roei z
Veteran
i didn't even include the 5d
but seriously, even if i reduce WB issues, the AF100 yellowish feel was on almost every footage i've seen so far
af100 vs 5D mk ii
- Thread starter Angelcyk
- Start date
i didn't even include the 5d
but seriously, even if i reduce WB issues, the AF100 yellowish feel was on almost every footage i've seen so far
starcentral
Veteran
I'm glad you said this - because hopefully people here realize that all the Canon footage they're seeing is the result of over a year of tinkering and tweaking since it first came out. Obviously comparing 1 years worth of footage to a couple of days people have had with the AF100 is unrealistic.
How soon people forget the early days of shooting HD on Canon and the exact same thing that's going on now. Perhaps this link will job everyone's memory. It was labelled as "increasing dynamic range" but in reality it is playing with the curve in camera and that's about it. It was from this that shooting "filmic" HD video in camera with "mojo" was born.
http://vimeo.com/groups/24987/videos/7256322
These points aside, the AF100 will be the choice of professional productions going forward due to the fact that all the camcorder features one would expect have finally come back, and this time with 35mm lens capability. It's about time, and frankly I'm happy to see that once again Panasonic did it first. Finally some of us can step back into reality and stop dreaming about owning RED when it is too expensive for us or even overkill for most of the purposes of users and members on these forums.
As for blown highlights, if its true, and there is an issue Panasonic will address it. Also AF100 has some dynamic stretching feature to preserve detail in both highlights and shadows and I don't see anyone going out of their way to test it. On Canon, the blacks are being scrunched and people call this film look.
All in all, it's too soon to say anything.
Last edited:
nyvz
Veteran
Oh sorry, I was not comparing to the 5D in this case. After over 2years of working with the 5D/7D I could tell from the first shot the 5D that it had not been set up properly especially for such high contrast shots, so I pretty much ignored it altogether and looked at the AF100.
When I first saw that video, I was just hoping that the AF100 had been set up as poorly as the 5D and that was why it looked so bad. Since then, it seems to have become more likely that was not the case.
Green tinge to AF100
Green tinge to AF100
After shooting extensively side-by-side with the AF100 and 5D2 for the last two days, I can tell you that the AF100 absolutely does give the image a green cast under low light, while the 5D's color rendering remains excellent. I've observed this independent of white balance, btw. In other words, using the Variable white balance function to scroll through every possible color temperature, the scene still looks greenish (it's just greenish-blue at lower Kelvin, and greenish-orange at higher Kelvin).
Part of this might be the sensor size, but I seem to remember similar issues when I was shooting with DVCPro, about 5-10 years ago. It seemed to be a Panasonic issue for the most part, although Sony BetaCam did the same thing, just not as severely.
The official explanation was something about the green spectrum of light being picked up by the sensor more than red or blue. I can't remember the physics. Anyway, the effect is real, and it is quite unpleasant. So far, that's my biggest complaint about the camera.
Green tinge to AF100
After shooting extensively side-by-side with the AF100 and 5D2 for the last two days, I can tell you that the AF100 absolutely does give the image a green cast under low light, while the 5D's color rendering remains excellent. I've observed this independent of white balance, btw. In other words, using the Variable white balance function to scroll through every possible color temperature, the scene still looks greenish (it's just greenish-blue at lower Kelvin, and greenish-orange at higher Kelvin).
Part of this might be the sensor size, but I seem to remember similar issues when I was shooting with DVCPro, about 5-10 years ago. It seemed to be a Panasonic issue for the most part, although Sony BetaCam did the same thing, just not as severely.
The official explanation was something about the green spectrum of light being picked up by the sensor more than red or blue. I can't remember the physics. Anyway, the effect is real, and it is quite unpleasant. So far, that's my biggest complaint about the camera.
starcentral
Veteran
That's okay, every XL1, XL1s & XL2 I ever shot with always added red to the image.... adjusted in camera or fixed in post.
Ha! I'd forgotten about that! All the pink people ... Yes, good times.
starcentral
Veteran
Yes magenta people everywhere! Anyway "green" doesn't concern me since I actually plan to light my shots properly and shoot using film style lighting. As an ex-PS Technik mini35 user, this is the day I've been waiting for! I'll be looking into where I can get an AF100 here locally in the Toronto area, otherwise BH it is.
Last edited:
starcentral
Veteran
Direct from Panasonic representatives regarding green tint:
- "The cine curve of the AF100 exhibited primarily under lower lighting conditions was specifically designed for shooting sequels of the Matrix directly in camera."
Now that is cool man!
- "The cine curve of the AF100 exhibited primarily under lower lighting conditions was specifically designed for shooting sequels of the Matrix directly in camera."
Now that is cool man!
Ticheli
Well-known member
With my AF100, which is set to chroma -2, I don't see any green cast anywhere; not under tungsten, not under daylight, not on human faces, not on the grey scale. I almost never white balance, preferring the presets, so perhaps you are introducing green in your white balance procedure.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
starcentral
Veteran
Barry's rule # 1 for AF100 -> white and black balance always.
Ticheli
Well-known member
A note on white balance philosophy; I don't white balance unless I'm shooting under some weird industrial lighting, and I can't really say that it helps very much under discontinuous spectrums.
Why do I not white balance? Because I want to capture the colors that are different from a fixed frame of reference. Take magic hour light for example; what happens when you white balance your camera at magic hour? The magic disappears. I frequently use mixed lighting, say for a night interior; my key light is often balanced for daylight, perhaps with a little gel, because I want the warmth of the practicals to contrast with their orange glow. White balance with the key, and the cold bluish tone goes to white. Not very interesting. Certainly not to me, anyway.
Black balance, on the other hand, is a technical necessity. Always black balance. Always, always, always.
That's how I work and I'm very happy with my results. Your mileage may vary; actually, it's your taste that may vary.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
Why do I not white balance? Because I want to capture the colors that are different from a fixed frame of reference. Take magic hour light for example; what happens when you white balance your camera at magic hour? The magic disappears. I frequently use mixed lighting, say for a night interior; my key light is often balanced for daylight, perhaps with a little gel, because I want the warmth of the practicals to contrast with their orange glow. White balance with the key, and the cold bluish tone goes to white. Not very interesting. Certainly not to me, anyway.
Black balance, on the other hand, is a technical necessity. Always black balance. Always, always, always.
That's how I work and I'm very happy with my results. Your mileage may vary; actually, it's your taste that may vary.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
The opposite is true (current sensors are less sensitive to green), which is why on a typical Bayer pattern there are twice as many green receptors as red or blue; in other words, there are as many green receptors as there are red and blue, combined.
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
It's funny how in the 6 years I've been here the mojo cycle has gone Sony (might never have had it though) -> Panasonic (DVX/HVX) -> Nikon (remember the D90?) -> Canon (And remember when it sucked?) -> back to taking a dump on Panasonic.
Interesting...
Interesting...
Barry_Green
Moderator
Understood, and valid, but I still say you gotta white balance to something. You definitely don't want to white-balance away the lushness of golden hour, but when in mixed light conditions, you certainly want something to be accurate, so you maintain the colors of those mixed lights working for you and not against you...
It all comes down to understanding light, and how it works. There is no one universally-applicable white balance. If you want your blue lights to look blue, you're going to need to set the white balance so something else, to make sure that the blue stays blue. If you want the gel to give the nice warmth, you'd want to WB to the keylight prior to putting the gel on, etc...
starcentral
Veteran
Leo I don't care if you white balance or not for artistic purposes, but when someone makes a statement that light is green under low light the question must be asked if proper calibrations were done before hand, and before trying to provide some type of product review or statement to the masses.
These days far too many people turn a camera on, post footage and criticize it without even trying to work at getting the best image they can out of it. Go back a year and look at early DSLR footage out of a Canon before people knew what "picture files" were all about, you'll understand.
Anyway, let's see that green footage or please post some stills if in fact it is true.
These days far too many people turn a camera on, post footage and criticize it without even trying to work at getting the best image they can out of it. Go back a year and look at early DSLR footage out of a Canon before people knew what "picture files" were all about, you'll understand.
Anyway, let's see that green footage or please post some stills if in fact it is true.
Last edited:
Ticheli
Well-known member
As I said, I do not see the green cast in any footage I've shot. Perhaps the posters reporting a green cast will reveal their settings, and, perhaps more importantly, exactly how they performed the white balance, the card used and the way they controlled the illumination thereof.
And, yes; pictures or it didn't happen!
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
Ticheli
Well-known member
Yes, we do need a standard white balance, but I prefer to use the built-in preset 3200° and 5600° rather than an on-set source; I think those settings are pretty much perfect and uncontaminated, much the way color bars are. I trust my tungsten lighting fixtures, but do admit that the Kino Flo fixtures can be a bit wonky; not enough to force me to change my ways because there is usually some available light in my work and I don't want to stray from that.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
An experienced shooter I worked with shares your philosophy. He never white balanced. And, I understand your reasons, Leo.
Is it possible to Black Balance the AF100 without doing a White Balance?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, understand that there is ALWAYS going to be some white balance active. Always. It's gonna be balanced to something. I think it's a good idea to set that balance to what you want it to be, and I think Leo is agreeing; he's just choosing a preset instead of manually setting it.
To directly answer your question, yes -- you can black balance without doing a manual white balance. You can set the unit on PRST (one of the presets, either 5.6k or 3.2k) and then hold in the AWB button and it will do a manual black balance.