morgan_moore
Major Contributor
deleted because now I'm just being snarky
Ive thought about deleting a few of my posts recently !
FS7: NO Sony Fs7!!
- Thread starter JPNola
- Start date
Ive thought about deleting a few of my posts recently !
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I feel the same way about AF that I feel about self-driving cars. I'm not against either one and they are both something I might even consider using in the right circumstances some day, but neither one is something I am looking forward to with great anticipation. I like to drive. I hate being passenger in a car whether it is a human driver or AI. I purposely drive a sports car with a manual 6-speed transmission because I like driving and shifting is part of what I like about driving. I am perfectly capable of doing my own braking, parrallel parking, and being able to stay in my lane without the car assisting me with those things. (BTW, have you noticed how many car commercials are now aimed at young people who don't take driving seriously and can't be bothered to concentrate on the task at hand? Kind of sad that manufacturers are actually catering to those people.)
When I'm shooting video, I actually like focusing manually and setting exposure manually. I like the challenge of it. I got into this business because I enjoy doing the actual work of this business. So finding a way to circumvent doing the work is not something I am actively seeking out because -- I enjoy doing the work and having creative control over my camera. I didn't get into this business to use a point and shoot camera. Another reason I especially don't want to use AF on a routine basis is because it will absolutley require that I must use lenses that there is no way in hell I'd choose to use/own if AF wasn't part of the package. AF stills lenses are not built for the needs of video. So I'm not against AF, and I can see why it appeals to some people who don't have a passion for operating the camera, but it's not a feature that I will ever routinely use myself no matter how good it gets. Oh, and I'll be driving my own car, too.
When I'm shooting video, I actually like focusing manually and setting exposure manually. I like the challenge of it. I got into this business because I enjoy doing the actual work of this business. So finding a way to circumvent doing the work is not something I am actively seeking out because -- I enjoy doing the work and having creative control over my camera. I didn't get into this business to use a point and shoot camera. Another reason I especially don't want to use AF on a routine basis is because it will absolutley require that I must use lenses that there is no way in hell I'd choose to use/own if AF wasn't part of the package. AF stills lenses are not built for the needs of video. So I'm not against AF, and I can see why it appeals to some people who don't have a passion for operating the camera, but it's not a feature that I will ever routinely use myself no matter how good it gets. Oh, and I'll be driving my own car, too.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The next four days Ive got a ton of miles to do.. and will have a bunch of downloading to do - oh for a self driver!
Exposure .. Im totally manual and find any 'flower mode' is just weiging down the menu but focus .. Im suprised you think you can focus manually (your work shows you do well)
I like AF because I dont trust my manual skills or the tools that we use to check focus.. as someone who was learning to focus in the late 1980s (so not new to the concept)
I wonder..
Am I incompetent? Or maybe doing a bunch of shots that have too much subject/camera motion and/or too narrow DOF?
Actually the hardest shot to me is the manual push in.. static subject moving camera.
Or am I just right
In still I remeber the moment.. maybe 1994 womens hockey Varsity match and they got a break down the left wing (I was pitch end) next to my hero David Ashdown. The girl sprinted down the wing and was bruttally chopped into by the opossition. As she flew though the air I heard Daivd (on an AF 400 2.8) pop, pop, pop while I strugged to find focus on my manual 300/2.8
The back page of the next days 'Independant' showed me that AF was the future.
I did do a couple of years after that of Plymouth Exeter and Torquay ('soccar') matches professionally for the local rag with a MF tokina 300/2.8 - so getting focus was something my job depended on. That was evil at night.
As resolutions increased I thought even more of AF because as described above I did not beleive the tools, be that ground glass in stills, monitor peaking or the 7 punch in had the true resolution to demonstrate focus.
My teen pinup..
Last edited:
Ben Scott
Veteran
So in summary, you couldn't nail focus on a fast moving subject at night on a 300mm f2.8 stills lens almost 30 years ago ergo feature films are going to move to AF soon and kids in film school are taught to manual focus to be part of the in-crowd.
I absolutely agree with Doug about enjoying the process of it all while at the same time saying that yes of course there are some applications for AF. But not on a feature film with a team and a crew and motivated focus changes.
Stills shooting is not Motion shooting. Speak to some ACs and ask their thoughts.
This is probably the single first thing a focus puller will learn.
I absolutely agree with Doug about enjoying the process of it all while at the same time saying that yes of course there are some applications for AF. But not on a feature film with a team and a crew and motivated focus changes.
Stills shooting is not Motion shooting. Speak to some ACs and ask their thoughts.
This is probably the single first thing a focus puller will learn.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
You got it in one
And of course I agree drama is probably the last place as..
-more planned shots
-better monitoring kit/better witness marked lenses
-more crew
I think we will see it in high end cameras .. bound to happen .. just like internal ND,s that was un thinkable not so long ago.. it will just be used when its going to save time ,on simple one face shots.. objects coming straight to camera , big stunts .. not going to put FP,s out of job .. just make it easier for some shots .. esp as FF , super fast lenses seems to be here to stay .. the Mini LF has taken over most movie / commercial shoots lately .. I had never used or would have trusted AF in a month of Sundays , but its really got so much better in the last few years .. and I'll use it on interviews every time now .. you will see every Fx9 owner saying that on the forums , even those from ENG days , everyone has been converted .. you just have to study the settings a bit and know when it just isn't the best choice .. simple as that ..don't like it .. switch it off .. why all the gnashing of teeth ..?
Ben Scott
Veteran
There is absolutely no room in the debate for a sensible and calm opinion like this.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
Let's keep the personal arguments off the thread.
If anyone has issue with a post or PM, report it using the icon in the upper right.
Thank you.
If anyone has issue with a post or PM, report it using the icon in the upper right.
Thank you.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
And here is the risk. You may not see it in high end cameras because only canon and sony can do it due to IP they have developed with corporate $$$.
My experience of stills was that the Hasselblad (lack of competent) autofocus was the death of hasselblad.. and DLSRs hitting decent resolution.
The hasselblad I owned just became an irrelevance for 'work' as the nikon was just so much more competent.
So my hasselblad and digiback was a $20g hero in 2003 and a $500 door stop in 2007 (yes it hurt badly). Arri owners beware.
==
My MF digibacks (while now doorstops) hugely helped me to break into the 'slide film only' world of magazines in early 2000s as a 'digital pioneer'
1998??.. . AF 600f4 mbike comes towards camera.. 100ISO transparency film http://www.sammorganmoore.com/bike/
Last edited:
I apologize unreservedly for my immature and stupid response ..
Im pretty sure Arri are working on AF and some form of variable ND.. Panavision have their own "filter " type device .. its the march of technology ..I mean is focus pulling now cheating have a 4k monitor right in front of you in a black tent 20 yards away from the camera .. the old guard said it was reactive rather than preemptive .. standing by the camera watching the action with a tape measure,Preston, and a prayer .. (ok besides the 1% with some god given talent ) .. but even the biggest movie all the FP are using monitors .. some times they might still go old school .. but why not use AF on 85mm f1.8 on a close up of DeNiro .. eye detect , face only .. lock on mode .. monitor it sure, but better than half of it being soft .. isn't that life made easier .. and no re takes for buzzed shots ..
Ben Scott
Veteran
Why not use AF on a close up of De Niro?
Which cine lenses with all the performance you expect from them in all optical and mechanical areas can also incorporate silent and perfect AF motors that can stand up to production use?
A big ask to incorporate that in an Angie zoom or Supreme Prime or Cooke anamorphic at the moment. I'm sure someone will try it in the next few years.
In the meantime why not do it precisely the way thousands of films have successfully and without issue done it for decades? Again for feature films it is currently a solution to a problem people don't have.
Which cine lenses with all the performance you expect from them in all optical and mechanical areas can also incorporate silent and perfect AF motors that can stand up to production use?
A big ask to incorporate that in an Angie zoom or Supreme Prime or Cooke anamorphic at the moment. I'm sure someone will try it in the next few years.
In the meantime why not do it precisely the way thousands of films have successfully and without issue done it for decades? Again for feature films it is currently a solution to a problem people don't have.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
So do I, but I feel like this is a bit of a red herring. This is a goal-oriented craft and our viewers don't care how we deliver the goods. The arc of technological innovation trends toward lower technical skill requirements and more power in the hands of a single person. what really counts and will count even more is the artistic concept.
It got a lot easier to show someone a picture of something when you could photograph it instead of drawing it. Then I'm sure there were people who enjoyed the difficulty and process of using mercury vapour to develop Daguerrotypes. There still are. (Daguerrotypes had way better contrast and detail than contemporaneous negative film. Film won out due to greater ease of production and reproduction. Same as with digital vs film.)
Focus peaking means you no longer need to rely solely on your eyesight or your distance estimations.
I'm being a bit facetious, but I think it's true that we individually develop attachments to certain aspects of the craft process but not others. I do think that some types of camerawork benefit greatly from the hands-on mentality you enjoy (nature photography being one of them).
But how many DPs feel the need to pull their own focus? Or even operate their own camera/s? What's the philosophical difference between handing it off to a human and handing it off to a machine? The only difference is in the results produced. And there, all the points about the strengths and weaknesses of AF are well-taken.
Someone in this thread wrote that focus-pulling is not a problem on properly crewed sets. It wasn't a problem for me either, even on gimbal. But AF lets me work at shallower DOF if I want to (and I have observed many times with many different DPs that they will stop down the lens to give a greater margin of error on a difficult-to-focus shot and for that reason alone). AF also lets me move faster, doing fewer/just one takes and less/no prep for tricky shots. And it means my brain can focus just on framing and my hands can both steady my gimbal, instead of one riding the focus wheel. But I still do 50/50 MF/AF. Not all AF.
Supposedly Henry Ford said (apocryphally, perhaps) that if he had asked people what they wanted, they would have said, "Faster horses." Because horses were working fine, right?
And there's a tremendous amount of time/effort/expense/innovation invested in properly focusing lenses. It's not like the problem ever got solved. The struggle continues.
If you can't use PDAF today with the best cine glass, then maybe you one day can. Or Lidar. If you build it, they will come.
I was already using stills lenses for budgetary reasons before I ever used AF, so no downgrade for me there. But it's worth noting that people have shot great films with stills lenses. Kubrick used them a lot, usually because there wasn't a cine equivalent that was as wide/long/fast. Sometimes he had them rehoused, sometimes not. The disadvantages of stills lenses are well-known, but if you can make them work then your audience won't know or care. And lots of great-looking photos are obviously shot with them. Once again, I think it pays to make a specific analysis of the tool and the application.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
This is a goal-oriented craft and our viewers don't care how we deliver the goods.
One of the things that bubbles along underneath is profit. Ive certainly been in this game to try and buy a house and security for the family.
And you see a set with 6 underpaid people and I would prefer it to be (I think) a set of three people earning enough to be providers.
And I think this runs to college because they dont give .. 'a crap house and two kids cost $80k minimum a year' speech. One thing I noticed the aussie gaffer doing the other day. Once you have that spech on board you dont want to spend all day with a tape measure because time just got too valuable.
Of course what people do at the weekends, use a plate camera, or a fishing rod is their own fun.
My shoot next week there was a horrific ratio of the people keeping it on brand vs those actually shooting it. Its been a bit improved now.
One of the things that bubbles along underneath is profit. Ive certainly been in this game to try and buy a house and security for the family.
And you see a set with 6 underpaid people and I would prefer it to be (I think) a set of three people earning enough to be providers.
And I think this runs to college because they dont give .. 'a crap house and two kids cost $80k minimum a year' speech. One thing I noticed the aussie gaffer doing the other day. Once you have that spech on board you dont want to spend all day with a tape measure because time just got too valuable.
Of course what people do at the weekends, use a plate camera, or a fishing rod is their own fun.
My shoot next week there was a horrific ratio of the people keeping it on brand vs those actually shooting it. Its been a bit improved now.
Ben Scott
Veteran
For me it's not about purity or philosophy. I like the process but happy to change when things do what I need to do better than the way I like to do it.
Thing is, you can tell a human what you want and you can block a scene with multiple changes of focus and subjects of focus. One can easily come up with a ton of instances where AF would not work or be appropriate so despite there being a few circumstances where AF could do a good job the idea of downing tools and changing the setup for AF to eye-detect and shoot a single head shot before changing setup back for normal operation makes absolutely no sense. The cost implications due to lost time on set would add up and be substantial over a full shoot duration.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Imagine that the AC can change from AF to MF mid-shot and also switch between face-, eye-, subject-detect and zone focusing mid-shot. It gets even better because the upcoming Canon R3 will be able to identify an expanding variety of subjects, not just people. These tools are in their infancy.
Ben Scott
Veteran
Surely having to press a button mid way through a shot to engage manual focus for the bits AF can't do makes the whole system slow, cumbersome, a chance to miss focus during the switchover and completely redundant?
Yes these tools are in their infancy. Way way way in their infancy. As I outlined earlier the motors don't exist yet that can do this job internally and perfectly and silently inside a cine lens.
And prior to that how could you change from an internal lens motor to an external motor mid-shot without disruption?
Why not just manually focus the whole lot? Far quicker therefore cheaper.
I absolutely accept AF has functions and applications but feature films is not really one of them. Not for the foreseeable future at least.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Cumbersome...like this?
I sort of imagine you'd be pulling focus manually and then tap a monitor to select a subject to follow and then just start turning your wheel again when you want to resume manually focusing.
Why does the motor have to be internal? You could rig PDAF to drive an external motor.
Yes...manually focusing is so quick and cheap and easy, as demonstrated by the Lightranger
And that's kind of my point... look at the effort and expense people are currently going to to keep s*%t sharp
Or the Qinematiq
https://www.cined.com/qinematiq-image-revolutionises-wireless-follow-focusing/
Last edited:
Sure not yet . 3-5 years though it will be standard .. the lens only needs the electronic contacts built in .. very easy.. without issue ..? Ive been a loader and FP and even with s16 there are often issues ..let alone FF and f1.4 lenses that are currently the trend .. or the buzzed take is used because the performance is better .. and many sleepless nights and calls to labs
.. this was before monitors and it wasn't strictly the operators job to tell you if something was soft but most would .. if you are the FP really you wouldn't use a tried and tested AF system on your first day on the DeNiro shoot on the 135mm f2 FF shot .. I bet you would sir .. did you ever see the old video taps from Panavision and Arri cameras.. they were crap .. much better these days from a $3K camera .. why not use the new technology if its there .. its all stuff you can switch off anyway ..