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

[pallllaaaaa]

Ok Dont worry, I like panasonic not exactly for your comments to me, but because I like the color of panasonic. Have a good day, and keep in mind that you have to respect to your customers, not just customers that aplausses to you.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Please point out any camcorder under $20,000 that records in anything better than 4:2:0.

That would be the direct competition for the AF100 from Canon, yes? The Canon XF 300. It gives you 50Mbps and 4:2:2 out of the box. On 1/3" sensors though. And it's not using an AVCHD codec.

I think the issue is the codec. Panny is using their AVCCAM which is, I believe, an AVCHD codec. AVCHD is, by definition, limited to 24Mbps and 4:2:0.

Like everyone's said, if that's not good enough for you then you can always slap a recorder on the box and record the uncompressed 4:2:2 HD-SDI feed. It's available on the camera if you really want it.

 

[Finster]

pallllaaaaa - simply avoid and/or ignore the zealots in either camp (in this case the DSLR vs. AF-100 camps). If you can't afford to slap down $6K on the AF-100, then start saving up for the next camera that's bound to trump the AF-100 1.5 years from now.

Or better yet, when the AF-100 is trumped, buy a used AF-100 from one of the zealots for $3K!

 

[Luis Caffesse]

That would be the direct competition for the AF100 from Canon, yes? The Canon XF 300. It gives you 50Mbps and 4:2:2 out of the box. On 1/3" sensors though. And it's not using an AVCHD codec.

Yes, I believe that's what Barry was referencing already - the very next part of his post read:

The entire list, start to finish, is:
Panasonic P2 camcorders
Canon XF camcorders

That's it. Even the $20,000 Sony PMW350 is 4:2:0.

 

[Steve Kahn]

I do have to agree with pallllaaaaa that it can be frustrating to buy gear only to have it be "obsolete" the next year. Also, Panasonic should take care to somewhat buffer natural obsolescence by providing every possible feature that similarly priced cams out in the market today have. (not every - but every possible. I understand there are always compromises)

The idea that the XF-300 exists in the wild for around the same price as the AF100 in truth nullifies the fact that the $20,000 Sony PMW350 is 4:2:0. The 350 has been around for quite some time. It is legitimate to ask why the AF100 has only a 4:2:0 color space.

But that being said, it is amazing that the dvx100 still sells for 2-3k after all of these years and that was a great camera! I shot my first short film on it and for the time: wow!

When I buy my AF100 I'll rent it out when I'm not shooting and at the end of her run I'll sell it and move on to the next latest, greatest - and will probably recoup all if not more than the cam cost in the first place.

 

[13th Judas]

what a fugly looking camera :zombie_smiley:

 

[Rick Burnett]

How is this any different than any other electronic device that your purchase, like computers? The point being, if you are unhappy with the colorspace of this camera and feel that in a 1.5 years the camera you want will be released, wait and get it.

I hardly doubt Panasonic doesn't want to give people what they want, but at the end of the day, from a need basis, they have to make decisions that aren't going to make everyone happy. They've got to make a decision for them that makes the most sense from an investment standpoint to their return on that. If they added every option that every person wanted, it would price the camera right out of everyone's pocket.

CMOS design hardly scales linearly. If in fact the sensor is faster (rolling shutter) and ends up being higher DR and less noise than say other sensors, this clearly starts adding on the cost to the system. I mean, let's look at the unreleased S35 sensor body from RED, estimated by them at $7k right now. That is JUST the body, no LCD, no controls, no EVF, no card reader, no power supply. Now granted, on paper the S35 sounds amazing, but it's not a reality yet. It has no working prototype. You know the cost of the EPIC, which is right out of this league. Both of these are CMOS designs and are clearly a lot more expensive and have taken A LOT more time to design. (which both are still not done).

I see the biggest marketplace for the AF-100 is for people like ourselves who have and really like the HVX200, which costs us about the same, who are sick and tired of all the limitations of the 7D. I just shot some test shots on a crane this weekend and let me show you what my 7D did:

Now, I apologize for the quality as it was out of focus and being up on the crane with a 7D, there isn't any wireless controls yet, look along the roof line. See the nice rainbow aliasing?

Now THAT is a problem. I see this crap come up ALL the time on almost every shoot we do. I am constantly battling this problem and it looks horrible because it dances along the screen especially in cases like this where the roof line is rotating as the crane comes by.

Let's then add up all the time I have lost re-shooting if we didn't catch it that day OR if I had to fix it in post. It doesn't take long to make just that ONE new feature make my life a lot easier.

Hell, let's add wireless remote on top of this since I could have EASILY set the focus from back at the back end of my crane. And given the 7D does not output to the LCD and the HDMI at the same time, I have to unhook my smallHD, set the focus, hook it back in and then HOPE that is it right up on top of the crane.

For me, sure, more is always better, but I've been working with a lot less for a long time. Try to push the H.264 around in post and it just falls apart so fast. Sure, we try to get the look in camera, but we'd like a little more freedom with a better codec.

At first I was not a huge proponent of the AF-100, I'll be honest, because for me, my biggest beef has been Moire, Aliasing, Rolling Shutter, Remote control and Audio. From Barry's report, these things have been addressed and may get a little better before release. Since I haven't tested these things myself, I still can't say for 100% sure, but of ALL the jobs I have done with my 7D now, which the last big one we did will be on CMT soon (music video) I at least have the professional experience to know that colorspace is one small part of a HUGE collection of issues a lot of people have been dealing with.

But more than that, I'm not going to speculate. It's only a few months away and I look forward to all of us putting this camera through the rounds.

And pertaining to lenses, given that they are removable, I don't think it's fair to compare fixed lenses cameras the same way since once you get a new camera body, the beauty is you get to keep using your lenses and not have to repay for something you had before.

Every shoot we do now, all I can think of is all the tools we will have soon that will make our jobs easier again. There I go, getting excited again

 

[pallllaaaaa]

engineers know exactly what happened in 100 years later, and they still driving us until we left them.
No more people. no more. or maybe they confuse our minds, or maybe I can wait the Af101 that has 100 mgbs, and 4:2:2 and even more incredible for the same $6,000 and free you have a 1 card to record. wowwwwwwww.

 

[Michael Olsen]

1 have to pay $10,000 camcorder with maybe two or three good lens, 8 times more than a dslr that do the same or less D.O.F, CMOS chip canon is more bigger

The cost is about right. But you are comparing apples to oranges. A DSLR is not a video camera. To make it one requires significant cost. But $10,000 is less than a similar video camera with similar DOF with similar lenses would cost you.

Compared with other video cameras and DSLRs, the AF-100 is a relative bargain nor does it require the purchase of additional sundries simply to be able to monitor the footage effectively.

2. You may have minus color than a HPX 170 because this AF-100 is just like HDV 4:2:0 and 24 mgbs.
thats not good for a high quality film, music video, or even a comercial work.

Well, I wouldn't say AVCHD PE is equivalent to HDV. Of course, if you are shooting high quality film, music video, or even commercial work and the AF-100 is unsuitable to you, a DSLR will be absolutely unacceptable in terms of image fidelity.

3. I dont think indie filmakers want 4:2:0 for their own movies. and 24mgbs.

I can't speak for everyone, but I doubt anyone wants anything but the best. We are all forced to make compromises, be it paying the costs associated with Film, uncompressed RAW, compressed RAW, or any of the given codecs available today. Only individuals can decide what is acceptable for their production.

4. Panasonic bring new camera but the only thing that they have more for an HPX170 is D.O.F, but imagine a movie with D.O.F but without color, for this instance you cannot have to pay $10,000

Yes. Because everything shot in 4:2:0 is without color. It's just like watching big grey blobs. Totally worthless for any and all productions.

Maybe to compete with he same circunstances that a 7D Panasonic has to do the same as sony Camcorder DSLR prices about 2,000 and 3,500, because have the same resolution, that finally is that our spectators will see, is fair for they?, or for Panasonic and his sales.

Is not fair for anybody.

Or maybe they wanted to produce the first ~35mm video camera available in a usable configuration for less than $20,000. Hmm.

That being said, if you want 4:2:2 color, this isn't the camera for you. Use an adapter on another video camera (I presume you own an HPX170) and deal with the light loss, shoot on RED, Alexa, or Film and deal with the additional financial and temporal costs.

 

[xmephestox]

people do realize that panasonic's recording format that does high bit rate 4:2:2 IS p2 right? It's been clearly stated that p2 in af100 would increase the price by 3000-4000 dollars. It's cheaper to just get a external recorder.

 

[Rick Burnett]

They may make another model with it in the future for those who want it.

 

[Steve Kahn]

people do realize that panasonic's recording format that does high bit rate 4:2:2 IS p2 right?

I don't understand why it would have to be this way. Canon records to CompactFlash cards.

 

[xmephestox]

They DO have a business model to maintain. There may be fire and brimestone at their door if they announce a camera that does 10 bit 4:2:2 avc intra on CF cards in a sub 10 thousand dollar camera body with a larger sensor, and 90% of the options of their high end 2/3 camera lines. You can't expect a multi million dollar company to break their backs on a smaller market. Yes, this market IS the smaller market. they make a lot of money off their high end cameras, they make a lot of money on their consumer cameras. This is somewhere in between.

I'd love to have all this stuff too, but in the end, they have customers to protect. Not just appease the already volatile indie market that's gonna shoot on one camera from the next every other week as soon as it's announced. It's not technologically out of there power, but you have to realize that it's a lot of give and take, and they are the top dogs, and the 2/3 backbone of the broadcast industry. Those clients have to have their fair share of what they need and want too, and that includes justifying why they just spent 50 thousand dollars on a camera.

if you want no holds bar with in reason, save for a scarlet, s35 version with all the accessories will cost you 15-20k all said and done, and you'll be spending double the money in hard drive space and post production. but the image is going to be as uncompromised as you get compared to a lot of what's out there right now.

 

[Steve Kahn]

Have to disagree. I can't see anyone at NBC - or any broadcaster - caring one bit that the AF100 has the same color space as their HPX.

The AF100 is a specialty camera. It could never do what the P2 cams do. They are broadcast cams. Totally different ball game. Totally.

 

[xmephestox]

you should re look at the specs of the af100, not a single HPX camera can do 1080p/60p. and it has a whole ton of other features those cameras can do. to say they wouldn't dump a 50k camera for a 6k camera that can give them 90% of what they need and than some, i completely disagree with. I've worked with them, I've done the work, they will try to save money wherever they can as long as the standards that they are used to don't take too much of a hit. A lot of ENG people are also personal owners of these cameras, they will be pissed too.

 

[pallllaaaaa]

Yeah thats exactly what XMEPHESTOX said, thats the reason that they dont give us all features, i.e to protect high end customers, thats really the right thing, and not all things barry said, so we have to support new proposals of new chambers to break the big monopolies.
Af-100 is just one more mask, and we for sure have to dance with it.

 

[xmephestox]

and keep in mind, that it's a multi leveled corporation we are talking about, they have a lot of gears and numbers to look at, and will take the conservative route. Gambling on the notion that "this is a specialty camera, and it won't cut into our eng line" isn't crossing their minds. did it cross canon's mind when they came out with the 5d that everybody and their mother's will be shooting on it?

It's an expensive business, that's getting cheaper, but the price is always something. whether out of your wallet, or out of the device.

 

[xmephestox]

Yeah thats exactly what XMEPHESTOX said, thats the reason that they dont give us all features, i.e to protect high end customers, thats really the right thing, and not all things barry said, so we have to support new proposals of new chambers to break the big monopolies.
Af-100 is just one more mask, and we for sure have to dance with it.

and by no means am i in agreement with you. I think Panasonic has come out with a very fine camera that fills the void for a lot of people, and a lot of people are gonna have to chance to make some really great work with it, and be out there making money, making art, pursuing their dreams, rather than sitting around thinking about what's next in line for them to spend their pennies on.

I don't complain when a new processor or video card comes and say they could have had that last year when i bought it, I use what I have and what I can get to the fullest extent. I may hate the fact that Apple overprices all their stuff, but I buy it anyway because I get my next job , and do it that much better with whatever minor improvement they threw in. They run a business, I run a business. I'm just thankful that there are tools out there now that literally put you ahead of the curve compared to years ago, and really let you show off what you've got, and what kind of work ethic and talent you really have to prove yourself in this industry.


-Rant.

 

[Steve Kahn]

they will try to save money wherever they can as long as the standards that they are used to don't take too much of a hit.

I couldn't imagine any broadcaster wanting to work with the AF100. Not ergonomic - no shoulder mount - no camcorder power zoom on the lens - no wireless anything - even skew from the CMOS makes it pretty horrible for whip pans that are needed in sports or news situations.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Just imagine how many people would have been upset if they put the P2 in and increased the priced to $10k for the body only. I sure would have been upset and it would have placed it firmly out of my price range.

When I look at the AF100 from the DSLR up to it, the difference in performance/features is amazing. I guess when *you* look at it from the upper end down, you don't see the appeal. My advice to you is this camera wasn't designed for someone like you, it was designed for people like me who are coming from the DSLR craze and want something better.