No Autofocus on HD100?

Monglane said:
Otherwise, it is true that there is an immense amount of snobism among the so-called "professionals" regarding autofocus. It's exactly the way it was with still cameras, 20 years ago, and it will probably end up the same way, i.e. some day, most broadcast lenses will have the AF option, while retaining all their mechanical qualities. You'd think that, by looking at history and how it repeats itself, some people would learn a lesson... but some never will. :)
Click to expand...

Still cameras autofocus is very usefull, but you cannot make a comparison with a video camera... it won't unfocus during the shot. I disagree with the need of autofocus in video lenses, the sensibility of the mechanical ring would be compromised because of the servo. Unless it would be like the zoom ring, with a switch that could disconnect the servo from the lens.

I still have my 20 years old prosumer Sony video 8, you can see the ring rolling when focusing, but in manual mode it's to heavy for a quick use. There's no focus like on a pro lens, JVC made the best choice.
 
I don't think anyone's advocating using autofocus during the shot (unless, maybe in a war zone or tornado or something...)

Primarily I'm saying it's a handy tool for grabbing focus before you start shooting.

Focusing manually on a DSR500 is quite easy -- you have a superb CRT viewfinder, and a high-peaking viewfinder, and it's easy to tell when the shot is crisply in focus.

But we're talking about a whole different ballgame here. We're talking about high-def, as viewed on a low-resolution CCD. No high-def CRT viewfinder here, we're talking about a 230,000-pixel LCD. It will be completely impossible to get accurate focus just by relying on the viewfinder -- it's simply not possible. You'll be seeing 1/4 of the pixels in the frame, scaled and resized. There's no way that you will be able to accurately, precisely focus that. Autofocus, however, could. Zoom in, let AF lock in focus for you, then switch to manual and shoot.

The HD1 was impossible to focus accurately, manually. You *had* to use autofocus to have a prayer of the shot being in focus.

JVC's HD100 does have a "focus assist" feature, which may make it more practical to use the viewfinder, depending on how responsive the feature is. With HD you notice out-of-focus footage a lot more than you do with SD. You *have* to get focus right-on. I think the Z1 and HVX have an advantage here in that they offer a pixel-for-pixel magnification so you can know for sure that you've got focus nailed perfectly, but testing will reveal if JVC's "focus assist" function delivers results just as good in practical field conditions. I'm assuming it will.
 
monster said:
So what, the DVX OIS is not that great anyway.
Click to expand...

The DVX OIS may not be great and wouldn't be a great loss, however there are some very good and useful OISs out there. Canon's prosumer range is a good example.

You can get near Steadicam like smoothness from an XL2 by just using a monpod and OIS. I was pretty surprised the first time I saw it.

I suppose the shoulder mounting reduces the need for OIS a little, but it is mainly useful when moving the camera.
 
Barry_Green said:
I don't think anyone's advocating using autofocus during the shot (unless, maybe in a war zone or tornado or something...)

Primarily I'm saying it's a handy tool for grabbing focus before you start shooting
Click to expand...

I haven't yet used a fast enough AF to do that, specially in low light conditions. The operator can be at least as fast as the AF.

About the viewfinder, you're absolutely right. I don't understand why a camera called professional like the HD100 has a LCD instead of a CRT viewfinder. Even the XL2 has a optional CRT, I don't think it will be possible to fit one from another JVC model. There's no TC in and out also... to bad :(
 
ericcosh said:
I think some of you so-called "purest" need to get a life. Sorry. This crap about "auto-focus" not being professional is just plain stupid . . . Just don't go saying crap like anyone who uses autofocus isn't professional.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I just HAD to chime in here . . . Sheesh! You guys just don't get it, do you!?!?!?

I shoot for a national broadcast show for a major network (guess which one). If I ever had my camera on auto-iris or auto-focus I would be fired. Broadcast cameras DO NOT have auto-focus and/or image stabilization (except for specialized applications) for these reasons:

1. Cost.
2. Weight.
3. Control.
4. TV and motion picture photography are DIFFERENT diciplines from STILL photography and have differing requirements (e.g., you never need to rack-focus a static, still shot).

An IS or AF system large enough to accomodate a modern Canon or Fujinon 2/3" 20:1 broadcast zoom lens would add thousands of dollars and add several pounds of weight to an already expensive ($25K+), heavy lens. Remember, 2/3" broadcast glass is HEAVY, with lots of elements. The same would go for our little 1/3" Fuji lenses, albeit to a lesser degree.

When shooting, I am constantly pulling snaps and whips with my zoom lens' servo DIS-engaged, followed in rapid succession with a rack-focus to-or-from my subject, and possibly an iris pull with my pinky while I'm at it. An OIS in these situations would be totally confused, and would work against me, trying to "correct" my deliberate framing movement. Focus is also often very deliberately selective--rack focus, pulls, etc. they're all manually controlled by the operator--that's what we do. Whether we're shooting a sit-down multicamera interview with a major celebrity using track dollies and jib arms, or shooting handheld arrivals at the Academy Awards, there hasn't been one time where I WOULDN'T have wanted to be in manual focus. In a news gangbang (where 20 ENG crews are all ambushing the same guy as you try to frame your shot walking backwards with big fat guys pushing you from every direction), I just gauge my subject-to-lens distance by eye, and dial that number in on my manual focus ring according to the barrel markings--that's what we do--we're camera operators. Had I had an AF mechanism engaged in that situation, I may have ended up with a perfectly sharp image of "Inside Edition's" mic flag instead of Paris Hilton going shopping at Kitson (yup--that's what passes for BIG news in Hollywood!).

If you still don't get this, you're missing the whole point of having those cool interchangeable Fuji lenses, and if you're still making the argument that auto-focus for TV and motion picture photography is NOT unprofessional, THEN YOU'VE JUST NEVER OPERATED A TV OR MOTION PICTURE FILM CAMERA IN A BROADCAST/FEATURE/COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT ON A DAILY BASIS BEFORE and don't fully understand the art and craft of the cinematographer/camera operator! Sheesh!

P.S. Oh, by the way. I own several Nikon DSLRs and 35mm film bodies and a PILE of AUTO-FOCUS NIKKORS. In still photography, auto-focus makes total sense--stills are different--they're STILL.
 
I am not in the industry. Merely an entry-level hack wannabe filmmaker; but Auto-Focus? Never use it. I feel wayt more in control and comfortable using my senses and reflexes than relying on that nonsense.

Anyway; well put NBC. Makes sense to me even if I am not in the business professionally
 
Oh, to address Barry's point--yeah, I agree, there's nothing wrong with focus ASSIST tools. We NEED those, especially in HD. I was merely trying to point out why . . . oh, nevermind.
 
John_Hudson said:
Anyway; well put NBC. Makes sense to me even if I am not in the business professionally
Click to expand...
Hey, thanks! I really didn't mean that entire post as a put down to those of us here who are less-experienced. It's just a little disappointing to see so many here misunderstand your craft. A craft I've spent 22 years honing. I've studied every cinematogaphic, lighting, and operating techique I could lay my hands on (never got a chance to master operating a gearhead, however). At 19, I took a Greyhound bus to take a Steadicam workshop from its inventor, Garrett Brown. And I've been shooting, and shooting, and shooting, since then. I live, eat, breathe this stuff, guys. Sorry, just got a little frustrated for a minute there . . .
 
I would still like OIS... :)

I do use higher end cameras as well, although I am not an seasoned cameraman like NBCshooter. OIS is still something I always pine for. As well as for handheld use (especially at longer focal lengths), I find OIS just makes your slightly cheap/rushed dolly shot look that bit smoother. Also, remember this camera is lighter than a full-sized pro cam and will be harder to keep steady.

I guess it may just be a cost thing, but I get the feeling that OIS is disregarded as "un-professional." I don't give a crap about its image if it gives better results on screen. I would be happy to pay the extra few % for it... as long as it worked.

I get your point with the focus, but I hope the viewfinder is good enough to allow accurate focusing. I tend to use "push AF' on prosumer models because their LCDs are sooooooooo bad. I would happily sacrifice rubbish AF for good MF any day of the week!
 
mmm said:
. . . although I am not an seasoned cameraman like NBCshooter.
Click to expand...
YOU ALL HAVE TO EXCUSE ME FOR SOUNDING OFF LIKE A CONCEITED A-HOLE IN MY EARLIER POST!!! SORRY! I guess I was a bit irritable this afternoon . . . sorry, guys!

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . after all that, I actually DO use the OIS in my small DV cameras sometimes (my Sony HC1000 especially!). You NEED to, because those damn things are so darn small!

And, yes, it's true, OIS on a full-sized broadcast camera is a welcomed tool in certain circumstances. Those things are just so damned expensive and heavy! Again, sorry for all the ranting. OIS and AF are valuable tools when appropriate!
 
Unfortunately, probably HD100's viewfinder won't be better than the prosumer cameras. It should be a CRT and not a LCD. I just hope the focus assistant to be as good as they say. Anyway, I will be missing the B/W CRT viewfinder.
 
Finally! Thanks for the support NBC-shooter.

As far as Optical Image Stabilisation is concerned: only Canon provides it for Pro lenses, and it is an element to attacht to the front of the lens. The balance of the HD100 by this would be so damn bad, you can better go without I guess. A nice, small and very light OIS-system (on/off switchable, of course) would be cool, but for that we need to dream on....
 
NBCshooter said:
YOU ALL HAVE TO EXCUSE ME FOR SOUNDING OFF LIKE A CONCEITED A-HOLE IN MY EARLIER POST!!! SORRY! I guess I was a bit irritable this afternoon . . . sorry, guys!
Click to expand...

That's cool... I wasn't having a dig at you or anything! :laugh:

You reasoned your point completely fairly. I was just saying that there are a few reasons AF and OIS may be more appropriate on the HD100 than on full sized pro cameras. :thumbsup:
 
If only I could have an interchangeable lens with no AF and no Image Stabilizer on my DVX (at the same price) !!!! that would be a dream SDv Camera. I wish I can cover my manual/auto focus switch with some tape sometimes. I am almost ashamed to have AF on my dvx.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top