AF100 / AF101 - initial report

Honestly, I wouldn't pay it much mind. At least, not yet. If it turns out that the camera is extremely sensitive and has really low DR at high ISOs, then I could see being bothered. But until people have time to do a proper test (not a "quick-shot-in-a-few-minutes-before-heading-off-to-bed test") with multiple apertures, multiple camera profile settings, multiple ISO settings, and multiple lighting scenarios (preferably even measured with...a LIGHTMETER!) I really don't think it's worth paying much attention at all.

If anything, I'm more concerned about the color fringing around the match.
 
Homunculus said:
yes barry just said the definition of 3200 being a work in progress is that it has the same sensitivity as 2000 as of right now. so guess what that means? That means it makes the blow out even worse because the blow out we're seeing is not at 3200 but actually 2000, that means the sensitivity of 2000 is even less than thought going by your theories.
Click to expand...
What? How does the AF100 being overexposed at 2000 ISO versus the Nikon @ 25000 ISO and the Canon @ 10000 ISO make the AF100 less sensitive? If anything, the test shows that the AF100 is more sensitive than the other cameras.
 
Michael Olsen said:
I figured as much, glad to hear he confirmed it.
Click to expand...

Not to be a party pooper but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that fringing. i too read that he said it was the lens BUT other people have posted about the same purple color fringing in other af100 tests with different lenses. I forget which in particular only because it didn't bother me. ...but I remember for instance some of the same purple fringing in Bloom's "South" myself
 
agcohn said:
What? How does the AF100 being overexposed at 2000 ISO versus the Nikon @ 25000 ISO and the Canon @ 10000 ISO make the AF100 less sensitive? If anything, the test shows that the AF100 is more sensitive than the other cameras.
Click to expand...


well bloom has also explicitly said that the af100 is "not as sensitive as [his] 5dmkii" at that ISO although it is less noisy.

so how is it not as sensitive as his 5dmkii yet completely blown out when 5dmkii would not be (judging by 1D footage at 10,000iso as I posted, since they have similar sensors)
 
Homunculus said:
well bloom has also explicitly said that the af100 is "not as sensitive as [his] 5dmkii" at that ISO although it is less noisy.

so how is it not as sensitive as his 5dmkii yet completely blown out when 5dmkii would not be (judging by 1D footage at 10,000iso as I posted, since they have similar sensors)
Click to expand...
You are taking Bloom's comments from his whole test and applying them to one frame in which he is holding the match extremely close to his face (looks much closer than the other tests). You have all ready said that the whole video was not like that one frame. Without seeing what the 5D or any of the other cameras would look like with the exact same lens and settings, and the match the exact same distance from the subject, there is no way to judge anything.
 
Homunculus said:
this entire argument can be settled by barry green
Click to expand...
Okay, then let me settle it:
STOP PIXEL-PEEPING PROTOTYPE UNFINISHED PRODUCT FOOTAGE FROM A CAMERA THAT WASN'T EVEN WORKING RIGHT.

Every single word of this debate is completely wasted breath. Bloom put the camera in a mode that ISN'T WORKING yet. Every single sentence, every single word, devoted to the 3200 ISO match test is a waste of time and a waste of breath.

Even the 85% version that I've been using, doesn't have functional 3200 ISO yet. It will. But as of now it doesn't, and so anything shot in that mode is completely suspect.

Grrr.

Seriously though... the discussion is pointless. Wait until the 3200 ISO is enabled, and then I will gladly and happily do such a match test.
 
Barry_Green said:
Okay, then let me settle it:
STOP PIXEL-PEEPING PROTOTYPE UNFINISHED PRODUCT FOOTAGE FROM A CAMERA THAT WASN'T EVEN WORKING RIGHT.

Every single word of this debate is completely wasted breath. Bloom put the camera in a mode that ISN'T WORKING yet. Every single sentence, every single word, devoted to the 3200 ISO match test is a waste of time and a waste of breath.

Even the 85% version that I've been using, doesn't have functional 3200 ISO yet. It will. But as of now it doesn't, and so anything shot in that mode is completely suspect.

Grrr.

Seriously though... the discussion is pointless. Wait until the 3200 ISO is enabled, and then I will gladly and happily do such a match test.
Click to expand...

well congrats on your 40k post at least :thumbsup:
 
Barry_Green said:
Okay, then let me settle it:
STOP PIXEL-PEEPING PROTOTYPE UNFINISHED PRODUCT FOOTAGE FROM A CAMERA THAT WASN'T EVEN WORKING RIGHT.

Every single word of this debate is completely wasted breath. Bloom put the camera in a mode that ISN'T WORKING yet. Every single sentence, every single word, devoted to the 3200 ISO match test is a waste of time and a waste of breath.

Even the 85% version that I've been using, doesn't have functional 3200 ISO yet. It will. But as of now it doesn't, and so anything shot in that mode is completely suspect.

Grrr.

Seriously though... the discussion is pointless. Wait until the 3200 ISO is enabled, and then I will gladly and happily do such a match test.
Click to expand...


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 
Didn't even notice I crossed 40K...

Homunculus, I'm not dismissing your concern, I'm saying that this version is simply incapable of answering the question you want answered. There is no answer yet. Wait until the camera is fully functional before looking into it. This is exactly the type of thing Jan was trying to avoid by not having prerelease footage posted.
 
Barry_Green said:
Didn't even notice I crossed 40K...

Homunculus, I'm not dismissing your concern, I'm saying that this version is simply incapable of answering the question you want answered. There is no answer yet. Wait until the camera is fully functional before looking into it. This is exactly the type of thing Jan was trying to avoid by not having prerelease footage posted.
Click to expand...

Oh alright. I'll wait. I just don't understand why you're not allowed to post footage with your cam if everyone else has already posted footage especially since you would take far more pains than canon fanboys like Bloom to make the footage look extra pleasing. I just felt let down by Bloom's footage cus we waited so long and all we got was a quick dinky short that barely showed anything. I wanted most importantly to see people, skin tones. This cam is a filmmaking tool, that means narrative stories, people characters actors. Tired of that hacked gh1-esque footage of canyons, cityscapes etc. Any camera can be made to look good shooting drab buildings, city streets etc.
I want to see people, faces, skin tones, etc...this is where I feel Canons outperform GH1 and where I had the most hope for the AF100. The crews TV footage was mindblowing and almost made me pre-order but on the other hand they used Zeiss ultra primes for petes sake, I will never even be able to afford sniffing those let alone renting or purchasing them. So I am really wondering how af100 looks on people, skin tones dynamic range with normal lenses, things that I would use like the lumix stuff, gh1 kit lens, pancake, Canon FD's.................etc.
 
Barry_Green said:
It's 2.35.
Click to expand...

picard-facepalm.jpg

That's what you get when video-camera engineers design a camera without looking into film formats. I believe the American Cinematographers manual stresses 2.39/2.40 over the misconception of 2.35 two different times and even bolds it. Gooooood grief. At least Arri, Panavision, Hawk and other camera/lens manufacturers are doing it proper.
 
ryan just curious what does this 2.35/2.39 discrepancy matter? Is this only if you're shooting with anamorphic lenses or is there another reason why we should be distressed over this?
and wouldn't this be a super easy thing to change in teh time still left or even future codec update or whatnot?

Can't we just tell jan to tell them to change the guides or what?
 
Barry_Green said:
That's exactly what I mean. That's what I shot. I shot a bunch of 32fps, 40fps, 44fps, and 60fps stuff in 1080.

What it won't do is "live"-looking 1080/60p. But it will do 1080/24p @ up to 60fps, or 1080/30p @ up to 60fps, or 1080/25p @ up to 50fps.

Plus, it has 720p mode with VFR too.

So yes, it's 1920x1080 @ 60fps recording, with playback at 24p or 30p.
Click to expand...

Is it 1080 60p or 1080 60i? Philip Bloom's grab showed only 1080 60i. So res drop for slomo since you have to shoot 720p or deinterlace 1080i?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top