AF100 shows more aliasing and less resolution than Panasonic GH2 ?

@ Barry Green,

I think it would be extremely important to confirm or debunk these tests by the German website with your own.

I know I will be looking forward to your weighing in on this.

Cheers,
CB
 
dcloud said:
i do think it resolves up to 800 lines.
Click to expand...

Well can I ask what makes you think that? I have pointed mine at a chart and it definitely doesn't resolve 800 lines.

Rick's video didn't resolve 800 lines (notice the diagonal bands in the lower central 800 block):

http://vimeo.com/20183170

The chart posted on DVinfo by Simon Wyndham did not resolve 800 lines.

Dino posted in another thread that Art Adams measured 700 lines:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...2246936&highlight=art+adams+lines#post2246936

If you don't trust those guys who do you trust? No one has posted a chart showing 800 lines. Lots of people have reported more like 700 (if not less). Not trying to stir the pot, just looking for the truth. I thought the image was soft so I tried to measure the res. Lots of people are going to say "I don't make films about charts" - but that is besides the point.

Can anyone post an AF100 test that shows 800 lines that are not aliasing? If so please do. I look forward to Barry's results.
 
what's unusual to me is that it seems to resolve more diagonal lines than vert or horizontal. Usually it's the opposite.
 
ASG said:
Well can I ask what makes you think that? I have pointed mine at a chart and it definitely doesn't resolve 800 lines.

Rick's video didn't resolve 800 lines (notice the diagonal bands in the lower central 800 block):

http://vimeo.com/20183170

The chart posted on DVinfo by Simon Wyndham did not resolve 800 lines.

Dino posted in another thread that Art Adams measured 700 lines:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...2246936&highlight=art+adams+lines#post2246936

If you don't trust those guys who do you trust? No one has posted a chart showing 800 lines. Lots of people have reported more like 700 (if not less). Not trying to stir the pot, just looking for the truth. I thought the image was soft so I tried to measure the res. Lots of people are going to say "I don't make films about charts" - but that is besides the point.

Can anyone post an AF100 test that shows 800 lines that are not aliasing? If so please do. I look forward to Barry's results.
Click to expand...

i said I THINK. havent really tested it since i dont have a chart. but based on real world tests, it resolves more than canon dslrs thats for sure.
 
Damn, Barry, we should have had you stop by with a chart and test it out last night at the AZFCPUG meeting. I had my GH2 there, and the local Panasonic rep. brought an AF100 and setup a still shoot to show off the camera.
 
I don't generally do any chart testing...so my results might be wrong. But when I pointed my AF100 at a chart I got MUCH less moire etc and significantly more res. But again, this is not what I do.
 
ASG said:
Well can I ask what makes you think that? I have pointed mine at a chart and it definitely doesn't resolve 800 lines.

Rick's video didn't resolve 800 lines (notice the diagonal bands in the lower central 800 block):

http://vimeo.com/20183170

The chart posted on DVinfo by Simon Wyndham did not resolve 800 lines.

Dino posted in another thread that Art Adams measured 700 lines:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...2246936&highlight=art+adams+lines#post2246936

If you don't trust those guys who do you trust? No one has posted a chart showing 800 lines. Lots of people have reported more like 700 (if not less). Not trying to stir the pot, just looking for the truth. I thought the image was soft so I tried to measure the res. Lots of people are going to say "I don't make films about charts" - but that is besides the point.

Can anyone post an AF100 test that shows 800 lines that are not aliasing? If so please do. I look forward to Barry's results.
Click to expand...

DO NOT use those charts we tested as resolution measurements. These were NOT professional charts, but printed out on high quality paper. We only used the charts to look at moire and our framing of the charts was by hand and 'close enough' just to push the lines close together and compare. We did use the same lenses, but, the charts themselves did have aliasing in them from the printout. We just made sure from where we were, we did not see that.
 
Barry_Green said:
Just get whichever one does what you need, at the price point that you can afford. The decision is between you and your wallet, nobody else will know or care which one you went with. Either of these cameras will destroy a 5D in terms of image fidelity, yet the 5D has been used in some pretty major productions. So why worry about it? If you need variable frame rates, pro audio, the ND filter, timecode, and all the other four dozen things that the AF100 does and the GH2 doesn't, then get the AF100. If you can't afford the AF100 and don't need all the things that it does over the GH2, or if you need stills, then get the GH2. Done. Who cares if one has fifty more pixels of resolution than another one? Are you buying something for "bragging rights" or are you buying something to put it to work?
Click to expand...

I second that. Several years ago I asked an Italian cameraman what camera kit he used, his reply was "Whatever is best for the job"; meaning every job might require a different camera, lens etc.

I totally agree with this, if I'm shooting a corporate video for a local caper factory, I'd probably use a Sony EX1. If I'm shooting a corporate video for Nike training shoes, I'd probably be looking at HDCAM. A wedding might require a basic HDV camera, whereas a TV commercial would probably require 35mm film…..

Me, I will use whatever earns me the most money and satisfies the clients requirements; end of.

I've got more respect for somebody who is squeezing every last ounce of image quality out of a PD150 and earning decent money from it, than somebody always chasing the next best thing and pixel-peeping res-charts and the like.

Go and buy what suits your requirements now and be happy.

Clients won't know what you are talking about if you mention the word "aliasing" and wouldn't be able to spot if if their lives depended on it.

An AF100, or GH2 is produces way better images than cameras that cost $70,000 30 years ago that were used to shoot USA sitcoms in the 70's. In England, UK we have a well known soap called Eastenders that today is shot on high end Varicam (used to be Digibeta). Imagine if when they where about to start shooting the very first episode of that programme the producers said "maybe we should wait to see what camera comes out next month". If they did, the soap would never have been made.

I know I've drifted off topic. I've used the AF101 (as it is called in sunny England) and it wipes the floor with the 5D MK2 regarding aliasing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top