PDA

View Full Version : I got to play with one today



Jim Brennan
11-04-2010, 01:58 PM
Full disclosure that I am not a tech-head. What I will give you is entirely unscientific. I own a small production house that does everything from talking head PSA's to indie features. I work on everything from concept to completion with some experience in everything in between, so my skill-set is broad, but not deep. I don't care about the math, the brand or the prestige. I just want results.

I went to the Rocky Mountain DV Expo today. Panasonic is always there, so I expected the AF-100 to be mobbed. Luckily, the new 3D camera was set up right next to it. So while a puddle of drool formed under that tripod, I mostly had the AF-100 to myself.

Yes, it is absolutely as ugly as it looks in pictures. I got over that pretty quickly.

They had two lenses available. The Lumix 14-140 and an Olympus (I think it was 18-85, but I'm not sure. ) The Olympus was a 2.0, and I think the Lumix comes in at about a 5, so they had the Olympus on the camera.

First bit of weirdness came when I asked Bernie, the rep, to put the Lumix on the cam. He did and naturally the image got very dark. "No problem" says he, "we'll just turn up the gain".

I felt like a mother watching her kid touch a hot stove..."Noooooo"

But he did it and it got brighter. Not noisier. Not grainier. Just brighter.

So I don't know if the word "gain" suddenly means something different, but it looked really good.

I needed to process that so I walked around with my wife collecting cool schwag.

When I came back they had the Olympus back on (which, being a larger lens, made the camera look less like a toy), and I played with it some more.

I swung it around to 2 guys standing about 3 and 5 feet away (remember the non-scientific disclaimer), who were having a chat. I set the lens to about 50 MM, which gave me a pretty tight OTS...maybe from a little above the hairline to the chin. The shoulder in the foreground looked pleasingly out of focus. About what you would expect to see in a TV drama or a feature film. Even more important to me, was how soft the background looked.

So I zoomed out to about 24MM. now I am getting from the belt to the head. The closer guy was almost in focus, but the background was still soft. Looked really nice.

Naturally the lighting was horrible, so it was difficult to tell how the colors looked. But as a long-time DVX and HVX shooter, I have a lot of confidence in Panasonic's work there. There were no great opportunities to check for moire and aliasing, but since they were going HD-SDI out to a monitor it wouldn't have told me anything about the AVCHD codec anyway.

So, I'm pretty dang impressed. It gives me everything my HVX has given me for years (minus the DVCPRO-HD codec and P2), plus much more control over DOF, Waveform monitor and vectorscope (I meant to ask if those can be sent to the external monitor or not), HD-SDI out, three stage ND Filter, better low-light (assuming you are using a decent lens) and the option of interchangeable lenses.

It may not be the Scarlet, but it's here, and the only advantage that a Scarlet would have (for me) is the occasional preference I have for Raw footage.

It's a no-brainer for our purposes. Pre-order is going in today. Now if i could just decide on a lens....

dillont
11-04-2010, 02:38 PM
Thanks for posting this! I like how unscientific it is :)

I'm definitely ordering a few of these cameras for the department I work for. Lovely piece of engineering right there, the AF100.

Dillon


Full disclosure that I am not a tech-head. What I will give you is entirely unscientific. I own a small production house that does everything from talking head PSA's to indie features. I work on everything from concept to completion with some experience in everything in between, so my skill-set is broad, but not deep. I don't care about the math, the brand or the prestige. I just want results.

I went to the Rocky Mountain DV Expo today. Panasonic is always there, so I expected the AF-100 to be mobbed. Luckily, the new 3D camera was set up right next to it. So while a puddle of drool formed under that tripod, I mostly had the AF-100 to myself.

Yes, it is absolutely as ugly as it looks in pictures. I got over that pretty quickly.

They had two lenses available. The Lumix 14-140 and an Olympus (I think it was 18-85, but I'm not sure. ) The Olympus was a 2.0, and I think the Lumix comes in at about a 5, so they had the Olympus on the camera.

First bit of weirdness came when I asked Bernie, the rep, to put the Lumix on the cam. He did and naturally the image got very dark. "No problem" says he, "we'll just turn up the gain".

I felt like a mother watching her kid touch a hot stove..."Noooooo"

But he did it and it got brighter. Not noisier. Not grainier. Just brighter.

So I don't know if the word "gain" suddenly means something different, but it looked really good.

I needed to process that so I walked around with my wife collecting cool schwag.

When I came back they had the Olympus back on (which, being a larger lens, made the camera look less like a toy), and I played with it some more.

I swung it around to 2 guys standing about 3 and 5 feet away (remember the non-scientific disclaimer), who were having a chat. I set the lens to about 50 MM, which gave me a pretty tight OTS...maybe from a little above the hairline to the chin. The shoulder in the foreground looked pleasingly out of focus. About what you would expect to see in a TV drama or a feature film. Even more important to me, was how soft the background looked.

So I zoomed out to about 24MM. now I am getting from the belt to the head. The closer guy was almost in focus, but the background was still soft. Looked really nice.

Naturally the lighting was horrible, so it was difficult to tell how the colors looked. But as a long-time DVX and HVX shooter, I have a lot of confidence in Panasonic's work there. There were no great opportunities to check for moire and aliasing, but since they were going HD-SDI out to a monitor it wouldn't have told me anything about the AVCHD codec anyway.

So, I'm pretty dang impressed. It gives me everything my HVX has given me for years (minus the DVCPRO-HD codec and P2), plus much more control over DOF, Waveform monitor and vectorscope (I meant to ask if those can be sent to the external monitor or not), HD-SDI out, three stage ND Filter, better low-light (assuming you are using a decent lens) and the option of interchangeable lenses.

It may not be the Scarlet, but it's here, and the only advantage that a Scarlet would have (for me) is the occasional preference I have for Raw footage.

It's a no-brainer for our purposes. Pre-order is going in today. Now if i could just decide on a lens....

take2visualmedia
11-04-2010, 02:42 PM
Thanks for this. We have a similar background...I own a small production company, we shoot HVX200..etc.

I placed my order today as well. For starters going with the 14-140 Panny lens. I would like to also get a 50mm prime but I want to wait until the camera is in my hands before deciding on other lenses.

Jim Brennan
11-04-2010, 02:45 PM
Thanks for this. We have a similar background...I own a small production company, we shoot HVX200..etc.

I placed my order today as well. For starters going with the 14-140 Panny lens. I would like to also get a 50mm prime but I want to wait until the camera is in my hands before deciding on other lenses.

Just posted a thread with the question of how the Lumix on the AF100 compares to the HVX in low/available light. It looked pretty dark to me, and it has me a little concerned about using the lumix.

take2visualmedia
11-04-2010, 02:46 PM
I just saw that post...timing is everything ;) I'll be watching that post, as everything is on pre-order with B&H...can always switch it up if need be....

Steve Kahn
11-04-2010, 02:58 PM
Not sure if there's going to be one there but Birns & Sawyer in North Hollywood is having an AF100 seminar today from 5:30-6:30. We'll see.

mcgeedigital
11-04-2010, 03:04 PM
Good stuff thanks Jim.

noirist
11-04-2010, 04:35 PM
Thanks for the report. Did the olympus auto-focus on the AF100? If so, how effective was it?

Barry_Green
11-04-2010, 04:38 PM
You can use the push-auto to make it go into focus mode, but this is one of those things people are just going to have to understand -- stills camera lenses are not made for video. So when it autofocuses, it autofocuses like a stills lens. Totally inappropriate for video.

The only lens on the market that autofocuses like a video lens, is the Lumix 14-140.

swanny
11-04-2010, 04:51 PM
You must just be copying and pasting these replies at this point huh Barry? I know I'm just as guilty, getting you to answer questions you've answered 20 times already. Your a good man!!

Jim Brennan
11-04-2010, 04:51 PM
Thanks for the report. Did the olympus auto-focus on the AF100? If so, how effective was it?

I was thinking of it more as a variable prime. It never occurred to me to try the AF. But I did notice that the EVF detail worked great. Naturally I would want an external monitor, but in a pinch it clearly showed me what was in focus on the viewfinder.

Of course, now that I am home, there are a bunch of things I want to go back and try out or ask. I guess I'll have to wait until the end of December.

Rick Burnett
11-04-2010, 04:54 PM
Thanks for the write up, really appreciated it! I pre-ordered quite awhile ago now and agree with your feelings. I am HOPING the birger adapter actually ships before it as I am ready to pre-order it as well. Man, I need to find if an AF100 is going to be anywhere near NC so I can go play with it early, you guys are having all the fun! :)

Justyn
11-04-2010, 08:45 PM
JIm, I think you've summed up a lot of people in terms of not being that into the charts and science and super techy stuff... Thanks for taking the time to post this and I think we'll all fall in love with a new camera come the new year. I too loved my HVX and now I love the HMC. The AF100 will just be a bit different but certainly not a red headed step child of a camera.

Dino
11-04-2010, 09:03 PM
I was at the Burbank trade show which had two AF100's as well. I am happy with what I'm seeing so far from image, controls, user interface and features, however, a couple of things I didn't like(yes, I know, these are prototypes):

I found ISO 200 and 400 to be a bit noisy(more like HVX200A/170) with a random look--not filmic, with some chroma noise, even though ISO 2000 was amazingly clean. The 3700 and 370 were quieter at 0db, as one would expect.

The Olympus Zuiko zoom with 4/3 to micro 4/3 adapter had some play in the mount(deja vu with the 170, although not as bad). The Hot Rod PL-mount adapter/Zeiss Compact Prime was more solid.

aurantaurant
11-05-2010, 03:03 AM
I was nerding it up at the Createsphere in Burbank too, just so I could touch the camera and meet Jan. The mock-scene they had set up was really not the best place to check the filmic qualities of the camera. It was lit like a stadium.

Couple guys walked by and said, "Wow looks videoish." Because they're morons. Like I said it was lit so dumb. It was really just to check the DOF. The model sitting at the desk was kind of hot. Two AF100's were there. The cameras are pretty sick. I don't remember ever feeling that way about something electronic other than the SEGA CD when that first came out. :)

Then I had to wait for about 30 minutes while some old dude asked Jan question after question that he already knew the answer to. I know you knew the answers buddy. He'd scratch his chin, pull on his goatee, ask a question, Jan would politely answer, and all the while I was thinking, "Get online buddy and figure it out, damnit, I want to touch the camera." And then he moved away. I touched the camera and some angels dropped from the ceiling and started signing.

A lot of cool people there...

Brian Valente from Redrock Micro was there. He had some cool stuff going on. I got to see the M3. Pretty dope. All the wireless follow focus stuff going on...
Brian's face had a tan to it that he attributed to too much Niacin. Hey Brian!!

Casey Goode from EVS was there taking pre-orders for the AF-100... the list was about 5 pages long.

Michael Rogers from Birns and Sawyer was there. He's always been cool to me.

I felt like I was at a family holiday.

Jan_Crittenden
11-05-2010, 08:22 AM
I found ISO 200 and 400 to be a bit noisy(more like HVX200A/170) with a random look--not filmic, with some chroma noise, even though ISO 2000 was amazingly clean. The 3700 and 370 were quieter at 0db, as one would expect.

So this is the sort of comment that causes me the most duress. When it is absolutely clear that these are prototype cameras, that it is now on the internet in a thread which somehow legitimizes it, that somehow this statement will carry through to its grave. The two cameras at HD Expo, locked up on me about 6-7 times each, where I had to turn them off and reboot. The more people played with them the worse they got. People kept changing menu items which only confused them and in cases made them noisy. And on top of that, in case you didn't notice, the two cameras didn't look the same. So please folks when you say something like this remember that the internet has a long memory and I know that 2 years from now someone will say "I read on the internet that ISO 200 and 400 to be a bit noisy(more like HVX200A/170) with a random look--not filmic, with some chroma noise, even though ISO 2000 was amazingly clean.", and I will have to recall this thread to give the context meaning. Please don't make my job harder.

And as far as being lit like a stadium, I really fail to understand that Jeff, the scene had one side light. Lit like a stadium to me says I can't find a shadow. Definitely not the case here.

Thanks,

Jan

Dino
11-05-2010, 09:00 AM
Jan, I understand these are prototypes, and qualified my comments as such. If you don't want people to comment on what they see at a trade show, it might make sense not to show the cameras publicly. I did go through the menus to check what gamma was being used(Cine D), matrix(Cinelike), detail settings were at zero.

I think Panasonic has hit a home run with the AF100, and I'm sure the production models will only get better--I wouldn't have pre-ordered two if I didn't have faith in Panasonic.

BTW, I didn't make the comment about the booth being lit like a stadium. I expect any trade show booth to be lit with lots of foot candles, nothing out of the ordinary in your booth.

Jan_Crittenden
11-05-2010, 09:30 AM
Hi Dino,

While I know you prequalified that they were prototypes the fact is that where you might have placed this would be near the statement, so it might read"I found ISO 200 and 400 to be a bit noisy(more like HVX200A/170) with a random look--not filmic, with some chroma noise, even though ISO 2000 was amazingly clean, but keep in mind that since these are prototypes this may not be true of the final versions.


Everytime someone went into the menus the cameras seemed to change so regardless of what the settings were, it would not necessarily be reflective of what was on the screen. heck one time I went into the menus and I had no choices under the switch menu, another time, I could open the menu but not close it. And it was different between the two cameras. And then every time I had to reboot, the signal to the monitor was a little crazy for about 5-10 minutes.

Ultimately the reason we show them is to gain interest on the part of the customer, and for the most part hope that the signal irregularities are seen just as that and not final. Because I have introduced enough cameras that many people take pot-shots at, I get a little defensive, and yes I accept that is my nature; I tend to "adopt" too heavily and protect like a mother.

Anyhow thanks for the faith and nice seeing you BTW.

Best,

Jan

f64manray
11-05-2010, 09:56 AM
Hi Jan,

So, will the AF100 look filmic? The reason people are drawn to the 5DII despite its codec issues, and willing to work with its challenging form factor is it's inherent quality not to look like video in addition to it's Shallow DOF. Just thought I'd give you an opportunity to expand further on the filmic quality of the AF100. ...and I'm looking forward to owning a AF100 ...given that it's "filmic". :-)

Dino
11-05-2010, 10:01 AM
Jan, I think I can speak for others on this forum in saying we all appreciate your passion for your products. Good to see you as well.

Jim Brennan
11-05-2010, 10:03 AM
Hi Jan,

So, will the AF100 look filmic? The reason people are drawn to the 5DII despite its codec issues, and willing to work with its challenging form factor is it's inherent quality not to look like video in addition to it's Shallow DOF. Just thought I'd give you an opportunity to expand further on the filmic quality of the AF100. ...and I'm looking forward to owning a AF100 ...given that it's "filmic". :-)
I'm not Jan, but I would say absolutely. The gamma and colors of Panny cameras have always lent themselves to a filmic look. 24P is something they have mastered, and now we have the option of shallow DOF. The other portions of a "filmic" look are about the operator, not the equipment.

f64manray
11-05-2010, 10:08 AM
I'm not Jan, but I would say absolutely. The gamma and colors of Panny cameras have always lent themselves to a filmic look. 24P is something they have mastered, and now we have the option of shallow DOF. The other portions of a "filmic" look are about the operator, not the equipment.

Yes, of course. So much of what looks "filmic" relies on about 70% lighting skills. Thanks for your reponse. Really, what I want is a 5DII in a proper form factor with a great codec, and I'm hoping the AF100 will be that.

Rick Burnett
11-05-2010, 10:25 AM
Yes, of course. So much of what looks "filmic" relies on about 70% lighting skills. Thanks for your reponse. Really, what I want is a 5DII in a proper form factor with a great codec, and I'm hoping the AF100 will be that.

It's not going to be that because the 5DII is a full frame sensor. It's not going to feel the same or behave the same because the sensors are NOWHERE near each other.

Now, if you like the GH1, 7D, T2I, 60D, etc, well then yes, then it's going to be what you'd be looking for, but not from the 5DII. I've used both the 5DII and the 7D and they feel completely different to me in terms of composing shots.

f64manray
11-05-2010, 10:48 AM
It's not going to be that because the 5DII is a full frame sensor. It's not going to feel the same or behave the same because the sensors are NOWHERE near each other.

Now, if you like the GH1, 7D, T2I, 60D, etc, well then yes, then it's going to be what you'd be looking for, but not from the 5DII. I've used both the 5DII and the 7D and they feel completely different to me in terms of composing shots.

Yes, I realize the 5DII's sensor dwarfs the Af100, and of course that will affect the choice of lens, DOF etc. I can deal with all that as long as it looks "filmic" in a great form factor with great audio.

One of the things that kinda bugs me is this phrase that keeps cropping up which goes something like this "The AF100 is great for the money." Just what does this mean in the final image that the camera outputs?

I mean I'm looking at the tiffs from crews TV grabs from their AVCHD and AVCI. The difference is not readily apparent. I'm also wondering just how much difference there would be if these images were shot side by side with ARRI Alexea. I mean the Crews TV stuff looks very excellent in their tiff grabs. Just how much better could Alexa be?! I really could give a rat's @$$ about "being good for the price." If ARRI Alexa is the bar of IQ, How close is the AF100 to it. Are we 90% there, 50% there. I know, it's hard to quantify. Is it just a dynamic range thing, resolution, what? Are people paying $55,000 more for 13-14 stops of DR compared to 10.5-11 stops in the AF100?

I'm just not sure where this "It's good for the price" is coming from. It either clears the bar and is good enough to make a 35mm film transfer for theatrical release or not. Just where are we here. I was going to save this question for later in December, but what the hec.

groveChuck
11-05-2010, 10:53 AM
I'm not Jan, but I would say absolutely. The gamma and colors of Panny cameras have always lent themselves to a filmic look. 24P is something they have mastered, and now we have the option of shallow DOF. The other portions of a "filmic" look are about the operator, not the equipment.

Jim- I agree with everything you said (especially the "you're not Jan" part :happy:) .
But I think there's something about the 5D that's a little extra "filmic", and I'm not really sure what it is.
And this from someone without a 5D, who is getting an AF100.

Brandon Freeman
11-05-2010, 11:00 AM
I don't know why the 5D would seem more "filmic". They have great color tones, but I think most of the breathtaking examples from the 5D we've seen have been color graded to infinity and beyond. I.E., it's not what the original footage looked like.

So I think for me, it's kind of an impossible question to answer until we can get our hands on some footage from the AF100 and throw it into Apple Color. But my suspicion is it'll hold up just fine.

f64manray
11-05-2010, 11:00 AM
Jim- I agree with everything you said (especially the "you're not Jan" part :happy:) .
But I think there's something about the 5D that's a little extra "filmic", and I'm not really sure what it is.
And this from someone without a 5D, who is getting an AF100.

yes, I also agree that he's not, Jan. I'm glad we reached a consensus on that. :-) As far as that little extra magic the 5DII has, it's hard to quantify, but I think it has something to do wih how Canon is rendering its colors especially skin tones which is what it's all about. Except for the codec issues, it looks like the stills your're shooting, hence the reason it looks like film. It's hard to beat canon in this area (skin tones).

Brandon Freeman
11-05-2010, 11:02 AM
Now what WOULD be cool is if you could upload your own presets and color curves into the AF100, like you can with these DSLRs. But even still, I'd probably almost never use that function, just like I hardly ever use it with the DSLRs, either. Post is my friend. :) (As long as it's shot well, exposed properly, and lit right, of course.)

Ticheli
11-05-2010, 11:03 AM
Addressing a question that, admittedly has no unequivocal answer, I believe that the camera itself has a tiny, very tiny, influence over the "filmic" quality of any shot. I won't attempt to try to define "filmic," but if we're talking about the perceived beauty of a shot, it's determined by the same factors as always: lighting, lighting, lighting, then composition, color pallet, and the mastery of all the associated arts and crafts. A better camera makes these things look better, of course, but the best camera in the world is quite capable of shooting horrid shots, and even marginally acceptable cameras have shot absolutely wonderful things.

So why the quest for better and better cameras? Because they are easier to work with and do produce technically better results; they just have very little to do with the art.

Just one quick example of how something technical can give us better films; the AF100 filter wheel. While I'm pulling out, cleaning, and then placing a huge glass filter in my Red, I could be getting a couple more coverage shots. The Red is clearly superior in image quality, but in the edit suite I prefer the extra shots! This does not mean I'll select the AF100 rather than the Red for every shoot, but where time and budget are a great challenge, the AF100 might be a "better" camera.

Finally, I'm restricting my comments to cameras capable of shooting 24fps/180 shutter; there's something wonderful about just the right amount of motion blur and the blanking period of the shutter that engages the brain like no other frame-rate & shutter.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Jim Brennan
11-05-2010, 11:04 AM
Glad we all agree I'm not Jan. :thumbsup:

SO, are we talking about Fuji film, or Kodak? Are we talking 16 or 35? Are we talking cinemascope or technicolor?

I'm not being glib, but what do people mean when they mean "filmic"? There are a variety of flavors of film. I get that we are trying to achieve something cinematic; something that looks like something we would see if we went to the multiplex.

Will this camera do that? Well, it certainly won't be the weak link in the chain.

Rick Burnett
11-05-2010, 11:06 AM
Yes, I realize the 5DII's sensor dwarfs the Af100, and of course that will affect the choice of lens, DOF etc. I can deal with all that as long as it looks "filmic" in a great form factor with great audio.

One of the things that kinda bugs me is this phrase that keeps cropping up which goes something like this "The AF100 is great for the money." Just what does this mean in the final image that the camera outputs?

I mean I'm looking at the tiffs from crews TV grabs from their AVCHD and AVCI. The difference is not readily apparent. I'm also wondering just how much difference there would be if these images were shot side by side with ARRI Alexea. I mean the Crews TV stuff looks very excellent in their tiff grabs. Just how much better could Alexa be?! I really could give a rat's @$$ about "being good for the price." If ARRI Alexa is the bar of IQ, How close is the AF100 to it. Are we 90% there, 50% there. I know, it's hard to quantify. Is it just a dynamic range thing, resolution, what? Are people paying $55,000 more for 13-14 stops of DR compared to 10.5-11 stops in the AF100?

I'm just not sure where this "It's good for the price" is coming from. It either clears the bar and is good enough to make a 35mm film transfer for theatrical release or not. Just where are we here. I was going to save this question for later in December, but what the hec.

That's the problem, it is hard to quantify. EVERY person is going to have a different opinion about how close or far their capability is because different things are important to different people. I mean, look how strong the feelings already are and most of the people commenting have never even touched the camera! Me included! I think the AF100 is good for the money, and I understand the statement because while there are a few things I'd like better or added, I think I am getting a lot of camera for the cost. That's why I preorderd one.

Until you use both the ALEXA and the AF100, you will never know if for you that $55k is worth it for your uses. No one is going to be able to answer that for you. There are people who think shooting on a HVX200 is superior to a 7D. I don't, I have both and I am just the opposite. Neither of us is wrong. I know what is important to me as I am an extremely technical person and pick the tool that makes me the happiest. Just like the 5DII. I have one at my disposal and I don't use it. I don't like Full Frame sensors. There is nothing wrong with them, but S35 is *my* sweet spot.

jrmiller_entertainment
11-05-2010, 11:07 AM
They should not have created an AF-100 thread until it comes out so all of this pointless speculation over looks and codecs and comparisons could wait until the finished product is actually out. Dino you're questioning a product that is clearly not a finished product.

And "filmic" is VERY subjective. You have to judge for yourself once the final product is out if it's for you or not.

Brandon Freeman
11-05-2010, 11:09 AM
And "filmic" is VERY subjective. You have to judge for yourself once the final product is out if it's for you or not.

Agreed. What I use to get the "filmic" look has little to do with color curves (at least not until post). Composition, lighting, sound, editing, and not to mention, the all powerful script. Those "features" are always the essentials for me in terms of getting that "filmic" look. ;)

Osslund
11-05-2010, 11:14 AM
It's rare to shoot video with a sensor as big as the one in 5D2. I bet the AF101 will work great to do all of my commercial/pro work but it wont have the same look as the 5D2.
If this is a good or bad thing I can't tell until I get my AF101. Even when the next generation of DLSR video cameras come out they are still cameras first and all video functions come in second.

PaPa
11-05-2010, 11:15 AM
It will be a great thing. Much more freedom.

f64manray
11-05-2010, 11:26 AM
That's the problem, it is hard to quantify. EVERY person is going to have a different opinion about how close or far their capability is because different things are important to different people. I mean, look how strong the feelings already are and most of the people commenting have never even touched the camera! Me included! I think the AF100 is good for the money, and I understand the statement because while there are a few things I'd like better or added, I think I am getting a lot of camera for the cost. That's why I preorderd one.

Until you use both the ALEXA and the AF100, you will never know if for you that $55k is worth it for your uses. No one is going to be able to answer that for you. There are people who think shooting on a HVX200 is superior to a 7D. I don't, I have both and I am just the opposite. Neither of us is wrong. I know what is important to me as I am an extremely technical person and pick the tool that makes me the happiest. Just like the 5DII. I have one at my disposal and I don't use it. I don't like Full Frame sensors. There is nothing wrong with them, but S35 is *my* sweet spot.


I guess if I was standing on firmer ground as a DP, I could ease my mind a bit. But I guess I can answer from where I do stand on firm ground as a still photographer, and if someone were asking me "I want to deliver professional work as a professional photographer, do I need a 1DsIII for $8K or can I skate by with a $800 T2i." The answer would be "Of course you can deliver professional results with a T2i" many studios that make their bread and butter are centered around a Rebel camera. 1D not required. A Rebel will clear the bar if you have the skills. I think only an amatuer would think they must get a 1D camera. That being said, I shoot a 5DII and I do occassionally shoot a T2i as well.

Barry_Green
11-05-2010, 12:00 PM
So, will the AF100 look filmic? The reason people are drawn to the 5DII despite its codec issues, and willing to work with its challenging form factor is it's inherent quality not to look like video in addition to it's Shallow DOF. Just thought I'd give you an opportunity to expand further on the filmic quality of the AF100. ...and I'm looking forward to owning a AF100 ...given that it's "filmic". :-)
This question will be answered definitively in December.

groveChuck
11-05-2010, 03:25 PM
Glad we all agree I'm not Jan. :thumbsup:

SO, are we talking about Fuji film, or Kodak? Are we talking 16 or 35? Are we talking cinemascope or technicolor?

Jan... I mean Jim- I thought we were talking Color Reversal? (that's my "stock" answer, ha ha ha). No absolutely, there's a vast array of stocks and looks.
But as we (most/all of us?) struggle to define "what is filmic", obviously lighting, set design, script, et al are crucial. But the image begins in the camera, well, the lens, then the camera. So those are the first two links in the chain.

And if I tried to define (for myself, not anybody else) the intangible of what is filmic video, my short two part answer would be-
The Anti-Interlaced. It starts with Progressive/24p.
Followed by another intangible- organic. We all want something that looks natural, not electronic. Whether this is a natural reaction of the eye and brain, or the result of 130 or so years of conditioning, who knows. Certainly not me. But I do know I want an organic look, Panasonic delivers on that front, and I think the AF100 will, and then some. :thumbsup:

Rick Burnett
11-05-2010, 03:41 PM
I guess if I was standing on firmer ground as a DP, I could ease my mind a bit. But I guess I can answer from where I do stand on firm ground as a still photographer, and if someone were asking me "I want to deliver professional work as a professional photographer, do I need a 1DsIII for $8K or can I skate by with a $800 T2i." The answer would be "Of course you can deliver professional results with a T2i" many studios that make their bread and butter are centered around a Rebel camera. 1D not required. A Rebel will clear the bar if you have the skills. I think only an amatuer would think they must get a 1D camera. That being said, I shoot a 5DII and I do occassionally shoot a T2i as well.

It's still extremely subjective. I make great money with my 7D especially considering the investment cost. I'm not getting the AF100 for my clients, I am getting it for me. I'm getting it to make my life easier, hands down. That's why getting an answer as to if the $5k is worth it is hard to pin point. You can make professional results on a amazing number of inferior products, it's all dependent on what is important to you and your work flow, and what elements of your final product you can or cannot live with. I've seen BEAUTIFUL stuff shot with an HV30 with a 35mm adapter. Crank II: High Voltage used I believe an HFS100 (or very similar) which is a VERY cheap Canon burrito cam for their film. Again, it depends.

I still tell people that a 7D, or 5D, or GH2 or 60D, or T2I is not a bad thing to purchase, especially if you are just playing around and want to start getting into cinematography. It's a great start AND it CAN be used professionally for many applications. There is no one single best tool, as you are constantly plagued with the : fast, good, cheap, pick two.

I see professional musicians using some of THE CRAPPIEST equipment out there, but you know what, they use it where it works. It might be a smaller palette, but it still works well where it works.

You get a lot of people on here who are FRUSTRATED with working around the limitations in certain cameras. Look through the history even before DSLR became the craze. There is always something that drives someone up a wall.

For me specifically, how I gauged my purchase was simple. While I love my 7D, I spend a lot of wasted time in post and re-shoots. I want to optimize my flow to maximize my return. Moire and Aliasing I personally cannot stand, and the worse they are, the worse problems I have doing VFX or color correction. Further, the worse the codec and macro blocking, the harder to pull greenscreen footage or VFX as well. Rolling shutter prevents a lot of run and gun type movements with longer lens. Experience is allowing me to know that these improvements on the AF100 are worth the difference in price for me. Sure, I also have to weigh in a slightly smaller FoV, a lens adapter that isn't available yet, different media, different reader, different batteries, etc, but at the end of the day, I am able to come to terms with the cost differential because my personal experience allows me to see the gain.

Sure, I also listen to what Barry and the others say, but I know when they are behind the camera, their eyes are looking at different things. When I want to clarify statements, I ask, in my terms of what I care about, and then it helps me understand.

How could anyone really quantify to you the Alexa is better? Sure, they can quote numbers, but without knowing what you are doing with it, it's hard to really say. Like you said, is it 50% there, 90% there? it's so subjective, you will NEVER get a consensus.

The best thing you could possibly do if you are interesting in the AF100 is wait till it comes out and rent it. Compare it to what you are using. Until you've built up experience with YOUR workflow and YOUR skill set, anyone trying to help you understand the benefit is just going to be explaining it from THEIR usage of it. Experience is subjective as well. There are diehard old film users that will probably NEVER use digital, just like people who still only buy records because they think digital recordings are inferior. :)

Recap: rent one and see! :)

Lyris
11-05-2010, 05:06 PM
Two AF100's were there. The cameras are pretty sick. I don't remember ever feeling that way about something electronic other than the SEGA CD when that first came out. :)

How about you and I go 50/50 on an AF100 and we use it to shoot the unofficial sequel to Night Trap? :Drogar-Happy(DBG):

aurantaurant
11-05-2010, 06:10 PM
Lighting wasn't great, but it's a trade show. That was my point. You guys did the best you could. The af100 is still awesome and I touched it.

aurantaurant
11-05-2010, 06:13 PM
How about you and I go 50/50 on an AF100 and we use it to shoot the unofficial sequel to Night Trap? :Drogar-Happy(DBG):

ummm I loved night trap. Dana Plato is dead though. Maybe we could get Lindsey Lohan. Do you remember Sewer Shark?

Dino
11-05-2010, 07:23 PM
They should not have created an AF-100 thread until it comes out so all of this pointless speculation over looks and codecs and comparisons could wait until the finished product is actually out. Dino you're questioning a product that is clearly not a finished product.

Understood, I know what a pre-production model means. I just hadn't read other comments about seeing random noise in the AF100 in other posts, so thought it was worth bringing up. I had two freelance engineers who I hire often look at the cameras as well. I shoot primarily with our HPX2700, so I consider all Panasonic palmcorders to be a bit noisy, and try to stay in -3db as much as I can with the 2700. I fully expect the production models to look different/better.

Noel Evans
11-05-2010, 07:47 PM
They should not have created an AF-100 thread until it comes out so all of this pointless speculation over looks and codecs and comparisons could wait until the finished product is actually out.

Yeah then all these threads would be floating in other forums where they're not meant to be. People want to talk about it.

John Foundas
11-06-2010, 06:27 PM
I think I'm gonna go with Nikon zooms. 17-35/ 2.8., 80-200/ 2.8 for B Roll and a Zeiss 50mm 1.8 for sit downs etc...
Now if I can just find a shoulder rig that isn't obnoxious and isn't 1/3 of the price of the cam!

Multi-Media
11-08-2010, 02:40 AM
I think I'm gonna go with Nikon zooms. 17-35/ 2.8., 80-200/ 2.8 for B Roll and a Zeiss 50mm 1.8 for sit downs etc...
Now if I can just find a shoulder rig that isn't obnoxious and isn't 1/3 of the price of the cam!

Talk about staying ON TOPIC!?... Did I just nod off and come back on a different page... or did this last post land here from one of the three dozen other threads where folks list lenses and mounts and stuff we want to get or have? ...it reminds me of the Twitter land or Text World where stream of conciousness and inane commentary rule... "I'm having breakfast"... "I'm pulling into my driveway now"....
Really? Fascinating!

Now where were we? "Fillmic".... "subjective"... Oh Yeah...
I think that we are talking about is an image that is "not videolike" or "flat"... an image that is strong and dynamic. What we love about this family of cameras is the ability to adjust the image (gamma, knee, etc.) to come up with a "look" that emulates our impression of "filmic". I don't think that for the majority of folks on this forum, the bar will be set at making a 35mm release print for theatres... it will be, for the most people, the next step in the evolution of HD Video that embodies the Panasonic Look that we all have come to know and love. In that respect, I have the confidence in working with a known entity... I know more or less what to expect from the "look" of the camera... it should look pretty much like what we've been used to only better.