Uli Plank
Forum Replies Created
-
Yes, it is.
Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts
-
Which kind of display is showing your films?
Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts
-
Many people in the business don’t own cine lenses, they rent what they need for the job at hand.
A PL-mount adapter will cost you around 350 to 450 U$. Get one with an extra support, such lenses are heavy!
Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts
-
Next to the Nikkor lenses, the Rokkors from Minolta are very fine glass. I compared a Rokkor 1.4 50mm to the Nikkor and it’s even better, the Nikkor is very soft and adds glow at open aperture (which an look nice too – horses for courses). Now I bought a very good 100mm Rokkor from Ebay and it’s wonderful. Has a very long threading for following focus too, so smooth!
But of course these are both telephoto on the AF100. Glass from photo cameras is not that great on the wider side. Some say the Tokina 11-16 ain’t bad, but I didn’t test that.
The Panasonic 7-14 is quite good for the price, but slow. If you need something wide and fast, get the 20mm 1.7 pancake from Panasonic, it looks kind of ridiculous on the AF100, but is tack sharp and much faster than the zooms from them. Forget manual follow focus, though.
Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts
-
I think he tried trashing the prefs, Noah.
The best method I found is making single disk images from every single card out of the camera and keep them on a fast external disk. Then I mount them and they even show up automatically when I open L&T. Works very well for me, even shuttling very long shots never crashed.
BTW, got me a Minolta Rokkor 2.5 100mm adapted to my AF101 today. Great pictures, and such a smooth focus ring with very long travel. I love it!
Hope this helps,
Uli
Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts
-
Quality will depend very much on the amount of motion – different directions in particular – and fine, hi-con detail.
Plus, you’ll need to fine-tune in camera settings to get close to the final look, since you’ll have less room to correct in post.Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts
-
When I’m talking about 8 bit, I’m not relating to compression only.
As far as I can see, changes in the contrast curve are applied before encoding to H.264 happens. Any modern sensor has more contrast range than our current display systems, TV in particular, so you need to squeeze reality into a narrow range anyway. But how you distribute values in this narrow range is more an aesthetical decision than a technical one.
With raw recording or – to a minor degree with 10 bit formats – you can change such decisions in post, with 8 bit compressed recording you can’t without the risk of massive deterioration, which may even show up only after another compression, like broadcast or Blu-ray.
And this ain’t theory, this is from experience. I’ve been bitten too…
Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts
-
Well, I wouldn’t always follow this rule – it’s highly scene dependent.
One example: If your scene is flat plus you shoot flat you are not using the full range of 8 bit luminance (which is already limiting compared to what the sensor can do). If you want it a bit punchier later, you’ll have to stretch out the limited range you used and risk banding.
You can’t compare an AF100 to a camera shooting RAW. You can’t even record 10 bit, 8 is all Panasonic is giving you. Plus, if you don’t use an external recorder, your footage is highly compressed by H.264. This codec is – among other things – reducing the number of shades in color and luminance where the eye wouldn’t notice. If you later need to stretch some values again, the eye will notice!
I’d try to get as close to the look you really want in the camera (monitoring with a calibrated monitor) and only do minor corrections in post. The tools are all there, as you can see from the examples at DVXUSER.
Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts
-
I second this, the AVCHD encoding in the AF-10X is far ahead of amateur camcorders, don’t judge it from the name only. BUT:
You won’t see the difference in many situations. Both codecs still fall apart pretty soon when color grading. Unfortunately Panasonic decided to spit out 8 bit only via SDI, while Sony is giving you 10 bit. So, with the Sony you getter better footage for grading with an external recorder.
The EX-1 ist still a very tough competition for the AF-10X. Among it’s advantages is the fact that the sensor is optimized for HD, while the sensor in the AF-10X is a photographic sensor. Admitted, Panasonic is doing a much better job scaling it to HD than any current DSLR. You will normally see a minor difference in resolution and aliasing in favor of the Sony only on charts. But sensitivity could be better on the large sensor if it were optimized for video. I’ve not yet tested the F3, but it has a large HD-res sensor and the values Sony claims for sensitivity are excellent. It comes at a price, then…
The main advantages of the AF-10X over the EX-1/3 are the large sensor and the much wider range of optics too choose from, not only µFT, but traditional photographic glass and PL-mount are easily adapted. And it’s definitely a DSLR-killer – just like the GH2.
Regards,
Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts
-
Good idea! How much does it cost you to adapt PL-mount to GH2 vs. Canon 5D ?
Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts