Tech Thursdays: Micro 4/3rds Lenses for the AF100

Along with Art Tuesdays we are also going to be posting “Tech Thursdays.”  Each week I will post about a piece of technology, camera gear, computer software or the like and how we have used it at Eidolon in our work.  For the first post, let’s take a look at using Micro 4/3rds lenses on the AF100.

Why m4/3?

Why use a m4/3 lens on the AF100 out of the nearly endless possibilities of lenses available (thanks to the m4/3 format being incredibly adaptable)?  For me there are two main reasons: size and camera integration.  There are a few other advantages as well, but I’ll focus on these two big ones.

Size

AF100 with Lumix 20mm Lens.

Micro 4/3rds is a relatively new format sensor designed for photography and video.  It is about half as large as “full frame” sensors like the Canon 5D mkII, yet only slightly smaller than Academy 35mm motion picture film.  This makes it a great size for video, especially for those with a film background.  The “crop factor” with lenses is minimal when compared to 35mm motion picture film.  M4/3 also lacks a mirror when implemented in a DSLR body, allowing the cameras to be much smaller than a true DSLR.  All of this means that lenses for m4/3 can be built smaller than lenses of the past made for full frame and APS-C DSLRs (that’s some alphabet soup.)  Take the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f1.7 pancake lens.  They don’t call it pancake for nothing!  It is tiny.  When put on a m4/3 DSLR it doesn’t look too silly, but stick it on the AF100 and the combination looks like it was run over by a steamroller.  Looks aside, the lens is incredibly sharp wide open, pretty fast and a joy to use.  Focusing can be a little tricky in manual mode on the AF100 because the focus ring is electronic and is so close to the body that those with larger hands may have trouble.  But the total weight of the lens & camera is so low that hand holding is easy and can be done with little fatigue.  The 20mm gives an equivalent field of view of 40mm on a full frame sensor, great for walking around taking photos or close proximity filming.

Taken with the Lumix 20mm in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

It is the lens that probably spends the most time on our AF100.  Another great m4/3 lens is the Panasonic 7-14mm f4.0.  This equates to a 14-28mm field of view on full frame, so this is a super wide angle lens.  Yet it remains rectilinear, meaning lines stay straight and not distorted like on a fisheye lens.  Again, this lens is also tiny.  Not as small as the pancake, but when compared to its full frame equivalent from Nikon it is nearly a third of the weight and half the size (and half the price.)  Yes it’s made of plastic, but most of the size difference comes from the smaller sensor and shorter flange distance (because of no mirror) of the format.  This lens is extremely fun to use and sharp wide open.  The last lens with a great size to feature ratio is the Lumix 14-140mm.  This is a 10x zoom, and while it only opens up to f4.0 and quickly falls to f5.6, it is also tack sharp, light, and comes with OIS, something that is a huge benefit for video.  We use this lens often when running around during the day because it is so versatile when there is enough light.  It practically turns the AF100 into an upgraded HVX200.

Camera Connectivity

All of the Panasonic Lumix lenses interact with the AF100 body, meaning iris and focus information are passed through and electronically controlled, and the lenses correct for chromatic aberration and distortion.  For video, the camera connectivity is essential.  These are not cinema lenses, so they don’t have focus marks on their electronic focus rings, making it nearly impossible to rack focus or hit focus repeatedly and reliably.  But having a focus readout in feet helps alleviate the issue.  In our shooting so far, I’ve found the focus readout to be very accurate.  It can tend to jump quickly from .7 feet to say 5, 6 or event 30ft, but turning the ring slowly will allow for smoother focusing.  This is not unlike shooting with other camcorders like the Canon XHA1 which also had an electronic focusing ring and distance readout.  The iris control is also essential for video.  Non m4/3 lenses need adapters for iris control if they aren’t fully manual, and this tends to be a hit or miss proposition.  We have some non m4/3 lenses with adapters, and the iris control is just a ring that opens and closes the iris, but doesn’t provide any information as to what f-stop you might be at.  3rd party solutions to adapt lenses and retain electronic control of the iris are coming to market, but they are expensive and not for all lens manufacturers.  Lastly, the CA and distortion correction in the Lumix lenses, while not essential, is a nice extra feature.  It’s not something you would necessary notice if no one told you about it, but it makes the images better overall.

Video Still with the Lumix 7-14 at Georgetown University.

M4/3 lenses are a great option for shooting with on the AF100.  They are light, sharp and tend to be cheaper than their full frame counterparts.  They aren’t a total solution however.  Prime lenses from Nikon, Canon, Zeiss and other manufacturers can offer much higher build quality, manual focusing and image quality.  And then there is the cinema glass for those that need it and can afford it.  But having at least a couple m4/3 lenses in your bag is a must when shooting with the AF100.

Review – “Man on Wire”

By Tessa Moran

On an August morning over thirty years ago, Frenchman Phillippe Petit walked a tightrope illegally rigged between the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York City.  “Dancing” midair, some witnesses recalled.  No net lay below to catch him; no harness to prevent him from falling.  One mistep or gust of wind and Petit would lose his life. 

This is a true story, which Petit lived to recount in a 2002 book.  Yet it is James Marsh’s new documentary “Man on Wire” that gives this real-life heist the platform it deserves.  Though viewers know that Petit and his accomplices succeed in the end, Marsh never ceases to create suspense from start to finish.  Through the use of interviews and subtle recreations, Marsh transports the viewer to the scene of the “crime.” Every step is detailed, from making fake badges to enter the building, to hiding motionless as a night guard patrolled the premises.  Viewers feel complicit in the heist, yet happy in that feeling.  Afterall, it is a crime that causes pain to noone, notes one accomplice.  

He and the others talk little more about why they take part in such a risky endeavor.  For art, for the adventure of it?  Petit is perhaps more clear in his purpose, though his risk is indeed the greatest of all.  He scoffs at the media who posited “why, why, why?” as he was escorted to jail.  There is no why, he says. He simply revels in the beauty of it, “To die in the practice of your passion!” 

The sight of it is truly divine:  Petit’s black-clothed figure suspended mid-air against the blue sky and clouds above.  His then-girlfriend Annie remembers that day pointing into the air, gasping “look look, look” to passerbys.  Her recount is as heartfelt and passionate as if she were standing on that New York street thirty years ago.  It speaks volumes of Marsh’s talent as an interviewer; his ability to listen and to encourage the subjects to detail every sight and sound in first-person. 

Even so, it is clear these characters are natural storytellers themselves.  Petit, nothing less than enchanting.  Wide-eyed, he jumps around the room like a child, recounting the tension-filled elevator ride up to the top of the World Trade Center.  The camera lens spans his arms as they reach into the air, the light cast across his face.  Marsh anticipated the unconventional aspects of Petit’s active imagination and exuberant disposition, and he adapted to it beautifully.

Often what separates great documentaries from the rest is a certain level of taste, whether it is exercised directorially, cinematically or in the editing room.  Noteworthy is Marsh’s use of suggestive Errol Morris-style reenactments instead of the overly self-aware productions that clog other “historical” documentaries.  Audiences barely see the faces of the actors, nor hear their voices.  Instead, we see cleanly produced black and white images of a van driving into a World Trade Center lot, or a policeman asleep at his post.  

Marsh’s distinct level of taste is particularly clear in his decision not to mention, or even allude to, the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.  Petit’s story is compelling enough to stand on its own, and would have been cheapened by drudging up that fateful day.   Instead, viewers see the towers as they were: so striking as to compel an individual to risk his life suspended between them.

Review – “Bulletproof Salesman”

By Tessa Moran

“The Real Iron Man,” one viewer called the documentary Bulletproof Salesman during a Q&A following the film’s screening at the Silverdocs Film Festival.  He was encouraging the filmmakers to take on the concept as a marketing avenue for the film.  Q&A at these events often turns into an unwelcomed platform for viewers to share their own life stories, conspiracy theories, and “brilliant” marketing ideas.  But the viewer’s comparison wasn’t half bad. 

After all, the film’s main-character Fidelis Cloer, a German armored-vehicle salesman, is a war-profiteer just like Tony Stark.  Only Cloer is selling protection, not weapons.  He’s also a womanizer, which we fail to see in the film but later learn during Q&A.  Still, this fact isn’t suprising from what character exploration we do see in the film. 

Perhaps it is the ease with which Cloer travels in highly dangerous areas of Baghdad when conducting business.   He is seemingly unaffected by the sight of burning buildings or the sound of gunfire; loads his automatic weapon in the car as if he were just buckling his seatbelt.  Even so, Cloer is anything but reckless.  Rather calculated in his entry into Iraq, just as could be expected from the never-fail heros played by Robert Downey Jr., Jason Statham or Bruce Willis.  He stays in hotels located nearest to military posts, and wears a Keffiyeh (traditional Middle Eastern male headdress) as disguise.   He rarely travels in “soft-skin” cars, ever-confident in the armored protection of his vehicles. 

Filmmakers Petra Epperlein and Michael Tucker are extremely successful in visually developing Cloer’s character – smooth, calculated and confident.  In one scene, Cloer methodically clips his fingernails as he explains that looking sharp is essential to gaining trust from clients.  In another scene, he sits in an armored car as a client shoots rounds of bullets at it.  A good salesman must always believe in his product, he says.

These scenes set the stage for some level of action from Cloer, and yet the film fails to fully deliver on our expectations.  It comes close during one scene in which Cloer and his colleagues notice they are being followed on the highway by a couple of suspicious-looking vehicles.  We see the cars nearing in the rear-view mirror… Cloer loads his gun… the suspense builds… and then it is uttlerly squashed by the most irritating screen text telling us exactly what we are seeing. 

This wasn’t the only instance of the VH1-like pop-ups, which appeared frequently throughout the film, particularly in the beginning. Coupled with punchy music, the pop-ups set the tone for more of a music video or cheesy reality show than a cinema verite documentary.  Thankfully, the text pop-ups petered out towards the end of the film. 

Despite the distraction, the filmmakers were able to tell an unnerving, yet compelling story about the business of war.  As the story unveils, viewers are conflicted over how to define Cloer.  Is he the action hero we want to root for, or the villain war-profiteer we despise?  Though Cloer admits flatly that war is “good for business”, in doing that business, he is also saving lives.  Can the ends justify the means?  The film’s greatest success is in exposing this duality without seeking to answer it.

Review – “Bigger, Stronger, Faster*”

By Tessa Moran

In America, success is earned when one works hard and plays by the rules. At least that’s what Arnold Schwarzenegger says, the Austrian body-builder turned actor turned Governor of California. Success was certainly in his cards, but whether he played by the rules is questionable, especially as Mr. Universe later revealed that he used anabolic steroids.

But we all cut corners, right? The documentary film Bigger, Stronger, Faster* argues that we do, using Schwarzenegger and the steroid debate as an emblem of American hypocrisy. Damned if you don’t become number one, damned if you do use steroids to get there. Note that the asterisk in the title is for the “side effects of being American.”

Another hypocrisy explored in the film is that while America shuns athletes who use steroids, it is seemingly unconcerned with students who use Adderall to get ahead in school or musicians who use beta blockers to curb performance anxiety. While the parallel seems a bit of a stretch, it does call attention to the very depressing reality that there are short-cuts to nearly every success.

And then there’s that hero complex that seems particularly American. The Terminator, Rocky and Hulk Hogan were just a few real-life heros director Chris Bell aspired to be as a self-proclaimed fat kid from Poughkeepsie, NY. His two brothers, nicknamed “Mad Dog” and “Smelly” for their vigorous, if not obsessive training regimens, also aspired to be body builders. Bell differed from his brothers in that he did not take steroids. He believed it to be cheating, even though every single one of his “heroes” had been a user.

So the film serves as Bell’s quest to divulge the hypocritical, and sometimes debilitating American drive to succeed, even within his own family. Bell injects himself entirely into the film as narrator, interviewer, subject and even, provocateur. His approach is similar to that of Michael Moore, taking liberties to ask the hard questions and knock down anyone’s door to get them. Thankfully, Bell appears to be interested in the “other side,” even though in the end he largely discounts steroid naysayers.

Among them is the father of a young steroid-user who committed suicide. He was relentlessly campaigning against steroid use, even though his son had been taking Lexapro, an anti-depressant associated with suicidal tendencies. Easiest to discount was Senator Henry Waxman, who headed Congressional hearings on steroid use in baseball, but came across as if he’s never heard of the topic. What better to hook viewers than an ill-informed politician to scoff at?

The film’s greatest success is in its depiction of the Bell brothers, whose dreams of being great at times bordered on delusional and destructive. Mad Dog’s quest for stardom involved relocating to California away from his family. He painfully admits that he would rather die than fail. Smelly challenges his wife’s request for him to stop taking steroids so that they can conceive another child.

In one heartbreaking scene, Bell’s mother tearfully asks what she did to cause her sons to be so unsatisfied, and to resort to drug use in order to get ahead. Yet in another scene, Bell freeze-frames a shot of his father and mother cheering at Smelly’s weight lifting competition. He comments that his father looked like he just won the lottery, and that his mother looks like she’s thanking God for her blessings. The juxtaposition of these scenes best explains the hypocrisy Bell is aiming to depict.

Not all issue-driven documentaries need a character study to be compelling. “No End in Sight”, Charles Ferguson’s film about the Iraq War is an example of this. But “Bigger, Stronger, Faster*” would not have been nearly as successful had it not explored the Bell family’s struggle to come to terms with simply being like everyone else. This character study provided necessary grounding for what at times seemed to be an overly-ambitious film. At one point, the film is addressing the health implications of steroid use. The next, it is discussing hero-worship in America. Elsewhere, it examines the lack of regulation and false advertising of nutritional supplements use. And so on, and so on. As a result, the film dragged on a bit too long. Even so, the film never ceases to entertain, and its honest look at steroid use in America opens up a fascinating debate about our incessant drive to succeed. A fine piece of documentary filmmaking.