AG-AC90 Review - in the Dominican Republic

Thanks Lou, I must say I agree with you on the 130/160 solid feel. It has a heft to it which is subjectively pleasing in some way, and it is very solidly built I feel.
 
singer64, the difference is that the HyperDeck Shuttle 2 records ProRes (HQ), but not regular ProRes 422 or ProRes LT. The Atomos Ninja 2 does all 3 codecs, as of this writing and to the best of my knowledge. HQ is a much higher bitrate (and unnecessary for my purposes) than 422, which is already a high bitrate. For such great picture quality ("visually lossless", as Apple says), it's no surprise, but HQ is overkill for me and would up the cost of storage in the long run. Here's more info: http://documentation.apple.com/en/f...ws/index.html#chapter=10&section=4&tasks=true.

As for low light on AC90 vs AC130a, I just found this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyi7j8SF35U. It seems to compare the AC90 vs AC130a at various Gain levels in split-screen, from 0 up to 18 (but not higher unfortunately on the AC90, even though it can go to 30). I just wrapped my first week of production with a borrowed AC130 and, while it is heavier and bigger than the HMC150 (great camera used on my last doc), the grain in the gain was not very appealing. I'm shooting in a very low-light (and don't want to bring in lights) situation for a documentary, and after watching the above video, I can see that the AC90 will definitely be far too weak of a performer in low-light, unfortunately. It's too bad as I would've liked to be working in AVCHD2.0 and have iAuto features as I'm a one-man crew on this doc. If only there was a new iteration of the AC130 that borrowed from the intelligence of the AC90 but had a larger, backlit sensor, that would be a documentary dream come true. I may just have to bring in some lights for the AC130a, against principle. I was excited about the AC90 because I do a ton of handheld, so the OIS and the weight are very appealing as well. Maybe Panasonic will come out with something else, but this doc and my next will be in the can by then. Oh well. Still good options to choose from.

Sony FS100 seems that it may be much better for low light (according to Barry's comparison with AF100), and I had high hopes for the Black Magic Cinema Camera, but the BMC doesn't do well in low light apparently, and the FS100 doesn't have built-in ND filters (boo), OIS issues that introduce lens slow issues (kit lens min f3.5), and the LCD issue would be very problematic as well. The AF100 is the other option, but low light isn't as good and we're starting to get expensive. I'm only using a fixed lens anyway for run-and-gun doc, so it doesn't seem worth it and might not be affordable. FS100 suffers from this same detraction for me. If there was a Sony FS100 with an internal ND filter and better LCD placement, I guess that'd be the winner for low-light doc currently. Maybe I should go with the FS100 and run around with a variable ND filter (also not recommended by Barry, as I think I recall reading) and try to scrounge up the extra few grand. But then there's still the LCD issue. Maybe add a Atomos Ninja 2 rigged as a side LCD for visibility at any POV for the FS100, but then we're talking extremely expensive again. Anyway, sorry for going on an off-topic rant.
 
Last edited:
By the way, just happened upon the Sony PMW-200 while visiting B&H in NYC. Still checking out the specs and comparing footage, but it shoots broadcast 4:2:2 with ND filter built in and good low light, plus it's lighter than AC160a/130a. Very exciting development in my research for long-form run-and-gun doc. Anyone have experience with this compared to AC130a/AC160a? Sensor's bigger as well (1/2").
 
I was trying to see what kind of comments people are saying about the AC90 on Twitter just for the heck of it even though I own one and saw that HD magazine responded to some of the criticism against them saying that the AC90 is soft.
"Plenty of vitriol for our Panasonic AC90 camcorder review, are the rabid fans justified?"
https://twitter.com/definitionmags/status/291850662302605313
https://twitter.com/HDUserMagazine/status/291850660461281280

Also, reading the review of the HPX250 when he compared the noise to the XF305, he claimed that the HPX250 has far more noise. I havn't tested both but that would be surprising if the XF305 had far less noise. I think it's hard to trust some of his reviews.

"So the colour and tonality are good – recording 10 bit 4:2:2 is a benefit here as well – but I had issues with the amount of noise from the sensors. It’s easy to claim that you’ll never get a low noise image from a ⅓in sensor, but the Canon XF305 manages pretty well – I didn’t get a chance to test the two cameras side-by-side, but the noise on the 250 stood out whereas the 305 was notable for its lack of noise. There is also a noticeable rolling-shutter effect on the HPX250 – again, the Canon has an advanced, fast read-out system in its sensors to minimise this. Finally, there is no software option to limit the minimum aperture that the auto-iris will use, so in ‘run-and-gun’ shooting – surely the most obvious application for a camera of this form-factor – the iris will shut down and you’ll get fuzzy pictures due to the diffraction problems I mentioned above."
http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2012/3/29/review-panasonic-hpx250-camcorder.html
 
Last edited:
Peter Rush said:
Barry - I've preordered an AC-90 to replace my ageing Sony Z1 - one of the great features of the Z1 was WB compensation that could be assigned to the user buttons - great for instant warming or cooling - I notice the AC-90 has user assign buttons - does it also have WB compensation?

Pete
Click to expand...

Hi Peter.
i'm in the same situation I have a Z1 wich i love due to CCD sensors and fiability but i consider to buy a AC90.
I also have a Ax2000 but i don't like it very much...
Is worth replacing the Z1 with the Panasonic AC90?

Thank you
 
Does the AC90 still have the "bondi blue" problem well known on other Panasonic 3 sensor 1/4" cams? (TM700, 900, and maybe 920?)
 
R Hudson said:
I have to ask......why couldn't a variable ND filter be used as long as it was a high-quality one?
Click to expand...
The "bondi blue" problem does not relate to an external (fixed or variable) but to the automatic internal ND filter which causes WB shifts in earlier Panasonic;s 3x1/4" cams.
 
andre said:
The "bondi blue" problem does not relate to an external (fixed or variable) but to the automatic internal ND filter which causes WB shifts in earlier Panasonic;s 3x1/4" cams.
Click to expand...

I understand andre. I had a TM700 that had the "bondi blue" problem you are referring to. My comment was a response to Barry's review in which he says to use a standard ND filter but not to use a variable ND filter. I was hoping for an explanation for that.
 
Last edited:
Ah. Well, because I have bought and used several variable ND filters, and I find them all pretty awful. They cause color shifts and, with the cheaper ones, you can get massive resolution losses at telephoto. And with many of them you can get a crosshatch pattern on the footage if you close it down too far.

If you want to use a variable ND filter, my only recommendation is that you should only consider the very finest of the bunch -- something like the Heliopan, which might set you back $300 or $400. Cheaper variable ND filters are not worth the effort it takes to throw them down the street.
 
Hi Barry, Great review. What do I need to record the video externally which you mention? I have never heard of that before. Thanks
 
External recorders come in a wide variety of capabilities and price points. At the low end of the price spectrum would be something like the BlackMagic Hyperdeck Shuttle 2, or the Atomos Ninja 2. Other options would include the NanoFlash, the Ki Pro Mini, or the PIX 240. For an AC90 you'd need a recorder with HDMI input.

I don't expect recording externally to be that common of a thing to do with an AC90, as the additional cost is pretty high in relation to the cost of the camera itself. But for someone seeking the maximum quality possible, it's an option.
 
Re the PIX 240i . . .

Would a device like this satisfy the need for high quality recordings AND serve at the same time as a focusing aid?

I see the recording format is ProRes or Avid DNxHD - would that import well to say Sony Vegas Pro 12 ?

And, for recordings of the type I do (1080/24p) would the average client be able to see a "big" difference on a blu-ray disc?
 
It would certainly provide for high quality recordings, magnified focus assist, focus in red, and also a superb audio recorder.

Haven't tried importing any PIX footage; once upon a time Vegas was famous for being able to import just about any format ever made, so I would guess it could, but that's only a guess.

As for being able to see a difference ... first, you'd have to find if the PIX 240i allows pulldown removal upon capture, to see if it's recording native 24p in the first place. Then, there's the question of how much manipulation you do to the footage before you export it to a Blu-ray. The more you work on the footage, the more difference there will be. But I would say the average client would not only not see a "big" difference, but I'd say that in general it would be the rare client who would be able to spot any difference whatsoever.
 
Thanks, Barry... extremely useful information.

My theatre archive event clients (mostly the hosting organization and cast members) took a long time to start to notice quality.

They used to think all they needed were recordings from smartphones. Over 2-3 years they started to appreciate zoom in on solo singers etc, nothing fancy, but a step up from a stationary camera taking in the entire stage.

Now, they are starting to warm up to mini-documentaries on how they design, built and put in place stage sets etc.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Ah. Well, because I have bought and used several variable ND filters, and I find them all pretty awful. They cause color shifts and, with the cheaper ones, you can get massive resolution losses at telephoto. And with many of them you can get a crosshatch pattern on the footage if you close it down too far.

If you want to use a variable ND filter, my only recommendation is that you should only consider the very finest of the bunch -- something like the Heliopan, which might set you back $300 or $400. Cheaper variable ND filters are not worth the effort it takes to throw them down the street.
Click to expand...

I've been using the Singh Ray and, while the resolution holds up with my DSLR on long lenses, it falls apart with the AC90 at the more extreme tele zoom ranges. The convenience for me has been in shooting scholastic sports from late afternoon to early evening under rapidly diminishing sunlight with no opportunity to swap ND filters, I can easily keep the f stop in ideal range. I will have to see if I can't find one ND that will carry through the extreme light changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top