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

Status
Not open for further replies.
But it doesn't fall into their current parameters, so no guarantees.
Click to expand...
True, there are no guarantees. But a whole lot of cameras don't meet their current parameters, including anything made by JVC, or any XDCAM-HD or XDCAM-EX product, or any HDV, or any AVCHD, or any DSLR. None of those meet their guidelines, not even the $20,000 2/3" PMW350.

For XDCAM-HD and XDCAM-EX users, they can get around it by using a NanoFlash or Ki Pro Mini. For AF100 users, they can do exactly the same thing. So if you want to meet BBC guidelines, you can do it -- just use a Nano or Ki Pro.

And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the BBC decided that PH-mode AVCCAM meets their guidelines. But we'll have to wait for them to do that evaluation before we'll know.
 
Well, numbers are numbers, and serve in some instances to measure, count or compare. In some other instances, (movies for instance) works also what here in my country we use to say: " If it looks good, is good". For many of us, that are working in movies and stuff like that with little or no budget, " If it looks good, is good", despite of the numbers (codecs, bitrates, etc.). However I understand that in post or fx numbers count, so, if I can get an image that looks very good, the numbers (codecs, bitrates, etc.) are acceptable to work with, the price is affordable, and the final result is what I want. That's what I need, buy and use. I'll get the AF100. Here, in Colombia, we have pieces that History and Discovery has released, made entirlelly in Mini DV. (Documentary all). Regards.
 
Barry_Green said:
True, there are no guarantees. But a whole lot of cameras don't meet their current parameters, including anything made by JVC, or any XDCAM-HD or XDCAM-EX product, or any HDV, or any AVCHD, or any DSLR. None of those meet their guidelines, not even the $20,000 2/3" PMW350.

For XDCAM-HD and XDCAM-EX users, they can get around it by using a NanoFlash or Ki Pro Mini. For AF100 users, they can do exactly the same thing. So if you want to meet BBC guidelines, you can do it -- just use a Nano or Ki Pro.

And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the BBC decided that PH-mode AVCCAM meets their guidelines. But we'll have to wait for them to do that evaluation before we'll know.
Click to expand...

This goes for Jan and DirectorDOP too...

Look, I get the whole content is king, have a good story etc etc.... That's why I've been able to be successful making shows on shitty HDV, as I know the target market very well.

The point is - numbers (bit rate) and color space DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

For example - The BBC - They will test yes, but for now, it's below their minimum 50mbs. So if the AF100 was already 50mbs, there wouldn't be any issue or conversation here. And it's not always possible for me to hook up an external recorder for 100mbs. I'm in the field, so want to stay as light and gadget free as possible.

And the color space is relevant to post. A weaker color space and bit rate is not going to stand-up to heavy manipulation in post, especially for music videos.

And Barry, no need to mention other cams, as the AF100 is what we're focusing on.

I'm really not sure whether to buy one or not. Or even recommend.

Panasonic - All you need to do is increase to 50mbs on-board recording with 4:2:2. Et voila. Problem solved. That would really be a game changer and product of note. I'd pay an extra couple of thousand for that.

And Jan, while you're here. Why are there no specific lenses in existence at all for this particular camera?? That is strange.

Thanks all

Nick
 
@Nick

I don't think you get the target audience of this camera. If it had 50 Mbs and 4:2:2 it would record to P2 and cost over $10k. Then it would line up next to cameras like the HPX370.

This camera is meant to be the next camera in a lineup that includes the DVX100 and HVX200, cameras that both changed the way indie films were made.
 
Sounds like what you need is a codec (any codec) which has a number greater than 50 in it. And 4:2:2.

So I don't think the AF-100 is going to be your camera. Because unless something really bizarre happens, I don't think it will do either of those.

And if using a small external recorder is totally off the table...then this specific generation just won't do it for you.

But the AF-200 or whatever the AF-100's big brother will be, could very well be. And then you will pay an extra couple thousand.

There are plenty of people who would love to see this camera with P2 and AVC-Intra. And I have a feeling that Panasonic is listening.
 
Nick Navaro said:
Panasonic - All you need to do is increase to 50mbs on-board recording with 4:2:2. Et voila. Problem solved. That would really be a game changer and product of note. I'd pay an extra couple of thousand for that.
Click to expand...

Pay the extra couple thousand for external recording.
 
Pay the extra couple thousand for external recording.
Click to expand...
Or $799 for that Ninja thing.

Point being, basically every camera under $20,000 is in the same boat. They're all 4:2:0, and they're all under 50 megabits. The only >50 megabit camcorders under $20k are the Panasonic P2 cameras, and the new Canon XF cameras. Nothing from Sony, nothing from JVC, no DSLR. If you want to use practically any camera anywhere near the price point, an external recorder is the only way to do it.

Would it have been better if the AF100 had 50-megabit 4:2:2? Of course it would. I made that exact request to them, for this exact reason. But it didn't happen and it's not gonna happen, so if you want to look at the AF100 for that purpose, an external recorder is the only way to get there.

Unless the BBC reviews AVCCAM and decides that it meets their standards, of course.
 
You know, it's funny...

When we shot on DOF adapters to get shallow DOF, we put up with softer images, huge rigs, tons of light loss, etc. just to get that "film" look.

Then HDSLRs came out and the cameras were small and the images were sharp and the light sensitivity was incredible....but we put up with aliasing, rolling shutter, lack of control, separate audio recording, etc.

Now the first video camera with a large sensor is coming out and we will have true video camera features, reduced aliasing and rolling shutter, etc....but it will still have issues.

As many have said, there is no perfect camera. I'm just glad to see things improving and technology progressing.
 
Barry_Green said:
Point being, basically every camera under $20,000 is in the same boat. They're all 4:2:0, and they're all under 50 megabits. The only >50 megabit camcorders under $20k are the Panasonic P2 cameras, and the new Canon XF cameras..
Click to expand...
Barry,

I am going to buy the AF100 but... still it seems a bit strange that the HVX200 has a 4:2:2 color and is 6k and has been out 5 years! 5 tech years is a LONG time. Agreed DVCPRO HD has some frame rate limitations that AVCHD does not but I don't understand when Panasonic says that it would cost 2-4k more to record to P2 media. That just makes no sense. Again the HVX is the same price as the AF100!

In all this time Panasonic could have updated DVCPRO or if it is their intention to abandon that codec and P2 then they should create AVCHD PRO that includes a 4:2:2 color space and perhaps higher bit rate as well. I don't know. Perhaps they still can.

But, the fact is you really need 4:2:2 for quality greenscreen work and lets face it there's a lot of keying done in narrative work.

rant over. I love the camera even if it's not perfect.
 
Steve Kahn said:
I am going to buy the AF100 but... still it seems a bit strange that the HVX200 has a 4:2:2 color and is 6k and has been out 5 years! 5 tech years is a LONG time. Agreed DVCPRO HD has some frame rate limitations that AVCHD does not but I don't understand when Panasonic says that it would cost 2-4k more to record to P2 media. That just makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I think the missing piece here is that the P2 of today isn't the P2 of yesterday, because of AVC-Intra. The HVX is an 8-bit camcorder throughout, because the codec was an 8-bit codec, and the HPX170 and HMC150 maintain that same internal structure. Whereas if they shifted everything over to a 10-bit internal structure it would be quite a bit more expensive. And while P2 used to be DVCPRO-HD, would people really be satisfied, now that AVC-Intra's come out, with sticking with DVCPRO-HD? Frankly I'd love a P2 version that offered AVCHD and DVCPRO-HD on P2 cards, but I'd still be griping because I'd want AVC-Intra also, and ... sometimes, somewhere along the way, you gotta draw the line and say "this is what it is, and that is what it's not."

In all this time Panasonic could have updated DVCPRO or if it is their intention to abandon that codec and P2 then they should create AVCHD PRO that includes a 4:2:2 color space and perhaps higher bit rate as well. I don't know. Perhaps they still can.
Click to expand...
Panasonic is still supporting DVCPRO-HD on their latest cameras like the HPX3100, so I don't think it's going anywhere. Someday, maybe, but not now.

And I suggested they make AVCPRO, at 50 megabits and 4:2:2. But the simple fact of the matter is, for cost or engineering or whatever reasons, that's not this camera. Maybe some future model would include some features like that, who knows... but that's not the AF100.

But, the fact is you really need 4:2:2 for quality greenscreen work and lets face it there's a lot of keying done in narrative work.
Click to expand...
And there's 4:2:2 HD-SDI output and 4:2:2 HDMI output that can be used for those occasions where 4:2:2 is vital.

Would it be more convenient if it was all built in one? Sure. But it's hardly a dealbreaker or a roadblock or, really, all that much of a speedbump, to many folks. There will be people who say "unacceptable!" but I'd ask -- well, what else are you going to shoot on then? A DSLR? An EX3 with an adapter? Those are all 4:2:0 as well. The only way to get the 4:2:2 you're asking for is on a 1/3" camcorder, where you have to choose from either MPEG-2 or not-full-raster chips, and in the case of the Canon, it's going to cost MORE than if you just got a Ninja and strapped it onto the side of the AF100, and you'd still be stuck with a 1/3" chip...

I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting what you want -- I'd love to see a 10-bit 4:2:2 AVC-Intra P2-based AF150 or AF200. But that doesn't exist. I hope someday it does. Until then, we should evaluate the AF100 on its merits, and it seems very very appealing as-is.
 
Steve Kahn said:
Barry,

I am going to buy the AF100 but... still it seems a bit strange that the HVX200 has a 4:2:2 color and is 6k and has been out 5 years! 5 tech years is a LONG time. Agreed DVCPRO HD has some frame rate limitations that AVCHD does not but I don't understand when Panasonic says that it would cost 2-4k more to record to P2 media. That just makes no sense. Again the HVX is the same price as the AF100!

In all this time Panasonic could have updated DVCPRO or if it is their intention to abandon that codec and P2 then they should create AVCHD PRO that includes a 4:2:2 color space and perhaps higher bit rate as well. I don't know. Perhaps they still can.

But, the fact is you really need 4:2:2 for quality greenscreen work and lets face it there's a lot of keying done in narrative work.

rant over. I love the camera even if it's not perfect.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with greenscreen work, but then again, most of the greenscreen work I do, I don't need a super light portable rig, since I am at the mercy of the green screen location mostly (again, in the work I do) so I'd probably try the ninja or the aja. I do plan on renting one as I want to compare some stuff for visual effects work. Reduced aliasing, moire and rolling shutter definitely help too which is what I am mainly concerned with.

Has anyone used the Ninja yet? Even in prototype. Given the cost of it, I'd really like to see if it delivers.
 
Hi Nick,

The AF100 will not be doing 50 mbs nor 4:2:2 recording on-board. You can do this with an external device. You should just wait until it is available and then try it out. If it wourks for you then buy it, if it doesn't wait for the next camera. This camera is designed with features and form factor that hit a price point. Could don't what you want for the price of this camera. So see if it works, if not then...

Best,

Jan
 
Exactly Jan,
There are so many options that have popped up in
the past 3 years. Portable P2 recorders, Nanoflash, AJA Ki Pro mini, etc. that work great.
I am thrilled you have HDSDI port- a real winner there.
I plan on giving my producers/clients the SD cards for off line editing and I have my mastering format on the Nanoflash.
If Panasonic plans to make a "box" camera so I can put my HDX900 viewfinder and Anton Bauer batteries on the back, I will buy that one as well.
Keep up the great work.
 
Wait a minute.... Did Jan just say "wait for the next camera" for 4:2:2?

hmmmmmmm.

Jan_Crittenden said:
Hi Nick,

The AF100 will not be doing 50 mbs nor 4:2:2 recording on-board. You can do this with an external device. You should just wait until it is available and then try it out. If it wourks for you then buy it, if it doesn't wait for the next camera. This camera is designed with features and form factor that hit a price point. Could don't what you want for the price of this camera. So see if it works, if not then...

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...
 
bgundu said:
Wait a minute.... Did Jan just say "wait for the next camera" for 4:2:2?

hmmmmmmm.
Click to expand...

Don't start that, you'll have the boards in a lather. I can see it now - "The new camera is Obsolete before it even comes out!"
 
heavyG said:
Don't start that, you'll have the boards in a lather. I can see it now - "The new camera is Obsolete before it even comes out!"
Click to expand...
Lolz... Quoted for truth!

OF COURSE there will be a next camera. There always is. I doubt the AF-100 will end Panasonic's run of building new cameras.
 
TheReverend said:
Lolz... Quoted for truth!

OF COURSE there will be a next camera. There always is. I doubt the AF-100 will end Panasonic's run of building new cameras.
Click to expand...

I know but there are always lots of people who troll the boards asking if they should buy this camera - or wait for the next one.
I'm waiting for one that makes toast.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Nick, I think you are being totally premature in dissing what willor will not be accepted by the BBC. I think you have not seen the codec in its record state from the AF100 and neither has the rest of the world. Obviously there are a group of individuals here that have had experience with the AVCCAM implementation and can hardly wait to see how good it will look with the AF100 feeding it. Guys like Bob Diaz who works with it every day is one of them. The hardest thing that I see we need to overcome is the fact that people have sen weak implementations of AVCHD and they think that they are all the same. Frankly throwing bits at a weak implementation is not a cure, in fact it doesn't help. There are products out there that prove this. But take a look at the interviews that Bob did of me and yest they have been stepped on again to get them on the web, but they look good. The probably looked even better.

People like to judge using numbers as everyone understands the 50 is more than 24. But unless you are a compressionist, you may not understand that that isn't necessarily true. So wait until the camera delivers, demo it and then see what you think. I was looking at a recording yesterday that our engineer was scrutinizing and man it looked beautiful. We were both point at areas where DVCPRO HD would have packed up and gone home. This codec is AVC-Intra's little brother. They share some very strong similarities.

And if the BBC accepts HDV, there is not reason they wouldn't accept this footage. Images make you money, codecs only help you get there, if the images are compelling broadcasters and other channels will buy them. This is just a given. Many people don't know this but in my 34 years in this business, it has been proven to me over and over and over.


Best,

Jan
Click to expand...
I'm gonna have to agree with Jan here. I've done extensive AVC codec testing with the x264 scene over at doom9 forums, and a good AVC implementation at 24mbps is... quite frankly as good as it gets. I mean a standard 848x480 encode is pretty much maxed out bitrate wise at about 3000-4000 kbps. You might possibly be able to find improvement up to 5000kbps if noise is rampant in your imaging, but that is at the limit. If you convert up to 1920x1080 keeping the same ratio of pixel count:bitrate (of approx 5:1), 24mbps at 1920x1080 is right along with 5000kbps at 848x480.

What I'm saying is, I'm pretty sure that other than constant I-frames (like AVC-Intra), 24mbps this is about true the limit for AVC quality-wise. As a codec, this is about as good as AVC gets. And AVC is the best compression around. The HDSDI covers the rest of needs (4:2:2 color, and feed to codec of your choice).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top