AF-100 Wishlist/Suggestion Discussion Thread

[Robert Ruffo]

I feel compelled to respond to your second point:

4 or even 5 XLR's is absolutely imperative for field capture in 5.1 (5.1 can easily be constructed from 4 channels, and 5 is even better).
Bear in mind that this camera will most certainly be used by solo operators for documentary and live performance capture.
There is no time, space or budget for secondary audio systems and an operator to man the equipment.
I for one make part of my business from shooting bands and theatrical performances, and a large part of the sales pitch is my ability to capture true surround sound with my solo rig.
Generally one takes a stereo feed from the FOH console on audio tracks 1 & 2 and a stereo surround mic goes on tracks 3 & 4.
With these four tracks as a foundation it is relatively simple to create a satisfying 5.1 mix for the client.
The same applies for field capture of 5.1 audio for documentary work.
The statement that "more than two XLR's is overkill for most people" is short-sighted and does not speak for everyone who has an interest in seeing this camera come to market.

I've yet to see ANY doco shoot in 5.1 in the field even name-brand shows like
Survivor don't (or didn't a few years ago). Certainly one-man band docos do not. Music is another matter, and, pun intended, I hear you there, but to shoot an interview in 5.1 would be ridiculous. What would the other channels hear? What would I get that I could not easily re-create in post?

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Why would you need a switcher? You do that in editing. Switchers are for live broadcast, and Panasonic already makes a fair amount of money selling them.

Good sound into the camera is important, but I don't think any kind of sound on camera features would replace an audio record for people doing digital cinema work...it's just too convenient to not have an XLR cable trailing out of your camera.

I agree this is a silly request. What is this 1985? - You can just do a multi-cam edit in many NLEs, Same thing except you can stop and back up when you screw up. Only a truly live show would ever need this - like sports.

 

[Ben_B]

I've yet to see ANY doco shoot in 5.1 in the field even name-brand shows like
Survivor don't (or didn't a few years ago). Certainly one-man band docos do not. Music is another matter, and, pun intended, I hear you there, but to shoot an interview in 5.1 would be ridiculous. What would the other channels hear? What would I get that I could not easily re-create in post?

I really have no need for an on camera mic, If one is there I bet it would get used. I much prefer two system sound and so do most of the directors I have collaborated with. That is one of my favorite things about the DSLR wave, I am free to set up the camera where the camera needs to be to get the shots in the storyboard. Even if the sound department only has a 50' XLR cable. That doesn't effect me at all.

Anywho, If they do add an onboard mic then make it one like on the HF10 camera. That onboard mic is without question the best onboard i have ever heard. Not that I am a sound tech.

Better be careful about disagreeing with things people have said, you'll get in trouble

On camera mic would just be for scratch to sync your two-system sound to without having to run another mic. Just makes things easier...fewer things to go wrong, one fewer battery to run out or cable to be disconnected. It sucks to be shooting two system and have something wrong with the on camera (not built in) mic and then not have sound except for the main sound....I usually edit to the on camera stuff and then sync when I start the actual sound editing/mixing process.

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Isn't that what Zebras are for? Or is the idea here that you can quickly get an idea of what's going on without having to keep changing your Zebra settings? Yeah if there's gonna be a touch screen (which I kind of doubt) not a bad feature to have I suppose.

Moveable focus-assist (zoom in) like on the GH1 and the Canon HDSLRs is a MUST.

YES I hate it when you can only zoom in on the center of the image - a pain when the camera is locked down for whatever reason, and the point of focus is to the side.

 

[Tzedekh]

The scarlet will have less dynamic range than the Alexa. The Alexa slightly exceeds even the Epic.

That may prove true, but since none of these cameras has been released in "final" form, such comparisons are premature. And even after they are, Epic's and Scarlet's figures may be improved through firmware updates. I don't know about Arri's update policy.

 

[Undisputed Truth]

I for one would have no use for speed ramping: just use the highest speed and ramp-up in post.

I am not content with the ghosting which occurs from speed ramping in post, nothing artificial is as good as the real thing. Filmmakers unfortunately have to make compromises within reason, but if it's there use it. I for one like the least compromises as possible and would really enjoy having this feature.

 

[AdrianF]

I mentioned the possibility of stills capture in an earlier thread and reading back over the zillions of posts, it seems like a few people feel this is a bad idea. If RAW frames could be captured at the native res of the camera, presuming that it is outputting at 1080, then it would make the camera really flexible for time lapse and animation tasks, something which could attract more educational use.

If stills capture was going to be at the expense of motion performance, then I agree it should be left out. But if it is possible ( without a mechanical shutter? ), then it could be a useful function for a some users.

 

[Barry_Green]

I mentioned the possibility of stills capture in an earlier thread and reading back over the zillions of posts, it seems like a few people feel this is a bad idea. If RAW frames could be captured at the native res of the camera, presuming that it is outputting at 1080, then it would make the camera really flexible for time lapse and animation tasks, something which could attract more educational use.

If stills capture was going to be at the expense of motion performance, then I agree it should be left out. But if it is possible ( without a mechanical shutter? ), then it could be a useful function for a some users.

Stills *at the native video res* would be fine. So a 1920x1080 still, sure. What doesn't work is trying to make stills at "stills" resolution (14 megapixel, 18 megapixel, whatever) and then also video at 2 megapixels. You have to choose one or the other. Red's approach is to do the same res for both, and that's the way that works. So if you want 1920x1080 stills, yes I can see that as being a useful feature if they could be saved as a raw or jpeg2000 or something like that.

 

[SPZ]

Stills *at the native video res* would be fine. So a 1920x1080 still, sure. What doesn't work is trying to make stills at "stills" resolution (14 megapixel, 18 megapixel, whatever) and then also video at 2 megapixels. You have to choose one or the other. Red's approach is to do the same res for both, and that's the way that works. So if you want 1920x1080 stills, yes I can see that as being a useful feature if they could be saved as a raw or jpeg2000 or something like that.

That's a good suggestion.

There have been some excellent extra suggestions so far that I also would like to see included in the wishlist:

-Still capture ( without compromising video capabilities)
- Back focus adjustment
- different selectable position for focus assist magnification on LCD (to choose different magnification point for focus)
- Pal and NTSC switchable, no region lock.
- 4 usable audio channels

There are other suggestions since 16th April, but these are my personal favorites.

Keep those suggestions coming!

 

[Paul V Doherty]

I've yet to see ANY doco shoot in 5.1 in the field even name-brand shows like
Survivor don't (or didn't a few years ago). Certainly one-man band docos do not. Music is another matter, and, pun intended, I hear you there, but to shoot an interview in 5.1 would be ridiculous. What would the other channels hear? What would I get that I could not easily re-create in post?

The example I cited was a live performance shoot, i.e. bands and theatrical.
I wouldn't bother shooting an interview in 5.1 either, but for documenting performances the extra dimension added by 5.1 is a real selling point for clients especially when it can be done without the need for a two-system shoot and the associated costs.

 

[Paul V Doherty]

Onboard mic is nice for scratch track. So it'd be nice for some sort of reference. But I agree there's more pressing matters at hand

Agreed - even a crappy mono on-camera mic is better than nothing for those who want to shoot solo with the bare minimum of gear.
How about putting a crappy mic on the body itself and a decent stereo mic on the optional handle?
Those who want the good stereo mic can buy the handle (and the extra pair of XLR's that go with it - hint hint) :smile:

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Kind of like putting hard stops on a professional follow focus. I get what you're saying. Here's the thing, most DPs and operators aren't going to have (nor should they) patience for a 1st who is programming stops into the camera during blocking. That would get you streamlined on the first set-up.

This is how you do it. DP and operator spec the set up. ACs build the rig to that spec. Director, DP and other dept. heads block the scene with camera, talent and other necessary departments. During blocking, 1st AC sets talent marks (and any additional focus marks) on the floor with tape or natural marks whenever possible. 1st AC marks follow focus disc accordingly. More complicated set ups rehearse a few times, crew practices moves and gets ready for picture.

Nowhere in that formula is there room to be programming auto-focus during this tried and tested technique for filming narrative scenes. For anything more than one fixed rack focus (which you should be able to accomplish manually in fractions of a second), will programming the camera work. Simply won't.

If you want Panasonic to waste space and boards and time setting up AF programming, so be it. I'm just telling you how narrative filmmaking works in the real world. And AF is nowhere to be found.

While this is true of larger sets, on cable non-fiction programs sometimes B-Unit is just one guy. I have been that guy. Programmable focus points would be VERY useful.

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Stills *at the native video res* would be fine. So a 1920x1080 still, sure. What doesn't work is trying to make stills at "stills" resolution (14 megapixel, 18 megapixel, whatever) and then also video at 2 megapixels. You have to choose one or the other. Red's approach is to do the same res for both, and that's the way that works. So if you want 1920x1080 stills, yes I can see that as being a useful feature if they could be saved as a raw or jpeg2000 or something like that.

Because otherwise the low-pass filter would be miss-tuned for one of those.

 

[AdrianF]

Red's approach is to do the same res for both, and that's the way that works. So if you want 1920x1080 stills, yes I can see that as being a useful feature if they could be saved as a raw or jpeg2000 or something like that.

Yeah, that's what I was really getting at. If this could be well implemented I could see it being a very useful feature and make the camera a more versatile tool for production. I would personally prefer a stills camera first for time lapse, as it gives you the advantage of extra lookaround space and/or panning and zooming in post, but could imagine a number of scenarios where I might want to use the 2k or so stills this would provide.
Obviously, this all depends on how easily at this stage this could be included.

 

[ripupthehwy]

I don't get the people on here that complain about the $6k price tag for this camera. It is supposed to be a professional Cinema/Video camera. Yeah, for a lower market (Sub $10k) but do you really want Panasonic to give you cheap parts just so you can have a $3k camera, just because other cameras are going for that??? Come on guys, there has to be some sort of separation of the men form the boys here! Personally I think some really great gear often gets into the hands of novices and hobbyists who don't know what they are doing. These are the guys who complain about the price. just my 2 cents.

 

[Ben_B]

Come on guys, there has to be some sort of separation of the men form the boys here! Personally I think some really great gear often gets into the hands of novices and hobbyists who don't know what they are doing. These are the guys who complain about the price. just my 2 cents.

I find this offensive. Everyone has to start somewhere. What if when you were a novice nobody let you do anything because you were a novice, and you just stayed there your whole life?

When we get increased access to equipment you see who has the drive to succeed and who doesn't. I used to get confused by focal lengths vs framesize ("35mm adaptor..then how are we using a 24mm lens, I don't get it!") but then I actually had access to equipment and I learned. Before I just pointed a video camera at a thing and hit record...now I know everything I do because I had the drive to learn and to improve. A lot of film students I know with similar access to equipment don't know aperture from shutter speed...because they don't really care...and that's sad.

So yes, make it cheap and we'll get some crap, but we'll also get some gold and we'll get some people that are soon not novices...people that actually were willing to try.

 

[Isaac_Brody]

i don't get the people on here that complain about the $6k price tag for this camera. It is supposed to be a professional cinema/video camera. Yeah, for a lower market (sub $10k) but do you really want panasonic to give you cheap parts just so you can have a $3k camera, just because other cameras are going for that??? Come on guys, there has to be some sort of separation of the men form the boys here! Personally i think some really great gear often gets into the hands of novices and hobbyists who don't know what they are doing. These are the guys who complain about the price. Just my 2 cents.

+1

 

[Ben_B]

+1

-1.

Price is reasonable, ripping on people who are trying to learn and saying that they should not have access to any equipment is not.

Net gain for post: +/- 0

 

[Isaac_Brody]

Not so much a rip, but he makes a good point about perspective. There's the hobbyist who doesn't make their bread and butter from their equipment and who often complains the loudest and wants everything for cheap. This camera is priced out of the hobbyist crowd, which is good. It's not being made for the casual hobbyist, but at the same time the hobbyist DSLR crowd is complaining about price as if the camera is geared for them. This camera isn't for the DSLR user, that's pretty clear. I wouldn't take offense so easily Ben.

What's happened on DVXuser in the past year is that prior to the DSLR craze this site was geared more towards the "prosumer" content creators and filmmakers. The DSLR has changed that dynamic and at times it's frustrating for the old longterm users to have to deal with the complaining and requests of the DSLR user who want more more more for less and want it immediately.

 

[xmephestox]

and I think there is also the fact that, nobody has a friggin clue how much it costs to make these cameras. Nobody has an accurate number, closest person would be Jan and Barry perhaps. R&D, manufacturing, advertising, shipping, taxes, anything and everything.

Who is anybody to say "they can give this camera to us cheaper" Maybe they could if they sold it to us at cost, and why would Panasonic do that? Why would ANY company do that? Just to make us happy? Just cause their varicam deals are making them so much money they can give us a super camera for bargain? It is a bargain already, you are getting so many varicam features on a broad spectrum of cameras for a fraction of the price.

And what argument is there to make it cheaper? More people will buy it and they'll make up for cost like that? This isn't a video game console, a bad camera that doesn't sell can really hurt them. It's a smaller division in the company, not like TV's and and other home electronics. There are only so many people buying these items. You are not gonna see these cameras in a best buy.

Panny and all these other companies are giving us incredible bargains. Hobbyist or not, you have every option known to man right now, and this is unprecedented at every single price point, with more on its way. People need to understand the concepts of how expensive certain things are. Silicon, high grade, high quality silicon despite popular belief is incredibly expensive. Silicon that they need to give you these RGB values accurately in itself, is incredibly expensive.

People can cry all they want about it, but certain things aren't going to change, you will get a lesser camera for less money, u will get a great camera for more money. And now we are at an age where we are hitting a midpoint. But there will always be something better out there for a higher premium.