Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Guys, before you all start overthinking this (too late), I'm pretty sure that Leo's main point was not "this better than that" as much as "Look, this thing holds up pretty damn well."
AF100 vs. Red One: A non-definitive, but instructive test...
- Thread starter Ticheli
- Start date
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
+1
Leo has never said the Red was a better camera in fact over and over again he has stated just the opposite. That was not the point. This was never supposed to be a serious test, just an interesting set of shots.
Leo has never said the Red was a better camera in fact over and over again he has stated just the opposite. That was not the point. This was never supposed to be a serious test, just an interesting set of shots.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
Holds up well to what? Because the impression I got is that "it holds up pretty well to RED". But everyone else is saying "That's not what RED really looks like". There's no mistaking that the image quality on the AF100 will be great. Most cameras these days when used in the correct capacity will be great. If he wanted to show image quality alone, he could have thrown up a video or image of the AF100 by itself. But if you're going to compare, you have to make sure the camera you're comparing it to is at least set up correctly, hence people (including myself) think that it's biased and more or less propaganda.
Ticheli
Well-known member
I think you mean to say that I've always said Red is superior, which it is; however the AF100 is quite surprisingly good. Great in fact.
Thanks, Steve,
Leo
I disagree. You can't say it holds up well against the Red when the Red shot looks terrible. It's not in focus. Bottom line. This is no test or even a decent comparison. No one seems to know how to set up a proper test anymore because none of the AF100 comparison tests are useful. Either the shots aren't even close to the same, aren't using the same lenses, aren't white balanced, are like this one where the better camera is out of focus, or some other issue.
Last edited:
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
This is the part that always gets me. Why the extremes like "nobody" and "none". Are we forgetting that this camera isn't even shipping yet? A few guys have had the opportunity to shoot some stuff with prototypes and have been gracious enough to share....usually with the caveats and contexts of their circumstances. Nobody has one of these in their studio with the ability use it at their leisure, with unlimited time and ideal circumstances.
If the footage isn't working for you as some sort of comparison, fine. It works for some folks. Personally, I appreciate the effort.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
It's a question a lot of people are asking. He tried to show some evidence of an answer.
Propaganda usually serves a prpose. i doubt Leo cares who buys an AF-100.
A lot of us on this site do this for a living and are well prepared to make final judgments based on our own experiences. But there is a reason why there are thousands of posts in the AF-100 forum even though the camera isn't even released yet: We are curious and we speculate. It seems to me like Leo was just trying to share a bit of his experience. That's all.
Ticheli
Well-known member
I believe I've got a clip of the Red shooting not an identical, but very similar setup with many of the same elements, including a bill and the Kodak box. We shot it not long ago to demonstrate the 5D vs. the Red, and as I recall, it's tack sharp. I'll look for it tomorrow and we'll put it up.
After we receive the AF100 we'll do more comprehensive tests, which we use to show our clients how the cameras stack up; I'll post those, but by then I would imagine there will be a flood of good footage to review.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
After we receive the AF100 we'll do more comprehensive tests, which we use to show our clients how the cameras stack up; I'll post those, but by then I would imagine there will be a flood of good footage to review.
Good shooting and best regards,
Leo
Kit Hannah
Veteran
Agreed. And I don't beleieve it was his intent either, but by not pointing it out would be irresponsible because unfortunately so many people do form their opinions off of what their own eyes see and what other people say on these forums. Onlookers may form thier own opinions based off of the post though, so it's good to keep "anyone" that may see this well informed of what they are watching. What if someone saw this and said "Hey, I'm going to this other forum and posting this video of a AF100 vs. RED comparison". It's stupid it has to be that way, and hopefully people would just dismiss it, but you never know.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
I agree with that. But once it's been pointed out, why does it have to be beaten to death? The second post in this thread pointed out that the Y footage looked softer, and both before and after the cameras were revealed it was mentioned over a half-dozen times. If anyone thinks that a 1080 sensor is going to give them a sharper image than a 4K sensor (assuming all else is equal), then they are just looking for specific information to support their own misguided suppositions.
Besides, it's one thing to mention an observation (this looks soft, etc). It's another to assume intent by saying something is biased or propaganda. That kind of statement implies that the poster is trying to intentionally mislead the reader.
Besides, it's one thing to mention an observation (this looks soft, etc). It's another to assume intent by saying something is biased or propaganda. That kind of statement implies that the poster is trying to intentionally mislead the reader.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
Sorry about that Leo (I saw the thread on my iPhone and wanted to step in - damn mobile browser. ).
That's EXACTLY what I meant and precisely what you have said over and over again in countless posts since you and Barry did your test with the AF100.
Let's be clear here. Leo is a total pro who has nothing to prove to any of us, Panasonic or Red for that matter. I feel very grateful that he is on this board so that we can learn from his experience and frankly cannot understand the disrespect to someone who contributes AND is so knowledgeable.
You don't like the test? You know so much? You can do better...? Then you do one.
Last edited:
S. Matthews
Well-known member
I agree with others if you are not going to do it right what is the point? just show us the af100 shot, or take the vs. out of the title of the thread as that implies it is a comparison of the two which if it was, it was not done properly and thus serves very little purpose other than to show that a bad operator on a red (not saying you are a bad operator just made a mistake I assume) can produce worse results than a good operator on a af100, which most people I would assume already know.
This seems like an attempt to stir the pot (I just can't see how this could be thought of as a good comparison on any level) or just a very hastily done comparison with a bad title.
mah I guess I have no right to tell you what is or is not an apt comparison, this is just how I feel.
have a good one.
This seems like an attempt to stir the pot (I just can't see how this could be thought of as a good comparison on any level) or just a very hastily done comparison with a bad title.
mah I guess I have no right to tell you what is or is not an apt comparison, this is just how I feel.
have a good one.
Last edited:
What I meant is that no one seems to know how to set up a proper COMPARISON test anymore. I know there have been other test shoots (such as Barry Green and Philip Bloom et al in Japan and elsewhere, "A Verse..." (more than a test though), Leo's studio shoot with the models, Beaver and Squirrel's review/test, and some others. It's the comparison tests that aren't being done properly and thus have really been no good for anything useful.
10s
Veteran
I walk away from this comparison, though it could be much better, is that the AF100 is in the ball park! Now take a moment and think about that. We have a great new cinematic tool, not a spruced up small CCD news gathering tool but a cinematic tool. This is going to be a really good camera for motion picture storytellers. I might even have to start calling this camera, "Scarleta" just to drive the point home. They delivered, it's here and affordable. From what I see, I just got what I've been looking for and belly-aching about for the last 6 years. This AF100/RED comparison says to me ---- it's good enuff, now go get em.
It's nothing against Leo. He's a pro, has great experience, and knows what he's doing. I don't know the circumstances of the test or if he was even the camera operator on it. All that I'm saying is this and every other comparison test done so far hasn't told us anything useful, except for <see below>....
I think that's the best thing that can be derived from this, and maybe that was Leo's intention all along (the thread title does say "instructive test"), but let's not start with conspiracy theories. The point is, It doesn't matter what camera you have. It's the person, not the camera, and no one is perfect.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Point taken. I guess I just disagree that something like this isn't useful.
But that's what makes the world go 'round. :beer:
And that I do agree with :thumbsup:
Barry_Green
Moderator
With all due respect, it's not possible to do a comparison test that will satisfy everyone. And, more and more, it seems impossible to do one that satisfies ANYone. What you think is "proper" will be bitterly debated by someone else who will insist that an entirely different procedure is "proper."
I organized a six-way shootout way back in the days, HVX vs XLH1 vs FX1 vs HD100 vs VariCam vs F900. Got 11 professionals in a room together, including Jay Nemeth and Evin Grant and Adam Wilt; Adam covered the test for DV magazine. And yes, after participating in the test and then asking them which one they'd buy, 9 of the 11 said they'd buy the HVX. And yes, after that, I got called every name in the book, slandered on websites left and right, and had to threaten legal action to get it to stop.
Adam Wilt told me that organizing a camera comparison is a sure way to misery, because someone's sacred ox is gonna get gored. Look at the Zacuto guys, they tried their big DSLR shootout thing, and people have called them names, questioned their motives, questioned their integrity, and questioned the integrity of the folks who participated in it.
No matter what you do, it's nearly impossible to satisfy anyone with a "shootout". Someone will always point out what you did wrong. And there's a point there -- you can't possibly play to every product's strengths. People showed a 5D looking as good as a Red in many tests -- and frankly that's laughable. Point the cameras at a wide-angle scene and do a little panning and it's obvious the Red is leagues better -- miles and miles better -- but that's what test after test showed, if you do a closeup shallow DOF shot, the 5D looks comparable to the Red. So how do you possibly test every conceivable circumstance to show each at their best, and at their worst? We shot some side-by-side film with the AF100, and people are complaining about that because they're not graded identically. To which I could say, had we graded them identically, people would complain that the film was being limited to only what the AF100 could do, and we should grade them differently to show how much more film could do, etc.
And no matter what you test, there will be folks chipping in saying "why didn't you test THIS?" Just like Zacuto, they tested, what, five or six cameras? And the first thing people are demanding is "why didn't you test them against film?!?!" With no acknowledgement or concession given that the more cameras you add, the more exponentially difficult it becomes to properly and carefully administer such a test.
And if they'd spent the money and gone through the effort to test them on film, someone would have found something new to complain about.
Here's the simple absolute fact -- most people don't want to know the truth. They want to be told that what they already believe, is the truth. They want CONFIRMATION, not INFORMATION. There was a study done on internet surfers that proved that, that when people are researching products they aren't looking for clarification, they're looking for support that what they've already decided to do, is an okay decision.
Which is why I pretty much quit doing comparison tests. Even when I do something as absolute and iron clad and completely indisputable as pointing a camera at a standardized test chart, I get slandered and accused of being part of a marketing machine and all sorts of things.
There's no reward in it. There's no point to doing it. No joy comes from it. Screw it.
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Well exactly^
Why do we need to see a comparison that is already known to be completely misleading? You say,
The sad thing in life is that everybody does not know this. Especially the younger or newer members here at DVXuser, or people who are not as camera savy as you or I. If they are looking to support their own misguided suppositions, they need to look no further than this comparison video. They can immediately point to a video comparison test in HD that shows a RedOne and a AF-100. A video which had no mention of an error of the scientific method (keeping control factors the same). It's not totally clear what all the issues were, but there were some. Including the lens being at a wider aperture for the RedOne. Wider apertures cause less DoF, softer optics, and increases the chances of lens abberations and can reduce contrast. If it wasn't for us DVXusers who recognized these discrepancies and who jumped on the horn, what would have stopped people from taking this seriously?
As stated before, should the original poster have recognized these issues before upload (which if he had watched it, must have noticed an AF-100 kicking the s**t out of a RedOne), than it was clearly not the best idea to post without a disclaimer or explanation... If I know anything, it's that you cannot count on the fact that everyone has a trained eye enough to see this is clearly not accurate. This is the type of misinformation that some people devour and thus spread. Sure they may be looking to support their own misguided suppositions, but once you give them an inch you'll hear them shouting it from the rooftops, and spreading the inaccuracies. I know this to be true.
You might ask why I care so much.
It's because I'm tired of meeting with producers and having to explain why 35mm film is still better than a 7D... or why Cinema lenses are worth the extra $200/day over used manual Nikon lenses on ebay for $60. I just had a discussion with a producer who said the AF-200 (confused the Af100 with the HVX200) was going to replace the Red. I asked her why she thought that, and she said, "It's better". I asked how it was better and she couldn't give me an answer. After I politely badgered her for a real definitive quality or technical fact, she simply said she didn't know technical stuff, but she had seen it at a booth at a tech-show. I let it go after that, but she probably over-heard her opinion from somebody else, who probably had their own right or wrong reasons for thinking so. Either way, it was really nothing she discovered for herself. My point isn't that the RED is better than the AF-100, certainly not for everything. AF-100 would be my choice over red for mobile shooting, lower budget indies, and etc. But the fact of the matter is that she is someone who makes decisions on what camera to use. She is a producer. She is not a technical person, her research is probably a result of websites like DVXuser. She is intelligent enough with technology to type the words "af-100, RedOne comparison" into google. She will get this website, I guarantee. She will get vimeo results, I guarantee.
I was trying to be respectful earlier and I am trying to be so now, but a comparison video with such obvious flaws and being uploaded without mention of such flaws (until the users bring it to light), in my opinion is grossly irresponsible and to me did begin to look like an agenda. I don't care what the original intent was anymore... what I care about is what people who do not know what we consider obvious will infer and deduce from a video such as this. I think we are all in agreement here that the video clearly represents a false truth, despite whether anyone ever typed it into actual text or said it.
So how is this an 'entertaining video'? I don't see how it really helped anyone.
I, again, do appreciate the effort to do such tests. I feel horrible having to sound crazy, angry, ungrateful or just being a hater. I'm not those things. Your effort is appreciated, but it wasn't a successful effort in the sense of a comparison. The silver lining is that it does show some nice AF-100 footage. Perhaps that is all that we needed to see. The AF100 is a wonderful camera and will show some good results just look at Barry, Timur, and Mick's Western released today.
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Barry, I agree with you, and I can't sympathize any greater with you or others who have attempted large shootouts in the past. I've seen many tests, most notably the PGA and ASC shootout last year. Filled with top-industry professionals (narrative work), everyone had their favorite, many didn't agree, and some companies weren't happy with the post workflow and etc. You can't please anyone and I feel I've always witnessed and respected this fact when it comes to comparisons.
But in this case, I don't think people's frustrations, including mine, are necessarily unjust or stem from a simple bickering and unsatisfied audience.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Jeez, talk about a case in point! In the PGA/ASC test they assigned one cinematographer to be responsible for each camera. And those cinematographers were ASC members! Guys with impeccable resumes who are the very best and at the very top of their game. And when the Red pretty much came in last place, there was screaming and howling and complaints about the post workflow and anything and everything. And that was a test set up by the technology committee of the American Society of Cinematographers. The best of the best.
There is simply no way to win.
I will continue to dig for the truth, and share it when I find it. I have to be content with the idea that some people will be infuriated by it, some will appreciate it, and a few out there might be informed by it. But for many folks, the question of "which should I buy" can realistically only be answered one way: "Buy whichever one you want. Because that's what you're going to do anyway." If you truly, truly want to believe that an AF100 will outperform a Red, then buy the AF100 and be happy and go get to work with it. If you truly, truly want to believe that a 7D is as good as a Red, then go get your 7D and be happy and put it to work. It isn't as good as a Red, of course; the whole notion is silly. But does it matter? Great work can be done with one, so go and do some. Of course, according to the PGA/ASC tests, the Red isn't as good as the Alexa or F35 either. But does it matter? It's good enough for Pirates 4, so ... unless you're doing something more demanding than they are, then maybe it's good enough?
People are going to want a GH2 vs. AF100 shootout. Why would I do that? Even if the images are identical, the AF100 is so embarrassingly superior in every conceivable way that there is simply *no comparison*. I've bought a GH2 and will shortly have an AF100 of my own when the boat lands (or the plane lands or whatever). I like the GH2 for what it is. I love it for what it is, actually. I just am not going to delude myself into thinking it's something other than what it is. Same with the AF100 -- if anyone seriously thinks there's any metric of image quality where an AF100 is going to outperform an Epic, then they're drinking the same kool-aid as the 5D folks who think it's as good as or better than the Red. It's simply not true, and it's not rational to think it. So why set up some "shootout" to try to prove that point (either one way or the other?)
I do think the red shot in this comparison looks softer than I would expect. I don't know why that is. I don't remember exactly, but I thought they had shot the Red shot before I got there. Leo had set up a few scenes beforehand to maximize the available time we had. Maybe the focus was off, I don't know. Maybe it's the inherent softness of the Zeiss Standard at full wide open, I don't know. But I do know that if we had absolutely perfectly controllable circumstances and set those two up side by side, with comparable glass stopped down to the sweet spot, then the Red would show significantly more sharpness. That's just the way that those two products work. Red charges more for a sensor, than Panasonic does for the entire AF100 camera (including a lens!) It is unreasonable to expect the $4700 product to be comparable to the $25,000 product, when both are of comparable generation of technology. (if you're talking about different generations of technology, then yes it's possible -- I do think an AF100 in 1080p mode could probably perform quite comparably to, in fact maybe scarily close to, a $70,000 VariCam from 2001. Technology advances, and big leaps in price/performance have happened. But when comparing today's best against today's best, the price gap will usually quite accurately reflect the differences between the units.)
Last edited: