Barry_Green
Moderator
Standing right here.so all the stories told by panasonic experts like Barry that a higher bitrate will not matter? Barry where are you now?
And when did I say a higher bitrate wouldn't matter?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Standing right here.so all the stories told by panasonic experts like Barry that a higher bitrate will not matter? Barry where are you now?
So would I... but then again, there's dozens of reliable shooters who agree that the hack is far sharper (including Mr. Bloom). Not that sharpness is everything, but it certainly is a nice thing to have.
What is the aliasing like on the GH2? Pardon my ignorance but I don't own one of those cams. I have a GF1 and I know my GF sees far more rez when shooting stills than the AF, but would also alias a lot more without the olpf filter when shooting video.
I think there are quite a few tradeoffs in the single chip world, aliasing vs resolution. The F3 has slightly more rez than the AF according to the SCCE test, but also tends to moire a bit more than the AF as well. If you want to pursue a one dimensional pursuit of sharpness, eventually you'll trip on some other limiter in the over all image scheme.
The way I see it the one thing that would put the af over the top as it is would be a >50mbs avc codec with 4-2-2, not necessarily AVC I because I wouldn't want to limit the over crank capability to 720 like the HPX 370. The extra color resolution would make grading an easier task and put the AF in the acceptable class for most broadcasters.
Panasonic has been leading the way in with the best in camera recording codecs for some time and now would be a great time for them to step up and give the AF some love in the in camera codec department. If the HPX 250 can have AVC I at a sub 6K price point, I'm sure the AF could have something better too.
Much more than on the AF100. The GH2 exhibits aliasing as you would expect from a high-megapixel sensor without a video OLPF. That's the main reason there can be sharpness differences. At some point I should hack my GH2 and test them to see if there's actual legitimate detail being added, or if it's just aliasing. You can ask Rick Burnett about the time he did a test between the two, the unhacked GH2 showed more aliasing. And I did a comparison test on a concentric-ring color chart which showed the aliasing differences rather starkly.What is the aliasing like on the GH2?
No ignorance, you summed up the situation exactly as it is.Pardon my ignorance but I don't own one of those cams. I have a GF1 and I know my GF sees far more rez when shooting stills than the AF, but would also alias a lot more without the olpf filter when shooting video.
Exactly. And the AF100 was optimized to eliminate aliasing as much as possible, which means that maybe some of the finest tiny detail gets blurred out too. The F3 was optimized to be as sharp as possible, and it exhibits color-band aliasing because of it.I think there are quite a few tradeoffs in the single chip world, aliasing vs resolution. The F3 has slightly more rez than the AF according to the SCCE test, but also tends to moire a bit more than the AF as well. If you want to pursue a one dimensional pursuit of sharpness, eventually you'll trip on some other limiter in the over all image scheme.
Which you can get with a Ninja. And let's not forget, the AF is already in the acceptable class for most broadcasters, including being put on the "HD Specialty" list by the BBC (as long as you're using an external recorder).The way I see it the one thing that would put the af over the top as it is would be a >50mbs avc codec with 4-2-2, not necessarily AVC I because I wouldn't want to limit the over crank capability to 720 like the HPX 370. The extra color resolution would make grading an easier task and put the AF in the acceptable class for most broadcasters.
I'd love to see that, especially with 10-bit architecture throughout.If the HPX 250 can have AVC I at a sub 6K price point, I'm sure the AF could have something better too.
Barry, You should try the GH2x-thirty patch and give us your thoughts. Just DO IT! LOLMuch more than on the AF100. The GH2 exhibits aliasing as you would expect from a high-megapixel sensor without a video OLPF. That's the main reason there can be sharpness differences. At some point I should hack my GH2 and test them to see if there's actual legitimate detail being added, or if it's just aliasing. You can ask Rick Burnett about the time he did a test between the two, the unhacked GH2 showed more aliasing. And I did a comparison test on a concentric-ring color chart which showed the aliasing differences rather starkly.
However, what's excellent about the GH2 (and the AF100 for that matter) is that when it DOES alias, it does so without the horrible purple/orange color contamination that you see on the Canons and, to a much lesser extent, the Sonys.
No ignorance, you summed up the situation exactly as it is.
Exactly. And the AF100 was optimized to eliminate aliasing as much as possible, which means that maybe some of the finest tiny detail gets blurred out too. The F3 was optimized to be as sharp as possible, and it exhibits color-band aliasing because of it.
Which you can get with a Ninja. And let's not forget, the AF is already in the acceptable class for most broadcasters, including being put on the "HD Specialty" list by the BBC (as long as you're using an external recorder).
Interesting position though, I wonder how an AF100 w/Nano would compare to a hacked GH2.
I'd love to see that, especially with 10-bit architecture throughout.
In regards to an upcoming AF100 replacement, Panasonic is currently offering a $500 rebate on the cam which just so happens to end a couple of weeks before NAB.
http://omegabroadcast.com/fmp/promotions-detail.php?-manuRecID=7&-recid=525
Simple answer to me... both.GH2 vs AF100
In the large sensor market, Panasonic is being squeezed on all sides by newer, and some say better, products from Sony, Red, Canon, Nikon, and even their own GH2. So I think they'll have to announce something new at NAB. Even if it doesn't ship until the end of the year, at least it can prevent people from buying competitors' products. This was the same strategy they used with the AF100: announced in April, shipped at the end of December, 2010. And 2 years is about long enough for a product refresh these days.
It may not be the AF100 replacement, though. Maybe the next model up. Just my .02.
i disagree on 4/3" sensors. aps-c is better but 4/3 as is is fine.Right and I think Panasonic has a big problem, even if they will deny it, they are using micro4 lenses. Micro4 is linked to the relative small sensor and the number of lenses you can buy are limited and relative slow. They should have adapted the APS-C format at least, but than they cannot make any profit on lenses. Canon and Sony don't have that problem. Nikon is too "stupid" not to jump in the videocam market, but it is not too late for them.
Panasonic can get on top with a camera with at least a larger sensor than M4, higher bitrate codec - 50mbs, 4:2:2 color space 10bits internal and external, New NikonD4/CanonC300 like ISO's, Slot for 2.5" SDD drive, no moire and a much higher resolution than the AF100. Perhaps a 3chip sensor with extended Dynamic range. An on board detachable 5" HD monitor like the C300.