Was that the 4/3 or m43 Mark?
AF101 BBC/EBU test results posted
- Thread starter nugat
- Start date
- Status
Was that the 4/3 or m43 Mark?
I intend to contribute to keep this thread a civilized debate on the sole issue of the TVL resolution of the AF100. It is my honest opinion that discussing these issues is fully legitimate.There seems to be some forum contributors who think that airing this issue (covered i.a. by the tests of slashcam.de and Alan Roberts) is somehow reprehensible and the persons (not the issue) have wrong attitudes. There are other contributors who think that this discussion is welcome and that everybody is OK. I happen to be such a contributor.
Last edited:
RieniO
Well-known member
I love watching Dirty Jobs but the image hurts my eyes but I think they don't do any grading, and show raw out of camera image. Or maybe it's the NTSC to PAL conversion; even though most American shows look great on European TV.
I agree that I should have waited with buying the AF100. I was too quick, too eager, and I got myself all hyped up. Like I wrote earlier, it's just another lesson learned. C'est la vie. Anybody not being happy and talking about legal steps shoulld ask themselves whether they really want to put energy in this. I really enjoy using the AF100, it's a truly professional camcorder, it's my first camcorder with built in WFM and focus assist, I'm just not happy with the image color and the stuttery playback but maybe this can still be solved. I don't think the AF100 is a disaster. Most people seem to be happy with it, so something should be good about it.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Contributing intelligent discussion is acceptable. Threatening lawsuits and calling a professional camcorder a "pixie toy" is not acceptable.
RieniO
Well-known member
are you saying that inside the AF101, 30p is converted to 25p and that's the reason for the stuttery playback?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Most definitely not.
Instead, what may be happening is that people viewing footage on a computer will almost always be experiencing a standards conversion, since computer monitors usually run at a fixed frequency of at least 60Hz, so the 50Hz or 25Hz footage has to be converted to 60Hz for playback, and that can cause stuttering. When played back on a television or proper video monitor, no such stuttering will be visible. It is a computer playback issue, not a camera issue.
No, this is not just for features. BBC HD requirements relate to all commissioned or in-house productions of any genre. Obviously, footage of key news events is another matter but BBC HD specifications most certainly do apply to factual programming such as documentaries. Bottom line: IF (and it's a big if) you are working directly for the BBC HD channel(s) then you need to adhere to their technical specifications, whether it's drama or docs.
Barry, Alan's comments on DVDoctor were more along the line of the 100 being unlikely to be approved as a HD acquisition tool and that its use would very likely be restricted to content portions allowed for SD/HDV material.
Anyway, it's important not to obsess about resolution. I know that many of us look to BBC guidelines as a yardstick and a camera not being approved may have an effect if you are a freelancer working for particular broadcasters but for many, many uses (such as music vids, corporate productions, indie drama, on-spec docs) the number of pixels really isn't the main consideration. For me, it's as much about whether the camera allows you to get the shots you need to tell your story effectively. In our case, I decided that the AF100 was not the right tool and effective resolution was only one aspect. I was much more concerned about the motion trailing, artefacting, build quality and - above all - ergonomics and lack of an appropriate lens for the majority of our work. For many people and uses, this camera is perfectly adequate and pretty good value for money.
What has been bothering me about this camera and the chatter about it is that there has been a general lack of objectivity about it and clearly a lot of people have been in denial about its shortcomings. Alan's report will go some way to setting the record straight, I hope.
I did read what he wrote at dvdoctor.net , and somehow our readings are different.
"I suspect the official position will be that it's an HD camera, but not top grade. So, it'll get approval for use in film-style shoots but not as the main camera. I guess it's footage will be classed in the 'non-HD' quota, including archive and SD footage. But, I don't make the rules or the decisions, I only measure and report (and get paid for so doing)."
In any case in my company it might serve as a c-cam on some productions, if....
RieniO
Well-known member
I can believe the 25fps isn't converted from 30fps but I find the rest of your post complete nonsense. The stuttering is caused by the AF101, big fat period. All my equipment is 50hz, so is the AF101, and anything else from any other camera including the GH1 and GH2 doesn't stutter. I get the AF101 stutter on both Mac and PC on pro Eizo screens and laptop screens in several media players (QT, VLC, WMP). Also the stutter we see isn't computer screen flickering, the image just stops completely for about 2 frames. Same goes for the noise; it's caused by the AF101 and it's the ugliest noise I've ever seen in a video cam. It's not sensor noise, it's just plain old ugly electronics error noise that you would only see in a camera that has been put together too quickly. If Panasonic would have spent some more time on this camera at least they would have hidden the noise by adapted the default settings, but they didn't even bother to do that. They must have been in a very big hurry!
Also everything I claim here has been experienced and confirmed by a team of photo and video professionals here in France. We've been comparing footage from several cameras side by side and the overall conclusion is that the GH1/2 footage has a lot of wow factor and that the AF101 footage is very disappointing. Everybody had high expectations and wanted to have the new toy in their hands and play with it but after seeing the footage the new toy is now lying in a corner of the studio like a lost puppy being ignored by everybody. The new kid in town has been puked out after 2 shoots already and was beat by 600 euro DSLRs.
From the day that the first AF100 samples were shared in this forum those who saw problems have been labelled as "stupid, dumb, trouble makers, not really knowing what they are doing, pixel peepers, potentially damaging the sales of a new camera, should change their hard- and software" and that is really getting old now. Personally I believe that those who see the problems are the smart ones, and the ones who don't see the problems because they don't want to see them for various reasons (sentimental, financial, etc) might be "not-so-smart" ones. Because on the long term this "blame it on the others" won't work. When you, as someone considered an expert on this forum, claim a camera is fantastic, people believe you and base their buying decision on what you write, and that's part of their respect for you. Don't you think these people deserve respect in return, and therefor deserve a solution from you or this forum in general of from Panasonic, rather than being told to "just get rid of the camera" or "it''s all due to VLC player" or "you don't know what you are doing"?
Lets be clear on a few points: If someone is selling you something that is different from what they advertise, you have the right to complain.
If one is satisfied with what he bought even if he is missleaded by the add, so be it, but one should not point fingers at others who are complaining. Take Barry for instance: He is good in what he does, but IMO he is connected to Panasonic. You don't hear me saying that he is giving us false information, what Iam saying is that even Barry must accept that there are people who spent their hard-earned money on a product and have the right to complain if the product doesn't meet their expectations. If some of these persons are biased by testreports, lets try to convince them that the product is quite good and not try to tell them to sell it and go on.
IMO if I feel that Panasonic is "cheating", i have the right to say that I want to sue them.
Sure, they have all the muscle to win the lawsuit, but in the end they will be the looser if it if obvious that they won because of there "muscle" and not because of the facts and fairness. The buyers will judge them than.
I bought the camera's to do movies, so if the picture stands up in the theatre, I will be happy.
I will shoot wide shots with EX1 and AF100 and compare them in the theatre.
I know for sure that the CU will be ok, because of the nature of these shots, but I have my doubts about the WS - wide shots of the AF100.
Lately I watched the movie "The Badermeinhoff Complex". There is a scene of people in the theatre during a meeting.
It was so sharp that you almost almost identify someone in the crowd; very pleasing for the eye.
I wonder if the AF100 can give me that?
If one is satisfied with what he bought even if he is missleaded by the add, so be it, but one should not point fingers at others who are complaining. Take Barry for instance: He is good in what he does, but IMO he is connected to Panasonic. You don't hear me saying that he is giving us false information, what Iam saying is that even Barry must accept that there are people who spent their hard-earned money on a product and have the right to complain if the product doesn't meet their expectations. If some of these persons are biased by testreports, lets try to convince them that the product is quite good and not try to tell them to sell it and go on.
IMO if I feel that Panasonic is "cheating", i have the right to say that I want to sue them.
Sure, they have all the muscle to win the lawsuit, but in the end they will be the looser if it if obvious that they won because of there "muscle" and not because of the facts and fairness. The buyers will judge them than.
I bought the camera's to do movies, so if the picture stands up in the theatre, I will be happy.
I will shoot wide shots with EX1 and AF100 and compare them in the theatre.
I know for sure that the CU will be ok, because of the nature of these shots, but I have my doubts about the WS - wide shots of the AF100.
Lately I watched the movie "The Badermeinhoff Complex". There is a scene of people in the theatre during a meeting.
It was so sharp that you almost almost identify someone in the crowd; very pleasing for the eye.
I wonder if the AF100 can give me that?
RieniO
Well-known member
What you use as an A cam then? Here's it's the GH2, but would that get approval from the BBC (not that I care, just curious about it)?
No, I am saying that 24p out of AF100 (60Hz market/setup) is recorded as a true progressive frame on the SD card. In 50Hz markets the Af101 records the 25p as PSF-progressive segmented frame (on the internal SD card). This might contribute to problems when transcoding the interlaced fields for output frequencies. To make things more complicated, in 50Hz markets (PAL and such) many displays (not only computer, some plasma and LCD TVs too) are 60Hz. That obviously makes things cheaper/easier for far east (Japan, Korea) manufacturers, but more difficult for viewers in Europe. Especially when a 25psf material is to be transcoded for a 60Hz display--weird artefacts can result. Eg PS3 by default is 60Hz. One has to dig deeper in setups to change output to 50Hz. One needs to know that. He is lucky if the display he uses is either native 60Hz or capable of autodetect and switch to 60hz. If not, the quality of transcoding will decide what he sees from PS3 set to default. Things made in Japan are more 60Hz friendly, as the country adopted both power grid frequency and TV standards (NTSC) from the US. As a curiosity, there are parts of Japan with 50Hz electricity too (at least there were 20 years ago when I lived there).
RieniO
Well-known member
Setting up a "www.af100sucks.com" site where you gather and publish all the negative experiences without die hard Panasonic fans being able to censor anything would be more effective than complaining to authorities and legal court procedures and as long as you stick with facts and don't slander, it would be totally legal. And even a big fat powerful company as Panasonic won't ignore a site like that.
And the Bader Meinhoff movie is very good, I saw it last year, but I can't remember this particular scene. But you should be able to look up what camera's were used somehow. Probably Arri's
RieniO
Well-known member
Ok thanks for explaining but why is it then that 25p from my GH1 plays smoothly? Also would the stutter problem be solved by shooting at 24fps with the AF101? I understand from your post that 24fps is recorded in a totally different way? I don't mind shooting at 24fps, I have to do that anyway if I want to match to the GH2.
SDX900 before and HPX3100 now. Our production workflow is AVC100-Intra 100 into Prores.
A precondition for EBU/BBC* approval is 422 chroma sampling and 50 mbit/sec codec in the long GOP configuration such as MPEG2. 100 mbit /sec for intraframe codecs such as AVC-Intra.
I understand BBC granted a limited approval for some cams recording to outboard 422 intraframe recorders. If GH2 signal can be recorded outboard with such parameters then perhaps it could try for a limited approval.
*official EBU (European Broadcasting Union) recommendation
I don't know if Panasonic is being forthright with the AF100. I don't know if the camera lives up to the announced specs. But I'll offer this little anecdote:
Years ago, Mazda was in such a situation. When they released the 2004 RX-8 sports car, it had a given horsepower number. People bought the car expecting it to be delivered with such a number.
However, not too long after it was released, it was confirmed that the RX-8 did not have the horsepower advertised, but a little lower.
How did Mazda react? They offered to buy back every RX-8 from any owner who was dissatisfied with the car. I don't know how many owners actually did, because even with a slightly less horsepower number than was advertised, the car was a terrific performer. I know I loved mine ( I bought a used one). I can only assume people bought the RX-8 after a test drive, not based solely on a spec sheet. If it passed their driving test, it was golden.
Still, even if you were happy with the car's performance, but not happy about the difference between advertised and true horsepower, Mazda was willing to buy the car back.
Years ago, Mazda was in such a situation. When they released the 2004 RX-8 sports car, it had a given horsepower number. People bought the car expecting it to be delivered with such a number.
However, not too long after it was released, it was confirmed that the RX-8 did not have the horsepower advertised, but a little lower.
How did Mazda react? They offered to buy back every RX-8 from any owner who was dissatisfied with the car. I don't know how many owners actually did, because even with a slightly less horsepower number than was advertised, the car was a terrific performer. I know I loved mine ( I bought a used one). I can only assume people bought the RX-8 after a test drive, not based solely on a spec sheet. If it passed their driving test, it was golden.
Still, even if you were happy with the car's performance, but not happy about the difference between advertised and true horsepower, Mazda was willing to buy the car back.
Honestly, I always try to make things simpler in production and minimize unknowns. Also with equipment. Looking for workarounds, setups, to avoid noise or judder/edges ringing/ghosting and such, is not my can of coke. Workarounds contribute to human error and in the end somebody will have to pay for it. Pro cameras work without workarounds. They are expensive, but reliabilty costs. In the end costs less than errors.
So what are your workflows with Gh1 and Af101 to get those different results?
pulpfiction007
Veteran
I totally understand being disappointed by a product...it's something we've all been through at one time or another. However, here's what I don't get - If, in your eyes the AF100 is the "lost puppy in the corner" and it's been confirmed by all these photo and video experts where you live, being beaten by DLSRs as you say - WHY in the world would any rational person keep dealing with a device they deem to be so unworthy? It makes no sense in any way shape or form. Reporting your opinions and trying to discover solutions for issues is one thing, but if you have already drawn such concrete conclusions about the AF100, then yes...maybe it's not the right camera for your work and it IS time to move along. Or....you can just keep it and go on telling everybody in the world what a bad choice you have made. I guess I just don't get it. If I buy something and I'm extremely disappointed, guess what happens - it's going back A.S.A.P
Benjamin Eckstein
Well-known member
I think some of these complaints have gone a little too far. I also suspect (and I may be wrong) that a lot of the people complaining about BBC acceptance are not shooting (and will never be shooting) content for the BBC. I'm not going to get into the marketing discussions. I believe I bought what I thought I was buying. It's not perfect, but it works, and I don't feel that Panasonic is lying to anyone. I also suspect that even IF the resolution is not what some hoped for and expected that the viewing audience doesn't give a crap. This looks like sharp, HD footage to me. It's not as sharp as my EX-1, but it's also got more of a filmic (I hate that term) look.
I've been shooting like crazy since getting my AF-100 the past 2 months, and clients seemed thrilled. I just wrapped 10 days on a tv pilot (news-magazine style) and the director and editor were thrilled with the shoot. Other clients seem thrilled too. I don't necessarily work in a world where clients need stuff from a RED or an Alexa, but I think this camera delivers nice images and it makes people happy. Not to toot my horn, but I've billed over $20k in shoots since getting this camera, so, yes, I think that it's worth it. And I may buy something else later this year, but it will have gotten good use until then.
I guess I think people need to lighten up a little.
I've been shooting like crazy since getting my AF-100 the past 2 months, and clients seemed thrilled. I just wrapped 10 days on a tv pilot (news-magazine style) and the director and editor were thrilled with the shoot. Other clients seem thrilled too. I don't necessarily work in a world where clients need stuff from a RED or an Alexa, but I think this camera delivers nice images and it makes people happy. Not to toot my horn, but I've billed over $20k in shoots since getting this camera, so, yes, I think that it's worth it. And I may buy something else later this year, but it will have gotten good use until then.
I guess I think people need to lighten up a little.
- Status