AF100 w/ Nanoflash VS hacked GH2?

This is a question that's not AF100/GH2 related, but on topic - how much value do you really get out of shooting a flat style with an 8-bit codec? I've never tried it with an AF100, but on Canon DSLR's I think shooting with one of the Standard/Neutral profiles is a lot better than shooting with the flat Cinestyle profile. Unless you're dealing with 10-bit 422 or better, shooting flat on a weak codec seems like a waste of time to me when you're so limited with your palette.
 
I'm not kidding myself. I shoot fairly flat and have great success with grading. The AVCHD codec isn't that bad and grades nice. More detail in the shadows isn't a bad thing unless you don't want to grade.
Same could be said for the C300 but that sensor is far more advanced but it records at 8 bit internal.
 
And even an external recorder has it's limits - the AF100 gives you 8-bit 422 out - it's an improvement but I'm not sure that it's worth the extra money or hassle unless you're trying to pull keys from your footage (though having a Nano + internal recording at the same time is great for redundancy).
 
Erik Naso said:
I'm not kidding myself. I shoot fairly flat and have great success with grading. The AVCHD codec isn't that bad and grades nice. More detail in the shadows isn't a bad thing unless you don't want to grade.
Same could be said for the C300 but that sensor is far more advanced but it records at 8 bit internal.
Click to expand...


I agree with you 100%. I shoot flat with the AF100 to get the greatest range for grading in post and YES it does make a difference. It's a difference anyone can see even in the field monitor. For exmaple, switch between cine D and V, master ped +, etc... and you can instantly see the detail in the shadows appearing. Even AbelCine has a "range" scene file up on their site for the AF100. Having an external recorder will just record that much more detail so the footage holds up better for grading. I've also seen side by side comparisons where you clearly have less artifacting and banding with an external recorder. At least this is my real-world experience. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
 
I did a test here http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1795/dynamic-range-test-between-gh2-and-7d/p1 about the gh2 vs 7d cynestyle marvel cine profile camera. As you can see the hacked gh2 has a ton of detail in the shadows which is still well preserved. You can see a little posterization in some extreme example i have done. This is with an ... old patch, they have been doing much better now in terms of blocking artifacts. This really plays well and is very filmic in terms of noise characteristic. I think it is kholi who use 5drgb with a flater gama that yields very flat image. The detail is here, just not visible at first site. Reminds me a lot like sony exmor sensors which dynamic range is bias more toward the shadows than the highlights.

Now I don't know compared to the af-100 but it is not far if not better than the same Canon last year zacuto test concluded was better than the Af100 in DR.
 
Agreed with both hendosan and Brent.
I don't use an external recorder because I don't shoot green screen that much and I if I do I use a HVX-370 with AVC-100. I asked this question a while back and many people around here that have tested the image quality of the internal codec vs. prores or DNxHD capture from SDI out really didn't see enough of a difference to justify recommending the external recorder.
 
Erik, I've heard the same thing but without the higher bit rate with an external recorder doesn't the native AVCHD image begin degrading much more quickly with heavy color correction? That's my main concern; not just what the image looks like straight out of the camera.
 
Check out the pics in the link in the OP.

Compare the AF100 shot to the GH2 shot. Granted, it is zoomed in 400%... but that's more of a compression issue to me than a resolved detail issue. The AF100 shot is riddled with compression artifacts in the trees. The GH2 shot with the high bit rate hack is clean... which is probably how the AF100 would've looked with the recorder.

It might not make a difference in all instances, but in this particular shot I think it would have.
 
DBP said:
I'm surprised how many people are finding the GH2 too contrasty. Not just in this thread either. With smooth -2 to everything, that's still too contrasty for everyone? How flat are you shooting?

Also, that link in the first post is a great example of how an external recorder (or a hack) can improve things.
Click to expand...


The problem I faced with the GH2 was the lack of an option to shoot "flatter" - not specifically "log" flat. The GH2 has good res going for it but outside of that I often found that I was constantly trying to reduce the contrast in the image - even when exposure was spot on. Also - I found a surprising amount of moire in shots - something that I don't worry about anymore on the AF100.

This doesn't mean it won't work for you - but know that the GH2 is going to limit your options when trying to plan out your image - you can only get so flat, and there are a lot of times when it is just far too contrasty for its own good. With the hack you'll get a finer noise grain (really felt like super 16mm to my eyes) but a ton of edge enhancement that ruins the fun, even at Smooth -2, -2, -2, -2 (some people love it though).

Expose well and 8bit AVCHD has plenty of room to grade in post. I think a nanoflash would be great to have as increasing bandwidth for the signal is always good - but frankly after the hacks it feels good to stop worrying about keeping up with datarates and to get back to shooting.

YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Alán Ortiz said:
The problem I faced with the GH2 was the lack of an option to shoot "flatter" - not specifically "log" flat. The GH2 has good res going for it but outside of that I often found that I was constantly trying to reduce the contrast in the image - even when exposure was spot on. Also - I found a surprising amount of moire in shots - something that I don't worry about anymore on the AF100.

This doesn't mean it won't work for you - but know that the GH2 is going to limit your options when trying to plan out your image - you can only get so flat, and there are a lot of times when it is just far too contrasty for its own good. With the hack you'll get a finer noise grain (really felt like super 16mm to my eyes) but a ton of edge enhancement that ruins the fun, even at Smooth -2, -2, -2, -2 (some people love it though).

Expose well and 8bit AVCHD has plenty of room to grade in post. I think a nanoflash would be great to have as increasing bandwidth for the signal is always good - but frankly after the hacks it feels good to stop worrying about keeping up with datarates and to get back to shooting.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. I guess it makes me curious because I often get jealous of the Canon look (saturated popping colors, contrast). I shot with the spark setting on my HMC150 and shoot vibrant more often than not on the GH2.

I find smooth quite dull looking. The greens espcially. Even though there's lots of room to grade, I've never felt like I good results shooting flat and grading, as opposed to getting it closer in camera. Maybe some people just like the flat contrast look for their final look, though. All subjective I suppose.
 
DBP said:
Hmmmm. I guess it makes me curious because I often get jealous of the Canon look (saturated popping colors, contrast). I shot with the spark setting on my HMC150 and shoot vibrant more often than not on the GH2.

I find smooth quite dull looking. The greens espcially. Even though there's lots of room to grade, I've never felt like I good results shooting flat and grading, as opposed to getting it closer in camera. Maybe some people just like the flat contrast look for their final look, though. All subjective I suppose.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt its subjective. In the end you have decide what works best for you and what kind of images speak to you as an artist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top