Feature Film shot on a Panasonic AF100: "I Survived a Zombie Holocaust"

[IronFilm]

While watching one of their BTS videos (which they'd linked to as part of their advert for a new flatmate) of a local kiwi filmmaking duo:

 

I realised from watching their BTS of the film, that their feature film (which is a damn decently good one for a person's first feature and done on a very low budget, absolutely worth a watch!) was shot on the Panasonic AF100 (for those who are somehow not familiar with this camera, think of it as like a hacked Panasonic GH1 but in a camcorder body):

 

I think (?) that their second feature film (disclosure: I was involved myself in its shooting for a very tiny part of it! As the sound recordist for a few pick up shoot days) was primarily shot with a Canon 1D C and a 5Dmk3 ML raw, thus this film when it is released should also be of great interest to members of this forum:

 

[mercer]

Wish there were more posts like these. With all of the arguing over specs and brands, I think we can learn a lot from this post.

With a humble AF100, which can be bought for less than $700 on the used market, a great looking film can be made. With a couple grand more, an amazing looking film can be made.

In the end, I didn't care what camera those movies were shot with. I was engaged with the story. I want to see both finished films now.

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

With a humble AF100, which can be bought for less than $700 on the used market, a great looking film can be made.

Consider that the OP is right on target when he states that the AF100 is pretty much a glorified GH1.  You can probably get a GH1 on Craigslist by battering a used pair of shoes.

Seems to me camera geeks will ALWAYS debate specs. (nothing wrong with that) 

Creatives will go do interesting stuff.  (nothing wrong with that)

The wonderful thing about 2017 is that anyone that really wants to do something, well, the door is wide open.  There's absolutely no technology barrier anymore.

[mercer]

3 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Consider that the OP is right on target when he states that the AF100 is pretty much a glorified GH1.  You can probably get a GH1 on Craigslist by battering a used pair of shoes.

Seems to me camera geeks will ALWAYS debate specs. (nothing wrong with that) 

Creatives will go do interesting stuff.  (nothing wrong with that)

The wonderful thing about 2017 is that anyone that really wants to do something, well, the door is wide open.  There's absolutely no technology barrier anymore.

Yeah for the most part I agree with you. Content and creativity will always beat tech specs, but there is something to be said of perception. An AF100 will be taken more seriously on a set by actors (many who are working for free or next to nothing) than a GH1 will. Of course, the creatives won't really care about perception.

I think the difference in consumer equipment versus professional equipment is where the divide is. A bad movie shot on an Alexa will still look better than a good movie shot on a GH1 or a t2i or a D5500.

And sometimes the look can make all the difference to an audience in its perception of quality.

But we do live in exciting times, and the fact that a talented kid with a GH2 or t3i can go and make a movie the masses could watch... that pretty effing awesome. 

[dbp]

As much as they have been ragged on, I think we officially crossed a threshhold with the old school Canon DSLRs (5D, 7D etc..). Many cameras have come and gone that provided better quality, but that was the point where it became good enough to be convincing. Where if you were talented with lighting and camera work, it could convincingly look like a movie. 

Following and discussing tech is still very fun to me, but I think it's been removed as the limiting factor for a while now. Seems like lighting, stabilizers etc are slowly following suit.

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, mercer said:

I think the difference in consumer equipment versus professional equipment is where the divide is. A bad movie shot on an Alexa will still look better than a good movie shot on a GH1 or a t2i or a D5500.

 

I'd disagree, a well shot movie with a D5500 will absolutely be better than someone with an Arri Alexa who doesn't know what they're doing. 

Lighting, composition, art, costume, audio, etc (I didn't even mention "story") all matter **A LOT**. 

But all of that stuff hardly cares what camera it is shot on, in the big picture perspective of everything. 

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, dbp said:

Following and discussing tech is still very fun to me, but I think it's been removed as the limiting factor for a while now. Seems like lighting, stabilizers etc are slowly following suit.

I feel the next big areas to come down to the average joe level and be democratized is lighting and audio tech.

Hopefully we will get more/better/cheaper HMIs, like what CAME-TV is already doing:

https://www.came-tv.com/collections/hmi-par-and-fresnel-light

We also need more educational material for aspiring gaffers.

Luke Seerveld's "Meet the Gaffer" series I think is the **ONLY** regular content on YouTube being produced by an independent working professional gaffer?

 

The good thing though is there is a ***HEAP*** of other film lighting info out there as well to get started with, even if it is often more coming from the DoP's side of things that is being shared rather than the gaffer's perspective. 

Then there is what companies like Aputure is doing with LED technology, which is going to be (and already is) a massive GAME CHANGER for the lighting world! 

Especially as cameras are getting better and better at low light, it means smaller lighting packages can be used (such as LED powered ones). Because let's admit it, even something like a Panasonic GH5 with fast lenses is pretty damn good at low light. Gives us abilities to see in the dark that filmmakers in the mid (or even late) 2000's would've killed for!!

[mercer]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

I'd disagree, a well shot movie with a D5500 will absolutely be better than someone with an Arri Alexa who doesn't know what they're doing. 

Lighting, composition, art, costume, audio, etc (I didn't even mention "story") all matter **A LOT**. 

But all of that stuff hardly cares what camera it is shot on, in the big picture perspective of everything. 

I meant two well shot films but yes I agree with you. 

[dbp]

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I feel the next big areas to come down to the average joe level and be democratized is lighting and audio tech.

Hopefully we will get more/better/cheaper HMIs, like what CAME-TV is already doing:

https://www.came-tv.com/collections/hmi-par-and-fresnel-light

We also need more educational material for aspiring gaffers.

Luke Seerveld's "Meet the Gaffer" series I think is the **ONLY** regular content on YouTube being produced by an independent working professional gaffer?

 

The good thing though is there is a ***HEAP*** of other film lighting info out there as well to get started with, even if it is often more coming from the DoP's side of things that is being shared rather than the gaffer's perspective. 

Then there is what companies like Aputure is doing with LED technology, which is going to be (and already is) a massive GAME CHANGER for the lighting world! 

Especially as cameras are getting better and better at low light, it means smaller lighting packages can be used (such as LED powered ones). Because let's admit it, even something like a Panasonic GH5 with fast lenses is pretty damn good at low light. Gives us abilities to see in the dark that filmmakers in the mid (or even late) 2000's would've killed for!!

Ohhhh nice, I'm gonna check that out. Thanks for the link. Yeah, aputure really is a game changer. The 300d just seems like this monumental leap in lighting power with minimal hassle. I use their 672s and while it's not the most powerful light ever, it really is a delight to use. 

Using and mastering this type of gear will go way further in improving image quality than 8 bits vs 10 bits or whatever.

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, mercer said:

I meant two well shot films but yes I agree with you. 

Oh, what did you mean then by a "bad movie" shot on an Alexa?

[mercer]

28 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Oh, what did you mean then by a "bad movie" shot on an Alexa?

Sorry, I meant creatively bad, not technically bad.

[TwoScoops]

I'm guessing many here know this, but one of the coolest action flicks of the past 10 years, The Raid: Redemption, was apparently shot on an AF-100!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1899353/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

[PannySVHS]

Ah, legendary thread, though pretty recent. Happy to have found it again. These are the inspirational threads I always love Andrews forum for. I don´t know, if I make sense to others, if I say this thread has the classic EOSHD flavor and promise and joy. @IronFilm, would you like to post your Sony F3 film again. These creative small films are really what inspires me to shoot. Not many shortfilms in the shooting section unfortunately. And, discussion there is absent, even more unfortunate.

[IronFilm]

On 7/6/2017 at 3:35 AM, mercer said:

With a humble AF100, which can be bought for less than $700 on the used market, a great looking film can be made.

Or half that apparently! Saw a guy asking a few days ago about if he should buy an AF100 that he got offered for 300 euros :-o 

Wow

[DBounce]

Story is king, not camera. The camera, cinematography, actors/actresses, all of it, is simply there to tell the story. If you lose sight of that you might as well go back to filming leaves.

[Fritz Pierre]

On 7/5/2017 at 3:06 PM, IronFilm said:

I'd disagree, a well shot movie with a D5500 will absolutely be better than someone with an Arri Alexa who doesn't know what they're doing. 

Lighting, composition, art, costume, audio, etc (I didn't even mention "story") all matter **A LOT**. 

But all of that stuff hardly cares what camera it is shot on, in the big picture perspective of everything. 

Agreed 100 percent...there is some disastrous looking stuff out there shot on the Alexa....the idea that if I just have the right camera I can make a great film, means that person does NOT HAVE a great film in them....it's the camera and lighting and design department that create the raw footage to turn into something beautiful....the camera has it's place too, but the greatest camera in the world will not save a project in the hands of amateurs!

[jonpais]

@IronFilm LEDs rule, and they're awesome in bright light as well, provided they’re powerful enough.