AF-100 Wishlist/Suggestion Discussion Thread

[Gordon Prince]

Hunter, you've got mail from Cris. Can you check your email box out please?

 

[ChipG]

A bundle purchase for a discount that includes both the AF100 and GH2 (B-Cam). Could be a killer little indie 2 cam kit.

 

[ripupthehwy]

Okay, granted I am still shooting with the HVX 200 and have NOT used the DSLRs. But it seems with all these request for features on the AF100 (which by the way are going to delay the camera an additional YEAR probably!...ala Scarlett syndrome) But is Barry right that this camera is being touted as a Video camera AND a still Camera????
Maybe this is why there are so may requests for features on this camera available on DSLRs. Maybe because DSLR people that have not shot with professional VIdeo cameras are staking their claims to the AF100, insisting it be morphed into a DSLR camera disquised as a video camera. Maybe I'm fooling myself that this is going to be a professional cinematography and broadcast video camera. Is it because it's using the GH1 DLSR sensor? That's why the still photography stigma is here? Yeah I know perhaps a camera like this can be both..but aren't we making a mistake here of trying to make it all things for all people...and still be a $6000 camera? Either this camera is going to be 2 yrs in the making or there is gong to be alot of grumbling and complaining from people who didn't get their miracle worker here. My bet is on the latter, that half the people excited about the announcement of the AF100 are going to be VERY disappointed when it's released .

 

[xqzt]

How about interval recording and frame recording at 24pn, something which needed to be switched to 30p in the hvx series.

Oh and include a free 32gb p2 card with the hpx170, cause I'd rather get that, than the prevailing Jello Garbage.

 

[Barry_Green]

But is Barry right that this camera is being touted as a Video camera AND a still Camera????

No no no -- it's not a still camera at all. It's a video and cinema camera, not a video and still camera.

Maybe because DSLR people that have not shot with professional VIdeo cameras are staking their claims to the AF100, insisting it be morphed into a DSLR camera disquised as a video camera.

Yeah, that's not what this is. Those who want a DSLR would be better served waiting for a GH2. This is for those who want a professional camcorder that is suitable for both videography, cinematography, and even broadcast.

Maybe I'm fooling myself that this is going to be a professional cinematography and broadcast video camera.

You're not fooling yourself at all. That's exactly what they're promising.

My bet is on the latter, that half the people excited about the announcement of the AF100 are going to be VERY disappointed when it's released .

I think we have "Red Syndrome" happening again. Red was initially announced as the camera for "us", but what the Red One was, wasn't approachable at all by probably 95% of the membership here. They instead aimed at their target market, not the overall market, and they hit the bullseye pretty squarely. Now they're talking about a Scarlet for the rest of the folks.

This unit is not designed to be everything to everyone, and if someone wants to compare it to a $799 T2i, then they're not the customer for this. This is for the HVX/HPX/EX1 owner who wants the next great thing, or for the DSLR user who's tired of screwing around with workarounds and bolt-ons and compromises.

 

[Barry_Green]

Oh and include a free 32gb p2 card with the hpx170, cause I'd rather get that, than the prevailing Jello Garbage.

The 170 already includes a 16GB card, and its price has come down a lot recently; you can get one for under $4,000 brand new from an authorized reseller.

 

[waefre]

Looking at the info out there now, they're saying it has two SD slots allowing for continuous recording up to 12 hours on 36gb cards - which means it's probably not hot swappable. Not sure. Then again, do we really need more than 12 hours of recording?

That would be amazing if instead of being hot swappable the camera actually recorded onto both cards simultaneously so that you have double the bitrate and thus have less compression in the codec and maybe be able to handle higher frame rates. I'm probably dreaming but it sounds so good.

 

[ZazaCast]

This unit is not designed to be everything to everyone, and if someone wants to compare it to a $799 T2i, then they're not the customer for this. This is for the HVX/HPX/EX1 owner who wants the next great thing, or for the DSLR user who's tired of screwing around with workarounds and bolt-ons and compromises.

Well said! I like it just way it is and hope it comes out as planned.

"you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time...but you can't please all the people all the time."

:happy:

 

[Zissou]

how about CCD instead of rolling shutter. frankly i would KILL for a pair of (featurewise) identical cameras, one with CCD and one with CMOS, but same body, codec, etc.

that would, in my opinion, be the most ideal solution. right now i use 2 different cams for different styles, one is tape the other is cards, different codecs, different audio capture (external for the HDSLR then sync in post), used for different types of shots (action vs night) etc etc. having a matched pair would be IDEAL, even in something HDSLRish it would be a phenomenal thing.

instead, it seems most manufacturers are trying to shove a CMOS chip in everything they sell.

 

[Freya]

Very exciting news!

Can I reiterate the call for aspect ratio guides: 16x9, 14x9, 4x3, 1.85:1, 2:1, 2.40:1

It seems to me this would be a very easy feature to implement but that is often left out. It also seems to me that once you have implemented the feature then different aspect ratios are just a matter of passing the right numbers to the software so it should be easy to add a menu option to select between any of these!

As such please include them all!

C-mount lens support would be very important to me.

I'd also like the screen to allow us to see the whole image we are recording. So I guess that means underscan monitoring if that is the right terminology?

love

Freya

 

[Joe Media]

Either this camera is going to be 2 yrs in the making or there is gong to be alot of grumbling and complaining from people who didn't get their miracle worker here. My bet is on the latter, that half the people excited about the announcement of the AF100 are going to be VERY disappointed when it's released .

I don't think this is the case at all. The point of this thread is a "wishlist" of features. I highly doubt that they would/could do all the things we want but it doesn't hurt to add our thoughts (they listen). In my opinion, this camera fills the niche for production houses that are currently using DOF adapters, DSLR's and renting Red Ones for commercial purpose. It's not a replacement for ENG shooting (buy a HPX series for that). We would have bought a R1 a long time ago but felt there had to be a better option right around the corner. I think this could be it. I do see this as being a very viable option for people on the fence about purchasing Red but wanting the workflow that they are currently comfortable with (P2 or AVCHD). Plus, I think Panny can actually deliver this before the Scarlet and have enough units to meet demand. I for one, have no need for 4K+ resolution.

 

[Jason Adams]

This is for the HVX/HPX/EX1 owner who wants the next great thing, or for the DSLR user who's tired of screwing around with workarounds and bolt-ons and compromises.

I am an HPX owner wanting the next great thing and a DSLR owner sick of compromise. Sorry but AVCAM is not a replacement for an HPX. If I I have to take a hit on codec and work flow (AVCCAM SD Cards.)Then Ill take DSLR. At its current spec the AF100 is a compromise. NO P2, No DVCPRO HD/AVCINTRA. If I can't have what I want why pay 6K for it. I have said it from the begging. If this is not P2 4:2:2 then I'll keep my Canon. I feel the AF100 is the evolution of the HMC150 not the HPX170. I think Panny is drawing a hard line here to protect the runnaway success with broadcasters and P2. I think the HPX170 is the last sub 6k P2 camera we will see. I think the camera will do well, but to suggest this is the no compromise large format cam just doesn't jive with me.

This is too much camera for T2I shooters and too little camera for HPX shooters. I would pay 10k + for an Avcintra p2 version of this. This would be a scarlet killer for me. Hopefully the shipping version makes me eat my words.

But Lets look at the current situation. If the camera shipped tomorrow with these specs.

With Canon I have to shoot to a media I hate (CF Cards) With Panny I will have to shoot to a media I hate more (SD cards)

With Canon I have to use a codec I hate. ( lojacked no B frame h.264) with panny I will have to use another codec I don't like ( long GOP 4:2:0 whos only consalation is a higher bit rate than the other sucky codecs.)

compromise for compromise I will take the cheaper one with the bigger sensor.


Prove me wrong Panny I want to buy this.

 

[Freya]

Framing markers (2.35:1 & 2.40:1, 4:3 safety zone, 1.85 : 1, 2:

This seems to have got a bit scrambled at the top of the list. It's missing the end brackets and is missing 14:9 which I'm sure is completely accidental and not a snub at us Europeans!. 2:1 also got scrambled.

As I argued before it's sensible to include all major aspect ratio's because it should just be a matter of passing the right parameters to the routine that handles this.

It should be something like:

Framing markers (4:3, 14:9, 1.85:1, 2:1, 2.35:1 & 2.40:1)

I'm guessing we don't need 16:9 as presumably that will be the native aspect ratio.

Not sure what 4:3 safety zone would be?

love

Freya

 

[Hunter Hampton]

Edit: nevermind I was going to suggest avc-intra 50 as a codec option but then I realized it was only 4:2:0... I just say keep the AVCcam codec and then realease a 10-bit p2 version of the camera at a later date for more money.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

I am an HPX owner wanting the next great thing and a DSLR owner sick of compromise.

Hi Jason,

I thank you for owning the HPX. Having the DSLR though, means that you know what the compromises are in that usage. Aliasing, Audio, a compromised codec.

Sorry but AVCAM is not a replacement for an HPX. If I I have to take a hit on codec and work flow (AVCCAM SD Cards.)Then Ill take DSLR.

Ah, but there is so much that you don't know that I would suggest that you simply reserve judgment. We had AVCCAM blown up to 150" diagonal in our large theater presentation and frankly I found no fault in it. Did we edit in the native codec, no, we edited in Pro-Res HQ and then back out to AVC-Intra. Looked great.

At its current spec the AF100 is a compromise. NO P2, No DVCPRO HD/AVCINTRA. If I can't have what I want why pay 6K for it.

You don't know all that it will do as it has not been fully defined. But I do know that it will have a feature set that a video person needs to record high quality HD video without the fear of Aliasing in the video recording and being able to watch that on a live output. Add that to great audio and that is really just the beginning.

I have said it from the begging. If this is not P2 4:2:2 then I'll keep my Canon.

We actually cut a green screen with it and it too looked really good so I think you just need to hold your reservations till it gets closer to delivery.

I feel the AF100 is the evolution of the HMC150 not the HPX170.

Actually it is in a class of its own, there isn't another camera like it.

think Panny is drawing a hard line here to protect the runnaway success with broadcasters and P2. I think the HPX170 is the last sub 10k P2 camera we will see. I think the camera will do well, but to suggest this is the no compromise large format cam just doesn't jive with me.

Anyone can have an opinion and you have spoken yours. Mine is that I think that this camera will be will be a runaway success as AVCCAM, the optimized AVCHD codec , is an awesome codec. To make this camera P2 camera would increase its price by a good margin.

But Lets look at the current situation. If the camera shipped tomorrow with these specs.

The specs as we know them: 4/3"s imager, AVCCAM 1080, 24p, 30p and 60i and 720 with variable frames and XLR inputs for audio. Recording to inexpensive media, and adaptable to most lensing systems out there, except the B4 Eng mount. These are the things we know for sure. Not a lot of specs here to know.

With Canon I have to use a codec I hate. ( lojacked no B frame h.264) with panny I will have to use another codec I don't like ( long GOP 4:2:0 whos only consalation is a higher bit rate than the other sucky codecs.)

It is a much better codec than you know. Way better than that in the DSLRs

Prove me wrong Panny I want to buy this.

Hold off your opinion until you see one and get to make it record. Frankly I was pleasently surprised with the 3D camera's recording to the AVCCAM. That has a 1/4" imagers and the images were rather stunning. So I am a real believer in this codec, I think it offers an inexpensive recording option but I don't think you edit there. I want you to buy one, and I think you will.

Best,

Jan

 

[mikkowilson]

We had AVCCAM blown up to 150" diagonal in our large theater presentation and frankly I found no fault in it. Did we edit in the native codec, no, we edited in Pro-Res HQ and then back out to AVC-Intra. Looked great.

Yes it did!


I could not tell what parts of the sizzle reels presented were AVCCAM. (Other than, obviously the parts labled as such ... and the video from the 3DA1 [which also looked spectacular].)

The only way I could tell the difference (and have ever been able to tell the difference) between AVCCAM and the P2 formats is if I've known what camera was used and if working with the footage - P2 workflow is faster. Obviously.

- Mikko

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Framing markers (2.35:1 & 2.40:1, 4:3 safety zone, 1.85 : 1, 2:

This seems to have got a bit scrambled at the top of the list. It's missing the end brackets and is missing 14:9 which I'm sure is completely accidental and not a snub at us Europeans!. 2:1 also got scrambled.

As I argued before it's sensible to include all major aspect ratio's because it should just be a matter of passing the right parameters to the routine that handles this.

It should be something like:

Framing markers (4:3, 14:9, 1.85:1, 2:1, 2.35:1 & 2.40:1)

I'm guessing we don't need 16:9 as presumably that will be the native aspect ratio.

Not sure what 4:3 safety zone would be?

love

Freya

Thanks for pointing that out.
I'm on it.

And I assumed that the suggestion for 4:3 safety zone meant the ability to show 4:3 guides when shooting 16:9, for situations where someone may have to crop for 4:3.
Those guides are currently on the HVX200/HPX170 series.

EDITED TO ADD:
Framing markers have been fixed.

 

[colormate]

I only have one wish, really. Variable framerates at 1080p.

I don't know much about this codec but I do know that color correction and grading is a pretty important step in filmmaking; if this codec holds up to that then I'm perfectly fine with it.

 

[mikkowilson]

"4:3 safe" guides are critically important when shooting any 16:9 for TV these days.

With all the up & down -conversion going on, it's very common for the sides of the 16:9 to get cropped off to 4:3.

Just the same way movies have been shot "TV safe" (4:2 safe) for many many years.


- Mikko ... points out that he has a 4:3 safe avatar (yes, also the black 16:9 version is).

 

[Noel Evans]

(G) POWER:
A Power tap plug to power an on-camera light or Nanoflash.

This would be fantastic. Though Im struggling to comprehend how a battery comparable to say the 170/150/200a would handle such a hit on it and be able to last very long esp. in the case of on cam light.

Ill say this though, I had an A1 for quite awhile, and although it didnt get heavy use as it was just a personal use cam, I got tired of converting all my shots for smooth editing.

So, for me a faster intraframe codec using my current investment in p2 and a kick ass DSP might be enough to sway me away from .......

Im wondering if its worth considering a v mount for the pro model should there be one. But even when considering that, that means two sep. body designs. Probably not going to be worth the ROI, considering how well the standard body would sell.