AF-100 Wishlist/Suggestion Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nityananda_SCSMath said:
Just to confirm though, is it correct to say that other than compression image quality, AVCCAM has no disadvantage compared to AVC-Intra as an editing codec? I know it takes more processor power etc. to render/watch but I mean as far as editing goes.

Doesn't AVC-Intra also work like this?:
Click to expand...

AVC-Intra is superior in every imaginable way. 8bit "YUV" captures about 6bits of RGB chroma in natural scenes, and AVC-Intra fixes that because its 10bit encodings can preserve a full 8bit RGB and at very low compression. 8bit RGB is what most modern sensors are capable of after white balance, color correction and a good gamma curve so this is very important. But lets forget AVC-Intra for now.

The GOP formats have a key disadvantage. They are designed for delivery, not for acquisition, and not for stacking encoding cycles. The engineers did not optimise or even consider the performance of the codecs in this use. Each frame is reconstructed from a whole series of frames. Changing something in one frame spreads the deterioration to other frames depending on the compression technique. The quality of each frame is also not constant, it depends on frame changes, and the frame configuration can and will change between sequential transcodings. When you stack encodings in an intraframe codec, you see a deterioration but the motion quality is preserved. On an interframe codec, motion is affected and errors start adding up very fast, in space and time. The GOP codecs I have examined have a noticable motion blur vs the intraframe counterparts even on a single encoding. They don't deal with fast motion or fast shutter speeds very well because they encode frame differences, not full frames. Stack a couple of interframe encoding cycles and the texture will be gone, everything will become noticably soft from the strong filtering, and the lower exposure stops and any flat areas will become very blocky.
 
Nityananda_SCSMath said:
My interest in AVCHD/AVCCAM:
- start editing right away for a fast less-than-a-day turnaround (news, online subscribers)
- Minimize my hard drive requirements (mobile editing with small bus powered drive/laptop/mobile internet card and long-term archival with a nonprofit storage budget)
- Be able to record longer to my camera media, whether SDHC P2 etc.
-Chris
Click to expand...
Now really, why would you choose a large sensor camera and AVCHD codec for this is beyond me? Why not use a proven XDCAM or DVCPRO HD for your project is kind of unclear. Right now there are at least 10 cameras I can think about that fit this profile, produce very high quality footage that is easily edited fast by any NLE.
I thought that idea behind new Panasonic was a film production/cinematography, not ENG or event, right?
It is also mind bugling why AVCCAM codec will be used to record? Yeah, it might be as good as XDCAM EX at 35Mb/s, but nowhere as good as 50 or 100 or 200, period. So count on spending additional 3-4 grand on something to record on to take advantage of a large sensor.
 
The simple answer as for why I want a large sensor camera is this:
I don't only do ENG and I would rather buy one good camera capable of BOTH cinematography and ENG than two cheaper cameras. Rather than a HMC150 and a Canon 5D, why not buy one camera capable of doing what both can do?
Also the extra low-light sensitivity would be useful sometimes with ENG.

As far as AVCHD, well, I would rather have AVC-Intra but I don't need any better than the picture quality of AVCCAM when it's first captured in the camera. And if I can work in Premier, doing some simple cutting/fading/color correction and just take the quality hit once when Premier renders from the original AVCCAM files into H.264 web video then I'm a happy camper.

I know the image/color quality of AVCCAM is worse than AVC-Intra but for me it's good enough.

They are designed for delivery, not for acquisition, and not for stacking encoding cycles.
Click to expand...

I realize that stacking encoding cycles will result in quality loss each time, but if I just do it all within Premier, and assuming that premier exports from the original unmodified AVCCAM files, won't I avoid stacking encoding cyles?

And then it's just down to the fact that AVC-Intra is a better looking compression format with more data that holds up better to re-encoding, but both AVCCAM and AVC-Intra can be edited natively off the camera and then just take a single re-encoding hit during the final export for publishing.
AVCCAM will take that hit less gracefully no doubt, but it still can be edited in such as way as to only take that one hit.


If I'm correct in thinking this way, then for me and my situation that'll work.
 
robertrogoz said:
Now really, why would you choose a large sensor camera and AVCHD codec for this is beyond me? Why not use a proven XDCAM or DVCPRO HD for your project is kind of unclear. Right now there are at least 10 cameras I can think about that fit this profile, produce very high quality footage that is easily edited fast by any NLE.
I thought that idea behind new Panasonic was a film production/cinematography, not ENG or event, right?
It is also mind bugling why AVCCAM codec will be used to record? Yeah, it might be as good as XDCAM EX at 35Mb/s, but nowhere as good as 50 or 100 or 200, period. So count on spending additional 3-4 grand on something to record on to take advantage of a large sensor.
Click to expand...

You're basically arguing why anyone would buy a Ford Focus when a BMW is so superior.

The answer is simple... not everyone needs or wants a BMW. For many folks, a Focus is good enough.

If this camera had AVC-I/P2, Jan has said it would cost a couple grand more. Plus the cost of additional P2 cards. So now instead of being in the hole $5,200, I'm now in the hole $9,000. AVC-I/P2 isn't worth an additional $4k for me. Yes, on paper 10bit, I-frame, 4:2:2 is better. I just don't need it. AVCCam is good enough. That's why I own an HMC150 and not an HPX170. I've seen stills from both cameras shot side by side and you can't tell the difference to the naked eye.

Don't assume every other person who would buy this camera has your clientele, your work flow, or your needs. For probably 75% of the folks who will actually buy this camera and put it to use, AVCCam is going to be good enough for their needs. For that other 25%, I sincerely hope Panasonic comes out with some sort of AVC-I/P2 module because anyone can see why AVC-I would be beneficial for them. But just because it's beneficial to them (you), doesn't mean it's beneficial or even needed by everyone else.

As to the event market buying this... no one said it was only aimed at the film production crowd, just read the announcement press release. This will be huge for the wedding/event crowd. There are already plenty of folks coming up with workarounds to shoot weddings on VDSLR's, and even with codecs and electronics that are inferior to AVCCam, some of the footage looks pretty darn good. Their clients were sure probably happy. And THAT is what's ultimately important... are the folks who are paying for the projects that people will be shooting with this camera going to be happy with the results? I would wager yes.
 
Intraframe vs interframe from a test. There was significant motion in other parts of the frame. Static shots and resolution charts will not show the real world difference.
 

Attachments

  • int.JPG
    int.JPG
    57.2 KB · Views: 0
Same uncompressed source from Kodak CCD used for both. 120mbit intraframe DNxHD vs 20mbit WMV. The camera does not affect the result in any way. It's not likely that in-camera mpeg2 or mpeg4 will be much better. Barry broke two GOP codecs in a recent article. It's the nature of GOP compression. We do know it's impossible to break an intraframe codec such as HDCAM, DVCPROHD, AVCIntra, etc using motion. They encode each frame seperately and use higher bitrates by 4x or more. There is a place for GOP codecs, and doubling the price of a camcorder by including a better codec will put it out of reach for many uses. But there is an advantage to intraframe, it's significant, and any real world test will demonstrate it. The naked eye will see the difference, before and after processing.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
Same uncompressed source from Kodak CCD used for both. 120mbit intraframe DNxHD vs 20mbit WMV. The camera does not affect the result in any way. It's not likely that in-camera mpeg2 or mpeg4 will be much better. Barry broke two GOP codecs in a recent article. It's the nature of GOP compression. We do know it's impossible to break an intraframe codec such as HDCAM, DVCPROHD, AVCIntra, etc using motion.
Click to expand...

20mbit wmv transcoded using an unknown encoder is not 24mbit AVCHD encoded straight from the CCD. I get you can break long-GOP with enough motion, but I shoot Major League Soccer on an HMC150, and when I play it back straight from the card onto a 50" 1080p TV I can guarantee it looks a heck of a lot better than the example you just gave. If someone really wanted to do an accurate comparison, put an HPX170 next to an HMC150 (same lens and chips), using the same scene files and shooting the same thing.

There is a place for GOP codecs, and doubling the price of a camcorder by including a better codec will put it out of reach for many uses. But there is an advantage to intraframe, it's significant, and any real world test will demonstrate it. The naked eye will see the difference, before and after processing.
Click to expand...
I agree and disagree. There is definitely a place for both, but for for most non-high end applications, most people simply aren't going to see a difference. Outside of my MLS stuff, most of my clients are brides and grooms and small business owners and they're more than happy with the results from AVCHD.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Okay, feeling stupid here, which D300 from whom?
Click to expand...

D300/D300s, DSLR, from Nikon. the screen, for its size, is wonderful. for most HD cams, the screens are a terribly low resolution. i would expect the opposite considering how much more complex HD video is versus digital photography.
 
Mike Harvey said:
I agree and disagree. There is definitely a place for both, but for for most non-high end applications, most people simply aren't going to see a difference. Outside of my MLS stuff, most of my clients are brides and grooms and small business owners and they're more than happy with the results from AVCHD.
Click to expand...
And that's my point- there is no perfect camera. You do events or ENG, buy camera for ENG/events. You want to do cinematography, this one should be it. Brides and grooms, news or filmed lecturers don't care about DOF crap. So yes, Panasonic can built a large sensor camera for under 6K, but most likely it won't be good enough for larger screens due to the codec. It's like putting Ford Focus engine into a high end BMW- simply doesn't make sense.
 
i guess an optional p2 module with avci/dvcpro would be the best idea.. unlikely to happen but best for all of us
 
robertrogoz said:
but most likely it won't be good enough for larger screens due to the codec.
Click to expand...
And you say this based on ... what?

You're out of your depth here. Iraq in Fragments was nominated for an Oscar, and it was shot on DV. An Inconvenient Truth won the Oscar that same year, and it was largely shot on the horrific HDV format. Public Enemies had a bigscreen release, and some of its footage was EX1. AVCHD is superior to all their codecs, especially when used in the PH mode in AVCCAM. Heck, Crank 2 was shot largely on HDV cameras and released theatrically, and PH-mode AVCHD is way superior to that format.

I've had films play in major festivals across the USA, and one (Depth of Phil, at South by Southwest 2010) was shot on a far inferior codec to what the AF100 sports. And it looked fantastic.

I'm no fan of long-GoP codecs, I think that's well established, but if you have to have one, AVCHD PH mode is just fine.

I think if you're trying to film for the big screen on a prosumer camcorder, you have a lot of things to worry about more than the codec. The AF100's codec is superior to anything offered from any of the major manufacturers, excepting only AVC-Intra, DVCPRO-HD, and 50mbps XDCAM-MPEG 422 (and above).

It's like putting Ford Focus engine into a high end BMW- simply doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense for the price bracket. If Sony can put an inferior MPEG-2 codec in a $20,000 PMW-350, why does it not make sense to put a superior AVCHD codec in a $6,000 camera?

And if it really bothers you that much, you have both HD-SDI and HDMI ports available, so you can attach external recorders and record in whatever codec you'd like.
 
robertrogoz said:
Brides and grooms... don't care about DOF crap.
Click to expand...

You haven't shot a lot of weddings lately, have you? There is a whole growing market of people shooting weddings on VDSLR's and with 35mm adapters *BECAUSE* of the depth of field. Just take a look through Vimeo. And some of those videos look really freakin' good, even though they were shot on a codec that is inferior to AVCHD. The idea of getting that look with a decent codec and with a real video camera is a game changer.

This camera is going to not just be a cinematography camera. You may want to put it in just that tiny little box, but even the press release announcing it states it's not just aimed at the cinematography market. Jan has stated as much. I mean, let's be honest, this is as of now an HMC150 with the GH1's chip and lens on it. It's not an HPX3700. A lot of the people who are going to buy this camera have no desire to use it for cinematography.

I wholeheartedly agree there should be either be a P2/AVC-I add on module or a separate version of this camera, because I fully recognize what that format paired with this camera can do. But having used full bit rate AVCHD a couple of times a week for the last year and a half, I can guarantee that AVCHD paired with this camera is not going to be a waste. It may be a waste in your eyes, but probably not to the vast number of folks who end up buying it.

Just because you have higher demands doesn't mean everyone else does. Don't assume that your needs, wants, and desires are the only needs, wants, and desires, or the only ones that make sense for everyone else. And honestly, it's not really your place to only relegate what this camera is and isn't to be used for and who should and shouldn't be using it.
 
Agreed with Mike. This unit is designed for digital cinematography AND professional videography. I've done tons of corporate films and I would have killed for something like this. Wedding shooters will think they've died and gone to heaven working with a single self-contained functional unit rather than having to frankenstein together a DSLR. Sports shooters? Okay, maybe not so much for them. But for everyone else, yes.
 
This camera is going to produce outstanding results. It is going to be a gh 1 on steroids.

Agreed with Mike. This unit is designed for digital cinematography AND professional videography. I've done tons of corporate films and I would have killed for something like this. Wedding shooters will think they've died and gone to heaven working with a single self-contained functional unit rather than having to frankenstein together a DSLR. Sports shooters? Okay, maybe not so much for them. But for everyone else, yes.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Please forgive my ignorance but:

With a large sensor camcorder capable of shallow Depth of Field, isn't it still possible to record to create a deep depth of field if the situation warrants it?

Will the AF100 be much less capable of shooting a shot with a deep depth of field then an HMC150?

How much more difficult will it be to shoot with deep depth of field?
 
Barry_Green said:
That module already exists; it's called the AG-HPG20.
Click to expand...

havnt tried that yet... im sure its awesome. i wish it was priced lower :D Maybe Id buy one next year unless a p2 version af100 comes out...

I was kinda wishing a 1-2k module with less bells and whistles than a hpg20 but thats wishful thinking
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top