AF100 / AF101 - initial report
- Thread starter Barry_Green
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
I don't know what you're referring to, and can't really research it over here. We shot some films on a GH1 and I've shot several filmic sequences on the 7D and haven't run across any problems in motion rendition.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The stuff with the train set? I shot that. I think that was the first DVX footage anybody shot, posted to the world... so, yeah, I'm familiar with the need and desire of tradeshow floor footage, but it's also kind of pointless.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Not a chance. Not on this camera. Maybe on a later model, but not this one.
Yeah, tell that to Sony, who's putting a 4:2:0 codec on their $20,000 PMW-350.
I agree, we should be having 4:2:2 intraframe everywhere, which is why I've been whining for a P2 version. And it may happen. But not on the AF100. Maybe an AF200 or something in the future.
Ben_B
Veteran
"The Ninja uses ordinary, low cost 2.5 Notebook HDD or SSD hard drives. These are housed securely inside the Atomos Master Caddy, which locks inside the Ninja. The drives are hot swappable, which means inserting new drives on the fly is a snap."
Just throw a solid state drive in there!
Barry_Green
Moderator
To everyone who has expressed gratitude -- thank you very much! It is much appreciated!
The HVX200 launch was crazy -- it was launched and delivered in December, but there were so many backorders that most folks who didn't pre-order, didn't get theirs until April. It was about June before there was widespread stock and someone could actually walk into a store and buy one.
Will it be the same way this time? No way to tell. They obviously are aware of the level of demand, but if you need one soon, you'd be wise to get an order in to your dealer as early as possible. If you don't need it right away, it'll probably be a couple months at least before they're widespread and easily available.
Well, the more you stop down the iris, the deeper the DOF becomes, so there's always that...
No. Well, yes, in that a wide-angle lens gives deeper DOF, but if you want telephoto capability and deep DOF, it's going to always be shallower than a 1/3" or 1/2" camera.
The biggest advantage something like an XF305 will have, for event work, is a long telephoto zoom range with a smooth servo zoom. If you need to do a slow crawling zoom in, that'll be possible on the XF305, and not so much on an AF100. If you need deep DOF for run 'n' gun, that'll be easily attainable on the XF305, not so much on the AF100. In bright daylight you can get all the DOF you'll likely ever need from an AF100, if you stop down to f/16 or so... but shooting long telephoto shots with an AF100 will always involve shallower DOF than it will on a 1/3" or 1/2" camcorder.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, obviously the tradeoff is that how are you going to stop down the AF100? You'll need lots of light. If you're comparing ISO to ISO, the AF100 is probably going to be noticeably cleaner than the EX-1. But if you want to stop down the AF100 in order to match the DOF of the EX1, then you'll need to raise the ISO on the AF100 to afford the deeper f-stop. And in that case, for deep-focus applications, I bet that will neutralize the noise advantage the AF100 would otherwise enjoy.
Barry_Green
Moderator
To everyone who has expressed gratitude -- thank you very much! It is much appreciated!
The HVX200 launch was crazy -- it was launched and delivered in December, but there were so many backorders that most folks who didn't pre-order, didn't get theirs until April. It was about June before there was widespread stock and someone could actually walk into a store and buy one.
Will it be the same way this time? No way to tell. They obviously are aware of the level of demand, but if you need one soon, you'd be wise to get an order in to your dealer as early as possible. If you don't need it right away, it'll probably be a couple months at least before they're widespread and easily available.
Well, the more you stop down the iris, the deeper the DOF becomes, so there's always that...
No. Well, yes, in that a wide-angle lens gives deeper DOF, but if you want telephoto capability and deep DOF, it's going to always be shallower than a 1/3" or 1/2" camera.
The biggest advantage something like an XF305 will have, for event work, is a long telephoto zoom range with a smooth servo zoom. If you need to do a slow crawling zoom in, that'll be possible on the XF305, and not so much on an AF100. If you need deep DOF for run 'n' gun, that'll be easily attainable on the XF305, not so much on the AF100. In bright daylight you can get all the DOF you'll likely ever need from an AF100, if you stop down to f/16 or so... but shooting long telephoto shots with an AF100 will always involve shallower DOF than it will on a 1/3" or 1/2" camcorder.
Barry_Green
Moderator
There's also at least one, if not two, 3/8" sockets too. I can't see the bottom of the cameras right now, they're fixed to plates, but I believe that on the bottom it has both 1/4-20 and 3/8" sockets.
Welcome to my world, my friend. :thumbsup:
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
Good morning, Barry, and thanks for "being there"!
Question: Apologies if this has already been covered, and this may be a moot point until the firmware's finished, but is the AF101 cam you're using capable of taking a digital still w/o your having to extract a 1080p frame in post? For example, can (or will) the cam take a few relatively low-res stills in between shooting motion video?
Aside: I've been getting the word out on other forums, too:
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=45482
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/280/2893
Thanks again!
Question: Apologies if this has already been covered, and this may be a moot point until the firmware's finished, but is the AF101 cam you're using capable of taking a digital still w/o your having to extract a 1080p frame in post? For example, can (or will) the cam take a few relatively low-res stills in between shooting motion video?
Aside: I've been getting the word out on other forums, too:
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=45482
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/280/2893
Thanks again!
philiplipetz
Veteran
+1 on the gratitude to Barry, and +1 on being tired of wrestling with dSLRs and that is my concern with this super dSLR.
Slightly broad'er' question, something I've been thinking about. All these cameras, including a REDone, are downscaling from capturing on a larger group of pixels. The hurdle here is basically how to downscale using all the 3K/4K/5.6K bayer's pixels to create a nice and sharp and alias-free(relatively) 2 megapixel image.
I'm guessing the RED one does that very well? (or does it? cause you get 4K so you downscale yourself if I understand correctly? which is pretty damn good for control?) and the DSLR's mainly the canons do that shabbily.
We're seeing that the AF100 (or hearing at least) does this downscale pretty well, yet if comparing to a camera that doesn't downscale, what would be the things that one sees right off the bat?
Say an A-Cam. an A-Cam has as many pixels on the sensor as is does in yer file. 1920x1080 pix on the sensor. 1920x1080 on the file. The question is, along with what I may think, does pixel for pixel from capture to playback result in any less aliasing? is the image softer, but less sizzly? I understand that the sensor size takes care of the FOV/DOF requirement, but the amount of pixels is less understandable to me on a video camera than a dslr. I mean you need a gajillion pixels for the stills side, but for the video side it would be nicer if you had the same pixel number on your chip as you intend to have in your file? Or wouldn't it?
Also, I've stuck to this habit (dunno if its the norm) but I find myself shooting 720p to finish in SD, and in 1080p to finish to 720. The results are way better cause I think I'm cramming several pixel info into one pixel handles better on my machine against my coloring and the picture looks better and thicker in every way except for the motion, which can be sizzly, (either because I'm working with more pixels or I don't know how to scale, I think the latter could be truer)
So I'm thinking the RED one gives you 4K at 422 in order to scale down manually to a rich, 1080p with enough RGB in each pixel, the DSLRs downscale quickly just to get away with shooting enough frames a second to make movies, and the A-Cam shoots straight up pixel for pixel.
The AF100 is downscaling, from a larger megapixel count. If it's a dedicated videocam, why does it have more pixels? And if pitted against a machine like the A-Cam, what will (if applicable) the obvious difference in edges and motion between the two if one scales, and the other doesn't?
Also would an image from the A-Cam be missing some info? It's a 1080p luma res image, but I think the chroma res is a little bit less? This is why we shoot bigger for smaller?
This is a few questions in one, but it's nice to think about. I mean if it isn't a hybrid, why the extra pixels? I have only seen but not played with footage from an A-Cam. And it was h264 stuff not straight dngs.
Cheers all,
T
I'm guessing the RED one does that very well? (or does it? cause you get 4K so you downscale yourself if I understand correctly? which is pretty damn good for control?) and the DSLR's mainly the canons do that shabbily.
We're seeing that the AF100 (or hearing at least) does this downscale pretty well, yet if comparing to a camera that doesn't downscale, what would be the things that one sees right off the bat?
Say an A-Cam. an A-Cam has as many pixels on the sensor as is does in yer file. 1920x1080 pix on the sensor. 1920x1080 on the file. The question is, along with what I may think, does pixel for pixel from capture to playback result in any less aliasing? is the image softer, but less sizzly? I understand that the sensor size takes care of the FOV/DOF requirement, but the amount of pixels is less understandable to me on a video camera than a dslr. I mean you need a gajillion pixels for the stills side, but for the video side it would be nicer if you had the same pixel number on your chip as you intend to have in your file? Or wouldn't it?
Also, I've stuck to this habit (dunno if its the norm) but I find myself shooting 720p to finish in SD, and in 1080p to finish to 720. The results are way better cause I think I'm cramming several pixel info into one pixel handles better on my machine against my coloring and the picture looks better and thicker in every way except for the motion, which can be sizzly, (either because I'm working with more pixels or I don't know how to scale, I think the latter could be truer)
So I'm thinking the RED one gives you 4K at 422 in order to scale down manually to a rich, 1080p with enough RGB in each pixel, the DSLRs downscale quickly just to get away with shooting enough frames a second to make movies, and the A-Cam shoots straight up pixel for pixel.
The AF100 is downscaling, from a larger megapixel count. If it's a dedicated videocam, why does it have more pixels? And if pitted against a machine like the A-Cam, what will (if applicable) the obvious difference in edges and motion between the two if one scales, and the other doesn't?
Also would an image from the A-Cam be missing some info? It's a 1080p luma res image, but I think the chroma res is a little bit less? This is why we shoot bigger for smaller?
This is a few questions in one, but it's nice to think about. I mean if it isn't a hybrid, why the extra pixels? I have only seen but not played with footage from an A-Cam. And it was h264 stuff not straight dngs.
Cheers all,
T
Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
Eh...while the images looked very "nice" it was also very "video-e" Image quality and DOF looked like my HVX at full zoom.
I'll just blame it on a crappy lens. I won't judge until I see some real world footage with a nice PL mount lens on there shot by someone who actually knows how to use a camera.
The 25p didn't help.
The Olympus SHG lenses, of which the 7-14 is one, are some of the best lenses going around for still cameras, at least in the sub-MF bracket. The only lens of comparable quality to the 7-14 is the Nikon 14-24 (which is FF and F/2.8).
If you are looking for the best 'native' lenses available for 4/3 and µ4/3, these are it.
Full SHG range:
7-14 F/4
14-35 F/2
35-100 F/2
90-250 F/2.8
300 F/2.8
Other 4/3rds lenses worth considering are the Panasonic 25 F/1.4, and the Olympus 50 F/2 macro.
I'll make no comment as to their suitability or otherwise for motion, not my area.
Mikungfu
Active member
Barry, thanks a lot for all the detailed explanations! You carified basicly all my doubts with precision.
I need to point out however that you must have hit the reply button twice or refreshed the page, resulting in the reply showing up twice. Just a headsup so you may delete it.
rogar-Happy(DBG):
Are there any online dealers where we may already pre-order the AF101 european camera? Or is there any dealer you know that will have pre-orders soon?
I need to point out however that you must have hit the reply button twice or refreshed the page, resulting in the reply showing up twice. Just a headsup so you may delete it.
rogar-Happy(DBG):Are there any online dealers where we may already pre-order the AF101 european camera? Or is there any dealer you know that will have pre-orders soon?
Why Oh why. Looks like it was shot by the janitor. If someone is going to take this 70% complete version out, at least put it in the hands of someone with talent.
And this thread has just past 16,000 views.
On a positive note on that video..... we saw some new things. Menu system etc. Simple way to overcrank indeed.
On a positive note on that video..... we saw some new things. Menu system etc. Simple way to overcrank indeed.
powervideo
Well-known member
You don't notice any difference in temporal movement between a panning shot with a GH1/7D/5D or a broadcast 24P/25P camera? If you have the time when you get back to the States, just do an identical slow-to-medium panning shot with your GH1 and HVX500 and tell me what you see. Just curious; it's night and day to me.