60D or AF-100

HansSteinert said:
vision_filmz, you honestly can't directly compare that GH2 video to the Canon video. Obviously budget and production variables are simply too great between them. The only significant variable is looking at the resolution/sharpness of the picture rather than the aesthetics of each in terms of lighting/production, and in that regard the GH2 wins hands down. Neither video shows the Canon vs Gh2 moire issue, but it is well documented that the GH2 wins in this regard as well. The canon wins in latitude and Z axis perspective (the latter being my subjective opinion).

I wish I had a GH2, but I still love my 60D and the fact that there isn't an affordable real aperture controllable mount for Canon lenses (not talking about the Kippon... I want aperture to be within the lenses) makes upgrading to a GH2 not an option. Hoping Canon will pull through in their next generation.
Click to expand...


Great point, but this is mine...... All of these cameras are excellent, if one might be sharper than the other really doesn't matter since they are very comparable. Having a budget, story & actors will truly make your project shine. Just because you have a Gh2 or Canon does not mean you will automatically have amazing footage & more so this was shown for people to understand that the Canon cameras can produce some amazing footage.

Also this is Panasonic's second take at Dslr Video technology & Canon is still using older tech. Probably by Next year these Canon will have addressed many of their issues.


:thumbup:
 
vision_filmz said:
Great point, but this is mine...... All of these cameras are excellent, if one might be sharper than the other really doesn't matter since they are very comparable. Having a budget, story & actors will truly make your project shine. Just because you have a Gh2 or Canon does not mean you will automatically have amazing footage & more so this was shown for people to understand that the Canon cameras an produce some amazing footage


:thumbup:
Click to expand...

Yup.

Unless you absolutely have to film a particular patten throughout your project that is consistently giving you moire problems. Then it might be worth trying something else.
 
This is an easy question for me, because I've done visual effects heavy work with the 7D which is very very similar to the 60D, and there is a reason I don't shoot with the 7D anymore. First, and foremost, is the colored moire AND aliasing that you get. It's a lot more than you realize, and for using the rotoscoping tools in AE, I find that because there can be SO MUCH red/blue aliasing on edges, it does a really poor job. And that is for things that are not super visible. Look closely at hair, or wood grain, or ANY grain. Then, try pulling a key on that. It can be SO frustrating. But, it gets worse. Look closely at the 60D when there is too much data in the scene and you start to see the effects of macro-blocking due to the compression. You don't see it at first till you start pulling a key, then it's VERY visible and takes a LOT of work to work around.

But, this moire I speak of is not just noticeable to me, I've had problems with the 7D with couches, brick walls, fabric that makes HUGE rainbow effects across the whole material/item. It looks so bad I actually laugh about it. Then, if the camera moves on a pan, or a tilt, the rainbow comes alive. I've already posted a ton of examples in other threads here with the 7D. No thanks. And I still own my 7D because I do still shoot some things with it that are not important as I still love the camera, and the form factor, but not anything for clients anymore.

If I was to chose between the 60D and GH2, it would be the GH2. I've shot with a GH2 and I thought the IQ was better than the 7D, especially on wide shots. That said, I really did not like the LCD on the back myself. The 7D LCD looked better to me.

If I was to chose between the GH2 and the AF100/FS100, it would be AF100/FS100 HANDS DOWN. I shot the same scenarios with the GH2 and AF100 and I got the GH2 to alias in typical scenes whereas not the AF100. Now, I have pushed the AF100 to alias, but on purpose. That said, for all my paid shots, I have NEVER seen aliasing/moire in my AF100 or my FS100. Both cameras amaze me in this regard.

Further, the AF100/FS100 have a SIGNIFICANTLY faster rolling shutter than the GH2/60D/7D. This means that you can move your camera a bit more and not get jello in your shot. I could hand hold an 85mm on my AF100 and it looked GREAT. On the 7D, 85mm is a recipe for jello if I am not locked down. Dealing with jello of skew on a VFX shot is horrible. Period.

Now personally, I don't enjoy holding the AF100 or the FS100 hand held. For me, they are both uncomfortable as they are bulkier and heavier than the 7D. I do have support gear on them that makes them MUCH easier to use. But I don't regret moving to the AF100/FS100 for some projects I am on AT ALL.

My favorite comment from an editor I work with "I had to dumb down the FS100 footage you shot to match my 7D because it was that much different." and of course, another editor that I shot interview footage for "Are you shooting a Red?" and no, it was an AF100.

Now, from a VFX perspective, I do like the FS100 a bit more. The image seems to be a little sharper to me, and it has made it easier to work with I have felt. But, that might all depend on the VFX work you do.

One thing I can say is the AVCHD implementations in both the FS100/AF100 really blow away any AVCHD I have seen before. When pixel peeping, I am SHOCKED with how crisp they are. The last big shoot I was on, I was shooting with an AF100, and another crew had 2 5Ds and 1 7D. They were DEFINITELY envious of just how nice the AF100 was to work with. I made it look easy! :)
 
I am doing heavy effects work and was kind of shocked at what I saw when I tried to key the 60D footage...I thought I must be doing something wrong. I was able to make it work but was dissapointed. I think the FS100 is just too expensive for this film and I'll try the AF100 if I get full budget. If I get any less I think I have no choice but to grab the GH2 even though I'm against switching to another DSLR.
 
boulder said:
I am doing heavy effects work and was kind of shocked at what I saw when I tried to key the 60D footage...I thought I must be doing something wrong. I was able to make it work but was dissapointed. I think the FS100 is just too expensive for this film and I'll try the AF100 if I get full budget. If I get any less I think I have no choice but to grab the GH2 even though I'm against switching to another DSLR.
Click to expand...

That was my feelings when I started digging into the VFX work. You get into 1:1 and you're trying to do some complicated stuff and it just really starts to become a pain. I also never realized how much colored noise the 7D had until I was looking at stuff exposed at around 1200 ISO I think. Then trying to match that with 3D footage so it looked the same. Almost thought about filming at 1200ISO at near dark so I could just composite in similar noise.

I bought both the AF100 and FS100 without lens. The AF100 was around $4795.00 and the FS100 $4999.00, so for me, that's pretty close to the same price. That said, I believe if you order an AF100 right now you can get a free lens bundled with it for a VERY SHORT time. And with the FS100 you WILL NEED to provide ND of some fashion. I am getting ready to order the heliopan ND as I am satisfied with what I see it can do, so the AF100 for right now is going to be a much better deal with that lens.
 
Rick Burnett said:
This is an easy question for me, because I've done visual effects heavy work with the 7D which is very very similar to the 60D, and there is a reason I don't shoot with the 7D anymore. First, and foremost, is the colored moire AND aliasing that you get. It's a lot more than you realize, and for using the rotoscoping tools in AE, I find that because there can be SO MUCH red/blue aliasing on edges, it does a really poor job. And that is for things that are not super visible. Look closely at hair, or wood grain, or ANY grain. Then, try pulling a key on that. It can be SO frustrating. But, it gets worse. Look closely at the 60D when there is too much data in the scene and you start to see the effects of macro-blocking due to the compression. You don't see it at first till you start pulling a key, then it's VERY visible and takes a LOT of work to work around.

But, this moire I speak of is not just noticeable to me, I've had problems with the 7D with couches, brick walls, fabric that makes HUGE rainbow effects across the whole material/item. It looks so bad I actually laugh about it. Then, if the camera moves on a pan, or a tilt, the rainbow comes alive. I've already posted a ton of examples in other threads here with the 7D. No thanks. And I still own my 7D because I do still shoot some things with it that are not important as I still love the camera, and the form factor, but not anything for clients anymore.

If I was to chose between the 60D and GH2, it would be the GH2. I've shot with a GH2 and I thought the IQ was better than the 7D, especially on wide shots. That said, I really did not like the LCD on the back myself. The 7D LCD looked better to me.

If I was to chose between the GH2 and the AF100/FS100, it would be AF100/FS100 HANDS DOWN. I shot the same scenarios with the GH2 and AF100 and I got the GH2 to alias in typical scenes whereas not the AF100. Now, I have pushed the AF100 to alias, but on purpose. That said, for all my paid shots, I have NEVER seen aliasing/moire in my AF100 or my FS100. Both cameras amaze me in this regard.

Further, the AF100/FS100 have a SIGNIFICANTLY faster rolling shutter than the GH2/60D/7D. This means that you can move your camera a bit more and not get jello in your shot. I could hand hold an 85mm on my AF100 and it looked GREAT. On the 7D, 85mm is a recipe for jello if I am not locked down. Dealing with jello of skew on a VFX shot is horrible. Period.

Now personally, I don't enjoy holding the AF100 or the FS100 hand held. For me, they are both uncomfortable as they are bulkier and heavier than the 7D. I do have support gear on them that makes them MUCH easier to use. But I don't regret moving to the AF100/FS100 for some projects I am on AT ALL.

My favorite comment from an editor I work with "I had to dumb down the FS100 footage you shot to match my 7D because it was that much different." and of course, another editor that I shot interview footage for "Are you shooting a Red?" and no, it was an AF100.

Now, from a VFX perspective, I do like the FS100 a bit more. The image seems to be a little sharper to me, and it has made it easier to work with I have felt. But, that might all depend on the VFX work you do.

One thing I can say is the AVCHD implementations in both the FS100/AF100 really blow away any AVCHD I have seen before. When pixel peeping, I am SHOCKED with how crisp they are. The last big shoot I was on, I was shooting with an AF100, and another crew had 2 5Ds and 1 7D. They were DEFINITELY envious of just how nice the AF100 was to work with. I made it look easy! :)
Click to expand...


Hands down No one is arguing against the AF100 or Fs100 as I know they are better video cameras than what these Dslrs are, but for the budget and using them properly these Canon Dslr cameras have allowed many people (including myself) to create a vision that was never possible at this price. Even more so many companies in the industry use these Dslr cameras for Music videos, shorts etc. Before I upgrade 2 things need to change

1) I start get paying a lot more $$, if not Canon Dslrs it is
2) Wait to see what the new wave of Canon dslrs will bring

I would love to have an AF100 or Fs100, but why buy a $5000 camera to get the same paying clients that you use for dslrs? Maybe a year or two when my skills & name grow, things will change, but for now I honestly feel these DSLRS are more than enough, especially for Web Content

Also were/nt you the one that create those crazy Metal Gear stuff? That was simply amazing ( didn't you record that footage with Canon dslrs)
 
vision_filmz said:
Hands down No one is arguing against the AF100 or Fs100 as I know they are better video cameras than what these Dslrs are, but for the budget and using them properly these Canon Dslr cameras have allowed many people (including myself) to create a vision that was never possible at this price. Even more so many companies in the industry use these Dslr cameras for Music videos, shorts etc. Before I upgrade 2 things need to change

1) I start get paying a lot more $$, if not Canon Dslrs it is
2) Wait to see what the new wave of Canon dslrs will bring

I would love to have an AF100 or Fs100, but why buy a $5000 camera to get the same paying clients that you use for dslrs? Maybe a year or two when my skills & name grow, things will change, but for now I honestly feel these DSLRS are more than enough, especially for Web Content

Also were/nt you the one that create those crazy Metal Gear stuff? That was simply amazing ( didn't you record that footage with Canon dslrs)
Click to expand...

Haha, yes, the Modern War Gear Solid series. No doubt, we used the 7D at the time because, well, I was just getting into filmmaking. That said, after all the pain I have gone through with all tremendous amounts of vfx effects I did, it was really painful to me. The one thing I learned from someone about vfx long ago was "try to get it in the camera", which now I understand. The more you have to do in post, the more time it takes, and to me, time is money as well. After just 2 shoots with both the AF100 and FS100 and vfx work, it's clear to me that these things get easier. It's horrible to have to take your vfx footage and degrade it just to try and get it to match the camera! :) But worse, is when there are just problems with the image that make something like green screening SO painful. Shooting greenscreen with the 7D is VERY unforgiving! :)

Given the size of this budget, I'd want to try to reduce costs as well, but to me, that also includes all the time working on vfx. If you can get a better image in, then less money will have to be spent working on making the vfx match.

I think the problem is, only the OP knows whether that $5k and what comes of it from the IQ is worth it. I've been down the path, and our new series "Mario Warfare" will be entirely shot with the FS100 the director has told me so far. Of course, I know him better, some B-roll stuff will still get 7D shot if its up to him just for time considerations.

:)
 
LOL, I just watched the Modern War Gear Solid...great! BTW I swear I didn't rip off the mustache in my movie!
 
Last edited:
boulder said:
LOL, I just watched the Modern War Gear Solid...great! BTW I swear I didn't rip off the mustache in my movie!
Click to expand...

Haha! There can never be enough mustaches. In fact, for our screening locally, we had a mustache party. I shaved my goatee into a Fu Manchu

:)

Glad you liked. That was ALL shot with 2 7D cameras. VFX done in AE, Motion, Final Cut, and using Maya and Blender.
 
My actor wanted a mustache so I ran down to the Holloween store and grabbed a $5 one and said here you go. Slightly more realistic than yours but not by much. I started with the 7D, changed to the 60D and hopefully moving to the af100 (fingers crossed) AE, Poser and Vue Infinite (Blender's interface was too complicated for me) and a lot of practical effects
 
so, I think we've established that no camera is perfect, they all have their strengths, and they all have issues, be them aliasing/moire on canon DSLRs, highlights on an AF100, or price on a RED or an ALEXA

but for this project aliasing is a big issue, so I would go for a GH2 (probably with new glass instead of adapted canon stuff; if budget calls for it, there's nothing wrong with vintage glass, some of those old primes are great and also pretty cheap, and adaptable to basically anything), or an FS100 (from what I've seen on the web, I like it better than the AF100, and the price is close, maybe 20% higher if you include the stock lens and ND filters)

about the GH2 vs AF100 moire issue: I still haven't seen any comparison apart from the one I posted, but with two very respected sources (Barry and Rick) stating that my previous statement was wrong, maybe I don't need any more
 
What I love is when people in our comments tell us that the mustache looks fake, and I am very puzzled, that they don't get the obvious joke of it being so fake, haha! The ones in our next series are even MORE crazy! And yeah, I can see Blender being complicated, but I come from a background with experience in Maya and 3DStudio (before it was Max). I downloaded a trial of Vue Infinite, but I couldn't get the fine control I wanted. The two things I didn't like about Blender were the way you do animation and the built in motion blur methods. Both were superior in Maya to me. That said, trying to do Ambient Occlusion in Maya felt like such a hack. It was so painful. And the BlastCode plugin I bought just did not work well with the new version of Maya (11). Now, I TOTALLY think it is a Maya problem and not BlastCode, but it was still frustrating.

Norman, I don't own a GH2 to do extensive tests with, but I know Barry can give you details. I did take the GH2 and an AF100 out one day with another member here and we shot in a neighborhood. We shot all the same things. The AF100 never aliased. The GH2 aliased pretty bad on the fins of an AC unit on the side of a house. Now, I have made an AF100 alias, when filming guitar strings that are almost blown out by reflected light in a very dark room. I used that to make the 7D and FS100 alias as well. That's why I tell people, from an aliasing perspective, going all the way to extreme aliasing conditions 7D/60D/Canon < GH2 < FS100 < AF100. I've used all 4 and the AF100 is indeed the best of all of them. Now, in everyday situations, I've NEVER made the AF100 or FS100 alias yet in any production work I've done. And believe me, I've checked. The only time I see difference is on charts. For the Canon and GH2 I've made them alias in normal shooting environments. That said, the difference between the GH2 and the Canon is a HUGE AMOUNT. The Canon sensors color moire VERY VERY easily, which I've also posted up examples elsewhere. I think the GH2 is vastly superior in the aliasing/moire category to the Canons, hands down.
 
Actually everyone so far has got the joke except my dad, but then again many more people have seen your series.

Vue is difficult in trying to pose objects, that's why I pose them in Poser then import the animation. I'm totally new at this though and will move to real tools soon. The great thing about Vue is the natural lighting and occlusion. Motion blur is pretty good.

That being said it's slow as heck. This animation below is taking 20 days for 20 seconds. Granted I have god-rays and ocean swells but come on!

SwellSkeeterTowards_000338.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I did think Vue had some really cool things in it. I have poser and bryce as well, but I get so frustrated with them when I want to change something and I cannot figure out a way. I really like FINE control, and a lot of those sorts of applications don't give that to you. You can get great immediate results, but if you need to fine tune to your scene, well, then it becomes tough.

But, it's a GREAT place to start. I thought the 3D was hard enough at first, till I needed to actually composite 3D into real footage and then you get sucked in to getting lighting colored correctly, coming from the right direction, shadows and getting them realistic. Even light falloff. It's a lot of fun though.

I just watched your trailer. AWESOME. Hahaha, the mustache is great. The CG stuff looked really cool. I've never done creatures before. And the tentacle in the water was really really good. I have TONS of campy horror films, and enjoy them a lot. The latest one I got I think is called 'Trailerpark of Terror' and is VERY awesome. Look forward to seeing this!
 
NormanBates said:
I think we've established that no camera is perfect, they all have their strengths, and they all have issues
Click to expand...
This is absolutely true...

highlights on an AF100
Click to expand...
But this isn't. There's no "problem" with highlights on an AF100, whatsoever. If you expose properly, the highlights are perfect. If you overexpose, you may get some chroma clipping -- the exact same chroma clipping you get on an FS100, F3, or that you can observe in films and videos all the time. So don't overexpose.
 
Barry_Green said:
But this isn't. There's no "problem" with highlights on an AF100, whatsoever. If you expose properly, the highlights are perfect. If you overexpose, you may get some chroma clipping -- the exact same chroma clipping you get on an FS100, F3, or that you can observe in films and videos all the time. So don't overexpose.
Click to expand...

I'd actually say myself that both the AF100/FS100 out of the box don't handle over exposure as gracefully as other cameras. However, on both cameras, settings can be made to reduce that handling to something more appealing OR you can fix in post which many have shown is not hard to do. Basically, you are just recreating what a limiter would do inside the algorithms in the camera, but it's all digital at this point anyways.

There are times when I overexpose for effect, and in those times, that is why I tuned both my AF100/FS100 to handle those situations better. On the AF100 I reduced the saturation which I thought is WAY OVER THE TOP out of the box. With the FS100 I reduced both the saturation AND changed the knee settings on the curves. In both cases, I got rid of those really horrible nasty yellow, red, cyan blow-outs.
 
ok, substitute "highlights" for "overexposed highlights", because that's what I actually meant; from the stuff I've seen on the web, the AF100 has particularly nasty channel clipping; "don't overexpose" is a very reasonable advice, but sometimes accidents happen, and the AF100 seems to be very unforgiving with this; but maybe it's just inexperienced users, as Rick also says he's got this problem under control

probably not a issue for the OP, anyway


edit: now I called the people from the zacuto shootout "inexperienced users", damn, I can't get out of my own holes lately... thankfully the holidays are coming...
 
The AF100 is just as "unforgiving" as the FS100, the F3, the HPX170 and HPX500 and HVX200, the EX1/EX3, and every other video camera out there. Meaning -- it isn't a problem. At all.

It doesn't clip any faster or any "nastier" than any of the others. What the situation is, is that the AF100 (and the HPX/HVX series) have more saturated colors, in general, than other cameras do. And the more saturated the colors are, the sooner they will clip. But all you have to do is yank down the color saturation, and voila - you've "solved" the "clipping problem."

If you crank up the saturation and overexpose your skintones (exposing them at 82 or higher) then yes you will see yellowish highlights -- on any of these cameras. If you don't overexpose (meaning, the brightest element of any skintone at no higher than 70 IRE) then you will see gorgeous, lush, unclipped skin tones. And if you want to be able to expose higher, all you have to do is reign in the color saturation. Yank the saturation down to -7 and put on the cine-D gamma and you can overexpose your skin tones to as high as 91 IRE with no clipping.
 
I agree completely. When I first got my AF100 and shot things with it and my 7D, I was amazed at how much more saturated the colors were on the AF100 (also the FS100). More so to me than how they looked in reality, so I dialed them down and the blow out problem reduced itself. I feel confident that I could fix in post any other issue as well if I still saw some of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top