Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AF100 pics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by OldCorpse View Post
    How heavy is the af-100 going to be with a battery and lens? I ask only because I wonder what the best stedicam setup might be... it might be too heavy for the merlin or?
    My guess is just over half the weight of a HVX200.... judging by photos of the two together.
    stylecreative.net - Designer/Video/Music bloke

    Comment


      #17
      There is one thing i can't understand, all pics around the internet about this comparison(they all compared with 35mm, 2/3" and 4/3) have the same picture of micro 4/3. I know its the bigger sensor comparing to others but why do they show the 4/3 sensor with attached to the board, it can't be the sensor it self, i can see the sensor in the middle, they don't need to show it bigger then others, it was the same visiuals on NAB annoucement, must be a technical reason on that?

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Barry_Green View Post
        Have you ever used AVCCAM?
        Barry:

        Other than a 4:2:0 versus 4:2:2 and the long GOP issues, can you compare the visual quality differences between the HPX300/370 AVCINTRA100 image and what you expect (reasonably) from the AF100?
        David S.



        Accept No Imitations.
        www.dvxuser.com | www.reduser.net | www.scarletuser.com
        and...
        www.BMCuser.com - The Online Community for Blackmagic Camera users.
        Filmmaking Communities powered by Landmine Media, Inc.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Michael Olsen View Post
          Fun form factor!
          Yeah, it reminds me of the Bolex cameras I used in college. Ah, 16mm memories...

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by David S. View Post
            Other than a 4:2:0 versus 4:2:2 and the long GOP issues, can you compare the visual quality differences between the HPX300/370 AVCINTRA100 image and what you expect (reasonably) from the AF100?
            I expect the AF100 to look pretty much like the 370, but with DSLR-style shallow DOF.

            Intra 100 offers nearly-uncompressed quality and 10-bit color, which are huge advantages (and one reason I keep clamoring for a P2/Intra version of the AF100).

            But people who are ragging on AVCCAM, I don't quite understand it. It looks pretty good. The HMC40 turns out images that are way nicer than they should be, considering the price, and it's definitely better than XDCAM-EX. No, it's not AVC-Intra, but it's better than XDCAM-EX and about 5x better than HDV, and it's recording on cheap SD cards, so -- what exactly is the problem?

            If a better codec means that much to someone, they could always use a NanoFlash for 160mbps intraframe 4:2:2, or they could use an HPG20 and get AVC-Intra100 at 10-bit and 4:2:2.
            ..
            The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Barry_Green View Post
              If a better codec means that much to someone, they could always use a NanoFlash for 160mbps intraframe 4:2:2, or they could use an HPG20 and get AVC-Intra100 at 10-bit and 4:2:2.
              Nanoflash supports I-frame-only recording up to 280 Mbps.

              Comment


                #22
                Really? Haven't kept up with the updates then, last time I looked at it it was 160mpbs. So nearly 300mbps...

                Is it still 8-bit only, or does it support 10 now?
                ..
                The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by dmpsk8 View Post
                  Is that an electronic adapter for Nikon glass in one of the pics?
                  Uhhhh, I didn't notice, I was distracted by the PL mount adaptor and Cine lenses on the left. Wow.

                  Now of course this camera is not going to be perfect, but it will damn sure do the job until perfect gets here! (I hope!!).

                  Come on Panasonic.... do us right!.
                  "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations"
                  -Orson Wells.

                  "To me the great hope is... people that normally wouldn't be making movies will make them and suddenly some little fat girl in Ohio will be the new Mozart and will make a beautiful film using her father's camera-corder and the "Professionalism" of movie making will be destroyed forever and it will finally become an art form."
                  -Francis Ford Coppola.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Barry_Green View Post
                    Have you ever used AVCCAM?
                    I have. HMC-150 several times. I don't know what it is but the images seem "thin" to me. Hard way to describe it. I'm just not fond of the images I've seen and worked with that come off these AVC cameras. Same thing with XDCAM. I'm cutting a project right now that is mostly HVX and lots of EX1 b roll and the difference is staggering. It may be slighty sharper in some ways when compared to HVX/HPX but to me even DVCPROHD produces a "healthier" image. Just not a fan of these compressed codecs. And I'm not comparing AVCCAM to XDCAM, but I do place them in the same category.

                    I'm waiting for the big brother P2 version. That or Scarlet, whatever gets here first.
                    Shoot for the Impossible...Then do it.


                    www.jarek.com
                    Red Weapon 8K

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Barry_Green View Post
                      But people who are ragging on AVCCAM, I don't quite understand it. It looks pretty good. The HMC40 turns out images that are way nicer than they should be, considering the price, and it's definitely better than XDCAM-EX. No, it's not AVC-Intra, but it's better than XDCAM-EX and about 5x better than HDV, and it's recording on cheap SD cards, so -- what exactly is the problem?
                      And you are not ragging on XDCAM EX codec? I find your opinion biased.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by robertrogoz View Post
                        And you are not ragging on XDCAM EX codec? I find your opinion biased.
                        Well, I can see what he means. XDCAM EX is 35 Mbps MPEG-2, while AVCCAM on the HMC40 is what, 28 Mbps H.264 basically? So I'd say the codec of the HMC40 contains at least 1.5 times as much information as the XDCAM EX-codec. (H.264 is supposedly twice as efficient as MPEG-2)

                        Comment


                          #27
                          I just see going from shooting DVCPROHD to something like AVCCAM or XDCAM a step backwards. Or shooting in a format that has more in common with delivery rather than acquisition.
                          Shoot for the Impossible...Then do it.


                          www.jarek.com
                          Red Weapon 8K

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by hfarberg View Post
                            Well, I can see what he means. XDCAM EX is 35 Mbps MPEG-2, while AVCCAM on the HMC40 is what, 28 Mbps H.264 basically? So I'd say the codec of the HMC40 contains at least 1.5 times as much information as the XDCAM EX-codec. (H.264 is supposedly twice as efficient as MPEG-2)
                            well robertrogoz IS an expert in.....

                            Comment


                              #29
                              I've had the exact opposite opinion. I owned an HVX and also the 150 and just ended up selling the HVX cause to my eye, and my clients, it looked virtually the same... and under a lot of situations it looked a lot better. The codec I find is robust enough to do CC and I've been more than happy with the 150. The only advantage I'd give the HVX was in the ability to do greenscreen.... other than that, I' super happy with the 150 and so is my bank account. I think the AF100 will be my next choice of camera... unless the Red people pull a rabit out of a hat.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Barry_Green View Post
                                Really? Haven't kept up with the updates then, last time I looked at it it was 160mpbs. So nearly 300mbps...

                                Is it still 8-bit only, or does it support 10 now?
                                Still 8-bit only. Unfortunate really, given that two other intraframe codecs, AVC Intra and Apple ProRes, can do 10-bit at data rates lower than 280 Mbps.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X