varicam + adapter vs AF100
- Thread starter dolph2000
- Start date
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Actually, it it more like 5x.
Having shot with 2/3" cameras with a Pro35 adapter, and now owning 2 af100s, I'd never go back to using and adapter.
Having shot with 2/3" cameras with a Pro35 adapter, and now owning 2 af100s, I'd never go back to using and adapter.
powervideo
Well-known member
You will get a shallower depth of field with the Varicam and a 35mm DOF adaptor like the Letus. Here is one we did with a Varicam 2700 and P+S Technik earlier in the year in London. http://vimeo.com/25895521 We used Zeiss Superspeeds. But the Varicam/35mm adaptor setup is VERY slow. If we hadn't have had the Superspeeds we couldn't have done it. The room with Webber was very small as well and the P+S gave the short distance between subject and lens a shallower look than the AF100 which we were contemplating using at the time. We never have much time with celebrities and thisTVC was setup and shot in two hours.
As much as I love the look of the Varicam (I still have and use a H-series tape Varicam), the drama of trying to get low depth-of-field out of with adaptors is just too hard. I would shoot on the AF100 or F3, or if you have the budget; Alexa or even Red.
Mark Smith
Veteran
Forget about the varicam & lens adapter. Setting DOF aside for a moment, just how much resolution do you think you get out of a varicam which is a 720 camera with a lens adapter mounted? There is more to life than shallow DOF.
Then there is the issue of how a lens adapter on a varicam will turn it into some kind of unwieldy contraption especially compared to the AF.
Then there is the issue of how a lens adapter on a varicam will turn it into some kind of unwieldy contraption especially compared to the AF.
thanks guys, very helpful. The reason of using the varicam is would be 1: 10 bit so way less compression and way more color correction possiblities. 2: dynamic range is better than af100. So from a Clean point of view I wold use varicam over for instance pixels. I can imagine the hassle of adapter so trade that hassle for a AF100.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I'm sure you know this already, but the VariCam's only 10-bit if you record externally. Not a big deal nowadays, 10-bit recorders are cheap, but yeah, the tape recording is 8-bit, you'd have to record to an external recorder like a PIX 240 or Samurai if you wanted to take advantage of 10-bit.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Roger that. You are correct. I was referencing the original varicam...
Barry_Green
Moderator
Not sure I understand the ethics question? Ethics as in: which is more ethical to shoot on? Or ethics as in: the commercial's subject is ethics?
In any case, if money was no object, I'd probably go with the 2700 + Pro35. But if money were an object, I wouldn't hesitate to use the AF100.
In any case, if money was no object, I'd probably go with the 2700 + Pro35. But if money were an object, I wouldn't hesitate to use the AF100.
powervideo
Well-known member
The "look" of a Varicam is not be underestimated. Most TVC's in Australia are broadcast in SD and are uprezzed on HD channels. 720P suits this very nicely and i've always liked the way the Varicam (both tape and P2) are so nice on skin colour. The slight extra noise that the camera head produces, gives a somewhat organic image, and even 8-bit DVCPROHD can produce gorgeous pictures in 8-bit on a well-set up camera. Here's a Varicam job we finished last week; http://vimeo.com/31775498
Peter, no wonder Suisse keeps on coming back to you - those pieces are fantastic.
To OP - If I had the light capability to cover light loss and didnt mind the rig config Id go the 2700. I have to ask though why do you need a 35mm adapter? The 2700 with a nice cine zoom makes beautiful images.
To OP - If I had the light capability to cover light loss and didnt mind the rig config Id go the 2700. I have to ask though why do you need a 35mm adapter? The 2700 with a nice cine zoom makes beautiful images.
dustylense
Veteran
Agreed. +1000.