AF100 vs DSLR

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Point of clarification - it's not 3/4", it's 4/3". So 1.333 inches.

Which, of course, is meaningless, because it no more measures 4/3" than a 2/3" sensor measures 2/3" or a 1/2" sensor measures 1/2"!

But, when referencing them, we call them 2/3", 1/2", etc. And in that context the AF100 and other Four Thirds-sized-sensor cameras are 4/3".

Typo! :laugh:

I think I type just as fast as you Barry, but less accurately!

 

[Barry_Green]

Okay, no prob, just wanted to make sure. I think sometimes people hear "micro four thirds" and they think "micro? that means it's small." When in fact it's almost 5x as big as a 2/3" sensor.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

so what is the difference between AF100 and a Panavision Genesis? Both do 2k, both are 8 bit, both have similar sized sensors. Genesis does 4:4:4, but is that the only difference? AF100 will do 4:2:2 with 3rd party recorder, can it do 4:4:4 that way?

Don't quote me as being gospel on this, but I'm pretty sure the AF100 is not S35mm sized, where the Genesis is. I haven't been able to find the exact measurements of the AF100 yet, but I assume it's hitting regular 35mm motion picture aperture size. Not a big difference and I may be wrong. I just have yet to see the AF100 advertised as Super35mm equiv.

Also, the Genesis is a RGB CCD, as far as I know.

Panalog and the 4:4:4 color space is a plus. (BIG plus for DR and color representation)

Panavision lenses! & accessories!

Also.... I thought it was 10bit. Where did you see 8?

 

[xmephestox]

so what is the difference between AF100 and a Panavision Genesis? Both do 2k, both are 8 bit, both have similar sized sensors. Genesis does 4:4:4, but is that the only difference? AF100 will do 4:2:2 with 3rd party recorder, can it do 4:4:4 that way?

actually the genesis starts somewhere around a 4.5k sensor size. It gives you 10 bit per channel 4:4:4, direct record to HDCAM SR, or uncompressed custom SSD modules. Every pixel retails 6 photosites, 2 red, 2 green, 2 blue, giving you excellent image and color accuracy. It's probably biggest drawback is that it's doing all that in camera, and can still suffer from aliasing issues. It happens when a camera is doing too much at once. It's also a 5 year old technology or so, it's base sensitivity is around a 400-640 iso. and it does a lot of other fun stuff like LUTS, customized panavision gamma curves, and a 35 mm film like body for DP's transitioning into the digital workflow that come from film. It's a different class of camera, but the differences are closing in more by the generation of camera...

 

[Barry_Green]

Don't quote me as being gospel on this, but I'm pretty sure the AF100 is not S35mm sized, where the Genesis is. I haven't been able to find the exact measurements of the AF100 yet, but I assume it's hitting regular 35mm motion picture aperture size.

There's a difference between the normal motion picture frame size, which is 22mm wide, and the Super35 frame, which is 24mm wide.

The AF100 is close to normal cinema film. Cinema film is 22mm wide, the AF100 is 19mm wide. It's not as big as S35.

 

[Barry_Green]

so what is the difference between AF100 and a Panavision Genesis? Both do 2k, both are 8 bit, both have similar sized sensors. Genesis does 4:4:4, but is that the only difference? AF100 will do 4:2:2 with 3rd party recorder, can it do 4:4:4 that way?

The differences between a Genesis and the AF100 are huge! The Genesis is basically the Sony F35, which costs about $350,000. Everything about the F35 is better than anything about the AF100.

You're talking about a $6,000 camcorder compared to one that costs over 50x as much.

I mean, it's like asking: what's the difference between a $10 FM radio, and a $40,000 audiophile system? They both receive FM radio signals, after all. And true, they do -- but there's a world of difference in them. And so it is with the Genesis/F35 vs. the AF100, and so it is with the AF100 vs. the DSLR. Not saying that the gulf between the AF100 and Genesis is the same size as the gulf between the AF100 and the DSLRs, obviously. But there's a gulf between both of them.

 

[xmephestox]

the only thing that will get 4:4:4 out of a AF100 at the moment other than a HDCAM SR, or maybe even a s.two recorder is probably a Cinedeck Extreme. which is 10 thousand dollars last time i checked. Keep in mind all your doing (if the sdi stays 8 bit) is over sampling an 8 bit source, it will give you some benefit, but it's nothing like having a true 10 or 12 bit 4:4:4 source. All it kind of does is stretch your existing color graduations so you gain finer control over it, but it won't giving you something that doesn't exist, like REAL color information. so at the 4:2:2 to 4:4:4 level coming from a 8 bit source, you might notice little difference, but coming from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 10 bit in the least, you'll see difference. Sort of what happens when you transcode dslr footage to 10 bit, you gain a good amount.

 

[David G. Smith]

There's a difference between the normal motion picture frame size, which is 22mm wide, and the Super35 frame, which is 24mm wide.

The AF100 is close to normal cinema film. Cinema film is 22mm wide, the AF100 is 19mm wide. It's not as big as S35.

What are the full dimensions of the AF-100 sensor. The 22mm wide 35mm cinema frame ("Academy Aperture") is 22mm X 16mm for a 1.37:1 aspect ratio. Is the AF-100 sensor a 16:9 sensor, or is the senor cropped for the 16:9 frame?

 

[Razz16mm]

the only thing that will get 4:4:4 out of a AF100 at the moment other than a HDCAM SR, or maybe even a s.two recorder is probably a Cinedeck Extreme. which is 10 thousand dollars last time i checked. Keep in mind all your doing (if the sdi stays 8 bit) is over sampling an 8 bit source, it will give you some benefit, but it's nothing like having a true 10 or 12 bit 4:4:4 source. All it kind of does is stretch your existing color graduations so you gain finer control over it, but it won't giving you something that doesn't exist, like REAL color information. so at the 4:2:2 to 4:4:4 level coming from a 8 bit source, you might notice little difference, but coming from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 10 bit in the least, you'll see difference. Sort of what happens when you transcode dslr footage to 10 bit, you gain a good amount.

According to what Jan said, the HDSDI live output from the AF100 is 8 bit 4:2:2. That is the best you will ever get out of this camera unless they change the spec. Doesn't matter what deck you record to.

 

[Homunculus]

So is there a big difference between 8bit 4:2:0 and 8bit 4:2:2 or is it negligible?

I probably can answer my own question. The hacked MJPEG of gh13 was 4:2:2 if I recall correctly and it looked pretty much identical to me as the hacked acvhd 1080p 4:2:0 but I'm curious of confirmation.

So IF my point is accurate, then the next logical question is, what possible benefit would one gain then from using AF100 with an aftermarket recorder that can bump its 4:2:0 sampling to 4:2:2?

 

[Barry_Green]

So is there a big difference between 8bit 4:2:0 and 8bit 4:2:2 or is it negligible?

Huge difference. 4:2:0 is half the color resolution of 4:2:2.

So IF my point is accurate, then the next logical question is, what possible benefit would one gain then from using AF100 with an aftermarket recorder that can bump its 4:2:0 sampling to 4:2:2?

Twice the color resolution, and potentially cleaner recording overall.

 

[Barry_Green]

The hacked MJPEG of gh13 was 4:2:2 if I recall correctly and it looked pretty much identical to me as the hacked acvhd 1080p 4:2:0 but I'm curious of confirmation.

Well, it depends -- you had to specifically enable the 4:2:2 patch; the hacked MJPG could be 4:2:0 (as it was by default) or you could enable the 4:2:2.

But the thing is -- if you enabled 4:2:2, then it would take away available bandwidth from the overall recording, specifically to encode the higher color resolution. There is no free lunch; ideally if you're going to enable 4:2:2, you'd need to enable higher bitrates in order to handle the increased data you're asking it to encode.

Which is why something like a nano could make sense -- not only does it go to 4:2:2, but it also gives you potentially huge data rates too. It can go to 220mbps in long-GoP, and 280mbps in intraframe.

 

[xmephestox]

Homunculus, if you really want clear cut answers, you should get some basic color grading applications, either something built into a NLE or a stand alone, and take in the various footage and see for yourself. A lot can be explained to death, but sometimes you need to see real world results before you can understand. That's really what it took for me to really get it. Stacking heavy grades on 8 bit 4:2:0 after grading 10 bit 4:2:2 and above literally felt miserable because I wasn't able to push the grade as much as I wanted. Transcoding fell apart from a lot of 8 bit sources, and you also compression artifacts get more noticeable the more you look at this stuff day in and day out. A good place to start would probably be trying to grade hpx170 footage and ex1 footage, and see which u can push around further.

 

[Barry_Green]

What are the full dimensions of the AF-100 sensor.

We don't necessarily know. The spec hasn't been released. But the Four Thirds sensor that they use in their still cameras is 19mm x 13mm, so I expect that this sensor (having been derived from the others) is 19 x 13.

Is the AF-100 sensor a 16:9 sensor, or is the senor cropped for the 16:9 frame?

The "standard" Four Thirds frame is a 4:3 sensor, just like 35mm film. The Panasonics use a wider-than-standard size, so that the image diagonal stays the same between 3:2, 4:3, and 16:9 aspect ratios. So the ultimate final size is 19mm x 13mm, but the size used in the camcorder is 19 x 10.something.

 

[xmephestox]

4:3 sensor... this is going to be an issue for anamorphic lenses correct?

 

[Barry_Green]

4:3 sensor... this is going to be an issue for anamorphic lenses correct?

Not any more of an issue than for any other camcorder.

If it actually used the full 4:3 shape, then it'd be a big bonus for using anamorphic lenses. Cinema anamorphics are 2:1 squeeze, so when you use cinema anamorphics on a 4:3 frame, you get a 2.66:1 image. When you use those same anamorphics on a 16:9 frame, you get a 3.56:1 image. Obviously the 4:3's 2.66 is a lot closer to delivering the film cinema ratio of 2.39.

But, AFAIK the AF100 doesn't use anything outside the 16:9 range, so it can be thought of as a 16:9 sensor, 19x10.something.

 

[xmephestox]

ah sorry, i was actually thinking the opposite, a full use full sized 16:9 sensor offers more issues with anamorphics.

 

[Barry_Green]

Right. If you want to use anamorphics on a 16:9 sensor, perhaps the best set is the new Hawk 1.33 anamorphics, which are designed to give a 16:9 sensor a 2.39 image. But they're rare and expensive.

On the cheap side you can use the Panasonic 7200 adapter, but ... it was designed for a standard-def DVX, so ... I don't know how well it would hold up on an AF100.

Century also made some 1.33x squeeze anamorphic adapters for cameras like the VX2000 I think, but they never made one for the DVX. Maybe those would be higher quality than the 7200?

 

[Jason Allen]

I really think it's silly/asinine how many people think DSLRs can hold a candle to a video camera like the AF100. They're not in the same ball park, they're not even in the same league... heck, they don't even play with the same ball.

On the AF100, you basically get a "poor man's RED" with no moire/aliasing, (presumably) significantly less rolling shutter "jello jiggle", similar light sensitivity, color resolution with GAMMA via HD-SDI out that will have its way with lesser footage (really guys... try color correction with 4:2:0 and then 4:2:2... it's a HUGE difference. I love me some 4:2:2!). Oh yeah, and the ergonomics don't completely suck, the LCD screen and viewfinder have very high resolution, it has a video waveform monitor, XLR inputs, and the list goes on. One last one though: VARIABLE FRAMERATES! HELL YEAH!

If you're in love with SLR video and the complications that it involves, by all means, go forth and make movies. I wish you and your clients well, and I hope that your footage meets their needs. Otherwise, like everyone else, please just accept that this is what we've been asking/begging/waiting for as indie and professional filmmakers, and it's going to totally change the way that at least my production shop is going to make our clients happy!

Just my 2 cents... but really guys, if you can't see that this is going to 1-up the DSLR video industry (in its present state) in a mere second upon its release, then you're blind (either by choice or by ignorance) to this camera's capabilities!

 

[ATL Media Group]

I really think it's silly/asinine how many people think DSLRs can hold a candle to a video camera like the AF100. They're not in the same ball park, they're not even in the same league... heck, they don't even play with the same ball.

On the AF100, you basically get a "poor man's RED" with no moire/aliasing, (presumably) significantly less rolling shutter "jello jiggle", similar light sensitivity, color resolution with GAMMA via HD-SDI out that will have its way with lesser footage (really guys... try color correction with 4:2:0 and then 4:2:2... it's a HUGE difference. I love me some 4:2:2!). Oh yeah, and the ergonomics don't completely suck, the LCD screen and viewfinder have very high resolution, it has a video waveform monitor, XLR inputs, and the list goes on. One last one though: VARIABLE FRAMERATES! HELL YEAH!

If you're in love with SLR video and the complications that it involves, by all means, go forth and make movies. I wish you and your clients well, and I hope that your footage meets their needs. Otherwise, like everyone else, please just accept that this is what we've been asking/begging/waiting for as indie and professional filmmakers, and it's going to totally change the way that at least my production shop is going to make our clients happy!

Just my 2 cents... but really guys, if you can't see that this is going to 1-up the DSLR video industry (in its present state) in a mere second upon its release, then you're blind (either by choice or by ignorance) to this camera's capabilities!

erm.. what he said!

+1,000