AF101 BBC/EBU test results posted

Status
Not open for further replies.
honestly when I first got the Af I thought it was not delivering what I expected as far as producing odd noise(I cant really call it noise....looks more like compression artifacts in low light). Really learning the camera has brought out the best in it. Though with the pix-elation I am getting in the mid tones I still am not completely satisfied this the product. This might just be limitations in codec. With any camera there are ways to work around these problems. If panasonic did come out and say that this camera in fact did not have 800 lines(significantly less =sub 700) of res I would consider returning and expect a refund. Not because it is necessarily a bad camera and not even that it doesn't get the job done but for the principle that Panasonic did not deliver a product that they promised. I have trusted Panasonic to deliver quality to me for years since my first purchase of a dvx years ago and I trust they would remedy any false advertisement intentional or unintentional. Therefore, before I pass judgment I would like Panasonic to give an official statement. Obviously, they have other things that they need to tend to in Japan and I respect that. But eventually something will need to be said.
I will say if it turns out to be true. I will not be very happy.

Until then!
 
Benjamin Eckstein said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1000 to that. Isn't the oldest saying in the world on DVXUSER - "There is no perfect camera"
As with any camera - It may not be the right tool for certain people....so it goes. Talk of litigation though is IMO, preposterous. Yeah, so what now -Every camera company claiming FULL HD on their products is subject to lawsuits - Give me a break. There's a good reason retailers have return policies - USE THEM.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
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
Click to expand...

That's the problem with this forum, as soon as someone reports problems, that person is being labeled. Labeling people seems to have more priority than finding solutions. It would also be nice if you would read a post properly before drawing your own conclusions. Nowhere in my post did I use the word "experts" nor did I write that I am extremely disappointed. Are you mixing up my posts with those of others?
 
nugat said:
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?
Click to expand...

Your budget is probably higher than mine and even if I could afford buying a $100,000 camcorder, I would still be working with the GH2 if image quality would be better, even if it requires work-arounds like having to use external audio recorders etc. I've been shooting professionally using DSLRs for more than 1 year now and the beginning was hard but now it's easy. What I was expecting from the AF101 was an image at least as good as GH1/2/7D but a bit easier to use. Camcorder housing and operating, XLR audio, WFM etc. It's all there, it's really easy to use, but IMO the image is not as good as I hoped and image is the most important factor for me.

My workflow for GH1 and GH2 and AF101 are the same; convert to ProRes422 and edit in FCP. I already see the stuttering of AF101 footage when playing back mts files in VLC player, and I see the stuttering when playing back ProRes files from the timeline, I also see it when playing back the final edit converted to mp4 using Episode Telestream. The stuttering is already inside the in the AF101 recorded footage but I have shot 25fps only so far. With GH1 and 2 I used both 24 and 25fps and never saw any stuttering.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
+1000 to that. Isn't the oldest saying in the world on DVXUSER - "There is no perfect camera"
As with any camera - It may not be the right tool for certain people....so it goes. Talk of litigation though is IMO, preposterous. Yeah, so what now -Every camera company claiming FULL HD on their products is subject to lawsuits - Give me a break. There's a good reason retailers have return policies - USE THEM.
Click to expand...

"Full HD" is a marketing term. 1080p is a frame size, which can be measured in resolution. If the camera was advertised as a 1080p camera, people would be unhappy to find out that it can only output a 720p frame. Of course, 800 TVL is a different issue from a 1080p frame size. We can pull the footage into a NLE and see that the footage is in fact 1080p.

800 TVL can also be measured. Presumably, a company like Panasonic has an engineering department that can measure 800 TVL. If they claim 800 TVL, the camera should resolve 800 TVL. Most of us on this thread simply want to know how Panasonic measured 800 TVL, and we want to know why others have not gotten the same result.

The issue of people threatening lawsuits is really beyond the point. Here in the US, you can sue anyone for anything. There are plenty of lawyers who will happily take your money. Whether or not something would get thrown out in court is another issue.

If you bought the new Mac Book Pro, you would be unhappy to find out that your 8 gigs of ram you bought as an upgrade only performs as 4 gigs of ram.

I simply want to know how panasonic measured 800 TVL. I am more than content with my camera resolving 800 TVL for my current work. Like you said, there is no perfect camera, and we make compromises in the indy camera market.
 
blackcat said:
The issue of people threatening lawsuits is really beyond the point. Here in the US, you can sue anyone for anything. There are plenty of lawyers who will happily take your money.
Click to expand...

And then it will take all your time and energy and everytime you shake hands with your lawyer you need to count your fingers afterwards to check if they are still all there. Then even if you win the lawsuit your lawyer's bill will probably be higher than the amount you went to court for so you still lose. You could consider not paying your lawyer's bill but then he'll sue you and you end up hiring another lawyer to defend you against your previous lawyer.
 
RieniO said:
Your budget is probably higher than mine and even if I could afford buying a $100,000 camcorder, I would still be working with the GH2 if image quality would be better, even if it requires work-arounds like having to use external audio recorders etc. I've been shooting professionally using DSLRs for more than 1 year now and the beginning was hard but now it's easy. What I was expecting from the AF101 was an image at least as good as GH1/2/7D but a bit easier to use. Camcorder housing and operating, XLR audio, WFM etc. It's all there, it's really easy to use, but IMO the image is not as good as I hoped and image is the most important factor for me.

My workflow for GH1 and GH2 and AF101 are the same; convert to ProRes422 and edit in FCP. I already see the stuttering of AF101 footage when playing back mts files in VLC player, and I see the stuttering when playing back ProRes files from the timeline, I also see it when playing back the final edit converted to mp4 using Episode Telestream. The stuttering is already inside the in the AF101 recorded footage but I have shot 25fps only so far. With GH1 and 2 I used both 24 and 25fps and never saw any stuttering.
Click to expand...

This is strange. Can you give you setups on Af101, all those different from factory? What is the shutter/ VFR especially? Have you ever watched the same footage played from the camera via HDMI onto a TV monitor/plasma? Not on a computer display? Does it stuuter also on static scenes?
 
RieniO said:
That's the problem with this forum, as soon as someone reports problems, that person is being labeled. Labeling people seems to have more priority than finding solutions. It would also be nice if you would read a post properly before drawing your own conclusions. Nowhere in my post did I use the word "experts" nor did I write that I am extremely disappointed. Are you mixing up my posts with those of others?
Click to expand...

I did read your post...sorry I used the word expert instead of professional. The statements "lost puppy in the corner" , "being beaten by DLSRs", "ugliest noise I have ever seen" "footage was very disappointing" do not sound like those of someone who's happy with the product..... So O.K.
I do agree some of the complaints get met with disdain, but that was not my point. I just don't understand why anyone would keep a product that hasn't met their expectations, and then go on and continue to be upset about it. It's in no way productive or rational IMO....but to each his own I guess.
 
Last edited:
nugat said:
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)."
Click to expand...
The way I read it, he's saying it is an HD camera, yes. Not "top grade" but it may be approved. The footage is a different matter because it doesn't record 4:2:2. So I'm interpreting him saying that he thinks it will be approved (but not at the top grade) when using a NanoFlash to get 4:2:2 recording, and he's saying that he doesn't expect the native recording format will be approved by itself. Which is, largely, what creativevideo was saying when they tweeted that the AF100 had been approved by the BBC when used with the Nano at 50mbps. (a tweet I'm still trying to get a second source of confirmation for).
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
The way I read it, he's saying it is an HD camera, yes. Not "top grade" but it may be approved.
Click to expand...

I expected most of that to be the case from the start. The one thing that continues to confuse me is simply the discrepancies in advertised TVL compared to what these tests are producing.
 
The disapointment will be the if camera is only BBC approved for short inserts that are part of the non HD percentage allowable even if used with a Nanoflash. I really did think that the price (allowing for the fact that a lens is not included) would mean that the quality of the picture would be similar to a Sony EX1. The mention of the stated 800 line resolution in the brochure removed any doubts I had and confirmed that this a serious camera. Oh well back to the drawing board.
 
RieniO said:
That's the problem with this forum, as soon as someone reports problems, that person is being labeled. Labeling people seems to have more priority than finding solutions. It would also be nice if you would read a post properly before drawing your own conclusions. Nowhere in my post did I use the word "experts" nor did I write that I am extremely disappointed. Are you mixing up my posts with those of others?
Click to expand...

I feel as one of these "labelled" or "ostracized" people. It is not a good signal. However, I will do my best not to raise the temperature.
 
blackcat said:
I expected most of that to be the case from the start. The one thing that continues to confuse me is simply the discrepancies in advertised TVL compared to what these tests are producing.
Click to expand...

And that is the only question mark. Panasonic says 800TVL, it would be nice for them to show us how they measure it. I have asked them to do so. They're a little busy with their whole country having nuclear reactor meltdowns (not all that much unlike this thread, unfortunately).

Hopefully they will tell us their methodology.

In the meantime, this is an image from a 4K resolution chart, on the diagonals. That's a legitimate 800 TV Lines. I can't measure that cleanly on the other angles (as you can see in the lower left corner) and on the purely horz/vert there is aliasing before 800, but on the diagonals it's a clean, clear, pure 800TVL. Is this how they measure? I don't know, but I'm sure they have their methods and processes, and this is one way that we can see a clean 800TVL from the camera on a standardized res chart, one of the highest-quality and most-expensive res charts you can get, the DSC MegaTrumpet 12-SW. This is a pixel-to-pixel extraction of the full chart, and yes it was framed properly.
4K-Res-Chart-800TVL-45degree-extract.jpg


For another point of reference, here is an extraction from another res chart, "The Wringer", showing an arguably quite clear 800 TVL. This res chart is a zone plate made up of rings of color. I was testing to see if the Nano's 4:2:2 made a substantial difference in color res, and it most definitely does.

TheWringer-Extract.jpg

On this chart, the outermost ring is 1000 TVL. It has markings where the 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 TVL points are. And I don't care how cynical someone may be or how much they may want to crucify this camera, that's a pretty good indication of a clear and solid 800 TVL. There's a little bit of reflected aliasing happening in the 800 to 1000 range, but it's good to 800. This is a pixel-to-pixel extraction of the full chart, and yes it was framed properly, the bowties to the frame edges.

As far as I am concerned, this does not necessarily "settle the debate", as we need to hear from Panasonic what their methodology is, and I'd love an explanation of why I can't get a solid 800TVL without aliasing on a conventional B&W chart. But, it does settle it enough in my mind that they're not arbitrarily making up numbers and violating marketing guidelines and all the other accusations that have been floating around in this thread. I was saving these images to do a comprehensive article on getting to the bottom of what is and what isn't of legitimate concern here, but the way people seem to be waving their flaming torches and pitchforks I figure they may as well be shown now.

Look at those images. There is obvious justfification on their part (Panasonic's part) as to why they can call this "800 TVL". No, it doesn't show 800 TVL on a conventional black and white res chart. But the camera is capable of resolving 800 TVL on some kinds of charts, and therefore I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the published spec that they published, is backed up with some valid technical data to demonstrate how they arrived at that conclusion. Hopefully they will share that info at some point, although I have not heard back from them (nor do I expect to during this time in Japan's crisis) but if they do get back to me I will follow up.

EDIY: Full "wringer" shot in uncompressed BMP, straight from the Nano, is available to download here.
 
Last edited:
Neat. Thanks for sharing. As I have said in my posts made up to this time, I am quite content with my equipment. My opinion is quite subjective, based on the tool and what my production skills can produce. I am not a pixel peeper. I go on the published specifications and the tests that people like you put out. I would like to see the answers to these questions.

I hope things get better in Japan soon. The dangers of nuclear power plants are really scary.
 
What difference does the use of a binary ZP vs. a sinusoidal ZP make in these experiments? The one used in the Wringer appears to be a binary ZP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top