Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-08-2013, 12:59 AM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 301
Of course you absolutely need a displayviewinder - for manual focuspulling.
There is no other cheap way - like with an extra monitor I don't want, but that
is needed for professional work only in much higher budgets ...

And I do it manually always - and in all cases - planned or spontaneous. For
me there is no difference at all. And in wild documentary you must have a
manual focus even more importantly ... Only in stills you may tap some screen
beeing on a tripod ... these are just some nice gimmicks.

The screen on my K-7 is absolutely OK for focuspulling, I tell you. The one
in the Canon 60D is a little less in sharpness I guess. (got a different VF there)

The display-viewfinder usually has a magification 2,5 or 3 times, that
helps a lot. No need for digital zooming-in. It's like in the movie-theatre !

But we have different approaches. You don't want to use the camera
in a professional way. You are not to blame of course. That is your choice.

Here we have two worlds colliding, btw. That's why videographers left Pentax
long ago anyway ... I really don't want to sound wise here - but this is just a fact.
So either one has fallen from grace (me) or wants to learn to film with Pentax
to eventually grow out of it and go for the real. (You ?)

I am here because I have no money for a new system - and do have some
Pentax glasses allready - simple as that.
Pentax knows it cannot satisfy professionals yet.
Just some 20 or 30 users really think about video with a Pentax - as far as
active members in webforums stand for true numbers ...


Last edited by TomGarn; 12-08-2013 at 01:09 AM.
12-08-2013, 01:13 AM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
How can you properly focus when the screen has something like 640x480. No matter how much you magnify it, it won't give you the 1920x1080 resolution that you actually have.

Don't get me wrong. I like to focus manually too and I think I do a decent job at that. But just watch any movie at 1080p. You will often notice that the pros, shooting in a planned way on high end gear, with an assistant to do the actual focusing, can't get it right. One man operations... You're already busy holding the camera steady and framing the shot properly, and you need to focus...

I predict as soon as the gear becomes available pros on big productions will switch to AF. Maybe you haven't gotten what I meant. I meant the focus puller will be carrying something like a tablet that shows the current video, and that will be used to tell the camera what to focus on. By someone whose only job is to focus properly (IIRC the focus puller also used to change the film roll, but that hardly applies anymore I guess?). The cameraman would have his own screen, with the overlays he needs. And so does the director. And phase detect AF ensures correct focus without hunting. Better results with less preparations and less time wasted. They can save money that way. Why exactly wouldn't they do that? Why wouldn't they embrace it?

Oh and don't forget that the real pros have to focus at 4K resolution. To be THAT precise isn't easy. Panavision seems to be working on a medium format 8K camera... Good luck getting proper focus...

Last edited by kadajawi; 12-08-2013 at 01:22 AM.
12-08-2013, 01:37 AM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 301
The image of display-view-finders is very good ... no problem on my K-7.

About movies I don't get you at all .... and I am just an ENG-cameraman
where there has never been an assistant for focus-pulling.(Just for sound & light)

AF in movies in some future ? Who cares .. I think they will never ever want AF as well.
I have never heard of such a desire yet ... and why and how. That discussion is dead end
but I saw those videos about the GH2 on that subject too

You want AF? Then you must accept what is possible on the consumer market
But be sure you can wait for a good AF your whole live, because the more you
grow up in video the less any AF can satisfy you. Funny you try to defend your AF.

But I am learning about my own expecations towards Pentax as well.

EDIT:
I said there is no focus-puller in broadcasting. I was wrong on that: I once did it:
I had to do it for a very old movie-cameraman who had learned to pan and frame
only in his job. For his son he now had to shoot a video. I was his focus-assistent
on monitor and follow-focus. He had never done that in his cinema-times ...

Last edited by TomGarn; 12-08-2013 at 01:51 AM.
12-08-2013, 02:21 AM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
Canon is now offering an upgrade to the C100 which they market for professional use (though maybe not high end work) to give it 70D style AF. I could make you hundreds of screenshots from movies and TV shows where they f***ed up and didn't get the focus right (good example is House MD. At least in the first seasons they kept screwing up. And in TNG they only did a good job in the first two seasons. After that they changes the director of photography, and you can see that not just in the different lighting). If the AF works better than that... and it can, as Canon and Sony have shown, then why wouldn't filmmakers use it? Just cause of pride? That wouldn't be professional. Besides, if they can't get it right when viewed in 2K resolution, how awful will it be in 4 or 8K?

Now the only sort of convincing AF I have seen was the 70D and maybe some Sony SLT cameras. I'd still rather shoot with MF on the Sony (thanks to focus peaking). And to me video AF is not on the wish list, focus peaking is, and proper SR.

12-08-2013, 03:03 AM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 301
Don't forget that a 5D with full frame has a sensor double as big as a 35mm camera for movies.
In low light these cameras hardly ever get the right focus - but APS-C is easier - and MFT is quite easy.

Movies out of focus ... this happened mostly only in old movies because they had no video-out, so some
unsharp scenes were taken because it was to late now - and the story needed that. Today all this is controlled
and done again ... or you take No. 7 even though in No. 5 the actor was a little better ... but not sharp.

Pride ? Yes, artists are proud of what they do themselves, they even don't use automatic sound, they want
to do it manually ... These people think it is creative do it themselfes ... hahaha ... Isn't it ?

Today they have to shoot their soap-operas faster and faster, so some controle and quality gets lost ... and
they may try different ways to save some money with cheap cameras or what ever trick they can think of, yes.

AF is for consumers - in video ... You need good lenses for manual focus ... because you must zoom in to get
it sharp ... only with a parfocal lense that is possible. So consumers with their cheep kit-lenses need AF of
course ... they are dependant .,... and so on ... and on
12-08-2013, 05:44 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by TomGarn Quote
Don't forget that a 5D with full frame has a sensor double as big as a 35mm camera for movies.
In low light these cameras hardly ever get the right focus - but APS-C is easier - and MFT is quite easy.

Movies out of focus ... this happened mostly only in old movies because they had no video-out, so some
unsharp scenes were taken because it was to late now - and the story needed that. Today all this is controlled
and done again ... or you take No. 7 even though in No. 5 the actor was a little better ... but not sharp.

Pride ? Yes, artists are proud of what they do themselves, they even don't use automatic sound, they want
to do it manually ... These people think it is creative do it themselfes ... hahaha ... Isn't it ?

Today they have to shoot their soap-operas faster and faster, so some controle and quality gets lost ... and
they may try different ways to save some money with cheap cameras or what ever trick they can think of, yes.

AF is for consumers - in video ... You need good lenses for manual focus ... because you must zoom in to get
it sharp ... only with a parfocal lense that is possible. So consumers with their cheep kit-lenses need AF of
course ... they are dependant .,... and so on ... and on
Inception: 20:42, the focus is on Leonardo DiCaprios hair, not his eyes.
51:13: Ellen Page's hair is in focus... her eyes aren't.
Star Trek: Into Darkness: 10:20: Focus sits on the shoulder of the guy that was in Doctor Who, rather than his eyes/face. Only slightly, because they already stopped down quite a bit, but still noticeable... towards the end of that shot it gets really noticeable.
12:26: Same problem, this time they really screwed up. Next shot they pull in on Benedict Cumberbatch, and again, his eyes move out of focus. Clearly not intended, we are supposed to see the intensity in his eyes.
13:39: Again, shoulders, not eyes, and this time it is a very static shot.
Throughout the movie - which is visually one of the best made ones of the year, and which is as sharp as anything I've seen - this is a common problem. Never are the eyes/face in focus. I'm not trying to put down the people who worked on the films, it's a very hard job, and I've seen way worse than these two movies.


The AF system I suggested would easily fix this problem... and since it'd be a tool for pros they could give adjustments like size of the focus area, behaviour, speed, ... they could even add face detection so that camera looks for the eyes in the area the focus puller is touching, and focuses on exactly that spot. I'm not talking about the massive AF sensors that our cameras have, where it is impossible to get the right spot. The new sensor has an PDAF sensor on every single pixel it seems. It can be extremely precise and localized.


Zoom in to get it sharp? How are you going to get sharp shots when there is movement? Don't they take measurements of the distances that are needed, and mark that down on the lens to have the right spots to turn the focus ring to?


Automatic audio level adjustments don't work properly, of course they'll do it by hand. But when there is something that good equipment can do better than manual labour...


Btw.: Pulling Focus is as Easy as Riding a Bike with the SnapFocus Follow Focus


Oh, and... as for zooming in... I may do so for stills, or before I start shooting, but once I shoot I need to get the focus right without constantly zooming in and out to focus. And since I like to shoot moving subjects or while I'm on the move myself, that means being able to guess the distance between lens and subject, and to know which place on the focusing ring is the right one. Also, I find it _relatively_ easy to focus properly using the 50 1.8... at least wide open. But again, when I shoot something, it doesn't have to be 100% sharp, it doesn't have to be exactly the right point that is in focus. But on a movie set? If tech can help improve the quality I doubt they will say no.


One more thing: Zooming while shooting seems a big no-no with the K-5. Do it with a modern lens with all the contacts and the SR system will jump for a few seconds... you can actually hear it. "tak tak tak tak". No clue why that happens... regardless of zooming in or out. Do it with an old lens... well, you need to tell the SR system the focal length for it to correct properly, otherwise it will look pretty bad.

Last edited by kadajawi; 12-08-2013 at 06:01 AM.
12-08-2013, 04:11 PM   #37
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 77
Original Poster
@TomGam
You already tell that that is the need for video AF when you "need a sharp displayviewinder - for manual focuspulling".
If there was the must for (faster and faster) AF in photo from 1970s to now, then the same is applied for video as well from now to the future.
Agreed that we hope to use a lot of already-bought Pentax lens for quality video, so we need to push Ricoh/Pentax to lever up video features in K-3.


@kadajawi
I had a dream that I can do "manually" by touching LCD and drag a finger on it to control focusing on whatever I want . Then I won't care about face, square area, 27-point or 51-point ....
It seems that you would be another Vitaly . If Pentax doesn't hire you, please hack it and Pentax won't stop you for doing that because they have nothing to lose in contrary to the GH3 case , Pana will lose to sell more pro video cameras .
12-08-2013, 06:21 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by pTom Quote
You already tell that that is the need for video AF when you "need a sharp displayviewinder - for manual focuspulling".
If there was the must for (faster and faster) AF in photo from 1970s to now,
If you have edge detect focus assist, why do you need AF?
Look for the Focus Assist Option When Using Small LCDs | Creative Cloud User

Now what I'd really want is automated focus pulls (aka, specify two focus points and a speed, then use a button to go fro one position to the other)...some of the electronic follow focus systems are already doing this for Canikon because their tether protocol is well documented...

12-08-2013, 07:19 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
The AF system I suggested would easily fix this problem... and since it'd be a tool for pros they could give adjustments like size of the focus area, behaviour, speed, ... they could even add face detection so that camera looks for the eyes in the area the focus puller is touching, and focuses on exactly that spot. I'm not talking about the massive AF sensors that our cameras have, where it is impossible to get the right spot. The new sensor has an PDAF sensor on every single pixel it seems. It can be extremely precise and localized.
I'm not saying this impossible, but it would be some extremely, extremely advanced technology. It would change the way films are shot, too, if it took a lot of time to implement. On set, there is not a lot of time given to getting correct focus - top guys don't need a ton of time to do it. However, the element of unpredictability, i.e. not all actors will always hit their marks, makes it difficult to get things perfect. It's a very difficult job.

That same unpredictability is why I think it would be difficult for a machine to do this work. What happens if an actor does something they weren't supposed to? What if they aren't facing the camera? Etc.? All of these problems would have to be solved for it to be practical, which would be very difficult. It would take quite a while for filmmakers to trust their films to such technology, I think.

If anyone were to embrace this technology, I believe it would be younger filmmakers, who have not spent decades developing the ability to pull focus on a 35mm feature manually.
12-08-2013, 07:20 PM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
BTW, everything I just said is specifically meant in reference to narrative filmmakers, not documentary or any other type of filmmaker.
12-08-2013, 07:58 PM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
@pTom: I doubt the small camera screen will be precise enough for that... But Canon AFAIK offers it on the 70D. Don't hold your breath though, Canon has developed a new sensor for this, and unless Sony, Toshiba or someone else offers it Pentax can't use the tech. Other AF systems are useless, except for the SLT system. That isn't so precise though, cause it doesn't provide so many focus points. And if the others haven't started developing Canon will have a couple of times lead I guess. And if Canon has patents...

I am not a coder, so I can't hack the firmware. Also these AF things are impossible to implement without the right hardware. The SR might be done, perhaps higher bitrates or MJPEG, and perhaps focus peaking. All the other features would need better hardware...

@kenyee: It would still help, if it is a great AF implementation. At most it exists in the 70D... all other cameras (ok, a modified C100 can do it too) will not be able to compete with focus peaking. However... the K-3 doesn't have it. If you can attach another screen, great. But I'm mostly a tourist when I shoot video... I already look weird enough without having a complete DSLR video rig.

Automatic focus pulling... Check out redmicros follow focus systems. AFAIK they have one that is programmable.

@fuent104: That's the beauty of what I suggest. The tech mostly exists at Canon... only at Canon though. And being phase detect AF it won't hunt. It just knows exactly where the focus point is. As long as there is contrast it will focus. Now if it doesn't have enough contrast that will be an issue... so they would still need to have a proper focus puller who can do it manually... but he will get assistance and his job will change a bit to control the speed of the AF system, the size of the focus point to ensure enough contrast, etc. Such a system can easily accomodate for improvising actors etc. There is no need for marks. One calibration will be enough... Have one person stand at a position, the camera moves the focus ring until it has found focus, and then person can move. Then for every position the camera will know the right focusing point.

Last edited by kadajawi; 12-08-2013 at 08:09 PM.
12-09-2013, 09:08 AM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 301
QuoteOriginally posted by fuent104 Quote
I'm not saying this impossible, but it would be some extremely, extremely advanced technology. It would change the way films are shot, too, if it took a lot of time to implement. On set, there is not a lot of time given to getting correct focus - top guys don't need a ton of time to do it. However, the element of unpredictability, i.e. not all actors will always hit their marks, makes it difficult to get things perfect. It's a very difficult job.

That same unpredictability is why I think it would be difficult for a machine to do this work. What happens if an actor does something they weren't supposed to? What if they aren't facing the camera? Etc.? All of these problems would have to be solved for it to be practical, which would be very difficult. It would take quite a while for filmmakers to trust their films to such technology, I think.

If anyone were to embrace this technology, I believe it would be younger filmmakers, who have not spent decades developing the ability to pull focus on a 35mm feature manually.
Maybe in future you can use some kind of invisible laser for this kind of AF
But please ... let's cool down on what is needed in reality NOW.

With different lenses for each shot you can controle the sharpness for that exact shot - in movies.
Of course things can go wrong ... But here we should concentrate on video ... But of course now
video takes over chemical film here and there ... very quick with 4K and 8K and what not, but mostly
film still got more aperture-broadband (?) available ... but I may allready be wrong on that - I don't know,
one late movie was even shot on many Lumix GH3s ... not talking of some shots may be done by an i-phone ;-)

But I liked it in some early star-trek-movie when the news-team arrived at the bridge
to do a report about the new enterprise. The cameraman-reporter had the camera and mic
and light so small, he could fix it to his forehead. I really liked that. And you can see future coming closer NOW !

Last edited by TomGarn; 12-09-2013 at 09:21 AM.
12-09-2013, 10:45 AM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 301
It all depends how much equipment you want to carry around with you.
I can do the focussing with my left hand alone ... why even spend another right hand for that ?
... and I need the right hand for aperture, AE-L and menu on the camera

So why do that sort of grip-changing to handes all the time ?
I don't get it. I'm stupid.

All those grips with two handles look extremely silly to me.
All I want is some counterbalance on my shoulder.
I found this tool suits me - but I rather don't use it as well.
http://www.ebay.de/itm/261136282307?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
12-09-2013, 11:36 AM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by TomGarn Quote
It all depends how much equipment you want to carry around with you.
I can do the focussing with my left hand alone ... why even spend another right hand for that ?
... and I need the right hand for aperture, AE-L and menu on the camera

So why do that sort of grip-changing to handes all the time ?
I don't get it. I'm stupid.

All those grips with two handles look extremely silly to me.
All I want is some counterbalance on my shoulder.
I found this tool suits me - but I rather don't use it as well.
Schulterstütze für Canon Nikon Panasonic Kamera Video Camcorder Schulterstativ | eBay
Hm, it's meant to be used like this. http://www.philipbloom.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/dslr20_models_0549_lg1.jpg And compared to that the bike handle system makes more sense. You'd have to set aperture, AE-L etc. before recording. But wouldn't you normally do that anyway, at least in more planned environments? Except for AE-L and perhaps exposure compensation I don't use any other button on the camera _while_ shooting. But I doubt you'd have such exposure changes when shooting the stuff that these rigs were made for... i.e. movies etc.
12-09-2013, 04:04 PM   #45
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 77
Original Poster
@kenyee : thank for the link to learn edge detect focus assist. But I think it's not practical to use in uncontrolled events . Anyway, it's one of the solutions for AF

@kadajawi : one day the camera LCD will be big as 5" Android phone. If not, hope to use a tablet pen to point and to draw a line or a curve for AF tracking following the pen

And for buttons, I also don't use any except stop/start while shooting . I have to keep camera steadily.

Last edited by pTom; 12-09-2013 at 04:38 PM. Reason: typo
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
avi, button, dslr, engineers, images, k-3, k-5, k3, love, pentax, pentax k-3, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
so very much better for (belatedly) owning a pentax stefan22 Welcomes and Introductions 11 11-01-2013 11:26 AM
Simple can be so much better -- As proven by this amazing gallery Buschmaster Photographic Technique 4 03-04-2013 04:18 PM
so exactly how much light is -3 EV? slip Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 6 09-20-2012 08:57 PM
Lens corrections work much better with recent firmware asp1880 Pentax K-5 2 06-23-2012 03:40 AM
With HDMI out & 3.5mm stereo mic in the K-01 is better than the K-30 for video jogiba Pentax K-01 2 05-22-2012 01:52 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:57 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top