The reason I started this thread, is that it occurred to me that the test footage from CrewTV was probably the closest thing to a quality test, something akin to the Sony F3 short film, Convergence, that has thus far been made with the Af100. The Sony F3 filmmakers used Arri Ultra Primes, and the CrewsTV people used Zeiss Ultra Primes. No coincidence, their Af100 footage stood out. After all the hysteria over the Japan footage, looking back at the CrewsTV test showed this $5000 camera actually tests very favorably against a $13,000 camera being used in similar circumstances. And guess what? That Sony F3 also exhibited signs of blowout in highlights beyond depth of field. The fact is that when you're using these lenses wide open, and I suspect cheaper glass especially, you're much more susceptible to blown hot spots. Is there less dynamic range in the Af100 camera than a RED, or film? There sure as heck better be, or RED, Arri and Panavision are in big trouble. Come on, people, get real it's a $5000 camera, and what it does at that price point is unprecedented. It's pretty close to the F3, in my opinion, and there are some things about the image this camera makes that I prefer to the F3. And we have yet to really see it set up properly.
Worth looking at again
- Thread starter bhdfield
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
That will change, pretty soon.
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Can. Not. Wait.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
I've shot a lot of SLR work. Not d-SLR but SLR. Film types ( tri-x, plus-x, panatomic-x, Ectachrome, Kotachrome) didn't make all that much difference. I still had the problem you speak of and in general shooting film didn't give me the range to fix it.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Barry, hurry up and speed up time. My mouth has been watering for some well shot stuff for weeks!
Give it another week for the first dose, and then the really, really, really good stuff should roll in a week after that.
Any chance we'll see a Voigtlander 25 f.95 on the Af100 in your tests? That's the one lens I've determined most likely to give me the closest thing to my Nikon 50 f2 on my Letus. These frame grabs were with the Nikon 50 f2 on my Letus/HVX, and I really want to be able to get that look with the Af100.
Thomas Church
Active member
Barry if possible could you please do some tests that demonstrate the AF100's dynamic range and low light scenes with High ISOs?
I might be more excited about the 10 1/2 stops of dynamic range than I am about the depth of field.
And perhaps some tests with the Dynamic Range Stretch feature, so we can see if it's useable on the lower settings.
I might be more excited about the 10 1/2 stops of dynamic range than I am about the depth of field.
And perhaps some tests with the Dynamic Range Stretch feature, so we can see if it's useable on the lower settings.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
I'd love to use that lens, but I don't have one and as far as I know they're sold out everywhere.
G
G.P.
Guest
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....
Correction the handmade Jim Jannard camera is $58,000.
Just to make sure people don't get the wrong information the correct numbers are 8bit 4:2:2 out of the HD-SDI It is not 4:4:2 as you've posted. (4:4:2 does not exists as a sampling standard).
G
G.P.
Guest
On another note, what is with you guys and the obsession with the S35 "Scarlet". By the way the scarlet is no longer what it was going to be, its now renamed the Epic Light. The announcement was made not too long ago. That more than likly means another price hike as well.
I just hope you all realize that every time you compare the AF100 to a "Scarlet s35" camera, you are comparing it to a camera that doesn't even exists, nor does the footage from that camera. Specs do not make a good camera image. Also even if the "Scarlet" was a real camera, its completely a different price point. The "Brain" alone was $7,000 without ANYTHING else. Thats not a working camera, you still need batteries, audio, lenses, memory module. By the time you're done with building the then called "Scarlet" you're at almost $14,000 before adding good lenses. The comparisons are really not helpful to anyone on this forum. "Scarlet" now Epic Light doesn't exist, nor does its footage, and its price is at least $14k in a working setup, most likely much more now that its upgraded to another league. So please pick another camera for your comparisons because quite frankly it just kinda seems ridiculous to use that considering the info I just stated.
I just hope you all realize that every time you compare the AF100 to a "Scarlet s35" camera, you are comparing it to a camera that doesn't even exists, nor does the footage from that camera. Specs do not make a good camera image. Also even if the "Scarlet" was a real camera, its completely a different price point. The "Brain" alone was $7,000 without ANYTHING else. Thats not a working camera, you still need batteries, audio, lenses, memory module. By the time you're done with building the then called "Scarlet" you're at almost $14,000 before adding good lenses. The comparisons are really not helpful to anyone on this forum. "Scarlet" now Epic Light doesn't exist, nor does its footage, and its price is at least $14k in a working setup, most likely much more now that its upgraded to another league. So please pick another camera for your comparisons because quite frankly it just kinda seems ridiculous to use that considering the info I just stated.
Dafilman21
Carbonite Member
I know this is Dvxuser but I do not understand all the hate towards RED. What have they done to you? If anything people should be happy they came along to shake up the industry. Now that doesn't mean you have follow them like a zealot but that also doesn't mean you have to put them down. They do things differently sure but it is also refreshing, even if they continue to push things back. Yes Scarlet is not here and yes the S35 has changed but so what? Either you will buy it or you won't I am sure RED will do just fine as will Sony and Panasonic.
hscully
Veteran
I was one of the guys that mentioned the S35. Maybe I can describe my perspective. I have been shooting short films and other pieces using (renting, borrowing) the EX-1 with a Letus and Nikon lenses and they look great. I would continue going along this way indefinitely but I want to get a camera, get better, and do more work with a camera I know and don't have to rent. Simple. What the S35 represents is a big sensor camera with interchangeable lenses of various quality from still to high priced primes. There hasn't been one for the $10K purchaser. Scarlet S35 was it for around $7K for the body, recent updates notwithstanding, it seemed to provide the best value... to buy. I didn't want to BUY the EX-1 or HVX because of the adapter futzing and light loss. So I've been waiting. Now with the AF100 (and the pricey F3) the wait is over. Plus if and when the Scarlet shows up, I can sell it and go that way if it makes sense. I need a camera now, and have waited long enough. I think you'll find a lot of us Scarlet S35 "waiters" making this choice because the AF100 represents, for me anyway, what I've been waiting for.
Dafilman21
Carbonite Member
Which I get, but they tell you to expect change. If someone is upfront about their flaws and you say it doesn't matter at the time, you can't get angry when there flaws show. RED has said they suck at meeting dates, they have said things change count on it. Expecting them not to change and falling in love with a spec sheet or price is not there fault. When they laid out at the beginning don't trust what we have said until it is shipping. There transparency and there constant need to be innovative sometimes hurts them and that is because people fall in love with an idea. They become a victim of there feelings instead of using there logic which would tell them wait till it ships.
polfilmblog
Well-known member
"But my young son who is a movie nut, prefers the original 70's/80s originals because in his word's, "they look more real.""
Smart kid.
They do look more real. They look better than the later stuff (ignoring all the story issues). Star Wars (1977) looks fantastic on the big screen. Long live film.
We're 33 years later and digital cameras have just begun to catch up to film in terms of dynamic range and color -- the stuff that keeps you engrossed and not thinking about how they shot the damned thing. Digital has been a giant leap backwards for the past couple of decades.
Smart kid.
They do look more real. They look better than the later stuff (ignoring all the story issues). Star Wars (1977) looks fantastic on the big screen. Long live film.
We're 33 years later and digital cameras have just begun to catch up to film in terms of dynamic range and color -- the stuff that keeps you engrossed and not thinking about how they shot the damned thing. Digital has been a giant leap backwards for the past couple of decades.
Thomas Church
Active member
I don't think it's just digital that makes it look worse.
I think the advent of the DI has made a lot of pictures look (in my opinion) pretty terrible.
But your son is right. American movies from the 70's like "Dog Day Afternoon", etc, have the most natural looking image in my opinion. I love that look.
I would also argue that I don't see so much negativity towards RED, but more towards people who pop up and proclaim camera X (be it AF100, F3, or whatever) is subpar compared to the Scarlet S35, which doesn't exist, and now isn't even going to exist, not in anything that resembles its original conception.
I am looking forwards to seeing what RED has when it is released, but the only thing I take into consideration from them right now, when budgeting a project, is what they already have on the market.
Same as any other company.