AF100 Crop Factor: 35mm Motion Picture film and Micro 4/3s

TheReverend

TheReverend

Well-known member
So much is being made from crop factors and confusion as to what the best sensor size is and fields of view and blah blah blah….

Enough. Let's cut to the chase. This post is broken up into 3 parts.
1. Sensor Sizes
2. Current Cinema Comparison
3. What does it all mean? - Summary


1. Sensor Sizes

Lets take a quick look at the 4/3 sensor.

attachment.php


As you can see, above a standard the micro 4/3's sensor right next to a 35mm print of film. Size is almost identical to Panavision 35mm movie film! Check out this photo comparing sensor sizes.

SensorComparison.jpg


The AF100 sensor is slightly different than the standard 4/3s sensor as it is designed for 16x9 capture. With film at 22x16mm, and the AF100 at an expected 18.9x10.63mm the AF100 is very close and will have similar characteristics and behaviors to 35mm movie film.

This means that with the AF100, you are essentially getting the same field of view/depth of field as a modern movie camera! This is great and truly revolutionary at this price point. Using the micro4/3's system, you can use almost any lens, even expensive cinema primes! You don't have to use cinema lenses either as SLR or most any general still camera lens works on the AF100.

There are other formats of film and different sensor sizes that give different fields of view with the same lenses. Other formats include Super35, which is common in film today, as well as digital cameras with varying sized sensors. Many compare and confuse 135 film with 35mm movie film (Panavision). 135film is often called "full-frame" but is only a format used in 35mm still (photography) cameras with one exception. One exception to this is the Canon 5D MarkII which can shoot video with it's 135film sized sensor. Here is a great chart showing the much of the information on different sized negatives/sensors.
CinemaCropFactor.jpg



2. Current Cinema Comparison
In 2009, of the top 25 films according to box office:
8 shot Super35
1 shot Digital Camera
3 shot Panavision 35mm standard
7 shot a mix of digital and 35mm or S35
4 were digital movies (pixar, etc.)

The 3 films shot in primarily Panavision (same sensor size as AF100):
Star Trek
Transformers 2
Inglorious Bastards

In 2008, of the top 25 films according to box office:
1 shot Digital Camera
8 shot Super35
6 shot Panavision 35mm
5 shot a mix of digital and 35mm or S35
5 were digital movies (pixar, etc.)

3 of the films shot in primarily Panavision (same sensor size as AF100):
The Dark Knight
Indiana Jones & the Crystal Skull
Gran Torino

What is it that we all want? It is to match modern cinema, right? We want the same thing that blockbusters are filmed on! Does the AF100 get us anywhere close to this? The simple answer, yes.

What this shows is that if you watch movies such as THE DARK KNIGHT, STAR TREK, and INGLORIOUS BASTARDS, you will get a good idea of the field of view of a AF100, and a good read on the general depth of field possibilities with the camera. You can even use the same lenses that they shot these movies on! Doing more study, some common movies that used standard 35mm film (Panavision): Spiderman, XMen, Braveheart, Last Samurai, The Island, Star Wars IV & V, Sixth Sense & M. Night movies, Momento, Shawshank Redemption, A Beautiful Mind, Tombstone.

As you can see, the 35mm film format is and has been over the decades the standard for movie quality. Matching 35mm film quality is great! Don't think for a second that using a similar sized sensor to 35mm film is not good enough. It has been and will be for years to come.


3. WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
- For the ENG, event, 1/3CCD camera owner:
The AF100 is a camera that may suit a specialty use for you. If you've been wanting to add shallow DoF to your shooting, this camera is the cheapest and best video camera to do so. This camera also gives excellent low light capability beyond your current camera. It lacks some features that you may be accustom to, such as servo zoom, autofocus, auto iris. But on the flipside it can offer a more cinematic look for shoots, interviews, commercials and such. Whether the AF100 is a good fit for you depends entirely on the content you commonly shoot and whether the AF100's artistic flavor can fit in budget demands.

Be aware that this is a Rolling Shutter CMOS camera, so expect CMOS issues such as some skew under telephoto fast panning, flash banding issues, and helicopter type situations causing jello-type effects.

- For the the indy and aspiring filmmaker:
This camera is exactly what you have been waiting for. It has the controllable depth of field, general characteristics of 35mm film, and it's a full service camera! Professional audio in, designed with focus pulling in mind, variable frame rates, good low light, warm & rich Panasonic colors, camera image controls to beat the band... Everything you want in a camera for your film is here. And it's cheap. And it can take whatever lenses you deem best for your movie.

Have a nice good drink to celebrate because your 35mm film digital and affordable equivalent now exists in the AF100.

- For the HD DSLR/photographer/35mm adapter User
For you, a shallow depth of field camera is nothing new. When looking into whether the AF100 is right for you from either a stills photograph background, or if you have been shooting video with your Nikon/Canon/Lumix/35mm adapter camera, there are some things you need to know.

Field of view changes from what you are used to because of the size of the 4/3s chip. Take a look at this site http://www.abelcine.com/fov/. Now, things may look very dismal to you because of the AF100's 4/3s sensor. You are used to 35mm stills field of view, and AF100 has essentially half the field of view that you are used to! Your 50mm will look more like a 100mm when used on an AF100. If you have a large investment in 35mm stills lenses, this may seem like a huge step down.

However, you must remember that if you look at Panavision 35mm movie film size as the standard, the AF100 matches that! If you want film-like video, this is the full featured video camera that will do that for you. The AF100 eliminates or solves all the DSLR issues of moire, aliasing, line-skipping, poor video codecs and bitrates, uncontrollable audio, and impractical or non-existent video monitoring. It adds variable frame rates, internal ND filters, gamma/color settings, focus assists, view finder & LCD and much much more. These things are extremely valuable when filming!

With all these things in mind, the AF100 might not be what you are looking for in a camera. You maybe better satisfied with your video DSLR, or maybe getting a DSLR and using your current lenses is a better affordable fit for you. That is totally fine, different tools for different users.

4. CLOSING BONUS

In summary, using good cinematography, the AF100 will shoot very movie like, never-before-seen image quality for the $$$! It will definitely shoot more "film like" than any other video camera under $10k.

Below is a link to a short video released by Panasonic explaining "crop factor".

 
Last edited:
yes though I must say dark knight also used some 65mm but i think only on the panaromic landscape city shots, or something along those lines.
 
The real question about crop factor comes down to having a frame of reference. The confusion comes in because the current frame of reference, for the HD-DSLRs, is the full frame 35mm still. This really is not relevant to video and the 35mm motion picture frame size. I feel that I am very lucky in that I came up shooting film, and the focal length to field of view reference that I have developed is based on 16mm film. For 16mm film to 35mm field of view conversion the "Crop" factor is -2X, approximately. In other words to achieve the same field of view that you get, with a given focal length in 16mm, in 35mm you would use a lens with twice the focal length. I frequently used a 10mm - 100mm and a 12mm - 120mm zoom lenses on 16mm and had no problems. This would correlate to using lenses from 20mm to 50mm and 24mm to 60mm in 35mm film. These focal lengths would also be comparable to what you would use with a camera like the AF-100. There are plenty of lenses available from 20mm up that are plenty fast enough for most shooting situations that can be adapted to use with the AF-100. Focal lengths below 20mm are really for specialty use, especially if you are doing fictional narrative films, and, if needed, could be rented instead of purchased.
 
This is a very informational post. I still have a clarification about lenses though. I bought a Canon 7D a while ago and have a couple EOS primes, as well as the Tokina 11-16mm zoom. These are not cine lenses, they're 35mm digital still lenses - if I use them with the AF100 I'd be getting roughly a 1.6x magnification (assuming 4/3 sensor is about as big as APS-C), right?
 
Finnegan said:
This is a very informational post. I still have a clarification about lenses though. I bought a Canon 7D a while ago and have a couple EOS primes, as well as the Tokina 11-16mm zoom. These are not cine lenses, they're 35mm digital still lenses - if I use them with the AF100 I'd be getting roughly a 1.6x magnification (assuming 4/3 sensor is about as big as APS-C), right?
Click to expand...

If you are coming from an APS-C camera to an AF100, then you should check out this link http://www.abelcine.com/fov/. this will give you an idea of how the Field of View differs. Your lenses will be less wide than when using with your APS-C camera.

The key is, this is not horrible!!! You will still be getting nearly identical FoV and Depth of field characteristics of movie cinema with the AF100! Just know it will be different than your past experience with shooting.
 
aps-c is slightly closer to s34 than micro 4/3 so they already used to it

The problem with m4/3 is it is harder and more expensive to get a fast wide field of view
 
remember that because we shoot and/or crop to different aspect ratios (16x9, 1:2.35, 1:1.85, 1:2.39) that the important dimension
when comparing is width not height

Movies Film
Three Perf Academy 35mm is 22mm x 12mm
Four Perf Academy 35mm is 22mm x 16mm
Three Perf Super 35mm is 24.89mm x 14mm
Four Perf Super 35mm is 24.89 x 18.66mm

7d and t2i
22.3mm x 14.9mm

GH1, micro 4/3
official 17.3mm x 13mm
suspected for 16x9 is 18.9x10.22mm

Still Photography Film
Full Frame Still Film is 36mm x 24mm

Digital Full Frame DSLR
36mm x 24mm

Super16
12.5mm x 7.5mm
 
J Davis said:
The problem with m4/3 is it is harder and more expensive to get a fast wide field of view
Click to expand...
Harder? Compared to what? A 7D? A 5D? A 1/3" CCD? Film?

This phrase is the cause of confusion. NO, it is not harder when compared to film. The mistake is that each person compares differently than someone else. Those coming from a photography background, a ENG/event background, and a film background all look at the "crop comparison" differently. Film people will be happy with the AF100. It's better than 16mm, and almost the size of 35mm film but benefits with digital acquisition and increased low light abilities. ENG/event camera owners will be happy to add the AF100 to there aresenal for the ability to shoot with a shallow depth of field. Photography(DSLR video) background will notice a smaller field of view, but will gain the advantages of proper audio recording, drastically reduced aliasing/moire, proper codec recording, professional monitoring, manual and accessable controls... And more.

It's all perspective and when people understand where they are coming from first and then look to see what the AF100 offers, they will see the many benefits.
 
Yes, the reference in film should be 35mm film of course.

I think it is an irony that 35mm stills are derived from 35mm film but used a horizontal orientation (so the material is the same but the recording orientation is different). So 35mm film names the same material but stills and movie use it differently.

Thanks for the chart. Right now it comes down to getting the right fast lenses for wide angle in m4/3 without breaking the bank. I think I cn live with the 7-14mm f/4 from Panasonic just fine.
 
go out and shoot and start cropping to 1:2.39
(1920 x 803)

when the top of your actors head disappears you'll soon see you need w-i-d-e
and yes it ain't cheap
m43 is not the same as s35, its smaller so you do need wider. Or shell out for anamorphics and forget cropping
 
Last edited:
The people who are going to be "disappointed" or "frustrated" the most with the AF100 are people who are used to, and or are invested in 35mm adapter glass and 35mm still glass.

I feel people who say 20mm is plenty wide for the AF100 are misleading people coming from the indie 35mm adapter market or those who use 35mm still as reference.

20mm on the AF100 is a 40mm "still" field-of-view equivalent which is only 10mm wider than a 50mm still camera lens... people would argue 50mm is the standard medium focal length (or medium field of view)... in the still world: aka a short "telephoto compression and look," NOT a standard "wide angle" by any means. In still, 28mm is the standard wide angle lens.

A.) People who have a standard 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm STILL lens setup, which was a pretty good CHEAP 35mm adapter or still glass line up, covering your basic focal lengths. With the af100, they will now be stuck with a 56mm, 100mm, and 270mm focal length lens set. This of course means more depth of field, but narrower field of view.

B.) It has ALWAYS in the still world been cheaper to manufacture long fast telephotos than it has to manufacture fast wide angle lenses... anything 24mm and below in the still world you're talking expensive (at least for still photographers).

C.) It's great the AF100 covers the equivalent of s35 albeit a 16x9 ONLY version, but NO one is going to argue that s35 glass is cheaper than still glass, nor should it be, and fast cinema wides are respectively even MORE expensive than their still counterparts. This isn't shocking at all, just something to keep in mind.

D.) It's important to note that a 28mm f2.8 lens is NOT a specialty lens in the STILL world. It's a standard wide angle lens where you can find a plethora of options for around 50 bucks on ebay used. On the AF100, you'll need a 14mm f2.8 to get the same field of view and for still/35mm adapter users, the 14mm f2.8 IS NOT a cheap lens, we are talking the $400 to $1500 dollar range.

E.) Lastly, cameras like the DVX100 and other camcorders usually have something like a 37-300mm zoom range... (35mm still equivalent) A 28mm starting point on a camcorder is RARE with exception to a few cameras like the sony z5u. Wide angle adapters are available for most camcorders and they range anywhere for $150-900 dollars and usually expand your FOV to 22-24mm still equivalence (definitely a wide angle focal length suitable for things like steadycam work).

So to sum it up, what you could once buy for $50 in the still world (28mm f2.8) you now have to buy for $400 or more (14mm f2.8). You can even get a 28 f1.4,f1.8 still lens, but they don't even make an utlra-fast 14mm still lens (not yet anyway). Really REALLY cheap 28mm still lenses exist used. Really cheap 14mm lenses do not. But in the video/film world, you'll be paying more to get a wide view anyway. Always have, always will*

*Until a 35mm full frame (ff still) camcorder is released... but who knows, that might drive up the price of cheap 28mm lenses, and by then surely the $2000 scarlet will be out anyway. ;)
 
Last edited:
28mm 2.8? get a tokina 11-16mm 2.8 (nikon) + adapter. that pretty much covers that range at 2.8!

anything faster...
well thats the super high grade oly zuiko 14-35 2.0

if a 35mm FF cam comes out, itll cost far more than the af100. im guessing 9,000 or more
 
In the cinema world, a the FF35 film frame size is considered specialist equipment, as is 65mm. To the best of my knowledge, it was last used as principle photography for a major motion picture in 1961 ("One Eyed Jacks" Dir. Marlon Brando). Since then it has been used for a few Japanese films and some Japanese animated films up into 1989. It remains in use today as a tool for shooting some VFX work on films like "The Dark Knight" "Blindness" and "Inception".

If you have become accustomed to shooting on a FF35 film frame - be it an adapter or a 5DMKII- you are a specialist, using a piece of equipment that is far from common on the average film production, even at an extremely high budget and professional level.

This means that if you intend on working on the average film production - at any level - you'd best become acquainted with how that equipment works. And, in terms of crop factor, that equipment works very similarly to the AF-100.
 
TheReverend, the first post is great, but still doesn't manage to paint the picture totally accurately. Your graphic is using the published 4/3 specification of 17.3mm wide, but that is NOT what the AF100 uses. The AF100 uses an oversized sensor that is 18.9mm wide. Could you please update your graphic with the larger size and proper description of it, so that folks will forget about the 17.3, which matters only for "Four Thirds" stills cameras, but has nothing to do with the AF100 (or, for that matter, the GH1 or GH2, as they also use an 18.9mm oversized sensor).
 
dcloud said:
if a 35mm FF cam comes out, itll cost far more than the af100. im guessing 9,000 or more
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where this reasoning comes from. Price performance barriers are shattered all the time. Just because $10-20K seems to be where that quality resides currently doesn't mean that level of quality will remain at that price. The 5DII delivers what it does at $2,500. I fail to see where cleaning up the codec with a video centered Digic V processing engine and adding audio and video amenities pushes it up to $9K.

It used to be in audio recording to get flying faders would cost $100K+ . Now they can be had for $3K and under. Large diaphram condensor mics used to easily run $3K (still do), but now there is a wide selection of high quality large diaphram condensors very comparable in quality in $700 and under category. The name of the game is sales. They aren't going to sell the numbers pricing it at $9K. They want to slaughter the AF100. Panasonic revised their $6K price for the AF100 down to 4,995 list. This is the magic price point where the flood gate of customers will open. $9K ? forget about it. We have flying faders for under $3K because the audio industry realized that there were tens of thousands of recording musicians that would buy it and not just high end studios. It's just like when IBM said Home computers?? Who would want a computer in their home?? Bill Gates thought otherwise. The price performance barrier is shifting. Pros need to get their heads out of that $10K mindset. The sooner they do, the quicker the price will come down. Panasonic already knows this. Good move on their part to drift the AF100 from $6K down to $4,995.
 
f64manray said:
I'm not sure where this reasoning comes from. Price performance barriers are shattered all the time. Just because $10-20K seems to be where that quality resides currently doesn't mean that level of quality will remain at that price. The 5DII delivers what it does at $2,500. I fail to see where cleaning up the codec with a video centered Digic V processing engine and adding audio and video amenities pushes it up to $9K.

It used to be in audio recording to get flying faders would cost $100K+ . Now they can be had for $3K and under. Large diaphram condensor mics used to easily run $3K (still do), but now there is a wide selection of high quality large diaphram condensors very comparable in quality in $700 and under category. The name of the game is sales. They aren't going to sell the numbers pricing it at $9K. They want to slaughter the AF100. Panasonic revised their $6K price for the AF100 down to 4,995 list. This is the magic price point where the flood gate of customers will open. $9K ? forget about it. We have flying faders for under $3K because the audio industry realized that there were tens of thousands of recording musicians that would buy it and not just high end studios. It's just like when IBM said Home computers?? Who would want a computer in their home?? Bill Gates thought otherwise. The price performance barrier is shifting. Pros need to get their heads out of that $10K mindset. The sooner they do, the quicker the price will come down. Panasonic already knows this. Good move on their part to drift the AF100 from $6K down to $4,995.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. thats what panasonic has been doing for a long time. they first announced the hmc150 at $6000 too then it became 3995 SRP. same goes for their other cameras.

do you really know what your talking about? do you really believe canon will release a FF35 at a low price? maybe 2-3 years from now its plausible (but unlikely),

right now, everything is far from what you're thinking. basing on canon or sony's current line up of broadcast cameras, it will be more expensive than an af100 count on that.

check the specs on the xf300 and look at the price. thats XF300 a 1/3" with professional build features for $6500 or XF3-5 for 7500 with HD-SDI.

you really think canon would release a FF cam priced at the same or lower than that? not if panasonic price their cameras lower than $5000. they will definitely ask for a much premium price for a FF cinema camera with all the bells and whistles.
heres a wild hypothetical scenario they could probably release a 8k+ aps-c version and a FF version at 10k+
 
Last edited:
Michael Olsen said:
In the cinema world, a the FF35 film frame size is considered specialist equipment, as is 65mm. To the best of my knowledge, it was last used as principle photography for a major motion picture in 1961 ("One Eyed Jacks" Dir. Marlon Brando). Since then it has been used for a few Japanese films and some Japanese animated films up into 1989. It remains in use today as a tool for shooting some VFX work on films like "The Dark Knight" "Blindness" and "Inception".

If you have become accustomed to shooting on a FF35 film frame - be it an adapter or a 5DMKII- you are a specialist, using a piece of equipment that is far from common on the average film production, even at an extremely high budget and professional level.

This means that if you intend on working on the average film production - at any level - you'd best become acquainted with how that equipment works. And, in terms of crop factor, that equipment works very similarly to the AF-100.
Click to expand...

+1.

Except that 65mm was used a little more recently than that; Ron Howard shot "Far and Away" on it in 1992. But yeah, I don't know of a major film that's been shot on 65mm since then, and that's nearly 19 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top