AF-100 Another DSLR $9,000 4:2:0 is a solution?

[TheReverend]

What is your source for the $50k Sony? I heard $20k. Which for what it can can do, sounds amazing. And March release.

Well if the lens isn't out yet, then it's currently classed as vapor ware, ala the scarlet and epic... I can't wait years (as people have been with scarlet and epic) for a bloody lens! I need to shoot now!

And the people at crew.tv shot some OK footage with a $20k lens, apparently. What's the point of a $4.5k priced cam, but you need a tens of thousands of dollars lens to get nice footage??

And why are people bandying about it's "75%" done. It's been "75%" done for about 2 months! In 2 months they've not moved a single percent with a test product??

The x2 crop factor is real and exists, not just because of the smaller than 35mm sensor, but also because there are no suitable video lenses for this camera available at all??

"Apparently" "someone" is making a suitable wide lens. Why no more details than that??

Even if you're pro-panny like Barry. Surely you've got to admit the "clumsiness" of the whole set-up of this cam. As someone put it.

If it was a good straight-forward video camera with all the accessories, then I doubt you'd have a thread this long with all the pitfalls.

I want to believe, I really do.

Haha... I'm sorry but you just don't get it do you?

This camera gives you a large sensor with the ability to shoot cinematically and use high quality lenses. This has never existed in a prosumer video camera. When you compare this camera to film, like actual movies, it has the same sensor size and you can use any type of lens including cinema lenses! This is revolutionary!

Think of films that have been shot on 35mm... This camera gives you all the same capability and with all the advantages of digital acquisition and editing. What more can you ask for? I mean it's literally all right there!

As to "not having proper lenses", get the 20mm f1.7 lumix, that's 40mm compared to 35mm STILLS photography, but still 20mm compared to 35mm film. And @ 1.7 pretty amazingly fast. And as everyone has been saying, in cinema, you don't really EVER shoot wider than 15mm.

You have everything mixed up in your head if you think with a 35mm photography mindset coming to look at this camera. It was never meant to be a dslr. The AF100 is a digital 35mm film camera at a stellar price and minimally inferior to other $20k+ cams (Alexa, Red One). If you can get that as your mindset, you will be immensely happy with this cinematic tool that is mass market priced and bringing the digital revolution into the grasp of the common videographer.

It is brilliance if you can only look past a limited (photography) perspective.

 

[heavyG]

What is your source for the $50k Sony? I heard $20k. Which for what it can can do, sounds amazing. And March release.

Well if the lens isn't out yet, then it's currently classed as vapor ware, ala the scarlet and epic... I can't wait years (as people have been with scarlet and epic) for a bloody lens! I need to shoot now!

And the people at crew.tv shot some OK footage with a $20k lens, apparently. What's the point of a $4.5k priced cam, but you need a tens of thousands of dollars lens to get nice footage??

And why are people bandying about it's "75%" done. It's been "75%" done for about 2 months! In 2 months they've not moved a single percent with a test product??

The x2 crop factor is real and exists, not just because of the smaller than 35mm sensor, but also because there are no suitable video lenses for this camera available at all??

"Apparently" "someone" is making a suitable wide lens. Why no more details than that??

Even if you're pro-panny like Barry. Surely you've got to admit the "clumsiness" of the whole set-up of this cam. As someone put it.

If it was a good straight-forward video camera with all the accessories, then I doubt you'd have a thread this long with all the pitfalls.

I want to believe, I really do.

Really?

I'd love to see you out on a shoot I have next week with an Academy Award winning DP - lets see you explain that 18mm on the AF100 won't be wide enough. His lens kit (for house interiors & inside a car) starts at 25mm and goes to 85mm plenty wide and plenty long if you know what you are doing. He also spec'd older Zeiss lenses, not Ultra's, or Compact's, or even Super Speeds - we will be using some fairly slow glass. Plenty fast though if you know what you are doing...

 

[Barry_Green]

What is your source for the $50k Sony?

Saw it at IBC. And that's what the Sony people at IBC were saying.

Well if the lens isn't out yet, then it's currently classed as vapor ware, ala the scarlet and epic...

Disagree. Vapor is when something's been promised over and over and over and keeps missing its date. The Voigtlander was first announced just a few weeks ago.

And the people at crew.tv shot some OK footage with a $20k lens, apparently. What's the point of a $4.5k priced cam, but you need a tens of thousands of dollars lens to get nice footage??

You do see the fallacy in your argument, don't you?

And why are people bandying about it's "75%" done.

Because that camera was 75% done. We're bandying it about because it's true.

In 2 months they've not moved a single percent with a test product??

You do see the fallacy in that argument, don't you?

The x2 crop factor is real and exists, not just because of the smaller than 35mm sensor, but also because there are no suitable video lenses for this camera available at all??

At risk of repetition, you do see the fallacy in that argument, don't you? What suitable video lens exists for any large-sensor camera? The AF100 is the ONLY large-sensor camera that has a suitable video lens, none of the others do at all.

If it was a good straight-forward video camera with all the accessories, then I doubt you'd have a thread this long with all the pitfalls.

A thread this long with "pitfalls" pointed out by people who have never used the product. Yet those people who have used it, universally praise it. You see the disconnect here, and hence the frustration...

I want to believe, I really do.

Sure doesn't sound like it.

 

[Homunculus]

LMAO!!! Navarro man are you for real or just trolling? The AF100 has almost NO crop factor whatsoever. 1.1 or 1.2x that's IT.

We got professional DP's and engineers telling you you're wrong and you're still being obstinate.





here's a picture of a m43 sensor with a 35mm cinema negative. does this look like it's TWICE the size to you? looks roughly same size to me, thus no appreciable crop factor. Get your facts straight bro, you're going off the deep end and looking silly.

 

[Homunculus]

Do you not understand AF100, RED ONE, All Hollywood movies shot on 35mm, all have basically the same sensor and negative size. AF100 is a cinema camera. Canon 5dmkii has a much larger (full frame) sensor than all of these cameras because it is not a camera designed for filmmaking but for PHOTOGRAPHY

 

[Ian-T]

LOL...I love this thread.

 

[Finster]

View attachment 25094

here's a picture of a m43 sensor with a 35mm cinema negative. does this look like it's TWICE the size to you? looks roughly same size to me, thus no appreciable crop factor. Get your facts straight bro, you're going off the deep end and looking silly.

OT: Can someone explain this photo to me? I read somewhere that the reason why 35mm cinema is smaller (is that the right word?) than a 35mm photography camera is because it captures the image vertically. And so, it doesn't use all of the 35mm sensor, right? So, that film strip on the left ... what we're seeing is the vertical image that was captured on a smaller "section" of the 35mm sensor? Right?

I think part of the reason why this confuses me is because the frames on that film strip sure don't look vertical to me!

Forgive my ignorance. I'm sure this is Cinematography 101 for most of you.

 

[Barry_Green]

35mm still film uses the space between the sprockets for its vertical image height, and uses 8 perfs wide as its frame.

35mm cine film uses the space between the sprockets for its horizontal image width, and uses 4 perfs tall as its frame.

In a 35mm still camera, the film runs through the camera horizontally.
In a 35mm cinema camera, the film runs through the camera vertically.

 

[David Jimerson]

Of course, there was VistaVision . . .

 

[Michael Olsen]

Question: Academy 35 v. Super 35.

Aren't most features shot on Super35 (a.k.a. acquisition format), then put on Academy 35 along with the stereo audio tracks for distribution (a.k.a. distribution format)? Or am I getting this backwards again...

And yeah...VistaVision. There were, what, 30 films that were shot that way? More if you count special effects work, of course. Makes one wonder about the prospect of a FF35 digi cine camera.

 

[Barry_Green]

I don't know about today, but historically the answer is no. The question is the digital intermediate. Prior to the advent of the digital intermediate, when optical printing was done, Super35 was rarely ever used, and was only used for a poor-man's widescreen (i.e., using the slightly bigger width and cropping down to 2 perfs, which gave you a little bit more info to work with for a 2.35:1 image and let you work with spherical lenses, but a lot grainier than true anamorphic photography). Better stocks made it a more practical choice for scope films, and the percentage of widescreen scope films using Super35 instead of anamorphic has been growing over the years. But 1.85 films were still shot using the normal aperture.

Full-aperture Super35 was used a lot for TV commercials, as it used the 4:3 aspect ratio so we'd use Super35 when telecine-ing.

But for theatrical releases, Super35 was not common at all prior to "O Brother Where Art Thou" and the advent of digitally scanning all the footage in. Traditionally film was shot, a simple telecine was done for the edit, and then the edit was "matched back" to the negative, the negative was cut, and then optical prints were struck for release.

I don't know what the percentage of films being shot on Super35, vs. Regular 35, is nowadays in the world of digital intermediates. But this only really started in earnest in about 2000/2001.

 

[Nick Navaro]

Jesus. This is wearing me down!

I'm following up on Philip Bloom's points about where this camera falls short, and some of you agreed, then you're being hypocritical and reverting to your old arguments.

I'm not into photography and not shooting cinema. I'm shooting TV, docs and music videos. A kinda general use, mostly one-man, which the AF100 has so far been touted for. I also shoot a lot of fast pans and in flash environments.

Look at the Bloom review. He's used it! Most of your haven't. And 75% or not, do you really think it's gonna change much in the next 4 weeks.

Barry, the fallacy of YOUR argument and Jan's was, that the cam missed high-level features due to aiming for a particular price bracket. And the best images have come from VERY expensive lenses, which kind of defeats the object does it not.

If you all look beyond your text book stuff and look at what's been actually used and reviewed so far, the cam is not that great. For shooting video, you don't IDEALLY want to use stills lenses or film, especially when in the field and tight spaces for the latter. A couple of good video lenses would be great, but it seems there aren't any!?? Ideally.

I'll probably end up getting one anyway! LMAO!!

very tempted to wait for the new Sony tho and pay extra for "probably" a more "complete" product....

 

[Michael Olsen]

Who is touting this camera as a "general use, mostly one-man" camera? Especially for "fast pans and in flash environments"?

If that's what you are needing, stick with a nice 2/3" CCD. You'll get a nice fast AF lens with servo zoom, no skew, no flash banding, and a comfortable sensor size.

 

[DimitriL]

Super 35 wasn't all that uncommon before the digital scanning age. James Cameron was a huge cheerleader for the format - all of his films up to and including Titanic were shot on Super 35. Top Gun was a big one. (Surprisingly, a lot of these are shot at 2:35, which I would think works against the format.)

 

[Nick Navaro]

Who is touting this camera as a "general use, mostly one-man" camera? Especially for "fast pans and in flash environments"?

If that's what you are needing, stick with a nice 2/3" CCD. You'll get a nice fast AF lens with servo zoom, no skew, no flash banding, and a comfortable sensor size.

Bloom said it would be, general, one-man etc...

Ok, please tell me were I can get a 2/3" CCD in the body of an EX3 or smaller... Due to the nature of my work I can't go bigger than that for chassis... I've looked for months... If you can answer that question I'll buy you one too! LOL

 

[Stephen Mick]

Gentlemen (term used loosely), let's keep the personal attacks and negativity out of the discussion. You have been warned.

 

[Barry_Green]

Super 35 wasn't all that uncommon before the digital scanning age. James Cameron was a huge cheerleader for the format - all of his films up to and including Titanic were shot on Super 35. Top Gun was a big one. (Surprisingly, a lot of these are shot at 2:35, which I would think works against the format.)

Not surprisingly, because that's about the only time Super35 was used, was as a substitute for anamorphic. And it caused a lot of controversy, with many cinematographers disapproving of it because the end quality wasn't as good as optical anamorphic. Super35 wasn't used for 1.85 films, maybe at all, prior to the invention and adoption of the digital intermediate. I found a quote from someone at efilm that said that as late as 2005, still less than half the films out there were opting for a digital intermediate. But no mention as to how many of those were originating on super35 or if they were still shooting regular 35.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Philip Bloom didn't use the word "general" once in the "3 days with the Panasonic..." article. Nor did he use "one-man".

Here's the skinny. AF-100 is promising to be the worlds first video camera with a ~35mm sensor for less than $10,000. It will have all the usual features of video cameras, save a few which are made virtually physically impossible because of the ~35mm CMOS format. This makes it a good camera for those shooting with a cinematic style - little zooming, usually multiple lenses, usually a bit of time for setup in order to shoot the scene. This can include everyone from true narrative filmmakers to sports shooters to cinema verite to wedding/events films, to fashion/art films, and so on. It doesn't rule any genre out.

It does, however, require a different shooting style than that of a traditional 1/3" or 2/3" video camera. The biggest difference is the lack a constantly fast, long, autofocus, servo zoom. A 14x f1.9 just doesn't happen for any ~35mm camera in this world. Likewise, rolling shutter and banding. These are just going to be there, that's life. So if what you are shooting 1) requires such a zoom lens or 2) requires whip pans and flashes and you can't deal with those artifacts, then do not get this camera. You will hate it because it will not do what you want it to do. Many people who shoot with a "video" style - be it for ENG, Events, Weddings, etc. - have realized this camera isn't right for them. And that's fine. Just because this camera is new and a lot of people are excited doesn't mean it has to be right for everyone.

Instead, get a 2/3" camera with such a zoom lens and a CCD sensor. You will love it because you will be able to zoom in and out all day, do pirouettes with it, and run it down the red carpet, no problems.

 

[Nick Navaro]

Philip Bloom didn't use the word "general" once in the "3 days with the Panasonic..." article. Nor did he use "one-man".

Here's the skinny. AF-100 is promising to be the worlds first video camera with a ~35mm sensor for less than $10,000. It will have all the usual features of video cameras, save a few which are made virtually physically impossible because of the ~35mm CMOS format. This makes it a good camera for those shooting with a cinematic style - little zooming, usually multiple lenses, usually a bit of time for setup in order to shoot the scene. This can include everyone from true narrative filmmakers to sports shooters to cinema verite to wedding/events films, to fashion/art films, and so on. It doesn't rule any genre out.

It does, however, require a different shooting style than that of a traditional 1/3" or 2/3" video camera. The biggest difference is the lack a constantly fast, long, autofocus, servo zoom. A 14x f1.9 just doesn't happen for any ~35mm camera in this world. Likewise, rolling shutter and banding. These are just going to be there, that's life. So if what you are shooting 1) requires such a zoom lens or 2) requires whip pans and flashes and you can't deal with those artifacts, then do not get this camera. You will hate it because it will not do what you want it to do. Many people who shoot with a "video" style - be it for ENG, Events, Weddings, etc. - have realized this camera isn't right for them. And that's fine. Just because this camera is new and a lot of people are excited doesn't mean it has to be right for everyone.

Instead, get a 2/3" camera with such a zoom lens and a CCD sensor. You will love it because you will be able to zoom in and out all day, do pirouettes with it, and run it down the red carpet, no problems.

Hahaha!! At last, someone helpful with a sense of humour!

This is what Bloom said - copy and paste "(this is a great documentary camera and great for wedding shooters too, great for one man band and great low light)"

1/3" is not good enough quality. And 2/3" CCD bodies are too big. Anything else suitable!???? This is what I'm stuck on!!! :-(

 

[Barry_Green]

I'm not into photography and not shooting cinema. I'm shooting TV, docs and music videos. A kinda general use, mostly one-man, which the AF100 has so far been touted for. I also shoot a lot of fast pans and in flash environments.

The AF100 is aimed at people who want to shoot cinema-looking footage. It may not be for your uses. A conventional video camera may be better. And if you do a lot of fast pans and stuff in a flash environment, you'd probably be better suited with a CCD camcorder.

Look at the Bloom review. He's used it!

He used a partly-functional one for two days (the third day he was booked on a job). I've used that same unit for three days, and the 85% version for about three weeks now. I think I know an awful lot more about it than anyone else in the world outside of the actual Panasonic factory.

If I had to take anybody's word about how the camera works, I'd take mine, frankly. Not being arrogant, but saying that I haven't been limited to a quick look at a barely-functional prototype, I've worked extensively with it for several weeks.

Barry, the fallacy of YOUR argument and Jan's was, that the cam missed high-level features due to aiming for a particular price bracket. And the best images have come from VERY expensive lenses, which kind of defeats the object does it not.

Okay, then, for clarification, here's the fallacy of your argument -- just because the crews guys used expensive lenses, you're extrapolating forward that ONLY fantastic lenses can deliver great results. And that's simply nonsense. You could get equally fantastic results from a $50 ebay lens. It's just that people who shoot great footage, who have the skills and the crew and the support, don't typically want to saddle themselves with a cheap lens. It makes it harder to work with, whereas cinema lenses are designed for operation. As point of reference, the Zeiss Compact Primes are basically identical glass as the Zeiss ZF stills lenses. The Compact Primes cost 4x as much, not because they deliver better images*, but because they're designed to work in a cinema environment. And that advantage would hold true whether you were shooting on a Red, or a DSLR.

So I flatly reject the notion that expensive lenses are necessary. Have you ever seen anything that looked good off a DSLR? If so, that same lens and same workflow would look better from the AF100. If the DSLR used great lenses (as in, House's season finale) then the AF100 would look better using those great lenses. And if the DSLR looked great from cheap lenses, then the AF100 would look better from those cheap lenses.

*the only imaging difference of any note you'd get from the CP over the ZF is the 14-bladed iris.

If you all look beyond your text book stuff and look at what's been actually used and reviewed so far, the cam is not that great.

Spoken by somebody who hasn't used one, and has only seen scattered previews from people using a preproduction prototype that wasn't ready for use, and that Panasonic USA had specifically asked that people not post footage from. No big surprise that some of the footage has looked fantastic and some has sucked. Look at youtube or vimeo for footage from the 5D, some looks fantastic and some sucks.

Why not wait for footage from a functional camera, from those who know how to use it, before making indictments?

very tempted to wait for the new Sony tho and pay extra for "probably" a more "complete" product....

You're totally entitled to do so. I don't see anyone holding a gun to anyone's head and saying "you must buy this". If you have the $50,000 that Sony is now saying it'll cost, then go ahead and get the Sony. Even the $19,000 that they initially said it would cost. Or feel free to wait for the Scarlet.

But all I'm saying is -- ragging on the AF100 is unfounded and unjustified because nobody has seen any footage that does justice to what it's capable of. The closest is the crews.tv footage and that car footage, and even then that was shot on extreme preproduction units.

You will not see representative footage for at least several weeks. Proper footage should start showing up in the latter half of November.