AF100 / AF101 - initial report

Without having to re-read everything, what is the native iso of the sensor if using it in 'film' mode?

What sensitivity can we expect?

I'm just curious, and I cannot recall if this was stated.
 
Feature List & Specifications Table

Feature List & Specifications Table

Barry, I am sure you are making a Feature list of AF100 (don't know if you already done it).

Also try to make Specifications Table, roughly, as you know it till now, with the tag: "Subject to Change", and input some possible changes too.

And make it Sticky:Drogar-Mark-01(DBG)
 
I shoot with the hvx200 and one of the most important things (to me) that I'm hoping for is that the AF100 will have much less noise in the picture. I know it's a lower entry/priced camera verses using a 2/3 ccd 3000 or 3700 so maybe my optimism is a bit much.
WIll it be a greater improvement in noise than that of the hpx 170 vs. the 200/210 ?How realistic are my expectations concerning the improved noise?
 
Question.. What does it mean if the camera is "Rated at... 320" I know what iso settings are, but what does the rating mean? Does it pertain to light sensitivity? Noise?

Thanks!

B.p
 
ripupthehwy said:
I shoot with the hvx200 and one of the most important things (to me) that I'm hoping for is that the AF100 will have much less noise in the picture. I know it's a lower entry/priced camera verses using a 2/3 ccd 3000 or 3700 so maybe my optimism is a bit much.
WIll it be a greater improvement in noise than that of the hpx 170 vs. the 200/210 ?How realistic are my expectations concerning the improved noise?
Click to expand...

As the final version is unseen, theres no real way to check. But, I think you could assume safely, that it will be MUCH MUCH cleaner than the HVX. And I think you might be able to go as far as saying it will also be superior to the 170.

But Barry Green is the man that has been closest - he could provide the most accurate and astute answer to this .
 
I would say that it is AS clean as the HPX170 right now, but the shipping version promises to be even better. I saw it at 400 and 1600 ISO and it looked good in both.

Andy
 
I just got back from a 6 day shoot with 2 Canon 5D's. Used several different lenses, Glidetrack, Red Rock Micro gear, Zoom H4n, etc.

Read through a lot of this post yesterday. Extremely excited. Definitely started thinking that my 5D might become a B-camera.

But this morning I started editing the 5D footage. Man, it is GORGEOUS! I've had the 5D for 1.5 years, and the images still blow me away.

Thus, I think I'll be holding off on the AF-100. I won't buy it until it's been taken through the rigger (I'll be very curious to see side-by-side comparisons). If I still prefer the 5D's image - purely based on subjective opinion, of course - then I'll continue to deal with with 5D's limitations ... like having to use the Zoom H4n for interviews. The image is just too beautiful, IMO. And that's all my clients care about - the final image.
 
Everts said:
I believe Jan said around 320 iso but its not final.... it's in the 20min video on vimeo.
Click to expand...
It is not finalized. On the unit I was using, the base ISO was set to 400, but you could also set it to 320, 250, or 200. They said specifically that they are still tuning the sensor and that a determination on base ISO has not been made.

But I also shot it at 1600 ISO and it looked darn good for 1600 ISO. Probably about equivalent, noise-wise, to an HPX170 at 500 ISO.
 
Shipsides said:
I would say that it is AS clean as the HPX170 right now, but the shipping version promises to be even better.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought -- until I put it next to an HPX170. Try it side by side. The AF100 is substantially cleaner, much cleaner, than the HPX170 -- and the HPX170 is no slouch. It's a pretty clean camera -- but the AF100 is a lot cleaner. And that's today; they're going to be improving it further.

Not to say it's noiseless -- there was noise in the darks. But from medium grays on up it was pretty much noiseless at 400 ISO.
 
pietro jona said:
Might have missed that but do we know anything about latitude?
Click to expand...
Nothing definitive yet, as it's still being worked on. The prototype clearly resolved 10.5 stops on a backlit DSC chart. The final may show more, or less, depending on how they tune the sensor and whether they're prioritizing showing more range or cleaning up any noise, etc.
 
Barry_Green said:
That's what I thought -- until I put it next to an HPX170. Try it side by side. The AF100 is substantially cleaner, much cleaner, than the HPX170 -- and the HPX170 is no slouch. It's a pretty clean camera -- but the AF100 is a lot cleaner. And that's today; they're going to be improving it further.

Not to say it's noiseless -- there was noise in the darks. But from medium grays on up it was pretty much noiseless at 400 ISO.
Click to expand...

How was the noise in the shadows at 1600 compared to a 7D? I'm very familiar with the 7D noise, that's why I ask. I'd like to stay around that point as my lens selection I work with I tuned for that sensitivity.

The guys I work with that have HVX200s are really excited about me picking one up now. After using a 7D for as long as we have, and coming from the HVX200 that we shot our first feature length on, we are VERY happy to simplify the process once again :)
 
grimepoch said:
How was the noise in the shadows at 1600 compared to a 7D?
Click to expand...
Send me some 7D 1600 ISO footage of a gray chart, and I'll let you know. I sold my 7D months ago when the AF100 was announced, so I can't run that test.

And, even if I give you an answer, keep in mind that it's all tentative -- they're still working on tuning the sensor, so what I shot was only 70% done.

I will say that while there is, of course, noise in the image at 1600, it was substantially cleaner than the GH1 with the hack. I shot a side-by-side of the GH13 and the AF100 at 1600 ISO. The GH13's streaking and fixed noise pattern were completely gone in the AF100, and while there was still noise, it wasn't as much or as blotchy as the GH13's. But it wasn't like an on-off switch either, there was still noise there.
 
impressive creations said:
Question.. What does it mean if the camera is "Rated at... 320" I know what iso settings are, but what does the rating mean? Does it pertain to light sensitivity? Noise?
Click to expand...

The sensitivity of the sensor determines the base ISO rating.

If you are used to working with typical broadcast cameras, the base ISO tells you which ISO equals 0db of gain. For instance, a camera rated at ISO 320 would behave like this:

ISO 160 = -6db gain
ISO 320 = 0db gain
ISO 640 = 6db gain
ISO 1280=12db gain


A higher base ISO means better low light performance in theory.

-X
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top