Autofocus vs codec for guerrilla style

[kye]

24 minutes ago, Tone1k said:

Good grief.....I hope you're being sarcastic?? Why does the AF or lack thereof change the quality of the story?

Nothing says low quality more than AF hunt.

Id rather watch a good story shot on Betacam with no AF hunt than a good story shot in 8K , 16stops DR with DSLR type AF hunt.

AF is good for some uses, but if you are buying a camera based on AF performance and think you'll just be able to run n gun with AF for every shot, you are mistaken.

I'm not being sarcastic, but you're not understanding my point either.

If you have the skill to MF and make the film you want then that's great - focus is an artistic tool (as you rightly point out) and having exact control over focus will benefit your end product, no doubt.

However, if you're operating in a situation where you aren't able to pay attention to everything and you have to sacrifice something, then relying on autofocus is a good thing to 'delegate'.  If you're interviewing someone who moves around a lot and have two cameras, using AF and concentrating on better questioning will bring you a better film.  It seems like AF hunting is a real turn-off for you, and I get that - everyone has their preferences and that's totally fine, I'm not a fan of it either.

Your statement "Id rather watch a good story shot on Betacam with no AF hunt than a good story shot in 8K , 16stops DR with DSLR type AF hunt." isn't my argument and isn't the comparison I'm making.  In your comparison both are good stories.  If we re-frame the comparison to what I'm saying then we get this..  I'd rather a great story captured clumsily rather than a boring story captured with outstanding cinematography.  

Maybe it's a difference of shooting situation?  Maybe you're used to shooting films that are well planned, shot under predictable and controlled conditions, where there are enough hands to cover all the necessary jobs.  If so, MF would be totally fine.  If you're a single-operator, with multiple cameras, interviewing someone while trying to hold a boom mic, then adding MF to that will mean something else is compromised.  People can't be an expert in everything simultaneously and sometimes something has to give.  AF hunting can be very distracting, but it's rare that you can't get around it in the edit room.  It's impossible to get around a dull story, bad sound or pointing the camera at the wrong thing, you simply can't edit your way out of those things.

It's a question of priorities, and focus is important, but it's not the most important.

[webrunner5]

I don't know. This trend for AF is, well is is just so stressful to be honest. You can Never be really sure if it worked until you load it onto a pretty damn big monitor. Or it is something you repeat often. I have Never been on a movie set but from what I gather most of the stuff a focus puller is doing you could Never do with AF. Crash zooms, whip pans, Vertigo stuff, on and on.

I can see why there is a hell of a lot of wide angle Cine lenses. You just get close enough and focus on one thing and, well it works, or set infinity pull back and things are so far away it works.

But I do watch a hell of a lot of shorts and equipment reviews and Run n Gun seems to be the thing in them, and hell not a heck of a lot of it IS in focus. Sure we are not talking Gone with the Wind footage they are going for, but damn it is distracting as hell along with exposure jumping all over the place, WB not keeping up, etc., etc.. Plus with most Codecs on cheaper cameras, 5 grand or less cheap, the codec can't keep up with the movement on pans and such. That sucks even more. It just makes for a damn sloppy trend to be honest. I really don't think AF is ever going to be perfect enough, Maybe eye focus, and trying to do all this stuff on the go is impossible to MF it also. No good option to be honest other than back on sticks, locked down. And to be honest we have been there done that. So a bit stale as they say. Hmm.

[Tone1k]

19 minutes ago, kye said:

I'm not being sarcastic, but you're not understanding my point either.

If you have the skill to MF and make the film you want then that's great - focus is an artistic tool (as you rightly point out) and having exact control over focus will benefit your end product, no doubt.

However, if you're operating in a situation where you aren't able to pay attention to everything and you have to sacrifice something, then relying on autofocus is a good thing to 'delegate'.  If you're interviewing someone who moves around a lot and have two cameras, using AF and concentrating on better questioning will bring you a better film.  It seems like AF hunting is a real turn-off for you, and I get that - everyone has their preferences and that's totally fine, I'm not a fan of it either.

Your statement "Id rather watch a good story shot on Betacam with no AF hunt than a good story shot in 8K , 16stops DR with DSLR type AF hunt." isn't my argument and isn't the comparison I'm making.  In your comparison both are good stories.  If we re-frame the comparison to what I'm saying then we get this..  I'd rather a great story captured clumsily rather than a boring story captured with outstanding cinematography.  

Maybe it's a difference of shooting situation?  Maybe you're used to shooting films that are well planned, shot under predictable and controlled conditions, where there are enough hands to cover all the necessary jobs.  If so, MF would be totally fine.  If you're a single-operator, with multiple cameras, interviewing someone while trying to hold a boom mic, then adding MF to that will mean something else is compromised.  People can't be an expert in everything simultaneously and sometimes something has to give.  AF hunting can be very distracting, but it's rare that you can't get around it in the edit room.  It's impossible to get around a dull story, bad sound or pointing the camera at the wrong thing, you simply can't edit your way out of those things.

It's a question of priorities, and focus is important, but it's not the most important.

The quality of Ingersons story does not change. Why are we comparing a good story to a bad one when talking about AF? It really doesn't make sense. Compare apples to apples.

19 minutes ago, kye said:

If you're a single-operator, with multiple cameras, interviewing someone while trying to hold a boom mic

Come on, if you have two cameras recording with no operators (because you are holding the boom), then there is no one to track the talent which means they would be standing or sitting still in an interview situation negating the need for AF. If they ARE moving around, then sure you could just lock off a wide shot but that would negate the need for a second camera to shoot a single because there would be no operator to track them...unless you want two wide shots for some reason???

Sounds like your examples are a little far fetched. I would suggest if you are new to film making and are a one man crew shooting the above situation, use one camera and get a few lavs. Operate the camera while wearing headphones and then shoot non sync cutaways and wides.  You will get a better film this way than operating a boom while you have two cameras capturing who knows what.

I shot EFP/ENG for years.....and no, most shoots where not well organised. 

 

Im reading between the lines here. The OP comes from photography where it is possible to rely on your AF and they say they want to take focusing out of the film making equation so by that, I can only assume they mean pretty much all the time.

 

 

[webrunner5]

20 minutes ago, kye said:

Maybe it's a difference of shooting situation?  Maybe you're used to shooting films that are well planned, shot under predictable and controlled conditions, where there are enough hands to cover all the necessary jobs.  If so, MF would be totally fine.  If you're a single-operator, with multiple cameras, interviewing someone while trying to hold a boom mic, then adding MF to that will mean something else is compromised.  People can't be an expert in everything simultaneously and sometimes something has to give.  AF hunting can be very distracting, but it's rare that you can't get around it in the edit room.  It's impossible to get around a dull story, bad sound or pointing the camera at the wrong thing, you simply can't edit your way out of those things.

 

Yeah but some of those problems can be alleviated buy choosing the right lens. I know it is not cheap to do it but heck that is why Cine lens kits have lenses that are crazy close to each other. 18mm, 21mm, 24mm, 28,mm, on and on both ends.  One wide angle lens ain't getting it for interviews unless it is a repeat. And with better Sensors now we really don't have to shoot wide open as much these days. I think some pre though on stuff can help lower the OH MY GOD things from happening as often.. But sure a camera with DPAF isn't the worse thing but I have seen some shit footage from them, and that is really unexceptionable if I was a Client. You have to have the right lens using the right F stop or it is a disaster waiting to happen.

[kye]

56 minutes ago, Tone1k said:

Why are we comparing a good story to a bad one when talking about AF? It really doesn't make sense. Compare apples to apples.

It doesn't make sense TO YOU.  That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.  When we hear about string theory or calculus or Byzantine poetry we might not understand it but that doesn't mean that no-one understands it.

59 minutes ago, Tone1k said:

Come on, if you have two cameras recording with no operators (because you are holding the boom), then there is no one to track the talent which means they would be standing or sitting still in an interview situation negating the need for AF. If they ARE moving around, then sure you could just lock off a wide shot but that would negate the need for a second camera to shoot a single because there would be no operator to track them...unless you want two wide shots for some reason???

This is beginning to sound like you've never shot an interview before...  The answer why you don't have one camera is jump cuts.  If you shoot with multiple cameras this gets around the issue.

As an example, here's an interview (one of many) shot by a professional film-maker who is on-screen interviewing, this example is not that bad and she could have used MF with a smaller aperture but if you want a close-up with a bit more production value then not only would AF be required, and from Canon or Sony it would be 99% reliable too.

 

1 hour ago, Tone1k said:

Im reading between the lines here. The OP comes from photography where it is possible to rely on your AF and they say they want to take focusing out of the film making equation so by that, I can only assume they mean pretty much all the time.

Like @jonpais says, you're assuming.

I think the misunderstanding is that you're used to shooting things that are either in controlled situations, or if they aren't controlled (like ENG isn't) then there's a dedicated camera operator.  AF starts to make sense when things aren't controlled AND there isn't a dedicated camera operator.

Also, AF is also cheaper.  MF requires manual lenses with nice fly-by-wire focus or mechanical focus, it requires a camera with a screen that is bright, large, and has good enough focus assist features.  A face-detect DPAF camera costs a few hundred dollars, and you can film yourself and not have your feet nailed to the ground.

It can also be turned off too.  That's definitely a thing.  Just in case you weren't aware.

[Mako Sports]

Personally at this point I am all in with this current auto focus craze, I've owned the Sony A6300 for 2 years and the Sony PXW Z90 for 7 months. The auto focus on those cameras is unbelievably good. As long as you set the correct drive speed for what your shooting and choose your focus area. Getting shots in focus and keeping them in focus is something I simply don't have to worry about. I can spend more time on composition/framing and exposure. Also I shoot sports from the sidelines so manually focusing is really difficult for that type of scenario. I do have some decent manual focusing skills and every now and then I practice manual focus for when I finally upgrade to an FS5 or an FS7.

[Tone1k]

26 minutes ago, kye said:

It doesn't make sense TO YOU.  That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.  When we hear about string theory or calculus or Byzantine poetry we might not understand it but that doesn't mean that no-one understands it.

This is beginning to sound like you've never shot an interview before...  The answer why you don't have one camera is jump cuts.  If you shoot with multiple cameras this gets around the issue.

As an example, here's an interview (one of many) shot by a professional film-maker who is on-screen interviewing, this example is not that bad and she could have used MF with a smaller aperture but if you want a close-up with a bit more production value then not only would AF be required, and from Canon or Sony it would be 99% reliable too.

 

Like @jonpais says, you're assuming.

I think the misunderstanding is that you're used to shooting things that are either in controlled situations, or if they aren't controlled (like ENG isn't) then there's a dedicated camera operator.  AF starts to make sense when things aren't controlled AND there isn't a dedicated camera operator.

Also, AF is also cheaper.  MF requires manual lenses with nice fly-by-wire focus or mechanical focus, it requires a camera with a screen that is bright, large, and has good enough focus assist features.  A face-detect DPAF camera costs a few hundred dollars, and you can film yourself and not have your feet nailed to the ground.

It can also be turned off too.  That's definitely a thing.  Just in case you weren't aware.

I've shot plenty of interviews. Been in the business for twenty years. In Europe I worked for CNN CNBC BBC etc shooting interviews and plenty of them were two cameras and one operator. 

The interview you have shown doesn't require AF. You said people walking around but these people are sitting still.  I understand that AF can be useful as I originally said but most here that like to start urguments single out a few words I say and start writing in caps for some reason. 

You are also assuming he intends to just use the AF for some shots but he never said that in his original post which is what I'm referring to. 

Again, he wanted to take focus out of the film making process so where does it say he intends doing that for just a few shots? 

And comparing a bad story with manual focus to a good story with AF doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it. The story won't change so why bring in that variable when talking about AF? 

 

[kye]

@Tone1k the point I am trying to make is that AF is useful in some situations, can be reliable enough to use (as long as you have other footage to cut to if it occasionally screws up), requires less equipment and can be cheaper.

I'm not sure why you're arguing against AF, and maybe it's not your intention, but it sounds like you're completely opposed to it ever being used, and I think that's a very impractical position to take, given the vast range of shooting situations that the DSLR revolution and YouTube has put within reach of todays film-makers.

If the OP reads my arguments for why AF might be useful then they can look at their film-making style and aspirations and see if my arguments fit their situation or not.  Debates are useful to some extent, which is why I have continued to reply, but taking a position of "never/always" is where the debate stops being useful.

You obviously have a great deal of experience, and in many situations that means that your advice will be relevant and valuable, but for film-makers who have learned / are learning the craft with features you didn't have when you learned, are shooting situations you haven't ever shot, for film distribution channels that didn't exist when you learned, for audiences who haven't graduated high-school yet, I'm not sure the traditional knowledge or ways of working are always going to be the most relevant.
I see a lot of people on here who are solid industry operators with lots of experience who think that the methods used by Hollywood are always applicable to every film shoot, and I look at my 14 year old daughter who shoots videos with her iPhone with her friends, edits them on her iPad and uploads them to YT, and think "nope!". 

When someone posts a question I think it's valuable to offer opinions and information about pros and cons, but as soon as we start making statements about what they should do, without really knowing their situation and individual style, that's when we have veered off course.

When we think about the user Charlie who posted about making the wedding video like the fashion ad, many/most thought he was crazy to attempt such a thing, but he delivered in a big way, so we shouldn't pretend to fully know what is best for someone.

[Tone1k]

3 hours ago, Tone1k said:

AF is good for some uses

That's not the only time in this thread that I have stated that AF can be useful in some situations. 

I'm not against AF, it can be handy on a gimbal with face tracking depending on the shot but using it so that you can concentrate on framing and free up the creative process is not what I'd say it is for. 

To the OP, go for the better camera and learn to focus manually. Use the cameras focus aids and if you lose focus every now and again, don't worry too much about it. A manual focus pull to correct focus being off looks more organic and less distracting to the viewer than a jerky AF lens hunting around. 

[kye]

 

29 minutes ago, Tone1k said:

That's not the only time in this thread that I have stated that AF can be useful in some situations.

Cool.  I've said it can be useful in some situations, you've said it can be useful in some situations.

I'm just not sure how any of that added up to the below....?

3 hours ago, Tone1k said:

Good grief.....I hope you're being sarcastic??

Unless it was autocorrect and you meant to say "yes, you raise valid points, but have you also considered....."

[BTM_Pix]

19 hours ago, jonpais said:

@BTM_Pix ? ?

Yes @UncleBobsPhotography I have something for you to memorize 8 focus points with selectable transition speeds.

It will be out shortly-ish after the BM4K camera (as it will support Panasonic/Sony/BM).

Or if you switch to Leica you can have it earlier.

Though that seems a bit extreme ?

[Tone1k]

50 minutes ago, kye said:

 

Cool.  I've said it can be useful in some situations, you've said it can be useful in some situations.

I'm just not sure how any of that added up to the below....?

Unless it was autocorrect and you meant to say "yes, you raise valid points, but have you also considered....."

I was referring to your content is king like comment after the OP had already put that to bed with his first sentence. 

[mercer]

Well, the OP also already said that he is pulling triple duty as director, DP and operator... so anybody who has ever done anything similar would know that one less thing to worry about is useful.

So I would say AF is important in this scenario. I never used Sony PDAF but I know Canon DPAF has been described as having a Hollywood focus puller following you on set... to me that sounds pretty damn useful if you’re also worried about lighting, camera movement, composition, actor’s performances. Hell, the time saved marking the floor is worth its weight in gold in that scenario.

The good thing about AF is you don’t have to use it, but if you don’t have it, you can never use it.

With that being said, AF doesn’t automatically beat codec and codec doesn’t beat AF. Now if he/she were to come back and post that he is making a feature film to try and get distributed, then codec would probably win. If he is working on some short films for festivals but mostly for the web, AF may be more important.

Personally, if I were him/her, I’d go with the GH5. Since he/she has shot with the DVX200, possibly in vLogL, the GH5 may be a logical transition. It will give a good beefy, 10bit codec for grading and it will offer some AF that could be used for tracking shots. It’s not perfect AF but in a pinch it can help with difficult shots where movement, composition and performance are also critical. The IBIS is another plus.

[webrunner5]

Yeah but Good AF has really only come out in the last generation or two of cameras, which most people can't afford. The first gen DPAF Canon has was not something to write home to mother about.

[fuzzynormal]

On 8/18/2018 at 7:37 AM, Ingerson said:

What would you choose in this situation?

This is like worrying about what pencil to use on your SAT test.

That said, I'd prioritize codec. 

[jonpais]

On 8/18/2018 at 9:37 PM, Ingerson said:

Now, with that out of the way: I'm looking to buy my first camera for video after making my first short film on the DVX200 and my next one on my phone (really enjoying this film making thingy!)

What are your thoughts on choosing between AF with compressed codec (like the A7III) vs great codec but pulling focus yourself on a smaller sensor (Blackmagic pocket/micro/4k)?

The autofocus would allow you to take a big technical part out of the creative work, leaving you with framing only. But then you are stuck with a very compressed codec which isn’t very forgiving in post if you don’t get it right in camera.

Having shot with the DVX200 yourself, what are your own impressions of the sensor size, autofocus and codec as it concerns your working style?

[jhnkng]

Just curious — how many cameras with reliable AF has a really crap codec? You could argue that the C100mk2 has a rubbish codec on paper yet it looks nice and is plenty gradable as long as you get you exposure right. 

[kye]

5 hours ago, jhnkng said:

Just curious — how many cameras with reliable AF has a really crap codec? You could argue that the C100mk2 has a rubbish codec on paper yet it looks nice and is plenty gradable as long as you get you exposure right. 

I would say the measure of a codec is how it looks.  If something looks great and has a lower bit-rate then I would say that is a BETTER codec than one that takes more bitrate to look as good.

Of course, no-one is suggesting that a sub-40Mbps codec is going to grade like RAW..

[Ingerson]

Hi everyone, sorry I've not replied to anyone (my depression decided to crash the party a couple of weeks ago)

I'm grateful for everyones' comments and to clarify some things people have asked:

The reason I became a street photographer is becauseI like the docu feel, the realness. I was never good at staging, especially with models it felt so, well... staged. With my first short on the DVX200 I used I tripod 99% and it felt so static and lifeless to me. Like I didn't know what to do (which is probably true) and I lost what I wanted: Just capture the actor's performance. It really became a technical and logistical job instead of a creative one. I felt like I missed too much focusing on the focus pulling and that didn't feel right to me. Or the actor.

That's why I shot my second one on my phone: It was much more run n gun and the actress could do whatever felt right. All I had to do was to capture it on the go. I got a much better performance than in my first film (despite having a more experienced actor in that one) and the whole thing felt more relaxed and fun to make.

So I'm really looking for a hybrid, the form factor is like an extension of myself. It would also allow me to blend in better when shooting in places without permit. That's the reason I would let's say go with the Pocket over the Micro if I went small sensor. The Micro requires and external screen and that attracts unwanted attention shooting in public.

ATM I got my old Canon 1000D with kit zoom and 24mm pancake. So I don't really have a system that I'm locked into and video is a different beast. Can't really say that the Canon DSLR video is pleasing unless going high end or Cinema line.

I like fiddling with color, but mostly correction and not so much grading since I try to get the look in camera and not impose a certain style. Both the DVX200 and iPhone were 4K 8-bit 420 at 100mb/s and fell apart when trying to do something more than slight correction, so I had to go with it and roughen the image up even more with grain. It worked out ok both times, but I don't want to push my luck.

I know you can't really say that one feature is more important than the other, but I'm not quite sure I can learn to pull focus while also focusing on the framing and the actor(s). I missed focus a few times despite focusing on that and that are moments I can't get back.

For now it's just the web shorts, maybe festivals in the future if I get better. Not looking to fulfill the Netflix tech sheet ATM. I just want to be creative, point and shoot for lack of a better phrasing and not worrying about the technical things too much.

[webrunner5]

Sounds to me you would be better off with a Bridge camera. A Sony RX 10 mk III  maybe, a Panasonic FZ2500? Yeah they are not a Red camera, but they are better than phone stuff, point and shoot stuff. This new 1" sensor stuff is actually pretty damn good now. Heck of a lot of ENG work done with them now.

I think the main thing is how fast of a turn around you want. You want good OOC stuff, or work your ass off on a BMPCC, this new PK4? No such thing as both great looking footage and fast delivery.

I think all of us one here that aren't making a living doing this stuff spend too much time on GAS and not enough on the story. Not enough time just going out and shooting. Just buy something, anything and wear out the buttons and dials learning it and probably do better than the new camera of the week. Hell I think learning how to edit and grade well  is becoming more important than a better camera by a long shot.