Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There are lots of things that the GH2 can do that the AF100 doesn't. Stills, for example. AFC mode, for another. Color balance on the LCD. Touchscreen. Lots of things. And the GH2 has about as much relevance to the AF100, as a fish does to a stone.
I agree that having more control is better and I'd love to see it added. But to say that "the GH2 has it" is, unfortunately, irrelevant. The GH2 isn't from the same company even. It's from Panasonic Consumer. The AF100 is from Panasonic Solutions Company (formerly Panasonic Broadcast). I understand folks won't like that explanation, but that doesn't change the truth of the explanation. If you're expecting the AF100 to be a GH2 with added features, then you don't understand the difference between the consumer and broadcast companies.
Just to reiterate Barry's comment, photo cameras really need accurate color information more so than video. Think of the professional use of LCD screens to a professional photographer. They generally use only the camera and it is not as common to have both an LCD screen, EVF, external monitor, etc... So yeah.
Have you looked through the LCD of an AF100? It presents a quite accurate representation. Not just "somewhat" accurate, but quite accurate. Not perfect, but really quite good.A proper looking LCD screen on a "professional" camera is important though. I'm not saying the LCD screen needs to be a perfect screen, but we should be allowed some control of how it looks and if it has a green hue or tint to it as the default we should be able to adjust that. I expect at least a somewhat accurate representation in the LCD on a "professional" camera.
That may be your opinion, but it doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the situation.And both cameras say "Panasonic" on them. This "two separate companies" thing is Panasonic making excuses for why they can't do something right.
I would agree that it would be ideal if the LCD was perfectly color accurate. It'd also be ideal if the GH2's HDMI output a real 59.94i signal that could be recorded. It'd be even more ideal if the GH2 had a frickin' headphone jack. But it doesn't. So I work around it.But the LCD needs to be right. We shouldn't be forced to use an external monitor all the time just to make sure we're getting a proper image.
Stephen, go turn on some very old tungsten lamps, preferably kitchen lights, or even fluorescent lights, put your preset to 3200 k, and compare. I'm positive you will notice a difference. It may be acceptable to you, but it should be there. And if not, lucky you!
Has anyone actually tested their light source with a COLOR TEMP Meter before they stated the LCD was green ?
I would think if the BARS are correct...there is nothing wrong with the LCD.
This thread has gone off track. at first it was a curiosity and concern, then we addressed that there is a green bias so now it's just up to panasonic to be notified of their user's concerns, which they have, and now we move on and see if there is a response in terms of a future firmware update.
Maybe this thread has served its purpose and it's time to put it to rest?
Maybe not. On my AF100, I notice the whole things leans to the green. My LCD and my monitor are pretty close to each other...and they both lean that way. It's not a bad thing, but I set it up next to my HVX with the same settings and did a manual white balance (details here on post number 5), and the AF100 leaned far more to the green as compared to a whiter/bluer HVX.
I'm not complaining, but as shooter said, if the bars are good maybe there is something in the chroma phase... :huh:
It sure as shootin' shouldn't. I tested the prepro model by setting up a calibrated professional kino flo fluorescent daylight tube, pointed the camera at a CamWhite chart (which is a precision-engineered perfectly white white-balance chart), and did a manual balance, and "CAPTURE"d a frame. Took it into PhotoShop and used the eyedropper. PhotoShop reported a perfect gray, with RGB of 150/150/150.On my AF100, I notice the whole things leans to the green.
There are lots of things that the GH2 can do that the AF100 doesn't. Stills, for example. AFC mode, for another. Color balance on the LCD. Touchscreen. Lots of things. And the GH2 has about as much relevance to the AF100, as a fish does to a stone.
I agree that having more control is better and I'd love to see it added. But to say that "the GH2 has it" is, unfortunately, irrelevant. The GH2 isn't from the same company even. It's from Panasonic Consumer. The AF100 is from Panasonic Solutions Company (formerly Panasonic Broadcast). I understand folks won't like that explanation, but that doesn't change the truth of the explanation. If you're expecting the AF100 to be a GH2 with added features, then you don't understand the difference between the consumer and broadcast companies.
It sure as shootin' shouldn't. I tested the prepro model by setting up a calibrated professional kino flo fluorescent daylight tube, pointed the camera at a CamWhite chart (which is a precision-engineered perfectly white white-balance chart), and did a manual balance, and "CAPTURE"d a frame. Took it into PhotoShop and used the eyedropper. PhotoShop reported a perfect gray, with RGB of 150/150/150.
I then took down the Kino and set up a B&M tungsten fresnel, then did another manual white balance to the tungsten light, and captured a frame. The results were an almost absolutely perfect gray, it was (IIRC) 151/150/149 or something like that. Close enough to perfect that I would figure it's within whatever margin of error there would be for sampling whichever random pixel I picked.
So, Jim -- try that. Remove the monitors from the equation and instead see what your system is delivering. It should be spot-on. White should be white with no cast to it at all (unless you've adjusted the chroma phase away from zero).
On the HVX -- do you have an original or an A? The 200A was much more color-accurate than the original.