AF-100 Another DSLR $9,000 4:2:0 is a solution?

[pallllaaaaa]

always happened that because canon sell a thousands of 7d and 550d, Panasonic now
says ¨this time af-100 solved our problems¨ and what did they do.

A new camcorder that finally do depth of field, but what aspects have to pay to have those d.o.f
1 have to pay $10,000 camcorder with maybe two or three good lens, 8 times more than a dslr that do the same or less D.O.F, CMOS chip canon is more bigger
2. You may have minus color than a HPX 170 because this AF-100 is just like HDV 4:2:0 and 24 mgbs.
thats not good for a high quality film, music video, or even a comercial work.
3. I dont think indie filmakers want 4:2:0 for their own movies. and 24mgbs.
4. Panasonic bring new camera but the only thing that they have more for an HPX170 is D.O.F, but imagine a movie with D.O.F but without color, for this instance you cannot have to pay $10,000, Maybe to compete with he same circunstances that a 7D Panasonic has to do the same as sony Camcorder DSLR prices about 2,000 and 3,500, because have the same resolution, that finally is that our spectators will see, is fair for they?, or for Panasonic and his sales.

Is not fair for anybody.

[dcloud]

uh whats your point? if you dont want it, dont get it.

[LoganMackay]

1. Confirmed price is "under $6000." The lens mount can almost any lens ever made with adapters. Dof isn't everything, I want a cleaner image.

2. You can use the sdi to gain 8bit 422

3. See above.

4. I'm not very familiar with the 170, but the cameras are totally different models and have different uses overall.

Life isn't fair.

[Melvin Harris]

Good Lord :badputer:

How many times? How many times must it be said? This is NOT a DSLR, it isn't. Don't want it? Cool. Don't agree with it, cool, but this is getting... uhhhhhh.

[Barry_Green]

Well, first of all, I don't know where you're getting your $10,000 price tag, because the MSRP has been confirmed to be $4,995.

Secondly, the AF100 is not a DSLR. If you'd like a list of things that the AF100 does, that a DSLR doesn't, here's a list:


THINGS THE AF100 DOES, THAT A CANON DSLR DOESN'T
Clean monitoring at full 1920x1080 resolution, suitable for recording to an external recorder

Clean HDMI output at full resolution even during recording, suitable for recording

Professional HD-SDI output

1080/24pSf output

A composite video output jack

SMPTE timecode

LTC timecode synchronizing, for multiple-camera shoots or for using an external audio recorder or timecode slate

A headphone jack for monitoring audio

RCA audio outputs

Professional XLR audio inputs

Line/Mic selectable

Can supply phantom power for microphones

Manual audio level control with no AGC

Option of engaging an automatic limiter to prevent against sudden overmodulation

High-quality audio pre-amps

1080/60i and 1080/50i recording modes

Variable frame rates in 20 steps, from 1080/12p up to 1080/60p, for various levels of slow-motion and fast-motion

720/24p and 720/25p and 720/30p recording modes (in addition to 1080/24p, 1080/25p, 1080/30p, 720/50p, 720/60p, 1080/50i and 1080/60i)

P2/AVCCAM Metadata

Two card slots

Professional image controls

Filmlike Cinegamma gamma curves

Selectable color matrices

Adjustable knee point and master pedestal controls right in camera

Dynamic Range Stretching feature

Color-matched with other Panasonic professional cameras, such as the VariCams

Pre-record, for catching events occurring even before you press the record button

Continuous recording capacity of over 12 hours in economy mode, and continuous recording of six hours in best-quality mode on a single card (no 12-minute time limit!)

Complete freedom from overheating issues

Colored Focus Assist that can be used >while recording<

Capable of video-camera-like autofocus (when used with an appropriate lens)

Face-detection autofocus that can track focus on a moving face

Peaking/EVF DTL for easier manual focus

High-definition color LCD panel

High-definition color viewfinder

Viewfinder that can actually be used during video recording

Two sets of zebras, which can be set from anywhere from 50 to 105 IRE in 5-IRE steps

A built-in Waveform Monitor(!)

A built-in Vectorscope

A built-in Spotmeter (the "Marker" which tells you the IRE brightness of what's in the center of the screen)

Different aspect ratio markings in the LCD, including 16:9, 4:3, 14:9, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1

A 90% "safety zone" for making sure your framing will be visible on all TVs

Film-style variable shutter angles from 1 to 360 degrees, which track automatically with the variable frame rates to always provide consistent motion blur

Syncro-Scan shutter in video mode, giving you nearly infinitely-settable shutter speeds from 1/24.0 to 1/250.0

Built-in optical neutral density filters, including ND .6, ND 1.2, and ND 1.8

SMPTE color bar generator

Cleaner/sharper images with a substantial reduction in aliasing

Elimination of the purple/orange moire that happens on all Canon DSLRs

A much more robust recording format (AVCCAM PH mode) which is more resilient and better than the h.264 on the DSLRs

Elimination of the fixed pattern noise and "vertical streaking"

Greatly improved rolling shutter performance

Ability to assign index points within clips, so you can mark a subsection of a clip and easily jump from spot to spot within that clip

Ability to mark clips "Good" or "No Good" at the press of a button, and that marker will show up in your NLE (depending, of course, on your NLE)

Ability to delete the last clip you just shot, at a button press

Ability to assign custom user names to clips as they get recorded, automatically

Ability to save and exchange "scene files" with other users, for easy matching between multiple cameras

Ability to take any PL-mount lens (not just a few limited telephoto lenses, or having to physically remove the mirror out of your DSLR)

Ability to take c-mount cinema lenses

Ability to take much larger batteries, including 6000mah batteries

Wireless infrared remote controller

Remote iris/focus/start/stop controller sockets

Can perform a manual black balance, with a dedicated physical iris

Fully articulated LCD panel (only the Canon 60D offers this, the others don't)

And, to top it all off, a three-year warranty



If you feel like those features are important to you, then step up to the bar and buy an AF100. If you feel like you wouldn't use those features, then stay with a DSLR.

>and please note -- this is not meant to be some sort of feature-for-feature comparison. This is meant to be a list of new/added/additional capabilities that the AF100 has, that the Canon DSLRs don't have. That's it.<



But please, in the interest of accuracy, let's put an end to this idea of trying to make something into what it isn't. The AF100 isn't a DSLR, it's a professional video camcorder with a DSLR-sized sensor. If it's not for you, that's okay. There are still plenty of DSLRs on the market that you can choose from.

[mikkowilson]

I'd say Barry's list pretty much sums it up.

- Mikko

[BobDiaz]

I've said this before, but it's worth saying again:

The Perfect Video Camera does NOT exist.

Each video camera offers something that my be useful to one person and not be very useful to another. Because people's needs, wants, and tastes are different, there is no "One Size Fits All In Video Cameras". It's all about finding the best fit for your needs or your budget limits.

While the concept, "A lot of bang for the buck" is subjective, for many, I can safely say that the AF-100/101 appears to offer just that. If you glance at Berry's list, you can see that that the AF-100/101 is an exciting product.



Bob Diaz

[pallllaaaaa]

I'd say Barry's list pretty much sums it up.

- Mikko

not all, never talk about color, 4:2:0 that is most important part.

[blondie.]

Thank you Barry. If you don't want it, don't get it. Clearly you don't know what the things on Barry's list and therefore you don't need this camera, either.

...and "more bigger"? Really?

[blondie.]

...all in all, this is a VIDEO CAMERA. Unlike a DSLR, it is not a photo camera with a video option.

(sorry for the double post).

[ATL Media Group]

Is that all Barry? Sheesh.. You act like it has more features than the typical DSLR!
:cheesy:

[ripupthehwy]

I think pallllaaaaa is saying that by the time she buys good glass for the af100 her total cost would be about $10 grand. But whatever. To each his own. But I also think she should find somewhere else to go do her bitching.

[CraigM]

The 5Dmk2 is also 8-bit color and being used quite successfully for commercials, music videos and episodic television production.

[xmephestox]

and you can get a ex3 for almost 10 grand... and get a smaller sensor, relatively same codec (long gop) use more expensive sxs cards (yes you can go sd route, but you can't do all your framerates) and be stuck with their 1/2 lenses. or spend an extra 5 grand on glass, 35 mm adapter, and possibly a b4 adpater. with the b4 it's another 5 grand to boot.


i guess there's no pleasing everybody huh?

[pallllaaaaa]

Is not a dslr, ok but I want to see the footage of all people, and you will see that are almost identical resolutions, a thousands of functions, but why you need all this if color is not as good as cheapest hpx or hvx, or you gonna tell me that af-100 has more color than hpx?

[ripupthehwy]

I'd gladly trade off some of those specs to have in camera pro audio anyway. No one's talking much about it, but you try shooting a tv drama series with DIALOUGUE. , multiple camera angles, etc and then having to import all the audio from a digital recorder and match it all up to your video and then cut all your shots together. VERY TIME CONSUMING and NOT an ideal solution.

[Steve Kahn]

But I also think she should find somewhere else to go do her bitching.

Wow. And all this time I thought pallllaaaaa was a "he". I think you're right.



As for price (of the AF100), it'll quickly fall to $4000 or even $3000.
A lot of nuttiness going on these days.



not all, never talk about color, 4:2:0 that is most important part.
Barry/Jan say the camera is only 70% there. I secretly hope Panasonic drops the bomb that at 100% they've included 10bit 4:2:2. I hope.

But, as the spec stands at 70% you still have the option of using an external recording device for 4:2:2

[Barry_Green]

not all, never talk about color, 4:2:0 that is most important part.
Please point out any camcorder under $20,000 that records in anything better than 4:2:0.

The entire list, start to finish, is:
Panasonic P2 camcorders
Canon XF camcorders

That's it. Even the $20,000 Sony PMW350 is 4:2:0.

I'm not saying 4:2:0 is wonderful, all I'm saying is -- for the price, what do you expect? And if it's that big of a deal to you, slap on a Ki Pro and record the uncompressed 1920x1080 footage in full 4:2:2 that's coming out of the HD-SDI port.

[pallllaaaaa]

Iam not saying that sony are best, for nothing, Idont like sony anyway, what I said is sony Put a low price, but I dont want to buy this cam without audio and a lot more of things. what I said is why always you buy a camcorder, the next year your cam is obsolete like my Hpx 170, and I know if I buy AF-100 the next year for competence reasons, you may have AF-100 obsolete two, like sony do with the sony EX1, And next year you find the EX1r. all I am saying is please bring good camcorders to us, not to fix the competitors, because us are important too.

[Barry_Green]

Well that's the nature of the electronics business. Anything you buy today, will be superseded tomorrow. That's how it works.

So you have to pick what does the job you need done, and then quit shopping. Instead, just put your head down and go to work. No matter what comes out tomorrow or next month or next year, it won't make your existing product stop working.

[pallllaaaaa]

Ok Dont worry, I like panasonic not exactly for your comments to me, but because I like the color of panasonic. Have a good day, and keep in mind that you have to respect to your customers, not just customers that aplausses to you.

[Bruce Watson]

Please point out any camcorder under $20,000 that records in anything better than 4:2:0.

That would be the direct competition for the AF100 from Canon, yes? The Canon XF 300 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/684199-REG/Canon_4457B001_XF300_Professional_Camcorder.html). It gives you 50Mbps and 4:2:2 out of the box. On 1/3" sensors though. And it's not using an AVCHD codec.

I think the issue is the codec. Panny is using their AVCCAM which is, I believe, an AVCHD codec. AVCHD is, by definition, limited to 24Mbps and 4:2:0.

Like everyone's said, if that's not good enough for you then you can always slap a recorder on the box and record the uncompressed 4:2:2 HD-SDI feed. It's available on the camera if you really want it.

[Finster]

pallllaaaaa - simply avoid and/or ignore the zealots in either camp (in this case the DSLR vs. AF-100 camps). If you can't afford to slap down $6K on the AF-100, then start saving up for the next camera that's bound to trump the AF-100 1.5 years from now.

Or better yet, when the AF-100 is trumped, buy a used AF-100 from one of the zealots for $3K!

[Luis Caffesse]

That would be the direct competition for the AF100 from Canon, yes? The Canon XF 300 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/684199-REG/Canon_4457B001_XF300_Professional_Camcorder.html). It gives you 50Mbps and 4:2:2 out of the box. On 1/3" sensors though. And it's not using an AVCHD codec.

Yes, I believe that's what Barry was referencing already - the very next part of his post read:


The entire list, start to finish, is:
Panasonic P2 camcorders
Canon XF camcorders

That's it. Even the $20,000 Sony PMW350 is 4:2:0.

[Steve Kahn]

I do have to agree with pallllaaaaa that it can be frustrating to buy gear only to have it be "obsolete" the next year. Also, Panasonic should take care to somewhat buffer natural obsolescence by providing every possible feature that similarly priced cams out in the market today have. (not every - but every possible. I understand there are always compromises)

The idea that the XF-300 exists in the wild for around the same price as the AF100 in truth nullifies the fact that the $20,000 Sony PMW350 is 4:2:0. The 350 has been around for quite some time. It is legitimate to ask why the AF100 has only a 4:2:0 color space.

But that being said, it is amazing that the dvx100 still sells for 2-3k after all of these years and that was a great camera! I shot my first short film on it and for the time: wow!

When I buy my AF100 I'll rent it out when I'm not shooting and at the end of her run I'll sell it and move on to the next latest, greatest - and will probably recoup all if not more than the cam cost in the first place.

[13th Judas]

what a fugly looking camera :zombie_smiley:

[Rick Burnett]

How is this any different than any other electronic device that your purchase, like computers? The point being, if you are unhappy with the colorspace of this camera and feel that in a 1.5 years the camera you want will be released, wait and get it.

I hardly doubt Panasonic doesn't want to give people what they want, but at the end of the day, from a need basis, they have to make decisions that aren't going to make everyone happy. They've got to make a decision for them that makes the most sense from an investment standpoint to their return on that. If they added every option that every person wanted, it would price the camera right out of everyone's pocket.

CMOS design hardly scales linearly. If in fact the sensor is faster (rolling shutter) and ends up being higher DR and less noise than say other sensors, this clearly starts adding on the cost to the system. I mean, let's look at the unreleased S35 sensor body from RED, estimated by them at $7k right now. That is JUST the body, no LCD, no controls, no EVF, no card reader, no power supply. Now granted, on paper the S35 sounds amazing, but it's not a reality yet. It has no working prototype. You know the cost of the EPIC, which is right out of this league. Both of these are CMOS designs and are clearly a lot more expensive and have taken A LOT more time to design. (which both are still not done).

I see the biggest marketplace for the AF-100 is for people like ourselves who have and really like the HVX200, which costs us about the same, who are sick and tired of all the limitations of the 7D. I just shot some test shots on a crane this weekend and let me show you what my 7D did:
http://www.asylumstudioproductions.com/images/alias.jpg

Now, I apologize for the quality as it was out of focus and being up on the crane with a 7D, there isn't any wireless controls yet, look along the roof line. See the nice rainbow aliasing?

Now THAT is a problem. I see this crap come up ALL the time on almost every shoot we do. I am constantly battling this problem and it looks horrible because it dances along the screen especially in cases like this where the roof line is rotating as the crane comes by.

Let's then add up all the time I have lost re-shooting if we didn't catch it that day OR if I had to fix it in post. It doesn't take long to make just that ONE new feature make my life a lot easier.

Hell, let's add wireless remote on top of this since I could have EASILY set the focus from back at the back end of my crane. And given the 7D does not output to the LCD and the HDMI at the same time, I have to unhook my smallHD, set the focus, hook it back in and then HOPE that is it right up on top of the crane.

For me, sure, more is always better, but I've been working with a lot less for a long time. Try to push the H.264 around in post and it just falls apart so fast. Sure, we try to get the look in camera, but we'd like a little more freedom with a better codec.

At first I was not a huge proponent of the AF-100, I'll be honest, because for me, my biggest beef has been Moire, Aliasing, Rolling Shutter, Remote control and Audio. From Barry's report, these things have been addressed and may get a little better before release. Since I haven't tested these things myself, I still can't say for 100% sure, but of ALL the jobs I have done with my 7D now, which the last big one we did will be on CMT soon (music video) I at least have the professional experience to know that colorspace is one small part of a HUGE collection of issues a lot of people have been dealing with.

But more than that, I'm not going to speculate. It's only a few months away and I look forward to all of us putting this camera through the rounds.

And pertaining to lenses, given that they are removable, I don't think it's fair to compare fixed lenses cameras the same way since once you get a new camera body, the beauty is you get to keep using your lenses and not have to repay for something you had before.

Every shoot we do now, all I can think of is all the tools we will have soon that will make our jobs easier again. There I go, getting excited again :)

[pallllaaaaa]

engineers know exactly what happened in 100 years later, and they still driving us until we left them.
No more people. no more. or maybe they confuse our minds, or maybe I can wait the Af101 that has 100 mgbs, and 4:2:2 and even more incredible for the same $6,000 and free you have a 1 card to record. wowwwwwwww.

[Michael Olsen]

1 have to pay $10,000 camcorder with maybe two or three good lens, 8 times more than a dslr that do the same or less D.O.F, CMOS chip canon is more bigger

The cost is about right. But you are comparing apples to oranges. A DSLR is not a video camera. To make it one requires significant cost. But $10,000 is less than a similar video camera with similar DOF with similar lenses would cost you.

Compared with other video cameras and DSLRs, the AF-100 is a relative bargain nor does it require the purchase of additional sundries simply to be able to monitor the footage effectively.


2. You may have minus color than a HPX 170 because this AF-100 is just like HDV 4:2:0 and 24 mgbs.
thats not good for a high quality film, music video, or even a comercial work.

Well, I wouldn't say AVCHD PE is equivalent to HDV. Of course, if you are shooting high quality film, music video, or even commercial work and the AF-100 is unsuitable to you, a DSLR will be absolutely unacceptable in terms of image fidelity.



3. I dont think indie filmakers want 4:2:0 for their own movies. and 24mgbs.
I can't speak for everyone, but I doubt anyone wants anything but the best. We are all forced to make compromises, be it paying the costs associated with Film, uncompressed RAW, compressed RAW, or any of the given codecs available today. Only individuals can decide what is acceptable for their production.



4. Panasonic bring new camera but the only thing that they have more for an HPX170 is D.O.F, but imagine a movie with D.O.F but without color, for this instance you cannot have to pay $10,000

Yes. Because everything shot in 4:2:0 is without color. It's just like watching big grey blobs. Totally worthless for any and all productions.


Maybe to compete with he same circunstances that a 7D Panasonic has to do the same as sony Camcorder DSLR prices about 2,000 and 3,500, because have the same resolution, that finally is that our spectators will see, is fair for they?, or for Panasonic and his sales.

Is not fair for anybody.


Or maybe they wanted to produce the first ~35mm video camera available in a usable configuration for less than $20,000. Hmm.

That being said, if you want 4:2:2 color, this isn't the camera for you. Use an adapter on another video camera (I presume you own an HPX170) and deal with the light loss, shoot on RED, Alexa, or Film and deal with the additional financial and temporal costs.

[xmephestox]

people do realize that panasonic's recording format that does high bit rate 4:2:2 IS p2 right? It's been clearly stated that p2 in af100 would increase the price by 3000-4000 dollars. It's cheaper to just get a external recorder.

[Rick Burnett]

They may make another model with it in the future for those who want it.

[Steve Kahn]

people do realize that panasonic's recording format that does high bit rate 4:2:2 IS p2 right?
I don't understand why it would have to be this way. Canon records to CompactFlash cards.

[xmephestox]

They DO have a business model to maintain. There may be fire and brimestone at their door if they announce a camera that does 10 bit 4:2:2 avc intra on CF cards in a sub 10 thousand dollar camera body with a larger sensor, and 90% of the options of their high end 2/3 camera lines. You can't expect a multi million dollar company to break their backs on a smaller market. Yes, this market IS the smaller market. they make a lot of money off their high end cameras, they make a lot of money on their consumer cameras. This is somewhere in between.

I'd love to have all this stuff too, but in the end, they have customers to protect. Not just appease the already volatile indie market that's gonna shoot on one camera from the next every other week as soon as it's announced. It's not technologically out of there power, but you have to realize that it's a lot of give and take, and they are the top dogs, and the 2/3 backbone of the broadcast industry. Those clients have to have their fair share of what they need and want too, and that includes justifying why they just spent 50 thousand dollars on a camera.

if you want no holds bar with in reason, save for a scarlet, s35 version with all the accessories will cost you 15-20k all said and done, and you'll be spending double the money in hard drive space and post production. but the image is going to be as uncompromised as you get compared to a lot of what's out there right now.

[Steve Kahn]

Have to disagree. I can't see anyone at NBC - or any broadcaster - caring one bit that the AF100 has the same color space as their HPX.

The AF100 is a specialty camera. It could never do what the P2 cams do. They are broadcast cams. Totally different ball game. Totally.

[xmephestox]

you should re look at the specs of the af100, not a single HPX camera can do 1080p/60p. and it has a whole ton of other features those cameras can do. to say they wouldn't dump a 50k camera for a 6k camera that can give them 90% of what they need and than some, i completely disagree with. I've worked with them, I've done the work, they will try to save money wherever they can as long as the standards that they are used to don't take too much of a hit. A lot of ENG people are also personal owners of these cameras, they will be pissed too.

[pallllaaaaa]

Yeah thats exactly what XMEPHESTOX said, thats the reason that they dont give us all features, i.e to protect high end customers, thats really the right thing, and not all things barry said, so we have to support new proposals of new chambers to break the big monopolies.
Af-100 is just one more mask, and we for sure have to dance with it.

[xmephestox]

and keep in mind, that it's a multi leveled corporation we are talking about, they have a lot of gears and numbers to look at, and will take the conservative route. Gambling on the notion that "this is a specialty camera, and it won't cut into our eng line" isn't crossing their minds. did it cross canon's mind when they came out with the 5d that everybody and their mother's will be shooting on it?

It's an expensive business, that's getting cheaper, but the price is always something. whether out of your wallet, or out of the device.

[xmephestox]

Yeah thats exactly what XMEPHESTOX said, thats the reason that they dont give us all features, i.e to protect high end customers, thats really the right thing, and not all things barry said, so we have to support new proposals of new chambers to break the big monopolies.
Af-100 is just one more mask, and we for sure have to dance with it.

and by no means am i in agreement with you. I think Panasonic has come out with a very fine camera that fills the void for a lot of people, and a lot of people are gonna have to chance to make some really great work with it, and be out there making money, making art, pursuing their dreams, rather than sitting around thinking about what's next in line for them to spend their pennies on.

I don't complain when a new processor or video card comes and say they could have had that last year when i bought it, I use what I have and what I can get to the fullest extent. I may hate the fact that Apple overprices all their stuff, but I buy it anyway because I get my next job , and do it that much better with whatever minor improvement they threw in. They run a business, I run a business. I'm just thankful that there are tools out there now that literally put you ahead of the curve compared to years ago, and really let you show off what you've got, and what kind of work ethic and talent you really have to prove yourself in this industry.


-Rant.

[Steve Kahn]

they will try to save money wherever they can as long as the standards that they are used to don't take too much of a hit.
I couldn't imagine any broadcaster wanting to work with the AF100. Not ergonomic - no shoulder mount - no camcorder power zoom on the lens - no wireless anything - even skew from the CMOS makes it pretty horrible for whip pans that are needed in sports or news situations.

[Rick Burnett]

Just imagine how many people would have been upset if they put the P2 in and increased the priced to $10k for the body only. I sure would have been upset and it would have placed it firmly out of my price range.

When I look at the AF100 from the DSLR up to it, the difference in performance/features is amazing. I guess when *you* look at it from the upper end down, you don't see the appeal. My advice to you is this camera wasn't designed for someone like you, it was designed for people like me who are coming from the DSLR craze and want something better.

[Steve Kahn]

Af-100 is just one more mask, and we for sure have to dance with it.

To an extent this is true. Panasonic, Sony & Canon have all been slow to answer our need for this technology. And, if it weren't for the dSLR revolution it wouldn't be here now.

I remember when the EX-1 came out I had the feeling that they were feeding us crumbs when everyone was going crazy that it had 1/2" CMOS chips. But they were. 1/2" CMOS drove them wild.

It is also amazing to me that a Jim Jannard - God bless him - can trump what these seasoned companies hadn't been able to do - or didn't want to do.

To be frank they (Panasonic, Sony and Canon) have been failures at listening to our needs.

[Stephen Mick]

To be frank they (Panasonic, Sony and Canon) have been failures at listening to our needs.



Sony…completely agree.

Canon…agree, to some extent.

Panasonic…completely disagree.


Sony has long shown a lack of interest in what the independent/low-budget filmmaking community needs. Canon, on the other hand, completely stumbled into it with the 5DII. When they realized that they could create some additional momentum by listening to the market and giving them 24p and "manual" (wink, wink) audio controls, they did so. Panasonic has proven time and again that they do, in fact listen to the needs of this community. One need look no further than the fact that line manager Jan Crittenden has a strong presence here.

Judging from the comments of many, it seems there's an overwhelming feeling that any one of these three companies could give us everything we want in a camera next week. The fact that they haven't is not, in my mind, indicative of any great conspiracy. Companies are in business to sell products and make money. If any of these companies felt giving us the product we all want would significantly add to their bottom line, they would.

That they haven't (yet) indicates to me that either the market is very small, or the engineering realities are much more complex than any of us understand.

And if all of this were so easy, Jannard would likely have done it already.

[Melvin Harris]

And if all of this were so easy, Jannard would likely have done it already.

+1

and he hasn't yet.

No tool is obsolete when another comes out anymore than a 2010 model car is obsolete when the 2011 comes out...

It's just a tool designed to meet the needs of particular artists. People have preferences and are driven by the decisions they have made. Some, like me, will kill for the AF100- twenty years ago, when it was announced, I would have killed for a Scarlet... but the AF100 meets all of my needs and then some. It's a tool, a very interesting one, but just a tool. How you use it matters more than what it can do compared to something else.

[Rick Burnett]

+1

and he hasn't yet.

No tool is obsolete when another comes out anymore than a 2010 model car is obsolete when the 2011 comes out...

It's just a tool designed to meet the needs of particular artists. People have preferences and are driven by the decisions they have made. Some, like me, will kill for the AF100- twenty years ago, when it was announced, I would have killed for a Scarlet... but the AF100 meets all of my needs and then some. It's a tool, a very interesting one, but just a tool. How you use it matters more than what it can do compared to something else.

I just look at it this way, hey, if it doesn't work for someone, then they shouldn't buy it. That's a +1 change I'll be able to get one sooner since I have a feeling they are going to sell like crazy.

[hdimages.ca]

i didn,t see in your list the full over cranking 1080p at 60fps? is this possible to sd card? possible to external recording device ?

[Barry_Green]

I don't understand why it would have to be this way. Canon records to CompactFlash cards.
Yes, but Canon records long-GoP MPEG-2 to compactflash cards. Panasonic's recording intraframe H.264 to its P2 cards.

[Noel Evans]

I really just dont get all the hoo ha.

THERE WILL NEVER BE A CAMERA THAT IS THE BE ALL AND END ALL

And we are talking a relatively cheap camera here.

Specs change, technology improves and becomes cheaper.

If you are someone who works in this industry, head down bum up and work. Then the price of your gear becomes a moot point, its a tool of your trade and you should be budgeting to ensure you can upgrade equipment - every other industry in the world does this. And if youre not making money, rethink your strategy.

If youre a hobbyist. Its a HOBBY. If you want the latest thing all the time and have the cash - get it. If you dont - dont. It doesnt make any financial sense to stretch yourself for a hobby.

Im not talking about this in relation to the AF100 here either - just in general.

In two years will Panasonic or another company make a camera at a similar price point to the AF100 thats better? Of course they will. They are all business and need to keep moving forward. Nothing is static.

But as of this December, Panasonic will be the only company to offer a large sensor camera with all the components and functions listed by Barry.

[Barry_Green]

i didn,t see in your list the full over cranking 1080p at 60fps? is this possible to sd card? possible to external recording device ?
Full 1080/60p overcranking is possible to the SD card. I don't see how it could work to an external device though, because HDMI/HD-SDI don't support 1080/60p, so I don't know what the monitoring situation would be like.

[pallllaaaaa]

crazy, thats exactly what they need to buy like you said. people crazy, confused, but dont worry i will buy it too.

[Steve Kahn]

Yes, but Canon records long-GoP MPEG-2 to compactflash cards. Panasonic's recording intraframe H.264 to its P2 cards.

Sorry for my ignorance (no sarcasm intended) but isn't a megbit a megabit?

That is, once you code to intraframe in the cam's cpu why does that require a P2 card to store. I agree AVC-intra is vastly superior but are you saying it is impossible to save AVC-intra to compactflash cards?

[hotchkiss]

Just imagine how many people would have been upset if they put the P2 in and increased the priced to $10k for the body only. I sure would have been upset and it would have placed it firmly out of my price range.

To the contrary, there are also those who will not buy (or may not buy) one because it's lacking P2 and AVC-intra 100. I'm in the "most likely will not buy category", because I'd rather spend a bit more and have additional capabilities that this camera is lacking.

I won't say "never", but I'm inclined to sit this one out until a more full featured camera/codec variant is released, whether it's a Red or Panasonic.

If a gig comes along that would necessitate the AF-100 and could pay for it, I will think otherwise ;-) . This camera hits between the two categories that I'm interested in- a VDSLR without major codec issues and a pricier but less compromised cinema style camera.

Panasonic in due time will release the latter style camera. The AF100 seems designed to eliminate the capable VDSLR niche. Or, to put it another way- put the VDSLR cat back in the bag.

We'll know more tonight or tomorrow about the GH2's capabilities or deficiencies as the case may be.

Interesting times indeed.

[Noel Evans]

I'm in the "most likely will not buy category", because I'd rather spend a bit more and have additional capabilities that this camera is lacking.

This you can absolutely do.

Ki Pro MINI < CLICK! (http://aja.com/products/kipro/ki-pro-mini/ki-pro-mini-description.php)

Remove the side handle of the AF100 to reveal the additional mounts and cold shoe and you should be able to mount this pretty flush to the body.

[Barry_Green]

Sorry for my ignorance (no sarcasm intended) but isn't a megbit a megabit?
Depends on what you mean... a megabit of h.264 from the DSLRs isn't the same as a megabit of AVCHD from an AF100; 24 megabits of AVCCAM is worth a lot more than 48 megabits of DSLR footage.


That is, once you code to intraframe in the cam's cpu why does that require a P2 card to store. I agree AVC-intra is vastly superior but are you saying it is impossible to save AVC-intra to compactflash cards?
Ah, I see what you mean. No, it's not necessarily impossible, but it isn't done and it isn't going to be done. AVC-Intra is part of Panasonic's premium line, and part and parcel of that is that it gets stored on P2 cards, which are the most ruggedized, high-performance, bulletproof recording media devised. They're not just memory cards, they're microcomputers with a lot of memory attached, and they're designed to guarantee fault-free performance.

Extreme example, but Panasonic wouldn't record AVC-Intra onto compactflash cards any more than Mozart would write a symphony on toilet paper. It's not that he >couldn't<, it's that he wouldn't.

Furthermore, if they were going to record AVC-Intra onto any standard memory card, CF is about the last product they would choose, because (as they've stated over and over) they don't consider CF a professional video media. It can't even be write-protected, and they don't like the potential for damage with the pins. In P2 they optimized the cards to guarantee no pins can bend or break, they changed the loading mechanism to allow for the trajectory into the camera (or P2-reading device) would be straight and true and the net result is, after 165,000 cameras sold, I don't think I've *ever* heard a single report of a bent pin or anything like it. Can't say the same for CF.

And yes, I very well understand that Red and Canon are both using CF. Reasonable people are allowed to disagree. I've stated Panasonic's position as it's been explained to me, as best I can recall. You don't have to agree with it, but you probably should get used to the idea that that's the way they feel, and because of that, you're not going to see AVC-Intra recorded on CF cards.

I don't think it's unreasonable for them to record it to SDXC cards though, and I keep pushing for that, but so far not getting any traction.

[timbook2]

so basically what I get here is : we want a 24x36 mm CCD chip camera that records 4:2:2 50 mbps to SDXC cards with interchangeable lenses and full AF 100 features ? or did I get something wrong? ;-)

[Michael Olsen]

so basically what I get here is : we want a 24x36 mm CCD chip camera that records 4:2:2 50 mbps to SDXC cards with interchangeable lenses and full AF 100 features ? or did I get something wrong? ;-)

I don't know how many people really want Full Frame. Maybe they really do, I dunno. But I think S35 has persevered for a reason.

[hdimages.ca]

thanks barry .wow i am in. i heard $4995 list wow. making my next wish list already -it would be a 720p 90fps or higher over crank. could this maybe possible with a later software upgrade?

[Michael Olsen]

And yes, I very well understand that Red and Canon are both using CF.

Recent developments seem to show that RED are moving away from CF and have developed/are developing their own pinless SSD solution.

[vanvideo]

thanks barry .wow i am in. i heard $4995 list wow. making my next wish list already -it would be a 720p 90fps or higher over crank. could this maybe possible with a later software upgrade?


Where'd you hear $4,995?

[Luis Caffesse]

Where'd you hear $4,995?

No way to know if it's true - but here it is:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=223711

[Noel Evans]

If that price is accurate - but whilst I trust Seth, I dont know the source - so Ill still hold, but if it is

Total price of the unit including a 4:2:2 HD-SDI recording solution comes to $6990. Makes two far more affordable than I imagined.

[Rick Burnett]

Recent developments seem to show that RED are moving away from CF and have developed/are developing their own pinless SSD solution.

Where'd you get that?

1) They have already announced a 64G Compact Flash that is supposed to be available soon.

2) They developed a brand new CF Red Drive (which I actually ordered but have not received.

3) Didn't they end of life some of their drive solutions recently and haven't released anything in place yet? I saw a lot of complaints about that.

[mcgeedigital]

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49495

http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1283987479.jpg

[Tzedekh]

Full 1080/60p overcranking is possible to the SD card. I don't see how it could work to an external device though, because HDMI/HD-SDI don't support 1080/60p, so I don't know what the monitoring situation would be like.
Really? I was under the impression that at 24 bits/pixel, HDMI has supported 1080p60 since version 1.0.

[Vitaliy Kiselev]

Depends on what you mean... a megabit of h.264 from the DSLRs isn't the same as a megabit of AVCHD from an AF100; 24 megabits of AVCCAM is worth a lot more than 48 megabits of DSLR footage.


Barry, it is not always the same.
Most improvements lie in block matching and B frames.
If your footage do not qualify under it (like high detailed static with extra small P frames) or very dynamic scene with bad motion prediction, your AVCCAM is down to same image block compression as in DSLR codecs. And DSLR will win.

All this AVCCAM stuff about superior codec do not hold very well in AF100 target market. As much simpler codec with very high bitrate can be made without any problems, aspecially having two SDXC card controllers.


Ah, I see what you mean. No, it's not necessarily impossible, but it isn't done and it isn't going to be done. AVC-Intra is part of Panasonic's premium line, and part and parcel of that is that it gets stored on P2 cards, which are the most ruggedized, high-performance, bulletproof recording media devised. They're not just memory cards, they're microcomputers with a lot of memory attached, and they're designed to guarantee fault-free performance.

P2 is just LSI with smart RAID controller other simple flash chips.
Modern SSDs have now much better controllers that do the same.
P2 days are over.
And SSD mounted in rugged tray will be much cheaper and much better.

[Vitaliy Kiselev]

Really? I was under the impression that at 24 bits/pixel, HDMI has supported 1080p60 since version 1.0.

HDMI support 1080p60 even with DeepColor.
As I understand, latest HD-SDI supports 60fos also.

[Rick Burnett]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are moving away from CF, it means they have another option available. Many people have said that they like using CF cards, as I am sure that SSD is going to be A LOT more.

[Steve Kahn]

Ah, I see what you mean. No, it's not necessarily impossible, but it isn't done and it isn't going to be done. AVC-Intra is part of Panasonic's premium line, and part and parcel of that is that it gets stored on P2 cards.

...

I don't think it's unreasonable for them to record it to SDXC cards though, and I keep pushing for that, but so far not getting any traction


Well, that just goes to the point I was trying to make earlier - and which ties to pallllaaaaa's thread. Panasonic (as well as the other big two) withhold technology at their whim to create their product line hierarchy. In the case with this codec it's not even brand new technology. And, to be honest it would be unfair to release an AF100a in the following year with AVC-intra to all who bought the AF100. That is the point of this thread.

While I understand this makes business sense what doesn't make sense is to not give the end user the ability to pay more to get a firm ware upgrade so they can use AVC-intra 4:2:2 on SDXC. I would much rather pay Panasonic $500 for this firmware upgrade than have to pay 2-3k for an external box I need to power and somehow mount. The whole idea was to get away from the jury rig but now I'm doing just that.

Panasonic should at leaset provide the end user with that upgrade option.

[CMcMahon]

engineers know exactly what happened in 100 years later, and they still driving us until we left them.

http://sjbmx.com/images/temp/lolwut.jpg

[Homunculus]

damnit. dont post screengrabs like that. i got excited thinking it's a grab from first AF100 footage

[dcloud]

Well, that just goes to the point I was trying to make earlier - and which ties to pallllaaaaa's thread. Panasonic (as well as the other big two) withhold technology at their whim to create their product line hierarchy. In the case with this codec it's not even brand new technology. And, to be honest it would be unfair to release an AF100a in the following year with AVC-intra to all who bought the AF100. That is the point of this thread.

While I understand this makes business sense what doesn't make sense is to not give the end user the ability to pay more to get a firm ware upgrade so they can use AVC-intra 4:2:2 on SDXC. I would much rather pay Panasonic $500 for this firmware upgrade than have to pay 2-3k for an external box I need to power and somehow mount. The whole idea was to get away from the jury rig but now I'm doing just that.

Panasonic should at leaset provide the end user with that upgrade option.
Maybe... but for me, they didnt choose those mainly because of reliability. P2 os 100%reliable and they cant risk their products to have flaws.

And i disagree with vitaliy's opinion.

[Steve Kahn]

Maybe... but for me, they didnt choose those mainly because of reliability. P2 os 100%reliable and they cant risk their products to have flaws.

And i disagree with vitaliy's opinion.
That's not Barry's opinion. He seems to feel tht SDXC are fine...



I don't think it's unreasonable for them to record it to SDXC cards though, and I keep pushing for that, but so far not getting any traction.

While $4995 is a great price Panasonic should realize that real film makers will be using this camera for real films. A proper responsive company would support their goals.

The AF100 is at the top of Panasonic's narrative camera hierarchy - this is the camera film makers will want to use, none of others in the Panasonic lineup (save the GH1/2) - so if you need that justification to corporate brass for AVC-intra 4:2:2 - there it is.

It would be a shame for Panasonic not to offer an AVC-intra firmware upgrade. I'd pay for that opportunity. I'm sure many would as well.

Come on Panasonic! Listen to your customers!

[agcohn]

The AF100 is at the top of Panasonic's narrative camera hierarchy - this is the camera film makers will want to use, none of others in the Panasonic lineup (save the GH1/2) - so if you need that justification to corporate brass for AVC-intra 4:2:2 - there it is.

It would be a shame for Panasonic not to offer an AVC-intra firmware upgrade. I'd pay for that opportunity. I'm sure many would as well.

Come on Panasonic! Listen to your customers!
It takes a $3,245 card (http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=181935&surfModel=AJ-YBX200G) to upgrade the AJ-HPX2000 to AVC-Intra.

I don't think it is a simple firmware upgrade.

[dcloud]

That's not Barry's opinion. He seems to feel tht SDXC are fine...



While $4995 is a great price Panasonic should realize that real film makers will be using this camera for real films. A proper responsive company would support their goals.

The AF100 is at the top of Panasonic's narrative camera hierarchy - this is the camera film makers will want to use, none of others in the Panasonic lineup (save the GH1/2) - so if you need that justification to corporate brass for AVC-intra 4:2:2 - there it is.

It would be a shame for Panasonic not to offer an AVC-intra firmware upgrade. I'd pay for that opportunity. I'm sure many would as well.

Come on Panasonic! Listen to your customers!
im sure there are more technical reasons and im very sure barry wouldnt know if sdxc is viable.
its probably doable no one is denying that but thats 100mbps streaming. mighty risky if you get a card error in the middle of a shoot.

[xmephestox]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are moving away from CF, it means they have another option available. Many people have said that they like using CF cards, as I am sure that SSD is going to be A LOT more.


you should reread their SSD thread, CF is getting dropped for good. no 64 gb, and 16 gb is probably gonna be EOL, along with all their drives. Spinning drives have been unreliable, and CF card has hit a wall in speed and efficiency. SSD is gonna be the 1 and only solution for upcoming generations of camera, and will be replacing media on the r1 too.

on that note, with avc intra on CF cards, nobody has any clue other than panasonic if avc intra is possible to record without their hardware card. That card alone is worth several thousand dollars alone, even if they re designed to work with CF. Again, this would push the camera to the 8-10 thousand dollar range, which is a deal breaker for a lot of people. You don't even know of that board will really fit in this small form factor. It takes at least a hpx 370 to hold it as for as everybody else knows.

I'm mostly dissappointed that there's no 10 bit hd sdi, everything else though is seriously the ultimate bang for the buck. Filmmakers have been shooting on everything they've been able to get their hands on since... well film. If I invented a watch that could do 1080p video, you'd see a feature film shot on that. As a post guy, I'd much prefer the 10 bit to give clients, and for my own satisfaction of having better material. But this won't stop content, this won't stop filmmaking. An episode of House (and more to come) was shot on a DSLR. with a fraction of the features of this camera, and that was 8 bit, long gop, commercial grade h.264 that can't hold a decent gradient of black for the life it. Content is king here, and will always be. Shoot something that people love, and that's where it all counts in the end.

[Barry_Green]

That's not Barry's opinion. He seems to feel tht SDXC are fine...
No, what I said was -- if they were going to allow it to record to anything other than P2, that SDXC is probably the only one they'd consider. And I say that because they've adopted SDHC/SDXC for their professional line of camcorders, so they must think it's good enough for at least AVCCAM uses.

I would love if they'd put AVC-Intra on SDXC. That'd be fantastic. But I don't expect them to. It's not an a-la-carte menu where you freely intermix sensors, codecs, and recording formats. They're made and marketed as complete systems, and the system integration so far has been that AVC-Intra is recorded to P2.



While $4995 is a great price Panasonic should realize that real film makers will be using this camera for real films. A proper responsive company would support their goals.
And who says they won't? Sheesh, the product hasn't even been released yet. Is it that they should release every possible permutation, in every possible territory, in every possible configuration, simultaneously? Sure, people might love that, but it's simply not realistic.

The AF100 is the first large-sensor videocamera from anybody. Give 'em some time to at least get this one done. We've badgered the hell out of them for a P2/AVC-Intra version. They've heard that message loud and clear. But they're currently focusing on finishing what they've started. There may very well be other models coming later, we don't know, but let's at least let them get this one on the market.


The AF100 is at the top of Panasonic's narrative camera hierarchy
No, the HPX3700 is at the top of their narrative camera hierarchy. The AF100 is at the top of their AVCCAM hierarchy.


Come on Panasonic! Listen to your customers!
They have been. Now their customers have to listen to them -- they're doing what they can, with the resources they have, as quick as they possibly can. They conceived, executed, and will deliver the AF100 in about half the time that Red's been faffing about with the Scarlet. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they had a second P2 version done and on the market by the time Scarlet gets around to launching their S35 version.

And I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be many people who, no matter what the price or the features are on that new camera, will still complain about something else that's missing. That's the nature of how things work.

[Rick Burnett]

you should reread their SSD thread, CF is getting dropped for good. no 64 gb, and 16 gb is probably gonna be EOL, along with all their drives. Spinning drives have been unreliable, and CF card has hit a wall in speed and efficiency. SSD is gonna be the 1 and only solution for upcoming generations of camera, and will be replacing media on the r1 too.


I had missed the part of them dropping the 64GB even before it was released. I'm starting the think obsolescence obsolete means "we're not supporting that old technology anymore, time to pay $xK for this new technology". Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the whole modular camera design, but now I shelled out for the Red Station CF reader in April with the hopes of using CF on my S35, and now I am wondering if that is going to be possible if Red EOLs their faster CF cards? They are making my purchase from them, that I have not received, obsolete before I even receive it.

Nice.

Also, pertaining to the change in codec, just because something could be construed as a software change doesn't mean the hardware is fast enough to handle it. The AF100 might not have a fast enough or bit depth deep enough digital side to handle the extra processing and capacity.

[xmephestox]

I had missed the part of them dropping the 64GB even before it was released. I'm starting the think obsolescence obsolete means "we're not supporting that old technology anymore, time to pay $xK for this new technology". Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the whole modular camera design, but now I shelled out for the Red Station CF reader in April with the hopes of using CF on my S35, and now I am wondering if that is going to be possible if Red EOLs their faster CF cards? They are making my purchase from them, that I have not received, obsolete before I even receive it.

Nice.

Also, pertaining to the change in codec, just because something could be construed as a software change doesn't mean the hardware is fast enough to handle it. The AF100 might not have a fast enough or bit depth deep enough digital side to handle the extra processing and capacity.


good point, they are having a hard enough time time doing a 1:1 pixel magnification right now...

If anything, having a ESATA CF reader is never "bad" plenty of other CF mediums out there, but since the card reader still hasn't passed FCC regulations yet and isn't shipping it's never too late to cancel. I'm still getting one anyway just cause i feel like fw 800 is becoming a dinosaur of a port, and will take a faster reader any day.

[Rick Burnett]

good point, they are having a hard enough time time doing a 1:1 pixel magnification right now...

If anything, having a ESATA CF reader is never "bad" plenty of other CF mediums out there, but since the card reader still hasn't passed FCC regulations yet and isn't shipping it's never too late to cancel. I'm still getting one anyway just cause i feel like fw 800 is becoming a dinosaur of a port, and will take a faster reader any day.

Well I am probably going to rent an Ki Pro Mini to test how different 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 feels to me since I do actually composite a lot of CG and want to see the difference in the pixel peeping :) If I do end up getting a Ki Pro Mini it looks like it writes to CF and of course I still use my 7D at the moment so it will get use.

[Steve Kahn]

No, the HPX3700 is at the top of their narrative camera hierarchy. The AF100 is at the top of their AVCCAM hierarchy.

Panasonic might like to think so.

And perhaps for TV. But for film, this never lit the world on fire like the Red has. As part of the film making community the vast majority turn to Red and would never consider varicam (especially young film makers) - again illustrating my point that Panasonic has not been great at listening to our community.

Finally... why defend Panasonic? They are not making a product to be nice. They are making it to make a buck. Very soon I will be spending 5k on this camera. Joyfully! But, that being said why can't I ask "Why?"

"Why isn't this feature available?"

"Why can't it be possible as a firmware upgrade?"

As a customer these are very valid questions.



It's not an a-la-carte menu where you freely intermix sensors, codecs, and recording formats. .
Maybe this should be if it is possible. Why do we need to hack our cameras to get rid of mud and make a GH13? It is ridiculous that a user can optimize it better than Panasonic could or would. It is ridiculous that they would then go to lock out future GH1s from being hacked when the hack IMPROVES performance!

But Barry both of us are asking for the same codec. It is not an a la care selection. It is one.

[Steve Kahn]

Content is king here, and will always be. Shoot something that people love, and that's where it all counts in the end.
Agreed, but every piece in the puzzle matters in film.

As this is a camera board those are the kinds of questions I address here. Doing this I do not mean to minimize any other aspect of the process.

[Aneurysm]

[quote=Steve Kahn;2110434]

Maybe this should be if it is possible. Why do we need to hack our cameras to get rid of mud and make a GH13? It is ridiculous that a user can optimize it better than Panasonic could or would. It is ridiculous that they would then go to lock out future GH1s from being hacked when the hack IMPROVES performance!

quote]

This is not strictly the case. I watched the whole GH13 fervor unfold on this forum, and the most common phrases I was seeing were along the lines of "write error after X amount of time or X amount of Mbits", "use this brand of Class XX card".

Granted, stable settings/card combos were *eventually* found, but if you're a camera manufacturer and you got some features on the camera you're making that are stable and some that aren't stable or require a very specific setup, then you'd probably release the camera with stable features that work with a wide variety of memory cards, thus causing less headaches for the consumer. I don't think certain features were locked as a part of some nefarious scheme, but because they couldn't get them to function at their standard of reliabiity within a given amount of time.

However, I do think it would've been cool if Panasonic created something like PTool in the first place for those users who wanted to try their hand at tweaking.

[hotchkiss]

Panasonic might like to think so.

Ummm, yes the 3700 is at the top of Panasonic's narrative product line-up. Nothing to dispute there.


And perhaps for TV. But for film, this never lit the world on fire like the Red has. As part of the film making community the vast majority turn to Red and would never consider varicam (especially young film makers)

Straw man argument. No one claimed it was the end all film style camera.

Barry is only claiming (in response to your erroneous claim about the AF100), that the 3700 is the top of PANASONIC's narrative line-up. Whether it is the best camera of all manufacturer's for narrative film making is of course subject to dispute.


- again illustrating my point that Panasonic has not been great at listening to our community.

I'm guessing you haven't been around too long, either in the business or around Panasonic's products. They have listened like few companies have. Sorry, but to claim that Panasonic has not listened to users is in the laugh out loud category.

[Jan_Crittenden]

While $4995 is a great price Panasonic should realize that real film makers will be using this camera for real films. A proper responsive company would support their goals.

How do you think we came up with this camera? It is in total response to our customers.



The AF100 is at the top of Panasonic's narrative camera hierarchy - this is the camera film makers will want to use, none of others in the Panasonic lineup (save the GH1/2) - so if you need that justification to corporate brass for AVC-intra 4:2:2 - there it is.

And while this camera is not at the top of the Narrative camera choices it is in this price range. You would be very surprized I guess how many films are using the AJ-HPX3700 and even the 370/300. For the AF100, the upgrade to AVC-Intra is called an AG-HPG20.




It would be a shame for Panasonic not to offer an AVC-intra firmware upgrade. I'd pay for that opportunity. I'm sure many would as well.

This is not possible as the internal structure of the camera will not allow it.


Come on Panasonic! Listen to your customers!

We have and that is why this camera and its respective feature set is what it is. Price point is a feature that cannot be denied. While I am sure people would love it to be a P2 camera at $4995, that is not possible. So if you want P2, then upgrade with an AG- HPG20. That would be about the additional cost it would take to make this camera into a P2 camera.

Best,

Jan

[Osslund]

I just have to say that Panasonic really has listen to their customers and the result is AF100/101. Besides a smaller sensor than APS-C and no 10bit, it's about perfect and the price is just right for what one will get.

The fact that Jan is active in these threads and follow up on questions and reactions shows how dvxusers really has brought this product to us via Panasonic "over hearing" what we want.

[Tzedekh]

For the AF100, the upgrade to AVC-Intra is called an AG-HPG20.
Except that the AF100 supports only 8-bit output via HDMI or HD-SDI. Obviously 10-bit would have been better. The extra two bits are wasted when recording out to AVC Intra.

[Melvin Harris]

How can anyone say we are not being listened to when there is a thread called AF100 wishlist? Did we forget that? Has Jan ever been on this board or answered questions? Has any community ever had access to upper management like this? Is there a 5dmIII wishlist thread that I am missing, or a XL-H2 thread, or maybe a Sony do anything right please wishlist? This camera was made for a market whose voices mattered, to even hint at anything different would be disingenuous.

[Mister Stocks]

When I read threads like this, sometimes I get really angry and I just start shouting at my computer screen, "computers aren't magic!"

I feel like people should already understand this when they clamor for RAW in a camera the size of a D90 or T2i, or when they yell for higher grade codecs via a firmware upgrade (really?).

I see a camera like this come out and I see progress. I don't understand the people who yell out "THEY CRIPPLED IT". They designed this camera to fill a niche in their lineup, that is not crippling it.

Computers are not magic.

[mcgeedigital]

Except that the AF100 supports only 8-bit output via HDMI or HD-SDI. Obviously 10-bit would have been better. The extra two bits are wasted when recording out to AVC Intra.

But people have been doing great things with the 8 bit, h.264 encoded, pixel binned dslrs for some time now.

While I'd like 10 bit output, I think that those same people asking for it would bitch about how much more you'd have to pay to get it.

To think that it is simply a "firmware upgrade" is intellectually dishonest and shows a supreme lack of understanding of video engineering.

[Barry_Green]

Finally... why defend Panasonic? They are not making a product to be nice. They are making it to make a buck. Very soon I will be spending 5k on this camera. Joyfully! But, that being said why can't I ask "Why?"
Steve, I'm not "defending" them, I'm answering your questions. You asked questions, and I'm giving you the answers as best I understand them.

That doesn't mean I agree with those answers, but it does mean that as an observer and contributor here, who's been reading their responses for 8+ years, I think I can repeat what they've said before.

Would I like AVC-Intra on SD cards? Of course -- I've been badgering them for it for 2+ years. But it's been explained to me that it's not going to happen, and I've tried to then explain to you why it isn't going to happen.

I'd love many things about the AF100 to be different -- I want it to be a P2/AVC-Intra camcorder with 10-bit output, I want a 2:1 sensor crop for using 16mm lenses, I want expanded/magnified focus, I want it to have an option to record the raw video in JPEG2000 instead of AVCHD. There are many things I wish they'd make.

But it isn't gonna happen. Not on this model. They conceived and executed and will deliver this thing in about one year's time. It is what it is. If you want something different, you may just have to start a wishlist for an "AF200".

But just because this isn't the end-all-be-all-everything-in-the-universe camera, doesn't mean that I can't evaluate it fairly and say that for the price, it >destroys< anything else on the market. Because it does. And I will happily use it for at least the next couple of years, and if something better comes along, then I can always sell and upgrade to the new one.

As has been said here -- people have been using 8-bit lousy-codec alias-hell no-audio DSLRs for a year or more, and some have produced amazing work with them. Practically >everything< on the AF100 is superior to practically >anything< on a DSLR. So even if it's not perfect (and it is far from perfect) it's still a huge step forward from where we are today. Hence the excitement.


Why do we need to hack our cameras to get rid of mud and make a GH13? It is ridiculous that a user can optimize it better than Panasonic could or would.
Agree 100%. The "avchd" on the GH1 is an embarrassment to the name of AVCHD. They should have invested the extra dollars or time to put in a proper codec chip. And if they had, it's entirely possible that they would have a much larger share of the DSLR market than they do. So it's really their loss, and one they seem to have recognized and rectified in the GH2.


It is ridiculous that they would then go to lock out future GH1s from being hacked when the hack IMPROVES performance!
From our perspective, yes it is. But from their perspective, it was vital. A hacked GH1 is not a stable product, it crashes. Yet it bears the Panasonic name, and they get the calls from the customers and have to invest resources and time and energy and effort in servicing issues and problems that, by design, shouldn't have been theirs to bear in the first place. As hobbled as the codec was, at least it didn't cause write errors and seize the camera up. And they don't like their name associated with crashing/seizing products.

My solution that I offered them was simple - I asked Vitaliy if he could put in a warning message at the boot-up sequence, something that says something like "warning - this camera is using non-Panasonic-approved firmware, and crashing, lost footage or other side effects may occur. The warranty is voided by using this firmware." If they would cooperate with him and provide him the capability to do that, then we could all have had our cake and eaten it too. But that didn't happen.


But Barry both of us are asking for the same codec. It is not an a la care selection. It is one.
No, because you're trying to isolate a codec out of a system. They don't make codecs. They make systems. And in that system, P2 = intraframe high-quality professional codecs, and SD = long-GoP codecs. That is the way their mindset works. Will it ever change? Maybe. I hope so, I'd like to see AVC-I on SDXC if it can be done reliably. It used to infuriate me that Sony would put their lame XDCAM-EX 35mbps 4:2:0 codec on their memory cards, and kept their higher-end 50mbps 4:2:2 codec for optical discs. What logic does that make? The cards are capable of 800mbps transfer rates, why not put the better codec on the card? But they wouldn't and didn't, not even in the $20,000 PMW-350. I guess that was their "system" - memory cards were for the low-end CMOS camcorders, and optical disc was for the high-end camcorders, and so optical disc got the better codec. Makes no sense to me, but that's the way it was. Eventually they relented and put the new 50mbps codec on the new memory-card-recording PMW500.

So is it possible Panasonic will change their policy and add AVC-I to the SDXC lineup? I certainly hope it's possible. But if not, I'd be just as happy with a P2 version of the AF100.

[Melvin Harris]

I see a camera like this come out and I see progress. I don't understand the people who yell out "THEY CRIPPLED IT". They designed this camera to fill a niche in their lineup, that is not crippling it.

+1

I don't understand how people can make a judgment based on absolutely nothing. No one has even touched the camera at full spec, so how can people find so much to complain about?

[mcgeedigital]

+1

I don't understand how people can make a judgment based on absolutely nothing. No one has even touched the camera at full spec, so how can people find so much to complain about?

Because it is all about FUD. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt)

[BobDiaz]

But people have been doing great things with the 8 bit, h.264 encoded, pixel binned dslrs for some time now.

While I'd like 10 bit output, I think that those same people asking for it would bitch about how much more you'd have to pay to get it.

To think that it is simply a "firmware upgrade" is intellectually dishonest and shows a supreme lack of understanding of video engineering.


I think you hit upon a basic truth here, IF Panasonic had made the camera with 10 bit output and P2, we'd hear nothing but endless gripes that the cost is way too high. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't logic. :violin:

If the camera don't fit what you wanted, get something else....



Bob Diaz

[James Bridges]

This is my first post, so I apologize if this has been brought up before.
I am an HDX900 owner am I worried about not using my $40k rig anymore- not hardly.
As stated before, do not buy the camera if you do not think it will 1. Make your money back within a year or 2. Will not satisfy you artistically.
Quite frankly, the way things are going-smaller, better, cheaper I really an looking forward to the future.
I have been investing over the years in quality accessories ie matteboxes, follow focus,etc. To carry me from camera to camera. So far a good businesss decision.
I think Panasonic has hit a homerun on this one, providing the picture is as good as they say (I sure it will be). I cannot wait to attach my Nanoflash.

[ROne]

Yes, but Canon records long-GoP MPEG-2 to compactflash cards. Panasonic's recording intraframe H.264 to its P2 cards.

Yes and I can appreciate the difference, but I got in a debate with some beeb engineers that maintain long-gop MP2 is good for aquisition and is more efficient than AVC-I.

The Canon is approved for HD at the BBC.

Now for me, no contest, CF is awful. And I couldn't care for MP2 but it's got them all excited over at DV Doctor.

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

... The Canon is approved for HD at the BBC. ...

From what I hear, not exactly. At the BBC it can be on a somewhat tense case-by-case basis, and subject to internal debate.

For example, see:
http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2010/9/3/bbcs-green-light-for-dslrs-is-on-hold.html
http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2010/9/23/canon-5d-mk2-moire-and-aliasing-issues-disappear-in-grade.html

But, yes, DSLR video is getting broadcast worldwide, even on various BBC channels, but it's not all smooth sailing, so to speak.

[speedjunkie]

Well, first of all, I don't know where you're getting your $10,000 price tag, because the MSRP has been confirmed to be $4,995.

Secondly, the AF100 is not a DSLR. If you'd like a list of things that the AF100 does, that a DSLR doesn't, here's a list:


THINGS THE AF100 DOES, THAT A CANON DSLR DOESN'T
Clean monitoring at full 1920x1080 resolution, suitable for recording to an external recorder

Clean HDMI output at full resolution even during recording, suitable for recording

Professional HD-SDI output

1080/24pSf output

A composite video output jack

SMPTE timecode

LTC timecode synchronizing, for multiple-camera shoots or for using an external audio recorder or timecode slate

A headphone jack for monitoring audio

RCA audio outputs

Professional XLR audio inputs

Line/Mic selectable

Can supply phantom power for microphones

Manual audio level control with no AGC

Option of engaging an automatic limiter to prevent against sudden overmodulation

High-quality audio pre-amps

1080/60i and 1080/50i recording modes

Variable frame rates in 20 steps, from 1080/12p up to 1080/60p, for various levels of slow-motion and fast-motion

720/24p and 720/25p and 720/30p recording modes (in addition to 1080/24p, 1080/25p, 1080/30p, 720/50p, 720/60p, 1080/50i and 1080/60i)

P2/AVCCAM Metadata

Two card slots

Professional image controls

Filmlike Cinegamma gamma curves

Selectable color matrices

Adjustable knee point and master pedestal controls right in camera

Dynamic Range Stretching feature

Color-matched with other Panasonic professional cameras, such as the VariCams

Pre-record, for catching events occurring even before you press the record button

Continuous recording capacity of over 12 hours in economy mode, and continuous recording of six hours in best-quality mode on a single card (no 12-minute time limit!)

Complete freedom from overheating issues

Colored Focus Assist that can be used >while recording<

Capable of video-camera-like autofocus (when used with an appropriate lens)

Face-detection autofocus that can track focus on a moving face

Peaking/EVF DTL for easier manual focus

High-definition color LCD panel

High-definition color viewfinder

Viewfinder that can actually be used during video recording

Two sets of zebras, which can be set from anywhere from 50 to 105 IRE in 5-IRE steps

A built-in Waveform Monitor(!)

A built-in Vectorscope

A built-in Spotmeter (the "Marker" which tells you the IRE brightness of what's in the center of the screen)

Different aspect ratio markings in the LCD, including 16:9, 4:3, 14:9, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1

A 90% "safety zone" for making sure your framing will be visible on all TVs

Film-style variable shutter angles from 1 to 360 degrees, which track automatically with the variable frame rates to always provide consistent motion blur

Syncro-Scan shutter in video mode, giving you nearly infinitely-settable shutter speeds from 1/24.0 to 1/250.0

Built-in optical neutral density filters, including ND .6, ND 1.2, and ND 1.8

SMPTE color bar generator

Cleaner/sharper images with a substantial reduction in aliasing

Elimination of the purple/orange moire that happens on all Canon DSLRs

A much more robust recording format (AVCCAM PH mode) which is more resilient and better than the h.264 on the DSLRs

Elimination of the fixed pattern noise and "vertical streaking"

Greatly improved rolling shutter performance

Ability to assign index points within clips, so you can mark a subsection of a clip and easily jump from spot to spot within that clip

Ability to mark clips "Good" or "No Good" at the press of a button, and that marker will show up in your NLE (depending, of course, on your NLE)

Ability to delete the last clip you just shot, at a button press

Ability to assign custom user names to clips as they get recorded, automatically

Ability to save and exchange "scene files" with other users, for easy matching between multiple cameras

Ability to take any PL-mount lens (not just a few limited telephoto lenses, or having to physically remove the mirror out of your DSLR)

Ability to take c-mount cinema lenses

Ability to take much larger batteries, including 6000mah batteries

Wireless infrared remote controller

Remote iris/focus/start/stop controller sockets

Can perform a manual black balance, with a dedicated physical iris

Fully articulated LCD panel (only the Canon 60D offers this, the others don't)

And, to top it all off, a three-year warranty



If you feel like those features are important to you, then step up to the bar and buy an AF100. If you feel like you wouldn't use those features, then stay with a DSLR.

>and please note -- this is not meant to be some sort of feature-for-feature comparison. This is meant to be a list of new/added/additional capabilities that the AF100 has, that the Canon DSLRs don't have. That's it.<



But please, in the interest of accuracy, let's put an end to this idea of trying to make something into what it isn't. The AF100 isn't a DSLR, it's a professional video camcorder with a DSLR-sized sensor. If it's not for you, that's okay. There are still plenty of DSLRs on the market that you can choose from.


So, Barry.. Would You say the AF100 is worth it and if you had a choice and money is not a problem would you get

A red one
or af100 with great lenses..

Im at a Cross roads. I Like the outlook of this camera but RED is Tried and Field tested in Cinema..

[Barry_Green]

It depends on your needs. If you are looking solely for a digital cinema camera, and money is no object, I'd go with the Alexa. If money is an issue but extends far enough to afford a Red with the M-X sensor, then yeah, obviously as a solely digital cinema product the Red is a superior product.

If money is an object, then clearly the $5,000 AF100 will have a lot of sway over a $30k Red kit. And if you need a video camera too, the AF100 does that job.

[GRENCH]

not all, never talk about color, 4:2:0 that is most important part.

Yes, You get that through SDI outputting to an external nano type recorder that will give you 4:2:2 I believe.

[Maheel]

I own a RED ONE. (The Only RED camera available in Sri Lanka).

I also own EX1/EX3 cameras.I have been working with EX1/EX3 materials (4:2:0 Long GOP) for the past two years and have done a lot of FX work that needed Tracking and Green Screen. All of these were transfered to 35 mm for theatrical projection. Although we use AdvanEdge for most of the time., for a recent job we used KeyLight with very good results. All those were for 35 mm blow ups.

Visit the Convergent Design site and download the sample mov/mxf files with varying bit rates. from 35 mbts 4:2:0 to 200mbts 4:2:2

It is good to have a 4:2:2 Large Sensor camera for US$ 5,000/- , but 4:2:0 is not a deal breaker for me if this cam out resolves or equals EX1/EX3 (1000+ lines)

[speedjunkie]

It depends on your needs. If you are looking solely for a digital cinema camera, and money is no object, I'd go with the Alexa. If money is an issue but extends far enough to afford a Red with the M-X sensor, then yeah, obviously as a solely digital cinema product the Red is a superior product.

If money is an object, then clearly the $5,000 AF100 will have a lot of sway over a $30k Red kit. And if you need a video camera too, the AF100 does that job.


I looked at the Alexa, 70k is a bit much but that seems to be the One that is setting the Transitional marks for moving away from FILM.

I think Im going to Get the af100 to ENHANCE the DSLRS I already Own, but dont know ,, Hmm RED or ALEXA. ..

thanks for the Reply Berry

[Razz16mm]

It depends on your needs. If you are looking solely for a digital cinema camera, and money is no object, I'd go with the Alexa. If money is an issue but extends far enough to afford a Red with the M-X sensor, then yeah, obviously as a solely digital cinema product the Red is a superior product.

If money is an object, then clearly the $5,000 AF100 will have a lot of sway over a $30k Red kit. And if you need a video camera too, the AF100 does that job.

This brings up a good point. Red is not a video camera in the conventional sense of the term although it can be used to produce video. They shoot much more like film cameras than video cameras and require a different skill set. It is a work flow that is more familiar to digital still photographers than videographers and there is a significant learning curve to get the best out of them.

Alexa is still a beta stage product and they are having some teething problems apparently, including RF shielding issues and a run in with the FCC over non-compliance with part B certification regs.

[Jordan Scott Price]

So, Berry..

I would now like to be known as jscottrice








Sorry, tired of studying for a test. Continue.

[rolling rock]

How exactly does the camera get a 422 color recording through sdi output?

[Shipsides]

This brings up a good point. Red is not a video camera
Alexa is still a beta stage product and they are having some teething problems apparently, including RF shielding issues and a run in with the FCC over non-compliance with part B certification regs.

Razz16mm, that is just a rumor and most people on the CML seem to disagree. Sorry to get off topic, but that's how bad rumors spread.

[hunter richards]

Chip->DSP->HDSDI board->HDSDI cable->Your choice of recorder (AJA,tapedeck,whatever).

[speedjunkie]

I would now like to be known as jscottrice








Sorry, tired of studying for a test. Continue.

lmfao,, i corrected the spelling..

[Michael Olsen]

This brings up a good point. Red is not a video camera in the conventional sense of the term although it can be used to produce video. They shoot much more like film cameras than video cameras and require a different skill set. It is a work flow that is more familiar to digital still photographers than videographers and there is a significant learning curve to get the best out of them.



Yep. Not a video camera. Digital cinema camera - it shoots compressed RAW, not a video codec.

And it is somewhat more than a video camera, offering a lot of possibility that some people will never need.

[mcgeedigital]

not all, never talk about color, 4:2:0 that is most important part.

To you.

Move on already.

[mcgeedigital]

I think pallllaaaaa is saying that by the time she buys good glass for the af100 her total cost would be about $10 grand. But whatever. To each his own. But I also think she should find somewhere else to go do her bitching.

But that is a non issue.

When you buy a DSLR you have to buy THAT SAME GLASS.

[randy09660]

When I read threads like this, sometimes I get really angry and I just start shouting at my computer screen, "computers aren't magic!"

I feel like people should already understand this when they clamor for RAW in a camera the size of a D90 or T2i, or when they yell for higher grade codecs via a firmware upgrade (really?).

I see a camera like this come out and I see progress. I don't understand the people who yell out "THEY CRIPPLED IT". They designed this camera to fill a niche in their lineup, that is not crippling it.

Computers are not magic.
"computers aren't magic?" that explains a lot!

[ICD Films]

Wow, can't believe i just read this entire thread...

Well i can only speak for myself and i've come to the conclusion that Canon DSLR doesn't suit me. I hate the form factor, i want a real hi-res viewfinder i can stick my eye in, don't have to worry about moire/scewing which currently has a MAJOR impact on what i am able to shoot... and that's a problem, cus that's a new type of limitation that's just unbearable (and then i'm not even using Zeiss or L-glass...)

Moving over to GH13 until this hits the shelf in EU. Barry's list pretty muched nailed the product as a no-brainer though, the AF100 simply does everything i want a camera to be able to do and besides, the size is pretty damn neat (unlike what you think from pictures... design looks like it *would* be a beast... ).

And hey, just have to sell the GH1... sorting out old glass, getting cheap adapters... when AF100 comes it'll be plug'n-play :)

[Rick Burnett]

I'm just glad they made the side handle removable! I'm going to employ a CNC machine to give me a camera type grip on the side as I prefer that ( unless some aftermarket or panasonic beats me to it. In fact, I wouldn't mind being able to store an extra battery in it kind of like the red design. While I would have liked a little more modularity in the design, it's still a lot more than other cameras. I am excited to see what aftermarket stuff comes out!!!

[DM_rider]

Some of these posts are mind numbing...

[Rick Burnett]

This is what people do when they are waiting for the camera they pre-ordered to be delivered (or at least know a release date). :) This is what it is ALWAYS like on the RED forums. The day the Epic goes into the wild in full quantities I bet that site will be a ghost town! No wait....the people waiting for Scarlets (Me the S35) will still be talking about nothing.

:)

[1dog Studios]

Yeah, tell me about it, I just read it too.

I think people are focusing on the downside of the 7D and 5D like that big zit on your nose the night of your first big date. The one your date didn't even notice. It all depends on what your output is. The last three things I shot were all for SD. Wow, imagine that, lol.

Do you want a professional rig for under 6K or not. On the Lucas shoot with Bloom they ended up shooting mostly with the EOS-1D Mark IV. So if you really go out and get the best low light resolving DSLR how much have you just spent? Now add a BlackMagic Box to get your video outputs and you still don't have proper audio.

Neither one is exactly what people want but I know what I want! And the Pany will do me fine until I get my Red EpicX. And even then I may just sell the EpicX. Who knows because at some point you have to weigh how long you want to spend in post to where your images are going to end up. The bigger the files the bigger the computer the more money your spending.

At the end of the day spend your money where it counts, good glass and good accessories. You will hang onto those for along time. My 58mm f/1.2 Rokkor is as old as I am and it is still excellent glass.




Wow, can't believe i just read this entire thread...

Well i can only speak for myself and i've come to the conclusion that Canon DSLR doesn't suit me. I hate the form factor, i want a real hi-res viewfinder i can stick my eye in, don't have to worry about moire/scewing which currently has a MAJOR impact on what i am able to shoot... and that's a problem, cus that's a new type of limitation that's just unbearable (and then i'm not even using Zeiss or L-glass...)

Moving over to GH13 until this hits the shelf in EU. Barry's list pretty muched nailed the product as a no-brainer though, the AF100 simply does everything i want a camera to be able to do and besides, the size is pretty damn neat (unlike what you think from pictures... design looks like it *would* be a beast... surprise buttsecks).

And hey, just have to sell the GH1... sorting out old glass, getting cheap adapters... when AF100 comes it'll be plug'n-play :)

[1dog Studios]

How did you know?



This is what people do when they are waiting for the camera they pre-ordered to be delivered (or at least know a release date). :) This is what it is ALWAYS like on the RED forums. The day the Epic goes into the wild in full quantities I bet that site will be a ghost town! No wait....the people waiting for Scarlets (Me the S35) will still be talking about nothing.

:)

[Nick Navaro]

so basically what I get here is : we want a 24x36 mm CCD chip camera that records 4:2:2 50 mbps to SDXC cards with interchangeable lenses and full AF 100 features ? or did I get something wrong? ;-)

I'll take that!!! Where can I get one??? For $2.5k too :D

[Nick Navaro]

PS can any of you experts please help me with this...?? I really need some help making a decision.... Thanks!!

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?225757-My-first-post-really-need-camera-and-lens-advice-from-professionals-please

[Nick Navaro]

Check this >>

http://www.abelcine.com/store/Panasonic-AG-AF100-Micro-Four-Thirds-Professional-HD-Camcorder/#tabs
AG-AF100 Recording ModesPH:
1920 x 1080 / 1280 x 720
21Mbps (average), 24Mbps (max)
LPCM/2ch or Dolby Digital/2ch
HA:
1920 x 1080
17Mbps (average)
Dolby Digital/2ch
HE:
1440 x 1080
6Mbps (average)
Dolby Digital/2ch



So the AF100 only records at an average of 21mb/sec??


TV in the UK, i.e., the BBC requires a minimum of 50mb/sec. Hell, a Sony Z1 records at 15Mb/sec and the artefacts that gets are nasty. Imagine 24mb/sec quality in post production...?? Seems like a scary prospect.


I'm really disappointed as I really like this camera, but the overall quality and depth of the picture is severely compromised. You think Panny just rushed this out for the marketing aspect. Surely seems so....


Jan > Make it record at least 50mbs in it's highest quality. I'm sure you'd sell WAY more units...

[dcloud]

Check this >>

http://www.abelcine.com/store/Panasonic-AG-AF100-Micro-Four-Thirds-Professional-HD-Camcorder/#tabs
AG-AF100 Recording ModesPH:
1920 x 1080 / 1280 x 720
21Mbps (average), 24Mbps (max)
LPCM/2ch or Dolby Digital/2ch
HA:
1920 x 1080
17Mbps (average)
Dolby Digital/2ch
HE:
1440 x 1080
6Mbps (average)
Dolby Digital/2ch



So the AF100 only records at an average of 21mb/sec??


TV in the UK, i.e., the BBC requires a minimum of 50mb/sec. Hell, a Sony Z1 records at 15Mb/sec and the artefacts that gets are nasty. Imagine 24mb/sec quality in post production...?? Seems like a scary prospect.


I'm really disappointed as I really like this camera, but the overall quality and depth of the picture is severely compromised. You think Panny just rushed this out for the marketing aspect. Surely seems so....


Jan > Make it record at least 50mbs in it's highest quality. I'm sure you'd sell WAY more units...
your completely ignoring the fact that its a different codec. id respond but im too lazy. lucky for you someone else here would though

[LoganMackay]

Please do some research before you post numbers like this.

Codec makes a big difference in the grand scheme of things. 24mbps avchd is superior to 50mbps mpeg.


Check this >>

http://www.abelcine.com/store/Panasonic-AG-AF100-Micro-Four-Thirds-Professional-HD-Camcorder/#tabs
AG-AF100 Recording ModesPH:
1920 x 1080 / 1280 x 720
21Mbps (average), 24Mbps (max)
LPCM/2ch or Dolby Digital/2ch
HA:
1920 x 1080
17Mbps (average)
Dolby Digital/2ch
HE:
1440 x 1080
6Mbps (average)
Dolby Digital/2ch



So the AF100 only records at an average of 21mb/sec??


TV in the UK, i.e., the BBC requires a minimum of 50mb/sec. Hell, a Sony Z1 records at 15Mb/sec and the artefacts that gets are nasty. Imagine 24mb/sec quality in post production...?? Seems like a scary prospect.


I'm really disappointed as I really like this camera, but the overall quality and depth of the picture is severely compromised. You think Panny just rushed this out for the marketing aspect. Surely seems so....


Jan > Make it record at least 50mbs in it's highest quality. I'm sure you'd sell WAY more units...

[cgold]

The end video quality is a product of codec, encoder, and bitrate. Simply looking at bitrate is like looking only at mhz of a processor in a computer to determine its speed. Canon DSLR's shoot at over 40mb/s, which is over 5 mb/s more then the EX1 in a more efficient codec (.h264 is more efficient then mpeg2, which is why AVCHD uses .h264) but the EX1 encoded footage is way, way better because the DSLR's don't have the processing power to encode well (and why would they). I think we can safely assume the AF100 will have a good encoder.

[Nick Navaro]

Agreed. I read the whole thread.

My point is 50mb/sec would be better overall. Simple as that really. Apologies for confusing the issue with my poor example earlier.

NEED 50mbs!!!!

[LoganMackay]

Please understand that AVCHD is a standard and going above 24mbps would break it. You don't "NEED" 50mbps, you want it.

[awelgraven]

Sure 50mbs would be better. But 100 would be better. For that matter, I bet 200 would really do the job! I won't stand for anything less then 1000!

What's your application that needs 50mbs? And if you really need that, why not get the 4:2:2 color space of the HD-SDI out and some sort of solid state recorder? I don't think most uses of this camera REQUIRE or NEED 50mbs. A properly implemented AVCHD @ 24mbs is going to be amazing in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

[dcloud]

50mbps would just be a waste of bandwidth unless its 4:2:2

[Coco Bermudez]

Sure 50mbs would be better. But 100 would be better. For that matter, I bet 200 would really do the job! I won't stand for anything less then 1000!



ha ha ...hey Ive been cranking spots for over a year with my GH-1...just making awesome images...at the end of the day, clients just want to see a good concept executed with pretty pictures...it doesn't get much simpler than that IMHO...

[Barry_Green]

So the AF100 only records at an average of 21mb/sec??
Yes. 21-24mbps of h.264, the most advanced video codec in existence.


Hell, a Sony Z1 records at 15Mb/sec and the artefacts that gets are nasty.
Yes, but that's HDV MPEG-2. Nothing whatsoever like h.264.

Let's put it this way -- Sony says that if you want to match the quality of 25mb/s HDV, you'd use 9 (NINE) megabits of h.264 AVCHD. Nine. So if you can match HDV with 9 megabits, can you imagine how much better 24mbps of h.264 will look? A LOT.


Imagine 24mb/sec quality in post production...?? Seems like a scary prospect.
Only if you don't know what those megabits mean.

It's like asking "Behind door #1 is a pound of food. Behind door #2 is a pound of food. Which would you rather have?" Obviously any rational person would ask "what KIND of food are we talking about here?" You might find that behind one door is a pound of pig snouts (HDV). And behind the other door is a pound of prime steak (h.264). It does make a difference.

In fact, which would you rather have - 25 pounds of pig snouts? Or 9 pounds of steak? See, it all depends on what KIND of megabits we're talking about here.


but the overall quality and depth of the picture is severely compromised.
The footage would disagree with your assertion. In fact, one of the guys who just posted footage, Joe Lawry of crews.tv in New Zealand, recorded AVC-Intra and on-board AVCHD at the same time from an AF100. And he said that yes, the AVC-Intra is better, but "not 76 megabits better!" He said the AVCHD held up VERY well, and that he and the DP were extremely pleased with what they got from the AVCHD files.

I've tested 21mbps of h.264 AVCCAM footage against 35mbps of MPEG-2, and the 21mbps of h.264 was substantially more resilient to compression artifacts. I would put it as probably on par with about 45 megabits of MPEG-2.

I think people are hung up on numbers, instead of actual results. Look at the results before passing judgement.

[Barry_Green]

In fact, read the review from crews.tv
http://crews.tv/blog/2010/10/12/af100-storm-gathers/

Especially the part where they said that on the edit suite monitor, the difference between 24mbps AVCHD and 100mbps AVC-Intra was "hard to spot". Granted if you do heavy grading, the more-robust 10-bit codec is going to show advantages, obviously. But the standard codec is not crippled in any way; it's a pretty darn good codec built-in.

[Steve Kahn]

Granted if you do heavy grading, the more-robust 10-bit codec is going to show advantages, obviously.

Not to me but then I don't know that much about color grading...

Am I mistaken to think that recording HD-sdi out to the HGP20 for 100MB/s ACV-intra still means we are at 8bit color? Sure the file is 10bit but the 2 extra bits are just and will always be 00 (double zero) placeholders. I don't understand how the robust codec facilitates color grading...

For successive generations in editing does AVC-intra (and intra codecs) hold up better than AVCHD? If so wouldn't it be best to immediately render AVCHD to say jpeg2000 as the first part of an editing workflow?

[Barry_Green]

Yes you're correct that the initial recording over to Intra would be at 8-bit. But if you push and pull in post, all those operations would then be done at 10-bit depth, and the Intra codec is more resilient when it comes to re-compression, so if your workflow involves a lot of rendering down and exporting and re-importing, then AVC-Intra (or JPEG2000 or CineForm or something like that) would have advantages in post.

[Nick Navaro]

I think people are hung up on numbers, instead of actual results. Look at the results before passing judgement.

You go tell that to the BBC then. My stuff is broadcast on satellite and cable channels around the world including MTV dance. Amazingly, they are not fussy and will play HDV stuff. However, I want to take my stuff to bigger channels so NEED those numbers as that's how they work.

I recently shot with a HPX2700 to AVCIntra 100, the images were stunning. However, the camera is horrible! Too heavy, too big, rubbish controls. I got a good shoot and great images, but I just don't like the cam and it's not practical for me.

I need those images in the AF100 body! What do you say Panasonic?? Huh? Help a brother out! lol

[mcgeedigital]

Well the BBC hasn't said bupkiss about footage from the AF-100 as it isn't yet a shipping camera, so you are jumpong the gun a bit. And as far as the 2700's controls being "rubbish", that is just laughable as any professional camera person EXPECTS those kind of controls on a camera at that level.

[Nick Navaro]

Well the BBC hasn't said bupkiss about footage from the AF-100 as it isn't yet a shipping camera, so you are jumpong the gun a bit. And as far as the 2700's controls being "rubbish", that is just laughable as any professional camera person EXPECTS those kind of controls on a camera at that level.

But it doesn't fall into their current parameters, so no guarantees.

Yes, having them is fine. But the viewfinder and LCD leave a LOT to be desired. The very ergonomics of weight distribution is not good. Especially with a heavy HJ22 zoom lens. I just don't like it. It's archaic.

[BobDiaz]

But it doesn't fall into their current parameters, so no guarantees.

Yes, having them is fine. But the viewfinder and LCD leave a LOT to be desired. The very ergonomics of weight distribution is not good. Especially with a heavy HJ22 zoom lens. I just don't like it. It's archaic.

That's OK, if you don't like it, no one is putting a gun to your head making you buy it, right?

If you don't like it, don't buy it, life is so simple. ... on the other hand, there are others here who understand the trade-offs that are made in cameras and are interested in the AF100.


Good luck finding a 4/3" camera for $4,995 that records that 50Mbps! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)



Bob Diaz

[Michael Olsen]

I presume the AF-100 will probably get put through its paces by the BBC as soon as reasonably possible. Until they have a go at it and decide what will and will not pass the muster, it's all just speculation.

[DirectorDOP]

Sure, but least you not forget that the AF-100 has the ability to output via HD-SDI. Thus there are numerous recording solutions with extremely high res capabilities such as the AJA Ki-Pro or Panasonic P2 AVC-Intra 100 recorder for example. To which, attempting to compare the colour information captured and processed on a DSLR such as the 5D MKII to that of the AF-100 is pointless.

[Multi-Media]

I can't believe I read the entire thread... on the very day I plunked down my 50% pre-order deposit for the 4th of 6 AF100s being delivered to my area. I had been waffling until I saw the test footage, and said to myself that at some point, you simply just have to jump in! You can wait on vaporware or you can get a tool that works for you. As Jim Jennard was quoted in a previous thread... "the clock is ticking"... how prophetic. Well, he won't be getting my "$3K for 3K".........!

The thread reminds me of the early computer days when the ultimate question was "What do you intend to use it for?". I doubt if I will ever need to output to 35mm film, and as for color space, I have been using one of the first DVX100s for years and years for commercials, corporate, and museum films and not once has a client ever asked what color space I was working with... with Panasonic's ability to adjust the gamma etc... my stuff looks better than the 16mm film I used to shoot in the mid-late '70s.

The thread also calls to mind conversations between recording engineers and producer/mixers... one set uses meters and the others use their EARS. As my old friend, the late Cosimo Matassa (R&B hit producer from New Orleans) used to say... "if you have magic going on IN FRONT of the microphone... it doesn't matter too much what you have connected behind it" (content is paramount).

I love the steak and pig snout analogy. We are in a subjective business. Clients and audiences are either moved emotionally or they aren't. Here's looking forward to a giant leap in my production arsenal... and the work that this will enable my colleagues to produce. It's sort of like when the DVX first came out... I personally think it will be a watershed event. We live in exciting times!
Best Regards and thanks to this forum for providing a wealth of info and thoughtful insight... it has helped a lot.

[heavyG]

In fact, which would you rather have - 25 pounds of pig snouts? Or 9 pounds of steak? See, it all depends on what KIND of megabits we're talking about here.



But Barry, do you know what wondrous things I could cook with 25 pounds of pig snouts? Soup so silky with a mouthfeel you've never before experienced...

You are correct though - lots of people here with little to no understanding of what the numbers mean, or how they relate to one another, or that how many mb/s (or Mb/s) is just one part of a more complex equation. In the end it's what the footage looks like / holds up in post once the camera is finished and tested - even film (remember that stuff) falls apart in post if you didn't expose properly.

A little bit of noise in the blacks, or some jello on an ill conceived whip pan won't make a lick of difference if your story isn't rock solid, or your art direction sucks... Not one person will leave the cinema (or your Youtube channel) thinking "I bet that sucked because it was only 24 Mb/s...

[Jan_Crittenden]

You go tell that to the BBC then. My stuff is broadcast on satellite and cable channels around the world including MTV dance. Amazingly, they are not fussy and will play HDV stuff. However, I want to take my stuff to bigger channels so NEED those numbers as that's how they work.

I need those images in the AF100 body! What do you say Panasonic?? Huh? Help a brother out! lol

Nick, I think you are being totally premature in dissing what willor will not be accepted by the BBC. I think you have not seen the codec in its record state from the AF100 and neither has the rest of the world. Obviously there are a group of individuals here that have had experience with the AVCCAM implementation and can hardly wait to see how good it will look with the AF100 feeding it. Guys like Bob Diaz who works with it every day is one of them. The hardest thing that I see we need to overcome is the fact that people have sen weak implementations of AVCHD and they think that they are all the same. Frankly throwing bits at a weak implementation is not a cure, in fact it doesn't help. There are products out there that prove this. But take a look at the interviews that Bob did of me and yest they have been stepped on again to get them on the web, but they look good. The probably looked even better.

People like to judge using numbers as everyone understands the 50 is more than 24. But unless you are a compressionist, you may not understand that that isn't necessarily true. So wait until the camera delivers, demo it and then see what you think. I was looking at a recording yesterday that our engineer was scrutinizing and man it looked beautiful. We were both point at areas where DVCPRO HD would have packed up and gone home. This codec is AVC-Intra's little brother. They share some very strong similarities.

And if the BBC accepts HDV, there is not reason they wouldn't accept this footage. Images make you money, codecs only help you get there, if the images are compelling broadcasters and other channels will buy them. This is just a given. Many people don't know this but in my 34 years in this business, it has been proven to me over and over and over.


Best,

Jan

[Barry_Green]

But it doesn't fall into their current parameters, so no guarantees.

True, there are no guarantees. But a whole lot of cameras don't meet their current parameters, including anything made by JVC, or any XDCAM-HD or XDCAM-EX product, or any HDV, or any AVCHD, or any DSLR. None of those meet their guidelines, not even the $20,000 2/3" PMW350.

For XDCAM-HD and XDCAM-EX users, they can get around it by using a NanoFlash or Ki Pro Mini. For AF100 users, they can do exactly the same thing. So if you want to meet BBC guidelines, you can do it -- just use a Nano or Ki Pro.

And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the BBC decided that PH-mode AVCCAM meets their guidelines. But we'll have to wait for them to do that evaluation before we'll know.

[erdiaz]

Well, numbers are numbers, and serve in some instances to measure, count or compare. In some other instances, (movies for instance) works also what here in my country we use to say: " If it looks good, is good". For many of us, that are working in movies and stuff like that with little or no budget, " If it looks good, is good", despite of the numbers (codecs, bitrates, etc.). However I understand that in post or fx numbers count, so, if I can get an image that looks very good, the numbers (codecs, bitrates, etc.) are acceptable to work with, the price is affordable, and the final result is what I want. That's what I need, buy and use. I'll get the AF100. Here, in Colombia, we have pieces that History and Discovery has released, made entirlelly in Mini DV. (Documentary all). Regards.

[Nick Navaro]

True, there are no guarantees. But a whole lot of cameras don't meet their current parameters, including anything made by JVC, or any XDCAM-HD or XDCAM-EX product, or any HDV, or any AVCHD, or any DSLR. None of those meet their guidelines, not even the $20,000 2/3" PMW350.

For XDCAM-HD and XDCAM-EX users, they can get around it by using a NanoFlash or Ki Pro Mini. For AF100 users, they can do exactly the same thing. So if you want to meet BBC guidelines, you can do it -- just use a Nano or Ki Pro.

And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the BBC decided that PH-mode AVCCAM meets their guidelines. But we'll have to wait for them to do that evaluation before we'll know.

This goes for Jan and DirectorDOP too...

Look, I get the whole content is king, have a good story etc etc.... That's why I've been able to be successful making shows on shitty HDV, as I know the target market very well.

The point is - numbers (bit rate) and color space DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

For example - The BBC - They will test yes, but for now, it's below their minimum 50mbs. So if the AF100 was already 50mbs, there wouldn't be any issue or conversation here. And it's not always possible for me to hook up an external recorder for 100mbs. I'm in the field, so want to stay as light and gadget free as possible.

And the color space is relevant to post. A weaker color space and bit rate is not going to stand-up to heavy manipulation in post, especially for music videos.

And Barry, no need to mention other cams, as the AF100 is what we're focusing on.

I'm really not sure whether to buy one or not. Or even recommend.

Panasonic - All you need to do is increase to 50mbs on-board recording with 4:2:2. Et voila. Problem solved. That would really be a game changer and product of note. I'd pay an extra couple of thousand for that.

And Jan, while you're here. Why are there no specific lenses in existence at all for this particular camera?? That is strange.

Thanks all

Nick

[NextWaveG]

@Nick

I don't think you get the target audience of this camera. If it had 50 Mbs and 4:2:2 it would record to P2 and cost over $10k. Then it would line up next to cameras like the HPX370.

This camera is meant to be the next camera in a lineup that includes the DVX100 and HVX200, cameras that both changed the way indie films were made.

[Michael Olsen]

Sounds like what you need is a codec (any codec) which has a number greater than 50 in it. And 4:2:2.

So I don't think the AF-100 is going to be your camera. Because unless something really bizarre happens, I don't think it will do either of those.

And if using a small external recorder is totally off the table...then this specific generation just won't do it for you.

But the AF-200 or whatever the AF-100's big brother will be, could very well be. And then you will pay an extra couple thousand.

There are plenty of people who would love to see this camera with P2 and AVC-Intra. And I have a feeling that Panasonic is listening.

[LoganMackay]

Panasonic - All you need to do is increase to 50mbs on-board recording with 4:2:2. Et voila. Problem solved. That would really be a game changer and product of note. I'd pay an extra couple of thousand for that.






Pay the extra couple thousand for external recording.

[mcgeedigital]

Or wait for the AF-150.

This isn't the droids, er, camera you are looking for.

[Barry_Green]

Pay the extra couple thousand for external recording. Or $799 for that Ninja thing.

Point being, basically every camera under $20,000 is in the same boat. They're all 4:2:0, and they're all under 50 megabits. The only >50 megabit camcorders under $20k are the Panasonic P2 cameras, and the new Canon XF cameras. Nothing from Sony, nothing from JVC, no DSLR. If you want to use practically any camera anywhere near the price point, an external recorder is the only way to do it.

Would it have been better if the AF100 had 50-megabit 4:2:2? Of course it would. I made that exact request to them, for this exact reason. But it didn't happen and it's not gonna happen, so if you want to look at the AF100 for that purpose, an external recorder is the only way to get there.

Unless the BBC reviews AVCCAM and decides that it meets their standards, of course.

[NextWaveG]

You know, it's funny...

When we shot on DOF adapters to get shallow DOF, we put up with softer images, huge rigs, tons of light loss, etc. just to get that "film" look.

Then HDSLRs came out and the cameras were small and the images were sharp and the light sensitivity was incredible....but we put up with aliasing, rolling shutter, lack of control, separate audio recording, etc.

Now the first video camera with a large sensor is coming out and we will have true video camera features, reduced aliasing and rolling shutter, etc....but it will still have issues.

As many have said, there is no perfect camera. I'm just glad to see things improving and technology progressing.

[Steve Kahn]

Point being, basically every camera under $20,000 is in the same boat. They're all 4:2:0, and they're all under 50 megabits. The only >50 megabit camcorders under $20k are the Panasonic P2 cameras, and the new Canon XF cameras..
Barry,

I am going to buy the AF100 but... still it seems a bit strange that the HVX200 has a 4:2:2 color and is 6k and has been out 5 years! 5 tech years is a LONG time. Agreed DVCPRO HD has some frame rate limitations that AVCHD does not but I don't understand when Panasonic says that it would cost 2-4k more to record to P2 media. That just makes no sense. Again the HVX is the same price as the AF100!

In all this time Panasonic could have updated DVCPRO or if it is their intention to abandon that codec and P2 then they should create AVCHD PRO that includes a 4:2:2 color space and perhaps higher bit rate as well. I don't know. Perhaps they still can.

But, the fact is you really need 4:2:2 for quality greenscreen work and lets face it there's a lot of keying done in narrative work.

rant over. I love the camera even if it's not perfect.

[Barry_Green]

I am going to buy the AF100 but... still it seems a bit strange that the HVX200 has a 4:2:2 color and is 6k and has been out 5 years! 5 tech years is a LONG time. Agreed DVCPRO HD has some frame rate limitations that AVCHD does not but I don't understand when Panasonic says that it would cost 2-4k more to record to P2 media. That just makes no sense.
I think the missing piece here is that the P2 of today isn't the P2 of yesterday, because of AVC-Intra. The HVX is an 8-bit camcorder throughout, because the codec was an 8-bit codec, and the HPX170 and HMC150 maintain that same internal structure. Whereas if they shifted everything over to a 10-bit internal structure it would be quite a bit more expensive. And while P2 used to be DVCPRO-HD, would people really be satisfied, now that AVC-Intra's come out, with sticking with DVCPRO-HD? Frankly I'd love a P2 version that offered AVCHD and DVCPRO-HD on P2 cards, but I'd still be griping because I'd want AVC-Intra also, and ... sometimes, somewhere along the way, you gotta draw the line and say "this is what it is, and that is what it's not."


In all this time Panasonic could have updated DVCPRO or if it is their intention to abandon that codec and P2 then they should create AVCHD PRO that includes a 4:2:2 color space and perhaps higher bit rate as well. I don't know. Perhaps they still can.
Panasonic is still supporting DVCPRO-HD on their latest cameras like the HPX3100, so I don't think it's going anywhere. Someday, maybe, but not now.

And I suggested they make AVCPRO, at 50 megabits and 4:2:2. But the simple fact of the matter is, for cost or engineering or whatever reasons, that's not this camera. Maybe some future model would include some features like that, who knows... but that's not the AF100.


But, the fact is you really need 4:2:2 for quality greenscreen work and lets face it there's a lot of keying done in narrative work.
And there's 4:2:2 HD-SDI output and 4:2:2 HDMI output that can be used for those occasions where 4:2:2 is vital.

Would it be more convenient if it was all built in one? Sure. But it's hardly a dealbreaker or a roadblock or, really, all that much of a speedbump, to many folks. There will be people who say "unacceptable!" but I'd ask -- well, what else are you going to shoot on then? A DSLR? An EX3 with an adapter? Those are all 4:2:0 as well. The only way to get the 4:2:2 you're asking for is on a 1/3" camcorder, where you have to choose from either MPEG-2 or not-full-raster chips, and in the case of the Canon, it's going to cost MORE than if you just got a Ninja and strapped it onto the side of the AF100, and you'd still be stuck with a 1/3" chip...

I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting what you want -- I'd love to see a 10-bit 4:2:2 AVC-Intra P2-based AF150 or AF200. But that doesn't exist. I hope someday it does. Until then, we should evaluate the AF100 on its merits, and it seems very very appealing as-is.

[Rick Burnett]

Barry,

I am going to buy the AF100 but... still it seems a bit strange that the HVX200 has a 4:2:2 color and is 6k and has been out 5 years! 5 tech years is a LONG time. Agreed DVCPRO HD has some frame rate limitations that AVCHD does not but I don't understand when Panasonic says that it would cost 2-4k more to record to P2 media. That just makes no sense. Again the HVX is the same price as the AF100!

In all this time Panasonic could have updated DVCPRO or if it is their intention to abandon that codec and P2 then they should create AVCHD PRO that includes a 4:2:2 color space and perhaps higher bit rate as well. I don't know. Perhaps they still can.

But, the fact is you really need 4:2:2 for quality greenscreen work and lets face it there's a lot of keying done in narrative work.

rant over. I love the camera even if it's not perfect.

I absolutely agree with greenscreen work, but then again, most of the greenscreen work I do, I don't need a super light portable rig, since I am at the mercy of the green screen location mostly (again, in the work I do) so I'd probably try the ninja or the aja. I do plan on renting one as I want to compare some stuff for visual effects work. Reduced aliasing, moire and rolling shutter definitely help too which is what I am mainly concerned with.

Has anyone used the Ninja yet? Even in prototype. Given the cost of it, I'd really like to see if it delivers.

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi Nick,

The AF100 will not be doing 50 mbs nor 4:2:2 recording on-board. You can do this with an external device. You should just wait until it is available and then try it out. If it wourks for you then buy it, if it doesn't wait for the next camera. This camera is designed with features and form factor that hit a price point. Could don't what you want for the price of this camera. So see if it works, if not then...

Best,

Jan

[James Bridges]

Exactly Jan,
There are so many options that have popped up in
the past 3 years. Portable P2 recorders, Nanoflash, AJA Ki Pro mini, etc. that work great.
I am thrilled you have HDSDI port- a real winner there.
I plan on giving my producers/clients the SD cards for off line editing and I have my mastering format on the Nanoflash.
If Panasonic plans to make a "box" camera so I can put my HDX900 viewfinder and Anton Bauer batteries on the back, I will buy that one as well.
Keep up the great work.

[bgundu]

Wait a minute.... Did Jan just say "wait for the next camera" for 4:2:2?

hmmmmmmm.


Hi Nick,

The AF100 will not be doing 50 mbs nor 4:2:2 recording on-board. You can do this with an external device. You should just wait until it is available and then try it out. If it wourks for you then buy it, if it doesn't wait for the next camera. This camera is designed with features and form factor that hit a price point. Could don't what you want for the price of this camera. So see if it works, if not then...

Best,

Jan

[heavyG]

Wait a minute.... Did Jan just say "wait for the next camera" for 4:2:2?

hmmmmmmm.

Don't start that, you'll have the boards in a lather. I can see it now - "The new camera is Obsolete before it even comes out!"

[TheReverend]

Don't start that, you'll have the boards in a lather. I can see it now - "The new camera is Obsolete before it even comes out!"
Lolz... Quoted for truth!

OF COURSE there will be a next camera. There always is. I doubt the AF-100 will end Panasonic's run of building new cameras.

[heavyG]

Lolz... Quoted for truth!

OF COURSE there will be a next camera. There always is. I doubt the AF-100 will end Panasonic's run of building new cameras.

I know but there are always lots of people who troll the boards asking if they should buy this camera - or wait for the next one.
I'm waiting for one that makes toast.

[TheReverend]

Nick, I think you are being totally premature in dissing what willor will not be accepted by the BBC. I think you have not seen the codec in its record state from the AF100 and neither has the rest of the world. Obviously there are a group of individuals here that have had experience with the AVCCAM implementation and can hardly wait to see how good it will look with the AF100 feeding it. Guys like Bob Diaz who works with it every day is one of them. The hardest thing that I see we need to overcome is the fact that people have sen weak implementations of AVCHD and they think that they are all the same. Frankly throwing bits at a weak implementation is not a cure, in fact it doesn't help. There are products out there that prove this. But take a look at the interviews that Bob did of me and yest they have been stepped on again to get them on the web, but they look good. The probably looked even better.

People like to judge using numbers as everyone understands the 50 is more than 24. But unless you are a compressionist, you may not understand that that isn't necessarily true. So wait until the camera delivers, demo it and then see what you think. I was looking at a recording yesterday that our engineer was scrutinizing and man it looked beautiful. We were both point at areas where DVCPRO HD would have packed up and gone home. This codec is AVC-Intra's little brother. They share some very strong similarities.

And if the BBC accepts HDV, there is not reason they wouldn't accept this footage. Images make you money, codecs only help you get there, if the images are compelling broadcasters and other channels will buy them. This is just a given. Many people don't know this but in my 34 years in this business, it has been proven to me over and over and over.


Best,

Jan
I'm gonna have to agree with Jan here. I've done extensive AVC codec testing with the x264 scene over at doom9 forums, and a good AVC implementation at 24mbps is... quite frankly as good as it gets. I mean a standard 848x480 encode is pretty much maxed out bitrate wise at about 3000-4000 kbps. You might possibly be able to find improvement up to 5000kbps if noise is rampant in your imaging, but that is at the limit. If you convert up to 1920x1080 keeping the same ratio of pixel count:bitrate (of approx 5:1), 24mbps at 1920x1080 is right along with 5000kbps at 848x480.

What I'm saying is, I'm pretty sure that other than constant I-frames (like AVC-Intra), 24mbps this is about true the limit for AVC quality-wise. As a codec, this is about as good as AVC gets. And AVC is the best compression around. The HDSDI covers the rest of needs (4:2:2 color, and feed to codec of your choice).

[Jan_Crittenden]

Wait a minute.... Did Jan just say "wait for the next camera" for 4:2:2?

hmmmmmmm.

Yeah that is what I said. didn't say it would be ours, but there will always be a "next" camera.

:-)

[erdiaz]

If you are going to wait for the next camera, then wait for your next movie or commercial or Spot or anuthing you are going to do... Me, I'll get what serves today, for what I'm doing today. AF100 my next camera!!! I've preordered throug Panasonic Colombia.

[Rick Burnett]

Cause there is always people on boards that cannot afford a piece of gear that are going to convince themselves (and as many people they can to back them up) through every possible negative aspect that they don't need it anyways. :) Which is fine by me, means there will be one more camera for those that want one. Which then of course devolves into this cycle:

1) Camera doesn't do X or have Z feature, it's not professional nor doesn't meet my needs, company doesn't listen to what I want
2) Professionals use it, see here!
3) Who cares what equipment you have, just make movies
4) Yeah, but camera Y that is 100x expensive have these options, why not this one?
5) Forget any of this, I cannot stand the 2x crop
6) Barry has to come in at this point and correct crop discussions
7) Mention obligatory quote from Jim Jannard, for instance "Everything is subject to change"
8) Someone posts random sample footage from the internet
9) Someone begs for raw footage or it didn't happen
10) Jan has to step in and respond to calm the herd
11) Someone mentions the GH13 hack and hoping it will happen on the GH2 and the AF100
12) goto step 1

:)

I don't trust videos posted anyways. No offense, as I don't believe it is intentional, but good shooters are going to shoot good shots that look good. They don't want to post anything that looks bad as the first comment always is "Why did company X gives this camera to an idiot to shoot". Everyone wants to see the best it can do. I personally want to see the worst it can do, which is what I test on all cameras. Not for any other reason than to figure out where the limitations are on the camera to use it.

Sure, people can say "Well I never shoot at ISO2000 and no professional would do that, they'd just light the scene", which I understand, but from a technical standpoint, I personally like to see where I can push a camera in usable terms so when I am shooting and have to make a decision based on factors outside of my control, I can know what will work and what will end up being a waste of time. I also try to save time, and when the camera can do more for me, it means less time wasted.

[BobDiaz]

If you step back and look at the thread, you can see that there are people who wish the camera was something different. It's a nice wish, but the camera is what it is; one has to decide if it fits your needs or not.

Now I understand the wish for the camera to be 50 Mbps 4:2:2 and still sell for only $4,995, but it's not and no amount of debate or logical arguments will change that. You're beating a dead horse.



Bob Diaz

[heavyG]

I've ordered two - they will fill a definite need in our production schedule and when they don't fit the bill we'll use another camera system we own or rent what we need. Film is fluid and every job has different requirements; a lot of people expect to own a camera that fills all their needs.

"What do you mean the ARRI 535 doesn't record sound? I have to buy a second recorder and synch in post? Blasphemy! my $600 iPhone even records video with sound."

G.

[tflak]

Which reminds me...will the AF100 take calls? I know it's not in the prototype, but there's no reason it can't be in the final product!

[Rick Burnett]

Yes, if you build a mount to attach your cellphone to the hot shoe :)

[TheReverend]

I just need to know if it will upload video directly to facebook via wifi or 3g. k thx


lol

[Rick Burnett]

I just need to know if it will upload video directly to facebook via wifi or 3g. k thx


lol

Again, if you use the cellphone mount with say an iPhone4, you can place the iPhone recording the LCD display and use the iPhone to upload directly to facebook. The advantage is, you get TRIPLE recording! Once internally, once using the HD-SDI port with something like the Ninja and then the iPhone4!!! It's like a camera RAID system with 3 different quality levels for your customer needs!

:)

[Steve Kahn]

I'm gonna have to agree with Jan here. I've done extensive AVC codec testing with the x264 scene over at doom9 forums, and a good AVC implementation at 24mbps is... quite frankly as good as it gets. I mean a standard 848x480 encode is pretty much maxed out bitrate wise at about 3000-4000 kbps.
Link(s) please...

[TheReverend]

Link(s) please...
Sorry... No hard links to give. Every AVC encoder works differently and AVC profiles are extremely complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Profiles). Assuming that Panasonic is using a decently high profile level for there codec (and even if they don't), AVC is built for smaller bitrates. Extremely high bitrates do not necessarily improve visual quality or information. I'd have to dig all over doom9 forums to find anything to back what I'm saying, but I know I'm right. I'm not a full out compressionist, but I will claim LARGE amounts of experimentation with AVC profiles, options, and bitrates. When dealing with AVC macroblocking, more bitrate doesn't really "solve" problems because it's more in the detection side of your compressing algorithm.

Bottom line, bitrate isn't everything, and 24000kbps is an ENORMOUS amount of bitrate for AVC. I can't imagine virtually any scenarios that could break the codec.

NOW, that doesn't mean it's perfect. I'm just saying that with my experience with AVC tells me I'd be very happy working with this 24000kbps footage, and I'm used to DVCPROHD. Full raster 1920x1080 and lower file size and at approx 100% the quality of DVCPROHD? Where do I sign up? :D

[Steve Kahn]

Understood. Thanks for your educated opinion. Much appreciated!


When dealing with AVC macroblocking, more bitrate doesn't really "solve" problems because it's more in the detection side of your compressing algorithm.

This I don't quite understand, though. What factors go into the detection side of an algorithm? Is this more of a cpu/hardware issue?

[TheReverend]

This I don't quite understand, though. What factors go into the detection side of an algorithm? Is this more of a cpu/hardware issue?
First off, what i will describe here is general AVC encoding NOT AVCHD or AVCCAM. Different implementations work differently. What I'll try to describe is the quick rundown of what AVC can do, and how bitrates can be allocated.

AVC is highly advanced because in some implementations bitrate can vary (similar to VBR MP3s). It can vary per frame and even then each section of the "picture" gets detected for whether to encode a 1x1, 2x2, 4x4 or even 8x8 macroblock. This is the beauty of AVC, because bitrate is distributed throughout the "picture" in an intelligent way. So you end up with high bitrate detail where you need it, and lower bitrate in less detailed areas. Now that might sound bad, but in the end with a good detection algorithm, it is the same as if bitrate was 2x higher and even across the whole image. When you say 24mbps (average per the second NOT frame), bitrate is distributed throughout each picture and between frames (24,30,60i) where it is most needed. This provides for great perceived and effective quality.

MPEG2 is similar in this regard, but AVC is much more precise, efficient, and capable. So basically, 50mbps MPEG2 longGOP gets it's a$$ handed to it by a 24mbps AVC. Particularly with a good implementation.

[Nick Navaro]

Hi Nick,

The AF100 will not be doing 50 mbs nor 4:2:2 recording on-board. You can do this with an external device. You should just wait until it is available and then try it out. If it wourks for you then buy it, if it doesn't wait for the next camera. This camera is designed with features and form factor that hit a price point. Could don't what you want for the price of this camera. So see if it works, if not then...

Best,

Jan

Ok Jan. I'm going to give it a go. But what's the release date????

And why are there no specific lenses? This is another reason which makes me think they've rushed this to be the first to have a "HDSLR" camcorder.

And for the others, I already mentioned that I'm filming mostly in the field and didn't want to attach more boxes and cables to record at higher bit rate. Ok for studio tho.

[Barry_Green]

Ok Jan. I'm going to give it a go. But what's the release date????
December 27th.


And why are there no specific lenses? This is another reason which makes me think they've rushed this to be the first to have a "HDSLR" camcorder.
Because Panasonic Broadcast doesn't make lenses. Look at all their other cameras, and you won't find any interchangeable lenses made by Panasonic Broadcast. They instead include Fujinon or Canon glass. So with the AF100 you can use any of the Lumix, Olympus, Noktor, Sigma, or Voigtlander m4/3 lenses, or you can use an adapter and use any lens. Just don't count on Panasonic making their own, because (from the broadcast division) they don't do that.

[bgundu]

Ha Ha... nice done. Personally, I'm very excited about the camera. I have my order in and can't wait. Brings back the old feelings of when I bought my DVX100, and then the HVX200.

Bob



Yeah that is what I said. didn't say it would be ours, but there will always be a "next" camera.

:-)

[Nick Navaro]

So, Panasonic make a "bad marketing decision"

But the AF101 will be 4:2:2 from the SDI....

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/category/hdcamcorders/

[dcloud]

heres a good package for the af100
body + 20mm 1.7 for $5,000

[Razz16mm]

Cause there is always people on boards that cannot afford a piece of gear that are going to convince themselves (and as many people they can to back them up) through every possible negative aspect that they don't need it anyways. :) Which is fine by me, means there will be one more camera for those that want one. Which then of course devolves into this cycle:

1) Camera doesn't do X or have Z feature, it's not professional nor doesn't meet my needs, company doesn't listen to what I want
2) Professionals use it, see here!
3) Who cares what equipment you have, just make movies
4) Yeah, but camera Y that is 100x expensive have these options, why not this one?
5) Forget any of this, I cannot stand the 2x crop
6) Barry has to come in at this point and correct crop discussions
7) Mention obligatory quote from Jim Jannard, for instance "Everything is subject to change"
8) Someone posts random sample footage from the internet
9) Someone begs for raw footage or it didn't happen
10) Jan has to step in and respond to calm the herd
11) Someone mentions the GH13 hack and hoping it will happen on the GH2 and the AF100
12) goto step 1

:)

.

LOL :o)

[Jan_Crittenden]

So, Panasonic make a "bad marketing decision"

But the AF101 will be 4:2:2 from the SDI....

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/category/hdcamcorders/

While I don't have time to wrap myself into that thread, I can only address it from where I might have made a similar decision. In fact I have one on my table right now. Do I sent the camera to Jackson Hole Wildlife Symposium or to a local but large show in Florida, I think it was. Well my choice was Jackson Hole. But I made that decision 4 weeks ago and if given the same choice today I might still make the same choice. Point is to say that one vs. another is a bad marketing choice is just foolhardy. You don't know, nobody does. For me, Jackson Hole has a much higher end of shooters and a very targeted group of potential customers that could very well easily step into using the AF100. Not sure of the other group.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents worth,

Jan

[HDWarrior]

Hi Jan,

Jan when your European distributer is at ProVideo 2010...Holdan, and they requested the AF101 to be at the show would you not agree with your own distributer who just may know their own marketplace. Major UK Panasonic dealers were also at ProVideo 2010, Preston Media and Creative Video.
Panasonic had to phone DPs to attend Wild Screen, this came from a customer of Preston Media who I spoke to myself...it's a joke.
The best show in the UK for the AF101 was ProVideo 2010 and to prove it even your General Manager of Broadcast AV Systems Europe, Mr Takashi Uchida attended ProVideo 2010.

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi,

I can't say whether it is or is not a mistake, it may be that they had already made commitments. When there are only so many cameras to go around, you don't know. missed opportunity maybe, but it isn't a mistake. There just isn't enough to go around. I have the same problem here. There are a number of shows that I am not doing but they would be good. What I can say, that it is always easier to judge than to make the decisions and that someone is always sure to feel slighted.

Best,
Jan

[HDWarrior]

Jan one further question, why are Panasonic so protective of denying the so called public a look at this camcorder because it's only 75% finished when you are giving the camera out for review to a select few, thats one decision I do not understand, surly it would be better to hand out finnished camcorders with all the menus working etc and get a true evaluation than open yourselves up to frustrated reviewers who can't even perform the simplest of tasks like a white balance.

[Petros Kolyvas]

I imagine that sometimes Panasonic would like to know how some professional shooters/productions need some features to work... and so putting it in the field helps them to better develop it - like many products from phones to textbooks, that go through "field testing." Until that's complete it's hard to make performance claims or assessments.

I feel like Panny has been surprisingly open about this product despite the fact it's not feature-complete (as far as we know.)

[Barry_Green]

Who says you can't white-balance it?

And as dialing-wand said, part of this is about field-testing and seeing what works and what doesn't, how people would like it to work, giving it a test-run. It's all part of the development process.

Why would you think that's a bad thing?

[Michael Olsen]

I think it's probably quite common for companies to put their products in the field prior to their public release. What is, perhaps, less common is for those early experiences to be exempt from an NDA so that people like Yves and Joe can talk about them here.

The best way to build a great camera is to have filmmakers in on the process.

[Barry_Green]

What is, perhaps, less common is for those early experiences to be exempt from an NDA so that people like Yves and Joe can talk about them here.
And that is exactly what's different this time.

[Michael Olsen]

Yep. I have huge respect for Jan and Panasonic for letting people put this information up. I can imagine it feels a bit like sitting your head on the chopping block, regardless of how great the product is. Public scrutiny is harsh, inconsiderate, and often misinformed.

I also have huge respect for the shooters who have shot the footage so far - they are working with a pre-production camera and putting up footage which they know tens of thousands of people will be looking at. That's a lot of trust in the ability of the product to deliver something they want to put their name under.

[alpi69]

I've said this before, but it's worth saying again:

The Perfect Video Camera does NOT exist.



Not true...


I got the Sony VX1000 and it was the perfect small-budget videocamera.
Oh wait I then got the DVX100, which was actually the perfect videocamera.
Oh, and then I got the HVX200, which is actually the really perfect videocamera...

Hmmm....Panasonic seems to make the perfect cam...for my taste at certian times.

Af-100 will indeed NOT be the perfect videocamera, but it will be a big step in the right direction (if it holds its promises)

[asdfasdf]

Alpi69,
please read the quote before posting. you agreed with what BobDiaz said, however in your entire post you assume he said something different.

Please don't start trouble on the forum for no reason.

Clearly both of you agree in stating 'the PERFECT video camera does NOT exist'.....


Not true...


I got the Sony VX1000 and it was the perfect small-budget videocamera.
Oh wait I then got the DVX100, which was actually the perfect videocamera.
Oh, and then I got the HVX200, which is actually the really perfect videocamera...

Hmmm....Panasonic seems to make the perfect cam...for my taste at certian times.

Af-100 will indeed NOT be the perfect videocamera, but it will be a big step in the right direction (if it holds its promises)

[BobDiaz]

Not true...


I got the Sony VX1000 and it was the perfect small-budget videocamera.
Oh wait I then got the DVX100, which was actually the perfect videocamera.
Oh, and then I got the HVX200, which is actually the really perfect videocamera...

Hmmm....Panasonic seems to make the perfect cam...for my taste at certian times.

Af-100 will indeed NOT be the perfect videocamera, but it will be a big step in the right direction (if it holds its promises)

Just so we'll 100% clear of the context of the comment, video cameras are a trade-off between many things. So, for one "perfect" might be a 2/3" image sensor for low light, but the increased cost won't be perfect to another. CMOS allows for a higher pixel count and reduced power, BUT with CMOS comes the rolling shutter issues. In choosing a video camera, there's always something of a trade off that has to be made compared to another model.

Now it is possible to have a camera model that offers someone lots of plus features compared to any minus features. In that case, the person might ignore any limitations and consider all the plus features as "perfect". However, this is very subjective.


I hope that helps. :smile:


Bob Diaz

[Nick Navaro]

December 27th.


Because Panasonic Broadcast doesn't make lenses. Look at all their other cameras, and you won't find any interchangeable lenses made by Panasonic Broadcast. They instead include Fujinon or Canon glass. So with the AF100 you can use any of the Lumix, Olympus, Noktor, Sigma, or Voigtlander m4/3 lenses, or you can use an adapter and use any lens. Just don't count on Panasonic making their own, because (from the broadcast division) they don't do that.

Barry,

I'm thinking of getting this lens for low-light situations. Would you agree it would work ok on the AF100?

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Supplies-Accessories/Cameras-Camcorders/Digital-Camera-Accessories/Lenses/model.L-X025.S_11002_7000000000000005702#tabsection

And could you recommend a suitably good all-purpose zoom lens for the AF100 too please? Or anyone?

I'm a DP, not DOP. Lenses are my weak point.

Thanks in advance.

[Razz16mm]

Barry,

I'm thinking of getting this lens for low-light situations. Would you agree it would work ok on the AF100?

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Supplies-Accessories/Cameras-Camcorders/Digital-Camera-Accessories/Lenses/model.L-X025.S_11002_7000000000000005702#tabsection

And could you recommend a suitably good all-purpose zoom lens for the AF100 too please? Or anyone?

I'm a DP, not DOP. Lenses are my weak point.

Thanks in advance.

That is the Leica Summilux rebranded. Excellent lens.

Personally I think Olympus Zuiko top of the line f2 zooms for standard 4/3 with an adapter are the best bet for the AF 100. If Panasonic is on their game, they will support auto-iris and maybe also auto-focus.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_slr.asp?section=lens

[Barry_Green]

I'm thinking of getting this lens for low-light situations. Would you agree it would work ok on the AF100?
Should work, yes. Haven't tried it but it definitely should work. If you want a lens for low-light conditions, consider watching the voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 also. That's over a stop faster than this Panasonic 25mm. The Panasonic will be an electronic lens, so you can do some manner of autofocus and auto-iris etc., but the Nokton will let in over twice as much light, so ... depends on your priorities.


And could you recommend a suitably good all-purpose zoom lens for the AF100 too please? Or anyone?
The Lumix 14-140 is almost a must-have. It's a great lens, great range, great OIS, video autofocus, excellent feedback to the camera on focus and iris position, it holds focus throughout the zoom range, and the lens/camera combination work together to eliminate barrel distortion and CAC. It's slow at f/4, but then again it's cheap and powerful. Excellent default lens.

[Nick Navaro]

Thanks! Great bit of info Barry and Raz16mm.

Any more for any more? :-)

[Nick Navaro]

Should work, yes. Haven't tried it but it definitely should work. If you want a lens for low-light conditions, consider watching the voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 also. That's over a stop faster than this Panasonic 25mm. The Panasonic will be an electronic lens, so you can do some manner of autofocus and auto-iris etc., but the Nokton will let in over twice as much light, so ... depends on your priorities.


The Lumix 14-140 is almost a must-have. It's a great lens, great range, great OIS, video autofocus, excellent feedback to the camera on focus and iris position, it holds focus throughout the zoom range, and the lens/camera combination work together to eliminate barrel distortion and CAC. It's slow at f/4, but then again it's cheap and powerful. Excellent default lens.


Barry, if you had a choice (and money no object), would you go for the Lumix 14-140 or this > http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1335

[Barry_Green]

Well, you're comparing a $2500 3x zoom against a $700-ish 10x zoom. Nothing similar.

If you need the high speed, get the Olympus. If you need the range, the autofocus, the video-style functionality, the wide angle, the telephoto, and the rectilinear barrel distortion correction and ability to hold focus through the zoom, get the 14-140.

For sheer functionality, the 14-140 is dominant. For sheer speed, the Olympus is dominant. But they don't do the same job, so it's hard to compare them.

Whether I had the money or not, I'd still go with the 14-140, because of the flexibility and the capabilities it offers. The Olympus lenses are nice glass, no doubt, but they're much more expensive and the only thing I can see that really justifies that is if you absolutely need the (very nice) high speed they offer.

[tflak]

Hi Nick -- I have both of these lenses and, while I absolutely love the 35-100, I'd have to say my go-to lens is still the 14-140 due to all the reasons Barry has mentioned. If there's enough light, the 14-140 is hard to beat overall. And the increased ISO capabilities for the AF-100 (compared to GH1) that are starting to be shown in initial footage are encouraging for perhaps making the 14-140 even more useful.

EDIT: Here's a zoom showing the constant 2.0 capability of the 35-100. Which is cool - but the lens is, unfortunately, not parfocal.

Password = constant2


http://www.vimeo.com/7834262

[Otis Grapsas]

DOF is a key selling point of Af100 though. If DOF wasn't important, one could get a less expensive CMOS Panasonic. Olympus 14-35 f2 and 35-100 f2 are very nice because f2 allows AF100 to get shallow DOF that matches a 7D with f2.8 lenses and a 5dII with f4 lenses.

Low light is also important. f2 allows 2 to 3 stops lower ISO vs the 14-140 zoom. ISO400 instead of ISO1600 and ISO3200. In modern sensors ISO400 is very clean while ISO3200 has high noise and much lower dynamic range, and in the GH series, horizontal stripes from electrical interference. I can see these stripes in Bloom's ISO3200 sample also.

EDIT: So the question is: Would you pay 4,000 euro extra to improve the shallow DOF, the low light, and the dynamic range performance in low light by 2 to 3 stops? I would.

[Otis Grapsas]

Assume you have a low light wedding to shoot. I can offer you two packages:

A: 9,000 euro, 0db gain noise look, 10 stops of dynamic range, excellent compression performance, 1.5x crop f2.8 SLR shallow DOF (AF100+f2 zooms).
B: 5,000 euro, 12db gain noise look, 8 stops of dynamic range, mediocre compression performance, 1/2" f1.6 deep DOF (AF100+14-140 f4).

and if you need to use telephoto it becomes:

B: 5,000 euro, 18db gain noise look, 7 stops of dynamic range, bad compression performance, 1/2" f2.2 deep DOF (Af100+14-140 f5.6).

Fast glass can transform any camera. It's where good light gathering and shallow DOF comes from.

Even if we ignore shallow DOF, one can see how ISO affects a sensor of this type in dynamic range here:

http://www.dxomark.com/itext/review_panasonic_gh1/dynamic_range.jpg

The color precision here:

http://www.dxomark.com/itext/review_panasonic_gh1/color_sensitivity.jpg

The noise levels here:

http://www.dxomark.com/itext/review_panasonic_gh1/snr_18.jpg

If it's ISO100 f2 vs ISO400 F4, it's not that bad. But if it's ISO400 f2 vs ISO1600 f4 or ISO3200 f5.6 it's world of difference.

EDIT: For weddings the 14-140 will be more useful, with lots of light, but this could also be a filmmaking manual lens situation.

[Otis Grapsas]

Iam not saying that sony are best, for nothing, Idont like sony anyway, what I said is sony Put a low price, but I dont want to buy this cam without audio and a lot more of things. what I said is why always you buy a camcorder, the next year your cam is obsolete like my Hpx 170, and I know if I buy AF-100 the next year for competence reasons, you may have AF-100 obsolete two, like sony do with the sony EX1, And next year you find the EX1r. all I am saying is please bring good camcorders to us, not to fix the competitors, because us are important too.

Your HPX170 is not obsolete. It's global shutter CCD with an intraframe codec and it has much better motion quality than the EX1. It can compete with an HPX500 in many things and it has better motion quality than any Sony or Panasonic GOP camera, even the $20K ones. It's lower resolution than the CMOS competition but everything else about it is very professional. And why do you care about it being obsolete? You must have used it for 2 years or something. That's less than $6 a day. You must have used it for something important at least a couple of times. If it's obsolete you can sell it at 50% its price and it will end up costing $3 a day. Even if you are not using it professionaly, I can think of a dozen hobbies that would cost more than that.

[Otis Grapsas]

The very ergonomics of weight distribution is not good. Especially with a heavy HJ22 zoom lens. I just don't like it. It's archaic.

The weight and weight distribution is typical for a camcorder of this type. It's aproximately on the center of the camera without a lens. It must have been impossible for them to balance the camera with a heavy lens. The center of gravity would have to be way back, very close to the battery, the camera would be 45cm long or more. In order to achieve this I build a camera 40cm long and although it balances fine with a 700gr monitor on the front and everything, that's only with a lens up to 600gr (the small primes I use). Anything heavier and the right (holding) hand gets weight and perfect balance is lost. With a viewfinder you can push it to the back to rebalance though. The 2700 is a very good design. A prosumer handheld setup is not more balanced that a professional shoulder mount camcorder. It's not as stable with unstabilised lenses in telephoto. The weight in hand instead of on the shoulder? Or front heavy in one of those laughable shoulder mount adapter accessories with the pipework, the ridiculous rods that end up pressing on your chest and move when you breath and the ones that require your hands to be too far from the body? Are we shooting or searching for water with a stick?!

[Duke M.]

Fast glass can transform any camera. It's where good light gathering and shallow DOF comes from.

Even if we ignore shallow DOF, one can see how ISO affects a sensor of this type in dynamic range here:
http://www.dxomark.com/itext/review_panasonic_gh1/dynamic_range.jpg

The color precision here:
http://www.dxomark.com/itext/review_panasonic_gh1/color_sensitivity.jpg

The noise levels here:
http://www.dxomark.com/itext/review_panasonic_gh1/snr_18.jpg

If it's ISO100 f2 vs ISO400 F4, it's not that bad. But if it's ISO400 f2 vs ISO1600 f4 or ISO3200 f5.6 it's world of difference.

Interesting that the fall off is that linear in all three categories.

[Otis Grapsas]

Interesting that the fall off is that linear in all three categories.

That means there is no extra processing added. It's the natural degradation of a sensor system, half the light vs the same noise. It is the same in all good designs and in all integrations I have tested and on which I had total control on what was being applied to the signal.

[Barry_Green]

DOF is a key selling point of Af100 though.
Yes, but there are many other compelling features about the AF100 besides super-hyper-shallow DOF, like variable frame rates in 1080/60p.


If DOF wasn't important, one could get a less expensive CMOS Panasonic.
Yes, partly -- understanding that those less expensive units have an effective ISO of about 50, so it's not exactly a direct comparison.


Olympus 14-35 f2 and 35-100 f2 are very nice because f2 allows AF100 to get shallow DOF that matches a 7D with f2.8 lenses
The DOF difference between an AF100 and a 7D isn't a full stop! It's more like 1/4 of a stop.


Low light is also important. f2 allows 2 to 3 stops lower ISO vs the 14-140 zoom. ISO400 instead of ISO1600 and ISO3200. In modern sensors ISO400 is very clean while ISO3200 has high noise and much lower dynamic range, and in the GH series, horizontal stripes from electrical interference. I can see these stripes in Bloom's ISO3200 sample also.

EDIT: So the question is: Would you pay 4,000 euro extra to improve the shallow DOF, the low light, and the dynamic range performance in low light by 2 to 3 stops? I would.
As said before, if someone's main priority is low light performance, then they should be getting the faster lens, obviously. These are two different products with different priorities. If someone shoots daylight, the 14-140 has numerous substantial advantages.

I mean, how can they really be compared at all? One is a 10x zoom for $700, the other is a 3x zoom for $2500.

Again, it all comes down to what your priorities are, and what each lens gives you. One costs $2500 and gives you a faster f-stop. Period. The other gives you 3.3x as much zoom range, silent autofocus, optical image stabilization, parfocal zoom, focus and zoom readout in the LCD, barrel distortion correction, chromatic aberration correction, and probably more.

Frankly, I think someone would be foolish for NOT getting the 14-140. It just adds too much capability to the camera. It turns it into a full-fledged video camera, minus power servo zoom.

Nobody says the 14-140 has to be your only lens. I'm just saying I think it offers too much convenience and capability to not have it.

[Yak]

Yes, but there are many other compelling features about the AF100 besides super-hyper-shallow DOF, like variable frame rates in 1080/60p.

Barry do you know if there are any external recorders that can handle " variable frame rates in 1080/60p" or even 29.97 in 1080P.

[Barry_Green]

I doubt external recorders will be able to record the variable frame rates beyond 30fps. I don't know if the HDMI even transports any progressive rate beyond 30... I believe that for 12 to 30, it's embedded on the SDI stream within a 60i signal, so any recorder should be able to handle that.

This is speculation, however.

[Yak]

I doubt external recorders will be able to record the variable frame rates beyond 30fps. I don't know if the HDMI even transports any progressive rate beyond 30... I believe that for 12 to 30, it's embedded on the SDI stream within a 60i signal, so any recorder should be able to handle that.

This is speculation, however.
Jan if you see this then maybe you could inform us has how the HPG-20 P2 recorder will interface with the AF-100 as relates to variable frame rates as well as how it will handle 24P and 29.97 in 1080P.

[Otis Grapsas]

The DOF difference between an AF100 and a 7D isn't a full stop! It's more like 1/4 of a stop.


If 4/3 is 18mm wide and since it's 4,000 effective pixels, a reasonable effective 3840x2160 crop for video output on an optimal 2:1 ratio would be 17.28mm wide. 7D is 22.3mm, so it's 1.67x more light, 2/3 of a stop. I haven't seen a Panasonic publication on the sensor size for Af100 so I'm assuming something that would work well. And 5DII full frame would be about a 2 stop difference.

1 stop is 2.000x the light and 1.414x the aperture diameter
1/2 stop is 1.414x (pow(2,1/2)) the light and 1.189x the aperture
1/3 stop is 1.260x (pow(2,1/3)) the light and 1.122 the aperture
1/4 stop is 1.189x (pow(2,1/4)) the light and 1.090 the aperture

The AF100 would have to be an 20.46mm effective width in video mode to be 1/4 stop different than a 7D.

The Panasonics with the low effective ISO come with very fast lenses. f1.6 and f1.8 I believe. This allows them to compete with f4-5.8 of higher effective ISO, they do not need high ISOs to match the 4/3" sensor f4-f5.8 exposure.

The 4/3" GH1 effective ISO is no more than ISO100 anyway in all tests I have seen, as the one I listed above. The higher ISOs are usable gain which compromise performance as measured in these graphs, 1 stop per 2x ISO increment starting from ISO200. If we compare native to native, the cheaper Panasonics win. If we accept that the usable ISO is 2 stops better, the cheaper Panasonics still compete due to the fast fixed zoom apertures.

A common complain of the GH1 customers is the noise, because they actually need to use ISO1600 to shoot a birthday party with the f4-5.8 lens. Even a consumer f1.8 camcorder gathers 5x more light, so it only needs ISO320 to match the GH1 ISO1600, in ISO320 they might still be usable even if their native ISO is lower by a stop. And a EX1 and a DVX can shoot that at 0dB gain. ISO1600 and ISO3200 are not much use if you actually need them any time you need reasonable low light because you are limited by the slow zoom. That's why I believe in the fast lenses. They will allow operating the AF100 at its optimum image quality settings and not degraded by 3 and 4 stops in everything. Why turn a 11stop ISO200 camcorder into an 8stop ISO1600 camcorder when you can avoid it? I wouldn't recommend using these high ISO as though they were native/low noise/0dB ISOs.

[agcohn]

I doubt external recorders will be able to record the variable frame rates beyond 30fps. I don't know if the HDMI even transports any progressive rate beyond 30... I believe that for 12 to 30, it's embedded on the SDI stream within a 60i signal, so any recorder should be able to handle that.

This is speculation, however.
The Cinedeck (http://www.cinedeck.com/content/#/8?type=serial&var=) website claims to support the following HD Formats:
720p50, 720p59.94, 720p60, 1080PsF23.98, 1080p23.98, 1080PsF24, 1080p24, 1080PsF25, 1080p25, 1080PsF29.97, 1080p29.97, 1080PsF30, 1080p30, 1080i50, 1080p50, 1080i59.94, 1080p59.94, 1080i60, and 1080p60

However, they don't specifically say it records in all of those formats.

And some of those formats are confusing like 1080i60 in addition to 1080i59.94?

[Barry_Green]

If 4/3 is 18mm wide and since it's 4,000 effective pixels, a reasonable effective 3840x2160 crop for video output on an optimal 2:1 ratio would be 17.28mm wide.
No need to jump through those math hoops. It's 18.9mm. And I've verified the FOV against a 7D; a 100mm lens on the 7D matches the FOV of an 85mm on the GH1, almost perfectly. So the crop is 1.18 a vs. the 7D, and the DOF difference is about 1/4 stop.

[BobDiaz]

Whatever the resolution of the image sensor, chances are it's either an integer multiple of 1920x1080 or if a fractional amount, it's like 2 & 1/2. The reason I think it's something like that is that when converting from the higher native resolution to 1920x1080, it's easier to be a multiple of 2 or at lease an integer value. Fractions make for a messy conversion, not impossible, but just messy.

A 2x2 --> 1 is very clean and easy, but a 2 & 1/32 x 2 & 1/32 is much harder and messy.


Bob Diaz

[BitMaestro]

Not that it's worth "jumping through math hoops" for a fraction of a stop, but since I'm procrastinating...


If 4/3 is 18mm wide and since it's 4,000 effective pixels, a reasonable effective 3840x2160 crop for video output on an optimal 2:1 ratio would be 17.28mm wide. 7D is 22.3mm, so it's 1.67x more light, 2/3 of a stop. I haven't seen a Panasonic publication on the sensor size for Af100 so I'm assuming something that would work well.

The standard 4/3 sensor is 17.3mm wide, not 18mm. And when shooting 16:9, the GH1's multi-aspect sensor is 4,352 pixels (and ~18.8mm), not 4,000 pixels. Similarly, the GH2's multi-aspect sensor (which is widely assumed to be the basis for the AF100's sensor) goes from 4,608 pixels (4:3) to 4,976 pixels (16:9) wide.

And while it's true that Pany hasn't said anything specific about the AF100's sensor, Jan did mention that the full resolution is ~12 MP. If we also abide by Bob's theory and use a relatively non-messy 2.5 ratio, that would be 4,800x2,700 which, given the above, works out to a crop factor of 1.22 relative to the 7D. And that--by the calculations in your post: "1/2 stop is ... 1.189x the aperture"--is just over 1/2 stop.

Mark

P.S. re: "A common complain of the GH1 customers is the noise, because they actually need to use ISO1600 to shoot a birthday party with the f4-5.8 lens."--IMO they actually need to use the 20mm f1.7 pancake lens.

[Otis Grapsas]

No need to jump through those math hoops. It's 18.9mm. And I've verified the FOV against a 7D; a 100mm lens on the 7D matches the FOV of an 85mm on the GH1, almost perfectly. So the crop is 1.18 a vs. the 7D, and the DOF difference is about 1/4 stop.

1.189 is 1/2 a stop.

[Otis Grapsas]

Not that it's worth "jumping through math hoops" for a fraction of a stop, but since I'm procrastinating...



The standard 4/3 sensor is 17.3mm wide, not 18mm. And when shooting 16:9, the GH1's multi-aspect sensor is 4,352 pixels (and ~18.8mm), not 4,000 pixels. Similarly, the GH2's multi-aspect sensor (which is widely assumed to be the basis for the AF100's sensor) goes from 4,608 pixels (4:3) to 4,976 pixels (16:9) wide.

And while it's true that Pany hasn't said anything specific about the AF100's sensor, Jan did mention that the full resolution is ~12 MP. If we also abide by Bob's theory and use a relatively non-messy 2.5 ratio, that would be 4,800x2,700 which, given the above, works out to a crop factor of 1.22 relative to the 7D. And that--by the calculations in your post: "1/2 stop is ... 1.189x the aperture"--is just over 1/2 stop.

Mark

P.S. re: "A common complain of the GH1 customers is the noise, because they actually need to use ISO1600 to shoot a birthday party with the f4-5.8 lens."--IMO they actually need to use the 20mm f1.7 pancake lens.

Panasonic should have the active pixels/sensor size in 16:9 video on the pdf of the Af-100 when they release it.

Home users always get the cheap zoom only and expect miracles:)

[Nick Navaro]

So I guess most of you have seen Philip Bloom's review of the AF100

http://philipbloom.net/2010/10/19/af100/

What did you think? He points out the gripe with the lenses and AVC 24mb codec not being great as most people were moaning about on here. Like I said, I'm in the field and don't want to attach extra bits for better quality....

Anyone know anything about the new Sony mini cinealta 35mm cmos chip cam due to come out next March?? That sounds like it would trump the AF100 easily... Apparently, someone said, not me, Sony wouldn't be as careless as Panasonic leaving an unfinished product in to the hands of others. I only want to buy ONE camera for now, and Philip's review has put me off buying now. Mainly due to the lenses issue.

And Barry, if you read this, this 0.95 lens you recommended is vapour ware apparently. Can't find one anywhere and experienced people have been saying you probably won't get one. :-(

x2 crop factor on the AF100 sucks IMHO. :-(

[Homunculus]

So I guess most of you have seen Philip Bloom's review of the AF100

http://philipbloom.net/2010/10/19/af100/

What did you think? He points out the gripe with the lenses and AVC 24mb codec not being great as most people were moaning about on here. Like I said, I'm in the field and don't want to attach extra bits for better quality....

Anyone know anything about the new Sony mini cinealta 35mm cmos chip cam due to come out next March?? That sounds like it would trump the AF100 easily... Apparently, someone said, not me, Sony wouldn't be as careless as Panasonic leaving an unfinished product in to the hands of others. I only want to buy ONE camera for now, and Philip's review has put me off buying now. Mainly due to the lenses issue.

And Barry, if you read this, this 0.95 lens you recommended is vapour ware apparently. Can't find one anywhere and experienced people have been saying you probably won't get one. :-(

x2 crop factor on the AF100 sucks IMHO. :-(

AF100 does not have x2 crop factor nor any lense problems. the crop factor on AF100 to cinema 35mm film is about 1.2 which is almost negligible. it has x 2 crop factor for full frame PHOTOGRAPHY 35mm negative. are you buying the AF100 for PHOTOGRAPHY or for shooting videos/movies?

to say AF100 has x2 crop factor means you're also saying Red One and Arri 535 has x2 crop factor as well which is true because AF100 Red One and all 35mm film cameras from Arri to Panavision have about the same size sensor/negative

[Ian-T]

x2 crop factor on the AF100 sucks IMHO. :-(Here we go again. LOL...what ....do you plan on shooting stills with it or something? There is no x2 crop. So I guess real cinema cameras like the Red One or other 35mm cams sucks also?

Ha...Homunculus I responded before actually reading yours.

[Barry_Green]

So I guess most of you have seen Philip Bloom's review of the AF100
No, we've seen Philip's comments on a barely-functional prototype. 75% complete. Not a review, as the unit isn't done yet.


He points out the gripe with the lenses and AVC 24mb codec not being great as most people were moaning about on here.
And he also said it was a "stonking great" camera too.

He shouldn't have said anything about the codec, because it's not done. Panasonic has asked users to not post footage from the native codec yet, as it's in a preliminary stage. Even so, the codec is a darn sight better than the codecs people have been using, such as those found in DSLRs, HDV cameras, and XDCAM-HD or XDCAM-EX cameras. The codec is fine.


Like I said, I'm in the field and don't want to attach extra bits for better quality....
You won't likely have to. I would wager 95% of the buyers will never bother with external recorders.


Anyone know anything about the new Sony mini cinealta 35mm cmos chip cam due to come out next March??
What we know is that they've said it'll be $50,000 and come out in April.


And Barry, if you read this, this 0.95 lens you recommended is vapour ware apparently. Can't find one anywhere and experienced people have been saying you probably won't get one. :-(
The Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 is not "vaporware", it's just not out yet.

[Ian-T]

Anyone know anything about the new Sony mini cinealta 35mm cmos chip cam due to come out next March?? That sounds like it would trump the AF100 easily... Apparently, someone said, not me, Sony wouldn't be as careless as Panasonic leaving an unfinished product in to the hands of others. I only want to buy ONE camera for now, and Philip's review has put me off buying now. Mainly due to the lenses issue.

But why would you want to compare a camera that will cost 10x as much as the AF100? If it doesn't kick the AF100's behind at that price point....then I'll be the first to say the Sony stinks. In others words....I expect it to run all over the AF100. :)

[Nick Navaro]

No, we've seen Philip's comments on a barely-functional prototype. 75% complete. Not a review, as the unit isn't done yet.


And he also said it was a "stonking great" camera too.

He shouldn't have said anything about the codec, because it's not done. Panasonic has asked users to not post footage from the native codec yet, as it's in a preliminary stage. Even so, the codec is a darn sight better than the codecs people have been using, such as those found in DSLRs, HDV cameras, and XDCAM-HD or XDCAM-EX cameras. The codec is fine.


You won't likely have to. I would wager 95% of the buyers will never bother with external recorders.


What we know is that they've said it'll be $50,000 and come out in April.


The Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 is not "vaporware", it's just not out yet.

What is your source for the $50k Sony? I heard $20k. Which for what it can can do, sounds amazing. And March release.

Well if the lens isn't out yet, then it's currently classed as vapor ware, ala the scarlet and epic... I can't wait years (as people have been with scarlet and epic) for a bloody lens! I need to shoot now!

And the people at crew.tv shot some OK footage with a $20k lens, apparently. What's the point of a $4.5k priced cam, but you need a tens of thousands of dollars lens to get nice footage??

And why are people bandying about it's "75%" done. It's been "75%" done for about 2 months! In 2 months they've not moved a single percent with a test product??

The x2 crop factor is real and exists, not just because of the smaller than 35mm sensor, but also because there are no suitable video lenses for this camera available at all??

"Apparently" "someone" is making a suitable wide lens. Why no more details than that??

Even if you're pro-panny like Barry. Surely you've got to admit the "clumsiness" of the whole set-up of this cam. As someone put it.

If it was a good straight-forward video camera with all the accessories, then I doubt you'd have a thread this long with all the pitfalls.

I want to believe, I really do.

[TheReverend]

What is your source for the $50k Sony? I heard $20k. Which for what it can can do, sounds amazing. And March release.

Well if the lens isn't out yet, then it's currently classed as vapor ware, ala the scarlet and epic... I can't wait years (as people have been with scarlet and epic) for a bloody lens! I need to shoot now!

And the people at crew.tv shot some OK footage with a $20k lens, apparently. What's the point of a $4.5k priced cam, but you need a tens of thousands of dollars lens to get nice footage??

And why are people bandying about it's "75%" done. It's been "75%" done for about 2 months! In 2 months they've not moved a single percent with a test product??

The x2 crop factor is real and exists, not just because of the smaller than 35mm sensor, but also because there are no suitable video lenses for this camera available at all??

"Apparently" "someone" is making a suitable wide lens. Why no more details than that??

Even if you're pro-panny like Barry. Surely you've got to admit the "clumsiness" of the whole set-up of this cam. As someone put it.

If it was a good straight-forward video camera with all the accessories, then I doubt you'd have a thread this long with all the pitfalls.

I want to believe, I really do.

Haha... I'm sorry but you just don't get it do you?

This camera gives you a large sensor with the ability to shoot cinematically and use high quality lenses. This has never existed in a prosumer video camera. When you compare this camera to film, like actual movies, it has the same sensor size and you can use any type of lens including cinema lenses! This is revolutionary!

Think of films that have been shot on 35mm... This camera gives you all the same capability and with all the advantages of digital acquisition and editing. What more can you ask for? I mean it's literally all right there!

As to "not having proper lenses", get the 20mm f1.7 lumix, that's 40mm compared to 35mm STILLS photography, but still 20mm compared to 35mm film. And @ 1.7 pretty amazingly fast. And as everyone has been saying, in cinema, you don't really EVER shoot wider than 15mm.

You have everything mixed up in your head if you think with a 35mm photography mindset coming to look at this camera. It was never meant to be a dslr. The AF100 is a digital 35mm film camera at a stellar price and minimally inferior to other $20k+ cams (Alexa, Red One). If you can get that as your mindset, you will be immensely happy with this cinematic tool that is mass market priced and bringing the digital revolution into the grasp of the common videographer.

It is brilliance if you can only look past a limited (photography) perspective.

[heavyG]

What is your source for the $50k Sony? I heard $20k. Which for what it can can do, sounds amazing. And March release.

Well if the lens isn't out yet, then it's currently classed as vapor ware, ala the scarlet and epic... I can't wait years (as people have been with scarlet and epic) for a bloody lens! I need to shoot now!

And the people at crew.tv shot some OK footage with a $20k lens, apparently. What's the point of a $4.5k priced cam, but you need a tens of thousands of dollars lens to get nice footage??

And why are people bandying about it's "75%" done. It's been "75%" done for about 2 months! In 2 months they've not moved a single percent with a test product??

The x2 crop factor is real and exists, not just because of the smaller than 35mm sensor, but also because there are no suitable video lenses for this camera available at all??

"Apparently" "someone" is making a suitable wide lens. Why no more details than that??

Even if you're pro-panny like Barry. Surely you've got to admit the "clumsiness" of the whole set-up of this cam. As someone put it.

If it was a good straight-forward video camera with all the accessories, then I doubt you'd have a thread this long with all the pitfalls.

I want to believe, I really do.

Really?

I'd love to see you out on a shoot I have next week with an Academy Award winning DP - lets see you explain that 18mm on the AF100 won't be wide enough. His lens kit (for house interiors & inside a car) starts at 25mm and goes to 85mm plenty wide and plenty long if you know what you are doing. He also spec'd older Zeiss lenses, not Ultra's, or Compact's, or even Super Speeds - we will be using some fairly slow glass. Plenty fast though if you know what you are doing...

[Barry_Green]

What is your source for the $50k Sony?
Saw it at IBC. And that's what the Sony people at IBC were saying.


Well if the lens isn't out yet, then it's currently classed as vapor ware, ala the scarlet and epic...
Disagree. Vapor is when something's been promised over and over and over and keeps missing its date. The Voigtlander was first announced just a few weeks ago.


And the people at crew.tv shot some OK footage with a $20k lens, apparently. What's the point of a $4.5k priced cam, but you need a tens of thousands of dollars lens to get nice footage??
You do see the fallacy in your argument, don't you?


And why are people bandying about it's "75%" done.
Because that camera was 75% done. We're bandying it about because it's true.


In 2 months they've not moved a single percent with a test product??
You do see the fallacy in that argument, don't you?


The x2 crop factor is real and exists, not just because of the smaller than 35mm sensor, but also because there are no suitable video lenses for this camera available at all??
At risk of repetition, you do see the fallacy in that argument, don't you? What suitable video lens exists for any large-sensor camera? The AF100 is the ONLY large-sensor camera that has a suitable video lens, none of the others do at all.


If it was a good straight-forward video camera with all the accessories, then I doubt you'd have a thread this long with all the pitfalls.
A thread this long with "pitfalls" pointed out by people who have never used the product. Yet those people who have used it, universally praise it. You see the disconnect here, and hence the frustration...


I want to believe, I really do.
Sure doesn't sound like it.

[Homunculus]

LMAO!!! Navarro man are you for real or just trolling? The AF100 has almost NO crop factor whatsoever. 1.1 or 1.2x that's IT.

We got professional DP's and engineers telling you you're wrong and you're still being obstinate.



25094

here's a picture of a m43 sensor with a 35mm cinema negative. does this look like it's TWICE the size to you? looks roughly same size to me, thus no appreciable crop factor. Get your facts straight bro, you're going off the deep end and looking silly.

[Homunculus]

Do you not understand AF100, RED ONE, All Hollywood movies shot on 35mm, all have basically the same sensor and negative size. AF100 is a cinema camera. Canon 5dmkii has a much larger (full frame) sensor than all of these cameras because it is not a camera designed for filmmaking but for PHOTOGRAPHY

[Ian-T]

LOL...I love this thread. :)

[Finster]

25094

here's a picture of a m43 sensor with a 35mm cinema negative. does this look like it's TWICE the size to you? looks roughly same size to me, thus no appreciable crop factor. Get your facts straight bro, you're going off the deep end and looking silly.

OT: Can someone explain this photo to me? I read somewhere that the reason why 35mm cinema is smaller (is that the right word?) than a 35mm photography camera is because it captures the image vertically. And so, it doesn't use all of the 35mm sensor, right? So, that film strip on the left ... what we're seeing is the vertical image that was captured on a smaller "section" of the 35mm sensor? Right?

I think part of the reason why this confuses me is because the frames on that film strip sure don't look vertical to me! :)

Forgive my ignorance. I'm sure this is Cinematography 101 for most of you.

[Barry_Green]

35mm still film uses the space between the sprockets for its vertical image height, and uses 8 perfs wide as its frame.

35mm cine film uses the space between the sprockets for its horizontal image width, and uses 4 perfs tall as its frame.

In a 35mm still camera, the film runs through the camera horizontally.
In a 35mm cinema camera, the film runs through the camera vertically.

[David Jimerson]

Of course, there was VistaVision . . .

[Michael Olsen]

Question: Academy 35 v. Super 35.

Aren't most features shot on Super35 (a.k.a. acquisition format), then put on Academy 35 along with the stereo audio tracks for distribution (a.k.a. distribution format)? Or am I getting this backwards again...

And yeah...VistaVision. There were, what, 30 films that were shot that way? More if you count special effects work, of course. Makes one wonder about the prospect of a FF35 digi cine camera.

[Barry_Green]

I don't know about today, but historically the answer is no. The question is the digital intermediate. Prior to the advent of the digital intermediate, when optical printing was done, Super35 was rarely ever used, and was only used for a poor-man's widescreen (i.e., using the slightly bigger width and cropping down to 2 perfs, which gave you a little bit more info to work with for a 2.35:1 image and let you work with spherical lenses, but a lot grainier than true anamorphic photography). Better stocks made it a more practical choice for scope films, and the percentage of widescreen scope films using Super35 instead of anamorphic has been growing over the years. But 1.85 films were still shot using the normal aperture.

Full-aperture Super35 was used a lot for TV commercials, as it used the 4:3 aspect ratio so we'd use Super35 when telecine-ing.

But for theatrical releases, Super35 was not common at all prior to "O Brother Where Art Thou" and the advent of digitally scanning all the footage in. Traditionally film was shot, a simple telecine was done for the edit, and then the edit was "matched back" to the negative, the negative was cut, and then optical prints were struck for release.

I don't know what the percentage of films being shot on Super35, vs. Regular 35, is nowadays in the world of digital intermediates. But this only really started in earnest in about 2000/2001.

[Nick Navaro]

Jesus. This is wearing me down!

I'm following up on Philip Bloom's points about where this camera falls short, and some of you agreed, then you're being hypocritical and reverting to your old arguments.

I'm not into photography and not shooting cinema. I'm shooting TV, docs and music videos. A kinda general use, mostly one-man, which the AF100 has so far been touted for. I also shoot a lot of fast pans and in flash environments.

Look at the Bloom review. He's used it! Most of your haven't. And 75% or not, do you really think it's gonna change much in the next 4 weeks.

Barry, the fallacy of YOUR argument and Jan's was, that the cam missed high-level features due to aiming for a particular price bracket. And the best images have come from VERY expensive lenses, which kind of defeats the object does it not.

If you all look beyond your text book stuff and look at what's been actually used and reviewed so far, the cam is not that great. For shooting video, you don't IDEALLY want to use stills lenses or film, especially when in the field and tight spaces for the latter. A couple of good video lenses would be great, but it seems there aren't any!?? Ideally.

I'll probably end up getting one anyway! LMAO!!

very tempted to wait for the new Sony tho and pay extra for "probably" a more "complete" product....

[Michael Olsen]

Who is touting this camera as a "general use, mostly one-man" camera? Especially for "fast pans and in flash environments"?

If that's what you are needing, stick with a nice 2/3" CCD. You'll get a nice fast AF lens with servo zoom, no skew, no flash banding, and a comfortable sensor size.

[DimitriL]

Super 35 wasn't all that uncommon before the digital scanning age. James Cameron was a huge cheerleader for the format - all of his films up to and including Titanic were shot on Super 35. Top Gun was a big one. (Surprisingly, a lot of these are shot at 2:35, which I would think works against the format.)

[Nick Navaro]

Who is touting this camera as a "general use, mostly one-man" camera? Especially for "fast pans and in flash environments"?

If that's what you are needing, stick with a nice 2/3" CCD. You'll get a nice fast AF lens with servo zoom, no skew, no flash banding, and a comfortable sensor size.

Bloom said it would be, general, one-man etc...

Ok, please tell me were I can get a 2/3" CCD in the body of an EX3 or smaller... Due to the nature of my work I can't go bigger than that for chassis... I've looked for months... If you can answer that question I'll buy you one too! LOL

[Stephen Mick]

Gentlemen (term used loosely), let's keep the personal attacks and negativity out of the discussion. You have been warned.

[Barry_Green]

Super 35 wasn't all that uncommon before the digital scanning age. James Cameron was a huge cheerleader for the format - all of his films up to and including Titanic were shot on Super 35. Top Gun was a big one. (Surprisingly, a lot of these are shot at 2:35, which I would think works against the format.)
Not surprisingly, because that's about the only time Super35 was used, was as a substitute for anamorphic. And it caused a lot of controversy, with many cinematographers disapproving of it because the end quality wasn't as good as optical anamorphic. Super35 wasn't used for 1.85 films, maybe at all, prior to the invention and adoption of the digital intermediate. I found a quote from someone at efilm that said that as late as 2005, still less than half the films out there were opting for a digital intermediate. But no mention as to how many of those were originating on super35 or if they were still shooting regular 35.

[Michael Olsen]

Philip Bloom didn't use the word "general" once in the "3 days with the Panasonic..." article. Nor did he use "one-man".

Here's the skinny. AF-100 is promising to be the worlds first video camera with a ~35mm sensor for less than $10,000. It will have all the usual features of video cameras, save a few which are made virtually physically impossible because of the ~35mm CMOS format. This makes it a good camera for those shooting with a cinematic style - little zooming, usually multiple lenses, usually a bit of time for setup in order to shoot the scene. This can include everyone from true narrative filmmakers to sports shooters to cinema verite to wedding/events films, to fashion/art films, and so on. It doesn't rule any genre out.

It does, however, require a different shooting style than that of a traditional 1/3" or 2/3" video camera. The biggest difference is the lack a constantly fast, long, autofocus, servo zoom. A 14x f1.9 just doesn't happen for any ~35mm camera in this world. Likewise, rolling shutter and banding. These are just going to be there, that's life. So if what you are shooting 1) requires such a zoom lens or 2) requires whip pans and flashes and you can't deal with those artifacts, then do not get this camera. You will hate it because it will not do what you want it to do. Many people who shoot with a "video" style - be it for ENG, Events, Weddings, etc. - have realized this camera isn't right for them. And that's fine. Just because this camera is new and a lot of people are excited doesn't mean it has to be right for everyone.

Instead, get a 2/3" camera with such a zoom lens and a CCD sensor. You will love it because you will be able to zoom in and out all day, do pirouettes with it, and run it down the red carpet, no problems.

[Nick Navaro]

Philip Bloom didn't use the word "general" once in the "3 days with the Panasonic..." article. Nor did he use "one-man".

Here's the skinny. AF-100 is promising to be the worlds first video camera with a ~35mm sensor for less than $10,000. It will have all the usual features of video cameras, save a few which are made virtually physically impossible because of the ~35mm CMOS format. This makes it a good camera for those shooting with a cinematic style - little zooming, usually multiple lenses, usually a bit of time for setup in order to shoot the scene. This can include everyone from true narrative filmmakers to sports shooters to cinema verite to wedding/events films, to fashion/art films, and so on. It doesn't rule any genre out.

It does, however, require a different shooting style than that of a traditional 1/3" or 2/3" video camera. The biggest difference is the lack a constantly fast, long, autofocus, servo zoom. A 14x f1.9 just doesn't happen for any ~35mm camera in this world. Likewise, rolling shutter and banding. These are just going to be there, that's life. So if what you are shooting 1) requires such a zoom lens or 2) requires whip pans and flashes and you can't deal with those artifacts, then do not get this camera. You will hate it because it will not do what you want it to do. Many people who shoot with a "video" style - be it for ENG, Events, Weddings, etc. - have realized this camera isn't right for them. And that's fine. Just because this camera is new and a lot of people are excited doesn't mean it has to be right for everyone.

Instead, get a 2/3" camera with such a zoom lens and a CCD sensor. You will love it because you will be able to zoom in and out all day, do pirouettes with it, and run it down the red carpet, no problems.

Hahaha!! At last, someone helpful with a sense of humour! :-)

This is what Bloom said - copy and paste "(this is a great documentary camera and great for wedding shooters too, great for one man band and great low light)"

1/3" is not good enough quality. And 2/3" CCD bodies are too big. Anything else suitable!???? This is what I'm stuck on!!! :-(

[Barry_Green]

I'm not into photography and not shooting cinema. I'm shooting TV, docs and music videos. A kinda general use, mostly one-man, which the AF100 has so far been touted for. I also shoot a lot of fast pans and in flash environments.
The AF100 is aimed at people who want to shoot cinema-looking footage. It may not be for your uses. A conventional video camera may be better. And if you do a lot of fast pans and stuff in a flash environment, you'd probably be better suited with a CCD camcorder.


Look at the Bloom review. He's used it!
He used a partly-functional one for two days (the third day he was booked on a job). I've used that same unit for three days, and the 85% version for about three weeks now. I think I know an awful lot more about it than anyone else in the world outside of the actual Panasonic factory.

If I had to take anybody's word about how the camera works, I'd take mine, frankly. Not being arrogant, but saying that I haven't been limited to a quick look at a barely-functional prototype, I've worked extensively with it for several weeks.


Barry, the fallacy of YOUR argument and Jan's was, that the cam missed high-level features due to aiming for a particular price bracket. And the best images have come from VERY expensive lenses, which kind of defeats the object does it not.
Okay, then, for clarification, here's the fallacy of your argument -- just because the crews guys used expensive lenses, you're extrapolating forward that ONLY fantastic lenses can deliver great results. And that's simply nonsense. You could get equally fantastic results from a $50 ebay lens. It's just that people who shoot great footage, who have the skills and the crew and the support, don't typically want to saddle themselves with a cheap lens. It makes it harder to work with, whereas cinema lenses are designed for operation. As point of reference, the Zeiss Compact Primes are basically identical glass as the Zeiss ZF stills lenses. The Compact Primes cost 4x as much, not because they deliver better images*, but because they're designed to work in a cinema environment. And that advantage would hold true whether you were shooting on a Red, or a DSLR.

So I flatly reject the notion that expensive lenses are necessary. Have you ever seen anything that looked good off a DSLR? If so, that same lens and same workflow would look better from the AF100. If the DSLR used great lenses (as in, House's season finale) then the AF100 would look better using those great lenses. And if the DSLR looked great from cheap lenses, then the AF100 would look better from those cheap lenses.

*the only imaging difference of any note you'd get from the CP over the ZF is the 14-bladed iris.


If you all look beyond your text book stuff and look at what's been actually used and reviewed so far, the cam is not that great.
Spoken by somebody who hasn't used one, and has only seen scattered previews from people using a preproduction prototype that wasn't ready for use, and that Panasonic USA had specifically asked that people not post footage from. No big surprise that some of the footage has looked fantastic and some has sucked. Look at youtube or vimeo for footage from the 5D, some looks fantastic and some sucks.

Why not wait for footage from a functional camera, from those who know how to use it, before making indictments?


very tempted to wait for the new Sony tho and pay extra for "probably" a more "complete" product....
You're totally entitled to do so. I don't see anyone holding a gun to anyone's head and saying "you must buy this". If you have the $50,000 that Sony is now saying it'll cost, then go ahead and get the Sony. Even the $19,000 that they initially said it would cost. Or feel free to wait for the Scarlet.

But all I'm saying is -- ragging on the AF100 is unfounded and unjustified because nobody has seen any footage that does justice to what it's capable of. The closest is the crews.tv footage and that car footage, and even then that was shot on extreme preproduction units.

You will not see representative footage for at least several weeks. Proper footage should start showing up in the latter half of November.

[Barry_Green]

This is what Bloom said - copy and paste "(this is a great documentary camera and great for wedding shooters too, great for one man band and great low light)"
Yes, that's what he said. And I happen to agree with him in as far as he said, but you'd be wrong to think that that's all it's good for. I happen to believe that it would be also great for many more purposes. This is a great, great indie cinema camera, that can also be used as a pro video camera for many (but not all) purposes. It is better than a DSLR in just about every conceivable circumstance, with the only exception being the super-shallow DOF that a 5D can deliver. I happen to think it would be a no-brainer for a wedding shooter who's currently struggling to wedge a DSLR into his workflow. And I think people who are currently trying to shoot interviews with a DSLR, will think they've died and gone to heaven when they get ahold of an AF100.

But for live events coverage, or sports, or news coverage the AF100 is not ideal for that. I'd still go for an HPX170 for those purposes, due to the video lens, servo zoom, and CCD for no flashes or skewing. I still think the AF100 would be better than any DSLR for live events, sports, or news, but it's still a big step down as compared to a real, professional ENG-style video camera for those purposes.


1/3" is not good enough quality. And 2/3" CCD bodies are too big. Anything else suitable!???? This is what I'm stuck on!!! :-(
If you want CCD to avoid the CMOS issues, your choices are 1/3" (like the HPX170/HMC150 or XLH2), or the XDCAM-HD 1/2" products but their bodies are about as big as the 2/3" anyway. There's the HPX3100 from Panasonic, which has a smaller-than-normal-2/3" body, but it's still a big shoulder-mount body.

If you don't like CMOS issues, the pickings are getting slimmer. You have to go full-size, or 1/3".

If you want a big sensor and a small body, CMOS is the only way to go. And there are no video cameras in a small body with a large sensor. The AF100 is the closest, but it's not a strictly video camera. And there are no regular video lenses for large-chip cameras, so what you want doesn't exist. You'd have to instead look at the available options and choose the most-suitable compromise.

[Barry_Green]

Philip Bloom didn't use the word "general" once in the "3 days with the Panasonic..." article. Nor did he use "one-man".

Here's the skinny. AF-100 is promising to be the worlds first video camera with a ~35mm sensor for less than $10,000. It will have all the usual features of video cameras, save a few which are made virtually physically impossible because of the ~35mm CMOS format. This makes it a good camera for those shooting with a cinematic style - little zooming, usually multiple lenses, usually a bit of time for setup in order to shoot the scene. This can include everyone from true narrative filmmakers to sports shooters to cinema verite to wedding/events films, to fashion/art films, and so on. It doesn't rule any genre out.

It does, however, require a different shooting style than that of a traditional 1/3" or 2/3" video camera. The biggest difference is the lack a constantly fast, long, autofocus, servo zoom. A 14x f1.9 just doesn't happen for any ~35mm camera in this world. Likewise, rolling shutter and banding. These are just going to be there, that's life. So if what you are shooting 1) requires such a zoom lens or 2) requires whip pans and flashes and you can't deal with those artifacts, then do not get this camera. You will hate it because it will not do what you want it to do. Many people who shoot with a "video" style - be it for ENG, Events, Weddings, etc. - have realized this camera isn't right for them. And that's fine. Just because this camera is new and a lot of people are excited doesn't mean it has to be right for everyone.

Instead, get a 2/3" camera with such a zoom lens and a CCD sensor. You will love it because you will be able to zoom in and out all day, do pirouettes with it, and run it down the red carpet, no problems.
+1

[Nick Navaro]

Spoken by somebody who hasn't used one, and has only seen scattered previews from people using a preproduction prototype that wasn't ready for use, and that Panasonic USA had specifically asked that people not post footage from. No big surprise that some of the footage has looked fantastic and some has sucked. Look at youtube or vimeo for footage from the 5D, some looks fantastic and some sucks.

Not at all. I have previously said about THREE times. I'm just referring to the Bloom article. Yes, he needs to be mostly politically correct to keep people happy, so said he'd purchase one. However, he also is brave enough to point out the flaws. Which is something you are really not prepared to do it seems.

Lenses ARE an issue. And so is the x2 crop factor.*

* As mentioned by P.Bloom, not I. :-)

[Michael Olsen]

This is what Bloom said - copy and paste "[B][B](this is a great documentary camera and great for wedding shooters too, great for one man band and great low light)"

If you add "cinematic" in front of each of those, I think it would make the phrase much more accurate. Personal opinion, of course. From a guy who's never held the camera.

[Nick Navaro]

that can also be used as a pro video camera

This is what I don't understand. You're basically telling me it's not a great video camera. ???

[Michael Olsen]

The 2x crop factor only matters if you've ever shot on a FF35 camera (5DMKII).

If you've shot on movie film, it doesn't matter. It's the pretty much same.
If you've shot on 7D, RED, D21, F35, it doesn't matter. It's the pretty much same.

If you've shot on 16mm, it's GREAT! It lets you go wider!
If you've shot on 1/3", 2/3", or 1/2" sensors, it's GREAT! It lets you go wider!

[heavyG]

Not at all. I have previously said about THREE times. I'm just referring to the Bloom article. Yes, he needs to be mostly politically correct to keep people happy, so said he'd purchase one. However, he also is brave enough to point out the flaws. Which is something you are really not prepared to do it seems.

Lenses ARE an issue. And so is the x2 crop factor.*

* As mentioned by P.Bloom, not I. :-)
2x CROP FACTOR COMPARED TO WHAT??? A STILLS CAMERA??? This is not a stills camera that happens to shoot video - it is a video camera with a 35mm film gate size sensor (not a stills 35mm, something people have trouble understanding). If some hero academy award winning DP says that he used a 25mm lens to get a shot, then that same lens will look the same on this camera.

Even if you wait for the $50,000 dollar Sony (if that's the case why not get the ARRI Alexa, it's out now and is an outstanding camera. Better than anything else mentioned here), you will still need to buy lenses. The same lenses that you've been griping about, and it will present you the same problem** The sensor is the cine 35mm size!

[Nick Navaro]

, that [AF100] can also be used as a pro video camera

The AF100 is the closest, but it's not a strictly video camera..

Thanks for your help tho. I really appreciate it. I've kinda reached all this conclusion myself a while ago, but in denial! LOL!

I know what I want doesn't exist, but can't take it. And not great at explaining that on a msg board either. Call me old fashioned but I still prefer face to face. Maybe I should just get a film camera and a big crew! lol

[dcloud]

I wouldnt argue with a troll. for all i know im arguing with a 16 yr old.

[Nick Navaro]

The 2x crop factor only matters if you've ever shot on a FF35 camera (5DMKII).

If you've shot on movie film, it doesn't matter. It's the pretty much same.
If you've shot on 7D, RED, D21, F35, it doesn't matter. It's the pretty much same.

If you've shot on 16mm, it's GREAT! It lets you go wider!
If you've shot on 1/3", 2/3", or 1/2" sensors, it's GREAT! It lets you go wider!

Ok. Lenses are OBVIOUSLY not my bag, HOWEVER, what's the deal with a 25mm becoming a 50mm?? Bloom used wide lenses and had some distortion as that happens anyway, but said there were no lenses for the MFT chip that go wide properly.

Bloom got a lot to answer for eh! lol

PS And haven't you all got something better to do than be typing on here on Saturday night!?? I haven't of course! lol