+1 on the not too much DOF. I'm not sure how they do it sometimes. ACs with nerves of steel, I reckon. And hey, how about tossing in a wide once in a while. So much stuff is shot only in close up on TV. I often wonder if it's not to be useful on small devices... digression alert.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Panasonic would have had a winner if they had made an AF100 with the GH2 sensor.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Dino View PostSaw Shane's "Ticket" short at NAB in 4K theater, shot with 4K Canon DSLR. Poor AC's, everything was wide open. It was so shallow I almost got sick. Full frame movie cameras are an answer to a question I never asked.
Full frame (as in 35mm still camera sized) sensors are, for me, too small for still photography, and too big for video. Just sayin'.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EndCredits View Post... was thinking that Panasonic would have had such a huge winner if they had released a AF100 replacement with the GH2 sensor.
I may be alone in this (wouldn't be the first time), but I hope the next iteration of the AF100 is more AF100 like, and not more GH2 like. I want it to become as good as it can be, and as true to itself and its purpose as it can be. Same for the GH2 -- I don't want it to become an AF100, I want it to become a GH3.
I for one think Panasonic is doing an excellent job.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary Huff View PostYou saw it streaming over the Internet, while the audience saw it showing on a big screen.
That the GH2 (hacked) came in third place in that environment is telling.
I also agree that the AF100 image is pretty much on par with the FS100, and edges out in terms of form factor, usability (i.e. ND filters built-in) and price.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary Huff View PostYou saw it streaming over the Internet, while the audience saw it showing on a big screen. That the GH2 (hacked) came in third place in that environment is telling.
I also agree that the AF100 image is pretty much on par with the FS100, and edges out in terms of form factor, usability (i.e. ND filters built-in) and price.
AF100 image as looking less like HD video, more of a 'dreamy' quality to it maybe? And the AF100 DOES have all those nice things
like built in ND's that the FS100 doesn't (and I say this as a totally happy FS100 owner). So to me, yeah there are differences,
but we are just lucky. The AF100 looks great. The FS100 looks great. The GH2 looks great. Now there is a FS700 and the BM cinema camera. Sheesh, we can afford shallow depth of field, high resolution, super slo mo, 12 bit RAW with 13 stops of dynamic range, I mean SERIOUSLY??? Sure, all these cameras may have significant differences or slight differences, but to me, it's just different strengths and different weaknesses. At the prices they are selling for now, a pro can have a couple different ones for different purposes. And a hobbyist can actually afford one, even without making money with it (one reason the GH2 is so popular, great image, low price). I have the FS100, but I'd be totally happy with an AF100. They are all great as far as I'm concerned, I know this much, the cameras are a heck of a lot better than I am, so the limiting factor is me and not the camera. Sure I want improvements, as does everyone, but just for perspective, you can make stuff that will literally WOW people with any of these cameras.Last edited by alaskacameradude; 05-19-2012, 10:24 AM.
Comment
-
I have a hacked GH2, and an hpx250, and our other camera is an af100. I'm editing and colouring all 3 on a daily basis, and all 3 have their strong and weak points. The resolution on the GH2 is the best by a bit, handling is poor, and the rolling shutter is the worst. The image quality overall is much better on the hpx250. It has the best dynamic range, best controls and handling, but is limited with depth of field. The af100 is pretty good overall, but it's dynamic range is pretty poor. If there was an hpx250 like camera with a larger sensor, but in the same small package it would be the Panasonic I would go for. Essentially an af100 with 10bit 422 intra 100, with more metal, better lcd and viewfinder, p2, and maybe around $12k.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bruce Watson View PostI was just thinking that Panasonic does in fact have three huge winners. The AF100 is an excellent entry level cine camera, the GH2 is an excellent unobtrusive combination video/stills camera, and the AC-160/130 are excellent entry level ENG cameras. Each tool has it's audience, and each tool has it's own strenghts and weaknesses.
I may be alone in this (wouldn't be the first time), but I hope the next iteration of the AF100 is more AF100 like, and not more GH2 like. I want it to become as good as it can be, and as true to itself and its purpose as it can be. Same for the GH2 -- I don't want it to become an AF100, I want it to become a GH3.
I for one think Panasonic is doing an excellent job.
I completely agree with this point of view. I think panasonic is doing a great job at providing thought out products at a nice price point!
Comment
-
The AF100 is an amazing camera. Do I have complaints? Yes I do. But they generally are in the camera support, lighting, and location departments. (and, okay maybe codec with the camera)
Today I visited JL Fisher in Burbank. They were having their once a year BBQ. I saw tons of Alexas and Epics. I saw 50 foot cranes and a wheelchair dolly with a steady cam arm I wish I had. I saw the Sony F65 which is 100k - it's hard to believe they are going to win over this town with that price tag.
I talked to the Canon rep. I saw their amazing zoom lenses (14-60 T 1.8 I believe for $4k. It is a hulking beast 5 times the size of the C300). And I talked to the Canon rep who swears up and down that though the C300 is only 8-bit there are NO banding issues - due to the codec. I don't know if this is true but that would be my only complaint about the AF100.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Steve Kahn View PostAnd I talked to the Canon rep who swears up and down that though the C300 is only 8-bit there are NO banding issues - due to the codec. I don't know if this is true
Comment
-
Originally posted by Barry_Green View PostThat's a little funny, because you can use that EXACT same codec on the AF100, if you use a NanoFlash. Just put it in 50mbps long-GoP mode. It's 8-bit, 4:2:2 MPEG2. In reality that codec isn't really all that special, I never use the Nano at less than 100mbps. But it's still an 8-bit mpeg2. The codec wouldn't be doing anything about banding. Their DSP might be optimizing the image to avoid banding, by sprinkling around a little bit of gradient throughout flat areas somehow (normally you just add a little noise to the signal to accomplish the same thing).
Could you please explicate "add a little noise to signal" and how that is achieved? Stop down and crank the gain? Choose noisier settings in camera like Cine D? Avoid mid-tone flat surfaces in frame? BTW I find that HDNorm is the best for this problem of banding. I don't know why.
How about in post? I'm using Premiere Pro. Mask and then do a something? What would that be? I hope this isn't too far off topic. Thanks in advance.Last edited by hscully; 05-20-2012, 06:22 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Barry_Green View PostI saw the comparison hscully is talking about, on a 4K projection in a theater, and I agree that the AF100 performed amazingly well considering its price, and slaughtered the DSLRs in color and detail, and the table of spices shot was a painfully obvious example of it.
And it was just embarrassingly better than the DSLRs, to the point where people in the audience laughed out loud when the DSLRs came up.
According to who? Was there a vote taken? Because in the article I read, it was one guy who picked it for himself as third place...
Comment
-
Originally posted by hscully View PostDon't clip. Done.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gary Huff View PostIt's more complicated than that because sometimes you simply cannot help but clip on something. The trick is to clip on something that won't be readily apparent in the video, so choose your blown out highlights carefully (i.e. never, never, ever blow out on someone's face, or their skin at all if at all possible).
Comment
-
Originally posted by whistler View PostI have a hacked GH2, and an hpx250, and our other camera is an af100. I'm editing and colouring all 3 on a daily basis, and all 3 have their strong and weak points. The resolution on the GH2 is the best by a bit, handling is poor, and the rolling shutter is the worst. The image quality overall is much better on the hpx250. It has the best dynamic range, best controls and handling, but is limited with depth of field. The af100 is pretty good overall, but it's dynamic range is pretty poor. If there was an hpx250 like camera with a larger sensor, but in the same small package it would be the Panasonic I would go for. Essentially an af100 with 10bit 422 intra 100, with more metal, better lcd and viewfinder, p2, and maybe around $12k."Our arrows will block out the sun!"
"Fool, we have HMIs!"
Comment
Comment