AF100 / AF101 - initial report

[mjmcneese]

8-bit SDI is still far from a deal breaker in my world.

I'm in the same boat. I mean, 97% of what I do will be straight to SD card. And we are AT LEAST getting an SDI out. [Perhaps there ARE some, but] what other cameras in this price range offer 10 or 12 bit output? Maybe the EX3?

If I'm doing something that critical that I need maximum image data, then I'll just keep renting RED. It'd be nice to have the 10-bit, but it won't sway my decision to purchase or not.

 

[Homunculus]

guys my only gripe is you keep talking about HMC40, but isn't that a 2000$ camera? You said as long as it's as good as HMC40..for 6000 and new top of the line stuff I expect it to be twice as good as HMC40 and its codec not 'as good'

 

[Stephen Mick]

The problem with that logic is that the codec has never been the weakness of the HMC cameras. Given the number of other "enhancements" that the AF-100 has, the ballpark price (as we know it) seems justified to me.

 

[Vitaliy Kiselev]

I am sorry but that will probably not be likely. It would be unheard of that you would be able to hack our cameras, has never been done on the professional cameras, short of the frame rate hack on the HVX200 which was harmless enough and didn't change anything inside of the camera. A codec hack has never happened. Don't see that it would be possible.

I just see same postion as I already heard during my talks with Panasonic guys.

Here is short and blunt explanation why such positon don't have any foundation in real life.


First. All current cameras are essentially computers. Yes, some parts, like LSI special comands, special encoder, scaler, etc hardware have some specifics.
But it is computer. And each generation is more and more computer like (it is enought to compare harware architecture of 10 year cameras to current ones to see it clearly, even consumer cameras changed dramatically in last 6 years).


Second. You need to know history of computers. Especially early history.

Third. Look at not so dated events. Look at smartphones. Number of phones with proper SDK and documentation in growing fast each year. All cheap phones without such things are actually chinese phones made by european designers and produced by outsourcing companies. They do not provide sufficient revenue.


Fourth. You need to look at recent developments. All most current TVs moved to standard OSs (Linux mostly). Most have modified firmware images build on top of source released by companies (thanks to GPL). Look at the current year models compared to 2009 ones. If you remove 3D trend in top models all other changes are based on custom software (browsers, support for streaming, small gadgets, etc). Next phase will be official SDK to make TV based development normal thing and source for income for many programmers (this will include games, etc).


Final part. I don't think that AF-100 needs some dirty unofficial hack.
Instead I think that in need to have small SDK, initially based only on released header files and object files.
Can such things put your customers at risk to brick their body?
No, if firmware will be slightly rewritten to allow proper loading process (unmodified boot part, fixing very serious flaw of many current Panasonic products) and modifications will be loaded strictly in RAM (as well as other firmware).
You can't threat computers as if they are "fixed hardware solution based on average consumer preferences". They are computers now, and with each generation this part will be more and more serious.
So, next revolution won't be new sensor, new encoder (all this will happen regardless of it). Next revolution will be headed by company that will be able to find enough courage and allow third party developers to enchance their products. And this guys will never fail you.

 

[tangent]

Certainly a moot point, but I am wondering if someone could explain on a layman's level why the AF100 uses a CMOS chip technology rather than CCD. Is it simply a cost issue; 4/3" CCD's could not meet the sub-$6k price target? Or are there other reasons why CMOS made more sense? I would think CCD's would have better low light sensitivity and be immune to the rolling shutter issue.

Thank you in advance to those who offer helpful answers.

 

[Homunculus]

jus' sayin' that HMC40 footage ain't all that spectacular to me. Am hoping af100 is a lot better or it's a no go for me, stick with the gh13

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

The HD-SDI out is 8 bit. That is a final spec.

Thank you for that confirmation, Jan.

Perhaps Jan's post could be a sticky or in a AF100 FAQ here?

 

[Homunculus]

ah jeez see what you done now Jan? Don't ever challenge a hacker and tell them they can't do something, they will always rise to the occasion.
Unless of course you secretly WANT it to be hacked and this is your way of goading Vitaly into it LOL!!!

 

[Homunculus]

can someone out of curiosity tell me what is considered the top 8bit camcorder in the world? no matter the price whether it is 20,000 or whatever? Just curious.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Well any of the DVCPRO HD camcorders are 8 bit. All of the MPEG-2 camcorders are 8 bit.

 

[Homunculus]

hmm so panasonic AJ HDx900 that is $25,000 is 8bit 4:2:2 100Mbps which with a nano drive a AF100 will be able to do all that for 6000.

 

[Barry_Green]

I think the avchd may perform far beyond the hmc cameras due to the likelihood that the AF100 will be so much less noisy

Interesting point, and agreed completely. Cleaner imagery will obviously be easier to compress than noisier imagery, which may make the effective efficiency of the AF100's codec a lot higher than the same codec when used on an inherently noisier camcorder.

, but it will always have that long GOP low bit rate semi-uncertainty attached to it when faced with a dynamic/tough scene to shoot.

Agreed again. It's pretty good, but not perfect.

8-bit SDI is still far from a deal breaker in my world. In fact, I think it's going to be amazing to use AVCHD 24 mbs as a really nice safety backup for future shoots with the nano or ki pro mini.

Agreed here too. We'll be shooting a feature on it ASAP, and while I was thinking of going for the Nano for my own purposes, Jack (director/editor) uses Apple computers and it may make more sense to get the Ki Pro for that particular advantage, not to mention the $1,000 price advantage too.

 

[Barry_Green]

AVCHD is computational intensive, however, so not just any PC or Mac for that matter will provide a pleasant editing experience using AVCHD native files.

This is entirely true, and there are computers (and NLEs) for whom native AVCHD is a beastly burden to put up with. But on CS5 with the Mercury engine, they're pretty much seamless and I drag and drop the files onto the timeline all the time.

That said, it's not like P2, where P2 is a high-speed edit medium. Playback is chunky and slow off the SDHC cards and performs much better when copied to the hard disk. With P2, I can easily get five or six streams of HD simultaneously off the P2 card, but with SD it's not that way.

 

[Dan_Kanes]

I have a strong feeling that RareVision's 5DToRGB will work with the AVCCam footage of the AF-100, and if it doesn't already it will soon.

Anyone try DMatrix, or 5DtoRGB with GH13 footage? It's a must have program if you are shooting canon HDSLR footage.

 

[Barry_Green]

[Perhaps there ARE some, but] what other cameras in this price range offer 10 or 12 bit output? Maybe the EX3?

EX1 is the only one I can think of. EX3 also has it, but it remains to be seen whether it can truly be considered in the same price range; depends on how far one's price brackets stretch.

The others that I can think of that have SDI, are all 8-bit, such as the Canon XLH1a, XLH1s, and XHG1, and the JVC HM700. I think (but am not 100% sure) that the new XF305 and XF105 are 8-bit, as is the XF105.

It'd be nice to have the 10-bit, but it won't sway my decision to purchase or not.

Undoubtedly 10-bit would be preferable. But like you, it's certainly not going to slow my credit card down one iota.

 

[Barry_Green]

can someone out of curiosity tell me what is considered the top 8bit camcorder in the world? no matter the price whether it is 20,000 or whatever? Just curious.

Depends on what you mean by 8-bit. 8-bit recording? Or 8-bit SDI output?

For 8-bit recording, the tops would probably be the Sony HDW-F900R, the camcorder that was used to shoot Star Wars Episode II and many others. It costs over $76,000. It's older, of course.

The newest highest-quality 8-bit-recording top camcorder would probably be the Sony PDW800, at about $39,000.

I believe both of those probably have 10-bit SDI output, just like the VariCam. For 8-bit SDI output, probably the Panasonic HPX500, a 2/3" broadcast camcorder that lists for over $15,000.

 

[Barry_Green]

hmm so panasonic AJ HDx900 that is $25,000 is 8bit 4:2:2 100Mbps which with a nano drive a AF100 will be able to do all that for 6000.

You could get a comparable recording format, yes. But you'd still be dealing with a $5,000 camcorder head vs. a $25,000 camcorder head.

But... it's also 2010 technology vs. 2008- or 2007-era technology, so ... might be closer than the pricetags would indicate.

 

[xmephestox]

that's moore's law territory here...

 

[Steve Kahn]

8bit vs. 10bit footage

8bit vs. 10bit footage

Since we seem to have gotten fixated on 8bit vs. 10bit (probably because the camera isn't out yet so what else are we to do but pick at small details - as we should)... aside from post-production VFX work is there a vast difference in the look of 8bit vs. 10bit footage?

I would love to see them side by side. Did a quick look on Vimeo but no luck.

 

[Barry_Green]

Since we seem to have gotten fixated on 8bit vs. 10bit (probably because the camera isn't out yet so what else are we to do but pick at small details - as we should)... aside from post-production VFX work is there a vast difference in the look of 8bit vs. 10bit footage?

I would love to see them side by side. Did a quick look on Vimeo but no luck.

You're not going to see the difference on vimeo, because vimeo is 8-bit.

The difference is going to be most visible after some post processing. Where you can encounter the limitations of 8-bit is in flat gradients, which are typically either a) blue skies, or b) white walls. Something where there's a light source at one side of the frame, and it's darker at the other, so that the resulting imagery is a gradient. 8-bit provides up to 256 variations in shades, and 10-bit provides 1,024 variations in shades, so in a way, the "depth" of the tonality is 4x higher than in the 8-bit image. But, it's not all that common to see it in modern camcorder footage right off the camera head. Where you really willl see the difference is when you're significantly pushing or pulling the footage in post, because that will exaggerate or magnify the difference between the gradient steps.