Why not use an AF-100 for feature?

Gary61

Gary61

Member
I'm gearing up to shoot a feature. A little something for the festival circuit. Please give me your opinion on why the AF-100 would NOT be a good choice. I own one and have shot several shorts. I'm satisfied, but I'm by no means an experienced DP. So opinions are welcomed. Thanks.
 
It might take a little more time and lighting to get a good image. The image might not be super sharp. Other than that, no reason whatsoever not to use it.
 
I can't talk you out of it because I did exactly that.


And the image was good enough for Gravitas to distribute it here in the States and for Paramount to distribute it internationally. This camera won't slow you down. I wish it resolved more detail but that's it.
 
You can definitely shoot a feature on the AF-100. Why do you think you can't?

IF you find some things you don't like about it, AND these would make you uncomfortable shooting your feature on, AND these things are fixed on other cameras you can afford, then sure we'll be glad to help you pick one.

Otherwise, if you are used to it, like the images enough and find it's above most of your viewers' demands (it is), go shoot. It's still a fantastic camera.

Just be careful about shooting at too high ISO to avoid excessive noise and if you have to, use neat video noise reduction. Be careful not clip highlights as possible, and spend some time on grading the footage to give it a pleasing look. Also use fast lenses and/or a Speedbooster/knock off + Canon/Nikon FF glass to get film-like s35 DOF if possible which is one of the reasons many see the AF100 to look a bit video-y.

With a coupleof tricks like the previously mentioned and choosing a good looking picture profile settings you can make you feature look a million dollars 1080p piece, or a slight 1:85:0 crop and 5-7% upscale to 2K DCI would go absolutely unnoticeable for 2K DCI projection.
 
This was shot on an AF100, and was a hit internationally. I had so many non-industry friends come to me when it premiered in the U.S. and say "You need to see this movie...", not having a clue it was shot on the same camera I use.

 
Mike Harvey said:
This was shot on an AF100, and was a hit internationally. I had so many non-industry friends come to me when it premiered in the U.S. and say "You need to see this movie...", not having a clue it was shot on the same camera I use.

Click to expand...

Dang! That was shot on an AF100???
I saw that movie, it was great!

The AF100 is a nice full-featured professional camera built to do lots of work.
The only real complaint against it was the soft image. Then later people said its Dynamic Range could be better.
But in a movie - an even and consistent softness can often work FOR you.
The RAID is a crystal clear example of how true that statement is.
 
Resolution - a problem for some, but for many not that essential... I for one would be happy to give up a bit of resolution in exchange for a bit more DR. The big knock against the AF100 is highlight handling. I personally wouldn't mind if the low light performance was a bit better, but it's not a deal-breaker. Like mentioned, successful features have already been shot on it. Of course, it all depends on what you need and on your feature - if super low light or very high resolution or huge DR is needed, for your particular feature, then the AF100 might not be it. But otherwise, it's entirely serviceable.
 
DPStewart said:
...The RAID is a crystal clear example of how true that statement is.
Click to expand...

I think The Raid and Zak's movie are crystal clear examples of a fundamental truth... content and how you use the tools you have are far more important than whether something is 4k 10bit 4:2:2 with 15 stops of DR and some sort of log setting or even just Raw. My girlfriend is from the Philipines, and so whenever we visit friends of her's, the Filipino Channel is often in the background. Everything looks like it was shot on a DSLR, and no one cares. I was in Vietnam for a month this past winter, and there was a lot of TV content that looked very good, but also had a distinct Canon 5D look to it. No one cared. When I worked for the CBS affiliate here in town up until 2 1/2 years ago, right before I left, they starting shooting a lot of local promotions on an AF100 using the internal codec. No one cared. Heck, even though a lot of the $15k-$20k (without the lens) cameras news used were capable of shooting in AVC-Intra, everything was shot in DVCPro25 and uprezzed. Guess who cared? Nobody.

I'm still annoyed a little that the new DVX200 won't do any flavor of 10bit 4:2:2 internally, but the reality is that if I know how to use the camera properly, the end consumer of what I shoot won't know and simply won't care.
 
And let's not forget bguda's beautiful Siddarth along with Zak's film. I have moved on from the AF100 but shot a lot of narratives including two shorts that screened this summer. You can very well shoot a feature film with the AF100, especially if the color grade is a subtle adjustment to what's in camera, and you can manage highlights. Once you know the conditions under which you will be shooting, test every condition you can.

Yes, I will add to the idea that the AF100 was very close. It's great to see the Varicam 35 finding more users. Let's hope that Panasonic joins indy shooters again soon.
 
A few years ago I shot a short with AF101. It was shot B&W internally. Small crew, great DP. Reflectors and butterflies. Dynamic range and resolution were lacking. To make things (slightly) worse I decided to go anamorphic 2048*858 for a proper DCP. The movie was screened again a few weeks ago. Along mine another short shot with pocket camera was also screened. Pocket was superior in dynamic range AND resolution. I would take the pocket route, unless you have a lot of night/unlit scenes to shoot. By the way I still own the AF100/101.
 
Personally, I like the AF100 for it's versatility and utility. By that I mean the image and audio controls that are built in. The ease of use and ergonomics... Sliders, handheld, jibs, tripods, whatever style you are shooting, I find this camera to be very adaptable without too much fuss. Sure there are better spec'd cameras - this camera has been around for awhile - if you happen to own any camera, then you know how long it actually takes to truly master it. If you're serious about about any craft... Master the tools... You can make magic... The AF100 is no different. I also realize that I'm preaching to the choir in these type forums... But it just can't be emphasized enough to gain a reverent familiarity with a camera before taking on a major project. Choosing the right lenses will make a huge difference as well!
 
Gary61 said:
I'm gearing up to shoot a feature. A little something for the festival circuit. Please give me your opinion on why the AF-100 would NOT be a good choice. I own one and have shot several shorts. I'm satisfied, but I'm by no means an experienced DP. So opinions are welcomed. Thanks.
Click to expand...

As others have shown, the AF00 can produce nice images. So if you're satisfied with the picture quality and operation of the camera, then why not use it? Other than street cred, what do you have to lose? :)

Shawn
 
If it's for consideration in the festival circuit, the quality and originality of your script will trump all other considerations. If you're already comfortable with your camera, I would use that to tell the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top