AF-100 and Alfa Romeo

Besides the fact that it was a pre-production unit, another thing that needs to be realized is the picture is a bit squished so I wouldn't really call it a fair evaluation. It still looks good but keeping it pixel perfect would have made it looked more detailed for both the 5D Mark II and the AF100.
 
Homunculus said:
hmm the more I watch the footage the better it looks but why is that one footage posted still so anomalously bad. the one where it is a short about a guy with flowers etc... I can't wait what tomorrow brings as they said they will do more tests and thursday is Bloom's big day...can't wait.
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised more people aren't discussing the other AF-100 clip that this person uploaded. I swear that video has more banding than GH13 footage! I realize that this is all footage from a 70% done AF-100, but still it's somewhat worrisome. To preorder or not to preorder? Hmm....
 
I'm really surprised more people aren't discussing the other AF-100 clip that this person uploaded. I swear that video has more banding than GH13 footage! I realize that this is all footage from a 70% done AF-100, but still it's somewhat worrisome. To preorder or not to preorder? Hmm....
Click to expand...

That footage was heavily graded and was also compressed for web, so I wouldn't read too much into it. Why not wait and see how it looks and buy if you need it at the time?
I'm not not convinced that the footage off this camera is going to be massively different from the GH13. It's just that getting it to look the way you want should be a lot quicker and easier, as it is seemingly built for the task.
 
The bit rate in the other clip is way too low and if you read the description, He shot with it in last month and said the camera had a whole lot of bugs. Was the ISO ever mentioned? I can see why Jan implied that it's not a good idea to release a lot of footage from an unfinished product.

This is assuming it's this video:
http://www.vimeo.com/15107117
Again, the description should be read.
 
Camera Expert said:
The bit rate in the other clip is way too low and if you read the description, He shot with it in last month and said the camera had a whole lot of bugs. Was the ISO ever mentioned? I can see why Jan implied that it's not a good idea to release a lot of footage from an unfinished product.

This is assuming it's this video:
http://www.vimeo.com/15107117
Again, the description should be read.
Click to expand...

huh? Is this the ungraded version or something? How come this footage looks much better than the abominable one I remember seeing that made me very depressed about af100 capabilities.
This looks pretty good but I must admit ALL footage so far does not show impressive dynamic range at all. Here everything is blown out and in philip bloom's match test his face is completely clipped out by a tiny match looking like a HMI is blasting him in the face
 
Homunculus said:
huh? Is this the ungraded version or something? How come this footage looks much better than the abominable one I remember seeing that made me very depressed about af100 capabilities.
This looks pretty good but I must admit ALL footage so far does not show impressive dynamic range at all. Here everything is blown out and in philip bloom's match test his face is completely clipped out by a tiny match looking like a HMI is blasting him in the face
Click to expand...

I think the point of Phillips Bloom's test was to show how sensitive the camera is and that with just one match someones face could blow out, if he had properly exposed it for the face then the footage would have looked completely different. But then it would not have been a test to show just how sensitive the camera is.
 
I think All y'all's crazy for making pronouncements about what image quality a camera is capable of based on stuff posted to vimeo or tube.
On line videos are ok to get a general sense of things but JMJ you can't judge actual quality from the dreck posted on you tube or vimeo.
 
Mark Smith said:
I think All y'all's crazy for making pronouncements about what image quality a camera is capable of based on stuff posted to vimeo or tube.
On line videos are ok to get a general sense of things but JMJ you can't judge actual quality from the dreck posted on you tube or vimeo.
Click to expand...
well buddy we'd love to have more but unfortunately that's simply all we have right now. you didn't expect us to just sit here silently and not make pronouncements did ya?
we're a rabid bunch of waiting fans
 
Homunculus said:
well buddy we'd love to have more but unfortunately that's simply all we have right now. you didn't expect us to just sit here silently and not make pronouncements did ya?
we're a rabid bunch of waiting fans....
Click to expand...

....judging footage off Vimeo and YouTube from a camera that's only 70% complete.

Jan... I feel your pain!
 
ZazaCast said:
....judging footage off Vimeo and YouTube from a camera that's only 70% complete.

Jan... I feel your pain!
Click to expand...

well cam is not 70% complete it's more like 80-85% at this point according to I believe jan herself. 70% complete was back a month or two ago when they first started showing her off.
You think that final 10-15% makes such a huge difference that we can't judge it at all yet?
 
First, you are assuming that it is 80-85%.

You have nothing to back this up.

Further, until we see raw footage from a shipping camera, this footage is pretty much all from a WIP system.

I think it looks good.

Actually I think it looks great for wherever the camera is in the development cycle.

But I pre-ordered the camera based on my past experience with Panasonic getting it right with the other model cameras of theirs I have and currently own.

But to try to critically evaluate web-compressed footage from the camera at this time is just plain ridiculous.
 
mcgeedigital said:
First, you are assuming that it is 80-85%.

You have nothing to back this up.

Further, until we see raw footage from a shipping camera, this footage is pretty much all from a WIP system.

I think it looks good.

Actually I think it looks great for wherever the camera is in the development cycle.

But I pre-ordered the camera based on my past experience with Panasonic getting it right with the other model cameras of theirs I have and currently own.

But to try to critically evaluate web-compressed footage from the camera at this time is just plain ridiculous.
Click to expand...

wrong. i'm not assuming anything re-read my post i clearly said that jan herself stated the cam is now more like 80-85%
 
Did u know you can do 3 or 4 decent photo shoots with the canon 5d and make enough money to pay cash for this af100. Trust me, shooting movies as we all know is a hobby more so for most of us than a paying gig, in which statistics show that a dslr in the right hands will feed you and your family quicker then the af100. I am amazed at the filmic quality and sharpness of the af100 though, people just half to be careful with comments that the dslrs will loose value when indie filmmakers aren't the only ones who use dslrs.
 
mcgeedigital said:
First, you are assuming that it is 80-85%.

You have nothing to back this up.

Further, until we see raw footage from a shipping camera, this footage is pretty much all from a WIP system.

I think it looks good.

Actually I think it looks great for wherever the camera is in the development cycle.

But I pre-ordered the camera based on my past experience with Panasonic getting it right with the other model cameras of theirs I have and currently own.

But to try to critically evaluate web-compressed footage from the camera at this time is just plain ridiculous.
Click to expand...

:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) Exactly :thumbsup:
 
mcgeedigital said:
But to try to critically evaluate web-compressed footage from the camera at this time is just plain ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Then what would be the point of posting footage it's like saying hey I want to show you something but don't look at it !

The footage looks great it just seems to clip so easily ...could be that the camera is very senstive or somebody needed to use some physical ND filters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top