af100 highlight prototye test: What do you think?

First, these guys managed to make both cameras look like crap! So this test is worthless. Then, at 00:54 the state the zeiss 50 1.4mm, but it then zooms. SOmebody please tell me were to get a zeiss 50 1.4 that zooms!!!! LOL. This is a test of NOTHING but NOTHING! they mix daylight balance with tungsten. THey can't focus. These guys would have made any test with ANY camera look horrible!
 
Hi guys-

it is the result that leads us to our conclusions - not the technical specs. Because of that you may be tempted more by the F3, because of the cine-style way, the test-footage was shot! And yes....it does in deed look very filmic - more than anything, I've seen so far from the AF100.

One thing I noticed, when I compared footage that I got from my 5d Mk 2 before it was sold,

that when I compared it to my friends Gh1 footage, I regretted having sold my own Gh1.

The footage we've seen so far from the AF100 - doesn't represent the capabilities of the camera - nor does it show you the creative possibilities you get with this fine hardware.

With that in mind, I asked Panasonic Germany, if it is possible to get a preproduction model for a weekend.

They asked me to write an e-mail with the project, which I want to shoot / until now I don't have any idea, what to shoot - the first priority for me is, to achieve a real cine-style film-look....any ideas?

And please keep in mind...

As long as you didn't taste the banana - you can't really judge about it.
 
which begs the question, who would give them an af100? most importantly, why?

dustylense said:
First, these guys managed to make both cameras look like crap! So this test is worthless. Then, at 00:54 the state the zeiss 50 1.4mm, but it then zooms. SOmebody please tell me were to get a zeiss 50 1.4 that zooms!!!! LOL. This is a test of NOTHING but NOTHING! they mix daylight balance with tungsten. THey can't focus. These guys would have made any test with ANY camera look horrible!
Click to expand...
 
For some reason I am very hungry now...

I personally like seeing the worst footage as its gives a very good indication of the pitfalls initial users may face. Look at it like this, how many bits of footage coming out when this camera ships are going to show blown highlights? My guess would be none because everyone is so sensitive to it now... in a way this will speed up the learning curve for alot of people to get really great images from this piece of equipment, and that is what I will wait to check out...

Or maybe I'll just get a GH2 lol...
 
The AF100, when used properly, will always exceed anything a GH2 could do. So when you look at blown highlights on an AF100, and masterful footage on the GH2, the answer is plainly obvious and staring you in the face -- it's the shooter, not the camera.

There is nothing a GH2 can do (or an HMC150 or HPX170 or, probably, an EX1) that an AF100 can't do as well or better.

Finding the limits is indeed important, but obsessing over pointing out limits has gotten so far out of hand that frankly it's ridiculous. Would someone please take a Sony F3 and stick someone's face three inches away from a key light and watch what happens? Of course it's going to blow out.

It's time to stop the highlight obsession and wait for some real footage.

Why not just wait for someone to shoot the AF100 properly? It really isn't gonna be that long from now.
 
This obsession with how the af-100 handles highlights is indeed ridiculous.
Anytime you send out someone to shoot exteriors with video on a sunny day without a crew, they are going to have a lot of problems with highlights, I don't care how good the roll off or highlight compression is.
People are freaking out about highlights like its some deficiency with this camera only.
Even properly shot, I don't think the af-100 will record footage more pleasing than an F-3 under similar circumstances, but we're talking about two different classes of camera (and price).
 
I think Panny should really reconsider their strategy and should plunk down the cash to make a well produced video to release the first footage of their cameras.

If the first AF100 was this GH2 video by Bloom, it would've been far better received.
 
Barry_Green said:
The AF100, when used properly, will always exceed anything a GH2 could do. So when you look at blown highlights on an AF100, and masterful footage on the GH2, the answer is plainly obvious and staring you in the face -- it's the shooter, not the camera.

There is nothing a GH2 can do (or an HMC150 or HPX170 or, probably, an EX1) that an AF100 can't do as well or better.

Finding the limits is indeed important, but obsessing over pointing out limits has gotten so far out of hand that frankly it's ridiculous. Would someone please take a Sony F3 and stick someone's face three inches away from a key light and watch what happens? Of course it's going to blow out.

It's time to stop the highlight obsession and wait for some real footage.

Why not just wait for someone to shoot the AF100 properly? It really isn't gonna be that long from now.
Click to expand...

Well... I have not seen any food footage from the AF-100 yet, and you know what they say, "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach"... I better shop on a full stomach or Panasonic may lose a few grand from me!

In all seriousness though, it is the shooter in the end, the cameras are just extensions of a person's innate ability to capture an image for others to view...
 
Barry_Green said:
The AF100, when used properly, will always exceed anything a GH2 could do.
Click to expand...

As a GH1 owner, I am anxiously awaiting the AF100. I have reserved judgment on the early footage, and kept quiet on the forums. But honestly, my enthusiasm for the GH2 is growing while my enthusiasm for the AF100 is flatlining, perhaps even waning. And I'm skeptical of the claim that the AF100 will outperform the GH2 when used properly. I want to believe that. I want to feel that if I spend close to $5,000 on a camera that it is going to be a wise investment compared to a GH2 (which I will also purchase).

But I'm skeptical of the claim because the sensors were created by two different groups within Panasonic. So the advances made by the GH2 with regards to high ISO quality might not exist in the AF100 sensor. Then again, it might. Also, the dynamic range, colorimetry, etc. may be completely different between the two cameras. I'm not certain the AF100 is the undeniable winner in all cases.

Again, I'm still optimistic that we'll get great looking footage once talented shooters have enough time to figure out the camera and shoot things with controlled lighting. But in the meantime, $800 or $900 for a GH2 is getting me really excited with its 24mbps 1080 24p, its creamy-looking 800 ISO, its sensor-crop mode allowing use of my c-mount lenses, and it's clean HDMI out.
 
That was a very bad test indeed. I really couldn't make out what to look at...

I've watched a bunch of DLSR videos having blown out highlights in mind and there are plenty of it in these videos, but often they don't distract as much as some of the footage from the AF camera. Twelve years ago I realized a sure give away was blown highlights in videos - then you know it was shoot on video. But I think that since then everything has gotten blurred, the line between video and film, digital and analog has been blurred, everything converges into so many different shapes and displays on so many different kind of viewing devices so I'm not sure what to make out of it. If it looks great that's fine and if not there gotta be something wrong.

But if all of these demo videos have been made with super thin DOF (like the F3 footage) I imagine we wouldn't notice the occasional highlight clipping.
 
You folks are so fickle...lol.

Here's my wild assumption...it's all on purpose. Yup. It's a strategy by Panasonic to show us the worst of the worst up front. Then just before actual release date they release the most visually stunning footage one has ever seen in a DV camera. All to make a point...that there is no perfect camera/shooter....but with some tender lovin care ....this can come awfully close. <<<<Imagine that!!


ok...that was stooopid!! :)
 
Barry's right about this "test". I've been one of those expressing some concern over certain aspects of this camera's image, but this footage proves and demonstrates only one thing: the people conducting the test aren't very good at operating a video camera. Aside from the camera's constant movement, and constant iris adjustment, putting someone inches away from a kino for 2 seconds stepping in and out of light, out of focus, without properly setting exposure, isn't going to tell us anything at all.
 
I honestly woudn't be the least bit worried about this silly so called "test" This footage is utterly rediculous. Im pretty sure any cam would blow out the highlights when shot under these horribly unscientific conditions. it's rather funny to see so many get so upset over this. Dont worry, the Af 100 will be fine when tweaked by someone that has spent a few days with it.

The one thing that does have me baffled from the footage I have seen , is how much more filmic the gh2 footage looks compared to the AF100 footage. Every time I see the Af100, it reminds me of the early sony 24p, which looks more videoish than filmic. But thats just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Well frankly I make tests like this all the time. But I would never dream of posting them anywhere.

Usually I do this HD-SDI to a calibrated monitor and scopes. To test new cameras or lenses, etc.

The tests are really stress tests, and it is how you tune the camera. I also use color charts etc. This is how you figure out how to set up a camera for a certain look. But why publish these shots w/o any comments or even notes at all. I doubt Panasonic is behind this.

I also go out of the studio with a new camera and shoot a bunch of different settings w/o scopes etc, and then go back and look at different results, to figure out the best PP's. But I would never show this to a client or put it up on the WEB. What is the point?
 
Last edited:
Steve Kahn said:
For two reasons:

It is much softer and he is using the (fantastic!) Voightlander 25mm
Click to expand...

It's not only that, but the AF100 footage seems to have Sharpness or Detail turned up. It's much more video-ish. I know it's impossible to tell from Vimeo footage, but that's my intuitive response. Perhaps we just need to dial down the Detail on the AF100 to get a more filmic look.
 
the more i read, look and try to figure out a good lens configuration for the AF100 whit the crop factor and the adaptors ... the more ...
 
dvbrother said:
It's not only that, but the AF100 footage seems to have Sharpness or Detail turned up. It's much more video-ish. I know it's impossible to tell from Vimeo footage, but that's my intuitive response. Perhaps we just need to dial down the Detail on the AF100 to get a more filmic look.
Click to expand...

Have you downloaded and looked at the footage on a large plasma or HDTV? It looks quite good albeit sharp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top