Just finished another 11 days shooting with the AF101

[RieniO]

I've been a negative ass about the AF101 is some threads, main reason for this is because I didn't like the default image settings (color, noise) and 25p footage plays back stuttery on computer screens. I considered selling the AF101 but then I received Barry's book and read it and started to understand how to tune the image to personal preference. I liked the better image I achieved and decided to use the cam for another week of shoots and I fell in love with this camera. I guess I didn't like the image at first because I shoot with fluo lights and the image was washed out and green at first. With my new settings the image looks much more like GH1 and 7D. Also I complained about the noise but when looking at 7D footage I realized the 7D is noise as well, maybe even noisier than the AF101.

Barry I was a pain in the ass to you in the thread about the BBC test results and for that I apologize. And I thank you for writing the book. I'm Dutch so English is not my first language but even for me it's very easy to read and understand. Very well written and you cover all the important things.

I can't believe the BBC test is correct. Again we've been looking at the footage with the full team and everybody said this was the most beautiful and sharpest footage they've ever seen from shoots and camera's in this budget range.

Also I didn't buy this camera for the variable frame rate mode, I always thought I didn't need that because I can get slow motion in Final Cut Pro, but I've shoot some 60fps and it's awesome. I decided to shoot in 24p to match with the GH2 but in the end I didn't use the GH2 as B cam and worked with the AF101 only but continued shooting in 24p because it enables me to get a 2.5 times slow motion instead of 2 times when shooting in PAL.

Also 24p doesn't stutter in playback. I'll try to sort out why 25p stutters later but I'm happy to shoot in 24p for the next few years.

I'll post my settings in the file scene recipe thread later.

 

[Darren Levine]

Good to hear your thoughts. Consider sending some clips in for the NYC screening, perhaps showing the difference those settings made.

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

I believe once you embrace this camera for what it is and set it up to your liking love flows

 

[Vultch]

Look forward to trying out your settings....

 

[Barry_Green]

Barry I was a pain in the ass to you in the thread about the BBC test results and for that I apologize. And I thank you for writing the book. I'm Dutch so English is not my first language but even for me it's very easy to read and understand. Very well written and you cover all the important things.

Thanks for saying so. That thread was sure frustrating because I knew what I was seeing, and I knew that what was being reported just didn't match what I was seeing, so... I'm glad to see you're happier with the product you bought.

Again we've been looking at the footage with the full team and everybody said this was the most beautiful and sharpest footage they've ever seen from shoots and camera's in this budget range.

That is the response I've gotten from everyone who's taken the time to set it up and use it. We had a huge raft of top-notch guys working the "Verse" shoot, and every one of us said all the same things, and most (if not all) of them went out afterwards and bought their own AF100.

The test report says what it says, fine, whatever. The fact of the matter is that the AF100 can deliver extremely high quality results, and yes, it does seem that you have to take a little time to experiment and learn it to get the best from it. Look at Shooter, all his early posts were testing threads, and now he's happily settled in and shooting and shooting. Same with Leo, same with McGee, same with everyone. Learn it, and use it, and it's just fantastic, especially at the price point.

 

[ASG]

Also 24p doesn't stutter in playback. I'll try to sort out why 25p stutters later but I'm happy to shoot in 24p for the next few years.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but is it because 24p is the only genuine progressive mode and the others are full frames split across interlaced fields? Think I read that somewhere.

I think 60p is probably the best thing about the AF100, I'm going to shoot 24p instead of 25p as well, but it would be nice to be able to shoot both 50Hz and 60Hz without the hassle you have to go through to do that.

 

[HDWarrior]

I agree entirely...I was in a position of having a Sony PMW-350K which is a fantastic camcorder but once I got my head round the AF101 I sold the Sony as I was not using it. Barry's book was a God send and if truth be told I still have not read all of his book but that's the beauty of a book you can dip in and out when you feel like it.

 

[danap]

I can't believe the BBC test is correct. Again we've been looking at the footage with the full team and everybody said this was the most beautiful and sharpest footage they've ever seen from shoots and camera's in this budget range.

So the BBC test was wrong? If it is the case, what was wrong and by means of which testing procedures are the findings of the BBC test found to be wrong?

With my new settings the image looks much more like GH1 and 7D. Also I complained about the noise but when looking at 7D footage I realized the 7D is noise as well, maybe even noisier than the AF101.

What a progress considering the 5000 USD - 5000 EURO price tag !

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

So the BBC test was wrong? If it is the case, what was wrong and by means of which testing procedures are the findings of the BBC test found to be wrong?



What a progress considering the 5000 USD - 5000 EURO price tag !

Or it can look like pretty much any HD camera. The comparison towards DSLR cameras is just because many of us are used to shoot with a 7D or similar camera. Look and image quality/features are two different things.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I think this is the experience of most people who actually take the time to push the camera to what they want. It isn't going to do itself, and as I've been saying all along, I think the default settings for the AF100 DO NOT do this camera justice, in my opinion.

Everyone that has looked at my footage loves it as well, so what can I say. I read the BBC article as well and I guess my eyes are just not tuned to the same things. Like the resolution chart, I know how the camera shoots on it, and then I go out and shoot, and the results are not the same. It's things like this that make me step back and say, whoa, apples != apples. (!= means does not equal).

I have a shoot again this Sunday doing overcranked for a car crash. I am excited to be shooting this and know that the AF100 will work great in this regard.

Everyone that has asked me about my AF100, I tell them this:

"Rent the camera. Don't run out and shoot, but take your favorite camera you have now, point the camera at the same thing, and start tweaking the settings in the AF100 till you get what you want to see. Look at those capture at 1:1, and then, once you are happy, go shoot, then you will see"

The AF100 is a chameleon. It CAN look very different depending on your settings. I see a lot of people, (or hear), get the camera, try shooting a few things, get frustrated, then sell it off. I think some people expect it to look exactly how you want right out of the box, but it comes with some preconceived looks. They might not be the looks for you!

 

[Rick Burnett]

Addendum: I also say, if you cannot see the difference between the 7D and the AF100, then keep your 7D. The AF100 is not the camera for you. I have the 7D and I *KNOW* without any question in my mind that it is technically superior to the 7D. I've already been on shoots doing things with the AF100 I cannot do to the same level of quality with the 7D, period. Period times ten. Talk about a better piece of mind on a VERY expensive production. $5k was worth it for the reduction in stress!

 

[RieniO]

Thanks for saying so. That thread was sure frustrating because I knew what I was seeing, and I knew that what was being reported just didn't match what I was seeing, so... I'm glad to see you're happier with the product you bought.

I didn't agree with you when you said the 25p stutter (I see it during slow pans) is caused by computer screens synced at 60hz or something like that, I've been shooting 25p for years with many different cameras and never saw this stutter before on any screen and I'm still curious why AF101 25p stutters. The stutter for me came on top of the noise and poor green colors and at that time it became too much for me. I agree with Rick that the default settings don't do the camera much good, but that's sorted out now and for what I do 24p is fine, I only wonder about how to use 24p footage for PAL DVD distribution but I'll sort that out later. Most important is that I am finally productive with this camera now and have a workflow that's much easier than working with DSLR cams. I don't have to use external audio recorders anymore (apart from when shooting 60fps), the AF101 is awesome, crystal clear and much more sensitive than the Tascam DR100, operating the cam is much easier than DSLR cams, and I love the WFM and focus assist (which I now use in vf set to b&w after reading your book, only that info makes the book worth the money for me). I've shot everything using the Panasonic 14mm pancake lens, pulling focus by turning the ring and watching the distance indicator on the LCD screen and using focus assist and all focusing went fine, imagine doing that with a DSLR!

Apart from the cam a lot of other things during this 11 day shoot were good as well so I might already have earned back this cam and will get another one to use as second cam later this year. I bought a HMC151 in a state of panic just before this shoot but ended up being so happy with the AF101 that I haven't even opened the HMC151 box, I guess that says all :cheesy:

 

[RieniO]

So the BBC test was wrong? If it is the case, what was wrong and by means of which testing procedures are the findings of the BBC test found to be wrong?

No I don't say the BBC test was wrong, but I say that the BBC test is done from a different angle than from how the end viewer experiences viewing the image. If the end viewer experiences the image as crystal clear and sharp, I'll be happy using that camera. If then the BBC says... but if you diagnose the image you'll see less lines than in other cameras, but then at the same time those other cameras don't produce an image that by the end user is experienced as clear and sharp as that of the AF101, I wonder what the point is of testing the way the BBC tests. Because they'll end up using cams that come fine through their tests but don't produce the nicest image for their audience. Compare it to audiophile tests comparing the most expensive CD players and vinyl turn tables with valve amplifiers. Technically CD players have much higher resolutions and broader frequency ranges than analogue HiFi equipment, still audiophiles will say that a good turntable with vinyl records connected to a good valve tube and good speakers (like the Quad electrostats that make you feel the base in your guts!) sound better. So in this case technical and end user experience tests will always conflict.

 

[RieniO]

Addendum: I also say, if you cannot see the difference between the 7D and the AF100, then keep your 7D. The AF100 is not the camera for you. I have the 7D and I *KNOW* without any question in my mind that it is technically superior to the 7D. I've already been on shoots doing things with the AF100 I cannot do to the same level of quality with the 7D, period. Period times ten. Talk about a better piece of mind on a VERY expensive production. $5k was worth it for the reduction in stress!

Yes but only after tuning the AF101. Honestly after using the AF101 for the first time I seriously considered going back to the 7D. Like you wrote earlier, the AF101 default settings don't do the camera much good. I never did any tuning of the GH1/2 and 7D cams, those cams look much better by default and for me only need little color correction in post. In the end my first AF101 footage could be properly color corrected as well (apart from the stutter) but it's really nice to have a good image coming out of camera when viewed on a book directly after shooting. This really added to a positive working atmosphere this week, there were a lot of "wows" and happy smiling people, including the camera man

 

[Rick Burnett]

But tuning the AF100 to what you expect. There are some people who shoot with WILDLY different settings than I do that look totally different. There are MANY people who do not prefer the look of the 7D at all. The AF100 really caters to a lot of different looks. I can get the 7D image with the AF100 in terms of color, shadow handling, etc (although not the exact same highlight handling, but MUCH closer now). However, I cannot make my 7D look like the AF100.

Just the rolling shutter alone which is almost twice as fast as the 7D seems to get overlooked a lot. It's on par with the Red One. That's significant. You can do SO MUCH more with dynamic shots with the AF100. Yet, many people don't even include that in the value. That's pretty significant to me, and I *know* that is not inexpensive to do.

Or the fact it can do 1080p60, which again, is SUPERIOR to 720p60 by so much it is not even funny.

But hey, I am glad you are finally getting the picture you want out of it! I get oohs and aahs as well when people watch it. Which is probably why I've been getting messaged A LOT lately to work more with people.

 

[RieniO]

Before I started shooting with the GH1 and 7D, I was shooting with a Canon HDV cam and the quality upgrade was huge. So in that respect I was very happy with the 7D. But we get used to new standards quickly and I wouldn't be happy with the GH1 and 7D image again after being used to what I'm getting now. Therefor I can understand that professionals used to working with top video cams never were impressed by GH1/7D footage. In the end it was all about budgets and price/quality ratios which is still great for the GH1/2 and 7D. I would shoot with a GH2 today if I couldn't afford the AF101, probably. And I never bothered using 720p in any cam. Even if you don't publish in full HD today, it's still good to shoot in full HD so that you can publish it in full HD later.

So to put a long story short, you're buying my 7D now, Rick?

 

[Barry_Green]

So the BBC test was wrong? If it is the case, what was wrong and by means of which testing procedures are the findings of the BBC test found to be wrong?

It isn't "wrong", but it is certainly leading people to think that the AF100 delivers substandard results, when in actuality the results are really very very good. Read the BBC report and you'd think that the image suffers from aliasing -- Listen to the report of every single user who's ever used the AF100 and you'll hear one constant frequent repeated statement -- "no aliasing". Listen to the BBC Scotland evaluation of the AF101 -- they read the Alan Roberts report, they acknowledge it, but then they said "it just doesn't show up in the footage."

I can verify that the observations Alan made in his test report are accurate. And I can further verify what everyone else is saying -- it just doesn't show up in the footage. The AF100 delivers fantastic results, dramatically better than what the DSLRs do, and when you take the time to dial it in, learn its idiosyncracies and work with it, it rewards you with gorgeous footage.

 

[Barry_Green]

Like the resolution chart, I know how the camera shoots on it, and then I go out and shoot, and the results are not the same. It's things like this that make me step back and say, whoa, apples != apples. (!= means does not equal).

This is absolutely the truth. And it is baffling. I have never, ever experienced a scenario where what the chart tells me, isn't reflected in the real world. Look at the F3 chart -- you'll see rainbow moire. Go take the F3 out and shoot bricks -- voila, rainbow moire. Look at the 7D chart -- you'll see low-res stairsteppy messes sprayed with horrible colored rainbow moire. Go shoot telephone wires, you'll get a stairsteppy mess, go shoot a tile roof and you'll get rainbow moire.

The AF100 chart shows aliasing all over the place. Go shoot bricks, tile roofs, anything -- and you'll get solid, good-looking, robust footage. No aliasing. No moire all over the image. It just doesn't happen. Not saying you won't ever see tiny little effects here and there, but in general it is a complete non-issue. The BBC report would lead you to think that shooting with an AF100 is an aliased mess, but in reality there is pretty much nothing further from the truth.

I don't know how to explain it. I've never encountered anything like this. And I do plan on pestering the engineers to find out why it behaves this way, if they can even explain it. But for the shooter, the good news is that the footage looks much better than the charts would have you think it would.

The AF100 is a chameleon. It CAN look very different depending on your settings. I see a lot of people, (or hear), get the camera, try shooting a few things, get frustrated, then sell it off. I think some people expect it to look exactly how you want right out of the box, but it comes with some preconceived looks. They might not be the looks for you!

This is very true, it's extremely configurable and you can get very very very different looks out of it. It drives me crazy when someone posts an evaluation after using it for five minutes, because they can't possibly know what they're talking about yet. My experience has been that when someone takes the time to learn it, they turn their opinion (like RieniO in this thread, who really was hammering me hard and in that thread there were the usual allegations of "oh, there's a coverup, you're just trying to hide the truth" and all that typical horsecrap, when ... eventually, if people just take the time to work with it, they'll come to learn what it does and what it doesn't do, and when they tune it to how they like it, you'll see statements like RieniO's in this very thread -- "sorry I was such a pain in the butt, the footage really is actually gorgeous."

 

[Barry_Green]

Addendum: I also say, if you cannot see the difference between the 7D and the AF100, then keep your 7D. The AF100 is not the camera for you. I have the 7D and I *KNOW* without any question in my mind that it is technically superior to the 7D. I've already been on shoots doing things with the AF100 I cannot do to the same level of quality with the 7D, period. Period times ten. Talk about a better piece of mind on a VERY expensive production. $5k was worth it for the reduction in stress!

There are people who simply cannot see this. For them, I agree -- if you don't see the difference, if you don't feel the difference, and if the additional capabilities don't make a difference to you, then hey, save some money and shoot on whatever you want. But the differences are there, and for those of us who see it and know it and work with it, these differences are well, well worth the cost difference.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Haha, why would I want your 7D when I have my own, that I was shooting photos with last night! (For which it does great!)