Possibly having to match an AF100 to an F3?!

S

Sweeney

Carbonite Member
Ok guys, I know this sounds crazy but there's a chance I will have to loosely match an AF100 to fit into a feature that was 100% F3. To make it worse, the F3 was recording out to a KiPro so we have 10 bit files (but no S-log, so that helps). The budget ran into some big issues for this make-up shoot and we can't get an F3 or F700 this time. The lead actor fees and food are taking every last drop. I have free access to an AF100 with some Rok. glass so I'm looking into this option.

I like the camera, don't get me wrong, but in testing an AF today on a big 1080 THX plasma screen, I am now worried more than before that I can pull this off. I know this isnt an ideal testing situation, but for now it's what I can do. One question for you paid/experienced owners out there: Is the AF really delivering 1080? I am getting stair-steps on things I shouldn't be and the images feel kind of "720" to me. I am working with a crap lens for this test but the steps are separate from glass issues.

I have read all the recipes and played with the detail levels, etc. Too little detail and people start to get Doll-skin, too much and it seems noisy or looks to have a sharp filter applied. Dealing with color to sort of match isn't as big a deal, although highlights on skin are an issue. I dialed down the chroma and that helped it look more "sony-ish".

I may be faced with a really hard ordeal here but wanted to get some feedback on some of this and maybe hear something I haven't thought of. I'd also like to ask what higher ISO you have seen that still delivers on a big screen. On a doc I shot, we were at 200-400 all the time, mostly in daylight. This feature shoot will have the need for F3 speed due to night scenes, small light packages, etc. It looks to me like 800 holds up, if not 640, but wondered if someone has done more testing on this issue and seen it on a bigger screens, and how it held up in grading.

And by the way, I shot a large part of a feature doc that is playing at Slamdance this year called Terms and Conditions May Apply, about how big companies are supporting our loss of privacy via the net/social networks, etc. Anyway it is 90% AF100 footage and everyone is happy with it. I do like it, I am just worried that it isn't in the league of the F3 enough to make this work. Oh there are a few interviews shot on a red in that doc, but no one can spot them... true fact!
 
I think you have it mostly figured out from your post. Definitely keep the chroma down on the camera and skew a little magenta in grading. That'll help. I think as long as you don't overexpose you will be alright as long as your not mixing footage in the same scene. You don't have to cross cut them, right?
 
Oh boy, you're in for a ride. But I guess you already know that. It's not a matter of the AF100 being able to shoot a feature, it's matching the F3. But I guess you know that too. How much of the feature has been shot with the F3? Best would of course be borrow, steal or beg for a F3. What lenses did you use with the F3? If you used high end lenses maybe try to get a F3 with lesser lenses? It would probably be better than the AF100 with good glass in terms of matching. What package do you have in mind for the AF100? Lenses, external recorder?
ISO I would never go higher than ISO800 for a theatrical feature and this will still require some noise reduction in post, depending on the gamma you use.

The cameras are just so different that I hope you wont have to intercut them in the same scene or do picks ups with the AF100 to fit F3 footage. If you are shooting new scenes then it may be less visible.

Also, if what's left to shoot with the AF100 are mainly internals under controlled lighting you will be fine. But if it's externals under sunlight or extremely low light then you will kick yourself on the butt and wish you had the F3.

You already found the AF100 Achilles heel. Sharpness and highlights, specially on skin. Sharpness is not as good as the F3 and will never be, but not to hard to get around. Highlights, just pay attention to the AF100 mantra. If it glows it blows. Saw that in an AF100 review and is the best way to describe it. Pay attention to that and you should be fine.
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest doing everything you can to minimise the contrast in the additional scenes you have to shoot - the AF100's weakness in DR and highlight rolloff compared to the F3, will be the most glaring difference between the two. I'd suggest taking it out of the equation all together by minimising the contrast in whatever you have to shoot. Keep it well within the camera's tolerances and it should be able to match to an extent.
 
Thanks for the input everyone. There will be no ext. recorder and lenses are what I can find, likely a 35mm rokinon for most of it, there's no money available to be picky. That Rok is pretty nice considering, and might be a good one to go with anyway given it's probably a little sharper than the old zeiss stuff the rest was shot with.

Yeah that's what I was thinking, light and underexpose to keep highlights from getting anywhere near the top. Luckily I used bounce light for most of the other shots so it's softer overall. There are a couple shots that have to cut in, though they are mostly close-ups but the other shots are separate pieces and scenes.
 
I shot a commercial with an F3 and had to get a pickup with the AF. It matched fine but AF footage was softer. No one noticed.
 
Sweeney said:
.... a feature doc that is playing at Slamdance this year called Terms and Conditions May Apply, about how big companies are supporting our loss of privacy via the net/social networks, etc. ....
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting. Title?

People already wrote the right things here, just as an experience from my side: Mixing AG-AF shots with material from ALEXA and C300 did work for us under certain conditions one was that these shots would "sit" on a completely separate line of the story and/or where from extreme angles and viewpoints, establishing shots etc. so a difference in style was acceptable. I don't know if the film you will do, may allow it to use these differences in some way as a statement. Seen a doc recently where they did cut between main-cam and close up and jumped from colour to b&w and it worked for this film - which is a bit harsh I presume ... ;-)
 
I find it easy to match an AF100 to a 5D but less to the F3. I would work on creating as much wow footage from the AF as I could and maybe crank up sharpness and use that sharp Rokinon 35. Back in the edit suit I would try to minimize the AF shots used or have them short if possible. Shoot with the flattest Cinelike -D setting and underexpose a little.

Your eyes is telling you the truth. There's no way near 1080 coming out of the AF. It's more like 700 so cheat a little by cranking that sharpness or use a post sharpening filter. It works fairly well to give the footage a bit more pop.
 
Rolf, the title is in my statement. ;) The doc actually started out as a red shot film, but it changed over time and the original DP with the red cam went to another project over time. I came onto it and the producer and myself ended up using their AF100 package with an Oly. zoom and Voit. 25mm, with a GH2 doing some B-roll for most of the rest of the shoot. Not much red footage made the cut.

Thanks but it looks like the Cine-D setting is giving me noticeable noise in the shadows. Do you find the same problem? My profile setting as of now is little chroma, -2 detail, norm2 and cine-V. We can't exactly minimize the footage in the edit. These shots are being done because they are needed and one entire scene (mostly a close-up/medium on one actor) is being added due to a known horror icon becoming available for that scene. We have 8 hours to shoot with him total before he flies home! I'm not worried about using the AF for this scene as it stands alone, it's the other stuff....
 
One more question: Has anyone noticed much more room to grade footage from the AF if using an off-board recorder? If this is an 8bit camera, I didn't think it would be of much use although I havent worked with 8bit before.
 
Sweeney said:
Thanks but it looks like the Cine-D setting is giving me noticeable noise in the shadows. Do you find the same problem?.
Click to expand...

Cine-D is arguably the best gamma for the AF100. I use it pretty much all the time. I think B.Press and even Cine-V have too much of a video look to them. Just my opinion.
If you drop master pedestal to about -5 the image is pretty clean and noise free, at least when recorded to DNxHD using a Hyperdeck Shuttle. Not sure if the AVCHD would also be that clean as I don't use it. But maybe it is as well.
If you think -5 is too much, try putting the body cap on and drop the master pedestal till your spot meter on the LCD says 0%. Should be around -2. See if you see any noise with Cine-D.
I shot a night internal scene the other day, very low-key with lots of shadows. I have no complains about noise at all using -5 mater pedestal. And I had coring at -7, which theoretically should "facilitate" noise. Still had none.



Sweeney said:
One more question: Has anyone noticed much more room to grade footage from the AF if using an off-board recorder? If this is an 8bit camera, I didn't think it would be of much use although I havent worked with 8bit before.
Click to expand...

Well, this seems to be a big polemic around here. Many insist that you see no difference, but a few, such as myself, say it definitely makes a difference. I was called out on another thread for expressing my opinion and insisting that I see a difference. I do see it and I do think it's worth it using an external recorder to record with a better codec. For me it boils down to this. Why not use it? SSDs are not expensive anymore, neither are HDDs for storage of the larger files. DNxHD or ProRes are much easier to do post on. Even if 8 bit you still record 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0, your footage is less compressed and the Hyperdeck Shuttle is so cheap and light that it doesn't really add much to the package at all. So why not use one? Might as well do. If I have 10% difference in the end of the day, to me, it's still a difference and worth it. Not saying it's 10%. All I'm saying is that IN MY opinion, it's worth it and there is a difference. Why record to the crappier codec when I can bypass it?
Try to get your hands on one and do some tests of your own to see if you think it's worth it for you. Nobody can really tell you that. What matters is what you see. If you see a difference, who cares if the whole world doesn't? It's your equipment. ;)

But don't just shoot some random stuff and look at it on VLC or bring it in photoshop and blow it 1000%. Shoot something for real, and do some real world post work on it. Something with a real lighting set up, specially stuff with a lot of shadows, night or internals. Put the camera on a dolly or steadycam and have a go. Lots of movement, shadows, lighting variation, gradations. Then bring it into your color grading suite, pull and push it around, see how it compares to the AVCHD. Ingest it into your NLE and see how much better it plays with it over AVCHD. Don't just shoot some chart or testing patterns on a tripod inside a studio. Don't just go outside in daylight and shoot some locked off random stuff either. If you do that, at least shoot some running water or tree leaves blowing in the wind. Good luck with that though, unless you are in the southern hemisphere. ;)
 
Last edited:
Well its not about what I see at first, in this case, because it will be graded and if it holds up better to being moved around, then its worth it to me since renting a recorder should be very cheap. This camera is obviously only for shooting 709 and that's not what I'm doing, unfortunately. Cine-D on a big monitor definitely has noise problems for me but I will try it out some more. Turning down the ped that far isn't an option at all since this is trying to match an F3 with sony cine gamma... the opposite is actually closer to being more appropiate.

My new, big problem I'm seeing is banding like hell. How do you guys convert the files to prores? FCP6 is all I have access to right now. I pulled in some footage and my out-of-focus mid-tones to shadows have huge, huge banding issues while the actor's face, in focus, looked ok. I thought maybe how I converted had something to do with it as the codec couldnt be that bad, hopefully.?

If anyone knows someone with an F3 that wants a producing credit in exchange for a few days of rental, let me know please! ;)
 
I didn't mean what you see out of the camera only, hence why I mentioned taking it through it's paces in post, with grading etc.

If you have easy access to a recorder then go for it, if nothing else just to be safe. One thing is for sure, hurt your footage it wont.

A bit a noise will go a long way in avoiding banding. Hence why using a recorder can help with banding too. The noise is more distributed instead of macroblocking.

No idea about ProRes as I don't use it. But if you use a Hyperdeck it can record in ProRes so you wont need to convert anything.

Back to Cine-D, it is the noisiest gamma. But also the one with the most dynamic range. I think it's the closest thing to the Sony cine gammas. For the record, pedestal at zero doesn't give you 0% or pure blacks. It sets the blacks at about 2%. You need to drop it at least to -2 to get 0%.
 
I find that HDNorm gamma is best for not banding and it is not noisy. Not sure why, just my experience.
 
Thanks again everyone for your time, but after more testing tonight, I determined it just won't work. The banding and simply the "depth" the images have just don't get into the ballpark of what's there already. I'm going to try to find an FS100 for super cheap somewhere as I can get closer with it. I did learn some things though!
 
Sweeney said:
Thanks again everyone for your time, but after more testing tonight, I determined it just won't work. The banding and simply the "depth" the images have just don't get into the ballpark of what's there already. I'm going to try to find an FS100 for super cheap somewhere as I can get closer with it. I did learn some things though!
Click to expand...

The FS100 will definitely match the F3 better than the AF100 being a Sony and all. But if you have not used one yet, be aware that it's nothing like using a F3. It's more like shooting with a big fat DSLR in terms of ergonomics, features and usability. The AF100 is much easier to use. Also don't know if that's what you meant when you said "depth", but the FS100 is also 8 bit only. Although you probably knew that already.
Good luck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top