# Canon to Offer Dual Pixel CMOS AF Upgrade for the EOS C100 Digital Video Camera



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 6, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/canon-to-offer-dual-pixel-cmos-af-upgrade-for-the-eos-c100-digital-video-camera/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/canon-to-offer-dual-pixel-cmos-af-upgrade-for-the-eos-c100-digital-video-camera/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><i>New EOS C100 Camera Feature Upgrade Offers Outstanding Continuous AF Performance for Documentary, Electronic News Gathering, and Small-Crew Productions</i></p>
<p><b>MELVILLE, N.Y., November 5, 2013</b> – Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, announced today that the Company will offer an optional feature upgrade for the EOS C100 Digital Video camera which will support innovative Dual Pixel CMOS AF autofocus technology, enabling continuous autofocusing with Canon’s entire EF lens lineupi. This optional upgrade is expected to be available in February 2014 for a cost of $500.00 and will require the EOS C100 camera body to be shipped to a Canon service center.</p>
<p>The Canon feature upgrade will provide the EOS C100 camera (first introduced in November 2012) with greatly improved autofocus (AF) functionality made possible through Dual Pixel CMOS AF technology. First employed in the EOS 70D digital SLR camera launched in August 2013, the innovative new AF technology helps facilitate greater shooting efficiency across a variety of shooting situations. For users that work with moving subjects, this optional Dual Pixel CMOS AF upgrade for the EOS C100 camera will allow for a smoother, more natural autofocus that can be particularly useful for video markets like documentary, sports, event and wildlife.</p>
<p>Canon’s Dual Pixel CMOS AF makes use of the Company’s proprietary CMOS sensor technology with a new structure that both captures light and performs phase-difference detection autofocus. While focusing on the EOS C100 camera is primarily performed manually, the feature upgrade will enable smooth continuous AF, a capability that can be particularly beneficial when operating with a small production crew, electronic news gathering, or run-and-gun documentary-style shoots.</p>
<p>The Dual Pixel CMOS AF functionality offered through the feature upgrade supports continuous AF with all compatible Canon EF lenses for subjects positioned in the center of the imaging area. The complementary use of the contrast signal achieves advanced AF stability that helps reduce the occurrence of image blur. Also, the inclusion of an AF Lock function contributes to expanded shooting flexibility through focus preset, which allows users to set a desired focus distance in advance, and the ability to alter the photographing range or composition after establishing focus.</p>
<p>This optional feature upgrade increases the speed of the EOS C100 camera’s One-Shot AF function by approximately two-times, which enables users to focus on a subject located at the center of the screen with the push of a button, a feature that is currently supported on 104 Canon EF lens modelsii.</p>
<p>This feature upgrade service will be made available to users through Canon’s product maintenance centers. For more information about this update, please visit the Canon U.S.A. website at <a href="http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/standard_display/eos_c100_feature_upgrade" target="_self">usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/standard_display/eos_c100_feature_upgrade</a> .</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/889545-REG/Canon_EOS_C100_EF_Cinema.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS C100 at B&H Photo $5499</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2013)

So, it's always had a dual-pixel sensor, and all that was needed was calibration and programming?


----------



## kpk1 (Nov 6, 2013)

Once again, cool stuff for videographers.
Hey Canon, we are here too, photographers ! Hope you can remember me, your client, for the AutoISO exposure compensation in the 5D3 M mode. Just in case you've forgotten.
Also do something to bring the smile back to my face. Make me proud being with you. 
That's me,
Your 10 years client!


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 6, 2013)

Some comments on other sites have complained about a firmware upgrade costing $500. However, just because they're not changing the sensor doesn't mean they aren't changing hardware, maybe a lot of it.

Also, the focusing may be smooth but I have to wonder how noisy constantly-focusing USM lenses are going to be. Shouldn't the 70D have the same problem?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 6, 2013)

is this news real or just some joke? 

HOW can the C100 be upgraded to dual-pixel AF without putting in a new sensor and (some) new electronics and new firmware?


----------



## Knut Skywalker (Nov 6, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> is this news real or just some joke?
> 
> HOW can the C100 be upgraded to dual-pixel AF without putting in a new sensor and (some) new electronics and new firmware?



Even if they used a 50mm 1.8 this should'nt be a problem. I think no one using a C100 or higher uses the built-in mic. Does the C100 even have a built-in microphone? Same goes for the 70D, als long as you use external audio, no lens could be loud enough to appear on your auidotrack.


----------



## sanj (Nov 6, 2013)

Wow. This is good. Almost start of a new era where producers can plan small shoots without focus pullers. It seems.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 6, 2013)

New sensor, Canon taking the hit and supporting it's clients.

Nominal fee to not look like they're giving anything away.


----------



## max (Nov 6, 2013)

its an 8mp so it uses 4 pixels for each pixel kinda like a bayern 4 pixel so maybe it uses those for the dual pixel focusing.


----------



## enraginangel (Nov 6, 2013)

I would pay to get a Dual Pixel AF upgrade for my 5Dm3 for video. 

Maybe the magic lantern crew can figure this out. Here's hoping...


----------



## photonius (Nov 6, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> is this news real or just some joke?
> 
> HOW can the C100 be upgraded to dual-pixel AF without putting in a new sensor and (some) new electronics and new firmware?



The new sensor must always have been in there. However, most likely, all the new software and calibration necessary for all the lenses was not done yet at that time, so it they release the camera without that functionality.
Now, what they may have to put in is at least new firmware, but maybe the firmware takes more memory than the old chip can handle, so a new memory chip needs to be installed. There may also be additional chips, i.e. circuitry that needs to be put in to process the dual chip phase signal. Maybe in the original version they only used the sensor in its "normal" mode (dual pixels merged), which would required a less complicated processing circuitry.


----------



## stoneysnapper (Nov 6, 2013)

Offering this for the 1Dx if it was possible might be useful however there's bigger problems they need to solve with the 1Dx that they are not admitting to.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 6, 2013)

also, with the dual pixel sensor replacement, would they need to install a touch screen for implementation? If they offered this for my 5d 3, i may just take them up on the offer... replacing the almost 2 year old sensor (assuming they offer this in the spring 2014) future proofing the camera... may take away the knee jerk need to upgrade to the 5d4 as quickly..


----------



## tjc320 (Nov 6, 2013)

I think this would be pretty cool upgrade if I could see how well it performed. Autofocus is usually a feature on consumer cameras and acts as such. I think most of us would like to see an upgrade on the codec quality. I would readily pay $500 for a better codec. Many C100 owners already pay $1000 for a better codec via an external recorder. 

Saw this news yesterday on a few other sites as it's a pretty significant announcement. However, all that was reported at CR was a new Tamron lens and a new Nikon camera....just saying.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 6, 2013)

photonius said:


> The new sensor must always have been in there. However, most likely, all the new software and calibration necessary for all the lenses was not done yet at that time, so it they release the camera without that functionality.
> Now, what they may have to put in is at least new firmware, but maybe the firmware takes more memory than the old chip can handle, so a new memory chip needs to be installed. There may also be additional chips, i.e. circuitry that needs to be put in to process the dual chip phase signal. Maybe in the original version they only used the sensor in its "normal" mode (dual pixels merged), which would required a less complicated processing circuitry.



Thanks! Sounds realistic to me!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 6, 2013)

kpk1 said:


> Once again, cool stuff for videographers.



Emm, it's a VIDEO CAMERA.

Canon have made VIDEO CAMERAS for many more years than they have made digital SLRs.

Dual Pixel appears to be a VIDEO CAMERA technology, but hey, like CMOS, like CCD, like LCD, like LIVE VIEW..

It may acutally benefit some photographers as well!

Yeah Canon, lay off our precious stills cameras, i'm quite happy with my EOS 1n.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 6, 2013)

And for what it's worth, I'm happy in principle that Canon are offering this upgrade.

I'm not happy that a serious video camera like the C100 has AF at all. Leave the trinkets for the muppets.

AF has no place on a serious video camera.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> And for what it's worth, I'm happy in principle that Canon are offering this upgrade.
> 
> I'm not happy that a serious video camera like the C100 has AF at all. Leave the trinkets for the muppets.
> 
> AF has no place on a serious video camera.



Think this was shot with fixed-focus? (1:10 in)

http://youtu.be/_bVALAgpGYw?t=1m8s


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 6, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Think this was shot with fixed-focus? (1:10 in)
> 
> http://youtu.be/_bVALAgpGYw?t=1m8s



Absolutely not. 

Do I think it was shot with autofocus?

Absolutely absolutely not.

Do I think it was shot with manual focus?

Yes.

Do I think it was shot with a parfocal video lens that lets you zoom in close and hold back focus?

Yes.

Do I think lenses give greater perception of depth of field and sharpness the wider the lens?

Yes.

Do I think it's video 101 to zoom in focus, and then zoom out at will knowing that the increase in apparent depth of field will usually save you from having to drastically refocus?

Yes.

Do I think racking focus slightly during a zoom is really easy with an MF lens, but impossible with lens set to AF?

Yes.

Do I think ENG pedastol cameras with superzooms have really slick focus wheels off camera?

Yes.

Do I think any competent ENG camera operator knows without thinking or looking what way they need to turn their focus to track a moving object?

Yes.

Circles of confusion are the video mans friend. Knowing how to use the theory to your advantage is what seperates the pros from the uncle bobs. And makes the shot at 1.10 childs play with a bit of experience.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> AF has no place on a serious video camera.



"Just don't use it. Just ignore it. Just put up with it. And no, it won't be cheaper without AF." 
same as video on each and every stills camera.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 6, 2013)

Knut Skywalker said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > is this news real or just some joke?
> ...



The C100 does have a mic built into the handle, and it is apparently very good. Some doc makers use it when the subject is quite close to the camera. see Jonah Kessel at NewsShooter.com


----------



## Etienne (Nov 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> And for what it's worth, I'm happy in principle that Canon are offering this upgrade.
> 
> I'm not happy that a serious video camera like the C100 has AF at all. Leave the trinkets for the muppets.
> 
> AF has no place on a serious video camera.



Some photographers used to say the exact same thing when AF was first introduced to stills cameras....

... Thank-god the innovators ignored them!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 6, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > AF has no place on a serious video camera.
> ...



Haha, yes. Very good.

The pedant in me would point out that video adds virtually no cost to a live-view enabled DSLR, wheras adding AF to a video camera body requires extra components. The C-Series must be one of the first professional camcorders to have in body AF.

At a professional level, which is where these cameras are pitched, AF is not required. It really isn't. I've chucked folk off my sets for using AF on hdv cameras. 

For shooting crappy family videos, AF makes them a bit less crappy. If you know how to manually focus video and have a well set up video camera, then AF really is absolutely superflous.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



The C100 is aimed at documentary, news, run and gun. Often done by one man band, operating camera while interviewing a subject. As some have pointed out, this can help the videographer concentrate on the interview even while the subject wiggles all over town, instead of having to split attention to keep the subject in focus.

A tool is a tool. If it helps get a better result, then it's a good tool.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 6, 2013)

Etienne said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > And for what it's worth, I'm happy in principle that Canon are offering this upgrade.
> ...



Yes, thank god. AF is great on my stills cameras.

May I draw your attention to the distinction I made, and that was 'serious' video cameras.

Stills AF works really well because you only show one single frame. Video is contiguous. Every frame has to be in focus, or the sequence is binned. Add in moving subject to camera distance etc and AF, particularly AF hunting is just a killer.

AF is great, really is, for stills, for hobby video, family video, super.

I'm making a clear distinction here. I'm not talking about those guys. Those aren't the guys the C100 etc should be trying to please. Those guys don't manually WB. Those guys don't understand why you always need ND filters in your kit bag for video. Those guys don't understand f-drop. 

I know how well car analogies go down here, so it's like putting an autobox in a, hmmm, jaguar xk120. Except that cameras aren't british racing green, and you cant change the tyre on a c100.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 6, 2013)

Etienne said:


> The C100 is aimed at documentary, news, run and gun. Often done by one man band, operating camera while interviewing a subject. As some have pointed out, this can help the videographer concentrate on the interview even while the subject wiggles all over town, instead of having to split attention to keep the subject in focus.
> 
> A tool is a tool. If it helps get a better result, then it's a good tool.



Yep. I dig. All the more reason to not think 'oh well I can trust the AF to look after it' until AF decides it preferes the face on the poster behind the film star. At f1.8.

All the more reason to read up on circles of confusion, to use zone focusing. To keep an eye on the viewfinder and a finger on the focus ring.

AF is what gives run and gun a bad name. I can't think of any excuse ever for any competent professional cameraman or woman to use AF. I'm a zealot and a purist. Directors and producers hate me but like my results. And hey, I'm in full-time video work. Go figure.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



You completely miss the point of the C100 ... it is a run and gun, news-gathering, documentary tool ... mostly for one-man bands, or very light crew. 

Have you ever tried to interview someone while operating the camera and focussing? It is extremely difficult, and you risk not paying sufficient attention to the subject, and therefore not getting the best footage.

Sure if you are always working on a set, or you always have a dedicated cameraman for every shot. 

BTW .. Formula 1 cars have used semi-automatic transmissions for quite a long time.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 6, 2013)

Bob Howland said:


> Some comments on other sites have complained about a firmware upgrade costing $500. However, just because they're not changing the sensor doesn't mean they aren't changing hardware, maybe a lot of it.
> 
> Also, the focusing may be smooth but I have to wonder how noisy constantly-focusing USM lenses are going to be. Shouldn't the 70D have the same problem?



Are you sure they are not changing the sensor? Because that is the place where the dual pixel AF hardware is found (although it might perhaps also need a dedicated extra processing chip on the mainboard, who knows). Unless they already had it produced with a dual pixel AF sensor but hadn't finished firmware support for it last year when the C100 came out???


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> AF has no place on a serious video camera.



really?? Because not every type of video shooting scenario is exactly ideal for carefully set shooting with an extra focus puller. Just because you only shoot one particular type of thing doesn't mean that is the only thing everyone does. Sure the regular MF way with carefully pulling is best for lots of stuff but absolutely not for all stuff!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> At a professional level, which is where these cameras are pitched, AF is not required. It really isn't. I've chucked folk off my sets for using AF on hdv cameras.



Once again you've decided that since you shoot a certain type of thing on that, that all videos shot to professional standards are always shot under such a scenario.


----------



## sjschall (Nov 6, 2013)

> . . . not every type of video shooting scenario is exactly ideal for carefully set shooting with an extra focus puller. Just because you only shoot one particular type of thing doesn't mean that is the only thing everyone does. Sure the regular MF way with carefully pulling is best for lots of stuff but absolutely not for all stuff!



Well said!


----------



## RobertP (Nov 6, 2013)

I think it's a bit too soon to be saying auto-focus isn't required on a professional video camera. We need to see what the autofocus is capable of first. Purists don't need to get the upgrade or can set the focus to manual if it keeps them happy. I expect autofocus will be a big selling point for low budget productions and one person companies.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 6, 2013)

photonius said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > is this news real or just some joke?
> ...


Odds are, the new sensor was NOT in the camera....

This is a "be good to your customers" move....and the odds are that the entire board that the sensor was mounted on, plus sensor, is being swapped out..

EDIT - I am wrong, Canon states that the sensor is NOT changed!!!


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > The C100 is aimed at documentary, news, run and gun. Often done by one man band, operating camera while interviewing a subject. As some have pointed out, this can help the videographer concentrate on the interview even while the subject wiggles all over town, instead of having to split attention to keep the subject in focus.
> ...



I am not a video expert, but one of the first things I learned (with a camcorder) was to turn off auto-exposure and image stabilization... I was recording a woman wearing a white blouse playing a fiddle.... every time the arm moved up, the image got darker... when the arm went down the image got brighter... and all the time the image stabilization was tracking her hand and the picture kept rocking...setting everything to manual cured that....

If you have the time to set up for your shot, manual everything seems to me like the way to go....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2013)

dilbert said:


> What's not planned? Live TV shows, sports - where people are moving about randomly.
> 
> Although I don't know if manual focus is used to film someone running towards or away from the camera.



I'm fairly certain  you've seen the box lenses commonly used to shoot broadcast television, including live TV and major sporting events. Focus in _most_ those lenses is motorized, but manually controlled. It's worth noting there are a few models of those lenses (including one costing >$200K) which do have autofocus. However, I am fairly certain that most 'filming' is done with manual focus, even filming of live action and sports. Would you trust AF to track the ball at the Superbowl?


----------



## tjc320 (Nov 6, 2013)

It isn't that auto focus shouldn't be included in a professional video camera it's just that most professionals don't utilize it. Some may use it in certain situations like interviews where the interviewee may lean forward or backwards in and out of focus or maybe some b-roll of a sporting event. However, most professionals are good enough at racking their own focus and can manually stay in focus themselves. It's like learning to drive a stick-shift - at first you need to think about what you're doing but eventually (when you know the lens) you can do it without even thinking. I'm better at finding focus faster than any autofocus camera I've ever used. 

Auto focus has aways been frustrating when it can't seem to find anything to focus on. It notoriously focuses in and out trying to find the subject. Even for photography it's frustrating when the camera can't find the proper subject to focus on, however, when it does get the correct focus it's usually far more accurate that the operator. 

When shooting a video it must be in manual exposure because the lighting must remain the same and shouldn't be adjusting constantly. The same is true with focus because even if it changes the subject it's focused on for a moment the shot may be ruined. 

Either way, cool new feature, but efforts probably could have been spent on other features (codec quality).


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

dilbert said:


> What's not planned? Live TV shows, sports - where people are moving about randomly.



Be it on a sports field, be it in a live TV studio, very little is actually random.
You've also quoted two examples where a multicamera rig would be used. Any one camera only needs to be in focus at that 5 second grab. And there will be a director telling each camera what to follow etc. Again. Not. Random.

Autofocus isn't a focus assist or focus aid. In video it's actually a clockwork mouse. Set it off and christ knows where it will go.

If you are an individual run and gunner you won't be capturing everything as it happens immediately. You go in with a plan. You set things up where you can (i.e. the most part, particularly interviews).

Also ENG and HDV cameras typically have 1/3 to 2/3rds sensors. Far smaller than even a cropped sensor DSLR / s35 like the C100.

So these cameras are immediately much more forgiving. Focus is much more critical on larger sensor cameras (which is why I resisted a 5D2 or 3), it;s much more critical with wider apertures, it's much more critical with longer focal lengths, it's much more critical with closer subjects.

So if you run and gun, you probably want a self contained unit with a large zoom range and small sensors.
If you do use a DSLR you probably want a wide or ultra wide. You probably want to stop down a bit. And you probably want a good 2 or 3 paces betweeen you and an interview subject.

Bang: Lots of depth of field. Stills guys call this hyperfocal. Lots of movement latitude. And an on the ball operator who knows which way and by how much to correct.

I'm over egging it. It's not that difficult or I couldn't make a living at it. Seriously. 

Throw AF in. No thanks. With large sensor. Absolutely no thanks.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

Etienne said:


> You completely miss the point of the C100 ... it is a run and gun, news-gathering, documentary tool ... mostly for one-man bands, or very light crew.



I don't miss the point at all. 



Etienne said:


> Have you ever tried to interview someone while operating the camera and focussing? It is extremely difficult, and you risk not paying sufficient attention to the subject, and therefore not getting the best footage.



Yes. Many times. Heres how I do it.
Camera on tripod ideally. Or on shoulder at least (cvp sm-1 grrreat for this!)
Mic on music stand. This also serves as marker.
Subject asked to plant feet on the spot, not to shuffle. Or ideally, sat in a fixed back chair. No castors.
And no AF.



Etienne said:


> BTW .. Formula 1 cars have used semi-automatic transmissions for quite a long time.



Dang, I knew I shouldn't have done that car analogy. Well the C100 is a bit like a live axle trailing arm in that context isn't it? The question is, block or groove?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > AF has no place on a serious video camera.
> ...



Most of the stuff I do these days is on the hoof. No focus pullers. I know that my way is not everybody elses way. But I do know, that in the professional arena, amongst my peers, no matter where they work, or what camera they use (generally 2/3rds ENG format) none of them use a camera with AF on it, let alone, AF.

Day one of cameraman school. You get get your fingers rapped if you use auto anything. So you practise for 2 years before they set you free. Yes there are muppets shooting stuff for the PA or Getty, trashy celeb type stuff, with z1's or XHA1's and use AF. But they are muppets. Muppets with tiny sensors. And short careers.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > At a professional level, which is where these cameras are pitched, AF is not required. It really isn't. I've chucked folk off my sets for using AF on hdv cameras.
> ...



No I haven't. It's a broad church / temple, mosque, synagogue. I can only speak for myself and the working professionals I know. AF just isn't used. Not if you are trained / serious. It really isn't. If you know different then I'm afraid to say that in actual fact, you just don't know. Sorry to be the one to tell you.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

RobertP said:


> I think it's a bit too soon to be saying auto-focus isn't required on a professional video camera. We need to see what the autofocus is capable of first. Purists don't need to get the upgrade or can set the focus to manual if it keeps them happy. I expect autofocus will be a big selling point for low budget productions and one person companies.



I think auto-focus will make low budget productions look even cheaper.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Wow, crazy it is not changed! I guess they had been working on PDAF for quite some time and just hadn't tuned the lenses all yet but needed to get the C100 out. I assume it has the proper extra chips already to handle that too then? If so, the $500 does seem odd. Although maybe the mainboard was lacking some chips and they need to attach a new mainboard or something, then it's a great deal. Hard to say without knowing more.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > What's not planned? Live TV shows, sports - where people are moving about randomly.
> ...



Most of those football wide shots have tons of DOF.

Certain types of wildlife videography and other stuff the AF could help a lot at times.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



Once again you still have only listed a small portion all potential types of shooting.
You entire forget about certain types of wildlife and natural world shooting to name one. Sure MF can be better for that too in many cases, but absolutely not for all.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 7, 2013)

I want this upgrade for my 6D. how much?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 7, 2013)

Manual focus for movies started out with no other option. This meant carefully measured and planned scenes, hiring a person to pull focus, putting tape on the stage for actors to stand at so the focus would be perfect, a whole system was developed and honed over a near 100 year period.

All of a sudden, autofocus becomes available for equipoment that is usable for Cinema, and the prospect of having it controlled on a touch screen or by eye control will change the way some think about it. Obviously, there are labor unions, and a billion or two dollars worth of equipment as well as resistance to change that we all have. 

This means, as usual that some people will adapt and if they are successful, others will follow. There are Academy awards given to those who make significant developments in Cinema, so go out and earn one! 

If a focus puller can be eliminated, then smaller Indies can produce for less, or use less expensive help. All that is needed is to touch the screen where you want focus (the simple case). Sure, I know there is a art to it that justifies the high salaries, but tell that to the banker.

For sports, I can imagine eye control of focus, the possibilities are many, so I would not rule out autofocus for the future of professional cinema or video in general, its a opportunity waiting for someone with vision and who has the drive to see it thru.


----------



## JonB8305 (Nov 7, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> I want this upgrade for my 6D. how much?



Cosigned.


----------



## tjc320 (Nov 7, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Manual focus for movies started out with no other option. This meant carefully measured and planned scenes, hiring a person to pull focus, putting tape on the stage for actors to stand at so the focus would be perfect, a whole system was developed and honed over a near 100 year period.
> 
> All of a sudden, autofocus becomes available for [equipment] that is usable for Cinema, and the prospect of having it controlled on a touch screen or by eye control will change the way some think about it. Obviously, there are labor unions, and a billion or two dollars worth of equipment as well as resistance to change that we all have.
> 
> ...



Yea, there are definitely going to be two sides to this and neither are necessarily wrong. That said, mark me down as part of la résistance.

I oppose autofocus in the same way that I oppose gas grills, coffee machines, wood laminate furniture, cheap beer, and implants.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 7, 2013)

tjc320 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Manual focus for movies started out with no other option. This meant carefully measured and planned scenes, hiring a person to pull focus, putting tape on the stage for actors to stand at so the focus would be perfect, a whole system was developed and honed over a near 100 year period.
> ...



Ah.. you forgot to add... electric shaver, electric stove, electric iron, ATM, washing machine, elevator, escalator, bread toaster, etc... Why would someone hate such conveniences? If it makes life so much easier, why'd you hate it? It's not *yet* perfect but somebody/someone got to start somewhere... right? It is there because you want to enjoy life *more*. Stills AF was first developed with that thing on their mind. Now, you almost can't live without AF.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Up until very very recently the Bbc shot it's wildlife / natural world stuff on film. Totally manual cameras.

The excellent hebrides series was shot on a mix of panasonic p2 eng cameras and phantom.

Neither have af.

I know this because I asked John Aitchison what he used.

In the follow up documentary 'Wild Cameramen at work' it showed you how the most memorable shots from the bbcs natural earth output was captured. Lots and lots of planning. Lots and lots of waiting. Lots and lots of takes. A little bit of luck here and there. Not any of these guys, widely considered to be the best in the business, used an af camera.

They have baftas and rts awards coming outthrir collective bottom, so I'm more inclined to follow their lead.

For sports stills and nature stills, yeah. AF has its place. I've always made the distinction clear. For hobby family video guys, af has its place. For professional video work it does not.


----------



## Max ☢ (Nov 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> In the follow up documentary 'Wild Cameramen at work' it showed you how the most memorable shots from the bbcs natural earth output was captured. Lots and lots of planning. Lots and lots of waiting. Lots and lots of takes. A little bit of luck here and there. Not any of these guys, widely considered to be the best in the business, used an af camera.
> 
> They have baftas and rts awards coming outthrir collective bottom, so I'm more inclined to follow their lead.



Up to now all documentaries that commended top prizes and awards were shot using only manual focus cameras. Up to now only the best and brightest pros use manual focus. Got that, but what's really the point? Do you mean that the only and strict use of manual focus in pro shooting is a sacred and absolute rule? that sounds like a dogma to me. Before the advent of steam-powered carriages the fastest way on the road was always achieved with horses, that was also an absolute rule until something better came along.

Until now manual focus has prevailed in those situations you refer to only because AF technology is not yet good enough for the intended use, but that does not mean that this technology and its associated UI will not improve to a point when it will finally takeover the manual focus way of working in most professional shootings. I think this trend will actually start with Canon's dual pix technology.


----------



## syder (Nov 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



Basically this.

First cinematography lecture I give one of the things that is repeatedly drummed into either undergrads or postgrads is not to switch camera settings to auto. There's always at least one group a year who choose to ignore that because they think it'll be easier for them with auto on. When their rushes come back with focus hunting/exposure/white balance changes they soon learn why professionals don't use autofocus. 

I'm really intrigued by what this 'natural world' and 'wildlife' stuff LTRL is on about actually is... I used to occasionally hang out with some of the BBC natural history unit guys when I lived in Bristol - you don't spend two weeks waiting to see a big cat take down its prey only to come back with unusable footage because of AF hunting (on subjects rapidly moving and changing direction). But then the people who do that are f***ing good at what they do. I would bet on them over AF in those challenging conditions every time. That may change in time - but AF would have to be a lot better than it is on top stills systems now to be usable with wildlife film - which is up there in terms of being one of the most demanding things people do skill wise. 

In fairness, being a one man band is actually damn hard. Having to simultaneously sort out composition, focus, audio levels, eyeline etc whilst having an engaging interview with someone takes skill and practice. Hell just getting an engaging interview can be hard enough. And that's part of why cameras like the EX1 have been such staples for run and gun work - one less thing (focus) to worry about makes those situations that much easier.

That said I'm pretty sure cameras like the EX1 and HVX201 have autofocus. I've just never known anyone other than my failing 1st year students to actually use it.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

+1

Video af makes things easier, not better.

I wonder how many folks hailing the arrival of a new kind of video af to a professional video body actually get paid to shoot video?

A fair enough point was made earlier, in that nobody knows how well it will work yet.
Interesting that those rushing to defend it can't possibly know if its worth defending.

I'm not a luddite, nor am I a stills shooter who doesn't understand that video is contiguous.

Whats also interesting is that dual pixel live view af seems to work best with stm lenses. Where are the stm fast primes or constant fast aperture zooms?

The ex1 example is pertinant. It has a half inch sensor. Vastly more forgiving than an s35 or 135 type sensor.

Here us the thing that non-video folk don't get, running and gunning isnt the same thing as spray and pray. Television, even warzone news reports, even zoo format yoof tv, its all produced. Surprisingly little is sincerely spontaneous. Even the hardest worked single man crew, in fact particularly the hardest worked stringer, has to set up. Plan to be where the story is. When the story is. Facing the right way. With a charged battery and memory space.

There is time to focus manually. Not everything that is shot will work, or will make the edit.

If you have an animated interview subject go a little wider with your lens, switch down your nd filter and clise your iris.
This is 101. And it may not always be the way it is done, but for now it is best.

If my work ever shells out for a new camera It may even be a c100. I may even spec a shorty forty (stm) and the dual pixel upgrade, and I promise I'll approach it with fresh eyes.

Eyes. Somebody made a point about ecf and video af..

Potentially a good idea, and not to fall into the trap of thinking that because domething is great for stills that it will be great for video, ECF worked great on my 3 for me.

Couple of problems though... 
It didn't for everyone. Some folk just never managed to get it to register.

It required your eye close to the vf. 10 years ago folk shot video this way, standing back from an lcd is more common these days, and desirable for many situations.

Shooting video, even with a vf. Usually means one eye on the real world, one eye through the viewfinder, the eye at the viesfinder may flick down to check the vu display in the corner, or the filter wheel number top right during a take. Bang. Focus gone.

Its common for me to take my eye away entirely, say if I need to identify the source of an unwanted noise, to check my xlr is set to +48, to adjust the peaking level etc. even during a take, i'm looking around the frame at lots of things other than the subject? "Is that a reflected tripod leg in that glass door" "has the screen saver just came on in that vdu, thats not going to cut"

And with an mf lens, set up properly, focus is fine throughout.


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2013)

Etienne said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Ya man.


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> I want this upgrade for my 6D. how much?


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2013)

RobertP said:


> I think it's a bit too soon to be saying auto-focus isn't required on a professional video camera. We need to see what the autofocus is capable of first. Purists don't need to get the upgrade or can set the focus to manual if it keeps them happy. I expect autofocus will be a big selling point for low budget productions and one person companies.



Absolutely correct. And I might add that when I work on a full fledged video job I use cameras better than C100. C100 is aimed at productions with limited budget and in this case this feature is super welcome. Even for documentaries... Lets see what future holds..


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

And do those cams have af sanj? And if so does the dop or cameraman use it?


----------



## CR00 (Nov 7, 2013)

JonB8305 said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > I want this upgrade for my 6D. how much?
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2013)

Has anyone figured out if they are replacing the sensor. I don't understand how this can be just a firmware upgrade. Someone suggested the dual-pixel sensor had already been put in place in the C100, but that seems like really incredible advance planning to have put the sensor in a camera that was announced more than a year ago.


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> And do those cams have af sanj? And if so does the dop or cameraman use it?



No Paul the cameras I use come with manual focus lenses and my focus puller has worked with me now over 16 years through several main steam movies.


----------



## tjc320 (Nov 7, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> tjc320 said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, there are definitely going to be two sides to this and neither are necessarily wrong. That said, mark me down as part of la résistance.
> ...



No no no no no. I didn't leave those things out on accident but on purpose. There are things that almost certainly help makes life convenient and at no sacrifice to quality and allow you to speed up meaningless tasks. Then there are things that make things faster but at a sacrifice of quality and meaning. A coffee machine makes bad coffee fast - which is fine for some people, but a french press will always produce a better tasting coffee. In the same way - autofocus is fast and easy but you aren't able to fully control all the creative aspects of focus. These things aren't bad - they just aren't better.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

sanj said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > And do those cams have af sanj? And if so does the dop or cameraman use it?
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...



Yes, but there are scenarios and types of shots they miss or don't try to bother with. And sometimes they have to use extra DOF to help cover. And some times they also practically use sets or even literally use sets and don't always get it quite in an entirely natural state fashion. They have teams and sometimes plan out and stake a spot out for months. You won't want to use AF for everything by any remote means, but it could help with some things and for sure if you are a bit smaller scale and time constrained than that. And for someone just out hiking and wanting to grab high quality footage there are scenarios where AF could definitely help at times and work out better than manual, not always, but at times.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 7, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The c100 isn't for casual video folk out on a hike.
> I've said from the start that af has it place.


----------



## photonius (Nov 8, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Has anyone figured out if they are replacing the sensor. I don't understand how this can be just a firmware upgrade. Someone suggested the dual-pixel sensor had already been put in place in the C100, but that seems like really incredible advance planning to have put the sensor in a camera that was announced more than a year ago.



Well, the dpreview news blurb certainly mentions that the sensor will not be changed, but it's functionality will be activated. This certainly requires new firmware, but may also require additional new processing hardware. Note that the framerate for single shot is also increasing.
It's not surprising that the sensor was already there. Coming up with this dual sensor probably took Canon quite a while in development.
I speculate that the dual pixel technology was being developed for quite a while. It probably was meant to be deployed earlier, such as a new 7D II, the EOS-M, the C100, etc. The earthquake in Japan probably set back quite a number of projects. Anyway, when Canon felt they could no longer hold back on putting a mirror-less on the market, they put out the EOS-M with the "old" simple sensor-phase-detect AF used in the 650/700 cameras.

In case of the C100, by that time the sensor was already ready. However, for the AF, now that the sensor was available, they needed a lengthy period to develop the software (firmware) to allow the AF to work with all the lenses - and still not all work. They could release the C100, because that camera did not rely on working AF to be sold. In the case of the EOS-M, this approach would not have worked, since it needed a working AF, so the older sensor was used. By the time the 70D was released, almost everything was resolved. I say almost everything - because the 7D II is still to be released. If it would be just a question of better body etc., it shouldn't have held back the release of the 7D II, so I think there must be more going on with the sensor that they want to put into it (I'm still hoping for the high dynamic range trick, as also used by magic lantern)


----------



## kphoto99 (Nov 8, 2013)

dilbert said:


> It may also be that Canon is using the low-end (cheap) model as a test to see what sort of *market demand* this announcement creates.



By making people send the camera in to them for this "firmware" upgrade, they know exactly how many people are interested. If they allowed the firmware to be downloaded then the numbers would be approximate.

The only people who will send the camera in are they ones that really want this AF since they have to give up the camera for some period of time.

Possibly also they can get some stats from the cameras how it was used, this is speculation on my part.


----------



## Ryan Ricaborda (Nov 8, 2013)

As a one band man who uses multiple C100s for documentary work, especially for interviews, 70D style autofocus will make my work much easer. 

Been doing manual focus pulling for a relatively short 15 years now with different high end video camera and I don't mind this fancy new AF technology being an additional tool to my kit but I'll definitely would not want to abuse it. Tried the 70D autofocus and found its focus either still not as precise or if it does hits its focus - a bit too artificial in feel, very unlike a good human focus puller. However I can imagine in the future technology will make it possible for AF cinema cameras to make focus pulling better and more human like in its behaviour. 

This development kinds of reminds me of 80s when still film cameras were starting to get reliable autofocus. It really polarised people.


----------

