On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 09:12:05 +1200, Jeff Drabble
>On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:16:54 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 23:40:07 -0600, Avid Fan
>>
>>>I have used auto-focus before and it was horrible. It just banged
>>>away at the image under varying light conditions. I won't use it
>>>again... I would rather be slightly out of focus than have the lens
>>>going in and out llike that.
>>[...]
>>Try a VX-2000 or a variant (PD150, DSR-250) to see
>>how good and reliable AF can be... I rarely use
>>MF anymore, since the AF is now so good on this
>>camera ("natural" AF speed, almost 100% correct
>>focus point choice, and no hunting until the light
>>level approaches your seeing limit).
>Try this for a scenario (remember the doco is to be shot at a fair):
>
>You have set up to look at some stalls and tents in the middle
>distance on a longish lens. There are people moving in many different
>directions, including a few passing through the shot quite close to
>the camera. You want them to do this because it adds bustle, interest
>and depth to your shot, but you want the focus to remain on the tents.
>How does your auto-focus cope?
>
>I've just tried such a shot on the DSR250, XL1, DSR200 and VX2000 and
>it doesn't work with auto-focus. The thing with film, or video is
>that you are trying to represent a three dimensional world within a
>two dimensional medium and there are certain creative uses of what
>might be seen as a camera's shortcomings that help put the third
>dimension of depth back into the process, or at least an illusion of
>depth. Depth of field manipulation would probably be the most
>important of these processes and you will not successfully exploit
>this by using auto-focus and you will not be able to set the camera so
>that you have a short depth of field if you are using other auto
>functions.
>
>I'm not trying to simply prove you incorrect, but the point is that
>automatic functions can only handle certain basic presets. As soon as
>you try to use your camera creatively they will let you down. Who
>decides what the point of interest is in your shot that auto-focus
>should set itself to, or what to expose for if your subject is
>surrounded by unusually bright or dark areas, or, in the case of
>auto-gain, whether you should have just switched off the ND filter and
>on and on? Ever done a sound track on auto-levels - ack!
>
>Auto functions assume the limitations of cameras to be faults that
>must be compensated for in a predetermined manner, whereas a competent
>operator sees the limitations as tools which he or she can exploit.
>Do you use an artistic, lateral-thinking, cross-referencing human
>brain, or do you accept that the camera's brain (which would not have
>the cerebral capacity to challenge a house-fly) is going to make your
>videographic decisions for you?
Well, "yes" to all of the above...! ;-)
There are exceptions to all statements, even mine! ;-)
But some of us favor wide-angle, close-in shooting, with
the occasional long-lens shot (often simple, where AF and
AE often still work well with the VX-2000...;-) - and
under these conditions, the VX-2000 AE, AF, and AGC can
work reliably enough to get me good "on-the-run" footage.
I have found the VX-2000 AF also reliable for most mid
FL shooting, too. If I were to stop and "second-guess"
the camera (especially one that handles the auto functions
as gracefully and accurately as the VX-2000 does), I would
wind up with a lower percentage of "good" footage. This is
the first camcorder I've seen with this level of auto
function dependability...
BTW, I'm not an "auto" nut - if you have read any of my
rants in the photo NGs (or on my web page), you would find
that for still photography I'm a solid MF, ME kinda shooter.
I haven't yet found a piece of still-photo gear that is
better than I am in setting focus and exposure - but I have
found a piece of video gear that is, for most of the shooting
I do (though I do use the "custom controls"
of the VX-2000 to bias its auto functions...).