AF100 / AF101 - initial report

Homunculus said:
ryan just curious what does this 2.35/2.39 discrepancy matter?
Click to expand...

1) Yes, it does matter to an extent. Despite the average filmmaker being able to letter box or crop to any ratio they would like, there are standards set by industry/government/broadcast committee(s). I am not an advocate of really telling people what they should shoot at, as I believe people should be able to shoot in any aspect they feel is necessary for their story, but it is bothersome when they strive for modern anamorphic and do it in a mid 19th century fashion. In addition, you should always know broadcast/presentation standards because if you do shoot at a non-standard aspect ratio, you'll still need to set it within the closest standard ratio with letter boxing. Meaning you can shoot a movie that is 3:1... but you'd have to letter box it in the standard closest, so it may be correctly watched. It's why we have standards in the first place.

Homunculus said:
Is this only if you're shooting with anamorphic lenses or is there another reason why we should be distressed over this?
Click to expand...
2) This is an issue for both acquisition and presentation, but in the end, is more important for purposes of presentation, as acquisition can be of a different ratio so long as there are CORRECT guides. Look at cameras such as motion picture film cameras or the RedOne... both use an aspect ratio of sensor or film gate, that when doubled with an anamorphic lens, is not perfectly 2.40:1. They all require either a gate crop during projection or one in post. None the less, you'll find the guides which the cinematographer composes the image from will be of the correct ratio. Luckily 2.40 (2.39) is wider than 2.35... thus can always be done 'right' with a slight crop in post. However, large companies such as Panasonic simply do a huge disservice by perpetuating an incorrect notion of what modern anamorphic aspect ratio really is, and thus fueling the fire I try to put out at every opportunity. In reality there really isn't anything to be very distressed over, rather than being conceived as ignorant by those who know better. The difference in ratio, however slight and perhaps unnoticeable to the average person, is simply an incorrect aspect ratio for true anamorphic presentation standards. It would be as if I started shooting 16:9 as 15:9. The image would be just a little less 'wide' but the average person would probably not notice but it's still incorrect by definition of our format standards. It's something very silly that has really taken 30 years longer to catch on (it still hasn't, made obvious by Panasonic) than it should have.

Homunculus said:
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?
Click to expand...
3) Apparently not as easy as one would think as I brought this up when the AF100 was first announced and Barry, back then, said he had told them the same thing. For those who may not know, anamorphic wide screen used to be 2.35:1... about 40 years ago. Since that time, the presentation standard has been a 2.39:1 gate, commonly referred to as 2.40:1 (two-four to one). Acquisition aspect was a little behind following the new standard, so there were some films shot 2.35, as far as ground glass was concerned, but were then projected in theaters with a 2.39:1 gate. Well since it has been about half a century since 2.39 (called 2.40 for short (not sure how it's shorter, but hey)) has been the presentation standard, companies like Panavision, Arri, Hawk, and others have all conformed to 2.40 (2.39). It has been a technical misconception and incorrectly perpetuated fact by those who reference the modern anamorphic ratio with the older name. Anamorphic widescreen presentation is not 2.35... nor is any modern digital cinema camera doing so... except now the AF100 with 2.35 frame lines.

Panavision Anamorphic: 2.40:1
Arri Alexa Anamorphic: 2.40:1
Arri Mscope: 2.40:1
Red One Anamorphic Frame guides: 2.40:1
Hawk Anamorphics intended for aspect ratio of 2.40:1

The above should not really need to be explained considering 2.40:1 (2.39) is the standard for modern anamorphic widescreen. But I just think it's funny Panasonic either didn't get the memo or just didn't care that 2.35 has not been an anamorphic presentation standard in these United States since the early 1970's. Although some camera technologies took some time to get in line, (like arriflex making 2.35 groundglass guides for years after) the term 2.35 has remained synonymous with anamorphic widescreen although it no longer is.
 
Last edited:
Okay.... you seem to know your stuff.... do you think that at any point in time there should be the possibility to get a read out of the sensor in 4:3 too, thus making it possible to use anamorphic lenses.... or should there be (or is there already?) a way to get an "cinemascope frame" by cropping, but not from the down-converted 1920 x 1080 signal but by the use of more of the original signal coming from the sensor? Sorry if this should have been asked before.

(And sorry, no native english speaker, hope I made clear what I want).
 
First of all, Panasonic is providing anamorphic guides (albeit slightly incorrect) for those who will be cropping to anamorphic later. The guides are there to simply ease the process of composition, giving the cameraman an idea of what will not be in the frame after crop. To shoot real anamorphic widescreen, (keeping resolution instead of cropping it) using anamorphic lenses is sadly not feasible for the AF100 and this is really not by the fault of Panasonic.
Almost all cinema anamorphic lenses made were for film cameras. As you know modern digital camera sensors tend to be 16:9 in nature as that is the standard aspect ratio of high definition video. Thus the cinema anamorphics will not work. BUT... anamorphic lens manufacturers have taken notice. There are Hawk anamorphics which are not the typical 2x squeeze of yesteryear, but 1.3x squeeze for sensors which are 16:9 in nature. Check them out HERE. But these lenses are very rare and VERY expensive. No one will be putting them on an AF100. Thus options outside of the 1.3x squeeze lenses is very bleak. You'll most likely resort to suspect custom rigging of anamorphic projection lenses and other funky setups.

:)
 
Homunculus said:
I just don't understand why you're not allowed to post footage with your cam if everyone else has already posted footage
Click to expand...
Because I was asked not to, and I honor those requests. I was told not to post anything from the native codec, as it wasn't done yet. We've already seen a firmware update for the HMC150 that shows an "improved recoder", and while I have no idea what that is, if it's related to the AVCHD codec, then that would be enough to tell me that yeah, they're working on making it better.

I know people are struggling with certain things, they're latching onto any bit of info and reading a lot into it (like Bloom's viewfinder comment), and I'm trying to explain it patiently, but maybe I just have to say it like it is, because as arrogant as it sounds, it's true: there is nobody in the English-speaking world outside of Panasonic who knows more about what the AF100 actually does, than me. I have had the camera longer, and done more with it, than anyone outside the Panasonic factory. In fact, I dare say that I know more about the AF100 than anyone inside Panasonic too (other than the actual Japanese engineers & designers), because I've spent the most time with it. I am currently hard at work at writing the definitive guidebook to the AF100. Nobody is going to have a more correct answer than I am. If anybody disagrees with me over how the AF100 works, I would place my bets on me -- because I had the camera first of anyone, and I've had multiple versions, and I've had it longest.

To paraphrase Mad Max's "You want to get out of here, you talk to me"... I'd say "If you want to know something about the AF100, you talk to me."

There, some people may think it's arrogant and sounds self-aggrandizing, but it's not meant to be: it's simply the truth. The crews guys had it for five hours. Bloom had it for three days. I had the original model for three days weeks before Philip saw it. I've had the updated model for weeks. I know it fairly inside and out. I know what works on it, and what doesn't, and what needs to be fixed and have told them and been told that things are being worked on.

There are things I cannot answer because nobody outside of the engineers knows the answer. And there are things I cannot answer because they are bound by a nondisclosure agreement. And there are things I won't answer because I've been asked not to. But so far that's been very little, and pretty much comes down to not releasing footage in the native codec until it's ready. And I think that's a perfectly reasonable request.

I wanted most importantly to see people, skin tones.
Click to expand...
Of course you do. We all do. And when the camera is generating footage that is release-caliber, you'll see all of that. But now is not the time. These units that are out in the field are not generating final footage! Frankly I don't really understand why they're farming them out at such an early stage anyway. Obviously the Panasonic people are excited about this, as they recognize how revolutionary this unit is. But people should be commenting on factors like usability, not about noise levels. The usability of the form factor is now pretty much finalized. The footage quality isn't. It's subject to change, and it will change, and some features (like the 3200 ISO) aren't even implemented yet.

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.
Click to expand...
Understood. But listen -- if you want to know how the AF100 looks on those things, you will have to wait until the AF100's imaging performance is finished! It isn't. It's frustrating to me, because I'd love to be doing gobs of chart testing and exploring the living hell out of how the imagers respond, but right now that would be nothing more than wasted effort.

You can get a general idea of how the finished AF100 will perform by looking at some of the better stuff out there, but that stuff isn't final. And I bet that if Jan had her way, no footage at all would have been posted by anyone yet, because of this exact reason.
 
Last edited:
Homunculus said:
ryan just curious what does this 2.35/2.39 discrepancy matter? ... Can't we just tell jan to tell them to change the guides or what?
Click to expand...
I've asked them to change it to 2.39. There may be reasons why they put it at 2.35, I don't know.

As for the change, it would involve moving the guidelines on the viewfinder a couple pixels tighter in. The difference between 2.39 and 2.35 is about 14 pixels, on a 1080 frame.
 
ASG said:
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?
Click to expand...
It is both. You can shoot 1080/60i if you want, or you can put it in 24p or 30p mode and change the frame rate to 60, so you're recording an actual 1080/60p. No de-interlacing necessary or even desired.
 
Barry_Green said:
It is both. You can shoot 1080/60i if you want, or you can put it in 24p or 30p mode and change the frame rate to 60, so you're recording an actual 1080/60p. No de-interlacing necessary or even desired.
Click to expand...
Am I right that this was without any audio in overcrank? If so are they open to reconsidering that decision?
 
Barry_Green said:
"You want to get out of here, you talk to me"... I'd say "If you want to know something about the AF100, you talk to me."
Click to expand...

I say further disputes over prototype footage shall be settled in...Thunderdome!

I do hope people can understand that we really can't look too deep into what's going on here. I feel like, looking at the picture quality and so forth that is available on the pro-production cameras, that a few things are and most likely will remain obvious in the release version:
1) The aliasing and moire of the DSLRs, as expected, has been brought largely under control. Will we still see it here and there? Sure. But that's because it's a $5,000 video camera. Even $60,000 digi cinema cameras will show aliasing.
2) The skew of the DSLRs, as expected, has been brought under better control. As with aliasing and moire, it is undoubtedly still there, but far less prevalent.
3) The format of the camera will be great for those wishing to shooting with a more cinematic style. Those used to "video" shooting (IS, AF, powered zoom, etc.) may face some difficulties.
4) The codec will be more than suitable. It is, as expected, a big jump ahead of the DSLR codecs. External recorders using ProRes or AVC-I will offer some benefits.

It's the little details and/or comparison kind of questions that can't really be answered right now.
 
Steve Kahn said:
Am I right that this was without any audio in overcrank? If so are they open to reconsidering that decision?
Click to expand...
No audio in overcranking, and I have asked them to please allow audio recording anyway.

It's a problem for playback -- what do you do with audio that was recorded in (and is meant to be played back in) real-time, and video that was recorded in realtime but meant to be played back in super-slow-motion? You've got four seconds of audio and 10 seconds of video, so how do you reconcile the two? That's the question that they face, and my answer is: I don't care, just give me the audio anyway and let me worry about it.

I hope they do.
 
No audio in over-cranking is really a non-issue. If you really need to record audio during an over-cranked shot, which has got to be an extremely rare need, there are a plethora of double-system recorders, dirt cheap, I might add. I should think almost any editing program can stretch the audio track to fit so one can enjoy the "Star Trek" warp-speed trouble effect. "Be - la - y - th - at - or - derrrr..."

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
>That's the question that they face, and my answer is: I don't care, just give me the audio anyway and let me worry about it.

Yes.
 
I've always wondered about international pricing discrepancies like this. I always try to figure out, as you alluded to, why things are simply priced higher in Europe (or Africa, South America, Asia, Australia...) sometimes, even accounting for additional taxes and so on. And I don't think I've ever gotten a better answer than "because".
 
Michael Olsen said:
I've always wondered about international pricing discrepancies like this. I always try to figure out, as you alluded to, why things are simply priced higher in Europe (or Africa, South America, Asia, Australia...) sometimes, even accounting for additional taxes and so on. And I don't think I've ever gotten a better answer than "because".
Click to expand...
It may come down in part to the need to maintain a higher level of administrative overhead to do business in these countries, such as more local language-specific sales and service offices and such.
 
sps196 said:
It can't just be VAT. The US price is $5000 and the European price is €5900?
Click to expand...
No, the US price is $4995 and the European price is €4900.

Even ignoring government interference there's still a 25% markup in there.
Click to expand...
Gas in California was $3.09 a gallon a couple of weeks ago. In Texas, it was $2.49. Same product. Difference is the tax structure of California. Does the same thing apply to Europe and camcorders? Maybe. I don't know.

Kinda tempting to go on a holiday stateside and bring one home :)
Click to expand...
Funny thing is, two years ago, CreativeVideo.co.uk was selling HPX171s for a lot less than we here could buy HPX170s. Taxes, exchange rates, it all makes for a wacky marketplace.
 
Michael Olsen said:
I've always wondered about international pricing discrepancies like this. I always try to figure out, as you alluded to, why things are simply priced higher in Europe (or Africa, South America, Asia, Australia...) sometimes, even accounting for additional taxes and so on. And I don't think I've ever gotten a better answer than "because".
Click to expand...

That's probably because there's a million reasons. Take Australia, for example -- their country is basically as large as the USA. But their entire country's population (hence, the total size of their market) is not any larger than New York City. So Panasonic Australia has to support from Perth to Brisbane, that's a 3,000 mile flight, whereas Panasonic USA can cover all of New York City in (comparatively) walking distance. Marketing, service, support, everything costs a whole lot more when you're taking the population of New York and spreading it across the entire USA. Everything costs more, from shipping to advertising to travel to ... everything. Panasonic USA will sell more in the USA in a month than Panasonic Australia will sell in their entire country in a year -- that's how the population breakdown works. But they still have to load up a cargo container and ship 'em out from the factory monthly, so obviously the per-unit cost for Australia is going to be dramatically higher than it will be for the USA. Then add in the different tax policies, import fees, customs, duties, VAT, currency exchange rates, what have you... and it just all ends up costing more in some places than it does in others.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
That's probably because there's a million reasons. Take Australia, for example -- their country is basically as large as the USA. But their entire country's population (hence, the total size of their market) is not any larger than New York City. So Panasonic Australia has to support from Perth to Brisbane, that's a 3,000 mile flight, whereas Panasonic USA can cover all of New York City in walking distance. Marketing, service, support, everything costs a whole lot more when you're taking the population of New York and spreading it across the entire USA. Everything costs more, from shipping to advertising to travel to ... everything. Panasonic USA will sell more in the USA in a month than Panasonic Australia will sell in their entire country in a year -- that's how the population breakdown works. But they still have to load up a cargo container and ship 'em out from the factory monthly, so obviously the per-unit cost for Australia is going to be dramatically higher than it will be for the USA. Then add in the different tax policies, import fees, customs, duties, VAT, currency exchange rates, what have you... and it just all ends up costing more in some places than it does in others.
Click to expand...

Sure. That all makes sense, and it is all well and good. I mean, that's life. I just wish instead of acting either secretive and conspiratory and/or avoiding the question altogether, companies would just tell that to the people that happen to wonder. (Note: This doesn't have anything to do with Panasonic.)

And the difference between $4995 and the European price is €4900 definitely better.
 
jpmulligan said:
It may come down in part to the need to maintain a higher level of administrative overhead to do business in these countries, such as more local language-specific sales and service offices and such.
Click to expand...
Seriously. I was just over in Europe for IBC, and every single piece of literature that gets produced for any product over there, has to be done in at least five different languages. The entire USA gets covered with one brochure, but in Europe you have to do at a minimum English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, and ideally you'd keep going and include Dutch and Greek and Norwegian and Portuguese... they rattled off like a dozen languages that they prefer to do things in. Nobody who speaks Dutch wants to be treated like a second-class citizen by having to "make do" with the German version of a brochure, for example. And Spanish isn't Portuguese. So every piece of marketing material, every video they produce, every website they administer, has to be done 5x to 20x as much as in the USA, or Japan, or China, or any other single-language territory. Each individual market in Europe is tiny compared to the USA or China, but there are ... wait, let me find the list... okay, Panasonic Europe has to deal with THIRTY FOUR different countries. 34! Now, some of those divisions service multiple countries, but the overall list is still huge -- there are 28 different divisions that handle all the countries in the European territory. 28 different entities are necessary to deal with the taxes, import rules, laws, local administration... It's a LOT more complex to deal with an amalgamation of different countries with all their different rules and requirements and everything, than it is to deal with one unified country. And it's a lot more effort and expense to deal with a few customers spread out among a vast nation, than it is to deal with a ton of customers all crammed into Manhattan, or Los Angeles, or Chicago, or any of our major metropolises. Heck, the city of Los Angeles, by itself, has twice as many people in it than the entire country of New Zealand, but New Zealand is as big as California. Obviously everything costs a lot more in NZ because there are a lot more costs necessary to support a huge geographical territory with comparatively few citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top