720p no way!

A

Adamsenoj

Well-known member
My grips with some of the AF100's limitations is no secret around these parts. But one thing I have said from the beginning is that I never had a problem with the sharpness. It's plenty sharp IMO.
But you see some people going as far as saying the camera is basically a 720p camera to some saying it's barely a 720p camera. Yes, I know, I saw Adam's resolution tests. But still. I always found it sharp enough.

But today I had an unique opportunity that I just could not pass up. I was in a studio and noticed they had a Varicam and a JVC HD100 among their cameras. It was the original Varicam DVCPRO100 tape based. I couldn't resist and asked to do a test ride. Since I had my AF100 in the car I brought it in and started playing with the cameras. To make a couple of hours of my afternoon short, boy, let's just say that the HD100 and even the Varicam looked almost like SD beside the AF100.
It was quite interesting to bring things in perspective and see how far we have come in just a few short years, and how spoiled we turned out.

Oh yes, 720p my...nose.
The AF100 looked like full HD next to these 720p cameras.


Just wanted to share the experience and have a change in tune from the current AF100 disappointment and unfulfillment mood, with everybody posting about their unhappiness with the camera's development.
 
Last edited:
Each to their own but I compared AF100 to 5D2/5D3 and found that they all shared about the same resolved image. In comparison to Sonys F3 you really see how low resolved the other mentioned cameras are.
 
Thanks, Ademsennoj. I find the AF100 plenty sharp too. I'm editing something right now and my biggest sharpness problem is focus! Interesting comparison, any grabs? The F3 resolves 1920 x 480 and, as often stated, costs almost 4Xs the price of the AF100 so the comparison is unfair. Comparisons to the FS100 are fair. It is just amazing to me that somehow the AF100 became the red haired step child of big sensor cameras. It's just weird. I often think that the detractors have not had any experience with it. Most people who own it find it overall a great camera. I do.
 
Last edited:
It got a bad rep I think because of the way it handles highlights, People flooded the web with negative articles before ever dialing it in and spending the time it takes to figure out how to get the best images from the cam. I think by then it was to late, people already started making their buying decisions based on fud and ignorance. I have seen plenty of beautiful af100 footage. And anyone that bashes the af100 isn't giving it a proper chance. Oh, and the formfactor wasn't the best, it has been referred by many as the ugly duckling.
 
On one hand detractors will cut the camera for having inadequate resolution, and on the other will complain that the images it renders are "too sharp and video-y."

I admit is DOESN'T make a good first impression. I bought the camera used based on specs and my GH2/m43 ownership and immediately took it out into a shoot with the stock scene file... bright sunlight, outdoors, high contrast... and thought I had made a horrendous, horrible, terrible mistake. All sorts of posterization and funky colored highlights, like I had just crashed a VW microbus full of psilocybin blasting Jefferson Airplane into a rainbow-anointed gummi bear factory. The camera and I went into "counseling" for a little while... a nice little weekend at home reading, researching, and trying out a wide variety of different scenes and fixes. I had to - I had already committed to it. If it were just a one-off, rental "fling," there's no way I would have called its number again based on that first encounter. It works for me now, and I haven't seen adequate reason to consider anything else.

Regarding the form... remember what the "ugly duckling" became. With my personal kit, it didn't take many modifications at all to change it into a delightfully easy to handhold and operate self-contained machine.
 
mcbob said:
On one hand detractors will cut the camera for having inadequate resolution, and on the other will complain that the images it renders are "too sharp and video-y."
Click to expand...

Sharpness and resolution are very much not the same thing. The AF100 doesn't resolve as much as the GH2 due to its OLPF, which helps minimize virtually all aliasing and moire.
 
Osslund said:
Each to their own but I compared AF100 to 5D2/5D3 and found that they all shared about the same resolved image. In comparison to Sonys F3 you really see how low resolved the other mentioned cameras are.
Click to expand...

I guess it's indeed to each his own. I ended up selling my Canon when I got a AF100 because compared to the AF100 the imaged looked soft and artifact ridden. So I sold the Canon and bought a GH2 and then another. To me, the Canon image was not on pair at all with the AF100, let alone GH2 in terms of resolution and sharpness. Now I'm not saying the AF100 resolves as much as the F3. It doesn't, just as the F3 doesn't resolve as much as the EX3. I'm just saying that the AF100 definitely looks sharper and MUCH nicer than native 720p cameras. At least the ones I compared it to. So it's safe to say that the whole "AF100 is only a 720p camera" is just hater's talk.
 
hscully said:
Thanks, Ademsennoj. I find the AF100 plenty sharp too. I'm editing something right now and my biggest sharpness problem is focus! Interesting comparison, any grabs?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not. I didn't want to abuse the hospitality and all I did was A/B switching on a broadcast quality monitor. Not to mention I didn't have a DVCPRO tape with me, so I couldn't bring any footage home not even if I wanted.
 
maranfilms said:
It got a bad rep I think because of the way it handles highlights, People flooded the web with negative articles before ever dialing it in and spending the time it takes to figure out how to get the best images from the cam.
Click to expand...

To be honest, it does have a huge problem with highlights, but let's not go there again in this thread. ;)
It is a great camera.



maranfilms said:
I think by then it was to late, people already started making their buying decisions based on fud and ignorance. I have seen plenty of beautiful af100 footage. And anyone that bashes the af100 isn't giving it a proper chance.
Click to expand...

I have bashed it and boy, I am giving it a more than a proper chance. Otherwise I wouldn't be here anymore.



maranfilms said:
Oh, and the formfactor wasn't the best, it has been referred by many as the ugly duckling.
Click to expand...

I don't get the complains about the form factor. How is it different than the F3? It's just smaller. What about the stupid form factor of the FS100 and FS700 or a DSLR for that matter? The AF100 actually has one of the best form factors. I don't get what's the deal.
Ugly or not is a matter of taste and design, not form factor. But all of Panasonic cameras always looked ugly. They were always cheap looking. HVX200 and all other handycams from Panasonic look horrible. The AF100 is a looker next to the HVX200.
 
I won't sell mine. It's not worth it. I have all the lenses I need to work with it and the GH3 is smoken good so to me makes no sense to get ride of it. I agree that the image is sharp enough. Never heard anyone complain about that when I showed them the footage. Lenses are important with any camera. I choose to get good ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top