ALL: Does this look like an Autofocus Bug to You?? -- Video Clip

[Jan_Crittenden]

I guess the laws of physics don't apply to Canon or Sony.

Ah but they do but in different ways. Note that we did look at other models and given all of the different scenarios here, none passed with flying colors. And where some were better, they would still be unacceptable in a professional video production. Keep in mind that the number of pixels, the length of the lens, the algorithms used will be different and to think they should be the same is futile. They cannot be.

Best,

Jan

 

[scapsinger]

One guy said his family was going to purchase him a pair of glass after he shot some home video's. I have not heard of this with tons of other camera's. The auto focus just stood out as a big issue to me after using it right away. I did not notice it with the HMC150.

I do not want to turn this into a "pro vs. consumer" debate, because I know some people might purchase the AC130 or even the AC160 as a "home video" user just because they have the cash and want the best camcorder they can get. I have no problem with that...I don't think that dictates the feature set or Panasonic dedication to the product 100% because you should still always get what you're paying for, no matter what. That being said, the feature set of this camera was designed with the professional shooter in mind, and that's why there are about 10 different ways to manage focus on this camera.

However, there are some things that need to be understood no matter what camcorder you have. Faster frame rates provide faster autofocus response, and slower frame rates provide slower response. If you're shooting 24p, you can always expect it to respond much more slowly in autofocus mode than in 60p or 60i (and even 30p for the most part). 60i and 60p update the frame 2.5x as frequently, so it's monitoring contrast and other elements of the image 2.5x more often, thus you get much more reliable autofocus. It's a problem that I find many times with fellow shooters (professionals themselves) telling me that the autofocus on the camera sucks. This is a complaint I've heard ever since the days of the DVX, when folks would shoot in 24p and find the autofocus to be a big fat stinker compared to 60i shooting that we'd all grown accustomed to. Go back and check the archives in the DVXUser forums from the early days. The single most common question was "what's the clunking sound?" by a wide margin, but second place had to easily have been "autofocus is broken, it sucks so bad, why does this $4,000 camera suck so bad at autofocus when my VX1000/PD150/GL1 does such a great job? Even my cheap little DV consumer camera does a better job." It's not a new problem at all.

But of course that IS only part of the overall autofocus problem that's being dealt with here. With the new lens and larger sensor comes an add-on to the problem. I would agree that Panasonic probably *should* have developed a better way to handle autofocus. I have said that the HMC150 is NOT substantially better, and I do stand by that (which of course acknowledges that the HMC150 is better, just not a night-and-day difference). Still, I would imagine that Panasonic simply copied/pasted the autofocus controls from the HMC150 to the AC130/AC160. That would have been fine if it weren't for the drastic difference in the lens between the two. I'm not an engineer, so I couldn't begin to suggest exactly how the autofocus should have been adjusted, but it is a shame that this is the 2nd example (following the date/time stamp) where Panasonic has been caught in a copy/paste error on these cams. And to suggest that it was not an error would be untrue, because I think we can all acknowledge that it then wouldn't have taken so long to get a final word on it from Panasonic (in this case, via Jan).

But I still stand by my original claim. I've shot with these cameras now in a variety of ways....stage productions with low light, run-n-gun events and sports. Shooting in 720p60 has given me no noticeable autofocus problems that weren't already there on the HMC150. If I dig at the footage, I might find some hitches here and there, but none that I've witnessed so far. Shooting in 1080p24 has given me slightly more hassle than I had in shooting the same format on the HMC150 (more noticeable when mixing HMC150 footage with the 130 in the same event). But again, it's not a huge difference, and I have found that having the focus assists with the red outline on the 130 (along with the MUCH MUCH MUCH better LCD monitor) has made me all the more confident to shoot 24p in manual focus for even high motion productions. I haven't needed the focal box adjustment yet but I imagine I'll get around to playing with that soon as well.

So while I acknowledge all the user feedback on here (9 pages so far...mostly the same group of 5-8 users) that says "this autofocus sucks," I just have to add my own voice that says "I'm doing just fine." Again, yes, I'd like the autofocus to be better, but I wanted that on the HMC150 and the DVX. What I have now is a pretty awesome on-board monitor and excellent (best-in-class...?) focus assist options. I'm going to give credit where it is due. For people who may be having extreme issues with the autofocus in well-lit scenes with sharp contrast, high frame rate (60p or 60i) and all the other necessary prerequisites for autofocus shooting, I am not sure what to say. It is possible as some have suggested that the earlier cameras produced might have issues, but I haven't witnessed that in my case.

I'm not trying to be indifferent to the cause of improving autofocus, nor indifferent to the concerns of many people here who want an explanation, but I do think that too much has been made of the autofocus when I consider the work that I have done with these cameras and compared that work to the years I put in on the HMC150 and the DVX100 before that.

 

[scapsinger]

But yesterday I went and tested a Sony NX5, with a 20X lens but half the pixels apparently, and its autofocus was MUCH MUCH better than the 160 that I tested (still slower than the DVX100, but obviously when taking pixels and zoom range into account).

It might be that using the area function would help, but it wont help me, as I am filming Live theatre/dance/acrobatic performances, where using the space differently all the time is an integrated part of the work. What I film changes all the time between broad, to one side of stage to other side of stage etc. Fast movements going from one side to the other of the filming area etc.

Anyway, it seems like the AC-160 is just not for me. A huge shame as I loved my DVX 100 and would have loved an upgrade from that to HD.

I probably will buy the NX5 instead.

BUT, if Panasonic knows all this, where is the new model replacing the HMC-151?
The AC-160 would anyway seem like a HVX-200 in bulky size and weight, but I miss a model that is as sleek as the DVX100, but still HD, and with the great upgrades that the 160 got. (like variable framerate etc.) Kind of like the HPX171, upgraded and with SD-cards...
Is it coming?

Or cant it get better than the HMC151 if it has to stay small and sleek?

The NX5 is not as good - putting it simply (sorry, VERY simply) - as the AC160. Matching them up on one shoot was a mess. Thankfully the NX5 was a b-cam so we were able to just toss the footage out. The quality is fine on it's own, but put up against the AC160, we found it noticeably lacking. The autofocus was snappier, but as you and others have pointed out, there are much fewer pixels to wrangle with, and that difference was noticeable to us.

About stage shooting...if you are shooting straight-on (back of room), then there is not going to be a focal difference from the far left to the far right if your subject is at the same distance forward on the stage. I mentioned in another post about a gymnastics demo....the girl was on a fully blacked out stage and had only a spotlight as she flipped and rolled from left to right to left to right...then forward and then back. Never lost autofocus on the AC130, not even at 24p. The shot from right of house did drift out of focus, but the focal range difference was more extreme from that angle (and this angle was the HMC150, which has an easier time with autofocus than the AC130). We didn't touch the focus area controls at all, just center biased as default.

The AC160 would be an excellent choice coming from the DVX. Especially nice if you still ever need to shoot in DV and want to have your DVX as a b-cam to your AC160.

And make no mistake...the AC130 (and/or the 160) are the direct upgrades from the HMC150. Having shot handheld on the AC130, I can tell you it is not as heavy as people might think. It is heavier than the HMC150, but I shot handheld on the DVX100 for years and it always felt heavier to me than the AC130 ever has. There's a larger lens on the AC130, and glass has weight...more glass, more weight. I've held on to my HMC150 primarily so that I can use it as a handheld at longer events (like weddings).

The upgrade of the HVX200 line was basically the HPX170. The upgrade of the HPX170 is now the HPX250. The AC130 and AC160 are upgrades for the HMC150. The AF100 is an upgrade from the GH1 (kidding!...but only sort of).

Not trying to marginalize your opinion, but I would hate to see anyone choose the NX5 over the AC160 given the very happy shooting I've done. Either way, good luck!

 

[ashclever]

Yes, this is also the kind of material I often shoot (mainly operas)... and back in the days when I used autofocus, keeping things centered in the close cams was the only way to force the autofocus... meaning, it didn't matter how the staging used the space... the close cameras had to be fairly tight and centered on what was supposed to be in focus (and best exposed).

But, I switched a while back to doing everything manually, because none of the cameras I used (going from GL2 to DVX to HVX to HMC to AC130 in various combinations) really did a great job of this... some OK with focus, but none with lighting. Using 1/3" cameras, shooting from 60-70 feet away, it's often fine to leave the focus fixed for the whole show... the red peaking on the AC130/160 is great for the "zoom out a little when shooting stuff far from the focal plane" technique... you know exactly how close you can be to any point on the stage and still be in sharp focus.

I use 2-3 cameras. For many 2-camera shoots, it's just me... one camera in a wide shot, one for close shots, and iris-control remotes for both cameras mounted on the close shot camera so I can adjust both manually. I bought the AC130 to use as the wide-shot camera, because of the extra resolution and DRS in progressive modes. As a wide camera, it is left in a fixed focus...

I agree completely with making the switch from auto to using manual. I had made the upgrade from the DVX100B's to the AC-130. Manual is just where the quality shots are at. Auto Focus on the DVX's were still not cutting it either. Not saying it didn't perform better than the AC130's auto focus but it still wasn't up to par with what can be achieved by becoming good at manual focus. I shoot tons of live events from bands to nightclub promotional videos. Plenty of Run and Gun stuff. For performance shows I always put one if not two of the 3 cams on tripods. Locking down a distance on your tripod shot manually totally keeps things in focus. Zoom in tight, focus, zoom back out and you got your focus. Pan to the subject you need for critical focus shots of leave it wide, focus will still be there. If you are triangled out fromt he stage with 2 cams on either side and one long wide shot at the back of the room, the side cameras manual focus can be pretty easily figured out. Just look at the number of your MF for a shot that far stage left and look at your MF number for far stage right. Then just rotate back and forth between that number span depending on which side of the stage the action is happening on at the time. AF has no idea if the guitar solo is happening on the far side of the stage or if the performer in a play is talking on the short/closer side of stage.

Also, if you find yourself soft on the shot, the quality of image being cranked out by these cameras sharpen really well in post. Way better than my Canon DSLR's.

I do wish the auto focus worked better but I can see how at 4 times the resolution and the new insane lens, that I love, it makes sense as to it's issue and I will conclude, once you get comfortable with manual you wont want to go back to AF on any cam.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Thanks Jan, for finally giving an answer.

And yes, it definitely makes sense that all this new "power" (read lens and pixels) will make a harder time for the autofocus.
But yesterday I went and tested a Sony NX5, with a 20X lens but half the pixels apparently, and its autofocus was MUCH MUCH better than the 160 that I tested (still slower than the DVX100, but obviously when taking pixels and zoom range into account).

Trust me, that was one that we tested, and when we put it to the low light low contrast scenarios that are part of the context of this thread, it actually did not perform as well. And because as you say, it does have half the pixels so the AF job is a little easier for it. So I stand by what I said before, they are different, but in total sum I found none to be really acceptable for paid professional work.


Best,

Jan

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

As to the folks saying it wouldn't be helpful shooting events where space is used differently... Does ANY autofocus work for that?

i am not sure what this means. Either a shot is framed or it is not. What is it that is the focus of the shot? Wherever that is, then the AF Area should be there. If you don't have time to move it then you shoul either push to auto or manually focus.

Best,

Jan

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

This is not my what I have noticed. I never knew that auto focus could be so bad until I first started shooting with the AC160. Look at users replies. One guy said his family was going to purchase him a pair of glass after he shot some home video's. I have not heard of this with tons of other camera's. The auto focus just stood out as a big issue to me after using it right away. I did not notice it with the HMC150.

The HMC150 has 1/4 the number of pixels and the lens is a full pound lighter, so it is going to be faster and can be a little sloppier without notice. Without giving the camcorder any study and expecting it to act like the HMC150, I can understand that your impression would be different. The guy that failed to hit focus with the auto focus, is as well understandable. Point is, the person that uses the tool must learn how the tool works, and that is true regardless of which manufacturer.

Best,

Jan

 

[ashclever]

Agreed.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

rogar-Smoke(DBG):My point is if you put a Pinto engine in a Ferrari chassy, is it still a sports car? If you are developing a new and larger lens, you can't use the same auto focus system that works in a lighter lens. Am I one of the only one's that sees there is a problem with that. So, Panasonic messed that one up! If you clearly are developing a new longer lens system, you must also develop a auto focus system that works with that. You simply can't take it from previous cameras and place it into the new camera and think it is going to magically work. Mathematics!

There is a new system in the AC160/130; it is not the same system that is in the previous lenses, couldn't be. It is just doing what it should do and the tools that are in the camera are the very ones that we added so that it would be viable. The DVX100, the HVX200, HMC150, none of these cameras have the tool set that is in the AC160/130. For you to assume that is what we did, is incorrect.

But in any condition, anywhere, there isn't a manufacturer in the world that would ever make the promise that you should be able to use AutoFocus with free abandon and just assume that it is going to work perfectly under any condition. That would be ridiculous. No body would make that promise. You have to know how the tool is going to work and then work with it.

Best,

Jan

 

[Firefox39]

I am disappointed.

I was sure Panasonic would have some fix for us.

Jan, did you test the Canon XH-A1 auto-focus with the "Instant" Auto-Focus on. The Canon auto-focus is amazing on this camera. Note that the XH-A1 has a 20x zoom with a further reach to it (not as wide on the wide end). Coming from the XH-A1 to the AC130 there is a big drop off as far as the auto-focus goes. I used the auto-focus on the Canon 95% of the time. I mean it was so solid. I guess I was spoiled using the XH-A1.

Thanks for giving us an answer on the matter.

The camera as a whole is very good. However, a good auto-focus system is very important to me, so I may have to go a different direction.

I will be very cautious to look at Panasonic again for any future purchases.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Jan, did you test the Canon XH-A1 auto-focus with the "Instant" Auto-Focus on.

Actually we did. Nothing is perfect.

Best.

Jan

 

[Lou Bruno]

I would like to add my 2 Cents worth here. After purchasing the camera prior to the holidays and discovering the auto-focus limitations of losing a few scenes, I reverted back to my professional way of shooting since 1982 with shoulder mounted professional cameras.

What is that? Manual Iris. Manual Focus. Manual White Balance. Available focus assists-EVF PEAKING as well as the red outline focus assist. LOW AGC on the gain using proper lighting.

This camera ROCKS!!!!!

 

[ullanta]

i am not sure what this means. Either a shot is framed or it is not. What is it that is the focus of the shot? Wherever that is, then the AF Area should be there. If you don't have time to move it then you shoul either push to auto or manually focus.

Best,

Jan

I was referring mainly to Lars: "theatre/dance/acrobatic performances, where using the space differently all the time is an integrated part of the work. What I film changes all the time between broad, to one side of stage to other side of stage etc. Fast movements going from one side to the other of the filming area etc."... that this does not sound like something any autofocus will do well with. Creative decisions about the use of space (framing) will be fighting autofocus all the time.

 

[Terry_Martin]

Jan,
I wonder if you can clarify if the software logic controlling the autofocus (and/or processor architecture) is the same in the 160/130 cameras compared to the HPX250? I'm finding the 250 autofocus to be adequate for most of the environments I shoot in.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

I was referring mainly to Lars: "theatre/dance/acrobatic performances, where using the space differently all the time is an integrated part of the work. What I film changes all the time between broad, to one side of stage to other side of stage etc. Fast movements going from one side to the other of the filming area etc."... that this does not sound like something any autofocus will do well with. Creative decisions about the use of space (framing) will be fighting autofocus all the time.

You are right there, i would not use Auto Focus for that at all. Simply not a task that it is cut out for. Go with what you know is the better choice for focusing.

Best,

jan

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Jan,
I wonder if you can clarify if the software logic controlling the autofocus (and/or processor architecture) is the same in the 160/130 cameras compared to the HPX250? I'm finding the 250 autofocus to be adequate for most of the environments I shoot in.

It is virtually the same until you get to the DSP, and the Microprocessor Control Board, but it is the same other than that.

Best,

Jan

 

[amendegw]

Just to add my 2¢ into this mix. I'm a brand new AC130 owner (about 1 month now). While I don't find the autofocus really snappy, I also don't see it as nearly the problem many of these posts seem to imply.

...Jerry

 

[firehawk]

I appreciate hearing an answer and also for all the other comments related to this matter. I for one have been eagerly waiting since the initial announcement of these cameras (130/160/250) because they seemed like the best choices for me to replace our existing cameras.
However I am disapointed in the focusing issue and outcome.

It seems after reading many threads and looking at samples that autofocus is indeed lacking on these units. I can understand Panasonic's financial viewpoint to decide they are good enough or "comparable" as is, since fixing this issue looks to require significant further developement/cost and changes to a line that will likely still provide significant sales if left in current form. It looks like the autofocus works some of the time, but it unreliable.
My guess is that the autofocus system was under-designed for the higher pixel count, bigger glass/zoom, borrowing too much from previous systems when more drastic change was needed. I imagine this will be solved in future models. However, that does not solve my current problem, as I cannot afford to wait years until that happens, whether it's in the form of a "B" model or totally different camera.
The 22X lense is great to have but I would gladly give it up for a 16X or 20X that could autofocus like what we are used to.

This complicates my decision of what cameras to purchase now. I have used mostly Panasonics since 1991. We are about to replace our 4 SD cameras with new HD ones. I wanted to stay with Panasonic, but now I'm questioning what I should get. The 130/160/250 have so many positives but..

Since we multi-camera shoot most things and have different levels of ability operating cameras it has been very common to shoot much of our work with autofocus.
We shoot theater/dance, weddings, sporting events, automotive events, action scenes and even car chases normally with autofocus and though not perfect, has never caused us to miss a shot or cost us money. Corporate/training and green screen work is all done manual. Granted we are talking DVX100B caliber and standard definition with a lot less pixels and glass to deal with. I understand that. When it comes to compound moving 16ft remote controlled jib shots and fast action events like stage or shooting car stunts, trying to manual focus is extremely difficult. At present I am not good enough to control complex jib shots in full manual mode. I don't have enough hands.
I certainly wouldn't be able to hand off cameras to less experienced people like in the past and rely on autofocus with these new cameras.

After reading all this, I suspect it might be possible to get good enough with the new cameras so that one could manage to successfully pull focus in difficult fast action situations or in difficult environments like shooting from an open roof camera car in the pounding cold wind, maybe?? But how about with a remote jib? How can you use those on-camera focus assist tools viewing an external LCD monitor at the base of your jib using a varizoom focus controller when you already are controlling both the remote head and jib motions at the same time? Do you have a seperate person watching the monitor and pulling focus or what?

Given the diverse work we do, I really don't know what cameras to go with now. I wasn't wanting to go with older/dated cameras. I wanted something late with high quality and dual cards to be a little better than the competition using older HD and HDV cameras that would be handle the diverse production work we do as well as being good enough for the TV series I am writing.

 

[ullanta]

Firehawk... dare I say it... forgetting autofocus, CMOS might be the real dealbreaker for what you're describing!

Anyway, I think we should all hold off on the discussion until we have reports on people's experience with Area Focus set to the center of the frame. So far, the situation is not "Panasonic hasn't offered a solution." Panasonic (Jan) HAS offered a solution, and I've yet to hear from anyone who's tried it. Even since her posts, people have said, "I haven't bothered using Area Focus 'cause I'm focusing in the center" or "'cause I wouldn't be able to manipulate it during a shot". Jan has said that even leaving area focus set for the center will give different (and hopefully better) results than leaving Area Focus off. So... can the folks who have done the previous tests and posted such demonstrative videos (and great thanks for that) try out Jan's suggestion?

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Firehawk,

My suggestion is to go to a store where they sell these and try one out. You may well find that it works just fine for your needs.

Best,

Jan