Highlight Clipping Seems to be the Main Concern

[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.

 

[PaPa]

double post ;P

 

[Rick Burnett]

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

Graduate to the next level? I'm sorry, but I disagree with you and I find that sort of explanation for what you've included missing the point entirely. First, taking a crop off the sensor does NOT require more memory, as it's the same size as LCD resolution that is required. Sure, you might have hard wired the extraction of rows off the CMOS so that you cannot get to other rows, or in the way you built the filter layer, but saying that the system doesn't have enough memory to handle the action is ludicrous. You are already pulling a 1080p image off of it, this just has to be the resolution of the display. You know, how the GH1 can read a crop of the sensor even to record. But, I agree with the OLFP being so strong that it might not be as useful as people have used on their DSLR which have an OLPF at the native resolution of the sensor.

Never done it before? Might want to have a look at your GH1 and GH2 which apparently have the feature as well. Or, while you are at it, you might look at ALL the Canon DSLRs as well which also contain the capability of doing this. It's not hard. And yes, I am an electrical engineer with 15+ years of CMOS experience. I don't buy it. They didn't plan for it and didn't realize the useful of it. Simple.

Secondly, there were two methods I described. One was actually just using a 1:1 pixel ratio, which you obviously already have that data off the sensor, and maybe a digital zoom on top of that. You are telling me they can't do that? Again, not buying it.

I mean, you are telling me that a $600 DSLR has more horsepower to handle this than a $4800 camera? I'd even be happy with it if it only worked when not in record like on my Canon. Just because the LCD has more resolution than the HVX200 means nothing to me. The screen has the same resolution as the 5D and that is NOT sufficient to focus with the image alone, which is what some people would like. I have used tools similar to what is described here, especially off of the DP6 monitor and while they work, I'll take looking at a zoomed in image over some method that adds data to the display ANY DAY of the week. It's distracting and takes away from the natural detail of the scene.

I've already pre-ordered the camera, but I'm sorry, I am disappointed with the lack of this feature. For me it's a huge omission in a simple feature. Same with the easily selectable ISO settings of ALL of them and not just three at a time.

Maybe next time, the still camera division can talk with the video division so they can share the best of both worlds. It's not JUST the large sensor off the DSLR cameras that has been nice to use.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

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".

Hi, I just checked the updated Janie and all you have to do is turn the color down on the LCD and it works just like this. Very cool.

Jan

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

First, taking a crop off the sensor does NOT require more memory, as it's the same size as LCD resolution that is required. Sure, you might have hard wired the extraction of rows off the CMOS so that you cannot get to other rows, or in the way you built the filter layer, but saying that the system doesn't have enough memory to handle the action is ludicrous.

You miss the point entirely, the camera is not constructed as you assume. The focus would have to be looked at after the OLPF. So you may think I am ludicrous, you may not like my answers, your choice, but I am not wrong.

You are already pulling a 1080p image off of it, this just has to be the resolution of the display. You know, how the GH1 can read a crop of the sensor even to record. But, I agree with the OLFP being so strong that it might not be as useful as people have used on their DSLR which have an OLPF at the native resolution of the sensor.

We are not looking at 1080 on the display as the display is not 1920X1080, but closer to 1280X 720. That is also part of the memory issue but the primary one is where the sample is going to be pulled. Frankly the OLPF is strong enough to resolve the Aliasing and Moire issues, and the fact that the GH1 does this is absolutely non relevant. The two cameras are pretty dissimilar.

Never done it before? Might want to have a look at your GH1 and GH2 which apparently have the feature as well. Or, while you are at it, you might look at ALL the Canon DSLRs as well which also contain the capability of doing this. It's not hard. And yes, I am an electrical engineer with 15+ years of CMOS experience. I don't buy it. They didn't plan for it and didn't realize the useful of it. Simple.

As for not planning on it, I am not sure that that is true, I think the engineers went into the design on this camera with over 400+ features on the want list. Go see the want list, it is on this forum. They found obstacles and monetary limitations and memory limitations and all of those things have influence. We have never made a video camera with a large imager that is designed for the production community, that is what has not been done before. The GH1 or 2 is not that. So if you think it is so simple than I would suggest that you design and deliver a camera that does this. From where we stand and a bank of engineers that make me pale in experience say, it would just take too much memory, too much money, as we are not be taking the sample from the chip set but rather after the OLPF.

Secondly, there were two methods I described. One was actually just using a 1:1 pixel ratio, which you obviously already have that data off the sensor, and maybe a digital zoom on top of that. You are telling me they can't do that? Again, not buying it.

I am saying why it is not possible and you can say that I am wrong and that I must be telling you lies about it, and you can be "NOT BUYING IT" all you want but it is not going to be there. Done.

I mean, you are telling me that a $600 DSLR has more horsepower to handle this than a $4800 camera?

This is not a $600 camera and the camera is looking at a different place for the sample. The little $600 camera does not have enough horsepower to even give itself a production level AVCHD codec, let alone get rid of the aliasing and moire issues.

I've already pre-ordered the camera, but I'm sorry, I am disappointed with the lack of this feature. For me it's a huge omission in a simple feature. Same with the easily selectable ISO settings of ALL of them and not just three at a time.

Well I am sorry that you will miss the feature, but I can say that you will be able to focus without it. You can set the ISO settings to the gain switch on the outside of the camera so you can easily select between three. If you need more than three, then you are shooting is a very wild scenario. In fact something I cannot even imagine. But those three to the outside seem to be workable for the mainstay of production. You really wouldn't want it on an outside button that could conceivably be bumped by accident, and you add more gain that what you thought you were shooting at, and you don't discover it until much later. This way it is a logical choice to add more than what you have programmed.

Maybe next time, the still camera division can talk with the video division so they can share the best of both worlds. It's not JUST the large sensor off the DSLR cameras that has been nice to use.

If we had paid attention to the consumer camera division it would act like a GH1 and the whole point of the exercise is for that not to be the case.

Best regards,

Jan

 

[Steve Kahn]

Hi, I just checked the updated Janie and all you have to do is turn the color down on the LCD and it works just like this. Very cool.

Jan

Jan,

Just to double check: if one turns down the chroma on the LCD the red focus assist stays bright red? If so very nice!

By the way I recently very briefly played with the camera a couple of weeks ago at an event and I could get focus through the EVF and LCD pretty easily. Now it wasn't outside with a hard sun blinding the display and it wasn't in a moving situation like on a dolly but with the red peaking and a tape measure it should be pretty easy to lock near and far focus.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[Barry_Green]

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

I believe it is the same as the HPX300's.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Just to double check: if one turns down the chroma on the LCD the red focus assist stays bright red? If so very nice!

Yes that is what I did and that was the result.

By the way I recently very briefly played with the camera a couple of weeks ago at an event and I could get focus through the EVF and LCD pretty easily. Now it wasn't outside with a hard sun blinding the display and it wasn't in a moving situation like on a dolly but with the red peaking and a tape measure it should be pretty easy to lock near and far focus.

I am working with the Portabrace guys for LCD hoods, that always helps.

Best,

Jan

 

[Barry_Green]

Just to double check: if one turns down the chroma on the LCD the red focus assist stays bright red? If so very nice!

Only Jan can answer, as I didn't try it, but -- it seems to me to be counterintuitive, and possible, at the same time. I didn't try it because it doesn't make any sense, but then again I didn't try the black & white viewfinder with the focus-in-red because that doesn't make any sense either. However, on the b&w viewfinder, it definitely does work, so therefore if Jan says it does it on the LCD, it probably uses the same method and also works, which would indeed be pretty cool.

EDIT: Jan answered while I was typing, and confirmed it. That's really cool!

By the way I recently very briefly played with the camera a couple of weeks ago at an event and I could get focus through the EVF and LCD pretty easily. Now it wasn't outside with a hard sun blinding the display and it wasn't in a moving situation like on a dolly but with the red peaking and a tape measure it should be pretty easy to lock near and far focus.

I have been a major complainer about the lack of magnified focus, and frankly I think I've worn out my welcome with more than a few Panasonic folks over it. But, I will say, I think the combination of the b&w/focus-in-red and the distance readouts of focus display on the LCD, combine to make it completely serviceable. I still pine for the magnified focus assist, but I no longer think that it's absolutely essential. Nice, and preferable, but not necessarily essential, to get sharp focus. The other focus tools will work.

I spent some time trying to "prove" that the focus-in-red was inadequate, to force them into making the magnified focus assist no matter what. I used my BT-LH80 at full pixel-to-pixel magnification, and the camera's own focus tools, and I tried to focus by eye on the LCD with focus-in-red, and then double-check on the BT-LH80, to see how far out of focus I was. And -- I wasn't. Really, it worked a lot better than I expected it to. I did think that on that version, the F.I.R. was a little generous, so I asked them to tame it, and they did. I have no doubt that with the new F.I.R. and especially with the B&W/F.I.R. feature, combined with the sharpness of the LCD/EVF, it'll be pretty hard to miss focus.

The one thing that I was complaining about the most was that F.I.R. doesn't always show up when there isn't a sharp edge for it to latch onto. And where I was experiencing that, was on faces when trying to focus on just the eyes, sometimes the F.I.R. would show up on eyebrows, sometimes it wouldn't, but then I went back to my old film training and remembered that in the old days, before *any* focus assists existed, we'd put an eyelight (or "catchlight") in their eyes, and use that to focus off of. Try it on the AF100, it works spectacularly.

The other reason I was complaining, prior to the revision, was that a wide-angle deep-focus shot was very difficult to judge, even with F.I.R., because it was too generous -- it was reporting items were in focus, when they weren't *sharply* in focus. And on that early version of the camera, lenses like the 14-140 wouldn't report their focus distance accurately. I can report that both of those issues are fixed now. The F.I.R. is much more selective, so it's a whole lot easier to determine just what is, and what isn't, in focus, even on a wide shot. And the distance feedback is excellent now, so you can spot-estimate where your subject is, spin the focus wheel to where the LCD is reporting that distance, and then fine-tune with the F.I.R.

I still pine for the magnified focus assist. But I no longer think it's mandatory. I really, really wish it was there -- but I think it will be completely usable even without it.

 

[Rick Burnett]

You miss the point entirely, the camera is not constructed as you assume. The focus would have to be looked at after the OLPF. So you may think I am ludicrous, you may not like my answers, your choice, but I am not wrong.

I get it, nothing is changing in the camera. I don't think you are lying to anyone, but I don't agree with the answers your engineers have given you and I don't think you understand ultimately what I am asking for. I realize the OLPF alone makes a 1:1 crop of THE SENSOR pointless, and if you look back you will see I agree with you on that. I am not asking for that. I am ultimately asking for a 1:1 crop of the 1080p image or a digital zoom of that to the native resolution of the LCD. Memory would only decrease in need, not increase (minus the digital zoom of course), depending on whether the LCD is using an internal scalar for the 1080p signal or you are in fact downrezing before the LCD. The whole point of the 1:1 from 1080p (and sorry if I was not clear on that) is BECAUSE the LCD is not full rez.

Also, the reason for the OLPF is to reduce moire and aliasing. The reason this exists on a $600 camera is because it needs to still shoot full rez. That is NOT a processing power issue and the difference in OLPF cost is negligible as I've actually researched buying OLPFs before.

Pertaining to ISO, I have NEVER EVER EVER hit the wrong ISO on my 7D EVER. I want to dial in as much analog/digital gain that I need to maximize the scene I want WITHOUT changing the exposure which would affect the motion blur, or the F-stop which would affect my DoF. When we went from the gain structure of the HVX200 to the 7D, it was like a whole new world of control was given to us. But, you could have the option to turn it off for those that don't want it. I shoot pretty dynamic changing scenes, and we've shot with both the HVX200 and 7D on these and without question, everyone loved the ISO changing capability of the 7D. I still do. With three distinct settings I am always going to be pushed upper or lower of getting the best of the possible settings. You might not understand how valuable this has been to us, but we've loved it.

I mean, what if you accidentally hit the exposure setting? You have a dial for that, this argument makes NO sense.

And given that a huge number of people from the target audience of your camera has in fact been using consumer large sensor DSLR cameras, don't you think it would have made sense to find out what features people actually do like on the DSLR cameras OTHER than just the large sensor? I mean, did it occur to you to ask? Instead of just not paying attention to it? Just because it is a consumer camera doesn't mean it doesn't have innovative features. I mean, you listened enough that people wanted a large sensor and interchangeable lenses.

The whole point of the exercise should have been getting the best of both worlds. Find out from each side what makes sense and what doesn't. And honestly, yesterday was the FIRST time I found out this feature was missing. I cannot comment for a few posts of how disappointed I am? Sorry to beat a "dead horse" but it wasn't quite dead yet since we just started discussing it (albeit in the wrong place).

In any case, I will start another thread to inform those who rely on these features that they should be prepared to use different methodologies. At least finding this stuff out now and not when the camera gets to my door, the disappointment will wear off and I'll know what to expect.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

I get it, nothing is changing in the camera. I don't think you are lying to anyone, but I don't agree with the answers your engineers have given you and I don't think you understand ultimately what I am asking for.

I do understand what you are asking for, I am not stupid. And you can disagree with my engineers and at one of the moments when you are standing infront of them you can tell them your plan for how to enable this feature set. In the mean time if you think it is so easy, make your own camera and prove my engineers wrong. Please it is not an issue for debate. The reality is that it will not be there, Can we just move on? Please!

And given that a huge number of people from the target audience of your camera has in fact been using consumer large sensor DSLR cameras, don't you think it would have made sense to find out what features people actually do like on the DSLR cameras OTHER than just the large sensor? I mean, did it occur to you to ask? Instead of just not paying attention to it? Just because it is a consumer camera doesn't mean it doesn't have innovative features. I mean, you listened enough that people wanted a large sensor and interchangeable lenses.

Actually my target audience was not the DSLR guy, it was the HVX guy with the 35mm adapter on the front of his camera, or the EX1 guy. The guy that only has $2500 in his pocket is not my target customer at all. The people we involved in the design of this camera were from this site, see the list of features, people from film schools, Local 600 and professional DPs and ASC members. This camera behaves like a professional camera and while it may not be everything to every one, it will function very well as a filmmakers camera.

Thanks,

Jan

 

[Steve Kahn]

No it isn't the codec, no it isn't the camera, yes, it is education and not much more.

I don't mean to flame. I would like to learn. I am primarily a writer/director not a dp but at the same time I feel a director needs to be involved with every aspect of film making. Again, I do not intend to flame BUT...

How could it NOT be the codec that lessens the dynamic range?

Don't dSLRs have 14 stops dynamic range using raw which diminishes to 7-8 stops when they capture jpegs (which is why if you want to shoot HDR on dSLRs it is prehaps just as important to shoot RAW than shooting extra frames at +/- 1 to 3 stops?

A friend of mine shot some UGLY Red RAW footage then manipulated in post somehow (I'm not sure the technical details) adding and subtracting stops in post in a similar way that HDR photo guys do as well. The effect is that salavaged some pretty ugly footage.

Finally, IF I capture AF100 raw uncompressed footage through HD-SDI out (in some future way presently not available today), though it is only 8bit, would it be possible to duplicate what my friend did with the Red RAW footage?

Thanks (and again, no intention to flame),
Steve

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

How could it NOT be the codec that lessens the dynamic range?
Steve

It is the use of the camera portion that the codec quantizes. What the cameraput out the codec digitizes. If there is a bad exposure before it hits the codec it will be a bad exposure after the codec but just preserved for all posterity.

Best,

Jan

 

[cowpunk52]

Don't dSLRs have 14 stops dynamic range using raw which diminishes to 7-8 stops when they capture jpegs (which is why if you want to shoot HDR on dSLRs it is prehaps just as important to shoot RAW than shooting extra frames at +/- 1 to 3 stops?
Steve

No. Read this: http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/dynamic-range-1/dynamic-range-1.htm

It's specifically talking about digital still photography, but relates just the same to video.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I do understand what you are asking for, I am not stupid. And you can disagree with my engineers and at one of the moments when you are standing infront of them you can tell them your plan for how to enable this feature set. In the mean time if you think it is so easy, make your own camera and prove my engineers wrong. Please it is not an issue for debate. The reality is that it will not be there, Can we just move on? Please!


Actually my target audience was not the DSLR guy, it was the HVX guy with the 35mm adapter on the front of his camera, or the EX1 guy. The guy that only has $2500 in his pocket is not my target customer at all. The people we involved in the design of this camera were from this site, see the list of features, people from film schools, Local 600 and professional DPs and ASC members. This camera behaves like a professional camera and while it may not be everything to every one, it will function very well as a filmmakers camera.

Thanks,

Jan

Wow, if I've ever been turned off by the handling of feature concerns, this conversation takes the cake. Again, I never said you were stupid, I could have just not been clear in what I am asking, as the conversation has jumped around a bit. I'd be glad to talk with one of them if they'd like to give me a call, you can PM me for a number. I'd love to discuss it with them in technical detail. And pointing out that I don't have a camera design of my own is really serving no one. I am unhappy the feature isn't there. Others will be unhappy it isn't there. It was not your intention to have it. Like I said, I get it. We just have to live with it. I'm really tired of this attacking customers because they might have a criticism of your product or concern when they are dropping $5k on it. For me, that is a huge investment and has taken me awhile to save up for. So what if it is a prototype, the whole point of getting prototypes out is to identify areas of concern before final production for things engineers might miss. And believe me, I can tell you this, just because someone is an engineer doesn't mean they have every aspect of what the target audience for the electronics needs, which has been proven time and time again as I am sure you are aware (marketing versus engineering). I've been in engineering for 15+ years, and worked with 20+ different large scale electronics/hardware companies. I've worked on chips for video cameras. it's not like I don't understand how the manufacturing process works.

And I'll admit, there are so many aspects to the architecture of the camera that also need to be considered, that simple answers designed for non-technical people are frustrating for people like me. I *WANT* the AF100 to be everything I need and excel in all areas. I wouldn't have pre-ordered if I didn't see such high potential in it, and i still do.

I'll get over it in time

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I'm really tired of this attacking customers because they might have a criticism of your product or concern when they are dropping $5k on it.

And I'm sure Panasonic is tired of everyone harping on things that for whatever reason can't or won't be done on this particular camera before it ships.

 

[Duke M.]

I *WANT* the AF100 to be everything I need and excel in all areas. I wouldn't have pre-ordered if I didn't see such high potential in it, and i still do.
I'll get over it in time

You can get it for $100,000 more.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

Grimpoch wrote: Wow, if I've ever been turned off by the handling of feature concerns, this conversation takes the cake.


Hi,

This camera has been in the making for almost 18 months. We have taken every feature consideration into play and put in what we can put in. If I have offended you by what may seem like a shortage of caring or understanding, I am sorry and apologize. It is probably due to the fact that I have watched this thread escalate for the last week about two things, one is an education problem and the other is something that cannot be resolved the focus expand feature. I have tried to explain it to the best of my abilities and I have been told repeatedly that that is all wrong and no one is buying my explanation. I am feeling a little frustrated buy the entire conversation. Point is it will not be in this camera. We are a month from delivery. It will not be there. They tried and they couldn't do it. It isn't like they forgot or didn't think it was a viable feature, they couldn't do it. The room that has the engineers in it has more than 100+ years of experience in it and it they couldn't do it, I really don't know who can.

Please can we just move on?

thanks,

Jan

 

[Rick Burnett]

And I'm sure Panasonic is tired of everyone harping on things that for whatever reason can't or won't be done on this particular camera before it ships.

Well if people are disappointed with certain things, they are disappointed. All the excuses in the world aren't going to make that feeling change. When you realize you are in fact getting less for your money than what you may have wrongfully expected (and it's my fault for expecting those features in the first place) it's just not a great feeling. The worth of ANY feature to ANYONE is not globally quantifiable, so for someone something being no big deal not being there is not going to be the case for everyone.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Grimpoch wrote: Wow, if I've ever been turned off by the handling of feature concerns, this conversation takes the cake.


Hi,

This camera has been in the making for almost 18 months. We have taken every feature consideration into play and put in what we can put in. If I have offended you by what may seem like a shortage of caring or understanding, I am sorry and apologize. It is probably due to the fact that I have watched this thread escalate for the last week about two things, one is an education problem and the other is something that cannot be resolved the focus expand feature. I have tried to explain it to the best of my abilities and I have been told repeatedly that that is all wrong and no one is buying my explanation. I am feeling a little frustrated buy the entire conversation. Point is it will not be in this camera. We are a month from delivery. It will not be there. They tried and they couldn't do it. It isn't like they forgot or didn't think it was a viable feature, they couldn't do it. The room that has the engineers in it has more than 100+ years of experience in it and it they couldn't do it, I really don't know who can.

Please can we just move on?

thanks,

Jan

Yes. Thank you for your response and I apologize for getting so aggravated with the situation and my concerns. Like I said, I'll get over it, I have no choice. One thing that I want to do is educate those coming from a new strong DSLR background as to what to expect moving to the AF100. Many people are excited about moving to this camera coming also from owning just a DSLR. Many local filmmakers where I am at have already indicated they would like to get my feedback and have me demonstrate my camera to them. I've watched them shoot and I've seen the methods and techniques they've enjoyed. From my standpoint, I just want to make sure I can translate usage on their DSLR workflow to the AF100 and make that process as efficient and as straight forward as possible. I'll be honest, I didn't realize before today the exact target market, so you can imagine my confusion with certain things I was looking for. Thank you for clearing up the whys so I can answer these questions as well. To me, more people using the AF100 around where I am just helps the product as a whole and keeps Panasonic focused on the AF100 if it becomes a staple like older Panasonic cameras.

And I am seriously looking forward to getting it. I can tell you this, the single most aggravating thing on my 7D is Moire for me. I hate it with such an amazing passion. I looked at EVERY video posted so far from the AF100 and was so happy to not see my nemesis. So thanks for getting rid of that!

Rick