Is Continous Autofocus a big deal for those who shoot video

  • Thread starter Thread starter ss396
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I shot mostly video. Although for studio stuff, continuous autofocus is not important, but I can see how it would be great for certain things. For example, if you wanted to shoot a steadycam shot with a longer lens to get a shallow DOF. It would be almost impossible to keep in focus without Autofocus.

That would be a great use for it.

I'm thinking the 4K VDSLR will probably have it, especially since rumors have it that it might be mirrorless. The mirror is completely useless for video, so not sure why they would have it in that camera.
 
Upvote 0
I wish I had it. Sometimes I film myself and need a stand in to set the focus with. Sometimes I use a glide cam and I can't change the focus without bumping it or otherwise ruining the shot.

I wouldn't use it all the time but it's a nice feature that I'd love to have included.
 
Upvote 0
ss396 said:
Just wondering for those of you who shoot a lot of video; Is continuous auto focus (D800 has it, 5DmkIII does not) a good feature?

It's not enough for the body to have continuous AF. It's the body/lens combo.

What I found when I was looking into this is that DSLRs don't autofocus very well in video mode. Maybe the D800 is better, but I saw youtube videos of the Nikon APS-C cameras and their continuous autofocus behaved in a manner pretty similar to how the 5D Mark II would if you were to pound on the "autofocus" button in video mode.

That is, when it focus, the lens lurches and hunts, it doesn't glide smoothly like a camcorder or for that matter, a manual focus pull.

I have a Panasonic GF2 which seems to autofocus much more smoothly in video mode than any SLR. If video is important to you, and AF in video is also important I'd suggest taking a serious look at either a panasonic GH2 or a camcorder.

SLRs are fine for video, but the AF in video mode isn't really usable (at least none of the ones I've seen are) -- you need to be willing to manually focus.
 
Upvote 0
For me, I would love to have autofocus. I shoot with my 5D2 and 7D on a Steadicam. And since I don't have a Spielberg budget, I don't have wireless remote monitoring and a focus puller on my staff, autofocus on a Steadicam would be great.

Sure it wouldn't be perfect, but it would give me a fighting chance in low light situations where I can't stop down the lens.
 
Upvote 0
darinf said:
For me, I would love to have autofocus. I shoot with my 5D2 and 7D on a Steadicam. And since I don't have a Spielberg budget, I don't have wireless remote monitoring and a focus puller on my staff, autofocus on a Steadicam would be great.

Sure it wouldn't be perfect, but it would give me a fighting chance in low light situations where I can't stop down the lens.

The 5D Mark II will autofocus in video ("AF on" button next to the left of the AE lock). The main problem is not that it doesn't autofocus continuously as much as it is that the autofocus is unusable for video because it jerks around instead of moving slowly.

As far as I can tell from the youtube video of the Nikon cameras like the D7000 and D5100, the autofocus is every bit as violent as it is on the Canon, except that you yield control over when it kicks in.

Here is a sample video (and many related ones show up)
Nikon D7000 video AF Subject Tracking
 
Upvote 0
Not to establish Continuous Autofocus in the 5D mk III is a purely marketing driven decision. It does not show any respect of the customer who invested in a canon dslr system.
I'm a happy user of the 5D mk II, but I feel abused as a money spending ape by these people of the marketing department. Any customer will notify the one and only intention of that decision. That was a "Bad, Bad Idea" of canon. The company made lots of money with customers going for a product, which was a logic combination of what historically belongs together. - Movies are still Pictures with Frame Rates off 24+. -
Even the analog movie material was the same as the one used for stills. Canon should have not decided for fooling their customers in such a blunt way.
 
Upvote 0
I have shot only video for many years and I am not saying it is right or wrong but almost any professional video camera system with interchangeable lenses does not have an auto focus system of any kind. I have used them to shoot sports, weddings, commercials, etc with no focus problems. The difference is they have a much higher resolution viewfinders that assist in getting an accurate focus. But for the moment lets talk of the professional cameras that do include an auto focus, they have some trade offs. For one they typically have very small sensors so the DOF is never very shallow so if it misses focus it is much less noticeable. Also the focusing mechanism is not extremely fast (compared to an SLR), so things in the shot roll in and out of focus instead of violently snapping around, this is much more pleasant to the eye. The lenses are also designed for video, they are extremely quiet.

Secondly lets look at the physical hardware requirements for a true auto-focus system on a HDSLR, many of which would cause compromises to the still picture quality and functionality. Look at Sony's system that requires a semi-transparent mirror that results in a loss of light to the sensor and requires a digital viewfinder. The other issue as I mentioned above is still picture lenses are not designed for video, they are extremely noisy which is a nightmare in post, not to mention the focus mechanism and algorithms are designed to achieve focus as quickly as possible, and it is not very pleasing to the eye.

Now I am not against auto-focus, there are times it could be helpful (boom or steadycam shots), but even then from my experience they cause more missed shots than good ones. Everything requires some trade offs, I think a lot more people would be upset if the still picture quality/functionality/speed was compromised to please the people that want/need a full time auto focus system. At the end of the day it is a still camera with video functions.
 
Upvote 0
“At the end of the day it is a still camera with video functions” - Think twice before promoting it like that. Might just be that kind of shortsighted propaganda, which pisses customers off. Nikon did it, Panasonic did it, … “Everything requires some tradeoffs.” For sure that ignorant kind of wise guy talking; - claiming it would not be possible without infringing with the photo-functions,- will cause some major tradeoffs. Are you claiming, that while performing 6 frames per second on a fast moving object your camera does not keep the object in focus? Are you claiming that the canon video cameras do not catch up the focus on moving objects? Your next consumer DSLR will anyway be obliged to carry an Autofocus system for video. How will you promote that? “Not for professionals” Arrogance does not sell!
 
Upvote 0
I dunno, I've been in the film and video industry for decades and maybe my "pro" thinking is old fashioned, but I just can't imagine how autofocus could possibly work on a large sensor video camera. There's a reason that no large sensor cameras have them - they just don't work and never really could, unless you're stopped way down. Most video cameras have tiny sensors so no DOF, so they have autofocus and it's fine. Still cameras are looking at a single image. I'm a steadicam operator and I cannot imagine, dream as it might be, shooting with super35 or larger and having a non-human focus puller understand what's happening in the frame at anything greater than f8 or so. Maybe I'm just stupid and not-forward thinking, but I'm just perplexed by the people saying this feature will need to be included in future large sensor cameras - it sounds like a lot of still photographers that dabble in video - to my way of thinking it's like saying all still cameras in the future should include a feature that automatically frames the photo correctly - how could the camera possibly know what's correct?
 
Upvote 0
The video above demonstrates my point perfectly - that autofocus is completely unusable for any application except maybe some sort of personal use - a kids party or something, but otherwise I'd be horrified to turn in footage that had a focus pull like that to any client. It'd probably mark the end of a career, I'd certainly fire any camera person I hired that focused like that, manual or auto.
 
Upvote 0
I think it would be very useful especially for personal use. I agree it would never replace manual focus for professional use, but for personal use it would be very useful. Personally not being very skilled at manual focusing I end up using my 24mm stopped down for most of my family video to benefit from a longer DoF and having more of the scene in focus...maybe this is why Canon came out with a 24 and 28 IS prime lens!
 
Upvote 0
felix arnold said:
“At the end of the day it is a still camera with video functions” - Think twice before promoting it like that. Might just be that kind of shortsighted propaganda, which pisses customers off. Nikon did it, Panasonic did it, … “Everything requires some tradeoffs.” For sure that ignorant kind of wise guy talking; - claiming it would not be possible without infringing with the photo-functions,- will cause some major tradeoffs. Are you claiming, that while performing 6 frames per second on a fast moving object your camera does not keep the object in focus? Are you claiming that the canon video cameras do not catch up the focus on moving objects? Your next consumer DSLR will anyway be obliged to carry an Autofocus system for video. How will you promote that? “Not for professionals” Arrogance does not sell!

I think you miss the point of my post, I am not saying auto focus is a bad thing or that its "not for pros". What I am saying is that the engineering of a proper auto focus system would require compromises to the imagining, lens design, and focus algorithms that were all designed to the best performance on a "still" camera.

Lets take your example of shooting 6fps, or heck lets say we are using a 1DX and shooting 12fps. The focus system is design to quickly achieve focus, snap a picture, then achieve a new focus again. Each frame is a new focus event, how quickly or violently it changes focus between these events has no effect on the picture as each is an individual event. Most people will tell you when tracking a moving subject all 12 frames are not always in focus, 1 or 2 might be missed. Think of what this would do to your eye if just 1 out of every 30 frames of video were out of focus, I know it would give me a massive head ache.

The motors in still lenses are not engineered for slow rolling focus that is done in video/film, they are designed to get from one focus point to the next as quickly as possible. This is why some lenses focus faster than others and some bodies focus faster than others. It works amazingly well for still shots. But when you try to do this with video it is not pleasing to the eye, with focus moving too fast and sometimes in a psychotic fashion, video or film require liquid smooth focus changes. In the end it is much more than shooting 30 or 60fps, it is about each frame flowing into the next to make a smooth picture.

I would suggest that people take a look at videos of nikon and sony's DSLRs and how the focus changes when using the auto focus (and real videos not the company produced ones). They may support the feature on paper, but the visual quality in how they change focus is worse than just about any $200 camcorder. Not to mention the noise from the lens changing focus.

Now if Canon wants to bring out a "video" lens and build in a focusing algorithm to support it that would be great, and they may be working towards this with their C line. Now the video lens would be very slow for focusing still shots, but would look beautiful in video. Again there is a reason no one has perfected the still/video + autofocus camera, the trade offs must be weighted. And like I said before Canon choose to design the camera and lenses to be a still camera first and a video camera second. This is is just the nature of the engineering, all political and marketing aside.
 
Upvote 0
darinf said:
For me, I would love to have autofocus. I shoot with my 5D2 and 7D on a Steadicam. And since I don't have a Spielberg budget, I don't have wireless remote monitoring and a focus puller on my staff, autofocus on a Steadicam would be great.

Sure it wouldn't be perfect, but it would give me a fighting chance in low light situations where I can't stop down the lens.

I'm not sure why you would need a focus puller when you're only using a steadicam or how autofocus would help in low light situations. Low light has more to do with your f/stop, iso and shutter speed than your focus.
 
Upvote 0
bluegreenturtle said:
I'm just perplexed by the people saying this feature will need to be included in future large sensor cameras - it sounds like a lot of still photographers that dabble in video - to my way of thinking it's like saying all still cameras in the future should include a feature that automatically frames the photo correctly - how could the camera possibly know what's correct?

I'm sure you'll find that it's people that come from a camcorder background and have yet to or simply haven't shot any video on a DSLR in manual mode. Just ask them if they have a follow focus - probably not, external monitor - doubtful, that should tell you something about their position.
 
Upvote 0
Jedifarce said:
I'm not sure why you would need a focus puller when you're only using a steadicam or how autofocus would help in low light situations. Low light has more to do with your f/stop, iso and shutter speed than your focus.

wider aperture makes it harder to focus manually. Try manually focusing f/1.4 in video on a moving subject ...
 
Upvote 0
elflord said:
Jedifarce said:
I'm not sure why you would need a focus puller when you're only using a steadicam or how autofocus would help in low light situations. Low light has more to do with your f/stop, iso and shutter speed than your focus.

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

Uhhhh.....yah... F/1.4 on a moving object...that's something that you just don't do. Try using F/4 or higher.
 
Upvote 0
CanineCandidsByL said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
Axilrod said:
Not at all, I wouldn't want it and I suspect it would cause more trouble than it's worth, and video is really all I do with DSLRs. People have been using MF in the cinema industry for as long as it's been around, I don't think any professionals will be disappointed in the slightest bit.

If it's always been done that way, clearly it's the best and only way.
Hollywood was never in danger of becoming obsolete until now, so their failure to innovate was never an issue.
When film costs as much as a house, every second is precious.
They've mastered the distribution of each role in producing a marketable product.

You still need actors, direction, sets, costumes, visual effects, grading, editing, sound, and music.
But the ability to capture raw material has been revolutionized.
Computers/software have revolutionized what one intelligent person can do in post.

Movie AF, if stopped down, could be a vital feature for one-man steadycam/crane work.
At the very least (and I've said this 1,000 times now), stutter-free follow focus controller.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.