Erik Naso
Veteran
My head hurt just thinking about that.
Af 105a announced in japan
- Thread starter tacotim
- Start date
Erik Naso
Veteran
It's not so much MFT lenses but how many different lenses you can use on the MFT mount with adapters. I think I'm spoiled.
Wesley Byram
Well-known member
Seems perfectly feasible. AVC-Intra can fit 1080p 10-bit 4:2:2 within 100mbps. Hacked GH2's can record higher bitrates than that to SDHC cards. Whether any company includes such a feature in a camera anytime soon is another question.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Most of the "mush" is from overuse of detail coring. When the AF100 was first released, there was an absolute hysteria about how "noisy" the footage was, even though it wasn't, and people gravitated to using very high detail coring values to combat the "noise" issue. But as lpowell has demonstrated, if you drop the coring down, there's quite a decent bit of sharpness in there.
The other thing is the anti-aliasing filter, that does blur down a little bit of the finest sharpest detail, in order to eliminate or minimize moire and visible aliasing.
...Right now I am editing a quick 10 minute interview I shot a month ago with my GH2, that will end up at SD DVD resolution. At times I am punching in quite substantially ( close to 200 percent ) to try and liven up the visuals, and the finished result looks pretty good. I know I can get away with this because the GH2 with the FlowMotion 100 Mbps patch records a lot of detail, so the final image holds up well.
Barry_Green
Moderator
With the Class 4 cards that AVCHD supports, probably not. With the modern UHS-1 cards, card speed should not be an issue. The question then becomes one of overall system design -- do you really want full-raster, 10-bit, 4:2:2, high-quality, high-bitrate footage being recorded to a wal-mart memory card? Is that a rational system design? Panasonic's got the 10-bit 4:2:2 codecs, but they reserve them for their P2 system, under what I can only assume is a belief that those who understand that level of footage, would understand that you want it recorded to the very best media there is.
Now, of course, there's a whole section of the market that clamors for absolutely everything, for practically nothing, and they of course would want HDCAM-SR recorded on an SDHC card, but that's just not gonna happen...
In any case, there may come a point where 10-bit 422 gets recorded on SD cards in the future, that would be when the AVC-Ultra LongG codec is released. It's been targeted at P2, but maybe they will see the wisdom on allowing their low-cost line to have access to that level of codec as well.
Yes, and that's part of what I refer to as the overall system design. It's designed to fit a certain market segment, and it is a sensor/body/lens mount/codec/recording media/price tag combination that they felt made sense for the market.
To drag out a car analogy, it's like how Chevy won't put the Corvette engine in a Chevy Sonic. Sure, people in the Sonic price tag section of the market might clamor long and hard for such an option, but in reality such a car would be just totally silly, wouldn't make sense to the average consumer, would be likely unsafe to drive and insure, and on and on.
Exactly.
I'm not saying we wouldn't all love to have such features, but -- those features and price point are not what the AF series is.
Been saying that for a few years now. The cameras are good enough. Pick what works for you in terms of features, usability, workflow and price point.
Wesley Byram
Well-known member
Sorry for the ambiguity. I was referring specifically to the AF100 vs GH2 screen grabs referenced here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?287827-Matching-AF100-footage-to-the-GH2
I believe that ipowell said that coring was a -7 in that shot. You can see a little "mush" around the top of the stone sphere and other places. I'm just wondering how much of that may be the codec vs the sensor vs the OLPF. There's a lot of detail in the foliage which makes me think that the AVCHD codec is getting stressed. The GH2 might be doing so much better there because of the high bitrate hack, but that's just a guess.
i would bet its the olpf. The Codec is solid.
Wesley Byram
Well-known member
That could well be. It might be interesting to see some hacked GH2 vs AF100+external recorder comparisons. That would more-or-less take compression out as a variable.
This brings me back to wondering if Panasonic has changed the OLPF for the AF100A. Probably not, but if enough AF100 users were complaining about "sharpness" they might have.
John Andersson
Well-known member
The thing with the AF100 is the image is not that clean to start with. Atleast not with the settings inside the camera when you get it. You end up lowering most settings for the camera to look good and especially tone down the rough noise character. No matter how I turned the settings in and out, and I've really done that, this camera couldn't deliver as clean images as from let's say a 5Dmk2. Despite the many issues with the 5Dmk2 the core image is cleaner on the Canon. There's just something unrefined about the AF100 image and when you tame that it looses to much definition.
I've shoot many commercials with typical keying and grading and as soon as I started to look at a 1:1 pixel level the image that comes out of the AF100, regardless of internal SDHC or external SDI, is just not clean. You can adjust for one thing but then you loose another so it's impossible to be 100% satisfied at a 1:1 level. But when I look back at the numerous videos I've made with this camera it looks very good in the final result at 720p.
I haven't shot charts so I'm talking about real world shooting. Despite this I still think the AF100 is a great camera to use and I look upon it as a 720p camera when it comes to resolved image detail.
I've shoot many commercials with typical keying and grading and as soon as I started to look at a 1:1 pixel level the image that comes out of the AF100, regardless of internal SDHC or external SDI, is just not clean. You can adjust for one thing but then you loose another so it's impossible to be 100% satisfied at a 1:1 level. But when I look back at the numerous videos I've made with this camera it looks very good in the final result at 720p.
I haven't shot charts so I'm talking about real world shooting. Despite this I still think the AF100 is a great camera to use and I look upon it as a 720p camera when it comes to resolved image detail.
Yes definitely, but there's always room for improvement with a camera update.
It looks like this update will address the whole banding issue on long gradients, and improves the quality of the audio being recorded.
I guess we will have to wait for a brand new model for a sensor update.
Erik Naso
Veteran
+1
I'm not interested in using any DSLR camera as a "A" camera and that is what the AF-100 is for me. I want to see a new AF that is twice the camera and if be twice the price. Similar to what Sony did with the F5. That camera isn't replacing the F3 just moved up the s35 ladder. I like MFT format and I want a kick ass MFT digital cinema camera.
My hat is off to Sony for how they worked the s35 line up. The AF-100 stands alone. No wonder it's always getting compared to the GH2.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
Sadly I saw absolutely no signs at NAB that would lead me to believe that this is even on Panasonic's drawing board.
Panasonic is bleeding, no make that hemorrhaging red ink just now as are many Japanese technology companies. Sony notwithstanding, they might not be too interested in the R&D costs on a niche market product. Don't know this, but you might imagine low end products will take a hit if R&D budgets are tight.
Grant
Grant
EndCredits
Well-known member
The AF100 image is usable, but thats the bare minimum. I wouldn't want to be know as the guy thats 'good enough'. You want a camera that you think the image is really nice. And Barry, sure the camera is not the thing holding you back on your own projects but if your shooting for other people then you will be judged on the image quality the camera produces. In which case that can hold you back.
Panasonic have posted a huge loss this year and its not surprising. The market has moved on, new players have arrived and the people who buy cameras have more choice, more options and more info/expectations. Panasonic haven't kept up. Their release cycle is slow and old.
I love my AF100 but its at the back of the pack now, has been for a while and its going to be left behind soon.
Sure the AF100 image is usable, but almost every other cameras image is better.
Panasonic have posted a huge loss this year and its not surprising. The market has moved on, new players have arrived and the people who buy cameras have more choice, more options and more info/expectations. Panasonic haven't kept up. Their release cycle is slow and old.
I love my AF100 but its at the back of the pack now, has been for a while and its going to be left behind soon.
Sure the AF100 image is usable, but almost every other cameras image is better.
Simon Shasha
Well-known member
How many stops of dynamic-range would you guys say this thing has at 10bit?
carlweston
Active member
The AF100a needs 14+ stops of dynamic range to get my interest.
I think the definitive word on AF100 sharpness was provided by Adam Wilt, who I trust far more than most voices on the internet. See http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/ag-af100_and_pmw-f3_on_the_charts/P1/
It is there stated (and agrees with Alan Roberts measurements) that the measured true resolution of the AF100 is around 680lpph, and it's clear from Adam Wilts charts that it is definitely well below 700lpph.
This does not mean it's a bad camera - but it does mean that reports of it being soft relative to other cameras are correct - not FUD. Even the 680lpph figure is well below what the 720p system is capable of, so those who want true 1080p resolution in an updated camera have a valid point. If you want 720p, none of this is that relevant.
On the good side, it's clear from the chart that the aliasing is not coloured, as is the case for earlier vDSLRs. On the bad side, there is a considerable amount of aliasing above the 680lpph mark. (Where the chart lines stop converging - as on the real chart - and start to diverge.) The fact that significant aliasing exists beyond 1000lpph means that the softness is not down to an over-aggressive OLPF. Fine detail MUST be getting to the chip - but it's being read aliased.
Unless any camera is very noise free, 10 bit recording doesn't really offer much. Without a new and more noise-free sensor, the addition of 10bit is fairly irrelevant.
Last edited: