Highlight Clipping Seems to be the Main Concern

[Barry_Green]

Barry and to add, its the same process thats used on the BTLH80.

Pixel-to-Pixel 2.4X function

But no, that's different. Pixel-to-pixel is not a digital zoom, it's a scan of the center of the image. It's a one-to-one representation. But I believe what's being asked for here is not that. It's to take a smaller central portion of the image and digitally magnify it. Which wouldn't be any sharper, but would be bigger. In effect, that's what the ZFinder does -- it doesn't reveal more information, it just allows what's there to be seen easier.

I've been clamoring for actual pixel-to-pixel, and that's not gonna happen. But it's perhaps possible that some sort of digital zoom could; I'll ask.

 

[powervideo]

Personally I would like to see Panasonic make a RED-like statement and say with the recent customer/user feedback, we are putting back the ship date for a month while we reassess the Cine-D feature, focus-assist, etc,etc. One extra month wouldn't make all that much difference except to those who have specific projects relying on the camera. But this is probably wishful thinking...

 

[Noel Evans]

But no, that's different. Pixel-to-pixel is not a digital zoom, it's a scan of the center of the image. It's a one-to-one representation. But I believe what's being asked for here is not that. It's to take a smaller central portion of the image and digitally magnify it. Which wouldn't be any sharper, but would be bigger. In effect, that's what the ZFinder does -- it doesn't reveal more information, it just allows what's there to be seen easier.

I've been clamoring for actual pixel-to-pixel, and that's not gonna happen. But it's perhaps possible that some sort of digital zoom could; I'll ask.

Ahh well Ive got that wrong then as I always thought it just meant it was a digital zoom.

 

[Barry_Green]

Ahh well Ive got that wrong then as I always thought it just meant it was a digital zoom.

On the BT-LH80, it has an 854x480 panel, I think. And it normally scales the whole 1920x1080 image down to fit in the 854x480. But when in P-2-P mode, it doesn't scale down at all, it just extracts a patch of 854x480 and maps it directly on to the screen, at a one-to-one ratio.

To me, that's very helpful, and that's the same kind of thing these other cameras do with their magnified focus assist.

But when you're dealing with a super-high-res display with very tight PPI (pixels per inch), maybe there's something to the magnification thing. I think the LCD panel on the AF100 is probably every bit as high-res as the BT-LH80 is, so looking at the LCD is about as sharp as looking at the BT-LH80 when it's not in pixel-to-pixel. And what I'd love is a pixel-to-pixel display. But, maybe there's value to just magnifying the existing res. The BT-LH80 is an 8" panel, the LCD on the camera is only 3", so it's like looking at the BT-LH80 monitor when it's five feet away. Nobody would want to do that; I don't know about you but I normally look at the monitor from about 1 foot. So if they did a digital magnification of the LCD, it'd probably be equivalent in pixel size to the BT-LH80 (which has the same number of pixels on a 4x larger screen, so each pixel is 4x larger).

 

[Rick Burnett]

Well, I can solve one of your items -- there is a remote manual focus port on the back, and it does work with an electronic-focusing lens. Obviously it can't work with a fully-manual lens, but if your lens has autofocus capability, the port works. At least, with the Lumix lenses.

As for #1 -- you say "digital zoom" but ... is that what you really mean? Don't you mean you want a sensor crop mode? That's what I'd want.

So for #3 they did in fact add that? If you recall, Jan had said it did not include manual focus of electronic lenses only they we'd have access to auto focus from the rear port. What you've described is exactly what I was wanting. The main usage for me being my camera up on a crane and me needing to set focus from the back of it looking at an LCD monitor. Granted the big *if* area is the Birger mount which I've not heard anything new on yet, nor related to the translation of electronic signals through it. If it ends up only working with Lumix lenses for whatever reason (like Birger doesn't get it to work) then I can envision using Lumix lenses if needed when on the crane. (And since most crane shots I do are outdoors anyways, fast lenses aren't a huge concern to me).

For #1 it really depends on what is possible. Yes, I would prefer a crop mode BUT, we don't know what they are doing with the sensor since they don't use it in the same way. It might not even be physically possible for them if they've not included anything in the hardware to read out everything, if that makes sense. I think even with the OLPF it has value but we don't know how they are using the sensor and what hardware optimizations have been made to account for only using it up to 1080p.

Pertaining to actual digital zoom beyond 1:1, I also believe it would be useful. Give the size of the back display, as long as what you are displaying is lower rez or equal to what the display is capable of displaying, nothing is hidden. That's the big problem. Even a 2x or 4x zoom beyond 1:1 would allow making the LCD not hiding data because of it being lower rez.

 

[Barry_Green]

My understanding is that it does #3 exactly how you want. But, I can't find my frickin' Varizoom so I wasn't able to test that. It's possible I sold it off years ago, but I hope not! I have (or had) a Varizoom remote here that I never used, and if I could find it, I could test that next time I get an AF100 for testing. But on the HMC150, HPX170, DVX100B, HMC40, HMC80, HVX200, etc., they all allow remote focus exactly as you describe, and I am 99% certain that the AF100 does it as well. It uses the same controller port and the remotes are compatible, and the focus response on the lens is the same, so I really don't see why it wouldn't work exactly as you want.

 

[Dino]

There is nothing wrong with Cine D, IMO. Just too many shots overexposed from Japan. If contrast is too much for Cine D, use DRS. If I know my client is not grading the footage and I'm in high contrast, uncontrolled environments, when I had an HDX900, I would switch from Filmlike 2 to DRS. With the HPX2700, I prefer Film-Rec over DRS, but the latter is good for a what you see is what you get setting--it not only helps with highlights, but also with shadow detail. I haven't used it with my 170 due to no 24P capability, so maybe it's too noisy, but I find it to be okay with the 2/3" cameras, other than DRS 3.

When I shoot with a 170, EX1, 2700 or 3700 and 35mm DOF adapter on a tripod, I always have a 7" or 8" monitor mounted on top of the camera. I call up the waveform, focus in red and pixel to pixel for the quadrant that I need, if the monitor allows(TV Logic) or use the 170's waveform display(LH80).

I don't consider Cine D or the lack of focus assist button on the AF100 to be big issues, but agree the latter would have been nice in case of not having a monitor. I'm very happy that DRS works in 24P with the AF100, assuming noise isn't a problem.

 

[robertrogoz]

Gee, first people want cinema style camera for a decent price, but when it actually happens they don't know the drill. Every set I worked on there is "focus puller" or 1st AC, so what gives? These cameras are equipped with a monitor and every professional monitor has 1:1 pixel mapping. So no, don't clutter this camera with some half ass feature, that can be done with existing equipment. It already has bullshit like internal microphone (I guess for cool looks or something), no need for another button and more wasted space.

 

[dustylense]

Gee, first people want cinema style camera for a decent price, but when it actually happens they don't know the drill. Every set I worked on there is "focus puller" or 1st AC, so what gives? These cameras are equipped with a monitor and every professional monitor has 1:1 pixel mapping. So no, don't clutter this camera with some half ass feature, that can be done with existing equipment. It already has bullshit like internal microphone (I guess for cool looks or something), no need for another button and more wasted space.

I agree. Get a 1:1 pixel capable monitor if you need to zoom in. Or, place a z-finder on your LCD for a quick focus check. I can't wait for this camera!

 

[PaPa]

Gee, first people want cinema style camera for a decent price, but when it actually happens they don't know the drill. Every set I worked on there is "focus puller" or 1st AC, so what gives? These cameras are equipped with a monitor and every professional monitor has 1:1 pixel mapping. So no, don't clutter this camera with some half ass feature, that can be done with existing equipment. It already has bullshit like internal microphone (I guess for cool looks or something), no need for another button and more wasted space.

Cinema style camera? Yes, however even Jan has said that they decided to deliver to filmmakers what everyone loved about HDSLRs but without the issues of moire, aliasing and skew. However even my little 7D can deliver this feature to me even with all of it's faults. Those are some pretty basic features that on a 5000 dollar price tag should be included.

Don't get me wrong, i agree with what you said about the monitor. I have one, but god knows Murphies law exists for a reason. Heaven forbid I'm on set shooting a scene and my monitor goes kaput, should we shut down production because we don't have the budget for a backup monitor, or better yet to hire someone on a low budget production that has enough experience to pull focus blindly.... Let's not be silly here Robert. Not everyone is shooting with cinema style primes with perfectly calibrated lenses and lens markings every couple of inches. Not everyone can afford monitors and there has to be a solution and a way to work with the camera. There is, without a shadow of a doubt, a need for some type of zoom focus assist, digital or p 2 p crop.

You may not feel as though it's necessary, but I guarantee you majority feel otherwise. And that's what this camera is, an affordable, marketable, economic friendly camera for those who can't afford the big guns to buy something that will help them achieve the "cinema" quality they are looking for. When it's so easy to throw things out of focus with the near 35mm sensor type, this feature would save a lot of time on set. A type of zoom for focus assist I believe would be a necessity to shooters everywhere and I don't think it's asking too much.

This camera is as much a "cinema camera" in 2010 as the XH A1 in 2006. Actually, I would dare go a step further and say it's directed to the exact same market ( same price range at new value as well ) and we all know how much we loved the magnification feature.

Not asking them to delay production to give us a DRS feature like the RED, just want to be able to get focus at all times, external monitor or not. This camera is geared towards the budget filmmaker. Budget sometimes means that one man wears many hats. Not everyone will have a designated AC for projects.

anywho, rant done Please let it see the light of day Jan

 

[Rick Burnett]

Gee, first people want cinema style camera for a decent price, but when it actually happens they don't know the drill. Every set I worked on there is "focus puller" or 1st AC, so what gives? These cameras are equipped with a monitor and every professional monitor has 1:1 pixel mapping. So no, don't clutter this camera with some half ass feature, that can be done with existing equipment. It already has bullshit like internal microphone (I guess for cool looks or something), no need for another button and more wasted space.

Give me a freaking break, 95% of shots I see in movies and television do not even need a focus puller when the focus doesn't shift through the entire scene. I can nail focus on my 7D 99% of the time on every shot I do because it's so simple. Zoom in, adjust focus, zoom out. To me, half assed is NOT having the feature in there to begin with. I don't believe anyone is asking for a new button, they just want the ability to be able to assign it to a user assignable button. I don't want another monitor attached to my camera because I like the setup small and easy to maneuver. This feature has worked amazingly well on DSLR cameras and should be something embraced in future cameras. Also, a Z-finder isn't going to magically increase the resolution of your LCD screen, and that is the problem. I mean, come on, if almost all the DSLRs can do it, do you really think that the AF100 doesn't have the horsepower to provide such a feature?

Also, hasn't the whole complaint about DSLRs with having to attach a plethera of equipment to make it do what you want? Here is a camera that is so close to having everything I want, and now people are recommending attach more equipment to it? No thanks. If you want to keep pushing that same old wheel, that's fine, but I'd like to actually see equipment and operation evolve, not devolve.

 

[Barry_Green]

Give me a freaking break, 95% of shots I see in movies and television do not even need a focus puller when the focus doesn't shift through the entire scene.

A LOT of shots in cinema need a focus puller, that you don't even know they're using it on. Any dolly shot, any walk-and-talk, or any shot where the subject is moving around a lot, all benefits from having a focus puller. Even interviews might be using a focus puller.

"racking focus" is one of the least-used techniques in cinema, and is not the reason to have a focus puller. The reason to have a focus puller is so that nobody goes out of focus, so the viewer never notices.

I mean, come on, if almost all the DSLRs can do it, do you really think that the AF100 doesn't have the horsepower to provide such a feature?

I can assure you that the case has been made to them, to such an extreme degree as that you cannot even imagine. I don't know if anyone can or should tell to what lengths and breadths, and what histrionics, I went through when pitching our collective case to them. I will only say that it actually involved jumping up and down, pounding my head on the table, and begging on my knees.

If they don't do it, it's because they can't. Whether it's the hardware design or the capabilities of the chips or the power or whatever, I don't know. But all I do know is that this subject has been beaten to death with them.

but I'd like to actually see equipment and operation evolve, not devolve.

That point has been fervently made to them as well.

 

[Rick Burnett]

A LOT of shots in cinema need a focus puller, that you don't even know they're using it on. Any dolly shot, any walk-and-talk, or any shot where the subject is moving around a lot, all benefits from having a focus puller. Even interviews might be using a focus puller.

"racking focus" is one of the least-used techniques in cinema, and is not the reason to have a focus puller. The reason to have a focus puller is so that nobody goes out of focus, so the viewer never notices.


I can assure you that the case has been made to them, to such an extreme degree as that you cannot even imagine. I don't know if anyone can or should tell to what lengths and breadths, and what histrionics, I went through when pitching our collective case to them. I will only say that it actually involved jumping up and down, pounding my head on the table, and begging on my knees.

If they don't do it, it's because they can't. Whether it's the hardware design or the capabilities of the chips or the power or whatever, I don't know. But all I do know is that this subject has been beaten to death with them.


That point has been fervently made to them as well.

Let me just say, I thank you for the effort you've put in to make them aware of how important some people find this kind of feature. One thing I realize with motion capture is everyone does things differently. I think people need to realize that the AF100 is a bridge building camera that has users from many different aspects and therefore, there are requirements for some that others will not need. I don't think it is wrong if you want to use a focus puller, but from my perspective, using SLR lenses, the sensitivity of the focus ring makes it very hard to adjust on the fly anyways.

We dolly, we track people, we use stabilizers when we are moving all around, and we use fast lenses. We practice A LOT with our lenses so we don't waste people's time. If I am running around with a stabilizer, no one is going to be able to pull focus for me unless I use some sort of remote system for both the focus control and the video display. When I dolly, I carefully setup the scene so it stays in focus. This doesn't make it the right way, but with our methodology of shooting, it works, and well.

I just get aggravated when someone comes along and refers to this capability as "half-assed" when clearly, it is not. It's another mechanism for focusing on sub-resolution displays, and as you've witnessed yourself, it works really damn well. I want to move from my 7D to the AF100 and have all the things I love about my 7D and none of the things I hate

 

[Barry_Green]

I don't think it is wrong if you want to use a focus puller, but from my perspective, using SLR lenses, the sensitivity of the focus ring makes it very hard to adjust on the fly anyways.

Agreed, but that's why SLR lenses drive the cinema guys crazy... :thumbsup:

I just get aggravated when someone comes along and refers to this capability as "half-assed" when clearly, it is not. It's another mechanism for focusing on sub-resolution displays, and as you've witnessed yourself, it works really damn well. I want to move from my 7D to the AF100 and have all the things I love about my 7D and none of the things I hate

I agree that nobody should be denigrating anyone else's workflow.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi Guys,

This tread rambles from one point of discussion to another and it becomes really hard to follow that there are two different subjects being discussed here. You should start a new thread when you change subjects. People are busy and they sometimes don't have the time to read through 150+ posts to realize that there are multiple subjects and all are interesting. So do yourselves a favor, add more threads, one subject to each one.


I mean it is hard to come in on a thread like this to tell people that they need to learn how to use Cine-D or just use something else, it has been like this since day one on the HVX200. No it isn't the codec, no it isn't the camera, yes, it is education and not much more. To have a thread sort of damning the camera that isn't even out yet is a little frustrating. Come on people. Having examples being shown taken from footage that was show with a partially baked camera, run by guys that have had so little experience with it and no monitoring, to prove that there is something wrong, is just wrong.

The other issue that is contentious in this thread is that somehow we have totally missed the boat because we do not have a zoom in focus feature. (See how these two ideas don't match the thread header. It is sort of why I missed it. I travel quite bit and sometimes I will get a note on a thread and "go oh they are still talking about the same thing" then I don't get another and the subject has veered off course.) Anyhow, the factory would have liked to include it, but it is not possible. They have given a couple of tools to focus with and as it stands, I think they work well. No the majority of you have not tried it so you don't know. Barry has said he tried it and he thought it worked, but I think the "binkie" (expand focus) is hard to move away from, because it has been a part of your lives for a long time. I fully believe that you will all graduate to the next level with this camera and will be able to focus. Keep in mind the resolution of the screen is about 3X what the HVX was. Finally, it is much harder than you think to do an expand focus off this chipset. Way more memory than what it has. as a matter of fact. If it was possible, it would be there. It is easy as pulling a section out of 1920 X 1080 chipset. The size of the chip set of the AF100 is huge and it is going through an OLPF. This is way different from anything we have done before.

So if you want to keep beating a dead horse be my guest, but it isn't going to change what is on the camera.

Best regards,

Jan

 

[Rolf Silber]

So if you want to keep beating a dead horse be my guest, but it isn't going to change what is on the camera.

Best regards,

Jan

Flogging an unborn horse is even worse.... thank you for your work and for the insights you gave and give us. I am waiting for the delivery to arrive at my house soon..... ;-)

 

[Duke M.]

If peeking red on a black and white screen isn't enough for anyone to see if its in focus or not I'm sure the Braille Institute has a nice place for them to stay. Its like people are totally ignoring this awesome feature.

 

[Yak]

Jan thank you for clearing up the reason for lack of "zoom in focus". Could you please check if the LCD can be made to have the option of a black & white with red focus highlight like the EVF has, this could be very helpful to a focus puller or when shooting "run & gun".

 

[PaPa]

If peeking red on a black and white screen isn't enough for anyone to see if its in focus or not I'm sure the Braille Institute has a nice place for them to stay. Its like people are totally ignoring this awesome feature.

I have the feature on my marshal monitor. Not very useful I can tell you that.

Jan, did you read my post about possibly including a digital magnification of the LCD and not a crop of the sensor? Just something we can use to scale the image we see?

This, I imagine would be something that is 100x simpler to resolve.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I have the feature on my marshal monitor. Not very useful I can tell you that.

I have that same Marshall monitor and it isn't ideal for focusing.

However the AF-100 monitor sounds to be MUCH higher resolution than the Marshall.

If it is anywhere NEAR the resolution of the HPX-300 monitor then I will be very happy.