Panasonic would have had a winner if they had made an AF100 with the GH2 sensor.

[hscully]

+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.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Saw 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.

+1. Fully agree. S35 is perhaps close to an ideal compromise size. You can get shallow DOF if you want, or not. And just about anything in between. It makes for reasonable lens sizes which makes it easy to work with. And it gives more than sufficient detail on the big screen, or the small one for that matter.

Full frame (as in 35mm still camera sized) sensors are, for me, too small for still photography, and too big for video. Just sayin'.

 

[Bruce Watson]

... was thinking that Panasonic would have had such a huge winner if they had released a AF100 replacement with the GH2 sensor.

I 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.

 

[Barry_Green]

You saw it streaming over the Internet, while the audience saw it showing on a big screen.

I 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. It wasn't in the same league with the Alexa, but then again its price isn't either. I thought the F3 was about 80% of the Alexa, and the AF100 was about 80% of the F3, and that was a pretty big win considering its price tag. 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.

That the GH2 (hacked) came in third place in that environment is telling.

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...

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.

I agree that it is on par with the FS100 in image, but it destroys the FS100 in terms of form factor, usability, and price. It's got so many features the FS100 doesn't have, and it costs (at today's street price with rebate) about $1500 less than the FS100.

 

[alaskacameradude]

You 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.

I don't want to start something here, but I do think there is a significant 'difference' between the picture the AF100 gives and the FS100. OK, maybe just a difference some people may not think it is significant. Not talking about shallow depth of field here or wider angle of view or any of that. To me, the FS100 picture just looks 'sharper'. My guess is that it is because of a resolution edge, or the OLPF filter isn't as strong in the FS100 as the AF100 but the FS100 looks sharper to me on wide shots. Not saying that is always a good thing, I think that may be why some people might say that the FS100 looks more like 'HD video' and the AF100 looks more like 'film' sometimes. I just can usually tell a difference on wide shots. But again, some people I am sure, would prefer the
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.

 

[whistler]

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.

 

[MikeTexas]

I 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!

 

[Steve Kahn]

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.

 

[Barry_Green]

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

That'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).

 

[hscully]

That'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).

Ah the banding. This is one I haven't figured out. I'm fine with the highlights. Don't clip. Done.

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.

 

[Gary Huff]

I 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.

I agree that the AF100 has a much better image than the first-gen Canon DSLRs.

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.

You can duplicate this experience at home. Just go full screen in Vimeo/YouTube. I have seen a lot of material that looks awesome in that 640x360 window that scales up horribly once you view it in full screen, even with the YouTube 1080 or Vimeo HD options selected.

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...

You are correct. The "special guest" picked it third, not the audience as whole. My mistake.

 

[Gary Huff]

Don't clip. Done.

It'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).

 

[hscully]

It'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).

Cool. Thanks for the refinement. That's better. Something will clip, like a hot reflection, so yeah, don't clip the main stuff, ie. faces. Still interested in work arounds for banding. That one I'm less able to adjust for.

 

[dtzfilms]

+ 1, a hacked GH2 sensor in an AF body. No more complaints from me.

+1 yeah, baby, yeah!

 

[dtzfilms]

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.

Finally! That's what I've been saying. AF100 HPX250 Mashup. Agree with everything except the P2. But then again I think P2-SDHC adapters are currently available, so yeah why not!

 

[Bucknfl]

Is this it?
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/02/ef-s-15-60-f2-8-is-cr1/

 

[Steve Kahn]

No. It's this one - Canon 14.5-60mm. When I saw it I guessed and asked the canon rep if the behemoth was 20k. He said no 4k. I was like wow. That's a good deal. Maybe in sweltering afternoon sun I misheard him because when I googled it for you it appears to be 40k.

It is massive. I couldn't imagine handholding with it. It is only T2.6 which would be fine at 4k but at 40k??? Oh man. I hate zooms.

 

[groveChuck]

Still interested in work arounds for banding. That one I'm less able to adjust for.

They say adding a little noise in post helps, I've been meaning to try it...

 

[Steve Kahn]

This is what I don't understand though. The C300 is reported to be uber clean and (from a Canon rep, so that this with a grain of salt) not have banding issues, or have less banding issues or is certainly better than the AF100 in these regards (as is the FS100 for that matter). So how can this be? Does it come down to codec? Is it a DSP issue?

These 3 cameras are all 8bit color so why the disparity?

 

[hscully]

They say adding a little noise in post helps, I've been meaning to try it...

Yeah, that's the only thing that bugs me is that banding. I can manage the rest. How is it that you add noise in post? Do you mask and then filter? I'm in PP.

Steve, if that disparity exists, that is an excellent question and that would mean that a change could improve it. Unless it's a sensor thing. To be honest, it's a little above my pay grade to speculate on that though.