Help me out here please!

S

sharry

Well-known member
A few questions. Help me out please. Thank you.

1. Which of the codec is better: the AVVCAM or the Mpeg2 Long Gop and why?

2. To make it better do I need an external recorder with my AF100? Are there any cheap ones or do I have to spend $2000 on a Nanoflash.

3. Where to get all the information on lens mounts?

The big question in the last and forgive me for it:Which is a better camera: The Af100 or the Sony Ex1. I don't know why but I am not liking the 24mb bit rate. I had a Z1 before which had a 25mb bit rate and it gave me a lot of problems in terms of artifacts and god knows what. Please help me out.

My line of work is: Narrative and Experimental fimmaking, music videos, ads and a little bit of documentary (not main).
 
Last edited:
The Nano is tried and tested and works well with the AF100/101. Ninja etc will be out there soon and no doubt we will here people's views. The EX1 and Af100 are aimed at different markets IMHO. Run and Gun speedy shooting is ideal for the EX1. The AF100 needs more thought before and during shoots so time cannot be of the essence. If cost is an issue beware that it won't take long to run up quite big bills with additional kit for the AF100 such as rails/mattebox/lenses and possibly a good quality viewfinder. Information is easily found here as most topics are covered many times over in different ways. Spending a few days trawling through the threads will be most rewarding.
 
sharry said:
A few questions. Help me out please. Thank you.1. Which of the codec is better: the AVVCAM or the Mpeg2 Long Gop and why?
Click to expand...

AVCCAM, which is Panasonic's implementation of AVCHD, MPEG4, H.264 is the better codec for a number of reasons. First the initial break down of the image is content adaptive,, and allows the picture to be responded to with different size quantizing blocks, so lots of detail gets 4x4 blocks and low detail gets 16 X 16 blocks others 8X 8 and so forth. In MPEG2 there is only 8X8. So when the going gets tough, the first codec to macroblock will be the MPEG2. The second reason is that MPEG4 was written by the very same guys that wrote MPEG2, only 10 years later. They knew where the problems were in MPEG2 and corrected that in MPEG4. mpeg2 1995, MPEG4, AVCHD 2006 or so. There is a very good article in the Articles section of this website that demonstrates the AVCHD vs XDCAM EX, or rather how a 24Mbs codec can outperform a 35Mbs codec. This is MPEG4 vs MPEG2.

Hop this helps,

Jan
 
sharry said:
A few questions. Help me out please. Thank you.1. Which of the codec is better: the AVVCAM or the Mpeg2 Long Gop and why?
Click to expand...
Depends on how you define "better". At any given bitrate, AVCHD is superior to MPEG-2, unquestionably. In fact, AVCHD is better than MPEG-2 even when MPEG-2 uses a higher bitrate, up to a certain point. For example, 24mbps of AVCHD is demonstrably better, more robust, and more resilient to compression artifacts, than 35 megabits of MPEG-2.

However, if you give MPEG-2 enough bitrate it can close the gap or even become superior. 280mbps of MPEG-2 is better in visual quality than 24mbps of AVCHD, certainly. But that begs the question of "better" -- if you're getting three hours of footage out of a 32GB SDXC card, but only 10 minutes out of a 32GB compactflash card, can you afford that quality increase?

Finally, if using an external recorder such as the Nano at 50mbps or more, you can take advantage of 4:2:2 color sampling. That can result in improved image quality as compared to the camera's own 4:2:0. By the time you get to 100mbps 4:2:2, yes you're getting better images out of the camera than the native codec can supply. But, you're also using up 4x to 5x as much storage space, so -- that all has to be factored in.

2. To make it better do I need an external recorder with my AF100? Are there any cheap ones or do I have to spend $2000 on a Nanoflash.
Click to expand...
Well, there's "better" and then there's "bang for the buck" -- as in, yes you can make it better, but is it "better enough" for it to be worth what you're going to spend? That's a question that we cannot answer for you, only you can answer whether the image quality improvements are worth the cost.

(and a Nano isn't $2000, it's $2895). If you want a less-expensive recorder you can look at the $1,000 Ninja (although I wouldn't recommend it for the AF100) or the $1500 Samurai (which would be the better choice for an AF100 instead of the Ninja).

When you're evaluating an external recorder you have to factor in what it records to, how expensive the total recorder system is (cost of the unit, cost of batteries, cost of a battery charger, cost of the recording media) and whether the quality improvement is worth the cost.

For my evaluation, I found the Nano to be a great fit with the AF100; it has variable bitrates from 18 up to 280mbps, it provides 4:2:2 recording that is accepted by the BBC, it offers a great option for quality vs. bitrate at about 100mbps, it also offers extremely high quality modes in intraframe up to 280mbps. But what I like best about it is that it is a tiny unit that can be mounted via something as nice as Olof's AF100 bracket and it can be powered by the same battery that powers the camera itself. In that way it's less expensive and far more portable than something like the Ki Pro Mini.

The Ninja and Samurai promise a breakthrough in performance per dollar, but you also have to factor in that they're brand new products and you'd have to evaluate your appetite for trusting your footage to a new product vs. one that has been on the market for years and is battle-tested.

And, finally -- is it worth it at all? In the early days everyone thought they would "need" an external recorder, but after testing it and comparing it to external recorders my advice is "just try it-- you may find that you're perfectly happy with it." I'd say that 95% of AF100 users will likely never need an external recorder.


3. The big question in the last and forgive me for it:Which is a better camera: The Af100 or the Sony Ex1.
Click to expand...
Depends on what job you're doing with it. EX1 is a fixed-lens small-sensor camera, which is much more suitable for news/eng/live production work. AF100 is a huge-sensor interchangeable-lens camcorder which is far more suitable for dramatic/narrative/filmmaking/commercial production. Decide what kind of work you want to do and then choose the camera that does what you want.

I don't know why but I am not liking the 24mb bit rate. I had a Z1 before which had a 25mb bit rate and it gave me a lot of problems in terms of artifacts and god knows what.
Click to expand...
That's because the Z1 had a horrible codec called HDV. It has no bearing or relationship with the AF100's codec. The Z1 used MPEG-2 at 25mbps, and a mediocre implementation of it. In the EX1 they increased the bandwidth substantially to come up with 35mbps XDCAM-EX, which is much better. Not perfect, but much better. In the AF100 they use 21 to 24 megabits of h.264, which is better than 35mbps of MPEG-2. I'd guess that it's more equivalent to about 40-45 megabits of MPEG-2.

Please help me out. My line of work is: Narrative and Experimental fimmaking, music videos, ads and a little bit of documentary (not main).
Click to expand...
For those purposes I would say the AF100 would be the more desirable camcorder. And, no, don't spend money on an external recorder until you've used the camera for a while and gotten a good idea of how the onboard codec performs.
 
Last edited:
So Barry as you say, why not give some guy (hacker) the information to make a 35mhz AF100. According to what you say it must be better than 24mhz or not?
 
Kenny_G said:
So Barry as you say, why not give some guy (hacker) the information to make a 35mhz AF100. According to what you say it must be better than 24mhz or not?
Click to expand...
That's been discussed ad infinitum. Panasonic Broadcast is not interested in having their products hacked, nor are they interested in having their reputation riding on whether someone hacked something or not. 35 megabits of avchd would indeed be better than 24 megabits of avchd -- as long as you're comparing the exact same to the exact same, then more is more. And the AF100 does go up to 35 megabits, when in variable frame rate mode.

Whether you (as an individual) want to use a "hacked" camera or not, is your own personal priority, but Panasonic's made it quite clear that they do not intend to support or allow their cameras to be "hacked". They produce a standardized product and they put their reputation on it, and as far as they're concerned, the case is closed -- no hack will be supported. I have asked them to consider making a higher-quality 4:2:2 codec for AVCCAM products in the future, and I hope they do. If some manner of "hack" comes out, it would be up to you whether you wanted to install it and/or use it, but it is not something the factory will be supporting.
 
How would the old manual focus lens hold up on the Af100. Like Canons or Nikons or even Konica.
 
I want to use the old 35mm leica r lens and plan on to use the 19mm, the 24mm, the 35mm and the 50mm. Now these lens are small. Would I be able to attach a matte box with them? Say like the redrock micro.
 
You could. Might be tight if you plan to a FF with it. I would probably use a FF over a matte box. You can use a lens hood instead of a matte box if it's flares you're worried about.

sharry said:
I want to use the old 35mm leica r lens and plan on to use the 19mm, the 24mm, the 35mm and the 50mm. Now these lens are small. Would I be able to attach a matte box with them? Say like the redrock micro.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah its the flares which worries me... You can always add them later in After Effects if you want. I dont want to make my films look Michael Bayish...
 
sharry said:
I want to use the old 35mm leica r lens and plan on to use the 19mm, the 24mm, the 35mm and the 50mm. Now these lens are small. Would I be able to attach a matte box with them? Say like the redrock micro.
Click to expand...

I had issues with the redrock matte-box with smaller lenses, especially with a FF. I found that my 50mm nikon would not work with both their FF and mattebox at the same time.

+1 for hoods though if you dont need to drop in any filters... just get a bunch and leave them on the lens... also would work to give you some room to use those lenses which are tight with a matte-box and a follow focus together.
 
I want to buy the old 35mm slr leica r lens. Now there are some variations to them. Like there is 1 cam, 2 cam, 3 cam, Rom etc. Which is the one that I should go for. If I get the fotodix adapter. Or the leitex adapter.
 
sharry said:
I want to buy the old 35mm slr leica r lens. Now there are some variations to them. Like there is 1 cam, 2 cam, 3 cam, Rom etc. Which is the one that I should go for. If I get the fotodix adapter. Or the leitex adapter.
Click to expand...

Anyone?
 
Leica produced a number of R-mount lenses over the years which cover a broad price range.
My advice would be to set a budget, and then purchase lenses which fit your budget.

All the Best!

Dave
 
Usually the higher cam #, the newer the lens. it's really only an issue with hitting the mirror on DSLR's. I use fotodiox pro adapters, no chip. i also have the regular fotodiox adapter, and it seems to be solid enough.

here is a good resource for leica lenses
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Leica_db.html

Currently I am using Leica R's on a 5D2, soon with the AF100, with a Chroziel mattebox. Chroziel makes a rubber donut that can stretch with the lenses moving in and out. I'm using the same mattbox originally purchased in 2007 for a Sony V1. Chroziel is great, although expensive, because you can adapt the mattebox to many different cameras if you have some kind of adjustable baseplate such as a zacuto, etc.

like the cine lens mods, i put the same size filter ring on all the lenses so that i have consistancy and dont have to change the donut ring. What i absolutely hate is when you swap lenses, you have to move your rails in and out depending on the size of the lens, then re-adjust your follow focus. its gets really irritating when you have other things attached to the rails. A mattebox swing out attachment really doesn't help when your lenses are all different lenghts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top