Dino
Veteran
Agreed, detail overshoot on Kodak lid points to AF100 since RED One doesn't have a detail circuit, AFAIK. Amazing how 800 TVL looks sharper than 4K on Vimeo!
AF100 vs. Red One: A non-definitive, but instructive test...
- Thread starter Ticheli
- Start date
Agreed, detail overshoot on Kodak lid points to AF100 since RED One doesn't have a detail circuit, AFAIK. Amazing how 800 TVL looks sharper than 4K on Vimeo!
Y is just out of focus or too shallow a dof.
Thanks for posting this. (You guys are KILLING me....every time I see something like this...I start TWITCHING, and I hear the AF100 calling me in a very low haunting voice)
I agree that, it appears to my eye that Y is a bit out of focus. It may NOT be ....but it looks that way to me. Thanks again!
I agree that, it appears to my eye that Y is a bit out of focus. It may NOT be ....but it looks that way to me. Thanks again!
pannyfreak
Active member
If you are shooting to look like motion picture film, then you are shooting with 180 degree shutter (1/48 sec exposure). Unless the camera is not moving/steadicam/tracking/dolly and your subject is sitting still and not moving, your image will probably be blurry. All the frames are taken with a (what is normally considered somewhat long) exposure for still photos which are usually 1/60, 1/125, or 1/250 sec as the slowest shutter to avoid blur.
Ticheli
Well-known member
Of course; but quite often you want the motion blur. It just depends on the subject. That's why I said, "maybe." There are certainly times to fire up the Nikon.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
pannyfreak
Active member
A still frame from Joe Walker's original AF100 test last month (available here):
A still frame from today's anonymous shootout:
(Where he just slyly reused the footage from the above test!) hehhee
Same footage pixel-per-pixel from the AF100, just color graded to match the Red
Footage from the RED: (A different frame)
A still frame from today's anonymous shootout:
(Where he just slyly reused the footage from the above test!) hehhee
Same footage pixel-per-pixel from the AF100, just color graded to match the Red
Footage from the RED: (A different frame)
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Brian@202020
Veteran
RED is the out of focus "Y", and the AF100 is "X", the flatter one with the false detail. Not really a fair test. A fair test would be multiple shots it multiple circumstances.
EDIT: Oops I didn't see there was an answer yet.
EDIT: Oops I didn't see there was an answer yet.
Ticheli
Well-known member
Correct about the limits of the test; as I said in my original post, "This is not a comprehensive test; just a single subject, no movement, no skin tone, no variety of color temperatures, etc., but I think it says a great deal about the color, resolution, and overall image quality of the two cameras. "
I understand; threads run long and we can't be expected to read every post, but I did clearly state the limits of the exercise.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
Brian@202020
Veteran
I hear ya, I was just reiterating the fact.
It tells you nothing about the resolution (and thus the overall image quality) between the two because the Red shot is too soft (whether it's out of focus or too shallow depth of field). The Red will show more detail than the AF100. Whether it's comprehensive or not, I think if you're going to post an AF100 vs some other camera video the shots should be on equal planes and in this case they are not. The reason being that a lot of people ignore the fact that it's not comprehensive and will think the $5000 camera is better than the $18000 camera because there's something wrong with the $18000 camera shot.
Last edited:
Ticheli
Well-known member
The shots were on equal planes; the Y shot was shot at a larger aperture because it has a lower native ASA and the DOF is a good bit more shallow and the lens is softer wide open. I believe looking at the detail in the pound note tells us a great deal about the resolution of the X shot. The exercise is offered for what it is with no conclusions drawn other than I find the AF100 quite capable.
If it tells you nothing about image quality you're not seeing what I see, but I guess that's why there are so many flavors in the ice cream store. And, as Barry mentioned, offering a camera test tends to be thankless.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
If it tells you nothing about image quality you're not seeing what I see, but I guess that's why there are so many flavors in the ice cream store. And, as Barry mentioned, offering a camera test tends to be thankless.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
These are my thoughts:
1) I know you said you had to re-adjust the camera position because of crop factor, but there is something that looks a bit more off than just a change in perspective. Is there a chage in aspect ratio (regarding squeeze)? Just a tiny one?
2) 'Y' is too soft. Something is wrong.
3) This is my opinion only, and this is not a direct attack at you, however thus far your test is looking like nothing more than a nice fire starter for the cold winter. I appreciate the attempt, but surely being a man of intellegence you must see there is something not quite right with the softness of 'Y'. I can tell you 'Y' is not the RedOne or at least the RedOne done proper, as I frequently use it to great technical lengths. I can tell you that I highly doubt it is the AF-100 or at least done proper, as I think we have expected more, especially considering that the HVX-200 and HPX-170 could do better. I cannot however say that 'Y' is not the AF-100 from experience, as I have yet to do my own tests. It just doesn't fit my understanding thus far.
4) You are 100% correct on the advantages of the AF100 and it's internal ND wheel. It will save time, especially if you are working in an ENG/Doc/Reality/fast moving event-gig. I would however like you to explain your reasoning for the RedOne disadvantages of overcranking. As I see it, RedOne can go 30fps in 4.5k and 4k, 60fps in 3k, and 120fps in 2k. AF-100 can go 60fps in 1080. I don't understand how the Red has much poorer image quality nor lens factor issues. When discussing much poorer image quality, are you referring to RedCode36 at 3,072×1,728 (3k 16:9)? If by lens factor issues, do you mean crop factor... which as you already know there is a crop factor from 4k Red to the AF-100, and if anything, shooting at 3k would bring them closer together, helping to eliminate what-ever issues you had with a crop factor.
5) I would like you to know that I am not posting to this thread to champion on behalf of the RedOne... I take more stabs at Red, and their company, than I'd like them to know. However, I must give my opinion when I see something that does not look right. It bothers me to see a 'test video' which has results which can only be described as suspiciously outside of expectations and presented in a way that makes people speculate out of context thus taking sides. As someone put it in less words previously, "Why do I feel like a little camera war is about to erupt? " and "love it! Leo is stirring the pot". And this is exactly what you are doing. Again, I'm trying to reply kindly and I hope this isn't to blunt or rude. With that said, it looks like you are trying to finesse a consensus of the AF-100 being like the quality of a RedOne out of this thread. Comments like wanting to avoid the RedOne's over-crank ability (seemingly in favor of the AF-100) because of 'much poorer image quality' only re-enforce my feelings. I am not saying this is your agenda, but I am letting you know that it may look that way to many. Thus, if this was not your intention, I would like to hear your thoughts on such previously made points, because thus far what has been alluded to and what has been said go against my experience/understanding and seem to really only serve the purpose of bringing what is a relatively unquestionably higher quality camera down.
To be clear, I think the AF-100 is going to be a terrific camera. Absolutely wonderful. I'm highly considering if I'd like to invest in one. I think the AF100 is going to be another big-hit for Panasonic, and I've been a Panasonic fan from the DVX-100, through the HVX200 era, and today with the HPX-170 (a truly terrific work of engineering). I also bet that if in the hands of the right person, we'll find the AF-100 can match footage of the RedOne when displayed back at 1080 or a compressed video service, such as Vimeo or Youtube. On the same token, if the RedOne is in the wrong hands we can surely see the AF-100 producing a superior product. That is a given in this industry.
With that said, punch for punch, it seems to be an optimisticly subjective thought process to allude the RedOne is inferior in image quality. If not the result of the 'mystery' test, surely the point gathered from text postings. This is a deja-vu moment for me at DVXuser, where we have people who are very enthusiastic for a new camera they can afford, perhaps jumping the gun and throwing other cameras under-the-bus, perhaps unintentionally, as a result of their excitement and hopefulness. But to be honest here, what are we really trying to demonstrate? If AF-100 is X, I very much disagree with the thought it could prove to out-resolve or be more sharp than a RedOne... flipping that around, if the RedOne was X, I would still question the lack of sharpness of Y especially when viewing at a least common denominator of Vimeo compression.
By now, those reading this have either pegged me as a hero or a villain. I'm not trying to be either nor do I want to kindle the fire. I just feel like throwing my thoughts into the wind.
Now, I don't know about the true intentions of the test, what I wrote earlier is what it looked like to me. As I have explained, and many other DVXusers have expressed, the 'Y' camera is very soft compared to 'X'. I will not leave this thread without examining the possibilities which may have caused such thing to occur.
Possibilities for Y to be unusually soft; from likely to less likely:
1) Codec issues. We all know compression, codecs, trans-coding, and post work can be a headache and a big can of worms. I've left that game long ago. I have several assistant editor friends who constantly find ways to get good results by going from one codec to another and etc. I had to export my demo reel about 20 times before I found the right combination of codec compression settings which made me happy. The softness and what I think is a slight aspect ratio squeeze might be the signs of a post issue. This is my #1 theory.
2) Lens aperture. Sure all tests ought to have the same lens and same F-stop... but did this one? I've seen some of you guess that the DoF is more shallow, and perhaps that is why it seems softer. As much as that is a viable possibility, I offer you another. Sharpness of the lens. It seems the AF-100 was at a 400 iso, while the Red was at 320. This means if 'Y' is Red, which we do not know, the following possibility is a possibility... but if Red is not 'Y' it is not. So if Red was 'Y', the 320iso RedOne would have needed more light (a half stop) to achieve the same exposure. I am not familiar with the Zeiss 50mm T2.1 lens... but perhaps opening the lens could soften the image.
Lenses wide open tend to resolve less sharpness than when closed down. This varies from lens make, as Cooke S4's and other cinema lenses are pretty darn good wide open, but I've got enough experience on Superspeeds, and older zooms to know that wide open usually ='s softness. Thus my 2nd theory is that the AF-100, (if 'X' remember), might have been on say, a 2.8 or in that range, while the RedOne needing half a stop, could have been just above or on wide open. If the lens you are using is a CP.2 I'd rethink this theory a bit, but then again, it may have a sharpness drop when wide open. Who knows. It's a theory.
3) All other theories of mine are now down to operator level. Perhaps settings on 'y' camera weren't set optimally, perhaps focus was just a bit off, maybe this maybe that. We don't know.
Differing opinions happen, and I hope I have at least presented my thoughts in a rather respectable way. I understand some of my thoughts, if not written correctly could be taken as more of a personal attack than they really are.
-ryan
Edit: Reading all the responses that were posted while I was writing this mini-novel, I can tell you that camera tests are usually a thankless job, and I normally do appreciate them, but regarding this one, 'Y' seems so off that I would wonder why you didn't question it to begin with? Unless you truly believe camera 'Y' performs at the demonstrated level, it would almost be irresponsible to post it if you thought there might be a compromising issue with the test.
But I will thank you for the effort, contributing to this forum, and especially for putting up with me.
Last edited:
Ticheli
Well-known member
Thanks for your thoughtful questions, Ryan. As you might imagine, our test day was very rushed and the Red camera shot was simply setup prior to the AF100's arrival to create the table-top shot. This was never intended to be a Red v. AF100 shoot-out, it's offered for what it is, an interesting look based on a very limited situation. It certainly was not an attempt to claim that the AF100 has superior image quality to the Red; it does not. As to, "stirring the pot," or "starting a war," those are certainly not my words or intentions.
As I stated previously, the lens on the Red was wide open; softer and more shallow DOF. There was no unusual setup on the Red; I believe the resolution was set to 42, the highest.
On the over-cranking, I do not like 3K or 2K; they just don't look good to me and I don't like cutting them into 4K footage. Yes, I do it when I have to, but I don't like it.
What this does show to me is that in a case like this one the AF100 is a very capable camera.
Lastly, on the aspect ratio, I'll have the editor take another look tomorrow to see it anything weird crept into his post.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
As I stated previously, the lens on the Red was wide open; softer and more shallow DOF. There was no unusual setup on the Red; I believe the resolution was set to 42, the highest.
On the over-cranking, I do not like 3K or 2K; they just don't look good to me and I don't like cutting them into 4K footage. Yes, I do it when I have to, but I don't like it.
What this does show to me is that in a case like this one the AF100 is a very capable camera.
Lastly, on the aspect ratio, I'll have the editor take another look tomorrow to see it anything weird crept into his post.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
You guy's know how to focus ? 
Seamus McFlannel
Well-known member
AF-100 is "X". To my eye, it looks better in this short comparison.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
Yeah, this test was really, really lame. Thanks Ryan for the great post. I read part of it, took a nap, got something to eat then came back and read the rest! LOL, seriously though, great post man.
If you want to do a true test....
Get a RED Technical Genius and an AF-100 Technical Genius to set up their own cameras, as well as someone who is a Technical Genius who doesn't give a damn either way to double check. Might as well throw in some 5DII tests and 7D tests at the same time because they're easy cameras to come by.
I would be happy to be involved with a shootout on some level, Ryan. I'm only a few hour north of you, if anyone ever wants to try something.