Worth looking at again

B

bhdfield

Well-known member
I will post this link to some of the first sample footage shot with an 85% complete AF100, because with all the talk about the more recently revealed footage from the camera, it may be this clip that serves as the best comparison to the short film commissioned by Sony to promote the F3.

This Af100 footage was shot in fairly controlled lighting with Cine Zeiss lenses on the Af100, and like the F3 it's very impressive. It's just $8,500 cheaper.

http://vimeo.com/15826664
 
The footage from the Sony is definitely better so far, and I *assume* that will be because it's a slightly nicer camera, but also because they have a very well-oiled PR machine.

It's also more than twice the price, and seeing as the AF100 seems to produce most of the same quality, I know what I'll be going for. It seems like a well performing camera that indie filmmakers can actually afford to OWN, not just rent.

With all that said, we're constantly being reminded that these things aren't done. I look forward to getting one and playing around with the settings and the post workflow to see it at its best.
 
Wow, nice.... Much much better

Vimeo compression will never look as good as the original, these are exciting times
 
The AF100 would've been a near perfect camera at the price if if it did 4:4:2 directly to the cards.

I personally don't think it's THAT cheap once you consider it doesn't come with a lens.

We were used to paying near 6K for a new camera a few years ago, but wether Panasonic admits it or not, it is indeed competing with SLRs.

This price is obviously meant to steal buyers from the 5D mkII and the 5D mkIII which is supposedly coming out in March, or so I've read.

Anyway, all of this is just the road to Scarlet S35, which seems to be the first affordable camera which will most likely equal or better 35mm film.

Hopefully Panasonic will be ther with S35 RAW acquisition in three years or so.

Still, I think the AF100 is going to be perfect for most jobs. Internet videos, Commercials, TV, etc.

I'm just not sure I would shoot a feature on it. Shooting a feature on 1080p for me isn't very smart if you intend on your film having long legs and being watched 30 years from now.
 
Last edited:
The F3 is definely experiencig a smoother launch be it from better earlier fine tuning with feedback from film makers throughout or just sheer luck. I am confident in Barry's assertion that he will be able to fine tune things. If he, or someone with his knowledge, was on staff working with the engenders throughout development these issues may have been avoided. Instead the knowlegable and neophyte have been brought into the process to make unscientific evaluations based on Vimeo videos.

Whatever the case the AF100 will be a great camera when all is said and done.
 
Thomas Church said:
The AF100 would've been a near perfect camera at the price if if it did 4:4:2 directly to the cards...
Shooting a feature on 1080p for me isn't very smart if you intend on your film having long legs and being watched 30 years from now.
Click to expand...

Could not have said it better. This is exactly why I'll watch every new bit of footage, toy around with it at B&H, borrow the one my friend intends to buy.... but hold off on purchasing. Because while it's the next amazing step in creative film-killing video, it's still video. From 18 stops of HRDx dynamic range to "RAW" control over the image in post to the exponential increase in resolution, the possibilities of the Scarlet are just too great to buy any 1080p camera 5 months before it comes out. (Epic is finished, Scarlet is simply a re-tooling, they just need to get a production line finished--"before April" predicted.)

Your comment about 30 years could not be more on point. Because 30 years from now, all of these cameras will be miserable, archaic doorstops; they'll be lucky to be found in a moldy basement and given to a friend as an ironic paperweight. Do you want to shoot with the one that will produce a professional image into 2015, towards 2010, as greater resolution becomes standard? Or the one that blocks the color from every 4 pixels into one combined average?

The thing is many people here can afford to buy this, the successor to DSLRs now, then buy a S35 or the next Panny update in a year or so. I cannot afford to do so. That's why I'm waiting till next spring, when the AF-100 will be slightly cheaper, and the 5D Mark III / S35 will be released or about-to-be. Those are the three cameras to make a decision from, not the AF-100 and the hints of what-might-come.

Though let me say how completely jealous I am of every one of you who will have an AF-100 by New Years!
 
I see your point about the camera but I've never watched a movie over and over because it was shot on film or any other format. I watched it because it was compelling, entertaining, a great story etc....... Just my two cents.
 
Agreed. As a film maker my biggest problem is always securing a location. Once there one can easily light within 10 stops. 18 stops won't help much aside from doing a few setups when stealing a location before they kick you out or the cops come. Still, shooting this way how good is it really going to look?
 
Thomas Church said:
Shooting a feature on 1080p for me isn't very smart if you intend on your film having long legs and being watched 30 years from now.
Click to expand...


avatar-movie-stills__20091216112551.jpg


... shot in 1080p resolution

There's more to movies than just a high resolution. Whether Avatar will be well-regarded or forgotten 30 years hence is unknown, of course, but it is the highest grossing movie of all time and being shot on HD didn't seem to hurt its viewing figures ;)

Of course, I'm being glib and I know you know there's other important things than pure resolution, and colour sub-sampling is one of them. (Avatar is of course 4:4:4). I agree with you that recording 4:2:2 direct to cards would have been very desirable, but shrug, at least one CAN add an external recorder to get clean 4:2:2 if you need it.

Cheers, Hywel.
 
Again, I have to point out that in the world of professional or certainly broadcast video equipment, $5000 is really nothing. It may be more than "nothing" to many of us, but compared to what my other former news comrades have spent for ENG gear in the freelance world, 5 grand is a dot, even without a lens. Try $20K for a Sony 335, and you still haven't touched a lens yet. Then look at relative image quality, for the dollar. Then we might find we "get real". Just maybe.
 
RyanDeFranco said:
The thing is many people here can afford to buy this, the successor to DSLRs now, then buy a S35 or the next Panny update in a year or so. I cannot afford to do so. That's why I'm waiting till next spring, when the AF-100 will be slightly cheaper, and the 5D Mark III / S35 will be released or about-to-be. Those are the three cameras to make a decision from, not the AF-100 and the hints of what-might-come.
Click to expand...

I intend on getting an AF100, but I haven't pre-ordered it yet.

I will probably buy it around February.

But if by any chance until then RED announces that Scarlet S35 is coming out in June or July (something that isn't entirely impossible if they decide to prioritize Scarlet S35 in light of the recent competition) I'm not going to buy the AF100.

At this point in time I'm more interested in RAW than resolution. It just feels archaic at this point and time to not be working with RAW video.
 
Hello fellow filmakers
I have been reading all the threads on hpx170 which I own and now af100. I'm sorry I haven't been able to contribute till now but I feel there's a great amount of knowledge and my 2 cents would only repeat what has been said in the past. I've shot Pansonic Canon and Sony from sd to hd and slr. I work in vfx industry as lighter/compositor integrating 3d element/characters into footage for well know Hollywood films, shot mostly on film, Red or F35. I've seen great footage and bad footage that my peers made comments that my hpx170 films looked better. I've also shot tests for vfx using hpx170. I'm only introducing myself so everyone knows where I'm coming from.

That said. here are my few opinions on the topics surrounding af100

1
I have to vent I am very frustrated with so many people comparing af100 to film or red. All that talk is irrelevant. I've worked on movies that had beloved Red footage so butchered the entire 2hr movie which happens to take place outdoors needed to have all the skies replaced and hair rotoscoped while blowing in the wind. It's not the tools but the user that matters.

2
If any of us worked on movies that will be relevant in 30 years we wouldn't be here arguing pro's and con's of a 5000 camera. We'd be out in the field doing it because story is the only thing that matters. If any of us are looking to make a film that's ground breaking from a cinematography point of view... Reality check, no HDR or RAW mode will help anyone with an off the shelf camera, because if you can get your hands on that, someone else can too. You're no longer the only one shooting HDR RAW, and your look will be credited to the capabilities of the gear not your vison.

3
1080p resolution is only 80 pixels short of 2K which is what the standard is and if the big boys are not worried about it being too small I'm not going to sweat it. Even if the film or Red is shot in 4K it is scaled down to 2K and all the work is done on 2K. In 4 years of feature film industry I've only seen one instance where it's larger then 2K and it's the anamorphic format.

4
AVCHD and 4 2 2 ... the fix it in post attitude is what keeps me employed. No matter how good your source is or how much color grading is done I know for a fact if the subject matter isn't interesting there isn't enough post production or DR that is going to save it.

5
There will never be a perfect cam just like there will never be one best cinematographer or camera op. You may not agree with me and that is fine, It's just the art of life and art will always be subjective.

6
I intend to shoot myself with a big grin on my face the moment I lay my hands on af100, then figure out it's strenghts and only focus on those to work to my advantage when shooting next project.
 
Thomas Church said:
I'm just not sure I would shoot a feature on it. Shooting a feature on 1080p for me isn't very smart if you intend on your film having long legs and being watched 30 years from now.
Click to expand...

Don't let the fanbois fool you. Their beloved Scarlet has a 3k sensor but won't resolve much over 2k because of the de bayer filter, et al. Its intended for 2k (2048 wide) delivery, which is only 64 pixels wider on each side compared to 1920. In other words the resolution won't be that different than any other good full raster 1920 camera.

For that matter many movies were made on cameras of much lesser resolution that did very well in the box office.

By your way of thinking the people going to Star Wars conventions (23 years after the first star wars) won't watch any Star Wars movie after Episode II since George Lucas made that one and the later ones on Cinealta cameras. In fact the making of Star Wars is why George Lucas teamed up with Sony and Panavision to make the Cinealta line of cameras.

As far as the Epic goes, they are still clearing it for test shots. They haven't even started the Toto project yet. Fixed scarlet will be after that and they haven't even started on that yet.

Please look at the Red camera companies prior history of delivery before you make pronouncements. If cameras are in 3 year cycles, the AF100 cycle will be running out when the S35 Scarlet is finally ready to be introduced. In 2008 the fans told me the Scarlet would be delivered in 2009. In 2009 they told me the Scarlet would be delivered in 2010. In 2010 they say 2011.
 
Last edited:
John Caballero said:
Keep dreaming and waiting and waiting and waiting.
Click to expand...
+1

Been following Scarlet for what, almost 2 years? I haven't seen any footage worth 2 cents from this camera. Whereas, the af-100 was announced what, last summer? Already seen like 10 samples and they are almost ready to ship.
Yes, AF100 and Scarlet are 2 different beasts. But one beast is alive and ready to eat!!!!
 
ccastro said:
I see your point about the camera but I've never watched a movie over and over because it was shot on film or any other format. I watched it because it was compelling, entertaining, a great story etc....... Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing the Star Wars Phantom Menace movie on 35mm which was shot on the F900 thinking it looked gaudawful, but my kids thought it looked great. :shocked:
 
Duke M. said:
Don't let the fanbois fool you. Their beloved Scarlet has a 3k sensor but won't resolve much over 2k because of the de bayer filter, et al. Its intended for 2k (2048 wide) delivery, which is only 64 pixels wider on each side compared to 1920. In other words the resolution won't be that different than any other good full raster 1920 camera.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about Scarlet S35, which is going to be 5K.

I'm not sitting around waiting for this camera to suddenly drop from the skies.

There's 99% of chance of me picking up an AF100 in the coming months.
 
That's my next camera alright, for weddings and event videography I think it's tops.It wasn,t too long ago that I spent well over 15 grand for a SonyDXC537A with Betacam back, and that was analog SD.Com on, under 5 grand is a steal for what you're getting in the AF100. I already have the perfect on-camera LED light for it.Can't wait till BH has the AF100 in stock.
 
People who can afford the AF100 ($5K) will buy it and be happy for the short term.

People who can afford the F3 ($13K) will buy it and be happy for awhile.

People who can afford the Arri Alexa ($60K) will buy it and be happy for a long time.

People who can afford handmade Jim Jannard cameras ($100K) will buy it and promptly regret doing so.... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top