Canon 7D vs Pasonic AF100 - Skew, DR, etc..

Ok I watched it again. It is obvious to anyone with 2 eyes that the camera on the top is exhibiting higher dynamic range. I have posted a picture to prove it
2h4g57b.jpg


at least in the highs it is, not necessarily in the lows and shadows since I can't tell that from this video as mostly the blowouts are being tested here.

But just take a look at the top left picture you can see more of the individual panels of the shades whereas in the bottom camera they are more blown out. in the top right picture you can see more detail inside the window of the bushes outside whereas in bottom camera the window is almost completely blown out. in the bottom picture you can see more detail in the guy's face and his ear hwereas more of the side of his face is blown out in bottom camera. now as i understand it af100 is the bottom camera though i wasn't even 100% sure whether i read it right or not as thread starter didnt' seem to make it clear.

but if af100 is in fact the bottom camera then these tests quite clearly show a slightly lower dynamic range in the af100 than the 7d at least in this particular test, although as i've said this data does corroborate the af100 vs. 5dmkii test that was posted a week or two ago that showed an outdoors shot where 5dmkii seemed to have the slight edge in dynamic range.
 
Homunculus said:
ok what does this mean? how many stops of dynamic range does the af100 have?
we need relative figures either head to head with a DSLR or a range like 10stops 9 stops etc that we can compare.....it seems utterly bizarre to me that almost a month after the camera is released htere is still not a single accurate figure for dynamic range? are people hiding something??
why can't someone do a quick chart test shot and tell us the dynamic range of this camera?
Click to expand...

A month? The cameras shipped from Panasonic on the 27th, and got to the end users as early as 2 or 3 days later. Today is the 12th of January, so just about two weeks. Look at the videos, it's quite clear that trying to analyze them in this test is not sufficient to make ANY judgement about dynamic range. One is blowing out faster in the highlights in SOME parts of the video, the other is loosing all detail in the shadows in most of the image. The delta difference is unknown. Generally, from what I see the AF100 looks like it is retaining more detail overall throughout the shot, to my eyes, but this test is hardly scientific.

Maybe instead of thinking people are hiding something about the AF100, you should stop trying to dig so hard to find a problem in every test that is posted. :)
 
petemack said:
Having owned DVX100s, an HVX200 and an HPX170 I have to say that this camera (AF100) lacks something that those cameras had.

You can run your charts and restate the stats all day, but the bottom line is (and it saddens me to say this) that this camera has no mojo. I've been reviewing clips for weeks and it all looks really "videoy". The images look as plastic as the body (or Hollywood on a Saturday night). I honestly hate to say it, but the 5D/7D footage looks more organic to me.

Sure they have some major issues, but to me the the way the AF100 handles highlights is appalling. Your clients may not know anything about moire and dynamic range, but they do know when they see an image that they like and that is the reason for the recent success of the 5D. When shot right it can produce magical images.

Camera and lens choices directly effect your style/look and reflect your taste, so sadly I canceled my order last week and I will continue to shoot my HPX170 and my 7D until the time is right to jump in.

Thank you Panasonic for years of good images, but I think it's time we went our own ways.

Pete Mack


http://www.bigmamoo.com/
Click to expand...

In don't know. I get some serious mojo with the camera. I find there to be some nice filmic mojo in the last still I posted.
 
grimepoch said:
A month? The cameras shipped from Panasonic on the 27th, and got to the end users as early as 2 or 3 days later. Today is the 12th of January, so just about two weeks. Look at the videos, it's quite clear that trying to analyze them in this test is not sufficient to make ANY judgement about dynamic range. One is blowing out faster in the highlights in SOME parts of the video, the other is loosing all detail in the shadows in most of the image. The delta difference is unknown. Generally, from what I see the AF100 looks like it is retaining more detail overall throughout the shot, to my eyes, but this test is hardly scientific.

Maybe instead of thinking people are hiding something about the AF100, you should stop trying to dig so hard to find a problem in every test that is posted. :)
Click to expand...

Listen, I'm going to put this as simple as I can, and no, I'm not trying to start any arguments here.

this is in no way a perfect test, and I even stated that. there is absolutely no point in looking into this too far.

You cannot argue because according to my video:
The 7d gives us more detail in the highs.
the af100 resolved more details in the lower region.

The only thing I deduce from this is to
measure exposure while protecting the
highlights. This works for me because the af100 resolves more shadow detail anyway so I'm not losing information.

that's it that's all.

The last thing I'm trying to find out is how to reduce the image banding with the coring function.
 
papa/grimepoch the other thing to add though is, you said it's not been out a month well many (most?) other PROFESSIONAL cameras also have published stats on what they're capable of doing long before they even come out. isn't the AF100 supposed to be a professional unit not a consumer DSLR? so perhaps we shouldn't even have to wait 1 month to get the statistics on what it is capable of. How come Red can tell us the dynamic range of what the epic/scarlet etc will be capable of long before the cameras are even released and same for Alexa and everything else. yet I hear nothing in pre-release about af100 DR, nothing about how many lines it resolves, nothing about anything from Panasonic just speculation from everyone. And so my point is, since we were not provided any of that by Panasonic, it is now OUR duty as costumers to find that information out in order to make an informed decision on whether to purchase this company's product or not. So this is what I'm trying to achieve, because I will not purchase a product for 5000 that has less dynamic range than something I can get for 1200 so I need to be sure becuase dynamic range is the single most important aspect beyond aliasing/moire/skew even
 
Very legit questions and concerns. For what it's worth, dealing with highlights in a current manner is a price I'm willing to pay for better color, shadows, sync sound, less aliasing, skew and moire.

But yeah, still waiting to see this puppy shine.
 
TimTheFoolMan said:
The AF100, as far as I know, is NOT part of the pro line. - Tim
Click to expand...

thanks for the clarification. i guess i and many others have been misled then. because i remember quite clearly many people stating it is meant to be a 'professional product' from the professional panasonic broadcast division.



PaPa: you're right to many people the aliasing/skew/moire issues are worth the extra 3500-4000 they pay for the af100 over competing brands. but those are people with disposable incomes. with those of us that are pecuniarily challenged (lol) that simply won't cut it, it has to be better in other ways that are more important for those of us on the lower end to consider purchasing it.
 
But the point is, you are making claims like the camera has been out for a month which is not true, plain and simple. I own both cameras, I am testing both cameras just as much as PaPa is so I can understand the differences between both. They shoot very different images and they both are limited by an 8-bit final bit depth.

I can't speak for your other posts, but if you cannot understand that having one image showing more highlights and the other more shadows, that trying to compare their dynamic range isn't possible, then what else can I say? They are showing different ranges. If the 7D is showing no detail in the blacks, then it is underexposed in those areas so they too are showing less dynamic range.

The curves are different. I am not saying one is more preferable than the other because I just don't know. But the fact they are so different in a lot of respects means a more controlled test to try and determine the direction to go from here is needed. Nothing that PaPa has done is not without merit, I am glad this test was done, so I could look at his results an compare to my own so far.

But for things like banding, if you pixel peep, and you can actually see the real scene you are filming, it's clear the 7D has more noise. I've been down this path already and I think a little more noise helps the 8-bit final product. That has NOTHING to do with the AF100 sensor, as to me, it's producing cleaner results at certain settings, but in this case, I think it hurts the footage.

I'll try and get to that skew test tonight if I can find time (have some other commitments).

All I can tell you is I am not Panasonic, so only the can answer the details of why they don't announce the statistics. The Epic is quite a bit more pricey of a camera so I think comparing that to the AF100 is pretty unfair.

But, I think two weeks is hardly enough time to deduce absolutes about any hardware. I'm still just scratching the surface and I got mine last monday. There are A LOT of settings to compare between my 7D and AF100 and so far, I am happy with the results I am getting.
 
Grimepoch: yes but I believe someone stated (PaPa?) that the af100 shows more detail in the low end BUT also more banding and artefacts. As you I'm sure well know dynamic range is generally measured by USABLE range and as such if the noise/artefacts/banding whatever it is, is heavy enough in the shadows/darks then the af100 in fact would NOT in theory have a better latitude of the low end.

Furthermore, I have shown with a picture proof of hwere the 7d is beating out the af100 in highlight dynamic range, but I have yet to see anyone point out where it is in the shadows/darks that af100 is winning out. I personally do not see this so please post a pic or tell me at which timepoint in the video this occurs. Admittedly I don't look for this as the eyes naturally tend to notice highlight dynamic range/blow outs much more easily without having to actively look for it so that's mostly what I was looking for since highlight detail is more important to me than shadow detail.

Though I notice you said 7d has more noise so I am c urious about that since someone else said af100 has banding in the darks so I'm wondering which is the better trade off
 
I have detected no visible banding in my production AF100 tests.

I've reported my DR test; the AF100 held from ASA 250 to ASA 1250; if you can count, you can figure it out.

I'd like to add that the demanding tone I read in some of the posts in this thread does not warm my heart to share test results. I don't work for you, nor would I.

If the AF100 is not good enough for you, buy a Red, Alexa, or perhaps the new Sony; the Red and Alexa are certainly better cameras. If you believe the AF100 is not clearly superior to your DSLR, stick with it and best of luck.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
But I explained why the banding is occurring from what I see. I took my images into photoshop and zoomed in to really get to the bottom of the difference. The 7D video I shot had more noise everywhere, whereas I had set my AF100 to be ultra clean (detail -7, cine-v, Fluo) and it was ultra clean. Now I'm trying to figure out the best settings to bring the noise back in a little as to get the most out of the 8-bit result. If I use the default settings out of the camera, I get no banding, but there I see more noise expanded in the grays that I don't want, which is why I am tuning the settings. I think that the default settings of the AF100 sharpen the image too much for my taste.

You can't look at the video and see that overall, the 7D shot is darker as the camera moves into frames that are not as brightly lit? It's clear as day for me. That said, there are non-linearities in the curves between the two. That's what I am trying to get to the bottom of. That's the reason the mid tones while matched are actually I feel at a different actual exposure level between the cameras, from my experience. Again, I am not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but that they are different. (And I will try and post a shot later of what I see).

A real interesting test would set both to blow out at the same point, then in post, match the bottom end as much as you can through curves. Then you at least have the highlights locked down and you can tell what is happening to the rest of the image.

Personally, I will take a little noise to prevent the banding. The noise looks like film grain if done right, and that is much more acceptable to me.

I'd also like to note that a lot of threads, including those I've been a part of, that viewed MTS files converted to MOV files with clipwrap were actually seeing incorrect files. I've verified this and have been in communication with clipwrap to determine a fix. And when I say incorrect, I don't mean by a little bit. I view all footage with either AVCCAM utility from Panasonic or directly in Premiere Pro. At this point, I do not trust the footage in Final Cut because it's the only one that doesn't match the other two.
 
Ticheli said:
I have detected no visible banding in my production AF100 tests.

I've reported my DR test; the AF100 held from ASA 250 to ASA 1250; if you can count, you can figure it out.

I'd like to add that the demanding tone I read in some of the posts in this thread does not warm my heart to share test results. I don't work for you, nor would I.

If the AF100 is not good enough for you, buy a Red, Alexa, or perhaps the new Sony; the Red and Alexa are certainly better cameras. If you believe the AF100 is not clearly superior to your DSLR, stick with it and best of luck.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...
I can't afford a red or alexa.

as for your 2nd point, "if you believe the af100 is not clearly superior to DSLR ..." well that's the whole point in my asking these questions isn't it? I don't BELIEVE anything right now because I need to see proof to believe. I'm not a blind believer I'm a logician. So as I see the tests roll in, THAT'S when I'll "believe" which is better. So far I am on the fence, if I wasn't then I wouldn't be making these posts because I would have already made my decision and went with it and enjoyed my new camera
 
First, I want to thank everyone who has been contributing to the testing. I've been testing a lot as well, and it does take a lot of work sometimes to just recheck and recheck to make sure everything is right. I've certainly spent hours with the gamma bug I found and had made a few mistakes and had to backtrack.

Homunculus, maybe it's just the way you ask questions but you certainly don't make me want to help you make a decision by the way you respond to people testing, as if there is some great conspiracy again non-believers! :) I too am a logical person, which makes sense, since I am a chip designer and work on digital CMOS technologies, I have to think logically.

I understand the skepticism as all tests you read are never really going to cover what you want to know, as they never do for me either. I got burned buying a D90 before thinking it would be great for videos. All the test footage looked GREAT. And yeah, that was my bad. Hated the D90 for video (but it takes AWESOME pictures).

I too come from a 7D shooting background, and have experience with the HVX200. After seeing some wildly different results before I got the AF100 I was concerned a bit, but then, I got the AF100 and started testing. The settings make huge differences, and the thing is, people have different tastes in what they want.

I can only tell you that determining the best settings for me is trial and error, and it requires me to look at it closely, and on my computers, on on a few LCD televisions, and on my projector, and to ask others that I work with. I've seen things I don't like and I see things I love. I went through this when I got my 7D and we'd been shooting on the HVX200.

All I can say is give it a little more time, let people really find out the best settings, and pushing through all kinds of tests from under exposed to over exposed, to pushing the footage in post, and see where we end up. If someone said, is this camera better than the 7D, I would answer yes for ONE simple reason, I CANNOT STAND colored Moire, and I have lost SO MANY shots. Look at the picture frame and the coloring in the 7D shot. That stuff just jumps out where you least expect it. I've had many shots ruined because of it. It is the single most thing I hate.

Also, the color retention into the darks is much nicer as well. But, not as important to me.

For you, DR is important, but I still contend that these tests are just hard to really judge unless you go through all the curves you can chose and find one that is more similar (if possible) to what the 7D sees. AND, lens makes a HUGE different. If one lens is more contrasty than the other, you are going to get different perceived results, which means taking the lens out of the equation is difficult.
 
I have a 7d and all that I've seen so far have confimed my choice to switch over to the af-100. Mine is coming at the end of the month. When I see the highlights clipping but the shadow being preserved I just think no big deal. I'll just make sure I set exposure correctly to preserve the highlights and let the shadows go to black. No big deal.
 
Homunculus said:
as for your 2nd point, "if you believe the af100 is not clearly superior to DSLR ..." well that's the whole point in my asking these questions isn't it? I don't BELIEVE anything right now because I need to see proof to believe. I'm not a blind believer I'm a logician. So as I see the tests roll in, THAT'S when I'll "believe" which is better. So far I am on the fence, if I wasn't then I wouldn't be making these posts because I would have already made my decision and went with it and enjoyed my new camera
Click to expand...

I don't say this to be short, but really seems to me the best way for you to make your decision and be satisfied with your own two eyes is to rent both the AF-100 and a DSLR of your choice for a weekend, do your own tests and come to your own conclusions.
 
astigmatic said:
I have a 7d and all that I've seen so far have confimed my choice to switch over to the af-100. Mine is coming at the end of the month. When I see the highlights clipping but the shadow being preserved I just think no big deal. I'll just make sure I set exposure correctly to preserve the highlights and let the shadows go to black. No big deal.
Click to expand...



Bingo.

going to do some "tests" on neutral gray with same lenses on both cameras.
 
Homunculus said:
Though I notice you said 7d has more noise...
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. From my INITIAL testing, I have noticed that the AF100 has more noise than the Canon cameras. Again, this is from my initial testing. I still have many more settings and options to explore to find the ideal settings for each situation, but as of now, especially out of the box for both cameras, I have noticed more noise with the AF100 than the Canons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top