BBC Scotland audio report on the AF101 - EDIT - it's BBC-approved for HD!

Vultch

Vultch

Well-known member
All in all ...they loved it, remember this is a "no punches pulled" report for the professional market up against very expensive kit..and yes its BBC HD channel approved (with external storage).

as expected the onboard codec is not up to BBC spec anyhow
worth a listen "come on panasonic up the data rate..."

its a recording listen below

also the bit about the Sony HDW-650 HDCAM Camera :happy:

here
 
Last edited:
Well worth listening to. Sounds like they ran into all the things that we've all been through here, and sorted through it.

Excellent that it is approved by the BBC for HD production (with the Nano). I was curious as to why creativevideo.co.uk had tweeted that it was approved a month or two ago, and yet we hadn't heard anything since, but obviously they knew what they were talking about!
 
Okay, as I understand it, this report means that the AF101 is fully approved by the entire BBC for HD production. BBC Scotland was tasked with evaluating it, and since they gave it the thumbs-up, that means that it is approved BBC-wide.

If you want to use it for HD production you have to use an external recorder such as the Nano, the BBC hasn't approved AVCHD recording, but if you use approved external recording you can use the AF100/AF101 for BBC productions (assuming that the type of production is appropriate for this type of camera.)

And yes, they are fully aware of various shortcomings and price point issues, and they know all about Alan Roberts' report, and factored that all in to their decision. They also observe as I did that while aliasing may be visible on a black and white chart, it just doesn't show up in real-world footage. That's something that puzzles me to no end and I plan on asking the Panasonic engineers next month at NAB for just what wizardry they employ to make that happen.

As Vultch said, they also mention their experience using it with the HDCAM HDW-650, and when they were comparing sensitivity and just how much more sensitive the AF101 was, they thought their HDCAM must be broken... heh.
 
I don't have a moment to listen at my current location, but are we talking full 100% of a show's content can be filmed with the AF-100 as long as an external recorder is used, or is it approved for just a certain lower percentage of the show's content?

Just because I'm curious...
 
Er... not sure what you're meaning there, he wasn't comparing it to a Canon, that was as compared to a $46,000 Sony HDCAM PDW-650, a 2/3" broadcast camera.
 
Couple things that stood out to me - the codec shows "very obvious softening on movement" - this contradicts what others have said about not being able to see the difference between on board and nano footage, and he confirms the expensive glass resolution myth - the resolution isn't good enough to justify expensive glass (only talking about res, not contrast etc). He also says Panasonic don't measure res the way any one else does haha.
 
ASG said:
Couple things that stood out to me - the codec shows "very obvious softening on movement"
Click to expand...

That stood out ot me as well. Then I thought what's the difference between that and motion blur?

Would be interesting to see internal VS external with some fast motion stuff. Maybe I'll shoot some 1/2000 shutter video of some fast moving objects to see how crisp they can get. That would also be interesting to see.
 
Neat. I guess we are now starting to enter the age of affordable HD cameras that get approved for BBC production. Things are changing quickly.
 
Actually if you go on to the first file in that recording theres some interesting stuff there as well. Im just waiting to see how this Atomos stuff pans out on delivery and Ill cover off a better acquisition method.
 
Yea, I am thinking about buying one of the Atomos, maybe a Samurai. The price difference is not that great. I am just a bit torn over it, because maybe a locking HDMI cable would be fine.

I am waiting for some reviews first.
 
It is interesting that that does seem to be Panasonic's thing, image looks great but never quite as sharp. The af100 does have every reason to be sharper than a Sony ex, but it isn't, though it's got the panny mojo!!! Kudos for passing! Anyway not to raise the "up the bitrate" issue but Jan said to add the different encoding would add significant cost. Probably due to economy of scale on the components.
 
This was a very accurate account of the AF100's pros and cons in my opinion. People should probably remember that when they read others' opinions about the camera, it's implicitly within the context of their own standards and needs, not necessarily yours. I happen to be on the same page as this one, which is why I purchased the Nano and the TV Logic 5.6". I'm happy with where I am for the money of it all.
 
That was the most whole while report/review of the AF-100/101 I have heard to date. Anyone who is considering this camera should listen to it. It covers all the important topics gone over on this camera and gives an unvarnished evaulation from someone at the BBC who really knows his stuff as initimately as the more seasoned AF-100 shooters here on this forum.

Hopefully, this will replace the hyperbole and negativity about the camera that has developed over the past couple of weeks.

Really impressed by the level of thoroughness and knowledge about the camera and the state of the industry at all levels. Time well invested listening to that report.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top