GH5 The AF100 looked great...

F

filmguy123

Veteran
Going through some archival footage for a new edit, from 2013. Towards the end of my time with the AF100. Noticing just how good some of the footage looked. It doesn't have the same digital look as exhibited sometimes by the GH5, a softer, more organic image.

Anyone else notice this? I'll just say I was surprised.

Granted, it was highly limited in ISO range for docu work compared to what I can do now, and it recorded a lot less image detail, but the look itself seems closer to the varicam than does the GH5, which is interesting given how dated the camera is.

Thoughts?
 
The same thing is said about the F3 and the C100s and others...

Many will agree that as time went on, most new affordable cameras started to look more and more digital (likely because of their higher-resolution chips).
 
Mmmm... bring on the low res chips then. I do think the GH5s produces a more pleasing image than the GH5, and the VaricamLT than the EVA1. Both are lower res.
 
I know exactly what you mean @filmguy123, thought it was just me!
the AF100, particularly with a voigtlander or Canon FD produced really nice organic images, softer but in a really pleasing way.
I always preferred the image over the GH2 & 4 that I have.
 
Count me in. I loved the AF100. I still have mine. I have a GH5 I use now. It’s pretty damn good and those images hold up. I break out the AF100 as a B or C came sometimes. However, the AF100 had tremendous character, the slight noise, the softer (less resolution) image is a part of it. I also think the colors were kinder. The GH5 just pins the needle on red. I usually have to do a secondary and reign them in. I also think the smaller pixels make it seem slightly harsh. I shot a bunch of shorts with the AF100 and they looked great - well mostly. I made a fair share of mistakes that didn’t always help ;)
 
i look forward to some posted footage!

i see nothing wrong with "bring back the old!".

next we will discussing the capabilities of sony's fs100.

hmmmm.... ;-)

lastly, wasn't there a recent post about some af100 footage that was not playing well with current fcpx tools which didn't see the 24p pull-down?

(or something like that-i apologize if i mangled the OP's posting.)

thumbs up.

rob
smalltalk productions/nyc
 
You have to realize that you are always looking back at images acquired at the hight for your comfort level with a specific camera.
Very few Cameras are like the Arri's you switch it on you put a lens on it set the exposure shoot and get pretty pictures.
Cameras like the AF101, FS7, Blackmagic or the 5D2 always need time for you to navigate its weakness and learn to play to its strengths.
When I switched from the C300 to the FS7 it took me months to get an image out that I really liked. It also took some timer to figure out how to get the best results from the GH5.
The truth is that once you get the right balance for a camera all of them will look good if you play to its strengths and avoid its weaknesses. I sometime see some show on a rerun that I shot on a 5D2 and am shocked at how good it looks on the screen then I remember the pain it took to make it look like that. Never again.
 
Ill give you an example:
My most used lens on the gh5 is the Voigtlander 17.5mm. First time I shot it with the GH5 I was getting beautiful results on faces between f1.4 and f2 with the DOF I wanted- but then once I racked focus complete disaster when focus hit high contrast metalics CA everywhere. so basically It only works as a general purpose lens from f2.5-8 then you get diffraction. So now I use it strictly in that range and carefully at 1.4-2.5 on faces avoiding hard edge objects like jewelry. Once I was aware of it I can shoot with it without hitting these weak spots. With my 55mm Otus I wouldn't have this problem because its pretty much a perfect lens. Just like when I shoot an Alexa nobody needs to be a genius to grade the footage into submission its already great. So when you for whatever reason end up shooting with a less than perfect lens and a less than perfect camera you need to know these shortcommings and work around them.
 
This is very true - I always try to hire owner/operators for this reason, I know they'll be familiar with their cam and know how to get the best from it,
rather than handing our EVA to them and getting reasonable results instead
 
Which is the reason why everyone shoots Alexa on the high end: everyone on Set know how to work it there are no learning curves.
 
tubefingers-

the "ancient" af100 footage looks surprisingly lovely.

skin tones were nice.

skin texture was not overly sharp or too digital rendering that "plasticy" response.

there were spots the focus was off, similar to several present panasonic cameras (haha!) but nothing that took me out of the viewing experience.

thank you fpr the sharing.

thumbs up.

rob
smalltalk productions/nyc
 
I thought the AF100 looked solid as well, though I generally thought the GH2 looked better.

But I think it's more a product of passing a quality threshold. There have certainly been improvements, but they haven't been the night and day type of improvements we saw with SD to HD. A lot of older tech (AF100, GH2, C100, etc) is still very capable in the right hands.
 
Sorry, but I absolutely loathed my AF101, which I held on to for a couple of years, with various Pan/Leica/Voigt lenses. Awful skin tones, constant magenta/green issues, fragile looking picture. Awful awful awful. Yuck.

I did a few 2 cam shoots along with a GH2 and it always frustrated me that the GH2 picture was vastly superior to the AF.

A switch to C100/300 combo restored my sanity, later settling on an FS7, which has served me well for 4 years and I think will give me 4+ more.

I recently bought a GH5S and it looks fab and the 10 bit 4K cuts well with the FS7. Perhaps a tad over-sharpened with the Pan/Leica 12-60, but lovely with an old set of Konica Hexanons.

But the AF100/101? Really???

Ben.
 
robfilms said:
really good looking footage!

please take a five year old delayed bow.

thumbs up.

rob
smalltalk productions/nyc
Click to expand...

Thanks... I had a lot of fun on that one. It was the first "big" sensor camera I could afford. I just loved it - reliable and so damn nice to shoot.
 
Those were great times, for sure. And it’s funny to think back to that project, which started with “hey, let’s do a camera test that’s not a camera test,” and ended up with Timur filming out the side of a helicopter. It was totally ridiculous, with most of the crew sleeping at my parents house here in Austin. But that shoot will always be a treasured experience in my life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top