FS7: NO Sony Fs7!!

Doug Jensen said:
Yes, I can say that. Maybe you have decided that you can be less precise about focusing in HD than you need to be in 4K because you don't think it will be noticed. I cannot say that for my own work. Either the focus is correct or it is not. Read my previous post above about how NOTHING is different about the camera or lens when you change from a 4K codec to an HD codec. Nothing. Resolution makes no difference and the techniques and tools you use to achieve focus are exactly the same. Either you got the focus right or you didn't. But I will agree there are different degrees of missing the focus and some might slide by.
Click to expand...

Sure, the process and goal of focusing is the same regardless of resolution/viewing size (which is really just depth of field, since DOF is affected by the viewing format)

But I think that what changes is the keeper rate and therefore the required number of takes and the effort for quality control. If you were shooting nature footage in 16K for an IMAX screen or something, you might have no choice but to lug your field monitor out to basecamp so you could check your footage before coming home from the bush to make sure you had enough usable shots. Your process might be good enough for 4K, but you might need a different workflow to deliver at some more demanding DOF? Which is one advantage that AF has, being that the computer can evaluate the full resolution of the image and adjust to it more frequently than the human.

I mean, people commonly stop down to give themselves a greater margin of error on difficult focus pulls. Or, I work with a photographer who regularly relegates shots she wanted to print large to "Instagram only" because of small focus errors or motion blur only seen when blown up. And if she's shooting a performance for Instagram only, she might crank the ISO because the noise will be less visible, and go for a fat stop to try to get the whole stage in acceptable focus. If she's going for a blow-up, she can't afford such a high ISO and has no hope of achieving adequately deep focus, so shifts the strategy to finding an ideal stop for selective focus of a single dancer but not too shallow. Two divergent focus strategies, and focusing 1/3 from foreground subject to background subject if you want to evenly spread the DOF.

And clearly there's usually a lower standard for focus accuracy in TV than in film, which equates to doing fewer takes or accepting imperfectly focused takes for the benefit of the preferred performance.

So, it doesn't seem crazy to me for someone to say, "Well, I could hack it at 4K, but now that we're shooting 16K I'll get a higher keeper rate with AF"
 
Last edited:
Has there been a feature shot with AF yet?

Certainly none I have heard of. Expect it to have all the fanfare of a 'shot entirely on iPhone' gimmick PR campaign behind it when there is.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Luis, yeah I get that and I think we are basically on the same page, but I cannot remember a single instance where I looked at one of my clips on a 4K monitor and said "yeah, it's a little out of focus, but the edit is going to be in HD so it's good enough". Have you?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. And you may be right in that we're 'basically on the same page.'
I think our slight disconnect may be this - I was under the impression we were talking about focusing in 4K as compared to focusing in HD - but now it seems like you are discussing focusing in 4K for HD. And those are two very different things.

My main point was that a lower resolution has a much wider margin for focus - and I think we can agree on that.

(hopefully)
 
But don't forget about shooting 4k for HD where the producer wants to pull multiple sizes from the same image.

I've been shooting a lot of green screen lately, and one of my clients seems to want to be able to pull at least 2 if not 3 different sizes from the same shot. In fact, the last time I worked with them I was asked whether I could record at a higher resolution than 4k. (Although I can output higher res with my EVA1, I know his editor doesn't currently want to deal with either Prores Raw or BRAW workflows.) So even though I'm staying with 4k, the higher res question is still hanging out there...

My current solution has been to mount the camera on its side to maximize the frame usage (mostly shots are a single of one person standing...). Compared to shooting horizontally, this gives them the option to push in almost twice as much!

In a way this also circles back to the OP's decision to buy the FX9 rather than the FX6 -- since longer term having the higher resolution sensor may prove a benefit. Before you know it, they'll be asking for more - so whatever you can do to futureproof can be a big plus...
 
Cropping is also a consideration with focus.. in that is another place you notice. It looks sharp then you zoom by 200% and then its soft. (Also compression artifacting comes to the fore)

Ive also shot greenscreen upright with the FS7

This looks pretty wooly to me
 
Ben Scott said:
Has there been a feature shot with AF yet?

Certainly none I have heard of. Expect it to have all the fanfare of a 'shot entirely on iPhone' gimmick PR campaign behind it when there is.
Click to expand...

The difficulty for AF is what I call “narrative focus”. Using focus to tell a story.

The example I use is a shot of a person looking for their car keys and when the actor says “Has anyone seen my keys??” the focus shifts to a set of car keys in the foreground, on a table.

I won’t go into detail as to why such focus action is difficult for AF. I think it obvious why.
 
Oh exactly. And that is precisely why I have never used it.

Focus is as much a creative tool as a technical one and I have no intention of relinquishing that control of the image.

Now, AF on a b-cam on a slider for an interview... Now with the FX6 maybe.
 
There are thousands (not hundreds but thousands) of videos on YouTube of people touching the screen on their DSLRs/mirrorless cameras to select what they would like in focus.

The car keys example is about as simple as you can get with AF and the highly customizable speed options the elite AF cameras have.

I know many are just now getting into their first AF cameras as 2020 was a banger for new systems, but it's been like 6 years since AF was more than reliable and able to handle almost any situation possible.

We don't hear about features being shot with AF because the 1% doesn't use AF cameras, lol.

IMO, ARRI is a monopoly and at this point it's just the default option. There is no discussion about which camera should be used. If it's not an ARRI, RED handles the rest with the occasional blockbuster shot on the Venice (including many with Sony being a part of the project).
 
Yeah, the car keys example is trivial. Although what's not trivial is getting it to do 2 different pulls at different speeds in the same shot. although even that may be possible.

and the main thing people are forgetting, in my view, is that there's no law about using AF for the ENTIRE film. I think of it as a supplemental tool, like all the other focus assist tools that ACs and operators use, and you use it in the circumstances where it yields the most benefits.

when I was interviewing Brawley about The Great, I was taking screenshots to post images from the show. There was one shot I kept trying to freeze frame but my first half dozen attempts were totally soft focus. it was a shallow dof fast-moving steadicam CU walk and talk. and I thought that is the perfect situation where the machine might best the human. but of course, they weren't using autofocus lenses or an autofocus camera. and doug jensen's point about the best lenses not having AF is apt. although lidar systems can work external to the lens
 
Yeah, for sure...use it when you need to/want to.

Just like the other guy in the other thread using ISO 12,800.

Is he going to shoot an entire movie with that, probably not...but the scene had to be shot and 12,800 was available.

Sometimes a scene with very shallow moving focus will have to be shot and AF will be available.
 
NorBro said:
There are thousands (not hundreds but thousands) of videos on YouTube of people touching the screen on their DSLRs/mirrorless cameras to select what they would like in focus
Click to expand...

But if a person is having to activate the focus shift, that’s not really “automatic”. It is something in between. Maybe “manually controlled auto-focus”?

Also, directing the focus by touchscreen isn’t likely to be very accurate. “Hollywood” has more exacting standards than that. An operator ( 1st ) could input exact distances for the focus pull in advance. But now we are into “automatic focusing” that requires distance inputs by a human AND actuating by a human. At that point one may as well just perform everything manually. All the “automatic” system is doing is moving the mechanics within the lens from points input by a human, on command by a human.

The other part is being able to anticipate focus changes in advance, using knowledge of human nature or possibly familiarity with the habits of an actor. 1sts anticipate things. Jenny always overshoots her mark a bit. Tom is likely to stand up in the scene, even though he never did during rehearsal, I’ve worked with him before, given the dialogue and the character he is playing, he’ll stand up, and I am mentally prepared for it.

Remember, AF systems are always “dumbly” following. They never anticipate and never in advance send focus to where someone or something will land. AF doesn’t remember anything from rehearsal, AF has no knowledge of or awareness of actor-marks. I’ve seen actors tell the 1st in advance that they are going to pause short of their mark before hitting it, the 1st is then ready for that.

Also, the speed of the pulls. Sometimes you may want the speed to be non-linear. Slow at start, speeding up, then slow to completion. Other times you may want stylistic pulling where the focus intentionally misses or racks OUT of focus upon a verbal cue, facial expression, hand gesture, etc.

I’m not being anachronistic, if that’s the right word. ( techno-phobic? ). I just know there is more to the “art” of focus than some are aware. Most often, yes, it is as simple as “maintain focus on this person”. But there are times where it is far more complex and challenging for any machine.


_______

Sorry if this offends or comes across as arrogant, but if you have never spent time on the set of a major motion picture witnessing how things are done and the challenges therein, you probably should not be dismissing things from that world as “trivial” or rebutting “but people on the YOU-tube...”.

The craft focus-pullers perform in high-level production truly is an art. That’s why I used “zen” earlier. Directors will collaborate with the 1st AC. Directors will take suggestions from the Focus-puller. The 1st’s take into account the nature of the scene, the mood. And they build a working relationship with actors, becoming familiar with the actor’s habits, quirks, eccentricities. They do same with Cam Ops, gaining familiarity and knowledge that aids in anticipatory focus-pulling. Jim is likely to lean back when hit with the heat from the blast...Sarah will NOT budge no matter what, I know her, she never flinches.


I think it a mistake to flippantly be of the mindset of “Ah, all they do is keep a subject in focus. A machine can do that easy-azz task.” Not that anyone here is being that extreme. I am exaggerating to make a point. Don’t under-appreciate the craft.
 
In short, there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Some of your points and concerns are valid, but a little moot as well as the technicality you're describing does not apply to everyone and every shot.

Like, yeah...if you're trying to break the AF system with your brain's decisions, you will.

___

As far as touchscreens, the focus is very accurate. Eventually all focus-pullers will use wireless touchscreen monitors with no lag to change focus so that the camera's screen doesn't have to be touched.

___

My biggest concern with it for the past years was people simply not giving it a try because they just don't know any better. They make up reasons in their head why they wouldn't use it and kind of stick to that. It's a shame, IMO.

(And in the situations above, face-tracking would solve some of those anticipations.)

I'm very open to all technology and I welcome more and more everyday, and the next step would be to completely change AF in post, which would render anything and everything anyone has to say about it invalid as you then will have pure freedom for controlling your focus in every frame you capture.

Those light-field cameras are coming sooner rather than later and it's more work in post, but another tool will be available for those interested in using it.
 
“ As far as touchscreens, the focus is very accurate. Eventually all focus-pullers will use wireless touchscreen monitors with no lag to change focus so that the camera's screen doesn't have to be touched”

My point was that the touch may be off. Just as when we go to touch a page number on a thread here and the touch misses, hitting the wrong number. The shot is a group of 30 individuals grouped together and you are trying to touch only the face of one individual, the face is small in the frame, etc.

If a point made applies sometimes it is not “moot”. Moot would mean it has no validity or does not matter at all.

_________

I received my FX9, btw.

One thing I had forgotten about with the FX9 is the locking mount. That is less than ideal for some shooting because it slows lens swaps. If I am using EF glass it will not slow things as long as I am leaving the adapter attached and switching only the lens. But I tend to use a mix of e-mount and ef. My single-handed lens swaps will at times be challenging, if at all possible.
 
I say that because I'm just certain you haven't used AF yet and your understanding of the technology is leading to questionable conclusions.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but you can just tell when someone has or hasn't by the way they speak about it.

___

The 30 people in a frame example doesn't support the argument for either focus system, MF or AF.

But with AF, you can shift faces with the arrow keys if you find that your touchscreen isn't working well. Or since you're most likely already using a wider focal length for the group, many faces will be in focus where a pinpoint box system will also work just fine.

A better touchscreen failure example would be shooting with a 200mm @ f/1.2 full-frame, and the box on your touchscreen keeps focusing on the nose or the ears even though you're pressing on the eyes (if for some reason you weren't using eye-tracking here).

But that's another reason it's a moot because what human can track focus at 200mm @ f/1.2 full-frame on a moving target...seriously barely anyone, if anyone.

___

The creative focus pull decisions by the brain is the best argument for using manual focus...natural, beautiful focus pulls by humans...which will eventually be done in post, lol.
 
“ I say that because I'm just certain you haven't used AF yet”

I am certain you are wrong.

The irony here, your irony, is that you accused me of speaking on something for which I have no knowledge and in that you were speaking on something of which you have no knowledge.

edit: Had to correct a typo. You all know how easy it is to make mistakes when using touch-screens.
 
Last edited:
Donny 123 said:
JP .. go FF and use face only AF for interviews .. no going back .. use the force ..
Click to expand...



They’ve mistaken me for being opposed to AF. Rather ignorantly mistaken, in some cases.

All I was pointing out is that there is image-making of a manner for which AF will struggle and may never be able to perform. For some reason certain people could not stomach the suggestion that AF cannot now, today, perform all manner of focusing. As if I insulted their child or something.

A wild thread, this one. I’ve been accused by a New Yorker of speaking on something I know nothing about and threatened with violence by a Floridian transplant.

Welcome to dvxuser.
 
The intricacies of current AF are obviously limited.

The thread is/was about using a camera for BTS on a movie set.

A situation where AF is clearly capable enough to aquire some nice footage with fairly low effort.. probably with a higher hit rate than MF for all but the most experienced solo ops.
 
JPNola said:
But if a person is having to activate the focus shift, that’s not really “automatic”. It is something in between. Maybe “manually controlled auto-focus”?
Click to expand...

Semantics. The key usefulness of "AF" imo is that it readjusts focus to keep a subject sharp. That part is automated, and can be one of the biggest challenges of executing a shot at times.

Also, directing the focus by touchscreen isn’t likely to be very accurate. “Hollywood” has more exacting standards than that. An operator ( 1st ) could input exact distances for the focus pull in advance. But now we are into “automatic focusing” that requires distance inputs by a human AND actuating by a human. At that point one may as well just perform everything manually. All the “automatic” system is doing is moving the mechanics within the lens from points input by a human, on command by a human.
Click to expand...

Sure, but for something like keeping a face in focus, which is a frequent challenge in all types of cinematography, the current technology excels. You can even give it a specific face to follow so it won't get lost in the crowd.

Other, more complicated types of focus changes and behaviors are EASILY within the computing capabilities of a cheap smartphone CPU these days. The cameras just haven't been programmed to carry them out or had the interface designed. One day, it might be as simple as barking verbal commands at your AC is today.

The other part is being able to anticipate focus changes in advance, using knowledge of human nature or possibly familiarity with the habits of an actor. 1sts anticipate things. Jenny always overshoots her mark a bit. Tom is likely to stand up in the scene, even though he never did during rehearsal, I’ve worked with him before, given the dialogue and the character he is playing, he’ll stand up, and I am mentally prepared for it.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree. Although AI and/or a more complicated user input could bring the AF up to par.

Also, the speed of the pulls. Sometimes you may want the speed to be non-linear. Slow at start, speeding up, then slow to completion. Other times you may want stylistic pulling where the focus intentionally misses or racks OUT of focus upon a verbal cue, facial expression, hand gesture, etc.
Click to expand...

I also agree. What would probably be ideal is the sort of "full-time manual override" that you have on some photo lenses so that the AC could take over the expressive aspects of the pulling and leave the follow-the-bouncing-ball to the computer.

I’m not being anachronistic, if that’s the right word. ( techno-phobic? ). I just know there is more to the “art” of focus than some are aware. Most often, yes, it is as simple as “maintain focus on this person”. But there are times where it is far more complex and challenging for any machine.


_______

Sorry if this offends or comes across as arrogant, but if you have never spent time on the set of a major motion picture witnessing how things are done and the challenges therein, you probably should not be dismissing things from that world as “trivial” or rebutting “but people on the YOU-tube...”.
Click to expand...

That wasn't how I meant trivial. I meant it was trivial for the AF to handle subject changes with the current technology. (I was thinking as in math class when the teacher solved the equation to the point where the rest was easy and then says, "The rest is trivial.") I agree focus is an art.

I used to AC, not on any "major motion pictures," but on some decent budget features with A-list talent (albeit on B camera), and you spent a lot of time laying out focus marks. Occasionally, a take must be repeated due to focus issues. Anything to help you make your day is welcome. AC's use a lot of different focus assist tools. It's not like they just zen every shot.

But certainly, this technology might make a bigger impact on lower-budget stuff that can't afford top-shelf AC's. Or the next Primer that some kid shoots with a credit card and a prayer.

JPNola said:
They’ve mistaken me for being opposed to AF. Rather ignorantly mistaken, in some cases.

All I was pointing out is that there is image-making of a manner for which AF will struggle and may never be able to perform. For some reason certain people could not stomach the suggestion that AF cannot now, today, perform all manner of focusing. As if I insulted their child or something.

A wild thread, this one. I’ve been accused by a New Yorker of speaking on something I know nothing about and threatened with violence by a Floridian transplant.

Welcome to dvxuser.
Click to expand...

Haha. The impression I got from you was a sort of "AF would never be useful in the context of high-end film production." Or perhaps even in scripted drama generally. I broadly agree with all the drawbacks you describe (although I think some will be solved in the future). I just think phase-detect AF is a powerful tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top