Tiffen_77BPM12_77mm_Black_Pro_Mist_1_2.html
Thanks for any advice on this. In my 20 years of still and 4 of video I've never researched or used these filters.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
Bill,
I can certainly understand why a slightly softer image is more appealing, but it made me wonder… On the 5D, I think we all turn sharpness down in an effort (largely) to minimize aliasing and moire. But the AF-100 has pretty much eliminated these problems, or at least I haven't seen them on my AF-100. So in the case of an AF-100, why is having sharper imagery not a good thing? A little post-work can easily soften and add grain and texture to the image, but why dial sharpness all the way down?
Much of this is certainly subjective, and our eyes like what they like. For me, I've found that keeping sharpness around -4 or -5 strikes a good balance between softness and overall IQ with even the sharpest of my lenses.
Hi Stephen,
I agree, yes on the 5D it was to minimize the aliasing and moire. I too feel that having a sharp image is a good thing but man that Oly lens caught me by surprise. I had already thought about 'correcting' it in post but wasn't sure which would yield more natural results. I'll give it a go tonight and see how it looks.
Thanks for your advice..
I agree, yes on the 5D it was to minimize the aliasing and moire. I too feel that having a sharp image is a good thing but man that Oly lens caught me by surprise. I had already thought about 'correcting' it in post but wasn't sure which would yield more natural results. I'll give it a go tonight and see how it looks.
Thanks for your advice..
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
No worries, Bill.
I will make one recommendation, however. Check out the Sapphire suite of plug-ins for FCP and Avid (if that's what you use in post). Their Film Effects especially has become my go-to tool when I want to add realistic-looking grain to soften the AF-100.
I will make one recommendation, however. Check out the Sapphire suite of plug-ins for FCP and Avid (if that's what you use in post). Their Film Effects especially has become my go-to tool when I want to add realistic-looking grain to soften the AF-100.
Yes, Im in FCP and do most of my grading with MBL but I'll definitely check out the Sapphire suite you recommended as well. Since the majority of my work is editorial, I too like staying within the "realistic-looking" effects in post. Thanks again..
groveChuck
U-matic Member
I would second the theory that if one is missing the adapter look, it's probably a matter of lack of grain from the ground glass as much as it is softness.
I know I'll be experimenting with adding a bit of grain in post. But the Pro Mist sounds like an interesting touch, also.
I know I'll be experimenting with adding a bit of grain in post. But the Pro Mist sounds like an interesting touch, also.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
I'm planing on writing a longer piece for my website going through how to use the AF for a filmic look. Not entirely done yet so it will take couple of weeks. But I have a couple of things to share.
The AF is sharper, has more DR, lesser noise and is flatter than what many have come to use these last two years - a Canon 5DmkII or the 7D. Both these DSLR cameras have a very compromised 1080p image not really resolving anything nearby of 1080p. These cameras love shallow DOF and they have a more crushed image in shadows. They also have a certain "zing" to the images since aliasing makes tight lines "sing" as in excessive sharpness. The combination of shallow DOF, darks that make the image look more contrasty, a fine grained noise, an overall soft image and with that "zing" to it. All these things makes them look great and very filmic. I bet the same goes for DOF adapters. They compromise the image so that it looks more filmic. Softer if you like.
Having this in mind you really don't have to do much to make these look filmic. It's in the nature of the camera. DSLR's are derived from still cameras in SLR style and moving images is nothing more than a bunch of stills taken at a fast pace. Then it's not that strange to realize it will look filmic by it's own. Wedding photographers love the 5D and 7D. They look just like moving stills from a DSLR, or if you like, similar to 35mm film.
Now the AF is not derived from a SLR camera, it's a video camera with a big sensor. It's set up to act like a video camera and not to look like a DSLR or SLR. How do you use a video camera as a pro? You set up lighting, actors/people/things in front of the camera. You have props, make-up, and use the experience of shooting to make something filmic. You tell a story. Don't expect the AF to look like a DSLR compared to 35mm film without these things. It's not made to do this.
Having this in mind you now know how important it is to set light according to the mood and to create a nice pleasing image. Every aspect of shooting becomes so much more important. When you do this the higher image quality of the AF will be rewarding.
Let's take what we know. The AF is flatter but with higher DR - Crush the blacks and never let white be higher than 85%. It's very sharp - Select DOF to suit the scene. The image is to clean - Don't set up the camera to avoid all noise and add noise if you must in post. And maybe one of the bigger things - skin tones. Go for that smooth, highlight free and warm face that might not be correct but look great on the big screen!
The AF is sharper, has more DR, lesser noise and is flatter than what many have come to use these last two years - a Canon 5DmkII or the 7D. Both these DSLR cameras have a very compromised 1080p image not really resolving anything nearby of 1080p. These cameras love shallow DOF and they have a more crushed image in shadows. They also have a certain "zing" to the images since aliasing makes tight lines "sing" as in excessive sharpness. The combination of shallow DOF, darks that make the image look more contrasty, a fine grained noise, an overall soft image and with that "zing" to it. All these things makes them look great and very filmic. I bet the same goes for DOF adapters. They compromise the image so that it looks more filmic. Softer if you like.
Having this in mind you really don't have to do much to make these look filmic. It's in the nature of the camera. DSLR's are derived from still cameras in SLR style and moving images is nothing more than a bunch of stills taken at a fast pace. Then it's not that strange to realize it will look filmic by it's own. Wedding photographers love the 5D and 7D. They look just like moving stills from a DSLR, or if you like, similar to 35mm film.
Now the AF is not derived from a SLR camera, it's a video camera with a big sensor. It's set up to act like a video camera and not to look like a DSLR or SLR. How do you use a video camera as a pro? You set up lighting, actors/people/things in front of the camera. You have props, make-up, and use the experience of shooting to make something filmic. You tell a story. Don't expect the AF to look like a DSLR compared to 35mm film without these things. It's not made to do this.
Having this in mind you now know how important it is to set light according to the mood and to create a nice pleasing image. Every aspect of shooting becomes so much more important. When you do this the higher image quality of the AF will be rewarding.
Let's take what we know. The AF is flatter but with higher DR - Crush the blacks and never let white be higher than 85%. It's very sharp - Select DOF to suit the scene. The image is to clean - Don't set up the camera to avoid all noise and add noise if you must in post. And maybe one of the bigger things - skin tones. Go for that smooth, highlight free and warm face that might not be correct but look great on the big screen!
Awesome thread, and glad to see others who are thinking about this as well.
Though I have yet to fully shoot something with the AF100, I have shot quite a bit with Canon DSLRs. And I have always thought that the image from the CanonXLH1s/P+Smini35/Nanoflash system that I've used a lot was always better... on a different level. Very organic yet still very sharp with great dynamic range and color flexibility. An excellent, very "film-like" image that has a lot of leeway for color-grading without any image degradation.
The DSLRs image always had an issue here or there with me. The main advantage with the DSLRs is size, speed, and low-light capabilities.
The XL/adapter setup is big, and it needs a good deal more light. But treat it and light like a film shoot, and its image is incredible and better than what DSLRs give at the moment.
Though I have yet to fully shoot something with the AF100, I have shot quite a bit with Canon DSLRs. And I have always thought that the image from the CanonXLH1s/P+Smini35/Nanoflash system that I've used a lot was always better... on a different level. Very organic yet still very sharp with great dynamic range and color flexibility. An excellent, very "film-like" image that has a lot of leeway for color-grading without any image degradation.
The DSLRs image always had an issue here or there with me. The main advantage with the DSLRs is size, speed, and low-light capabilities.
The XL/adapter setup is big, and it needs a good deal more light. But treat it and light like a film shoot, and its image is incredible and better than what DSLRs give at the moment.
electricpig
Well-known member
Would an SGPro or similar fit on an AF101 with a relay lens?
Keep that gorgeous spinner-grain mixed with the 101's features and qualities...
Keep that gorgeous spinner-grain mixed with the 101's features and qualities...
astigmatic
Well-known member
its not only the grain that an adapter adds, its how it diffuses highlights and eases spec rolloff. Adapters also reduce contrast giving the image a perceived wider dynamic range.
bgundu
Veteran
electricpig
Well-known member
very true. There's a blooming of the highlights, and a blending of grain in the rolloff to pure light.
I'll miss the image of the SGPro on my HVX, but I won't miss the lightloss coupled with low-light lack of sensitivity on the HVX.
This is all very true. The rolloff of highlights is fantastic! Especially whereas in the DSLRs, it can just cut off more abruptly.
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
Here's one more voice waxing about the adaptor look. We used the HVX and Zeiss Mk. 2 superspeeds for our feature, and while I hated everything about setting up the Redrock (and constantly worrying about the backfocus..), the image is really holding up. We also shot with the RED and super 16 for about 1/3 of the film. After grading all cuts nicely at 720, but really, some of the best looking shots in the film are with the adaptor. Even if we did rate it at 25ASA on some interior days!
That all said, go watch Black Swan and tell me (if you don't know already) which shots were done on the 7d rather than 16mm. At the end of the day, the reality is we are awash with a huge selection of capable tools these days, and tools that cast so much less than they did back in the day.
That all said, go watch Black Swan and tell me (if you don't know already) which shots were done on the 7d rather than 16mm. At the end of the day, the reality is we are awash with a huge selection of capable tools these days, and tools that cast so much less than they did back in the day.
You'll notice I prefaced my comment with "20 years ago". 20 years ago there was no such thing as 30p, there was 30fps. And in order to shoot 30fps couldn't just go into a menu - you had to invest in a new camera. or at least a new crystal motor for your old camera - not to mention a modified Nagra or DAT recorder.
My point is that it's easy for people with deep pockets (ie James Cameron) to make pronouncements, but for those of us that make our living on the fringe self-producing films, constant technological change isn't that easy to deal with... 24p is the "look" that people associate with film. A little degradation in the image is also something we also psychologically associate with film (film goes through multiple generations).
More resolution driven by marketing isn't "filmic". As someone quoted above about the Red, it's something different. So, we have to chose the look we want, and damn the pundits.