J Davis
Veteran
What dadoboy (I think) is meaning to say is to have the cmos windowed area the the pixel dimensions it needs to be so that after debayer it is 1080p.
Funnily enough, the 2/3 spec'ed scarlet is just that.
AF-100 Wishlist/Suggestion Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Luis Caffesse
- Start date
- Status
What dadoboy (I think) is meaning to say is to have the cmos windowed area the the pixel dimensions it needs to be so that after debayer it is 1080p.
Funnily enough, the 2/3 spec'ed scarlet is just that.
robertrogoz
Carbonite Member
I think some of us are trying to make a point to get it right or we will not buy it. For a lot of users the deal breaker will be a lens.
Another question I am wondering about is what is this camera is supposed to be? Barry stated it will be a "digital cinema camera". If it is, why isn't it 4:2:2 then, to allow better results with chroma key?
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
The Scarlet is not the same. The scarlet reads EVERY pixel and processes EVERY pixel once pulled off the sensor, regardless of full or windowed, so the OLPF is selected based on the spacial requirements of any two adjacent pixels.
The AF100 sensor, from what I can tell, is using pixel binning still. Therefore, if you are pulling off the entire sensor, you need to use an OLPF that is tuned to the level of pixel binning that you do based on your target resolution relative to the original resolution.
If you tuned the AF100 sensor to have the same OLPF as the entire sensor, like the GH1 already does, the moire/aliasing would not be improved when using the pixel binning.
That said, what would be REALLY interesting is running the GH1 in a windowed mode where you use the center 1080p area. This would have a OLPF already designed for that used pixel pitch.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Then buy another lens. Ask Fujinon or Canon or Angenieux or any of the lens manufacturers to make one. As far as the AF100 goes, at least there are some video-appropriate lenses made; you can't say the same for Nikon or Canon, but at least there's the 14-140 and 20mm and 14-45 that work on u4/3 that are at least able to zoom and autofocus.
And, as always, a key point of the AF100 is that you can use ANY LENS EVER MADE on it, with an appropriate adapter. Nikon lenses? Canon lenses? PL-mount lenses? old c-mount lenses? Any of them. If glass is important to you, you should be thrilled at the prospect of the AF100 because it can use any and every kind of video or cinema lens (as long as the image circle is big enough to cover the sensor, obviously, so 1/3" or 1/2" or 2/3" lenses won't cover).
That wasn't me stating it, that was Panasonic marketing that stated it. I repeated what they assert it is: a Digital Cinema and Professional Video camera.
That's been answered a thousand times -- price point. Can you point to any other digital cinema camera anywhere near its price point, or within, say, $25,000 of its price point, that records 4:2:2? Certainly not the 4:2:0 Sony EX1 or EX3 or XDCAM-HD formats, certainly not the $20,000 4:2:0 Sony PMW-350 or $12,000 PMW-320, definitely not the $6,000+ 4:2:0 JVC HM700... Not even the Scarlet, which will have effective color sampling of just barely over 4:2:0. The only camera anywhere near its price range that offers 4:2:2 will be the new Canon XF series, with a fixed lens and 1/3" chips.
Other than, of course, the Panasonic HPX170/HVX200. Those offer 4:2:2, but they're 1/3" chips and P2. Which is why we keep clamoring for a second model that would offer P2 recording.
Anyway, if you need 4:2:2 you can get it, just get a $349 BlackMagic recording device and record the uncompressed 4:2:2 coming off of either the HD-SDI or HDMI ports. Or use the same Nanoflash that Sony users are using to get 4:2:2 out of their EX cameras.
Barry_Green
Moderator
They allow that in stills mode (the "extended optical zoom"). But they don't allow that in video mode.
Is it really that interesting though? Even if you got it to run in video mode, it effectively turns the GH1 into basically a 1/2" video camera. Where's the fun in that?
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Sadly, it appears there are no lenses made that have what I want for this camera.
As for asking Fujinon or Canon or anyone to make one......I really don't
think a request from me is going to carry much weight with them.
I will continue to hold out hope that Panasonic's request to a 3rd party
that Jan mentioned, will produce something that I may be interested in.
mikkowilson
Steadi-Guru
Not saying they should; but I hope - trust - that they will at least explore the possibility before deciding if it's viable without (at all) degrading the primary performance of the camera as a 4/3" video camera.
- Mikko
Well, it would allow me to use my c-mount lenses in some capacity without the porthole vignette look. And my 80mm to 300mm zoom would become something like a 400mm to 1500mm! Great for those shimmering heatwave on asphalt shots!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Right. See, that's the thing with a large chip -- nobody makes video lenses for them. You can get cinema zooms like an old Cooke 20-100 or a modern Angenieux or something, those will work, but they're not "video" lenses with autofocus and power zoom, and they cost an absolute fortune.
It's much easier and cheaper to make a lens for a smaller chip, the smaller the cheaper. But the chip in the AF100 is massive, almost the same size as 35mm movie film.
Fujinon and Canon make video-appropriate lenses for up to 2/3" cameras, but those are profoundly expensive as compared to the price of the body; the cheapest 2/3" lenses are, what, $7,000 or something? Not really likely that someone's gonna buy a $7,000 lens for a $6,000 body, and then only be able to get a tiny little window of illumination that covers 1/4 of the sensor!
For digital cinema purposes, there are many lenses to choose from (pretty much any cinema lens ever made, with an appropriate mount adapter). But for video purposes, as of now, the 14-140 is probably the closest we're going to get.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, see, that's the problem, and the exact reason why the DSLRs have the moire issues they do. You have to pick one or the other, you can't have both. I think you were totally spot-on with your earlier question about the swappable filter wheel because if that were possible, then yeah, they should be able to do both, and that would be ideal.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Agreed, for the GH1 it would be great, but that's because the GH1 can do it because of the tuning of its OLPF. But that won't work for the AF100. A different OLPF should forever banish the aliasing and moire, but it would also mean you can't window in on the sensor without giving up substantial resolution.
John Caballero
Veteran
And to think that everybody laughed at you little "kit lens"....
Barry_Green
Moderator
Hey, kit lenses have a negative reputation and, overall, they do deserve it. The GH1's kit lens is in a different league, not the least of which is that it's more expensive than the camera body that goes with it!
mikkowilson
Steadi-Guru
I wonder if one could move the OLPF (or even the sensor?) at adjust the "window size".
- Mikko ... is thinking out loud.
- Mikko ... is thinking out loud.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Most people answered already, but for me the purpose of a windowed mode would be for smaller lenses and/or deeper focus with more light on a cropped view of any lens.
That said, to do this, it would require a selectable OLPF and is that value good or bad? I cannot really say. It's one of those things you'd really need to evaluate the usability and performance.
I'd think if they could figure out how to do it on the GH1 it would be fun to play with. Not every shot I do is shallow. When I am doing action sequences, I like very deep focus as it looks better without arms and legs coming in and out of focus during fight scenes. Also, since you'd be looking at a window of tightly packed pixels, the moire and aliasing should be SIGNIFICANTLY reduced. You are trading your big sensor for a better image, so it's like two cameras in one.
Someone who's shot video on a RED might be able to comment more about how they feel using a windowed mode (not in terms of quality but crop factor, sensitivity, DOF differences and usefulness).
The one thing that seems important to you Barry is a proper video lens. For me, and most people I work with, I never see them using the video features on their HVX200 ever in terms of while they are shooting. For all the stuff I have done, all I really care about is lens selection. I wouldn't use auto zoom. I wouldn't use any sort of auto aperature, I like to evaluate those by hand. I don't use focus either. It might be a nice poll to see how many people really desire autofocus during record and electronically controlled zoom. Don't misunderstand, I am not saying it isn't valid, I am sure there are MANY instances in circumstances where I don't shoot video those things are desired, but for film work where shallow DoF is desired, it would seem most people like manual control. If I were shooting sports or news, yes, absolutely, but then, if I were shooting either of those, I'd prefer deeper DoF more.
I'd say we could sum the people moving picture wise into two groups of desires:
1) Wanting a camera that works like a traditional professional VIDEO camera and has all the features and capabilities of that (powered zoom, autofocus, etc).
2) Wanting a camera that works like a 35mm camera in terms of controllability and functions (and with cine lenses, possible manual controls).
Barry_Green
Moderator
Au contraire. I intend to use my new ZF set with the AF100. I don't give a flying hoot about getting a proper video lens. But I recognize that many people need cameras with video capability, and that means OIS, AF, and (ideally) power zoom.
For those who cannot live without those features, the AF100 is not for them. At least not until some manufacturer builds such a lens. And, there are many many many alternatives, so I don't see it as any manner of dealbreaker.
For those who want to use the camera in both video and digi-cine applications, I think the existing 14-140 comes very close to offering just about everything one would need. Only real glaring lack is the lack of a power zoom.
For those wanting to use it as a digi-cine camera, it's already got exactly what it needs, and can draw from the whole pool of still-camera and cine-camera lenses.
I think the lens flexibility is one of the great strengths of the AF100. I'm just trying to find ways to accomodate the wishes of those who would need the same functionality as a traditional video camera. And I've already got the 14-140 from my GH1, which I think will go a long ways towards making the AF100 usable as a traditional video camera too.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Basically, it can open up the AF100 with other lens to another market that the DSLRs do not touch at the moment, so I see where you were going with that.
One thing pertaining to the OLPF that I am waiting patiently to see is something we discussed in great detail about the 550D when another user was trying out different OLPF on it for different camera sensors (that were the same size).
One question that has always lingered is that, if you use a large enough OLPF, will the sharpness of the false detail be reduced into making the picture too soft. This really comes down to a question of the pixel binning as well, as in theory, pixel binning is doing something similar to what an OLPF is doing, it is taking data from non-used pixels and pushing that into the used pixels information. Whereas an OLPF is taking image information from areas that are not being sampled and reproducing them in an area that is being sampled. (diffusion at it's most simplistic form, but most use birefringence instead which actually duplicates an image at an exact offest in one direction for each layer of birefringence).
In addition, when selecting an OLPF, you have two different pixel densities for green and then red/blue. I've often read that many cameras actually do not use an OLPF for the smaller density, but something inbetween. This means you are NEVER going to get completely rid of aliasing and/or moire in certain circumstances. That said, it will be reduced so low that it won't be such an issue. I have seen aliasing and moire on ALL kinds of Canon handycams and I have seen aliasing on the Red One with super sharp images (like reflections in chrome).
One thing pertaining to the OLPF that I am waiting patiently to see is something we discussed in great detail about the 550D when another user was trying out different OLPF on it for different camera sensors (that were the same size).
One question that has always lingered is that, if you use a large enough OLPF, will the sharpness of the false detail be reduced into making the picture too soft. This really comes down to a question of the pixel binning as well, as in theory, pixel binning is doing something similar to what an OLPF is doing, it is taking data from non-used pixels and pushing that into the used pixels information. Whereas an OLPF is taking image information from areas that are not being sampled and reproducing them in an area that is being sampled. (diffusion at it's most simplistic form, but most use birefringence instead which actually duplicates an image at an exact offest in one direction for each layer of birefringence).
In addition, when selecting an OLPF, you have two different pixel densities for green and then red/blue. I've often read that many cameras actually do not use an OLPF for the smaller density, but something inbetween. This means you are NEVER going to get completely rid of aliasing and/or moire in certain circumstances. That said, it will be reduced so low that it won't be such an issue. I have seen aliasing and moire on ALL kinds of Canon handycams and I have seen aliasing on the Red One with super sharp images (like reflections in chrome).
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Ben_B
Veteran
Barry_Green
Moderator
HAH! :thumbsup:Don't forget about the GH1 which shoots 4:2:2 mjpeg
- Status