Is Continous Autofocus a big deal for those who shoot video

[CanineCandidsByL]

I suppose if you really need autofocus you could always go with somthing like this...can't wait to see the reviews on it....oh, its over $2000 more....I can wait.

http://store.redrockmicro.com/microremote

Ummm...that's the opposite of autofocus - that's a wireless follow focus. This is designed so that a focus puller can operate it without touching the camera - vital for some types of crane/jib work and especially (because I am a steadicam operator) steadicam work where focus is impossible without such devices.

Depends on your options....There was also a pieces to get distance and can be used to autofocus; At least I saw one early demo that was being shown that way. But yes, it was really designed around wireless follow focus.

 

[RichATL]

Eh, I just think people read all these fancy words on blogs and forums, an spout them out like they know what they are talking about.

Personally, I've never had a client complain about the resolution of my images... (I currently shoot with a T2i)...
Never had an issue getting an awesome final product, easily and efficiently.

Even if... the 5d3 gives me an identical resolution... I'm buying it because of the Full Frame.... and the Autofocus...

I really REALLY think all the whiners on this site have no idea how to properly process a file.
(and don't give us the BS that no one can process the RAW file yet because no one supports it... that's just a lame excuse for people who don't know what they are doing).

Oh.. and just for a point of reference for all you gearhead pixel peepers...
Compare any iso800 file from ANY Nikon or Canon camera made in the last 2 years... and compare it to what ISO 100 looked like 3 years ago...
...People werent' complaining then...

 

[RLPhoto]

Not One Bit. In a Good production, A camera requires a dolly/Stedicam Operator and a focus puller minimum for good camera work. Along with the careful selection of lenses, lighting, and a competent DP, a Three Man crew is good enough for small productions.

For consumer video, sure! auto-focus would be great but they might look towards offerings from sony for that. (a77)

My 2 Cents. ;D

 

[Bob Howland]

The Canon XF100/105/300/305 are all marketed as "professional" camcorders. For $3000 to $8000, they certainly don't seem targeted at the kiddie's birthday party market. And all of them have autofocus capability, and it's apparently fairly sophisticated. (They also have built-in lenses and fairly small sensors.) If "professionals" use manual focus, why is this capability included in these models?

 

[RLPhoto]

3000-8000$ is nothing in a good sized production but that's not my point. If you want to shoot FILM, you will need an arri-cam operator and a focus puller. The advantage of film is it's large size compared to tiny video chips. That's why the Alexa and RED are doing so well. They don't need all the logistics of feeding film to the camera and also have the advantages of sweet interchangeable lenses from zeiss, Cooke, and arri. Along with a large sensor...

we have used canon XL1's before and I was a good cam for its day. Pro video cameras with AF have large DOF for ease of autofocus to gently transition focus. It's great for TV productions, it's great for solo stedicam operators , it's great for alot of things. But it doesn't offer complete creative control that shooting with an interchangeable system as large as canons EF or a true PL system offers, let alone zeiss supports too.

Thats why the 5D2 is awesome because it HAS a large sensor and it CAN change lenses and CAN do these things cheaper.

 

[bluegreenturtle]

The Canon XF100/105/300/305 are all marketed as "professional" camcorders. For $3000 to $8000, they certainly don't seem targeted at the kiddie's birthday party market. And all of them have autofocus capability, and it's apparently fairly sophisticated. (They also have built-in lenses and fairly small sensors.) If "professionals" use manual focus, why is this capability included in these models?

Those cameras have sensors the size of a bee's prick, relative to full frame\super 35\aps-c. Everything's basically in focus already.

 

[AAPhotog]

I dont see why autofocus is such a big deal when these movie studios spending 100,000+ on cameras are still MANUALLY pulling focus. Professional studios don't use auto focus. People shouldn't rely on the software, rely on the trained eye instead.

 

[bluegreenturtle]

I don't understand why this thread has gone on this long and people still aren't getting that AUTOFOCUS DOESN'T WORK on LARGE SENSORS OR FULL FRAME OR SUPER 35mm FILM. It never has, and while it might in the future, you almost certainly wouldn't want it to. People seem to be thinking like still photographers, or people who use camcorders with 2/3 inch or smaller sensors.

 

[preppyak]

wider aperture makes it harder to focus manually. Try manually focusing f/1.4 in video on a moving subject ...

why would you even try that? Video at f/1.4 already has a razor-thin DOF, and all the videos I've seen that go to that level look horrible, because someone breathing makes their face go out of focus. You need a completely still scene and static shot to even go to that aperture.

Autofocus at f/1.4 would be a nightmare, it'd jump back and forth so much

 

[bluegreenturtle]

wider aperture makes it harder to focus manually. Try manually focusing f/1.4 in video on a moving subject ...

why would you even try that? Video at f/1.4 already has a razor-thin DOF, and all the videos I've seen that go to that level look horrible, because someone breathing makes their face go out of focus. You need a completely still scene and static shot to even go to that aperture.

Autofocus at f/1.4 would be a nightmare, it'd jump back and forth so much

You ever seen Barry Lyndon?

 

[elflord]

wider aperture makes it harder to focus manually. Try manually focusing f/1.4 in video on a moving subject ...

why would you even try that? Video at f/1.4 already has a razor-thin DOF, and all the videos I've seen that go to that level look horrible, because someone breathing makes their face go out of focus. You need a completely still scene and static shot to even go to that aperture.

Autofocus at f/1.4 would be a nightmare, it'd jump back and forth so much

First, I'm responding to another post, making the point that in low light, you're more likely to want to open the aperture (to get more light) which makes for a challenge in focusing accurately.

Second, dof doesn't just depend on aperture. Depending on subject distance and focal length, f/1.4 might not be too unmanageable. I've shot with a 20mm f/1.7 on a panasonic GF2 without too much difficulty (btw, it autofocuses smoothly)

 

[elflord]

I don't understand why this thread has gone on this long and people still aren't getting that AUTOFOCUS DOESN'T WORK on LARGE SENSORS OR FULL FRAME OR SUPER 35mm FILM. It never has, and while it might in the future, you almost certainly wouldn't want it to. People seem to be thinking like still photographers, or people who use camcorders with 2/3 inch or smaller sensors.

works reasonably well on micro 4/3. Touch screen makes it possible to "guide" the AF instead of requiring it to guess what you want to focus on. The AF doesn't seem as "jerky" as contrast AF in Canon/Nikon.

 

[mws]

All depends on what your using it for. If I was shooting something artsy I'd be fine with manual focus, if I'm shooting my 2 year old son running around the back yard, I want auto focus.

 

[Jedifarce]

First, I'm responding to another post, making the point that in low light, you're more likely to want to open the aperture (to get more light) which makes for a challenge in focusing accurately.

Then you're doing something wrong. At that point you should be providing your own light or get your subject to stay stationary. Autofocus is not the issue, it's the experience of the operator.

 

[Jedifarce]

wider aperture makes it harder to focus manually. Try manually focusing f/1.4 in video on a moving subject ...

why would you even try that? Video at f/1.4 already has a razor-thin DOF, and all the videos I've seen that go to that level look horrible, because someone breathing makes their face go out of focus. You need a completely still scene and static shot to even go to that aperture.

Autofocus at f/1.4 would be a nightmare, it'd jump back and forth so much

I remember this vimeo clip interviewing Shane Hurlbut ACS. The camera man was shooting manually at F/1.4 which looked nice with the shallow depth of field. Unfortunately while Shane Hurlbut's upper body remained stationary, being passionate about cinematography he often becomes very animated with his hands. As a result the footage had this constant blurring from the motion of his hands and arms. Having autofocus wouldn't have solved this problem. Filming at a higher f-stop would have.

I was sort of surprised that while all the comments on the vimeo page were nothing but praise for the camera operator, not one person (besides myself) stopped to ask if he shouldn't have shot the video at a higher f-stop.

 

[Minnesota Nice]

I personally do not want autofocus when I'm shooting video, if my camera had the option I probably wouldn't use it.

 

[elflord]

Then you're doing something wrong. At that point you should be providing your own light or get your subject to stay stationary. Autofocus is not the issue, it's the experience of the operator.

One doesn't always have the luxury of being able to make the light or subjects accomodate the equipment. Sometimes it's the other way around. Here's the kind of scenario I'm thinking of -- I'm filming something like a kid running around. I aren't going to shoot this with razor thin dof, but if I don't have a lot of light, I'm not going to shoot it at f/11 either. Manually focusing something like this is tricky.

 

[preppyak]

Thing is, a dedicated video camcorder is gonna have issues handling that shot as well, if you are in dark enough light where you have to shoot at f/1.4 or f/1.8. I know my XA-10 ($2000 camcorder) could probably handle it, but, it would definitely have some noise, and even there the auto-focus isn't perfect. When I film classrooms, it guesses which kid to focus on and can miss focus in darker rooms.

It's always a compromise. I can't even take useable pictures on my XA-10...so its a big trade-off to get auto-focus that certainly isn't perfect.

 

[elflord]

Thing is, a dedicated video camcorder is gonna have issues handling that shot as well, if you are in dark enough light where you have to shoot at f/1.4 or f/1.8. I know my XA-10 ($2000 camcorder) could probably handle it, but, it would definitely have some noise, and even there the auto-focus isn't perfect. When I film classrooms, it guesses which kid to focus on and can miss focus in darker rooms.

It's always a compromise. I can't even take useable pictures on my XA-10...so its a big trade-off to get auto-focus that certainly isn't perfect.

Panasonic's micro 4/3 let you use the touch screen to guide the AF system -- you can basically choose the "AF point" and it moves smoothly to it like a manual focus pull.

I don't believe it isn't possible for a DSLR to have decent AF in video mode, but neither Canon nor Nikon have achieved this. Not clear to me whether Sony are any better.

 

[Fishnose]

The Canon XF100/105/300/305 are all marketed as "professional" camcorders. For $3000 to $8000, they certainly don't seem targeted at the kiddie's birthday party market. And all of them have autofocus capability, and it's apparently fairly sophisticated. (They also have built-in lenses and fairly small sensors.) If "professionals" use manual focus, why is this capability included in these models?

Because these cameras are not meant to be used in cinematic situations. Run and gun videography often means you need to have plenty of dof all the time, and manual focus is often impossible because you've got the cam on your shoulder and there's no way you can have a focus puller running alongside. You're too busy keeping the subject in frame and keeping track of your sound guy/cables/levels/keeping down the shake etc.

Shallow dof and manual focus is a different world. A controlled world where distance to subject is often measured with a laser before each take and the focus puller sits and twiddles back and forth between markings on his remote. Try that in the real world....

Comments about tiny sensors just don't have relevance in the world of video except on a set. After all, Full HD is only 2MB, you don't need much of a sensor for that. So many other issues are more important.

Shallow dof is SO cool right now. Just because DSLRs can be used for video. Gee, wow. Who gives a toss in the real world.