Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

AF100, ouch

Status
Not open for further replies.
I did a similar test to Phillip's when I got our Mysterium-X sensor. ISO3200 at T1.9 though (approximately half the light compared to the f1.1 of the AF100 test).

Vimeo link here: http://www.vimeo.com/12157968

And so you can see it in 1920x1080p, you can grab the clearer version here: http://www.visceralpsyche.com/en/downloads.html

Obviously Vimeo does introduce additional compression artifacts, which is why I provide both as a basis for comparison along with two R3D stills for you to play with yourself:

http://www.visceralpsyche.com/misc/web_images/A002_C014_0528RN.0000639F.R3D

http://www.visceralpsyche.com/misc/web_images/A002_C014_0528RN.0001408F.R3D

Hopefully this will give people some idea of how Red M-X performs in super-low light!

Cheers,

Paul
 
Joseph Hutson said:
Woah, man. That "Birth" short film is awesome/powerful!
Click to expand...
Thanks Joseph, glad you enjoyed it! You can actually listen to a couple of commentary tracks if you select audio streams 2, 3, 4 and one music only track.

I really enjoyed "Leave Me" too; very poignant.

Cheers from Tokyo,

Paul :)
 
Tim Hole said:
Its hard to really tell. I mean it was 3200ISO and for the most part in a small compressed window looked OK...and then it completely blew. The latitude is obviously not there when the camera is pushed that far. I respect PB, but I don't respect the 'RED-Killers' that tend to group around him (its a little pathetic some of the comment I see from some HDSLR users). I know that Philip is a man who likes kit and is just as excited as everyone else about Scarlet, and he has his head screwed on straight.

The only pack leader of the HDSLR world that has said anything disparaging about Red is Shane Hurlbut, he dislikes the way RED handles skin tones.
Click to expand...

I for one am not a fan of Shane's work and hearing him speak does not leave me impressed either. My right.

It is patently ludicrous to prefer the handling of skin tones of dslrs over Red - That's as ludicrous as saying that they are higher resolution or that they give you more latitude for grading.
 
Last edited:
Jannard said:
As long as customers put up with line-skipping, companies will continue to release these cameras in pretty boxes. As soon as this stuff is rejected... they will give you what you really need. Pretty easy to understand.

Jim
Click to expand...

I would add to that - when you use "fussy-standard" high end tools, like 35 mm film and the Red - you attract clients who care about refinement in general - and who will likely appreciate and be willing to pay for refinement in other areas, like sets, actors, makeup, etc.

And your first foot forward is cheap and low budget you will gravitate into a cheap, low-budget universe, where the camera's problems are the least of your worries.

You don't, long term, want that client who is too easily satisfied.
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
A client might not be able to recognize the camera/format of a job, but they do recognize talent. Indeed, if people judge your work based on the camera you are using, then they aren't looking at your work.

There's a whole lot more to a great shot than the camera it was shot on.
Click to expand...

They don't care what camera you used, but if you use a great one it will be much easier for your reel to just look good without the need for excuses.

Also, tool choice is part of our jobs, and camera choice (when not imposed by others) is the most important choice of all.
 
Rob Ruffo said:
They don't care what camera you used, but if you use a great one it will be much easier for your reel to just look good without the need for excuses.

Also, tool choice is part of our jobs, and camera choice (when not imposed by others) is the most important choice of all.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that lighting and lens choices are more important.

You know the old saw... a film with out light is radio.

I can shoot a picture with a relatively crappy camera... but I need lighting and some lenses.

I do that all the time. I'll give away a 7D rental with my rate to make a project happen, but I've turned down jobs without the proper grip/electric budget.
 
I did a test with my Gh-1 (hacked) to see how it would match up to Phillip Blooms video just to see where it was at in a rough comparison. I was actually very surprised with the results it's nowhere near the Leo clip but still not as bad as I was expecting.

ISO 640/800, shutter 30, canon FD 50mm f1.4

http://vimeo.com/16233233
 
Joe G. said:
"I did a test with my Gh-1 (hacked) to see how it would match up to Phillip Blooms... "

That GH13 blows away the AF100, for $5k less (or more). I have been profoundly unimpressed with the AF100.
Click to expand...
Can we see your AF100 footage?
 
Buy GH2 and Scarlet, both cameras can fit in your backpack and also budget.

gh1h13_af100.jpg

Up AF100 @ f/0.95 ISO 3200 and bottom GH1-Hack13 @ f/1.4 ISO 640.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Buy GH2 and Scarlet, both cameras can fit in your backpack and also budget.

Up AF100 @ f/0.945 ISO 3200 and bottom GH1-Hack13 @ f/1.4 ISO 640.
Click to expand...
I think Jan Crittenden said over at DVXUSER that 3200 ISO mode wasn't working on the AF100 camera she had at the same time as Philip Bloom's test. It was selectable in the menu, but it was the same sensitivity as 2000 ISO.
 
Dear Sanjin, your 7,168th post is the very asymptote of your contributions at RedUser. Congratulations on showing us a clip, compressed a couple of times, of a 70% finished camera with salient functions not even working.

It illuminates more than you might guess.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Yeah the thing to remember is the af100 is still not done, though it was in ISO 2000 and I was at 640.

I know it is by no means scientific I just found everyone getting so excited about Phillips video unusual (I was not impressed even for a work in progress) so I tried it with my camera.

If you think about it though ISO 640vs2000 should not look even remotely that close(even in a rough comparison), so I would hope that it gets improved significantly before its release.

ps. compression in comparing the two from downloaded files should not effect rough comparisons, if anything I would hope Mr. Bloom knows a little more about compression than me, I just used basic H.264, but yes pixel peeping these would not make sense
 
Leo Ticheli said:
Dear Sanjin, your 7,168th post is the very asymptote of your contributions at RedUser. Congratulations on showing us a clip, compressed a couple of times, of a 70% finished camera with salient functions not even working.

It illuminates more than you might guess.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...


Leo,

don't get me wrong here.

I wanted to say and show that you'll get the same image quality with GH2 as it is with AF100.

For example you just have to study and analyze how Panasonic is tailoring that new sensor with those two new cameras GH2 and AF100.

Basically for the price difference about $4000 between GH2 and AF100 you can buy all what is missing on GH2 hardware

and those extras you can always use with another camera like a RED1, Epic or Scarlet...even Alexa.

Also with GH2 you get all still photo features that AF100 is missing.

Link to study and analyze GH2>>>
 
Dear Sanjin,
The reasons for selecting a motion picture camera over a stills camera are so myriad and, I should have thought, self-evident, that using a GH2 over the AF100 for video is, well, crazy. Not just crazy, but perversely crazy. I mean collecting teapots, clock-works orange, barking at the moon crazy.

I enjoy a little creative madness, but This is so far up the river, it's sitting down to dinner with Colonel Kurtz while Dennis Hopper snaps away with an empty Nikon F.

Even if one could approximately the functionality of the AF100 with a GH2 plus all the accessories for somewhat less money, you still wouldn't have the same capabilities and operator efficiency. Unsound. Unsound.

Keep it up, Sanjin; sometimes you make my day!

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Dear Leo,

let me tell you one more thing.

DSLR like body have EPIC (base), Scarlet and GH2.

AF100 has an obsolete box body digital camera design.

EPIC and Scarlet are mainly described as a digital cameras that shoot motion picture and also stills.

GH2 is a still digital camera that can also shoot motion pictures.

AF100 is just a video camera.

So DSLR like ergonomics is way to go that was chosen by RED in its new upcoming cameras.

But don't get me wrong I'm not against AF100, it's a great video camera but just saying what I think that could be even better option.

For example you can mount two GH2 in a car and go to shoot a dialog with recording audio on a separate recorder that is the standard with any film shooting.

But you can't do that with AF100 because it's a bulky.

BTW, why ergonomics and small size are important today very good example is‘“127 Hours”’

the latest film by Danny Boyle shot by cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, Academy Award Winner mostly with the Silicon Image SI-2K and the Canon Mark IV.

READ MORE>>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top