AF-100 w/ Lumix 14-140 vs HVX (not A) for light sensitivity

Jim Brennan

Jim Brennan

VHS Member Old Skool
One of my concerns with the Lumix 14-140 on the AF 100 was whether it would be close enough in light sensitivity to shoot alongside the HVX in the same lighting conditions.

The answer is a guarded yes.

Don't know if this is of interest to anyone else, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

I did a low-light test (all very unscientific mind you...because that's how I roll) using the marker on both cams.

HVX open got a 25%
HVX at 4.0 got a 12%
AF100 at 4.0 got me 18%, pretty much right in the middle.
If I up the ISO to 800 I get 26%, close to the HVX wide open.

I did the same thing with a something closer to interview lighting and the results were pretty much the same.
HVX open 65%
HVX 4.0 34%
AF100 at 4.0 48%
AF100 4.0 800 ISO 68%

At 800 ISO/f4.0 the AF100 with the Lumix 14-140 is about the same sensitivity as an HVX Wide open.
At 400 ISO the AF100 with that lens is about 30% more sensitive when both lenses are at the same F-stop....but naturally the Lumix doesn't go any further than 4.0

Most of the situations I'll have to match cams will probably allow for the 800 ISO setting, so I'm happy about that. What will be tougher is getting the looks to match. Out of the box, the AF100 is much more contrasty. It looks good, but it makes the HVX look a little washed out. Kind of like shooting with a DVX and an XL-2. The XL-2 always looked a little washed out by comparison.

I definitely think I'm going to need some faster lenses though....
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking Panasonic is going to announce a 12-50mm F2.5-3.3 HD M4/3 lens in february or march. So just hold on to your hat for a bit.
 
Constant f3.3 from 12 to 50 sounds like a plan for me. If it holds focus through zoom (since it has HD on name) even better.

Personally I'd prefer some sacrifice on the wide end in exchange for tele reach, something like 15-65, specially considering the AF-100 has a larger M43 sensor. But since I'm no expert in lens design, I can't say much.

The kit for my GH and perhaps future AF is currently this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/wl/360AA05979
 
Continuing the AF100/HVX comparison, there is a marked difference in the color. I went back and set everything to zero on both cams (cineD, and Cine matrix) and manually white balanced. The HVX leans to the blue and the AF100 leans more towards the green/yellow (hate to say that). By adjusting the color temp (I love that the settings allow manual adjustments on both A and B separately on the AF100) and the chroma phase I can get pretty close. I was shooting a bunch of picture frames on my piano. If I got all the frames and pictures to look the same through both cams, the grain of the wood in the piano and the wall behind were off (AF100 showed the wood a bit redder and the walls a bit yellower), and vice versa.

The auto WB on the AF100 seems to be even worse, but I rarely use that anyway.

It won't stop me from cutting between them, but it's of note I think. And it's not that I think it's a problem with the camera. It's just worth noting if you are going to cut between the two.

Overall, the colors in from the AF100 are more pleasing to me...and that's saying something because I love the look of the HVX.

I definitely noticed more detail in the AF100 image, even though the detail levels on both cams were set to zero. (AF100 was set to 1080/24P and the HVX was set to 1080i/24) Don't know if that's due to the sensor size or the fact that there is no pixel shifting mojo or what. But it's definitely got more info to work with.

FWIW, I was shooting with a Cool Lights 2x55 Daylight balanced Flo, and each monitor had an Ikan monitor on it. I'll amputate my JVC 20" production monitor from my edit suite this weekend and do a comparison using the same monitor, but I used bars to get the Ikans nearly identical to each other.

EDIT: When I brought this footage into FCP, the camera colors were nearly identical. I must have F**ked up my monitor calibration at some point. Apologies, but I want to restate that I saw no significant difference in color between the HVX and AF100 in post. Some minor tweaking, but nothing out of the ordinary when working with 2 cameras.

Hope this helps somebody. :beer:
 
Last edited:
Jesse Brauning said:
I'm thinking Panasonic is going to announce a 12-50mm F2.5-3.3 HD M4/3 lens in february or march. So just hold on to your hat for a bit.
Click to expand...

+1 .... I wouldn't be surprized if they don't come out with their own line of primes for the AF100.
(hint, hint)
 
Very helpful indeed! Thanks!

If you have the time, I'd love to see an HD (youtube/vimeo) comparison.

Fast wide lenses seem really hard to come by on the 4/3's system, but then again, it's like that for every system.
 
Thanks. I'm hoping to be able to use AF100 for alot of my work, which includes many low light interview situations. Currently I use a 7D most of the time, but an AF100 would be more ideal for many reasons. How far are you comfortable in pushing the ISO, 800 I imagine.
 
Sorry guys, I had to go with YouTube because of the size of the clip. Quality isn't as good (Images look much better on my monitor), but I think it serves the purpose. Shot it with one 2x55 Cool Lights fixture using the Preset Daylight WB on both cams. BOth cameras used CineD and all numerical settings were otherwise set to zero. It's about 3 minutes long, and is focuses only on light sensitivity. Hope it helps somebody.

 
Last edited:
Jim Brennan said:
Continuing the AF100/HVX comparison, there is a marked difference in the color. I went back and set everything to zero on both cams (cineD, and Cine matrix) and manually white balanced. The HVX leans to the blue and the AF100 leans more towards the green/yellow (hate to say that). By adjusting the color temp (I love that the settings allow manual adjustments on both A and B separately on the AF100) and the chroma phase I can get pretty close. I was shooting a bunch of picture frames on my piano. If I got all the frames and pictures to look the same through both cams, the grain of the wood in the piano and the wall behind were off (AF100 showed the wood a bit redder and the walls a bit yellower), and vice versa.

It won't stop me from cutting between them, but it's of note I think. And it's not that I think it's a problem with the camera. It's just worth noting if you are going to cut between the two.

Hope this helps somebody. :beer:
Click to expand...

Yes it confirms what i noticed since I fight with cutting HVX with GH1 footage. I have not yet found a reliable setting and have to make heavy use of color to get the footage balanced between the two.
I wish we could make a sticky for this since the AF100 will most probably be used as A or B with HVX and HPX, and get some expert help.
 
timbook2 said:
Yes it confirms what i noticed since I fight with cutting HVX with GH1 footage. I have not yet found a reliable setting and have to make heavy use of color to get the footage balanced between the two.
I wish we could make a sticky for this since the AF100 will most probably be used as A or B with HVX and HPX, and get some expert help.
Click to expand...

Actually, i need to amend that earlier post. Although there was a slight difference (as evidenced in the above clip), it was not nearly what I was seeing in the monitor. My footage between the HVX and AF100 shows the colors to be very close.

Apologies for leading anyone down a rabbit hole on that one.
 
I'd be interested to see and hear about how the noise compares cause the original HVX is a very noisy camera compared to the A and my HMC150...
 
Depending on the settings you use, the AF100 can be utterly absolutely silently noiseless.

And, it further depends on your viewing environment, as some products will show footage inaccurately and amplify noise.
 
I definitely noticed more detail in the AF100 image, even though the detail levels on both cams were set to zero. (AF100 was set to 1080/24P and the HVX was set to 1080i/24) Don't know if that's due to the sensor size or the fact that there is no pixel shifting mojo or what. But it's definitely got more info to work with.

FWIW, I was shooting with a Cool Lights 2x55 Daylight balanced Flo, and each monitor had an Ikan monitor on it. I'll amputate my JVC 20" production monitor from my edit suite this weekend and do a comparison using the same monitor, but I used bars to get the Ikans nearly identical to each other.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, Jim, which ikan monitors were you using to test the color differences, by eye, of the live feed? aside from a color analysis on the computer, id like to see how much bias the monitors create when being used/referenced.

Ryan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top